4 ms·
The Fine Article mentions a number of times where Lola was not allowed freedom of movement. She had no freedom of movement, no pay (or ability to direct money),
by vacri 9y ago
The Fine Article mentions a number of times where Lola was not allowed freedom of movement. She had no freedom of movement, no pay (or ability to direct money), no personal life, no say in what she did, and was kept in place by fear. It certainly wasn't the common role of a wife a hundred years ago to be kept from a dying parent, for example.
The nature of her labour is not what made Lola a slave; it was the circumstances around that labour.
- colechristensen 9y agoIt might not have been the nominal role of a wife, but shared characteristics of that life were not uncommon.
- emodendroket 9y agoIt also shared characteristics with the life of an animal that were not uncommon. I think the comparison risks trivializing what is described.
- colechristensen 9y agoI'm not trying to trivialize slavery but force a recognition that's there's a hair's breadth difference between many instances of being a domestic slave and very many instances of being a housewife. One is demonized and the other is celebrated. The way you hear a minority of Bible-enthusiasts talk about the role of a wife is in _no way_ different than the slavery described in the article.
- emodendroket 9y agoWhile there may be some similarities, "no difference" is way too far. Even the most extreme fundamentalist at least in principle is going to acknowledge that Paul wrote in Ephesians that as Christ loved the church a man should love his wife as his own body. And in a more practical sense I can't imagine most of even patriarchal husbands would let their wives' teeth fall out and deny them dental care.
- vacri 9y agoThe heartache in Lola's story is not the bit about her caregiving. You ask what the fundamental difference between Lola and last-century wife? Hiding her from public view and not letting her out of the house seems like a pretty big one. Refusing to let her visit sick and dying parents seems to be another. Expecting her to sleep on the couch or the laundry looks like another. Not letting her have friends outside the family seems to be yet another. There's tons of differences if you look beyond the kind of work she spent her life doing.
- Mz 9y agoI am not readily finding citations, but I recall one of my history professors stating that the veil was heralded as a vast improvement for women in terms of freedom in some parts of the world because, historically, women in a lot of places left the house twice in their life: Once to get married, a second time to get buried. The veil allowed them to at least leave the house. I don't think you know as much about the history of women as you think you do. This is probably not due to personal defect. Most history focuses on the accomplishments of men out in public. The lives of women tend to be more private and a lot of it just does not get recorded or noted. But I am a woman, I have been a history major, I did the homemaker and mom thing for a lot of years and I have had a class in the history of women and have read books out of personal interest on both women's history and the history of slavery. The role of a wife and mom is often not as different from Lola's as you seem to assume.
- nooron 9y agoI thought this was a reasonable and strikingly good faith comment. I do not know why it is receiving such punitive downvoting. Thank you for sharing your historical perspective.
- colechristensen 9y agoHow did my grandparent comment strike you?
- Mz 9y agoGenerally on the right track, but ham handed in delivery. If you really want to engage such ideas in public effectively, it helps to up your game in terms of framing. People tend to be unforgiving and will tend to remember what they thought you meant and will tend to not give you a second chance to clarify. There are a number of people on HN who are quick to vilify people as presumed MRAs etc. Due in part to the generally high education levels here, it is a tough crowd. Best.
- vacri 9y ago> I don't think you know as much about the history of women as you think you do. Well, I know enough to know that 'women only left the house twice in their life' is an outlier, not a yardstick. You can just as easily point out nomadic herder groups where there is almost zero gender power imbalance, with the women and men sharing equal power, and it's just as wrong to suggest that that is somehow historically representative as 'normal'. I'd call a woman that was kept to a house and never allowed out to be a slave anyway. Well, perhaps a 'prisoner' if not forced to do work. > The role of a wife and mom is often not as different from Lola's as you seem to assume. My point was that Lola was a slave not because of the kind of labour she did, but because she was forced into that labour and not allowed freedom of movement. The list of things I wrote wasn't meant to be a canonical description of what defines a slave, but parts of her life that defined it for her. Unlike wives (who by definition at least have a husband), Lola had no-one and no permission to even try. She didn't even have a bed to sleep in when the others did. But in history, some slaves were encouraged to have families, homes, beds. Some slaves historically did get some pay, and likewise direct money. The article even describes slaves that owned their own slaves. The mistake the GP made was confusing role with circumstance. Just because Lola's role was mothering, doesn't mean that mothering is slavery.