longer childhoods than their peers form the working-classes, especially if one considers a
children's own sentiment that its childhood ends as soon as it enters the world of employment
and allegedly adulthood.
42
Most children saw the end of their childhood with the beginning of
regular work outside the house.
43
It is a fact that `even when child labour was wide spread, the
children of the elite did not work'
44
just for the simple reason that economic considerations
didn't force them to do so. For that reason alone the duration of childhood between the single
classes was worlds apart. While working-class children went to work as early as possible to
support their families with their income at the beginning of Victoria's reign sometimes as
early as only five years old their affluent counterparts didn't go to work during their
childhoods at all. Boys finished their schooling and academic training before they left home
and started to work and girls were supposed to marry, not to work
45
. Working-class girls on
the other hand were working as early and as much as their brothers, oftentimes even more.
But upper and middle-class children hadn't had not only longer childhoods, they also stayed
minors longer and were way more dependent on their parents' financial support than their
working-class fellows. This resulted in the long lasting reliance of the affluent children on
their parents, even though if they were already of legal age.
46
In addition to their longer
childhoods it can also be said that better off children had fewer responsibilities, more and
better education and therefore, better prospects in life. They had more hours of leisure but less
freedom than their poorer peers who weren't always under the strict supervision of their
parents.
47
Although working-class parents surely loved their children, they neither had the
financial means nor the time to care for their children to that extend as upper and middle-class
parents could.
They simply couldn't afford to offer their children an extended childhood. Poverty was the
main reason why parents send their children to work at `ages when their richer peers were
deemed incapable of supporting themselves or of contributing to their family exchequer.'
48
In
sum this means that a child's expectations largely depended `on the economic status of the
family and the child's sex, for both of these helped determine his or her future prospects.'
49
longer childhoods than their peers form the working-classes, especially if one considers achildren's own sentiment that its childhood ends as soon as it enters the world of employmentand allegedly adulthood.42Most children saw the end of their childhood with the beginning ofregular work outside the house.43It is a fact that `even when child labour was wide spread, thechildren of the elite did not work'44just for the simple reason that economic considerationsdidn't force them to do so. For that reason alone the duration of childhood between the singleclasses was worlds apart. While working-class children went to work as early as possible tosupport their families with their income at the beginning of Victoria's reign sometimes asearly as only five years old their affluent counterparts didn't go to work during theirchildhoods at all. Boys finished their schooling and academic training before they left homeand started to work and girls were supposed to marry, not to work45. Working-class girls onthe other hand were working as early and as much as their brothers, oftentimes even more.But upper and middle-class children hadn't had not only longer childhoods, they also stayedminors longer and were way more dependent on their parents' financial support than theirworking-class fellows. This resulted in the long lasting reliance of the affluent children ontheir parents, even though if they were already of legal age.46In addition to their longerchildhoods it can also be said that better off children had fewer responsibilities, more andbetter education and therefore, better prospects in life. They had more hours of leisure but lessfreedom than their poorer peers who weren't always under the strict supervision of theirparents.47Although working-class parents surely loved their children, they neither had thefinancial means nor the time to care for their children to that extend as upper and middle-classparents could.They simply couldn't afford to offer their children an extended childhood. Poverty was themain reason why parents send their children to work at `ages when their richer peers weredeemed incapable of supporting themselves or of contributing to their family exchequer.'48Insum this means that a child's expectations largely depended `on the economic status of thefamily and the child's sex, for both of these helped determine his or her future prospects.'49
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..