I took the reading of The Revolt of "Mother" in a historical context. In the times of this story (1890's) everyone in a family had a role, for good or bad, everyone played a role. The head of the house is the father, he made the decisions for the family, he is the one responsible to the family making sure there were enough food in the house, made sure the house is repaired and brought in the money to make sure the family is taken care of. The wife's role is to take care of the house, kids and make no decisions on her own. At this time the animals were very valuable to the work that the husband had to do. Back then there was no talking about what to do in the family environment as there is today. The son follows the father and takes up a male role and like wise is the same for the daughter and the mom. They all had a place in the family. As for the father and his house, in those days the men are somewhat satisified with what they have, they aren't out for riches (I think), they just make due with what they have. See in the 1890's the people are still recovering from the Civil War and they are still trying to make a living the best way they can, and so if you have a house that doesn't leak, is liveable and not falling apart you make due, because not everyone has what you may have.
Granted the mother is fed up with the living conditions (the house), and since the animals were living better than they were I can see her point. On their wedding day fourty years ago, the father did promise her a new house and didn't keep his promise. I can't really agree with what she did but I understand why she did it and in the end so did the father.
In terms of today this wouldn't happen. Everything is supposed to be equal, but is it really. In some families the roles are reversed and the men stay at home and the women work, the men take care of the household chores and kids, not a bad idea really.
As for the stop fool aspect of it, the father shouldn't have left, big mistake on his part, he should have made due with the horse he had. The son or the field hand should have had his back, but they didn't. They let the mother run the roost so to speak, not a bad idea in the end, she got what she wanted finally and the father had to swallow his pride. As for me, I wouldn't have left until the hay was in the barn and the cow's came home.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I too evaluated the family roles while reading this. Often times in this era the man's word is final, and that often includes a son over his mother. I thought this story was a perfect stepping stone to make society understand that the woman has a role, and needs to be heard.
ReplyDelete