Click here. FAMILIES, WOMEN, AND MEN p.109 An excerpt from Jeremy Black's book "England in the age of Austen" p.109 A clear instance of male dominance, although not about marriage, is when Mr. Parker decides to accept Mr. Heywood 's offer of hospitality, an offer made by Heywood without consulting his wife and daughters. In turn, Parker is described as “consulting his wife in the few words of ‘Well my dear, I believe it will be better for us." Austen's account of female childhood and education builds on chat of Fanny Burney. Alongside the decorous social surface and underpinning and the emphasis on the traditional expectation of marriage is a sense of the need for protection in the face of the hazards of society. That some challenges to happiness are from within families makes these hazards even more problematic. In drawing on Burney, especially her Camilla, in Northanger Abbey, Austen relates to long-standing views, and therefore debates, on women, childhood, experience, and education.** Alongside patriarchalism and discipline, affection and emotion bonded families together. Parents of all social and religious groups loved their children, and most did not treat them as embodiments of original sin, although many evangelicals still did. Human depravity remained a potent idea, as the writings of Hannah More indicated. However, the inculcation of deference, discipline, and piety by authoritarian parents was not incompatible with affection. In bringing up their children, parents saw the need to teach them basic skills and regarded this, correctly, as for the benefit of children as much as parents.

 FAMILIES, WOMEN, AND MEN p.109 

An excerpt from Jeremy Black's book  "England in the age of Austen" p.109



A clear instance of male dominance, although not about marriage, is when Mr. Parker decides to accept Mr. Heywood 's offer of hospitality, an offer made by Heywood without consulting his wife and daughters. In turn, Parker is described as “consulting his wife in the few words of ‘Well my dear, I believe it will be better for us." 


Austen's account of female childhood and education builds on chat of Fanny Burney. Alongside the decorous social surface and underpinning and the emphasis on the traditional expectation of marriage is a sense of the need for protection in the face of the hazards of society.  That some challenges to happiness are from within families makes these hazards even more problematic. In drawing on Burney, especially her Camilla, in Northanger Abbey, Austen relates to long-standing views, and therefore debates, on women, childhood, experience, and education.


Alongside patriarchalism and discipline, affection and emotion bonded families together. Parents of all social and religious groups loved their children, and most did not treat them as embodiments of original sin, although many evangelicals still did. Human depravity remained a potent idea, as the writings of Hannah More indicated. However, the inculcation of deference, discipline, and piety by authoritarian parents was not incompatible with affection. In bringing up their children, parents saw the need to teach them basic skills and regarded this, correctly, as for the benefit of children as much as parents. This was particularly the case when children were to follow the occupations of their parents, a tendency made desirable by the nature of inheritance practices across society, by the shortage of capital, and by the limited employment opportunities faced by most people. Furthermore, the absence of state-provided education placed a burden of responsibility on parents and, failing them, other relatives. The same was also true of health, housing, and, to a degree, social welfare. 


In addition, there was widespread philanthropy, including from public and ecclesiastical bodies. The social elite were 


supposed to set an example, and this process can be seen with. 


Comments

Popular Posts

By FSJ 16/09/2025. The Housing and the Affordability issue: The architect said lets reason together as we build and design an energetic future with financially energized people; a discussion. By Mary Godwhen. Click here. BW Where would it go if I reverse engineer a "BAPE" shoe logo? Charles cares. He has vowed to have the most able and responsive Tiger economy in Europe and North America and the most safe and ably funded citizens in those regions; his citizens, his people. It is that we will be the economic winners; not losers; at the top and not the bottom...in front and not at the back. It would only take him a day to get it going. We can design anything. Certainly, anything we design demands and requires people with money for us to enjoy it; if it's a restaurant, an amusement park, a shopping centre or a town or city in general. The Bugatti sellers will have more sales and the Vauxhall owners will finally make full payment for the shopping and vacations; for their vehicles also. We do not enjoy suffering, lack or insufficiency. But maybe a vengeful bum might. Money is important. It has to be important. So, why are we incessantly brought to have this conversation about income support rather quite often when observing the economies west of Calais as run by; whom? Laissez Faire is not an economic policy but the policy of no policy in light of industrial mechanization of labor and the social problems it occasions when the families do not have enough money to buy their coal for heat, milk, bananas and vegetables. They would usually just take what they need; wherever they can take it. The economy is run by whom? The income support in Vermont, Minnesota and Massachusetts exceeds $70000.00 per year. This should be so for the whole, entire continent. But, some states and provinces, not all, are being run by income support benefit men touring boxes of undistributed emergency debit cards that they can now hand out to people in those camps. They seek public attention more than public efficacy. They have had enough time to solve the obvious. Money is the obvious issue but you wouldn't be waiting for an God fearing man to come and campaign on this issue when we know you can see the problem and solve it for us. We do not enjoy suffering, lack or insufficiency. But maybe a vengeful bum might. They are experimenting with money in terms of crypto or bit coin and its definition before they would agree to just HAVE MONEY. Money is the most important weapon in spite of all your Oppenheimer detonators that can't read help during peace time and for what when you would still need money?