Both
of these pieces look at different aspects of marriage during the time
period. Emma Goldman and Edith Wharton
have similar views on American marriage and its faults. In Wharton’s article, she compares American
women to Frenchwomen. Their views tie in
with what we’ve seen within The Age of
Innocence.
“Marriage and Love”
Emma
Goldman discusses her beliefs on marriage and love. Marriage at this time was an economic
arrangement based on capitalism since money was one of the most important things. The women paid for marriage with their
self-respect, privacy, and their name. Goldman
compared women to a parasite because they became completely dependent on their
husbands. For men, their only stress was
economic stress, while the women took care of their home and family. She discusses how marriage protected
children, yet there were thousands of homeless and orphaned children. In addition, she talks about how marriage and
love had nothing to do with one another.
With that, she believes that love is stronger than marriage and that if love
continues in married life, it is regardless of marriage. She believes that love rarely ever comes from
being married first. Also, she talks
about how a young girl’s main goal was to get married when she grew up. “From infancy, almost, the average girl is
told that marriage is her ultimate goal; therefore her training and education
must be directed towards that end” (Pg. 383).
“The New Frenchwoman”
Edith
Wharton introduces her idea of the Frenchwoman and how the new Frenchwoman is
only new because American women were not familiar with them. The Frenchwoman is seen as more grown-up, not
only because of her dress, ability to cook, and femininity, but because of her
relationship with men. For example,
women are book-keepers or clerks in their husband’s small business. She also contrasts the Frenchwoman with the
American woman. The Frenchwoman would
rather be happy than have money, while American women want money. Although American women legally have more
freedom, Frenchwomen live more freely.
This is due to the fact that women in America feel trapped in their
marriage since it is simply an economic arrangement, while French women married
for love and are altogether happier.
Frenchwomen have more of an impact in their French society than American
women do in their lives.
Comparison:
The
average French woman was more advanced because they had a different sense of
marriage. In America, women had more
legal rights, but their marriage held them back from exercising them. Their husbands had the ultimate control. In France where women did not marry solely
for monetary reasons, they had more freedom because they were equal partners
with their husbands. American women are
trapped at home where they are not valued but French women can have an impact
in society. The differences between
French women and American women can also be seen in The Age of Innocence. May is
like the typical American women; she is used to the husband being the dominant
person in the relationship, and she is educated on the rules of society and
housekeeping. Ellen is more like the
typical French woman; she knows more about art and culture than the rules of
society and she treats men more like equals.
Discussion Questions:
1. Goldman states, “Marriage
and love have nothing in common; they are as far apart as the poles; are, in
fact, antagonistic to each other.” Compare Goldman’s view of marriage with
marriage today? Does her view of marriage and love fit with what we read in The Age of Innocence? If so in what
ways?
2. Who do you think Goldman
intended her audience to be? What do you think their response was?
3. In Goldman’s article, we
once again see a difference in the standards for men and women, this time
involving marriage. What are some ways marriages impacted women differently
than men? How is this illustrated in The
Age of Innocence?
4. Which do you think is more
successful: marriage for love or marriage for money? Reference the statistics
Goldman gives in her article on marriage (pg. 182).
5. Wharton brings up the idea
of French women being more grown up than their American counterparts. What does
she mean by “grown-up”? In what ways does she illustrate this in her article?
6. In Wharton’s article, what
do you find to be the most interesting difference she states between the
Frenchwoman and the American woman?
7. Do you think that
differences in marriage practices in societies affect the treatment of women in
those societies? Consider both articles.
8. How do both articles relate?
Is perhaps the lack of love in American marriages that Goldman asserts a cause
for the differences between women in the different societies that Wharton
highlighted?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEdited:
ReplyDeleteI'll address question #3. Marriage would have impacted women far differently than men in America during the time of Age of Innocence, and we actually see this a great deal in the story. Like Goldman says in her article, a woman pays for her husband "with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life," and marriage "condemns her to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness" (382). Goldman notes in the next breath that men were mostly impacted economically. In Age of Innocence, I think we see this in the way Newland views May as simply a reflection of his own thoughts. She has been trained by society to be the good wife who always pleases her husband, and supposedly does not think for herself. Also, the family's insistence that Ellen return to her husband demonstrates their ideas of wives as obligated dependents who owe their lives to their husbands, no matter how vile. Likewise with Mrs. Beaufort, the family considers her to be bound to her husband's fate. With the men, they do not seem to be much affected by marriage. Newland still has his same old job, and the other men are his accomplices in his affair, albeit from a distance. The latter instance is when Lefferts and Chivers pass by Newland and Ellen, and they turn a blind eye in "masculine solidarity" (298). He is allowed to go on acting as if he isn't married. Ellen, on the other hand, is held accountable whether she did or didn't have an affair with her husband's secretary - the fact that it was a compromising position was enough for the family. The double standard is apparent in how Newland was allowed to get away with his affair, and Ellen was not, and the way wives were expected to give up everything for their husbands but husbands were not expected to give up everything for their wives. I am actually reminded of Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, and the way Pete and other men like him got away with their actions, but the women were always demonized and rejected. It's a similar sort of double standard.
On a separate note, did the ending make anyone else think of the end of Washington Square? The outcomes were different, and Newland didn’t even go inside to see his long lost love, but I still thought it was reminiscent of Morris and Catherine and their potentially rekindled romance that failed to ignite.
My response will address questions 1 and 5, but mainly the relationship between France and America at the time of writing. As for question 1, there is a distinct difference between marriages during the 1920s and today. Since most, or almost all, of the marriages today are not arranged, it is easy to see that more and more people are marrying for love instead of money or power. We are becoming a more open and embracing world when it comes to marriage, specifically in America. Allowing more people to marry without prejudice shows the advancing role marriage is having on all of us. This is quite the opposite back then, as most marriages were, in fact, arranged. Usually, the man who had money would marry a women to pass on his legacy, with no feelings or admiration for his "wife." Those who did marry for love were, in my opinion, the lower class who did not concern themselves with money, power, or property. These lower class people seem to be better off in that respect.
ReplyDeleteGoing on to question 5, the French people during the time of writing were definitely more "grown-up" than the American people. The French were in their Third Republic since 1870, which was a great step forward, even electing their first president. After the events of WWI, France had to rebuild as a whole, allowing them to grow and advance as a society. America, though, was still young and premature in relation to France. Without the history France had, it's no wonder America was still wet behind the ears when it came to marriage. In some respect, France was more advance as a society since they have been around way longer than America. It actually wasn't until after the events of WWII that America began to advance over France in terms of societal norms.
In response to question one and two, I believe that Goldman’s view on marriage is a bit different but not dissimilar to views on marriage today. In today’s society, marriage is nearly always for love, unlike the time period in which Goldman writes. However society today, not unlike Goldman, doesn’t feel that love equates marriage. Today it seems that that many people that love each other are not married, fitting in a way to Goldman’s view point on the matter. However marriage and love are no longer at two opposite poles as Goldman feels they are. Today in American society, walking down the aisle usually involves love. Marriage is no longer a contract based on economic gains as was in the uppers classes at the time of Goldman’s writing. Over all it seems as if Goldman’s piece was mostly aimed at those who are in agreement, not those opposed. As we discussed in class, the overall tone and style of the piece leads us to believe that it is more of a call to action than a logical persuasive argument. The essay is very in your face and opinionated using strong language and emotions to bring around the desired action. Because of this, the piece is very opinionated and short on facts.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on the idea that the way in which a society perceives women is most often reflected in the status of women within their marriage. For example, despite the fact that it has been outlawed in most countries though out the world today, child marriages, in places such as Bangladesh, Rajastan, Afghanistan were the societal norm for many years (Hedayat, 1). Women in these countries are often arranged to be married shortly after reaching puberty to a man that they have never met (Hedayat, 1). Women in all of the above societies did not play a prominent role and were regarded as inferior to their male counterparts (Hedayat, 1). They had very limited freedoms and were meant to be submissive to their husbands (Hedayat, 1). Thus it can be seen that the way in which these women are perceived in their marriage, mirrors their freedoms within society.
ReplyDeleteThe same is true of the Frenchwomen and also the characters in The Age of Innocence. In Edith Wharton’s article, “The New Frenchwoman,” she discusses the idea that women is France are often perceived as being more “grown up” in comparison to a women in America. Frenchwomen in society at this time, exercised may more social freedoms. For example, French women were able to be book keepers or clerks in their husband’s shops. When analyzing the marriage of the Frenchwomen, a reflection of their freedoms within society can be seen. According to Wharton, many Frenchwomen married for love. Consequently, their marriage was not an economic union, but rather one in which true feelings of compassion were involved. As a result, women in these marriages were often viewed as equals to their husbands, a trend which is reflected in the social freedoms that these women had in French society at this time.
This same concept can also be seen in Wharton’s novel, The Age of Innocence. May is a very reserved woman. She, like most women in American society at the time, does not have a prominent role within society. Her marriage to Newland is reflective of this in so much that May is often submissive to him, almost as if her were raised to be married, a concept which Emma Goldman touches on in her article. Newland is not fond of such mannerisms, which were traditional of women at this time. For example when May addresses Newland about another women in St. Augustine he is at first very proud of her but when she reverts, Newland was “too much disappointed at the vanishing of the new being who had cast that one deep look at him from her transparent eyes” (Wharton, 175). Ellen, on the contrary, was a Frenchwoman, and was thus more inclined to partake in the social freedoms which she enjoyed in France. For example, she moves about a room to speak to men when they should approach her and she lives in which area of town she chooses despite what her family feels. Her marriage, while abusive, did allow her to enjoy such social freedoms which were taboo in American at the time. Thus is can be seen that there was a profound difference between the way that women were treated in French and American marriages and such differences are reflected in their respective societal freedoms.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15082550
I would like to respond to the first question.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s society, I feel that there is not one accepted view of marriage and the role that love plays in it. In the time period that The Age of Innocence is meant to reflect, marriage was for monetary and economic factors, since wealth was very important in society. While wealth still seems to be important to most people today, it seems as though most people marry someone they love, as opposed to first marrying for money, and developing a loving relationship over time. There are, however, people who do marry for economic gain and become the parasites that Goldman refers to. With women having equal economic opportunities in today’s society, it may not always be the woman that becomes the parasite. If a woman is wealthy, a man may become dependent on her. No longer does a man only have economic stress. This may very well be the case for a woman, and today men can be seen tending to their home and family. In addition, society does not teach woman that their ultimate goal is to be married. Today women, as well as men, strive for economic success. While economic success is still valued in today’s society, many tend to associate marriage with love rather than an engagement of wealth.
Goldman’s view on love and marriage seems to hold very true to The Age of Innocence. Goldman feels that love and marriage are not associated, even going as far as to say they are complete opposites. She feels it was strictly based on money, since money was so important in society. This is seen in Newland’s marriage and other marriages in society. While May is from a respectable family, he truly loves the Countess. This also relates to Goldman’s view that love can exist outside of marriage. This demonstrates that marriage is not the ultimate outcome of love, and that people may have other reasons for marriage. Due to the emphasis on wealth in the society at the time, Newland loved outside of his marriage.
This is in regards to question one. Goldman’s view on marriage is very different from today’s view on it. In today’s society, marriage is typically conducted because of love. Marriage, back in the late 1800s to the early 1900s, was mainly for economic reasons. Goldman claims that “[m]arriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact” (381). Goldman also points out that women were basically raised with the idea that they had to get married, had to be subservient to her husband, and had to give an air of stupidity and dullness. This view of Goldman’s can be clearly seen in the Age of Innocence. Newland Archer continually points out that May is stupid and acts like she doesn’t know what is going on in her husband’s life. We do find out later in the story that she is really not stupid and does know exactly what is going on. In addition, Goldman points out that falling in love after marriage doesn’t really exist, it is just that the couple gets used to each other and adapt. This can also be seen in The Age of Innocence through May because over time, she gets used to Newland going to see Madame Olenska, even though she is displeased about it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 4, I think the novel shows that, despite the prevailing attitudes of society at the time, marriage for love can be more successful than marriage for money. Despite some of the statistics Goldman gives in her article, like that from 1870-1911 the divorce rate rose from 28 to 73 percent (382), I think marriage for money results in more unhappiness. While economic security can be ensured through marriage, Goldman asserts that marriage traps women in "life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social" (382). Marriage for money makes women almost an object of their husbands, dependent on the men for economic and social security. I think the novel shows many examples where marriage for money results in troubling situations. Ellen feels no love for her husband and shows no further interest in the future of their unhealthy marriage, yet society looks down on divorce and she is pressured by everyone around her to remain married so as to protect her family's image and avoid scandal.Her husband, the Count Olenska, brings money into the situation, almost bidding on his wife and making her an object for auction. The attitudes of society can be blamed for marrying for money and the unhappiness or disinterest so many people felt in their marriages in that day. Newland and May's marriage, while on the outside looks so perfect with many children and the financial security of combining two powerful families, is far from a picture perfect relationship. May seems to know of Newland and Ellen, and the usually joyous news of a child becomes a playing piece in the love triangle.Additionally the love Newland feels for another woman, Ellen, has to be forgotten and thrown aside as both he and May are trapped by societal expectations in their marriage. Following May's death, Newland even concedes that "their long years together had shown him that it did not so much matter if marriage was a dull duty, as long as it kept the dignity of duty" (329). This shows that Newland, and probably many of the time, viewed marriage as a duty and accepted it as long it had the semblance of dignity that society required. In The Age of Innocence, marrying for money is the cause of numerous unhappy marriages and marriages devoid of love and affection. It is absent in Ellen's marriage, Newland's marriage and even Beaufort's marriage as he is known to have a good number of mistresses. While statistics may show that marriage is more often a failure, marrying for money is less successful than marrying for love. While money marriages resulted in less divorce in that time period because of societal expectations, I think it is better to marry for love, because even if it does not work out, you are not stuck in a situation that brings unhappiness and can move on to more ideal situations.
ReplyDelete