#there were very clear marriage contracts that prevented most gentry and aristocratic women from losing everything

[chocolatepot]

Very much agreed with the last post, and I'd also add that the idea of women "not working" is one that needs to be considered with a lot more nuance than it usually is.

Even above the level of artisans who participated in the family business (which was probably a bit socially higher/more prosperous than you think), women were active. They didn't clean or do the major cooking, they didn't do directly profitable work, but they had to be very wealthy before they could afford to hand over every domestic task to servants. And then on top of that ... I am running low on time right now, so I'll quote myself from elsewhere:

A large part of women's use of their needles when they didn't need-need to relates to the ideology around "women's work". Plain sewing was the quintessential womanly skill; a woman who couldn't manage a seam or a hem might be thought to be a frivol, inattentive to her duties. Spending too much time in idleness or pleasure-seeking was, if not sinful, a waste - not just in the eyes of society, but in their own self-opinions. Anna Larpent, an Englishwoman, left a diary of her own around the turn of the century that detailed her own sewing in even more detail than Anna Winslow Green's letters, and it shows that she was fairly constantly at work on sewing curtains, neckcloths, dust covers, and needle-cases, and embroidering handkerchiefs and chair cushions, as well as doing ordinary mending. In addition to providing the house and family with new or renewed items, this gave her a specific kind of pleasure: I can smile, I mended two shirts and two shifts ... and had it not been a duty how much rather would I have studied history or poetry, but I protest ... fulfilling my female duties warms my heart as much as Mental pursuits delights it ... * She also recorded that this work gave her time to digest and consider those mental pursuits that she had been pursuing earlier in the day. Regarding embroidery - there's another thing that tends to poorly-portrayed in pop culture, where it's made out to be a special kind of torture with no purpose. In reality, it's just the other side of the plain sewing coin, another type of womanly industry. The most basic embroidery, which served a necessary purpose, was stitching numbers and letters onto otherwise unremarkable undergarments and handkerchiefs, so that the owner ended up with them after laundering; this could be entrusted to children and any maidservants. Being able to spend valuable time on embroidering home furnishings and clothing (samplers and pretty pictures for the wall were projects for those learning the skill) was itself a privilege - and would result in something nice for the home or body. We can also regard it as an art like drawing or painting, though typically it isn't given the same respect as those two activities, which, of course, were mostly done professionally by men. A good way to understand sewing both plain and fancy is to compare them to modern-day DIY and crafting. It often saves a little money, but the real benefit is the feeling of accomplishment while working on the projects and using or looking at them after they're finished. There's a sense that what was created is better or more desirable not just because it's of a certain level of quality, but because it has the distinction of being made at home.

We consider all of this kind of thing "not work", but it was definitely considered "work" in the period for middle-class and even most gentry women. (Anna Larpent was the daughter of a British ambassador and the wife of a civil servant in the late 18th century. Her family rented a house in London and another in the country, and in addition to male staff she employed a housekeeper and multiple maids.) It was not like picking up an embroidery hoop, doing a few stitches, and putting it aside again a few minutes later out of boredom - it was like spending a day at the job of clothing the family (by making or at least cutting out their undergarments) or decorating the house.

A typical month's work can be seen in July 1799 when she "made three valences for the Eating Room Windows, and three pocket handkerchiefs for John, cut out four shirts for John and one for Mr Larpent, made a collar and sleeves for the latter, made a pair of mittens, finished a Hearth Carpet in X stitch, worked part of a gown for my sister, did much mending particularly chair covers old and worn which I patched into the pattern that they might be dyed."

"‘After they went I worked’ : Mrs Larpent and her Needlework, 1790–1800", by Mary Anne Garry in Costume, 39:1, 91-99 (2005)

* There is a lot to delve into wrt this quote and what it says about Larpent, her upbringing, and women's places in the world, but for right now in the present context it must suffice to say that this was in a private diary and should be assumed to be reasonably sincere. Other diary entries are straightforwardly positive about the relief she found in sewing.

This isn't hugely important to Bethany's point, as this would not bring in any money (but with the dowries and/or jointures and/or outright inheritances these characters have, they are in zero danger of needing to earn a living or being plunged into genteel poverty like the Bateses). It's just something I wish more people were aware of when they say that women didn't work or that women had nothing to do with themselves - it's important to be specific and talk about "working for a wage" or "being hired by an employer", because this kind of labor was considered vital to the household, and doing it was considered "working".

Also, the women Bethany is pointing out as leisured in Austen do not have to do this kind of thing at all, or rather, they have the luxury of being so wealthy that they can afford to rise above the "proper women are industrious" principle. Even the Bennets don't seem to do anything more than occasionally remake bonnets for amusement; Caroline Bingley and Fanny Dashwood are definitely not engaging in the work of mending clothes or sewing curtains, not because it would demean them but because there are other things they would rather spend their time on.

I really do think a big part of Austen's works is examining what happens when a lot of wealth and a lot of leisure brings out the worst in people. Most of her characters are Trust Fund Babies who never have and never will work a day in their lives. Even good landlords like Darcy can take two month vacations at their friend's houses without consequences beyond writing a few letters of business. Even some of the real jobs were hardly work, clergymen could (and did) hire dirt cheap curates to cover their sermons, landlords had stewards.

What sort of terrible behaviour results? A ton of greed, a lot of social envy (trying to get higher and richer in society), a lot of men and women treating love as a game (either for giggles or to marry up), a lot of indolence/laziness (Mr. Bennet and Lady Bertram), and a ton of pride despite having done nothing for their wealth and position except you know, being born (and often being born male).

How could a man flirt with women just for fun? He doesn't have anything else to think about or do! Why is that woman trying so hard to manipulate a rich man? It's her only way to attain wealth since it's uncouth for her to dirty her hands.

These people need actual jobs. I'm convinced Henry Crawford would be like an 80% better person if he had something to do with his life.

And then you have the fact that almost none of the actions of men have any real consequences, at least for themselves...