Lewis Hine: Photographing Children in the Workforce

As I did our readings I was reminded of a series of photographs I had seen of child laborers, it took some digging to find what I was searching for, but once I had it was a gold mine. The photographs are striking in their use of converging lines; scale to emphasize the children, and confrontational straight on compositions. Lewis Hine made the images; he was an early documentarian who wanted to show what he believed to be “child slavery” in the advent of industrialization.

These images may not seem to relate to our readings, but I was interested in the education of those who were not the hyper elite. The images were not taken until the early 1900’s, however for many in Franklin’s era, I believe an agrarian lifestyle or one that was based in trade was more common than a private tutor for every subject; and thus their education was more based in practical skills.

I wonder what Franklin would have thought about child laborers, in terms of their education? Certainly both Locke and Rousseau emphasize the necessity of education, if in different forms, and only for wealthy men. Rousseau states -- “To form citizens is not the work of a day; and in order to have men it is necessary to educate them when they are children” (233). I really gravitated toward some of Locke’s ideals, such as the practical concepts of being able to understand how to draw, communicate well in English, and learn early to speak another language so it comes more naturally. It was intriguing to think about these ideals of education in the context of how long they took to be implemented.

Financial Fears and Sexist Laws 9/15

The first time I read this collection of works on women’s place in society, I was too infuriated by Rousseau’s piece on the “Duties of Women” to notice much else. His misogynistic arguments about training young girls to submit themselves to the will of others made me furious for the generations of women raised under this pretext. His statement that “woman is specially made for man’s delight” was especially disconcerting, as it seems to mirror assertions like “dogs are a man’s best friend.” After reading Rousseau, even Wollstonecraft’s piece seemed to cater to sexist social constructs.
However re-reading these texts in preparation for this blog post allowed me to get past some of the sexist reasoning and look at the roots of the arguments. What I became conscious of the second time around is that most of the motivations for pigeonholing women with laws or blanket statements about human nature have nothing to do with women themselves. The driving force behind a treaty on women’s duties or laws forbidding children out of wedlock appears to be based on economic fears—not the fact that women are unfit to govern themselves.
Rousseau claims that it is “treason” for a woman to commit adultery because the child would literally be “robbing” the woman’s husband and diminishing the inheritance of his legitimate children. His argument has nothing to with any difference between the moral character of men and women but instead focuses on the economic implications of affairs. It makes fiscal sense that a man would want to establish harsher penalties for female adultery, because his money is at stake. Additionally, Rousseau’s arguments about the education of girls are based on the fact that women will forever be economically dependent on men, not on arguments about their inferior mental capacity. He states that women must rely on their natural cunning in order to get things, but ends his piece with the warning that men should guard against the abuse of this ‘gift’—implying that the gullible man may experience financial losses at the hands of a manipulative wife.
The Speech of Miss Polly Baker also focuses less on the capabilities or tendencies of women and more on the financial and economic aspects of Polly Baker’s innocence. She points out that she has raised 5 children without burdening the state and therefore has committed no crime. She also suggests the biggest fault she has committed is depriving the state of a marriage fee. Even Franklin’s humorous pieces that address married life and women’s duties are written about the problems that can occur when women take control of finances. It seems that men during this period were less concerned with women’s “inferior” nature than they were about their bank accounts. Unfortunately that seems to have inspired them to curtail the rights of women until they felt economically "safe," rather than giving women the ability to make and spend their own money.

The Balance of Power

As a modern American woman, I obviously felt that some of our readings last night were way out of line with my view of the world, and I thought that most people in the U.S. today agreed with me that husbands should not have absolute control over their wives and that obedience is not the most important trait in a wife. But I was studying with a friend of mine and telling him about how ridiculous some of the readings were, and I was extremely surprised to hear that he actually agrees with Rousseau, that wives should be submissive to their husbands and allow them to make all decisions in the marriage. He was telling me about how his mother actually lives by these rules and is perfectly happy, and he plans on marrying someone who is willing to be obedient and submissive. It never even occurred to me that there are still people – even people I know and respect! – who believe that these outdated ideas about women are true.

This incident really made me think about whether or not it is really that bad for a wife to be subordinate to her husband. Obviously, I came to the conclusion that it really is a bad system that oppresses women. But on the other hand, I do not think that the relationship between husbands and wives today is really up to scratch in many cases today either. There are a lot of feminists in the world who think wives should be in control of their husbands just as Rousseau wanted husbands to be in control of their wives. Even normal women who aren’t crazy feminists feel pressure to be free from the tyranny of men, which is a completely justified feeling, but it can often create a lot of tension as husbands and wives struggle to be in control. In a perfect world, there would be a different balance of power between husbands and wives, and I do not pretend to know where that balance should be, but it is not what Rousseau wrote about in “Duties of Women” and it is not the tension of today. The sexes should be equal, but one cannot deny that men and women are different and should have different roles in marriage. Maybe one day society will find a good balance and everyone can chill out and live in wedded bliss.

Gender and the Relevance of Miss Polly Baker

Yes, it is certainly true that some of these readings, such as Rousseau’s “Duties of Women” or the situation the Miss Polly Baker faced in her court case are outdated and extremely sexist. Despite this apparent truth, one must also realize that others were writing in support of ideals that were in direct conflict with those of someone like Rousseau. It may have been the 18^th century, but there was still debate and appreciation amongst prominent scholars (both men and women). For example, it is no secret that Rousseau saw women as absolutely subordinate to men in every way: “The man should be strong and active; the woman should be weak and passive” (569). However, in addition to all of the other progressive intellectual ideals the Enlightenment brought to the world, feminism was one that began during this period.

Astell, Macaulay, and Wollenstonecraft all essentially respond to Rousseau’s sexist ideals. Especially with Macaulay’s text (since it’s a direct response to Rousseau), one is able to see the resilience of women at the time. She not only calls men imperfect beings, but also states that Rousseau’s extreme pride and sensuality with regards to men clouded his judgment and even “lowered the man of genius to the licentious pedant” (593).

Furthermore, “The Speech of Miss Polly Baker” struck me as very influential with regards to this discussion amongst the sexes, as Baker was very adamant in her views in front of an all-male Court of Judicature. Baker had no lawyer defending her, almost no money in her pocket, five children, no husband, and still had the courage to challenge the court.

Baker claimed, “since Laws are sometimes unreasonable in themselves, and therefore repealed; and others bear too hard on the Subject in particular Circumstances…I think this Law, by which I am punished is both unreasonable in itself, and particularly severe with regard to me, who have always lived an inoffensive Life in the Neighbourhood where I was born…” (306). She goes on to further state that bringing five children into the world was her duty and that she has helped society, and thus should not be punished. Her courageous plead to the court strikes me as an example of what the Enlightenment stood for as a whole: a period in which intelligence and bravery were used to create new ideas and challenge pre-existing authority.

Rousseau's Unenlightened Thought Process

For a modern reader, it is not difficult to look at Rousseau’s “Duties of Women” and spot a myriad of problems with his misogynistic views. From the strange assertion that women are going “astray” when they attempt to “criticize literature” to the odd observation that girls are actually luckier than boys in their lack of college opportunity, this piece is not challenging to attack for its outdatedness. However, going beyond the actual ideas that Rousseau presents, also troubling are the very anti-enlightenment methods he uses to arrive at these ideas. In three main ways Rousseau seems to ignore any principles of Enlightenment rationality in his reasoning process:

1. Relying on Animal Instincts: Many of Rousseau’s observations rely on the idea that human beings can only behave as animals. He refers to a woman’s ability to “so easily stir a man’s senses” that if women become less humble, men “would be dragged to their death without the least chance of escape.” Rousseau goes on to explain that “nature has endowed woman with a power of stimulating man’s passions in excess of man’s power of satisfying those passions.” If these assertions are true, and humans really are not capable of controlling their basic animal instincts, than the entire Enlightenment project is a scam. There is no point in trying to behave rationally when we are all really just slaves to our need to procreate.

2. Relying on tradition: Rousseau’s arguments also seem to rely on the idea that the way things have always been are the way things must be. When Rousseau explains that “woman is specifically for man’s delight,” he backs this assertion up with the claim that this is “the law of nature, which is older than love itself.” Rousseau does not attempt to use empirical biological evidence to back up this claim. In fact he gives counter examples of animals who depart from his ideas of gender, which implies that what he is describing may not be “natural” at all. Rather, “law of nature” seems like a code for “This is how it’s always been.” Once again, if we are relying on this school of thought, the Enlightenment was really quite unnecessary.

3. Relying on religion: Rousseau does not only blame instinct and nature for the sexes’ assigned roles. He explains that “The Most High has designed” us this way. While “woman is endowed with boundless passions” just as man is, “God has given her modesty to restrain them.” In other words, God is cool with men behaving in whatever horny ways they want, but the women with whom they behave this way are out of luck. Relying on a religious example (and not even a particularly sound one) without backing it up with real logic is about as contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment as one can get.

Growth of Feminine Influence

Rousseau’s Duties of Women explores a very traditional view on the basic difference between the roles of men and women in the development of the family, within society, and in relation to one another. While the immediate impression of women as “weak and passive” and entirely dependant upon their masculine counterparts for sustenance and reasoning appears to be rather archaic for the Enlightenment era that challenged such dated views, their abilities are not. Rousseau clearly illustrates their subtle control, stating “the stronger party seems to be master, but is as a matter of fact dependent on the weaker”. It is this hidden side of the gender power struggle that really interested me.

As women have gained the ability to sustain themselves independently within society, gender roles have unquestionably converged drastically. But has it been the empowerment of women that has granted them more influence, or has the path to power within society been altered to better suit women? When I think of the prototypical that made an individual rose to a position of authority in the 18^th century, I picture the aristocratic elite that determined societal affairs. Today’s culture, whether it be in economically, politically or socially driven more by results and performance than ever before, presenting women with the ever growing opportunity to demonstrate their ability. As women have generally become more assertive, Rousseau’s proposition that “The more women are like men, the less influence they will have over men” seems to be both true and false. Essentially women have transitioned from the objects of passion into additional competition, and “when women become strong, men become still stronger” in a natural reaction to the increasing competition.

At the same time, from my experience, women still have a apparent innate ability to leverage their femininity to maneuver male counterparts to their will. Therefore, I believe the notion that a portion of a woman’s “strength is in her charms” still holds. This ability to affect men’s actions, using the desire of men to act ‘chivalrous’ and please the object of their desire - the ‘delicate’ female – has appreciated in value. The ability to feign a subservience or modesty to behoove a woman’s all-important reputation was crucial in Rousseau’s era. Rousseau wrote that the attitude of ““What will people think” is the grave of a man’s virtue and the throne of a woman’s”. The fact that males can certainly no longer be described as caring “very little what people think” confirms the advantage women have come to possess in their ability to maintain a favorable disposition within society. As Rousseau said, “Cunning is a natural gift of women” that has become ever more valuable in conjunction with their expanded opportunities.

Children Need Balance

In his essay “Duties of Women,” Jean-Jacques Rousseau fleshes out the necessary duties of women and the justification of these duties that are a result of the natural way of the world. One portion of this piece that I found particularly interesting is Rousseau’s explanation of a woman’s role in child rearing, especially of young male children. Rousseau writes, “The children’s health depends in the first place on the mother’s, and the early education of man is also in a woman’s hands; his morals, his passions, his tastes, his pleasures, his happiness itself, depend on her. A woman’s education must therefore be planned in relation to man,” (p. 575-6). Prior to these lines, Rousseau outlines the vast differences between the nature of men and women, and asserts the importance of strength in men and obedience in women. While any contemporary reader of this piece could surely find hundreds of flaws and injustices in his argument, the one that puzzles me most is the lack of explanation as to what role a man should play in raising a child. Rather than give the father any sort of child-specific responsibility, Rousseau claims that it is up to the mother to in a sense mimic the role of a father while simultaneously offering her own womanly qualities that are so important to a child’s early development. If Rousseau’s ultimate point in this piece is to prove that without the system he lays out the human race as a whole would fall into a state of sheer dysfunction and chaos, then it is utterly illogical to omit any mention of the way a father influences the upbringing of his male child. How can a young boy possibly learn all he needs to one day become a man without a father’s direct input? If women are the meek creatures Rousseau claims they are, it seems strange that he would entrust them with the task of shaping the strong, independent men Rousseau outlines in the previous pages. Children learn through imitation. It is the balance of male and female influence in a child’s life that allows a child to function successfully later in life. Neglecting the father’s role in raising a child is more dangerous than Rousseau leads his audience to believe.