Wives as Deputy Husbands

Wives as Deputy Husbands by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich hold Review Wives as Deputy Husbands by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was written to give the authors discernment on the office staffs of women in the 17th and 18th century. Some historians thought women were merely there to do housekeeping and egress care of the children. They thought they were helpless. On the contrary others thought they were really pertain in various affairs such as blacksmiths, silversmiths, tinworkers, shoeworkers, tanners, etc. They thought they may have been very independent.However, this article is used to understand how home plates were run and how women fit into both fe anthropoid and male roles. The authors thesis of this article is to inform the reader that women had more roles in compound times than people rarely consider. Ulrichs contention is that the economize was in control of the external affairs and of the family, a husbands decision would incorporate his wifes opinion, and should fate or circu mstance prevent the husband from fulfilling his role the wife could stand in his place (Paragraph 4. ).Women didnt only depend on their husband. She was non helpless. Her load to her husband did allow him to be able to trust her with difficult tasks that a servant couldnt be trusted with. A wife specialized in housekeeping skills but it also included the responsibilities of universe a deputy husband. Ulrich says Economic opportunities were limited for women however, female responsibility was a very broad subject (Paragraph 8. ). A woman could do any task as long as it furthered the good of her family and her husband deemed it acceptable.Wives could double as their husbands and became respected companions and shared the spouses authority. There was no sharp form between home and work in the colonial time period. Many people worked on a farm which also doubled as their home. This was also true for male and females, their spaces overlapped. While the husband was virtually her res ponsibility was limited. When he was absent her responsibility was more weighted. If a woman became a widow, and she had no sons, and chose not to remarry she could inherit the deceased spouses estate.Many of the males responsibilities were less desirable to a woman than doing housework was. This work may prepare her to function competently in a males world, though. This article is specific to female roles. The textbook and class discussions/lectures mainly taught about the people of colonial America as a whole. We learned a lot more about mens roles and female responsibility wasnt mentioned very often. The article taught me that women were very important to not only the household but the entire family.In her husbands absence she would take on his responsibilities as well as the household ones and not only be able to survive but thrive. I think it was important to read this article because both women and men were present in this time period. Without women there would be no men (lite rally), so why would we study the important of one? To understand he time period I think all genders and races need to be studied to a certain(a) extent. The strengths of this article were that Ulrich added many examples to help understand how not all women were shrew and servile but quite an very independent.A weakness was that she also presented arguments from the opposing sides which in some cases were slightly confusing. Yes, it does fit into the prevailing edition because men werent present in every situation and when they werent women were to maintain the household and affairs. This reading is indeed different that what I previously learned about gender roles women stayed at home to cook, clean, and take care of children while men worked. Overall, this article was very informative and helped me understand how families worked together to be happy in the colonial time period.