O Pioneers!-- Parts I and II -- A man's proper position

[Peppermill]

"after having seen your definition of respect for women's equality"

Rochelle -- 1) I'd say "exploration of the meaning of" rather than "definition of" respect. 2) I'd suggest there often is still a BIG difference between "respect for women" and "respect for women's equality."

---

foxycat wrote:
They have changed, but after having seen your definition of respect for women's equality, I don't want to get into a discussion of this. We don't have enough time or space.

Carl couldn't stay because Lou and Oscar accused him of being a golddigger. He was already a failure at business, and they probably told him that he would be ostracized by everyone if he married Alex without a decent job. I'm sure they souped it up quite a bit, because they didn't want him to come back, and yes, neighbors and wives contributed. They were absolutely shocked by a successful single woman, although in the cities it was a little (very little) more common. They wanted all of Alex's property to go to their kids, and had no regard for her personal happiness. Besides that they were sure she didn't know what she was doing, Oscar in particular.

---

Peppermill wrote:
Let me see if this works: Given social expectations, what happens when a woman is more "successful" than her partner or other males? What were the social expectations, really, and have they changed? How often was reality actually different than social expectations?

Should Carl have left to hunt gold or stayed with Alex? Did the attitudes of neighbors and wives perhaps influence how Lou and Oscar treated their sister?

---

---

[kiakar]

---

foxycat wrote:
They have changed, but after having seen your definition of respect for women's equality, I don't want to get into a discussion of this. We don't have enough time or space.

Carl couldn't stay because Lou and Oscar accused him of being a golddigger. He was already a failure at business, and they probably told him that he would be ostracized by everyone if he married Alex without a decent job. I'm sure they souped it up quite a bit, because they didn't want him to come back, and yes, neighbors and wives contributed. They were absolutely shocked by a successful single woman, although in the cities it was a little(very little) more common. They wanted all of Alex's property to go to their kids, and had no regard for her personal happiness. Besides that they were sure she didn't know what she was doing, Oscar in particular.

---

Peppermill wrote:
Let me see if this works: Given social expectations, what happens when a woman is more "successful" than her partner or other males? What were the social expectations, really, and have they changed? How often was reality actually different than social expectations?

Should Carl have left to hunt gold or stayed with Alex? Did the attitudes of neighbors and wives perhaps influence how Lou and Oscar treated their sister?

---

I know Foxycat doesn't want a heated discussion on this, so I will just say she is so right about her summation of the facts. And to you, Peppermill, things are definitely the same, just like in those days. Some are better and some are worse. That is, I am sure, that is the way it was then also. Women were respected somewhat more than the century before, like us we have won a few battles since Cather. But a long ways to go.

[Peppermill]

I'm not sure "no regard for her personal happiness" is a "fact." It may be a reasonable opinion for the reader to deduce, but I am not convinced Cather provides the evidence necessary to consider her brothers and their families to have NO regard for her happiness.

---

kiakar wrote:

---

foxycat wrote:
They have changed, but after having seen your definition of respect for women's equality, I don't want to get into a discussion of this. We don't have enough time or space.

Carl couldn't stay because Lou and Oscar accused him of being a golddigger. He was already a failure at business, and they probably told him that he would be ostracized by everyone if he married Alex without a decent job. I'm sure they souped it up quite a bit, because they didn't want him to come back, and yes, neighbors and wives contributed. They were absolutely shocked by a successful single woman, although in the cities it was a little(very little) more common. They wanted all of Alex's property to go to their kids, and had no regard for her personal happiness. Besides that they were sure she didn't know what she was doing, Oscar in particular.

---

Peppermill wrote:
Let me see if this works: Given social expectations, what happens when a woman is more "successful" than her partner or other males? What were the social expectations, really, and have they changed? How often was reality actually different than social expectations?

Should Carl have left to hunt gold or stayed with Alex? Did the attitudes of neighbors and wives perhaps influence how Lou and Oscar treated their sister?

---

I know Foxycat doesn't want a heated discussion on this, so I will just say she is so right about her summation of the facts. And to you, Peppermill, things are definitely the same, just like in those days. Some are better and some are worse. That is, I am sure, that is the way it was then also. Women were respected somewhat more than the century before, like us we have won a few battles since Cather. But a long ways to go.

---

[Everyman]

2) I'd suggest there often is still a BIG difference between "respect for women" and "respect for women's equality."

Nice distinction.

[kiakar]

---

Everyman wrote:
2) I'd suggest there often is still a BIG difference between "respect for women" and "respect for women's equality."

Nice distinction.

---

You are right. Didn't write it plainly!

[Peppermill]

---

foxycat wrote:
....BTW, here's a rather dark still from the film, with Jessica Lange as Alex:

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~oliver/jlopioneers.htm

I must rent it again. I've set up a thread to discuss the film.

---

I must have skipped that link the first time through! The contrast between Alex and Ivar is much greater than the one I imagined, but also plausible!

[Peppermill]

---

foxycat wrote {ed.}:...Here's an excerpt at the Library of Congress called "Minnesota as it is in 1870." It's a promotional pamphlet to draw new residents. Note the prices!

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/riseind/immgnts/minn.html

and farm implements of 1880-1920.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/ngp_farm.html

---

Those are two excellent links, Rochelle. I highly recommend them to anyone who, like myself, moved past them the first time through.

I found the ratios of prices fascinating, e.g., $100-$175 for a horse versus $20-$50 for a cow. (I presume a yoke of oxen for $100 - $125 was two oxen?) Also, the cost of capital: "Capital is scarce, and in demand. Two per cent. per month is freely paid on the frontier, and amply secured. It can be loaned indirectly, or used so as to net far more than this. It is loaned freely in the largest towns at 12 per cent., free of commission, by responsible agents, secured by productive real estate, worth double the loan." sic

On the second link, I noted particularly the pictures of the header, binder, and threshing machine. The header seems to be the precursor to the combine. Note that the header does require the grain to ripen evenly, but is far less labor intensive than the binder, with the shocking and extra handling it required. (It still astounds me that less than 3% of the US work force is directly engaged in agriculture today.)

For a bit of history in the evolution of this technology in the 100 years since O Pioneers!, see this web page and the links at the top to the right of this one:

http://www.toytractorshow.com/ih_conventional_combine_history.htm