Whenever I think of whitewash, I think of the story from Tom Sawyer where he tricks the other children into whitewashing his Aunt Polly’s fence for him. My mother taught Junior High English and Choir and I remember when she did Tom Sawyer as a play. I can still see the children on stage, paint brushes in hand, making the ugly fence pretty.
Whitewash is a thin plaster applied like paint. It was often used to pretty up walls, fences, and to create a nice finish. Whitewash covered up a multitude of cosmetic sins, and long ago (as early as the founding fathers) became a term used to describe people who needed a public relations makeover.
The term “Whitewashed Feminist” is something that we’ve pondered the meaning of at some length. Especially us here at this blog. But it wasn’t until a couple of days ago that I really began thinking about the use of the term “whitewashed” and what it really means.
If you take away the whitewash you have a feminist. Now, if a feminist was a good thing, one would have no need to cover it in whitewash to make it palatable. So, first we know that, at it’s core, this is an insult. Being a whitewashed feminist is to be something ugly, covered with a veneer to make it pleasing.
So now we have to figure out what it means to be a feminist, and if it’s really such a bad thing. As in many things, I’m fairly moderate. For example, I constantly look for ways to make my living more ecologically friendly. I don’t consider myself to be an environmentalist, but a conservationist. I see environmentalism as going to an extreme that I am not comfortable with, but I believe that we are to be stewards of the earth and wish to do my part to conserve our natural resources and protect the gift that God has given us.
The same principle of moderation can easily be applied to feminism. The early feminists in the United States were trying to correct what they saw as injustices. I can see nothing wrong with offering women equal pay for equal work, or allowing her to own property in her own name, or retain custody of her children when divorced, or a number of other things that the early feminists worked for. Feminism at it’s core was about helping women, not elevating women above men or taking away those qualities inherently feminine.
I blame extremists for taking feminism so far that men are afraid to complement a woman, hold a door open for her, or pay for dinner. It is such extremism that has pushed many who would otherwise agree with the feminist ideals, to turn their backs on it and distance themselves. But when I look at the core values, I find myself agreeing with what they wished to accomplish.
It seems to me that the pendulum swings, and one extreme is answered with another. Some feminists have taken us to the point where men no longer no how to speak to a lady. That is answered with the idea that we must turn our backs on all the feminist principles in their entirety and amuse ourselves with embroidery, tea, and housework, never aspiring to more than being glorified baby-making machines.
But as I said earlier, I am fairly moderate. If I’m wearing a pretty dress I will gladly take a compliment. I like skirts, tea, Jane Austen novels, my children, and my husband. I also like getting paid the same as my male counterparts, knowing I can be gainfully employed if I so desire or need to be, and that I have the power to provide for myself and my family. I can embrace the basic ideals of both being a feminist and being feminine. No whitewash necessary, for there is nothing ugly, no cosmetic sin to be covered up. I am but a child of God, thankful for her blessings and learning to live a life of balance.
Like many ’causes’, when taken to either extreme, it becomes ridiculous. But people are afraid of being labeled a bad word (sexist, feminist, liberal, conservative, etc,.) *Smiles* And these are not all necessarily bad things in general, but they have been made extreme by the vocal minority… and then common sense goes out the window in the face of the fear of ‘rocking the boat.’
I think it is telling that the majority of the backlashing anti-feminists tend to be Gen-X’ers. There are a few elder statesmen, but you don’t see a lot of baby boomers flocking to this movement (I think – correct me if I am wrong – it is my impression). This is the first generation that grew up assuming all the “rights” that were fought for; they really have no idea what was fought for, and what was gained. I remember my mom telling me how when my dad left her in 1975, she struggled b/c she couldn’t get a credit card or buy a house simply b/c she was a WOMAN. Her dad had to cosign even though she had held a steady job for more than 10 years and supported the family. It is one thing to *choose* to be submissive – it is another to be truly legally discriminated against.
Yes—it disturbs me that so many anit-feminist comments come from women who really have no clue what it means to live without rights. Most of these women are young and have not lived long enough to fully understand the lengths that women have gone to in order to make their own lives better.
I think Robyn said it very smartly above when she said “It is one thing to choose to be submissive, it is another to be truly legally discriminated against.”
Should the shoe ever fall on the other foot, and these patrio women find themselves alone and needing work, they will rue the day they wished women didn’t have the right to work for another man. They will not be pleased about unfair wages and social discriminations towards mothers with children in the workforce.
I never thought I’d be a career woman. But life changed and I had no choice but to get a job. Life is messy and it happens sometimes when we’re least expecting it.
My advice for these women? Don’t tear up your voter’s registration just yet, and count your blessings that you have the CHOICE to be a full time wife and mother who doesn’t have to worry about silly things such as holding down a real job.
Robyn – My wife commented on that very thing as she watched the various “Mommy blogs.” She saw that the older women (like her) don’t seem to be falling for this craziness, whereas many of the younger ones seem to be cluelessly jumping at it. It would probably be an interesting thing to study because I think it is motivated by more than just a lack of understanding of how hard the fight for these rights has been and how hard the lack of these rights was on women in the past (and continues to be in some lingering areas today).
I think there is something societal that has created a desire in these women that they think will be fulfilled by turning to this lifestyle. I wonder if they see an idealistic world and think that the patrio-lifestyle has the potential of creating that idealistic world, as if there was no sin curse remaining.
I also think that my generation (I’m 30) were the first ones to really grow up in the divorce culture. In an effort to “not let our kids grow up the way WE did, etc.”, some of them have gone too far in the other direction. It’s very tempting to wrap it up all neat and tidy and say that feminism is the sole cause of the disintergration of the American family today. But…nah. It’s because people are sinners and they act like sinners. I don’t think the extreme feminist movement (bra burning, man bashing) has helped things at all but to write off things such as women having the right to vote or own property is throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
It is too easy to blame radical feminism, the culture, public education, or any number of things for the state of our world. Our world is fallen. It is not the perfect world that God created for us. We are the reason that our world is as it is, and that includes Christians.
If we go around blaming things like feminism, it seems too easy to give ourselves a free pass and not look at what in our own lives needs to be corrected.
Anne, ITA. It always rubs me the wrong way when something other then sin is blamed for the world’s ills.
The cries of “feminism! feminism!” sort of remind me of Chicken LIttle and “the sky is falling! the sky is falling!” Chicken little was misunderstood, and so are most real feminists.
Most feminists I know are not the extreme bra-burning types that Doug and Vision Forum would have us to believe are self-same ones who are dragging down the church and families all over America.
ITA with JohannaS. I’m of that younger generation (at 26) and I feel like my generation is falling for so many things because they want a nice, pretty package. When your entire childhood is based in a broken home life from divorce or latch key or what have you, these VF paradigms, anti-feminism…look really really attractive. It looks stable. But I am so shocked at what my fellow generation does not know about themselves- from both the big picture (faith, feminism, racism, world culture) to the basic (how to manage money, what credit really means, how to market/shop, what marketable skills are.) Lost, in the truest sense of the term. And easily sunk by millstones. It breaks my heart.
This discussion about generations is very interesting.
Think about this way. Until about the 60-70′s the culture and Christendom both viewed women as subordinate/inferior to men. Y0u see it in the interpretation of scripture and you see it in the behavior of culture, i.e., women were property to women could not get credit on their own, etc.
The ‘place’ of women was a given and only a few suffragetes in the early 20th Century were trying to really change things.
Then the culture decided different just as they did with slavery. I believe 2 World Wars were the catalyst for this change of thinking in our culture toward women. But then this change started permeating our churches. This was a huge shock and a fight against ‘feminism’ started within the church in the 70′s. The church reacted to the culture but the irony is not lost because:
But what really happened? The church had been interpreting scripture on this issue wrongly for 1600 years! They were interpreting it through the lens of Judeo-Roman-Greek cultures! A lot of it started when Constantine institutionalized the church. Just looking at how Genesis 3:16 was interpreted in early manuscripts proves this. It gradually changed to communicate something very different! And if we do not get the creation and fall account right…we get nothing else correct when dealing with this issue.
We can track the slavery issue and how it was excused and condoned using scripture to see a perfect example of what I am talking about with culture and scripture.
But sinful man is never satisfied. They want more and more power and control so they ADD to the pre-fall account and READ INTO it a hierarchy that does not exist. And since so many are waking up to that they are now resorting to a form of Arianism and claiming inherent hierarchies within the Body and marriage by claiming an eternal hierarchy within the Trinity for all time!
So, the bottom line is that scripture has been interpreted through the lens of culture for a long time. And this claim that the culture is wrecking our churches is quite ironic. It has been doing that for centuries.
Just as the printing press and literacy worked to advance the Reformation, easy access to resources such as online Greek and Hebrew are bringing about advances in scripture interpretation. It is not changing the message it is increasing our knowledge of the TRUE message.
I am to the point that I mainly use interlinear bibles online to really understand a passage. I am an inerrantist all the way but I do not trust the inerrancy of the translators!
As to these young women buying into Patriarchy, I agree that it seems safe for them after the upheaveal of divorce and the slide of culture into Sodom. Don’t forget that more and more American women are becoming Muslim. Islam is growing. Mormonism is growing. These and Patriarchy are rules based religions with formulas, a checklist of rules to follow and that is much easier to do than “To live-is Christ”!
Lin – outstanding comment. I think your analysis is spot on.
Lin, I wish I could give your comment a standing ovation.
Good points, Lin!
I agree with the “youngins” seeming to fall more for this stuff. I am 33, and a lot of it did seem appealing. My parents are divorced, as are my husband’s (he is 27). We weren’t raised Christian. Their (patrio) line seems very…safe and comforting at first.
All of our friends that are into this are in their late 20s-mid 30s… Thank the Lord for our 80 year old pastor who has met with me and my husband! We have been able to bounce things off of him and he has given us a more balanced perspective. If it weren’t for him, I think we would’ve fallen even deeper into it than we have.
Fascinating comments, all!
After being born and raised in an extremely conservative tradition (and home/church schooled), I was startled at age 25 to discover that my college professors–every one a feminist–were generally warm, engaging, supportive people who loved their families and were often active members in their churches. None of them fit the profile I’d been warned about all my life! I’ve lived in a sub-culture that rejects feminism and a sub-culture that embraces it, and I have to say I prefer the later.
My biggest frustration is with people who say they believe in equal pay/equal representation/etc. but then loudly state, “But I’m NOT a feminist!” Maybe they don’t know what a feminist is and don’t understand that they have feminists to thank for much of their professional/economic mobility? It’s none of my business what people call themselves–I’m gun-shy of labels myself, but statements like these trouble me because… well, I hate to say it sounds hypocritical, but it seems not to give due credit to the women who–imperfectly, sometimes–dedicated their lives to bring about justice that we enjoy today. (Sorry. I don’t mean to sound preachy–I write this as a general sentiment and not directed at anyone here.)
So when a 22-year-old friend who romaniticizes 1950′s family life said to me as if it was my first day of kindergarten, “You know, feminists did a lot of harm to women,” I was at a loss for words. Her mother encourages her to go to law school; my mother was concerned that I learned how to single-handedly butcher chickens before I left home and was more pleased to hear my boss exclaim how submissive I was than to hear about my promotions. So when my friend says things like that, I just mentally roll my eyes, thinking that everyone has a right to be 22 and idealistic once in their lifetime.
As everyone here seems to agree, when traditional roles/submission is a choice, it’s a far different situation from being denied a choice at all.
“If you take away the whitewash you have a feminist. Now, if a feminist was a good thing, one would have no need to cover it in whitewash to make it palatable. So, first we know that, at it’s core, this is an insult.”
The insult goes deeper, in my opinion, because it references Matthew 23:27 and carries additional contextual insult.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
I cannot say whether the “Passionate Housewives” intended to ascribe to “whitewashed feminists” the traits of the hypocrites which Jesus decried. However, they do communicate an attitude towards those women who do not embrace their so-called “Biblical” subculture, that we are merely “outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. “
TG,
When I read my friend’s copy of Passionate Housewives, that verse is the first thing that came to my mind…
TG, I also thought of that passage when I first heard the term. What a sad label, no matter what way it was intended.
Tulipgirl, I’d never thought of that verse, but it certainly does add another facet to the term “whitewashed feminist”. Wonderful insight, thank you!
I agree about the verse mentioned. I imagined that what was implied in the book was that Christian women who were “whitewashed feminists” were fooling themselves. Meaning, if Christian women embraced feminism in any way, shape, or form, they were no different than the most worldly feminist out there. Yikes.
My gut reaction, also, was that they questioned whether WWF were really capable of being Christians. I have no hard evidence of that but, as I read, that is the implication that I kept feeling was being communicated.
When something like that is stated I very often have heard “Well, I didn’t say that” from the hyper patrio camp.
So, to be clear, Stacy McDonald did not say that evangelical feminists, or women who disagree with her way of life to be sinners. She does, however, say that certain types of women are whitewashed feminists, and that she has a hard time calling anything that is feminist “Christian”.
I don’t think it’s a big leap, then, to the idea that whitewashed feminists aren’t Christians, even though that’s not explicitly what she says.
I agree, Anne.
At the very least, there was a strong undertone of “Well, if you want to be REALLY GODLY, then you be a feminist.”
But that goes for a lot of things in that camp; everything from wearing skirts to having a crazy low monthly grocery budget.
won’t be a feminist*
Somewhere, someone read that mistake and cringed. LOL
I find all the comments extremely interesting. I dunno, but I think I may be the oldest one on here? Thatmom and I may be close in age … not sure though …
My father, a WW2 vet, was the one that pushed his daughters into getting a college degree. Why? Because he saw how his mother strugged when she became a widow.
I constantly heard from my parents, “Do your best for God dear … He has done the best for you!” When I told them I was afraid of college, both of my parents told me to recognize the fear and go on and do it anyway.
I was NEVER given any out by EITHER of my parents.
Oh … and just for the record, the women did not burn their underthings … they symbolically put them in a trash can
This feminism cry that I hear today seems so silly to me … the radical components of feminism have long since gone by the way for most folks …
My Victorian Era grandparents also pushed for women getting a college education because they knew of too many instances where a woman was left a widow and had no means of support for her family. Moreover, I would DEFY anyone to have told this set of grandparents they were NOT Christian! Frankly, they would never know what hit them.
Hey burned,
My momma was a hippie and she DID burn her bra!
too funny normalmiddle
I have the broad spectrum represented in my family – from the Mormon in-laws in one branch to the bra-burning, man-antagonizing militant-feminist aunt who would wear bib overalls…. and nothing else.
Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
Why the ” woman’s movement” hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like “equality” on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.
Why the “women’s movement” also embraces equality of race and class.
Why they want revolution (“transformation”) and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination (“education”) and coercion.
Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
Why truth for them is a “social construct” defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.
Why they don’t believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.
Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard
Anon,
I think Gal 3:26-28 sums it up pretty well. “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Marxism’s philosophies hold *nothing* on the TRUTH of my God.
Anon: I would agree with all of those things about the now-defunct Feminist Movement. And that is what makes the intended perjorative “White Washed Feminist” potentially effective at labeling certain Christian women as “evil.”
The best way to handle name calling is to find the pearl (no pun intended) in the midst of the perjorative slime and cast a spotlight on it. That eliminates the bad (the slime) and allows the good to shine through. The Feminist Movement, which was radical, anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-government, authoritarian in its own right, and had many other seriously problematic issues also brought about some tremendous good in our society. It allowed women to be seen as competent. It worked toward equal pay for equal work. It provided all women opportunities that few women had prior to the Movement.
So, anon, I would read all the posts and comments in this blog before doing a “drive-by” comment that seems to be very out of context. The “anon” moniker also indicates that you don’t really think you can defend your statement (which is odd, since they are simply a quotation and you could always point the finger at the person who said them).
Please return and continue the conversation so we can all discuss this. I’m sure my comment here will get some kickback from others on this site. But that’s the point of such forums. As we discuss these issues, we all improve our minds and our relationships.
“Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism …”
Hey, look, Donna Carlaw is back.
I would agree with all of those things about the now-defunct Feminist Movement
Except the one that Light just mentioned above … and I must admit – I’m not in full agreement with a few of the listed items either.
Has anybody else tried to follow the link to anon’s site? Or has anyone else tried to search for variations on “anonymous musings”? I’m not coming up with anything. Although, perhaps this is the site of the above mentioned “anon.”
http://limitedprint.blogspot.com/
Richard, the site above is not “anon’s” site. She did have a blog (or two or three), but I don’t think any of them are up right now. Anon is Donna Carlaw, and she has quite a history with a number of the women who post here. Unfortunately, she is an unstable individual. Her husband in the past has asked her to stop posting and blogging. I recommend you don’t engage with her at all. You’ll just be chasing your tail.
Donna Carlaw, eh? That’s interesting. I have met her online before. She crash landed on my site when I was trying to refute some of Stacy McDonald’s craziness. She made 0 or so comments regarding about three of my posts and then left. I immediately recognized that she was mentally unstable. It’s rather scary to read her comments.
Here’s a snippet of the week or so that she was visiting my site. The other posts she commented on were at about the same time.
http://richgelina.blogspot.com/2008/03/matthew-henry-those-are-marked-for-ruin.html
“Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.”
Hi Anon,
This sounds more like the description of patriocentrists than it does feminists, no?
Just look at the Federal Vision controversy…..the paedocommunion controversy…..dresses only…..no birth control……etc.
Talk about mind-numbing and endless theorizing.
Not to mention FACTIONALISM.
And then we have the small branch of patrios that are kinists who love to divide the body of Christ according to race and klan.
You also mentioned that feminists are against classism? Well, that means patrios are for classism, another big NO NO according to Scripture. Just start reading in James to get my drift.
Anon, the kind of feminism you’re talking about is nothing I would endorse. But seeing a woman as equal in value to a man is not Marxist, but Christian.
All I have read in the bible tells me that I am just as loved, just as special, and just as saved as any man in the eyes of God.
It must be a full moon……
re: the term WWF….Stacy meant it for evil but God is using it for good. I embrace that title with joy, I truly do. There will be a day that all these teachers will have to stand and give account for what they are teaching and how they have divided the body of Christ with their extra-biblical teachings.
On another note, Stacy is hinting that if a person isn’t for patriarchy then they are for sodomy and homosexual marriage.
Funny thing is that patriarchy was never a protection of marriage and against sodomy in society. Sodomy flourished in patriarchal societies and it still does. In the Middle East they have private parties for the men where they have young boys dance for them before they have sex with them. These are not homosexuals, these are married men. There are many men who hide behind the cover of a wife and children all the while engaging in homosexual acts. It is not as uncommon as one might think.
btw, the hint is in her title to her latest blog post:
“All That Patriarchal Stuff”
What in the world patriarchy has to do with sodomy, I do not know. Nor do I want to know!
I have wrote a post for WWF on the different faces/types of feminism. It hasn’t been published yet. There are quite literally nearly a hundred types of feminism. Some are more radical or mild than others….
Anyhow stay tuned. I think some of you will be surprised to see how varied the word feminist can be.
Once again, Stacy proves to us that in her world, it is all completely black and white. You’re either for ‘em or against ‘em. No middle ground, no grey areas.
Well, Normal, she’s right in my case. I’m against her.
I wonder if the hyperpats will be buying their clothing here:
http://fldsdress.com/
“Why the “women’s movement” also embraces equality of race and class. ”
Anon,
You do not believe in the equality of races? Wow.
“Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
Why the ” woman’s movement” hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like “equality” on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.
Why the “women’s movement” also embraces equality of race and class. ”
How do you define what is feminine and what is not? We had better figure this out as we are teaching the next generation of women. I am trying to address this on my blog the next couple of weeks and you all are welcome to discuss it with me.
And this idea about class is really getting old. The only reasons some of the patriocentrists are able to continue promoting their ideals is because they have convinced people that they are the upper class and deserve a following. Honestly, I don’t know how they pull it off!
Think about it. The historical periods of the past that the hyperpatriarchalists extol, could not have existed without class divisions. The at-home mothers were wealthy enough to have “help”: other women–and men–who had to leave THEIR homes to come work in the homes of the wealthy at-home women.
Of course the ideals of feminism–that horrible belief that both women and men are equally human–are a threat to the hyperpats and therefore must be the subject of their ridicule and false accusations, such as “Look at all they have in common with Marxism!” If that were true, it would be equally true that patriarchy’s roots are fascist.
Psalmist … you are accurate … all it takes is a look at census numbers to reveal … women have always worked outside the home to provide food/clothing/shelter … except for mistresses to the wealthy and wealthy women …
If you ever have time, check out Arthur J. Munby …
Arthur J Munby (1829-1910) worked for the Ecclesiastical Commission (& taught Latin at the Working Women’s College) revealed in his 69 volume diary that he could not acknowledge Hannah Cullwick, a working class woman that he loved & married, in public. Hannah also had a 17 volume diary and her letters to Munby
What did he write in his diary?
“’I love her, then, because she is not like her own class after all, but like mine.”
After 18 years of courtship, they married in secret. They remained secretly married for 36 years. Munby knew Swinburne, Rossetti, Sala, Darwin, Thackeray, Dickens, Lord Salisbury, Herbert Henry Asquith (the future prime minister), the artist Ruskin, and more. The poet Browning praised his poems. He had to keep wife Hannah, a maid of all work, a secret. Even when in the privacy of their home, they went through all kinds of grief to keep their relationship secret from others. When others were present, Hannah would take her room in the basement. Munby told his wife to call him Arthur, but she only did so once because she felt so uncomfortable doing so
paradoxically … some women “improved” themselves by becoming prostitutes …
I know … that whole concept is a shocker!
how?
… in order to be a “suitable companion” for a “gentleman” some prostitutes learned how to read & took lessons … Munby recorded one such situation in his diary … Munby knew Sarah Tanner for about 4-5 years … one day he met her and asked why she became a prostitute … he recorded …
“she had got tired of service, wanted to see life and become independent; & so she had become a prostitute, of her own accord & without being seduced. She saw no harm in it enjoyed it very much, thought it might raise her & perhaps be profitable”
he met her much later and recorded this in his diary …
“She was stouter & healthier than ever, well dressed, not professionally as a lady, but quietly and well, like a respectable upper servant … How is this? I said again. Well, I’ve left the streets & settled down,’ she said quietly. Married?’ l asked. Oh no! But I’d been on the streets three years, and saved up … and so I thought I’d leave, and I’ve taken a coffeehouse with my earnings – the Hampshire Coffeehouse over Waterloo Bridge … Now here is a handsome young woman of twenty-six, who, having begun life as a servant of all work, and then spent three years in voluntary prostitution amongst men of a class much above her own, retires with a little competance, and invests the earnings of her infamous trade in a respectable coffeehouse, where she settles down in homely usefulness and virtuous comfort.’”
Munby visited the coffee house 5 days later & found it “respectable” … a local policeman agreed saying he didn’t think bad women were there at all
Lord Acton believed that most ex-prostitutes returned to respectable lives … many owned their own businesses or made “good” marriages
Munby also recorded the life of Collier girls (collier=someone who works in a coal mine), female envelope makers, flither-lasses (gathered mussles for fishing bait)
Munby noted some flither-lasses would use rope to scale down cliff sides to get inaccessible parts of the beach … they would load up their heavy baskets and climb back up the steep cliffs … such work required strength and agility
some working class women would prepare animal hooves for the glue factory
many women suffered disfigurements as a result of their employment … but had to continue working in order to provide for their families
milkmaids worked 14-15 hours a day … it was not the romantic life you see pictured in children’s books
female circus performers / workers risked a physical harm as well
for more on Victorian Era working women see …
• HILEY, Michael Victorian Working Women: Portraits from Life (London: Gordon Fraser, 1979)
• MUNBY, Arthur J and CULLWICK, Hannah Working Women in Victorian Britain, 18501910: the Diaries and Letters of Arthur J Munby (1828-1910) and Hannah Cull wick (1833-1909) from Trinity College, Cambridge (Marlborough: Adam Matthew Publications, 1993)
for the USA check out …
1862 Homestead Act:
freehold title to 160 acres of undeveloped land outside of the original 13 colonies. New law required three steps:
• file an application
• improve the land
• file for deed of title
Eligibility: Anyone, including freed slaves, who had never taken up arms against the U.S. Government could file an application and improvements to a local land office
signed by Abraham Lincoln 20 May 1862
Result:
• 1.6 million homesteads granted
• 270 million acres were privatized between 1862 & 1964
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ended homesteading
there are numerous documents to indicate that women took advantage of this opportunity … 1862 Homestead Act
I could go on and on about the Victorian Era (e.g., how women’s clothing were physically debilitating; drug abuse; the Age of Poisoning; devasting living environments for those that were NOT wealthy;etc.) … but I better stop
Burned, that is very interesting stuff.
About the debilitating clothes.
My grandmother was born in 1885 and went to college. She was from a pretty wealthy family. She married late in life to someone below her class and had one son in her late 40′s. My father. Her family disowned her for this marriage.
She lived to 98 and lived with my parents for a long time before I was born. Before she died, they did an x-ray because she had been sick. The doctor came out shaking his head and told my mother he had NEVER seen anything like it. Her stomach surrounded her heart on 3 sides and most of her organs were not in the right place. After consulting an older doctor he reminded them she had worn whale bone corsets and heavy Victorian dresses most of her life…and probably started around age 13 or 14. He said she must have been very healthy for this not to have affected her adversely earlier in life.
Wow, Lin! My Granny (great-grandmother) was born the same year as your grandmother and she died at 99! Their life circumstances were quite different; to my knowledge, Granny eschewed most of the most restrictive undergarments. For most of her life, she had to. She divorced her husband in the 1920s, after learning that he was molesting at least one of their three daughters (it turned out it was all three), and then learned he had another family at the other end of the line (he was a railroad worker). As a divorced woman, Granny could get only menial work, mainly cleaning offices and homes and taking in laundry. She quietly endured the scorn of “respectable” people for being a divorcee, yet she remained a pious woman all her life.
In the years when her children were young, she did the “respectable” thing of staying at home. But what that entailed, with an absentee railroad man for a husband, was back-breaking hard work and supplementing what he didn’t bring home with washing and ironing for other people (because her husband was “supporting” two families, as it turned out).
Granny didn’t talk much about her divorce, but she never regretted it. When there was nothing the law would do, she ensured that her abusive husband never again saw their daughters and she paid a high price for choosing to do what was right over what was expedient and “respectable.”
I wonder what the “patriarchs’ wives” would dare to say to a woman like my Granny. Were she alive today, she’d consider them naive and terribly spoiled.
Psalmist wrote: “I wonder what the “patriarchs’ wives” would dare to say to a woman like my Granny. Were she alive today, she’d consider them naive and terribly spoiled.”
and your grandmother would be 100% right!
Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
Hi, Donna!