The CBB :: View topic - Debate: Was EBD a feminist?

through

[^/[Print]\]

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

#1: Debate: Was EBD a feminist? Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:54 pm
—
This house believes that EBD was a feminist, or showed feminist tendencies in her writings, where feminism is defined by dictionary.com as "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes."

*unleashes* Wink

#2: Author: Ruth B, Location: Oxford, UK

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:58 pm
—
While I think that some of the female role models in CS were quite radical for their time, EBD did seem to have very traditional views on the division of labour/expected future careers. Nearly all the girls become Nurses or Teachers or settle down and marry.

Ruth, speaking against the motion.

#3: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:17 pm
—
I think she was a feminist, for her time. Women were not allowed (speaking very generally) to marry and have a traditional career and she could hardly change that in the CS world. Therefore Daisy and Julie and women like them gave up their careers to wed. But at the same time, her three main characters (Joey, Len and Mary-Lou) were not traditionalists.

There is no question of university for Joey, as it is repeatedly stated that her role is to stay at home helping to look after her sister’s children. This was likely to have been a destiny common to many of Brent-Dyer’s readers, but Joey does not accept it passively but questions her new role in New House.

Quote:

I certainly don’t want any husbands. And we’ve heaps of babies at Die Rosen as it is. And Grizel and Juliet are teaching; but there isn’t anything of that kind for me to do. I shall just stay at home, and help with the children, and practise my singing, and so on. It does not appeal to me after the very full like we lead here—it seems so—so little, somehow. It’s just doing little bits of things that aren’t important.

Joey does marry, of course, and adds substantially to the “heaps of babies.” However Joey manages to become one of the only women in the series to combine a successful career with her marriage. This is described rather unrealistically, I admit, and it can be seen that her triumph in this area is mainly due to the significant amount of domestic assistance she receives from Anna and Rosli, but could still be construed as a positive force in young women’s lives in the 1930s. Although it is in a way that may still considered confining and extremely upper-middle-class in the twenty-first century, at the beginning or middle of the last century Joey may nevertheless prove to young women that their conventional lives may still be fruitful and fulfilling.

Just as there is no question of Joey going to university, there is no question of her triplet daughters not going – even when Len becomes engaged shortly before leaving school. She has intended to become a languages teacher all her life and as the series ends is preparing for Oxford for her degree. As the ban on married women working as teachers was still in place at the time (although the Chalet School did not always abide strictly by this rule...) it would be interesting to see, if EBD had been able to continue the series, whether or not Len would have used her degree to teach. Even the fact that she is still going to get her degree despite her engagement shows to me that EBD was trying to say that in her case at least, marriage was not a total fulfilment. The fact that Len’s right to her degree is unquestioned despite her engagement shows a more liberal and modern attitude than Brent-Dyer is often given credit for.

Mary-Lou Trelawney is also a more liberated woman. Leaving school in a book written in 1959 and set in 1954 (according to the Triplet's ages), she sets out to become an archaeologist, attending Oxford to achieve this ambition. Her aims receive a temporary set-back at the death of her step-father, when she resolves that she cannot leave her mother to travel in the Middle East or other far-away places. However, she still tries her best to make sure she can have the best of both worlds:

Quote:

“You're still going to have your Oxford course, aren't you? You're not giving that up?”
“Honestly, Aunt Joey, I don't know. I want a job of some sort, of course, but – you know how I've worked towards archaeology all these years. I must look round and see what I can find that my work will be a help in. I'm not going to waste all those years, I can assure you.”

Unlike Joey thirty years earlier, staying at home is not necessarily a life-sentence for Mary-Lou. She may not need a job but she wants one, and she will get one. Her tenacity is later rewarded and she is working towards achieving her goal of becoming an archaeologist after her mother’s death a few years later. She does not marry and there isn't even a hint that she will (unlike Joey, as there were numerous hints that she would marry Jack).

End rant. Ahem. Pet subject of mine, as my thesis touches on this a good bit...

#4: Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:20 pm
—
I think her views changed as the series went on. At first, she was very much in line with what seems to have been the majority view - that marriage and motherhood is the most important thing for women (although individual women may have brains and determination). But in the post-war books I'd say she was not exactly ahead of her time, but definitely among the more forward-thinking people of the period. Then she gave her girls more ambition (e.g. Julie saying that she wanted to be a barrister in a manner that suggested she saw no particular obstancles to a woman at the bar) and implied that their career ambitions and independence were very important (e.g. Jo and Jack insisting that Len should have her time at Oxford even though she was already engaged).

I don't think she was a 'Feminist" with a capital F, but I do think that she started to believe in pushing the idea of equality as time went on.

#5: Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:41 pm
—
It's also interesting that, with the exception of Joey, those women who marry are shown as losing a significant part of their lives - Madge, Biddy, Hilary, among others, while those who do not marry are strong independent characters in their own right.

#6: Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:45 pm
—

Lesley wrote:

It's also interesting that, with the exception of Joey, those women who marry are shown as losing a significant part of their lives - Madge, Biddy, Hilary, among others, while those who do not marry are strong independent characters in their own right.

Now that's very interesting. I hadn't thought about it in that way before, but perhaps she was trying to *highlight* what women expected to give up after marriage, rather than say they *should* expect to give part of their lives up.

#7: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:53 pm
—
If one looks at EBD's own life, I think one has to say that in many ways she was a feminist, even if she might not have regarded herself as such. She came from a modest background, but through intelligence and hard work made herself independent and self-supporting. She acquired an education, had two successful careers, as a teacher and a writer, and for a time ran her own business.

In her writing, some of her attitudes seem outdated to us - too many girls being engaged or married in their teens, the idea that you give up your career on marriage. However, she always showed that there were alternatives and that girls could aspire to more than 'staying at home to help mother.' From the earliest books we have Juliet going to Royal Holloway College, Grizel to Florence, Simone to the Sorbonne, Margia to her musical training, to name the first of many. The school setting by its very nature gives us numbers of strong, independent, professional women - Nell Wilson, Hilda Annersley, Nancy Wilmot, to mention just three.

So while I don't think that EBD was necessarily consciously feminist, I think, in the context of her time, through her writing and the example of her own life, she did promote the position of women in society.

Jay B.

#8: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:47 pm
—
Yeah I think she was fairly feminist. She clearly thinks girls should be allowed to enjoy further education and professional careers. While many of her characters do become teachers or nurses, this would have been the norm for the period. And besides this she had very successful professionals such as Daisy and Stacie (and Stacie never even marries). From their highly successful careers it's clear that EBD thinks women are just as intelligent and capable as men, although a good many people at the time (I think) still believed that they were mentally inferior.

As regards so many of these successful women marrying, well, although it means that they have to give up their jobs, it would take a very strong and dedicated character to turn down the chance of a marriage with the love of their live (deserving Chalet girls always do end up with their one true love) in exchange for a job. Think of the stigma attached to being an unmarried woman in later life and multiply it by about fifty, and then add in the bonuses of a happy marriage. Lots of women want children, for example, even if they love their jobs. In the CS period, having children and a job was simply not an option for most.

Also, consider the tomboy characters (and even characters like Nella? Ozanne) who exel at woodwork, sports and mechanics. They aren't sticking to the girlish pursuits of cookery and needlework, but branching into what was at the time the 'boys' area.

#9: Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:55 pm
—
I believe that EBD was a feminist because she created a space (the world of the Chalet School) in which female characters formed and ran the community.

One of the reasons I love EBD is because she showed me a new kind of feminism (to me at least) where equality for women is achieved on its own terms, ie that her women didn't need to appropriate traditional male qualities or male attributes in order to live equal lives. She accepts that women and men are different sexes, with different attitudes. This might seem like she slipped into portraying traditional sexist roles, but where she escapes this is in the value she gives to the work of each sex. For example - the recognition of Madge making fudge for her guests as 'work', Joey's breastfeeding timetable as a 'real job', the pride she takes in professions that end in 'ess' ie authoress, editress. Etc.

Hope this made sense. Poke me if it didn't.

#10: Author: Ann, Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, England

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:09 pm
—

Róisín wrote:

I believe that EBD was a feminist because she created a space (the world of the Chalet School) in which female characters formed and ran the community.

Yet even the strong female characters repeatedly turn to the men hovering on the edges of this community to make decisions and offer advice. Madge's relationships with Herr Marani and Herr Braun in School At are understandable; she is a foreigner who relies on them for their local knowledge above all else. Even so, upon receiving Captain Carrick's letter she asks Herr Marani what she should do despite this being a situation he has clearly not experienced before and the fact that he has no right to tell her how she should manage her school. Later we see Jem taking on this role, deciding, for example, to move the School in Exile, thus taking the issue out of his wife's hands.

And then we have Hilda's conversation with Jack Maynard on the problem of Emerence at the beginning of Shocks - Hilda seems reluctant to take on this potentially troublesome new girl and it is Jack who effectively tells her to meet this challenge. He does not offer suggestions but instructions and he concludes these with statements making it quite clear that the decision has been made:

Quote:

"Then that should settle it. Warn everyone to keep an eye on her. Probably it was an isolated affair, the result of utter boredom, and she'll settle down in due course. Now tell me what you're doing about new staff and all the rest of the news. Come on! I'm all ears!"

Surely Hilda Annersley, a capable teacher who has been a successful Headmistress for some years, does not need an unqualified parent to make this decision for her. But Jack is male, and a doctor at that, and there is a tendency throughout the series for even the strongest of female characters to either pass the decision onto a responsible man or to seek approval from them for their own decisions.

I admit that this tendency appears to lessen as the series progresses and the School moves to Switzerland. However, I feel that this is less an expression of feminism or of equality and more down to the elevation of Joey to an almost mythical being. It is she to whom the staff turn for advice by this point, and I don't believe that this is because she is a strong empowered woman. We have discussed at length EBD's attitude towards her leading lady and it seems more likely that this is either wish fulfilment or an excuse to keep Joey as a central character in the series - probably the latter. Men are not sidelined because the female characters have become self-reliant but because one character has come to dominate them all.

#11: Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:38 pm
—
Some very interesting points here and I agree with most of them. I think that EBD was as feminist as she was able to be for her time and position. I find the career business a bit hazy - none of the girls complain or sigh, or show any regret at having to give up their careers on marriage or even suggest a postponement until qualified. I can't count Joey's writing as a 'career' in this context. Obviously it is work she does for money but it is done in the safety of the home and is therefore 'respectable.' Think of lady novelists of the 19c like Elizabeth Gaskell and even Charlotte Bronte, briefly. The careers that take women out of the house are the ones that are given up.

#12: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:40 pm
—
I can never make my mind up about this! The whole series starts off with us being told that Madge is and always has been the person who makes the decisions in the Bettany family, whereas Dick just seems to be a bit of a ditherer. However, a few chapters later we have Madge saying that she needs "a man's advice" on what to do about Juliet, and we frequently see both Madge and Joey being sedated by their husbands!

In some ways the books come across in quite a feminist way - apart from the early years when Gisela, Marie etc marry almost as soon as they've left school, most of the girls do pursue some sort of further education and careers. However, we then get Daisy, Julie etc packing their careers in when they get married, and Madge's ties with the school weakening. I appreciate that reflects the society they were living in, but it would have been nice to've seen someone apart from Joey manage to combine marriage and a career. The only other CS girls to have successful careers seem to be either those who become mistresses at the CS or those who are musical geniuses!

It annoys me a bit the way the girls all seem to be so delicate and always have to go to bed for the day if they've got wet in the rain or anything, but I think that was more EBD's obsession with delicate health than a comment on women. Mr Denny is just as bad!

Sorry for the waffle. I suppose by the standards of the time she was writing in and the social classes she was writing about, she did take a fairly feminist view. There's never any suggestion that women don't need an education or anything like that. I just wish we'd seen some more people enjoy successful careers. I like to think that Con would've made it as a successful writer and OOAO as a successful archaeologist!

#13: Author: Tara, Location: Malvern, Worcestershire

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:27 pm
—
I think, too, there is a positive aspect to the fact that several of her main characters do remain unmarried. It can be seen as the either/or bind that independent professional women were in, but it's also a challenge to the very strong societal assumption that a woman was unfulfilled without a man (an assumption that is still around???). Hilda Annersley, Nell Wilson, Nancy Wilmot, Kathy Ferrars, Rosalie Dene are all totally happy with their lot - Kathie and Rosalie both specifically say that they love their life and don't want anything else. All are strong, independent women and, most significantly, all are whole. they're not looking for their 'other half'. All have strong female friendships as well, and there is never the slightest suggestion that theirs is a half-life.

What the books do is sometimes different from what they say -I think we could learn a lot from EBD!

#14: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:56 am
—
There's a definite priority ranking when it comes to choices after school.

1) Marriage

2) Being "needed at home"

3) Training and a career

So if a girl is needed at home (a frail or lonely parent, lots of little kids, an estate to manage) that trumps the desire for even training - Jo is needed to help with the kids at home, and so doesn't even think about further training. Mary-Lou temporarily gives up her plans to stay with her "helpless" mother and stepsister. Jo Scott wants to go into horticulture, but only if her mother doesn't need her. Vanna and Nella are pulled out of school to travel with their mother. Peggy goes home to help Mollie, who's lonely on the farm and expecting a baby.

But the 'needed at home' part is generally temporary, and it's expected that the girls will at some point marry, not that they will be financially dependent on their parents forever because they have no job training. Jo marries and leave Madge with her hoard of kids and wards, Peggy takes off for Jamaica leaving Mollie on the farm with Daphne. I would bet that if Madge had been unmarried and still at the school, Joey would have been expected to train for something, or at least hired to help at the school.

There is an underlying feeling for many of the girls that a career is something interesting to do, but of course they want to marry and have a family. However, even this is a radical attitude for early in the 20th century, and well accepted past the middle of the century.

Madge, although decisive and forthright in the beginning, becomes less and less independent, until she's totally bound up in the duties of Lady Russell and her only interaction at the school is to show up as a Lady Opener.

The School is a microcosm where women have all the power and authority, but in the world outside the school, girls (and mistresses) must bow to the authority of fathers, husbands, and stalwart men in the community.

I think she's ahead of her time in many respects in the early and middle books - girls doing woodwork and sports, going to university, having careers before marriage. However, by the later books society is starting to pass her by. Prefects is written in 1970, and the girls are still putting their hair up when they turn 18, doing fine embroidery in the evenings, listening only to classical and folk music, and automatically giving up their careers to marry. The girls are still kept very naive and sheltered, and there is little or no mention of popular music, boyfriends, movies and movie stars and things of that sort. This is about the time my parents married - my mom stayed home to have us, but it was a decision, not an automatic assumption.

#15: Author: Karry, Location: Stoke on Trent

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:56 am
—
One of the most important feminist characters IMHO is Tom. She would certainly have nbeen one of the first female vicars, if they had been introduced at the time. She is going into a missionary situation that most men would baulk at, in the east end of London just after the war! This is just not the ordinary vicar's wife/daughter role, but an active campaigner!

#16: Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:57 pm
—
Taking up Jennifer's point about 'helping at home' isn't it surprising that Robin can't do full time sixth form because Jo needs her, then goes to Oxford, after Stephen is born. Robin is delicate, doesn't need the money, one assumes and out of the blue in Highland Twins we hear that she is going to University. Perhaps that was the beginning of 'careers' for their own sake from EBD rather than necessity i.e. Madge.

#17: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:16 am
—
Robin does spend three years in the sixth form, however, the last part time, possibly until she's old enough go off to Oxford.

This is during the war, though. If she stayed at home, wouldn't she be called up for service? I can see the Russells and Maynards doing their best to keep her out of war work - not good for someone as delicate as she is.

I have the feeling EBD didn't quite know what to do with Robin as an adult. In literary tradition, isn't the angelic, beautiful child supposed to actually die of the TB (in sweetly patient resignation, of course)?

#18: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:24 pm
—
I think, though, that we do have to consider such cases as Blossom Willoughby. Even so late in the series, she was going home to help out because her baby brother, Aubrey, was so frail that all her mother's time was taken up with him. And this in a household with Nannies, maids, a cook, gardeners, etc.

#19: Author: Lisa A., Location: North Yorkshire

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:20 am
—
Miss Wilson gives a big speech at the end of CS Girls in Camp:
"Every woman, whether she be peasant or princess, should know how to keep house. It should be a part of every girl's education. I dislike the habit of so many English schools have of turning out girls who can construe Horace, but are unable to cook a dinner; who can work out a theorem in Geomety, but cannot patch a shirt; who can read French and German in the original, or know all about the growth of Parliament, or the course of the trade winds, and yet who cannot wash a pair of socks or bath a baby."

This seems a very clear viewpoint! At first I thought this was definitely the opposite of feminism, but then wondered if it was actually quite sensible advice, showing that it is important to be able to look after oneself without relying on others and all part of turning out strong, independent women. However, she goes on...

"Eve's first work when she left the Garden of Eden was to be a homemaker. Of that, I am sure. It should be our first work too. I know that many people talk a lot of nonsense about women being emancipated from such "drudgery." Believe me, girls, the woman who is above tending her husband and children or - if God does not give her those - helping other women who need such help, is a poor creature, developed on one side only. and we are not meant to be that. We are sent into the world to develop as many sides of us as possible. What would you think of a rose that produced petals on one side only? You would say that it was deformed. And woman, when she tries to ignore the human side of life, is deliberately deforming her nature."

Not wanting to look after husband = deformed character????? Shocked

It does explain the hierarchy of acceptable careers. Not a very feminist statement, anyway.

#20: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:22 am
—
I agree that as written it pretty much says that a woman's job is in the kitchen. And I'm not about to agree with that. But if you replace woman with human being, apart from the bit about Eve, it reads rather better. Perhaps something both sexes should aspire to.
I personally don't think that women don't need to know how to run a home; I think everyoneone should be able to do domestic stuff. It's a life skill.

#21: Author: Mia, Location: London

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:00 am
—
There's a bit in one of the later books - can't remember which one - in which Joey is saying she wants another daughter. I think it's Miss Annersley who turns to her and asks why, saying, "Don't tell me you're turning feminist" and Joey decries this at once and says she's thinking of the frocks left by Felicity and Phil.

#22: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:06 am
—
Someone - I think it was Miss Carthew, or it could have been Mlle Lepattre - told Grizel that she shouldn't rule out the idea of marriage and a family because Madge was happier at Die Rosen than she'd ever been at the School. I'm sure Madge was devoted to Jem and baby David, but seeing as she had Marie to do the housework and Rosa to look after David I don't know what on earth she did all day!

#23: Author: patmac, Location: Yorkshire England

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:18 pm
—
I've been following this with interest.

I would suggest that EBD was simply reflecting the middle class mores of her time rather than taking a stance on either side of the issue of feminism. I submit that we are imbuing her with our own values and views on the rights of women and should look at the wider political and socio-economic climate of the Britain she lived in – not that of the early 21st century.

We need to set her views within the experience of her life. Born in 1894, she would have learnt by experience that a family without a man ‘at its head’ was disadvantaged in economic terms as well as socially. She was onventionally educated at a time when the highest calling for a woman was motherhood, which meant finding a husband who could support the family – I find it interesting that the phrase ‘to get married’ is used, even today, rather than ‘to be married’ – possibly a subconscious choice of words, reflecting the only way to meet a biological imperative in some cases?

Man as breadwinner was a near universal concept except among the poorest, where women worked as they had always done. Women’s earnings were lower than those of men, even for the same jobs. By 1910 two thirds of teachers in the state sector were women and by 1925, the majority of Head teachers were women. This may sound promising but the reality in terms of earnings was different. As late as 1944, A claim by women teachers for equal pay was rejected by Winston Churchill as ‘impertinence’.

Part of the attitude towards women and careers during the first half of the 20th Century was due to what was seen by demographers and politicians, as a worrying lack of population growth.

Conventional wisdom dictated that a nation became stronger by population increase. Having lost nearly a million men in World War I and then 228,000 other folk to the influenza which followed it, the ‘factory fodder’ of Britain was drying up. In 1922, Oswald Spengler foresaw ‘an appalling depopulation’ as one of the manifestations of the ‘Decline of the West’.

By the 30s and the rise of Hitler’s Germany, there also became the fear that Britain would not have enough ‘Cannon fodder’ either if war broke out.

There was strong emphasis also on bringing up healthy children – it was the poor health of recruits for the Boer War and the First World War which pointed up the poor health of the general population and the 1930s saw changes in the way children were brought up – the healthy fresh air and exercise which EBD describes was, again, reflecting her times.

It was only the post second world war baby boom (which only declined after 1964 in Europe) which eased this overt and covert pressure for big families. The concept that high population was not necessarily the best way forward for a country’s economic prosperity and security took hold. Technological innovations in warfare, led to the belief that any future war would be nuclear and the size of army would not matter, while increased emphasis on education and health care, opened up more ‘traditional’ jobs for women. Heavy manufacturing industry declined and service industries grew.

Another aspect of women’s life in the first half of the 20th Century which is not valued as it needs to be by our present day outlook is that of voluntary work. We may see the work done by the school for the ‘poor children’ as being patronising but, at the time it filled a vital gap in the provision of social welfare. The ‘Lady Bountiful’ image of the rich woman dispensing largesse probably existed and may be anathema to us today but poor people relied, not just on the ‘handouts’ but also on practical advice and help with filling in forms in an increasingly bureaucratic society. One wonders if one of the reason for the low take up of some State benefits today is due to a lack of ready access to someone with better education and literary skills.

Despite the lip service paid to the separation of Church and State, respectable people were overwhelmingly churchgoers and an estimate has been made that on the eve of the first world war there were close to 200,000 volunteer "district visitors," linked to one or other of the churches.

Today, the middle-class working-age female volunteer has all but vanished. Voluntary organisations are mostly run by paid professionals. We give money from our earnings to charities and a proportion has to go to ‘administration’.

Some posts have touched on the practice of calling for a man’s advice as a sign of weakness. This could be interpreted differently. Our ‘strong women’ characters had the good sense and lack of false pride to be able to ask for advice when they needed it. In each case, it was for something which they could not really discuss with subordinates and so they went to an outsider they trusted and who could be expected to offer good advice. That they happened to be men would reflect the social environment in which they existed – though I’m sure Hilda would have asked Jo about Emerence if she had happened to walk in at the right moment.

Has anyone ever counted the actual incidence of ‘the little dose’. I know it does happen but just wondered if we have elevated it’s occurrence to the commonplace – like the dreaded lime green.

In conclusion, EBD imbued her characters with the views of her time, changing as society changed. She was definitely not anti-feminist and kept pace quite well with the changing world of women. She was not however a feminist in the crusading sense but somehow managed to tread the middle ground.

#24: Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:05 pm
—
Well said, Pat!

One difficulty I have in trying to answer this question, is that the connotations of "feminist" have varied widely, even during the course of my own education and working life. For example, there was a time when it was not uncommon for colleagues, male and female, to almost reflexively declare themselves feminists. Now, I frequently hear women begin their statements, "I'm not a feminist, but...." in much the way that some women in older novels carefully denied being suffragettes. The pendulum has swung so far that the Women's Caucus at my university felt obliged to try handing out buttons that say, "This is what a feminist looks like."

ETA Now that I've said that, I'm having problems remembering where I've seen suffragette quotes. This isn't quite what I was looking for, but interesting:

In Anne's House of Dreams, L.M. Montgomery wrote:

"I'm not hankering after the vote, believe ME," said Miss Cornelia scornfully. "_I_ know what it is to clean up after the men. But some of these days, when the men realize they've got the world into a mess they can't get it out of, they'll be glad to give us the vote, and shoulder their troubles over on us. That's THEIR scheme. Oh, it's well that women are patient, believe ME!"

#25: Author: Lulu, Location: West Midlands, UK

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:12 pm
—

Mia wrote:

There's a bit in one of the later books - can't remember which one - in which Joey is saying she wants another daughter. I think it's Miss Annersley who turns to her and asks why, saying, "Don't tell me you're turning feminist" and Joey decries this at once and says she's thinking of the frocks left by Felicity and Phil.

It's Grizel, in Reunion. Wink

#26: Re: Debate: Was EBD a feminist? Author: jonty, Location: Exeter

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:54 pm
—

Róisín wrote:

This house believes that EBD was a feminist, or showed feminist tendencies in her writings, where feminism is defined by dictionary.com as "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes."

Yes, the way you've worded the motion, I do think EBD showed feminist tendencies. I agree with what's been said so far about feminism changing through different times, but going by the dictionary.com definition, there are definitely signs of feminist tendencies in EBD's writings. Two points to make:

1) The key word here is 'equality', not 'sameness'. EBD's work, as others have said, puts girls and women centre stage, treats them as rounded human beings with a whole gamut of emotions and capabilities, and shows them getting on with their very full, busy and interesting lives. Socially, at least, I think she depicts women as equal to men, though I concede she does show them as different, with different interests and aspirations.

2) There's a difference, I think, between what the characters say, and what the underlying message to the reader is. The boy/girl and man/woman relationships are about as tedious and/or ridiculous it's possible to get. Yes, Bill makes her speech about the role of a woman, but that's contradicted by almost everything else she ever does, says and is. And yes, doctors appear in heroic rescue roles, but only to put the final touches to the rescue that's already been effected by a girl or woman. All of this gives an underlying sense that it's the girls and women who really matter in EBD-land. We can argue about whether or not that's a feminist thing to do, but I think that showing girls and women in charge and putting them centre-stage, does indeed show feminist tendencies according to the definition Roisin posted.

Last edited by jonty on Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

#27: Author: meerium, Location: belfast, northern ireland

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:38 pm
—
I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with Patmac on her comments - thankyou for taking such a long time to frame exactly what was buzzing round inside my head!! I think she's absolutely bang on in her assessment of EBD. I take all the points about strong female characters, women as independent both in mind and status etc, but I just couldn't quite articulate what it was about the issue that didn't quite fit with me, and I think Patmac is exactly right in the distinction she draws. It certainly makes sense to me *nods vigorously*.

#28: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:02 pm
—
Joey seems to be quite financially independant - in Excitements she talks about 'going shags' with Jack for the cost of the kids air-fare, and I assume that means going halves. So she's not turning all her earnings over to Jack.

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Page 1 of 1