(no subject)

[violsva]

The educational reformer Horace Mann tried to explain the feminization of the teaching profession in terms of women's natural proclivities. A woman was suited to working with young children, Mann claimed, because "she holds her commission from nature. In the well-developed female character there is always a preponderance of affection over intellect." But few women teachers saw the work that way. They often complained about their pupils' stupidity, loudness, and disinterest. Most women did not become teachers from a great desire to spend their days with children—they could achieve that goal by following the typical path of marriage and motherhood. ... Serving as a teacher offered middling-class young women a window of time in which to earn wages, live apart from their families, pursue intellectual interests, and still preserve their good names.

--Rachel Hope Cleves, Charity & Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America

In other words, 19th century women chose to teach because it was the option that meant they didn't have to deal with children 24 hours a day. Later on Cleves describes how outside of class times "the schoolhouse devoid of children" was a space where Charity Bryant could write and correspond with her friends without interruptions (unlike her father's house). (The circle of poetry-writing women Charity participated in in early 19thC Massachusetts actually sounds a lot like fandom, with Charity as something of a BNF, writing for her friends' effusive praise and having poems dedicated to her, but the book's gone back to the library now so I can't quote it.) ETA: breathedout has one of the relevant passages here.

Comments

[breathedout]

"Guess what? Women are people" is an excellent tag and I love it.

One excerpt (though possibly not exactly the one you were thinking of) from the section on fandom-esque poetry-quoting section of this book is here if you want to reference it; apparently it struck me similarly at the time of reading!