Ruth Foster lives independently and doesn’t understand why this is a problem. Why do you believe it was?
I felt glad Ruth could grow up in that time frame and think of living independently as not a problem. I think this was often seen as an overall safety issue for young women. My mother and my grandmothers each lived at home until they married. In the 1970’s I went from college dorm to marriage, so never had to decide. But I had friends who chose to have roommates rather than live alone. We never had the fear though of our lifestyle being observed and then being taken off to a reformatory! I saw this as the problem in Ruth’s era and location. We had more a city fear of safety from men who noticed women being alone. My two daughters each had periods post-college where they lived alone. I was glad this was seen as a more normal option for women then.
The ability to be independent was very important to Ruth. Parents would of course worry about their daughter being exposed to predators of varying natures, but public opinion would more likely have been one of suspicion. Not to be in the home, perhaps seeing men outside of the home would have easily caused malicious gossip, unfortunately usually generated be women themselves. Her mother seemed to be concerned for her general welfare but not from a sexual exposure basis. I’d consider her a front-runner to female independence.
I think Ruth’s independence challenged the established patriarchal society. By not needing a man to take care of her she was defying the existing system.
Women were not considered to have the ability to manage money, hold a job, own property. A woman doing that was highly suspicious to society at that time
At that time a young woman was expected to marry and have children. Society was suspicious of one who didn’t want that kind of life. Her mother’s encouragement contributed to her lack of understanding of the problem.
It was not the norm in that time for a women to live alone. She was supposed to be married and have children. People would think there was something if a woman didn’t marry.
I agree with the other commenters that Ruth living alone posed a threat to the existing patriarchy. It’s interesting that it is the “promiscuous women” who were to be punished under the law to prevent venereal diseases, but not the men who might have been spreading those infections. The women and girls are the ones tempting the poor, helpless men. Like Stella tempted her father. Like women, even today, are accused of tempting their rapists with how they are dressed and acting.
Certainly this was a sign of the times that Ruth was looked down on for being independent. And those of us that live independently even now experience this on occasion. Our country was built by and for white men so this isn’t so surprising. I’m glad that Ruth was able to break that mold and be self-sufficient. This gave her the strength to get through life at the colony.
Ruth is doing something different than the norm of living at home until married. When you do something different it is quickly questioned and is often assumed to being done for negative reasons. I was glad Ruth wanted to live alone but I could see that this would make her a target.
She was a woman before her time in that she was independent and able to manage her own money. Having a mother who encouraged her also contributed to her feeling that this was perfectly fine. Society felt otherwise.
I had two Aunts that never married living during WWII. One lived with a married sister and her family. The other lived independently. She had polio as a child and ended up with one leg shriveled so she walked with a limp. She had a good job. Of my six aunts, plus my mom, she lived to be the oldest. She died at age 95. The married Aunts, and my mom did not live past 72. I think that says a lot. I do not think there was a problem with Ruth living alone. The problem was society’s.