The Never Ending Cycle

When have women not worked toward something…that is when have they not courageously and/or tirelessly worked to uphold a standard of living or lifestyle? There was the industrious housewife of the colonial period.[1] the brave nurses and female workers and fighters during the civil war.[2] the women who worked (or worked hard not to work) to keep a 20-inch waist and clean hems. [3] Female slaves who risked everything to free their families and others from the bonds of slavery.[4] Think of the women who belonged to the Temperance and Suffrage movements of the early 1900’s.[5] All the way to the confined middle class housewives of the 1950’s working to uphold the “happy housewife standard” or the boycotting African American women of the South against the Jim Crow laws who led the way for the Civil Rights movement.[6] Of course, don’t forget the efforts of the women during the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960’s and early 1970’s.[7] When have women not stayed busy with the expectations and/or injustices of their time?

The irony of the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries, is that women who have more rights and freedoms than ever before in America’s history, are still working tirelessly to meet some new end that may never be met. Gail Collins describes the modern day goals women have, which are to become “self-sufficient” as well as the desire (for many but not all) to “work and then a lengthy break to raise the family, followed by a second-stage career that would soar.” Why do women seem to reach for the unreachable and aren’t satisfied unless they have “had the chance to try” to make it the reality? Collins gives a great quote from a story found in Time magazine, stating: “[A]s women have gained more freedom, more economic power, they have become less happy.” [8] The question is…will women ever be happy?

In the late 20^th century and into the modern day, parenting has attracted “little social respect” and the placement of the family, as a “social priority,” seems to drop lower and lower on the list. As a whole, maybe women’s lack of happiness is influenced by this gap between career and family (or work and love). Stephanie Coontz points out this developing “career mystique” that not only affects women, but men as well.[9] Jobs seem to require more and more effort and time from its employees while the majority of men and women would rather be doing something else (like raising a family and/or enjoying their free time). Coontz explains that most people “would choose free time over money,” and that maybe the next step (or true happiness) lies in the ability to embark in “shared parenting” which might call for the true equality of the sexes sought for from the beginning.[10] Then again, no matter how women try, expectations and goals for a better life seem to fade into some new shortage or dilemma. As Gail Collins explains, “if the sky is the limit, most people would feel they had fallen short,” and therefore happiness (in regards to the ideal life) may not be a realistic goal.[11]

This proclamation was made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the family in the  mid-1990's stating just what the family means to those of the mormon faith. As the role of women has changed so drastically throughout history, this document is used as a standard to help LDS members define the woman's role and the importance of family. Thought it might be interesting to post.  Click Here 

1.   Gail Collins, America’s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines, (Harper Perennial, New York, 2003), 49.

2.   Collins, 197-203.

3.     Collins, America’s Women, 122.

4.     Collins, America’s Women, 157.

5.     Collins, America’s Women, 314-322.

6.     Collins, America’s Women, 400, 414.

7.     Gail Collins, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 to the Present, (Back Bay Books, New York, 2009), 178-181.

8.     Collins, When Everything Changed, 409.

9.     Stephanie Coontz, A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960’s, (Basic Books, New York, 2011), 183.

10. Coontz, A Strange Stirring, 186.

11. Gail Collins, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 to the Present, (Back Bay Books, New York, 2009), 409.

To Be or Not to Be...Confined in a Home or Break Free?

Can a woman who once studied “Baudelaire” and “wrote poetry” or had volunteered for defense jobs or flown planes find her complete identity when exchanging her intellect and personal progression for washing clothes and changing diapers?[1] After WWII media, politics and the work force tried to send women (particularly white middle class women) back to their homes as full-time mothers, and was to a great degree very successful. The promotions went from applauding women “who held down jobs” in order to support the troops to the expectation that they get married, have children and become a housewife. This change of place for women in society seemed more “mandatory” than a choice.[2]

During the 1950’s over 95 percent of the women who were old enough did indeed get married and it was a great time for many American women to be housewives. The economic conditions were favorable. There were “generous benefits” for returning soldiers that allowed them to provide for their family while still going to school.[3] The question is, however, was this what they really wanted or just what society wanted? Society (media and promotions) tried to convince women that they would be most happy as a wife and mother at home, not in the work force or at school. If a woman felt depressed or unsatisfied, then she needed to “changer her feelings to reconcile herself to her role in the family.”[4] On top of this, many women who had their children rather quickly became early empty nesters. Could a woman still be a happy homemaker with no children at home? Gail Collin points out that the “lonely years” that awaited this large group of homemakers was a problem that previous generations had never faced.[5]

In 1963 Betty Friedman wrote a book titled The Feminine Mystique which targeted the white middle class woman’s stifling situation. Stephanie Coontz explains, The Feminine Mystique electrified a layer of women ‘in between,’ women who might otherwise have been lost entirely, to themselves and to the woman’s movement.” Women who once were engulfed in “deep self-doubt and despair” now not only more fully recognized their situation but also realized that they could make a choice to change their situation.[6] Friedman encouraged her readers to improve their lives through getting an education “and to make sure their life plan included developing the capacity to engage in creative work.”[7] The Feminine Mystique, according to Coontz, also helped African American and working class women improve their status in a complicated but real manner.[8]

Understanding the women’s situation during the 1950’s helps one realize the importance of choice. Just as Prohibition (though a thought to be honorable motive) could not really legislate morality, [9] society should not pressure and restrict women in their choices of what they want to be in life. Though being a housewife is an honorable choice it is not the only choice. Personally, if feel that a woman will find great happiness if she has both, and to do that she needs the proper support. Such as having a husband who does want his wife to have her own career and is willing to help raise their children or childcare that available to help.[10] During the 1950’s mothers and wives did not have much support from husbands or society in their role as housewives.

Here are some pictures from some 1950's women's magazines that show the ideal housewife in action:

1.     Stephanie Coontz, A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960’s, (Basic Books, New York, 2011), 113.

2.     Gail Collins, America’s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines, (Harper Perennial, New York, 2003), 382 & 406.

3.     Collins, America’s Women, 399.

4.     Coontz, A Strange Stirring, 73.

5.     Gail Collins, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 to the Present, (Back Bay Books, New York, 2009),55-56.

6.     Coontz, A Strange Stirring, 161.

7.     Coontz, A Strange Stirring, 149.

8.     Coontz, A Strange Stirring, 138.

9.     Gail Collins, America’s Women, 339.

10. Coontz, A Strange Stirring, 94.

The Small Things Make A Difference

From riding on a bicycle in a long skirt to driving in a Model T Ford wearing a shortened sleeveless dress, the early 20^th century was full of twists and turns for American women.[1] New opportunities arose for women’s involvement in societal affairs. Women could take part in reformist movements, display new fashions, buy new products, seek a better education, experience better entertainment, find new jobs and live more freely as a whole in society. With all these changes, it appeared that the bicycle was the most important change that emerged.

When looking at the early 20^th century there are more than a few great moments for women that could easily be labeled as the greatest change for women. The reformists Jane Addams was a great leader of change. Addams had the ability to mobilize the skills of “well-educated women” who in return helped hundreds of poor immigrants. Hull House was a great accomplishment for her time, which helped improve the lives of the destitute.[2] The Temperance Movement pulled large amounts of women together to end the destroying influences of alcohol. [3] Frances Willard created the largest women’s organization of the time, the WCTU, to promote moral codes of law.[4]Alice Paul helped lead the Suffragist Movement to its long awaited victory in 1920.[5] Eleanor Roosevelt was celebrated for her ability to be a mother, wife and help lead the country with her husband from the White House. She proved that women were indeed fit for politics and could be independent and married.[6] All of these historical events and experiences seem like the ideal candidates for the greatest change of the time for women—so why the bicycle?

Many of the historical movements or people mentioned above were limited in their ability to change the lot for women as a whole. The Temperance Movement, for example, was able to pull women together for a common cause, but its success was limited since the next generations of young women seized the “flapper decade” and openly welcomed all that the temperance women fought against.[7] Alice Paul and Frances Willard both found that their efforts were somewhat “unfortunate”  since their effects only went so far.[8]

The bicycle, though not as advanced as the Model T Ford or as inspiring as the bans of women who gathered together during the Temperance Movement, gave women a simple yet powerful vehicle for personal thrill and freedom that was new to the women of that era. Frances Willard said she had been converted to this new development and then encouraged her female followers to do the same. Women’s clothing was loosened and fashioned for this outdoor activity (which was unthinkable during the Victorian era). Women found a new sort of independence. Gail Collins describes its effect, “[W]omen who had spent their lives wrapped in corsets and weighed down by heavy skirts must have been thrilled to be able to go flying down the street on two wheels.” Just the fact that women could dress more freely, move more quickly and ride around more independently seemed to create a new mindset that change was in the air for women and if it wasn’t they could make the changes. Women had just been given the key to a new physical autonomy which supported and maybe even helped spawn the “New Woman” mentality they needed to grasp the opportunities on the horizon.[9]

Here is a quick clip of women at the end of the 19th century riding bicycles in their long dresses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1iaF4Np2PU

1.       Gail Collins, America’s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines, (Harper Perennial, New York, 2003), 328.

2.       Collins, 284-286.

3.       Collins, 317-318.

4.       Jean H. Baker, Sisters: The Lives of America’s Suffragists, (Hill and Wang, New York, 2005), 162.

5.       Baker, 224.

6.       Collins, 356-359.

7.       Collins, 327-330.

8.       Baker, 181 & 225.

9.       Collins, 279-281.