Ye werken womman c. 1387 |
The Go-Between, written in 1952 about 1900, is absolutely stunning and near the end made me think of Wuthering Heights. (I discovered afterwards, while reading the Penguin Modern Classics' introduction, that I was right to do so.) As good novels do, it both debunks and promotes myths, here of a "golden age."
I am glad of the promotion, for civilizational health relies on myth. When Americans stop weeping over "The Star-Spangled Banner" and thanking veterans for their service, the USA is toast. But fortunately for my American readers, the USA is likely to survive Old Canada, which will die with the last Canadians to learn "The Maple Leaf Forever" at school. L.M. Montgomery's Avonlea may have been fiction, but I'd rather be a Canadian with Avonlea in her heart than a corrosive hatred for her ancestors.
Interestingly, on my flight back to Canada I read Johann Strauss: Father and Son and Their Era by Hans Fantel (1971), which is also very good and also debunks and promotes the myth of a golden age. It also speaks in the same accent as the traditionalist Catholic Austrians I know, who both rejoice in Vienna's glorious past and seethe over what has happened to it since.
I read the latter to try to understand the waltz. My poor parents plunked down up to $15 a week for me to take piano lessons for years and years without succeeding in making me musical. I much prefer silence to music, but I have committed to the waltz, so I should like to know more about it. It is also a "traditional" ballroom dance--although of course it was at one point considered revolutionary and immoral--and I am as interested in living traditions as in healthy myths.
Incidentally, the idea that women didn't work for money before Ms. magazine rolled off the presses on July 1, 1972 is not a healthy myth. For one thing, there have been female paid domestic servants and farmers for millennia. As for the lettered, English-speaking women have openly written for money since 1688. Unmarried women survived as paid governesses from the 17th century into the 20th century, and as schoolteachers from the late 19th century. My Canadian grandmother was a teacher until she married; my American grandmother (born 1904) was a bookkeeper.
There have also been, probably since the beginning of commerce, women in trades that don't rely on brute strength or in family businesses. The New Testament records that (in Acts 13) a certain Lydia of Thyatira was a dye saleswoman. Over 1300 years later, Chaucer characterized the Wife of Bath as a wealthy woman in the textile industry.
That large numbers of European and North American women of quite humble origins did not go out to work in the19th and 20th centuries--not even in fields--strikes me not as "traditional" but as a historical anomaly. And as we have seen, it has proved to be unsustainable for all but the rich or the very determined. It is very difficult for men today to command the kind of wages commensurate with running a middle-class household according to the expectations of 1900.
And so I work and try to get along with men who think I shouldn't. When, at my work event this week, a man recommended that I read Mrs. Timothy Gordon's Ask your Husband: A Wife's Guide to True Femininity, I affably promised to do so because I want to see what she brings to the debate.
One of the perks of this work event was staying in a business-class hotel with a a splendid gym; there I did bicep curls and other activities I do not expect to find in Mrs. Tim's opus. I very much enjoyed looking at the Canadian sky while running on the treadmill and travelling from this gym to my suite without having to go outdoors. There were lots of fluffy white towels that renewed themselves daily and apparently the bed remade itself. The breakfast buffet was bounteous and delicious. It crossed my mind that it might be nice to live permanently in a hotel, if one could afford to do so. However, now it escapes my mind how I thought I would get a whole post out of that fanciful notion.
UPDATE: Benedict Ambrose says he's going to write a book, too. He will call it either Make Me A Sandwich or How Interesting. Where's My Dinner? He's currently in the kitchen washing the dishes, so I am not taking this pronouncement very seriously.
Mrs Mclean, you should read Feminism against Progress by Mary Harrington - it's very good on the history of working women and the anomalies brought about by the industrial revolution.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to read your review of the Gordon book - personally, I find TG the most ghastly theobro on twitter (and he has stiff competition). He's openly said he doesn't allow his wife to have a mobile phone or to leave the house without his permission (just too many red flags to count). I cannot understand why so many trads think the and his wife should be listened to on anything, they almost seem like textbook "how not to live a Catholic marriage". So your always nuanced opinion would be welcome!
Well, thank you very much. I read something recently about obedience--I think in the context of priests and bishops--that people are not called obedience in the same way dogs are. He described obedience as a profound respect and attention to what someone had to say. St. Teresa Benedetta of the Cross (Edith Stein) believed that man should have the sense to know to be ruled on a certain matter by his wife, too. I'm very glad you brought up the obedience question because I think it might be something very difficult for young trads to sort out. On the mobile phone matter, it may be that Mr G can't afford to pay for it but doesn't like to say so. On the leaving the house, well, I suppose it's good manners to always tell your spouse if you're leaving so he or she has an idea where you are. But bragging of total domination over another adult human strikes me as very unAmerican, not to mention no part of European Christianity. Ottoman Empire, sure.
ReplyDelete*Called to obedience. And it's me, Mrs. McLean
ReplyDeleteOh wow. Just saw in a review the book's idea that women should take themselves out of the workforce to make room for men. This suggests the author believes either that women should put other men's interests before those of her husband or that she thinks a man receives no benefits from his wife's gainful employment. I can imagine that there are some men (fewer than we might think) who can carry the entire financial burden of the household on their shoulders, but I KNOW that there are men--for reasons not their own fault but stemming from the economy, household expenditure, or their health--who simply cannot. If you ask me, the kind wife pays attention to her husband's own particular strengths and preferences and tailors her own contributions to what is lacking. For example, my husband loves to cook but not keeping accounts. He's delighted I keep the accounts, and I am very grateful to have a hot supper before me every night.
ReplyDelete(And that's me, Mrs McL again)
DeleteAnd I wish there was an edit feature on comments! Mrs McL
DeleteYes very good point. For example my husband has asked me to keep working (which I am very happy to do) as he feels it would be too precarious in this economy to survive on one income, especially as we want to send our 3 children to a private traditional Catholic school eventually, and the only way to afford that is to have 2 incomes! So in TG's world, I would be committing a mortal sin by working, but if I didn't work I would be disobeying my husband...?! Square that circle!
ReplyDeleteAlso, not everuone is cut out to home school, and it's not always the right option for every child.
ReplyDeleteAnother point: I guess this statement that women should make room for men probably has to do with a lot of men being unemployed? In that case: men, strive to be better at your jobs, then you will get the jobs and not the women. As an employer, I would want to have the person who is best qualified. And what about jobs that women feel more drawn to than men? Will men become nurses and teachers if women stop working?
ReplyDeleteIn the UK and Canada (and I would guess the USA), men DO become schoolteachers--originally a male dominated profession--and even nurses, but it is true--and St. Edith Stein would back me on this--that women do feel more drawn to some professions than to others. As for home schooling, I believe you are correct: some mothers are just not cut out for it. One of my ancestresses, incidentally, worked at a profession so she could send her children to a private Catholic school.
DeletePlease have male teachers. My daugher's math teacher gives importance to form and method. I think this is great for her kind of learning. But I can imagine boys being frustrated for losing points when finding solutions in different ways. (Boys are hunters and girls are gatherers?)
DeleteI suspect - I'm not sure - that the definition of obedience St Edith employs in the passage you cite would have been considered 'modernist' in the 19th century. I hope not, but I recall a blog discussion with a pleasant, highly intelligent, but ultra-trad male Catholic what he would think if a woman well-trained in finance was to marry a man whose vision of obedience involved managing household investments himself, although he lacked any training and had a record of bad financial decisions. The blogger said yes, this wife would have to submit in spite of the risk to the family's money.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know if admitting women can be good at business is a matter of doctrine at all. Putting aside the Stein family, St. Zelie Martin's lacemaking business took precedence over her husband's watchmaking concern, and she died in 1877. Really, people are so nonsensical about money. St Edith's idea was that the husband, the head of the household, should have the sense to consult his wife in matters beyond him, and then be guided by her opinion. Maybe your ultra-trad would be satisfied with that. Meanwhile, it's a rare and saintly ultra-trad male Catholic who will concede an intellectual argument on the internet.
DeleteI am pleased to learn about St Edith's teaching. I suspect your comment about ultra-trad males is right. And btw, I am Alias Clio, as perhaps you might have guessed . (I wasn't trying to hide; I just didn't know how this template worked.) Sorry my original comment was a little incoherent; I kept changing it as I wrote until I lost track.
DeleteThe template is a pain in the neck. I really don't know what has happened to Blogger over the years. (Mrs McL)
DeleteWe pressure our daughters to excel academically and then tell them to focus on their family needs over their career when they marry. Is not that a joke to tell them that at the last minute? And then we ask why mothers feel guilty for not spending their whole energy in succeeding outside the home. Are they all superwomen that can have it all? I really do not know the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteWhat you do is what you are convinced you are called to do, depending on your state in life. What the outside world (for example, women's magazines) says, doesn't matter a damn. I think it is a good idea for every woman to have a solid trade so that, when she must, she can fit moneymaking into her (other) family responsibilities. Every woman can only do so much, and in the 19th century (and up to World War I) women married to professional men had servants. (Women servants were paid low wages, so--like in India today--any middle-class woman could afford at least one, and indeed in the UK, a lot of women--even childless ones--hire "cleaners".) This superwomen "having it all" thing is a Baby Boomer myth. And, by the way, I don't see a woman killing herself with two jobs "having it all."
DeleteMany people don’t realize that rich women in the past not only had servants to cook and clean, but governesses as well so that they could focus on running the household and being attentive hostesses to guests. Some women in Jane Austen’s time ran boarding schools for girls. Women worked in factories during the Industrial Revolution.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible itself doesn’t insist that all women be SAHM. Exodus 1:15-22 cites that women were midwives and even stood up to the Pharaoh who ordered them to murder baby boys. “And because the midwives feared God he gave them families” (21). Proverbs 31:10-31 praise wives who make money on the side.
Lots of college or university graduates, especially in the U.S. have school debt that takes them decades to pay off. So having a housewife isn’t very practical. The employment world isn’t what it used to be.
One grandpa of mine didn’t finish high school but took on an apprenticeship to become a plumber’s assistant. He supported himself, his wife, and three kids without my grandma needing to work outside the home. My other grandpa graduated from high school, did one year of technical school, and made a living doing engineering work. He also supported himself, his wife, and three kids without my grandma needing to work outside the home.
Not every woman is cut out to be a SAHM. Wives may resent their husbands and kids if it isn’t for them. Their families will likely pick up on it. We don’t want kids growing up thinking that they’re burdens. We also don’t want women to think that they must choose between motherhood and their dreams. How many pro-choice advocates claim that babies will get in the way of women having fulfilling lives?
SAHMs with degrees are often accused of wasting their education or that they do nothing all day. Why they don’t consider cooking, cleaning, and caring for kids work is beyond me. Cooks, maids, janitors, day care workers, babysitters, and nannies are paid to do such tasks. I encountered a man who insisted that housewives were leeches, living off their husband’s money instead of working.