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

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Image

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH & FLEET STREET FINANCIAL DISPATCH LONDON — SEPTEMBER 2025 — SPECIAL ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION THE ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND THE MECHANICS OF UNIVERSAL DEMAND An Analytical Examination of the Post-War Industrial Order, the Fallacy of Unfettered Laissez-Faire, Mechanisation, and the State-Guaranteed System of Participatory Remuneration BY OUR SPECIAL ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT IN FLEET STREET, Warren A. Lyon with Cheuy Leon Stephen Lam Tom. LONDON — In the tenth year following the cessation of European hostilities in 1955, as the Western world navigates the transition from wartime economic controls to the mid-century industrial consensus, thoughtful observers in Fleet Street, Westminster, and the City must confront a fundamental problem of political economy. The modern capitalist apparatus—stretching across the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, North America, and Western Europe—operates upon a single, immutable law: the imperative equilibrium between Supply and Demand. Yet, despite the vast expansion of mechanized production, factory automation, and electronic computation, our financial architectures continue to suffer from a crippling structural defect: the systemic failure to guarantee requisite consumer purchasing power (ability to pay/ATP) across the whole of the populace. I. THE LESSONS OF THE POST-WAR CONSCIOUSNESS: SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND THE ELECTRIC CIRCUIT To comprehend the crisis of modern industrial organization, one must discard the antiquated Victorian dogma that human existence is defined solely by manual toil. Under the classical doctrine of laissez-faire, labour was treated as an elastic commodity, hired when factories required muscle and cast aside into poverty when machines replaced handiwork. In an age dominated by automatic machinery, conveyor systems, and early electronic computing, such a doctrine is not merely obsolete; it is actively destructive to the civic health of the realm. Consider the macro-economic structure as an electrical power grid carrying a constant current of thirty amperes. Under a rational and balanced order, this current is bifurcated equally along two parallel conductors: fifteen amperes are directed to energise the lamp of Industrial Supply (the manufacturing apparatus, capital investment, and technological innovation), while the remaining fifteen amperes flow uninterrupted to power the lamp of Demand—the Ability to Pay vested within the consumer public. In an unregulated laissez-faire system, however, an artificial blockage is introduced along the conductor powering Consumer Demand. It acts as a deliberate obstruction—resembling a corkscrew jammed into the brass fittings of a ship's engine room. The electrical energy, unable to reach the lamp of Demand, encounters extreme resistance; heat builds rapidly within the circuit, insulation scorches, and the entire socio-economic edifice is threatened with catastrophic conflagration. Energy in an economic system, like energy in physics, is never destroyed; if it is denied its proper outlet in legitimate consumer spending, it manifests as market collapse, civil unrest, shoplifting, and social decay. Click here.

Post a Comment