The American experiment that began as a Republic after ratification of the Constitution created political, social, and economic participation for its citizens, but not for women. The status of women in the early 19th century was shaped by economic considerations, religious beliefs, and long-held notions of female inferiority. While poor, laboring women suffered the most, the characteristics of inequality were evident in all social classes. The Proper Role of Women in the Early Republic
The early 19th century experienced a shift, at least for women in the urban centers of the Northeast, from the household economies that reflected an agricultural society to the necessity of linking female responsibilities with their husband’s careers. For lower class women, this meant supplementing family income by working either in early industrial mills, as domestic servants, or vending on city streets. Upper middle class women focused on social endeavors tied to their husband’s employment and continued social upper mobility.
This included supervising servants, facilitating parties, and raising the children. Women who voiced any political activism were frowned upon. Perhaps the only place a woman might venture such opinions was around the dinner table. Above all, women were equated with virtue and purity. Middle and upper class women devoted time to helping charities that sought to alleviate the plight of the poor, especially widows and abandoned mothers with children. They worked with Protestant missions and labored to save poor women from prostitution.
Due to the cult of female purity, they were viewed as being the best teachers, the “moral guardians” of society. Women in the Working Class In the early 19th century, many Northeast cities, especially port cities, saw an increase in crude mass production industries, as in the first textile mills. One result was the use of poor class women working for cheap wages, often to augment their husband’s meager incomes. Some poor women left the cities during periods of harvest to assist farmers needing cheap laborers.
Others earned meager sums vending on city streets. Still others worked in the growing sewing trades or as domestic servants. Single mothers, however, were often forced to rely on the Almshouses and the various charities geared toward the poor. Widows had a particularly difficult time. Historian Christine Stansell, in her 1986 study of New York women 1789 to 1860, writes that “widowhood was virtually synonymous with impoverishment. ” Another result of the changes in female status was the slow decline in birthrates.
Historians John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman state that, “Economic interest encouraged some families to have fewer children. ” They demonstrate a possible correlation of the rise of industrialization and the decline of agricultural pursuits with steadily lowering birthrates throughout the 19th century. Impact of Protestant Theological Shifts By the early 19th century, Protestantism had discarded earlier notions of man’s relationship to God. This was particularly true of the Calvinist principle of predestination.
Religion focused on an individual relationship with God and placed on man a greater sense of controlling one’s destiny. These views were being shaped by Transcendentalism as well as the emphasis on personal commitment coming out of the Second Great Awakening. Such views had a direct impact on sexuality and lowering birthrates. Sexuality was no longer simply a loveless act of procreation. Thus, families limited the number of children based on their economic situation. Still, the changing attitude was not universal and men and women had numerous children, especially in rural, farm areas.
Lucretia Mott, an early advocate of women’s rights, for example, had six children. Female Status in the Early 19th Century Although the expectations of women in the early 19th century were shifting, their status within a patriarchal society remained the same. Politically, they were powerless. Job opportunities were severely limited. Because of the social expectations that tied female dependence on men, single women and widows were the most vulnerable. Even upper middle class women were doomed to conform to patterns of daily life that were dictated by their husbands.
L.L. Bean Case Analysis
L. L. Bean, a leading mail-order company in the outdoor apparel and equipment industry, is renowned for its exceptional delivery of top-notch products to customers. It holds the reputation of being the foremost mail-order company due to its efficient service. From 1976 to 1980, L.L.Bean experienced remarkable growth, acquiring 650,000 new customers and generating sales exceeding $120 million. What factors can be attributed to the accomplishments of L.L.Bean?
Clear company positioning and strict compliance are crucial for L. L. Bean, which offers high-quality outdoor wears at fair prices and provides exceptional customer services. The company treats its customers with care and consideration, treating them like friends and neighbors. This is evident through its provision of free shipping and handling, adding convenience for customers. Additionally, the company’s success can be attributed to its professional personnel who contribute to its achievements.
The combination of clear positioning, fair pricing, excellent customer service, genial care shown to customers, and the provision of free shipping and handling contributes significantly to customer satisfaction and loyalty towards L. L. Bean. Furthermore, the professionalism exhibited by the staff enhances the reputation of the company.
Nevertheless, relying solely on word-of-mouth as a marketing tool may pose sustainability challenges in the long run for L.L.Bean’s marketing efforts; hence it becomes essential to diversify marketing strategies to ensure continued growth and success in the future.
Despite facing some challenges during a transitional period, including a shortage of young talents, outdated technology, and slow growth, L. L. Bean experienced a positive trend with increasing sales, inquiries from domestic and international distributors, and invitations to conduct business in various locations. However, it is important to address concerns about the potential imbalance of management due to the successors of the Beans not being able to join the company in the near future. Additionally, while the growth of new customers has not been exceptionally high, it is crucial to evaluate how to effectively respond to these matters as raised by Mr.
Gorman poses at the end of the case? L. L. Bean should consistently prioritize loyalty and honesty towards its customers, offering high-quality products at fair prices to meet their needs. This approach is similar to what L. L. Bean has been practicing by treating customers as personal friends. While a company’s ultimate goal is profitability, it must also remain focused on the factors that sustain its presence in the market in order to maintain long-term success and keep the magic alive. 5. Which, if any, new avenues for growth should L.
L. L. Bean should maintain consistency in its operational ideology within the US, but should adapt its approach in other countries to accommodate different demographics and buying preferences. While deciding whether to prioritize retail stores or mail-orders, it is important to note that mail-order has always been a strong competitive advantage for L. L. Bean and offers cost savings. Therefore, I personally recommend that in the initial phase of expanding business in other countries, mail-orders should be the primary method of reaching customers.
Arguments Of Galileo Galilei In Support Of His Astronomical Claims
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same
God who has endowed us with sense, reason and
intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
—Galileo
Being one of the most prominent thinkers and astronomers, Galileo Galilei is interesting to us as the one, who went down into history as one of supporters of Copernicanism, the pioneer of experimental scientific method, the reducer of problems to a simple set of terms on the basis of everyday experience and common-sense logic and finally as the one, who used a refracting telescope in order to make important astronomical discoveries. In the essay I am focusing my attention on the arguments in support of Copernicanism that is widely presented in the Galileo Galilee’s “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany” (1615). When considering those arguments we are to take into account the specification of that time: Church was the power of knowledge monopoly, had the right to prohibit research in the fields arguing with Bible and possession by scientists primitive research tools.
In order to understand arguments we are to understand under what circumstances Galileo Galilei has written this letter. Galilei was known as the supporter of Copernicus heliocentricity, which is the view that sun is the center and Earth is revolving around the Sun. Outcomes of Galileo research were new to the public. By the year of 1615, he did his observations of stars with the help of self-made telescope. After careful investigation of the planets, he drew the Moon’s phases as seen through the telescope, showed that the Moon’s surface is not smooth, but is uneven; discovered four moons revolving around Jupiter and many more stars which are invisible with naked eye. Based on this discoveries he developed his philosophical views and therefore questioned some passages in Bible. Because his conclusions made him one of the followers of Copernicanism, his thoughts were distinguished among the others and were revolutionary for those times.
Main arguments, which Galilei used for the support of copernicanism, were based first of all on the novelty of investigation. He is certain that “increase of known truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution or destruction”. As to me, this argument is very important as it widening the research limits and stimulates the world progress. This argument could also be found in his work as a theme, penetrating the text in different variations.
All his arguments are presented in a structured way and are logically connected. Because existed close relation between science and Church, heresy and its denial are the next leading argument in Galileo’s work. He is focusing on interpretation of some passages from Bible which are differently applied by theologians. In the Bible it is said: “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .” (Josh. 10:13) Galileo is convinced that main mistake of heresy and misunderstanding of Copernicus ideas is in applicability of some Bible passages to the needs and purposes of the Church. Understandably, Copernicus teachings (as well as Galileo’s) were questioning the all-powerfulness, all-knowing, creator of all-things – God. And it is not surprising, that the point he is discussing the most was about incorrect Bible interpretation.
Galileo states that there are astronomical arguments and physical effects which might be “derived from many things in [his] new celestial discoveries that plainly confute the Ptolemaic system while admirably agreeing with and confirming the contrary hypothesis”. As Paul Halsall states, those discoveries could not answer not only Ptolemaic system, but Aristotle’s argument as well. Copernicalism of Galileo did not prove that heliocentricity is true, because in that case there “would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun”. But when taking into account technology level of that time, no such a shift could be observed. Hence, Galileo Galilei is omitting this point and bases his argumentation mainly on his observations of Jupiter, moons around Jupiter and phases of Venus. After those discoveries he comes to the conclusion that stars were fixed in their relative positions to the earth, and only sun, moon and planets were moving in the space.
Galileo is expressing the thought that oppressive doctrine towards the scientists is causing troubles not only to that doctrine and its followers but to all (for instance) mathematics and mathematicians in general. It could be read through the lines that Galileo is seeing attempt of Church to have new findings under control and have possibility to regulate people’s minds in the way most suited for the Church. In my understanding, that was Galileo’s stumbling stone when he started proclaiming Copernicus heliocentric theory as the truth, not a scientific theory. Therefore moving the debate onto theological grounds for Galileo caused him further implications with Church.
According to the letter to Grand Duches, Galileo is trying to support Copernicanism because he has “never tried to discuss the matters of religion or faith nor does he use argument that depend in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted erroneously”. In fact, in his works he is using only astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, is basing his arguments on physical conclusions and exact observations. But this does not hinder to Galileo be acknowledged in theology as well. For instance, Copernicus himself was not only priest and canon, but he also knew, that doctrine could be proved only in case of coordination with Bible passages.
Galileo is not trying to give bare arguments, but he also is providing with specific passages in Bible that are contradictory themselves. Because God has delivered the world for the disputes, he is supporting free “philosophizing about mundane and physical things”. He is also taking the passage from Bible in his support, which is teaching us that the glory and greatness of God is marvelously distinguished in all his works and divinely read in the open book of heaven.
It could be assumed that Galileo Galilei is trying to reveal the tension between religious dogmas and individual reasoning. As to me, one of his considerable accomplishments is in self-emancipation, which has begun still during the Renaissance period and found its continuation in the Enlightenment Period. His contribution is tremendous and is valuated only with the flow of time.
References:
1. Galilei, Galileo. “Letter to the Grand Duchess, Christina (1615)”. Brooklin College. 5 June 2004. http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/B/Peter.Barker-1/HSCI3013/lgc2.htm
2. “Galileo Galilei”. Reference Library: Encyclopedia. Campus program. 7 June 2004. http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/g/ga/galileo_galilei.html
3. Halsall, Paul “Galileo controversy”. Catholic Answers. 5 June 2004. http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
4. Sharratt, Mariane. “Galileo: Decisive Innovator”. Cambridge (1994)