It seems like Puritans were very strict and demanding with their children, while the Puritan church was very strict and punishing towards its followers. Probably not a coincidence, but I thought it was worth noting.

SUSANNA WESLEY

On page 31 she states, "self-will is the root of all sin and misery." I feel that this summarizes her view of children. However, as I was reading this, I couldn't help but wonder how these children could grow up and be successful members of society without any independent thought. How could they develop a personality/identity without experimentation and safe spaces to play/learn? The whole idea is very foreign to me.

Child Rearing – I find it interesting that children during this time seem to be treated more like little adults than real children. Did kids during this time ever get a chance to be children? And would all mothers during the colonial period raise their children in the same way or depending on the location would some children have more freedom than others? Would a mother be treated harshly in a community if she did not bring her child up in the correct fashion?

Although Wadsworth clearly defines a patriarchal society and familial hierarchy, I was surprised by the evenness between his descriptions of duties of husbands and wives. Yes, he says that wives must obey their husbands, but he also says both husbands and wives are “much to blame” if they do not treat their spouses properly, as they are both commanded by God. Although men are in charge of the family, both must answer to God.

How common was abandonment of pregnant women to lead them to marry others?

While I personally find Edwards' reinterpretation of the Bible moving and I laud him for his attempts change some of the gender bias in his society, I cannot help but wonder how the married life of Hawley and Root would have been had it occurred. Although Root would have attained the financial support, would Hawley have willingly provided it? Edwards tried to revise the social norm so that a man would have to marry the woman he produced a bastard child with against the man's will. Would Edwards' actually led to a healthy married life that was free from abuse for women like Root, if their husbands were clearly reluctant, if not resentful, like Hawley? Do later anti-seduction laws have similar unintended consequences?

I noticed in Pinckney’s resolutions, her main priority is to make everyone else happy, to be a good Christian, wife, mother, daughter, sister, mistress, and friend. It seems that in order to be a “proper” woman in eighteenth century South Carolina, one must place everyone else’s needs before her own. That seems a little extreme. I wonder if Wesley’s idea that “self-will is the root of all sin and misery” plays any part in this and if this is more of a concept for women than men

For instance, when she says "to make it my Study to please him." The fact that study is capitalized too shows that she is determined to devote her whole being to his happiness, and shockingly is happy to do it. I also realize that her resolutions are inhuman in a sense because no living person could be that much the essence of perfection; she is setting herself up for failure.

New Spain's moral code presented in this excerpt is quite similar to England's at that time

The slave laws are unusual because they reversed centuries of precedent set by European law. European law dictated that a child should inherit the condition of the father, not the mother.

Legally, slavery was determined through the mother's line, which would mean that if a child's mother was a slave, the child would then also be a slave. This was very interesting, because the rich white men who made these laws may have had an alterior motive. This law would leave them free to have an affair with a slave woman, and not have to worry about claiming the child that may have been born as a result.

In one of the ads it says "a lusty likely health Mulatto woman", I find it interesting that the author of that ad just had to include the word "lusty". It reminds me of the eroticization that we talked about with Native American women. I wonder how adding the quality of "lusty" would affect who would purchase this slave and if they would use her sexually

Interestingly enough all advertisements for woman slaves or "wenches" require a list of all of their certain talents such as weaving, spinning, and household business. I noticed that when men and children are listed they don't have any certain attributes or qualifications that come with their description. It's an interesting thought that the slaves that are men and children are less descriptive than the women slaves. I wonder why this is so?

Though, of course it was well deserved, but as I read I wondered what sort of punishment did she face after this letter was sent? Was it common for fathers to send away their children to harsh employers or into servitude itself? When would her sentence be over? Her language also was as good indicator of how women were taught in those times, for there are many spelling and grammatical errors.

Although it's not surprising to me that in a patriarchal society a father could send his daughter off to indentured servitude for something as little as misbehaving, i don't quite understand how white women, who ultimately played a huge role in maintaining the chesapeake colonies could be treated so horribly, be it their diet or other types of abuse.

I find it ironic that white indentured servants who suffered such horrible conditions as Elizabeth Sprigs experienced could go on to become slave owners or the masters of indentured servants, however kind to their slaves (like Molly Bannaky)

in almost all of the accounts, they mentioned that they must teach them to read the Bible. Was this task given so that when they became mothers they could spread the Christian faith to their children, or was it because the perception of women at the time was negative and they sought to purify the women? Were boys also taught to read the Bible at such an early age?

Then the daughter was unwilling to testify against her father. Why would the daughter be unwilling? societal norms promoting the submissiveness of women? Fear of the patriarch? Fear in general towards her abuser? I would say all three of these explanations are plausible.

Abigail Bailey explains how difficult it would be to get her husband arrested for his incestuous relationship with his daughter, she further explains that this is due to the fact that her daughter was not allowed to speak to her, she didn't think her daughter would testify, and that she had no legal rights. Due to the fact, as both Bailey and Mr. B point out, that Bailey was under her husband's legal control, how could she go against him? Is this a common thing? Are there other stories of the period where there are laws against incest yet a lack of reporting due to the fact that women didn't have many rights?

It was probably common for the time period for women to do most of the upbringing of their children; but Esther's case appears to be a bit more unusual in that she appears to have a bit more freedom than other women for she only had three children(not sure if that situation changed) as she mentioned in one of her letters. In addition, she was unusual in that she debated with scholars in her town on the feelings of women.

After Tuesday discussion and after looking at the readings, I am curious to know if there were ever any cases in colonial times in which women killed their husbands in order to gain their freedom and rights they had lost during the marriage?

At the heart of Puritan culture seems to be the want to tell other people what they should do. Cotton Mather does so with his theory of "well ordered families." Benjamin Wadsworth has a myriad of opinions on what families should be like. Families should love each other, spouses should be patient with each other, husbands should be gentle and easy while wives should be cheerfully obedient. Real life cannot adhere to a should statement, were they really aware of how nuclear families worked?

what is “spinning frolick

Letter with medical remedies Vaughn, Benjamin ca. 1805 Location of original: Maine Historical Society, Portland, Maine

melasses

costiveness

Antimonial wine

pthisis pulmonalis