Option One:
Marie Mulock-Craik and Ellen Barlee seem to have similar ideas on why women are good advocates for the downtrodden. Mulock-Craik specifically addresses single women when she states that they have a desire to fill the “hopeless blank of idleness” and must find – as this chapter is aptly named – “something to do” (3, 9). In general, she claims women have “needless or unattainable” duties “lying very near at hand,” where as men’s vocations generally allow them to escape the sphere of domestic matters and search for his work (14). Here, it must be noted that Mulock-Craik does not promote the equality of the sexes; in fact she claims that it is not nature’s plan, but rather that man and woman were meant to help one another. Since typical gender roles don’t give the single woman much to do, she must spend her time by reaching out to those in the community, which Mulock-Craik claims has “never at any time so much needed the help of us women” (14). She believes that women possess the tenderness and wisdom to carry out the charities and duties that God has assigned them. She believes that “pleasure is the mere accident of our being, and work is its natural and most holy necessity” (17). Mulock-Craik also believes that women are endowed with a certain selflessness, rarely thinking about themselves, and will simply “[do] what it was her duty to do” (21).
Barlee serves as an excellent supplement to Mulock-Craik’s ideas in her own conversation of one’s higher duty in life. Mulock-Craik mentions how women will fulfill their duties, while Barlee discusses the lack of respect and hospitality to the downtrodden; therefore if women do not question their given duties from their Creator, then women would make good advocates for the less fortunate. Also, in order to awaken the spiritual life of the poor, Barlee believes that all are called to “prepare the arid ground of ignorance for the reception of truth, and to watch in hope for the seed of time and harvest to appear” (9). She also believed that mothers have a good amount of respect and influence in the home, giving them the power to avoid bringing up their children in “indolent indulgence” and “false gentility,” leaving them helpless when it comes to supporting themselves in the real world (131).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Does Mulock-Craik view selflessness as a quality that is always positive for women? In terms of helping other people and fulfilling moral duties, it is a good quality, but I think that it might also have been limiting for women. An expectation for women to be selfless may have discouraged some from asserting themselves in the home or in the larger society. Mulock-Craik's second chapter about self-dependence for women encourges them to think about themselves and become more independent. It seems that reconciling selflessness and self-dependence may have been a part of women's struggles to retain their femininity while increasing their independence.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that this expectation of women limited their self-dependence and discouraged their assertiveness. Since women were expected to be so selfless, they rarely thought about their own needs and the development of their own independence. Your comment on the struggle of balancing femininity and independence immediately made me think of the struggles within Campbell's concept of "feminine style". The expectation is for women to remain passive and selfless, but then to be taken seriously they have to distance themselves from this expectation by becoming more assertive or "masculine". But then, of course, they face criticism that they are too masculine and continue to struggle to find the balance that allows them enough respect and independence while retaining some femininity.
ReplyDelete