Skip to main content

Did men and women receive equal treatment in the nineteenth century?

First, we should say that the nineteenth century represents a very long time, and women's rights changed a lot during that period. Second, since your question does not say what country, if any, you are specifically referring to, I will address women's rights in the United States. In that country, women's rights underwent significant changes throughout the nineteenth century, though women never really received what could be called equal treatment. Early in the nineteenth century, women effectively surrendered their legal identity to their husbands when they married. They gave up their property, could not sue for divorce in most states, and were essentially regarded as "covered" legally by their husbands. Except for an early nineteenth century constitutional anomaly in New Jersey that was was closed after women sought to exploit it, women were not allowed to vote anywhere in the United States until a handful of new western states extended the franchise to women near the end of the century. Women also had fewer educational and vocational opportunities than men, worked for lower wages than men in places like textile mills (which in any case preferred to employ young girls rather than married women), and were generally expected (even if many could not afford to do so) to serve as housewives and helpmeets for their husbands. Throughout the century, however, women played a vital role in many reform movements. Acting through clubs and voluntary societies, they were leaders in the movements for the abolition of slavery, temperance and  prison and asylum reform. Late in the century, women became leaders in the Progressive movement, especially urban reform initiatives like the settlement house movement. This political activism, in fact, became the seed for a broader women's suffrage movement.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...