Confronting the Bitter Past
In today’s reprint of For Better or For Worse, Dr. John Patterson says that he doesn’t like the idea of working mothers, because a house should be a home. Apparently, his dental assistant, Jean Baker, oinks at him for expressing this belief. That lets us know that this is another in the line of “John Patterson is a male chauvinist pig” jokes, and lets us know just how out-of-date the strip is.
Because we know the future, we know how ironic John’s opinion is. Jean Baker will take time off work to have her first child and then John will beg her to come back to work for him. Clearly, John’s opinion on working mothers only applies when it affects him positively.
For Lynn Johnston, the problem is more difficult. By 2005, Lynn’s opinion on working mothers has changed. Thérèse Caine, Mrs. Caine #1 is criticized in these 3 strips for being a working mother and leaving the childcare to her husband. For years I used to interpret these strips as Lynn saying, “It’s OK for a woman to work, but she must also be her children’s primary caregiver.” I would point out that Deanna Patterson was also a working mother as a defense. That worked, until Lynn got to her final strip of the modern era and revealed that Deanna ditched her pharmacy job for a sewing school, once her husband achieved success in writing. Lynn proved I was wrong for defending her.
Now modern Lynn Johnston has to go back and face her opinion from her earlier years. Interesting enough, the subject is more controversial now than it was back in 1980. Searching the internet I found this:
54% - The proportion of children in Canada aged six months to five years who were in some form of child care in 2002-2003, up from 42% in 1994-1995. (From the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth.)
And I found this:
Almost five times as many children experience parental separation before their sixth birthday as did their counterparts in the 1960s
I know that Jean Baker is making her oink noises to show that John is a male chauvinistic pig; but is it necessarily chauvinism? John singles out working mothers for his opinion, and he hires women for his business. There are many people who want to stay home with their children for reasons of higher quality parenting during a child's younger years, and not for reasons of saying that women are inferior to men.
The way Lynn Johnston handled the situation is by changing the order of presentation of the strips. According to aprilp_katje , the original order of presentation was Thursday’s strip, Wednesday’s strip and then today’s strip.
In that order, it makes it appear that the idea of Elly getting a job comes from Jean Baker, while Elly is thinking the same thing at home. Modern Lynn changes the order. Therefore, on Tuesday, we have a new-run where Anne Nichols offers Elly childcare and suggests getting a job to Elly. On Wednesday, Elly considers it and then on Thursday and Friday, Jean Baker talks about it with John. It is almost as if Lynn can no longer stand the idea that her avatar in Elly would come up with the idea herself.
As for me, I am simply amused to see John Patterson talking about something Elly plans to do using the same words that Anthony Caine used to talk about his ex-wife Thérèse. That makes today's reprint all worthwhile.
Because we know the future, we know how ironic John’s opinion is. Jean Baker will take time off work to have her first child and then John will beg her to come back to work for him. Clearly, John’s opinion on working mothers only applies when it affects him positively.
For Lynn Johnston, the problem is more difficult. By 2005, Lynn’s opinion on working mothers has changed. Thérèse Caine, Mrs. Caine #1 is criticized in these 3 strips for being a working mother and leaving the childcare to her husband. For years I used to interpret these strips as Lynn saying, “It’s OK for a woman to work, but she must also be her children’s primary caregiver.” I would point out that Deanna Patterson was also a working mother as a defense. That worked, until Lynn got to her final strip of the modern era and revealed that Deanna ditched her pharmacy job for a sewing school, once her husband achieved success in writing. Lynn proved I was wrong for defending her.
Now modern Lynn Johnston has to go back and face her opinion from her earlier years. Interesting enough, the subject is more controversial now than it was back in 1980. Searching the internet I found this:
54% - The proportion of children in Canada aged six months to five years who were in some form of child care in 2002-2003, up from 42% in 1994-1995. (From the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth.)
And I found this:
Almost five times as many children experience parental separation before their sixth birthday as did their counterparts in the 1960s
I know that Jean Baker is making her oink noises to show that John is a male chauvinistic pig; but is it necessarily chauvinism? John singles out working mothers for his opinion, and he hires women for his business. There are many people who want to stay home with their children for reasons of higher quality parenting during a child's younger years, and not for reasons of saying that women are inferior to men.
The way Lynn Johnston handled the situation is by changing the order of presentation of the strips. According to aprilp_katje , the original order of presentation was Thursday’s strip, Wednesday’s strip and then today’s strip.
In that order, it makes it appear that the idea of Elly getting a job comes from Jean Baker, while Elly is thinking the same thing at home. Modern Lynn changes the order. Therefore, on Tuesday, we have a new-run where Anne Nichols offers Elly childcare and suggests getting a job to Elly. On Wednesday, Elly considers it and then on Thursday and Friday, Jean Baker talks about it with John. It is almost as if Lynn can no longer stand the idea that her avatar in Elly would come up with the idea herself.
As for me, I am simply amused to see John Patterson talking about something Elly plans to do using the same words that Anthony Caine used to talk about his ex-wife Thérèse. That makes today's reprint all worthwhile.
posted by howard at 10:16 PM
15 Comments:
Because we know the future, we know how ironic John’s opinion is. Jean Baker will take time off work to have her first child and then John will beg her to come back to work for him. Clearly, John’s opinion on working mothers only applies when it affects him positively.
This makes him less a chauvinist and more an opportunist; it would have made more sense for him to say "I don't see how Elly can pull off working and the insane amount of housework she does at the same time; I mean I could pitch in no problem but she'd just say I did it wrong and do it all over anyway so why bother?"
As for Lynn's opinion on working mothers, it's fairly easy to see that she never did much like career women. Working mother Connie was originally supposed to be an antagonist, after all; she quickly decayed to become Elly's other pathetic friend but she was supposed to be living wrong.
What is "some form of child care"? That's an incredibly broad term. Also, many studies have shown that day care improves a child's self-esteem, academics, and social skills. The nuclear family with mommy staying at home and just taking care of the kids was an invention of the Victorian era, during which most women couldn't do it anyway. It was more possible post-WWII, at least in North America. But the assumption that having mommy stay at home with the kids is better for the kids is grounded in Victorian bourgeois sensibilities, and not in fact.
There's nothing wrong with parents who want to stay at home with their kids, but they are no better than parents who use day care.
As for higher divorce rates, divorce is not necessarily a bad thing. I wish my parents had divorced a lot earlier, so that my model of a relationship wasn't based on screaming. Divorce is often the best option for everyone concerned.
DreadedCandiru2,
As for Lynn's opinion on working mothers, it's fairly easy to see that she never did much like career women. Working mother Connie was originally supposed to be an antagonist, after all; she quickly decayed to become Elly's other pathetic friend but she was supposed to be living wrong.
True enough. Once Connie got married to Greg, you didn’t see a whole of Connie talking about her job any more. Then she retired even before Elly did. Anne Nichols went to work as a caterer (= female job). The closest you are going to get to a positive example of mother working in a nontraditional female job is Bev Cruikshank, and I suspect that is only because she is based on a real person.
Clio,
The nuclear family with mommy staying at home and just taking care of the kids was an invention of the Victorian era, during which most women couldn't do it anyway.
Are you saying that the idea of mothers being at home with their children was invented in the Victorian era? That doesn’t seem correct to me.
There's nothing wrong with parents who want to stay at home with their kids, but they are no better than parents who use day care.
Certainly. Both my kids went to dare care, and I know they were better off from having that experience. It was not my intent to attack the day care system. I wanted to show that the use of day care is more prevalent today in Canada than it was back in 1980, when the strip was originally done.
As for higher divorce rates, divorce is not necessarily a bad thing. I wish my parents had divorced a lot earlier, so that my model of a relationship wasn't based on screaming. Divorce is often the best option for everyone concerned.
Oops. I see have misinterpreted “parental separation” to mean “child separation from working parents” as opposed to “parents being separated from each other.” Pardon my error in the quote.
As I understand it, in earlier times, mothers who could stay at home and were fairly wealthy (and in fact, still often could employ a nanny as well.) Lower-class working class mothers often typically HAD to work beyond the household maintenance, whether helping with the family business, or as servants to the upper classes. Working-class mothers who could not afford nannies or any servants had to do a LOT more work in a household (including hand-washing and even hand-sewing the family's clothes), and had a lot less time to tend to their children's needs and upbringing than modern mothers.
Are you saying that the idea of mothers being at home with their children was invented in the Victorian era?
Yes. Well, a tidge earlier, but it came to its greatest pitch then. Before the rise of the middle class in the late 18th century, "home" and "work" were not separate. Children worked, mothers worked, fathers worked. Children weren't supervised all that much while they weren't working, but the entire community sort of watched what they were doing, and it's not like they had a lot of time to play anyway. When they were babies, young mothers would carry them about and plop them near whatever work they were doing, or grandparents or younger children or maiden aunts would keep an eye on them while doing more sedentary tasks. In the 18th century, drugging babies with a bit of laudanum to keep them quiet was normal practice, in North America anyway.
A common 18th century saying was that a man worked from sun to sun, but a woman's work was never done, and it was pretty much literal truth. Washing, cooking, gardening, caring for the sick, going to market to buy and sell, helping in the fields at the busiest times, caring for the animals, and interminable spinning and sewing, were some of the tasks that made up most women's lives.
Wealthy women (and they were very few) did not raise their children, they sent them to wet nurses and then had nannies.
The separation between "home" and "work" did not occur until the Industrial Revolution. That is when men went to the factory or mine or whatever for a set amount of time every day. People moved away from their communities and into the city, with no grandparents or maiden aunts to take care of the children. In THEORY, women were supposed to stay home and take care of all the housework -- which was serious and unending labor at the time. In practice, women also worked in the factories, and so did children. The factory owners' wives, however, did not. Nor did the women of the new petit bourgeouisie (families of shopkeepers, lawyers, academics, factory supervisors, etc.), which invented a new way to organize the family. Rousseau was the champion of the new ethos of the mother staying at home and devoting herself to her children and husband, becoming what would later be known as "the angel of the house".
Historians are still thrashing out why this happened, but it certainly had to do with the desire of the new middle class to define themselves as essentially different from, and superior to, both the aristocracy and the mass of humanity known as the working class, who weren't really considered quite human. The thinking went that middle class women, virtuous and chaste, would care for and love the children they bore. Middle class men were able to provide enough money for their families that women actually could work a lot less, because they could hire quite a few servants. Having a wife with soft hands and luxurious clothes, one who was pale because she didn't have to be outside no matter the weather, was a mark of status, and probably the most important one.
So the "domestic sphere", over which a gentle, loving, angelic woman reigned, creating a haven for the man who went out into the world of the "public sphere", was -- not precisely invented, because it was sort of around before that in the upper echelons of society -- but propagated and even fetishized. (This was the same time that the idea that women didn't have sex drives somehow got invented, too, though I wouldn't have a sex drive if I had to wear a whalebone corset all day either.)
Anyhoodle, I'll stop there, though I could go on and on and on about it even more. Bet you weren't expecting an essay, but you just so happened to have hit precisely upon an area I've studied in extremely great depth ;).
Anonymous,
Working-class mothers who could not afford nannies or any servants had to do a LOT more work in a household (including hand-washing and even hand-sewing the family's clothes), and had a lot less time to tend to their children's needs and upbringing than modern mothers.
For stay-at-home mothers today, this is the crux of the matter – being able to tend to their children’s needs themselves, and not leaving them to the hands of professionals.
Clio,
Before the rise of the middle class in the late 18th century, "home" and "work" were not separate. Children worked, mothers worked, fathers worked.
Prior to this point, let’s say in hunter-gatherer societies, there would be no question of the mom staying at home with the kids. The difference is in the concept of work.
Having a wife with soft hands and luxurious clothes, one who was pale because she didn't have to be outside no matter the weather, was a mark of status, and probably the most important one. So the "domestic sphere", over which a gentle, loving, angelic woman reigned, creating a haven for the man who went out into the world of the "public sphere", was -- not precisely invented, because it was sort of around before that in the upper echelons of society -- but propagated and even fetishized.
In our society, this is the closest approximation to the “stay-at-home-mother”. If you were to take John Patterson’s perspective into this post-Industrial Revolution era, then his desire for Elly to stay at home with the kids would not be considered the attitude of a male chauvinist pig thinking of his wife as inferior, but the opposite attitude of a man who has enough wealth so that he can think of his wife as superior.
a man who has enough wealth so that he can think of his wife as superior.
I think it's less the attitude that his wife is "superior" (he still reserves the right to tell her what to do), but that supporting a SAHW can be held up to society as a trophy demonstrating his own status.
his desire for Elly to stay at home with the kids would not be considered the attitude of a male chauvinist pig thinking of his wife as inferior, but the opposite attitude of a man who has enough wealth so that he can think of his wife as superior.
Mm, not exactly. A man's wife might be superior to other women, but not to him. To put a woman on a pedestal, you have to dehumanize her. Further, the desire for a woman you could show off was the desire for a woman you could objectify. Your wife was your most important status symbol, but she was still in that category, along with your house, your carriage, your own clothes, etc. Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth describes this objectification of women perfectly.
Victorian middle-class male "admiration" and "worship" of women came with serious strings attached. A woman had to play the role of the weak, helpless, beautiful, always loving feminine. Why, women couldn't handle the workplace, and they weren't doing their duty if they tried to force themselves into the public arena by wanting to vote, or own property in their own names, or anything like that. They were supposed to stay home and make the house a home. A house could not be a home without a caged, obedient woman inside making it one.
Feminists, male and female, started seriously contesting these ideals pretty much as soon as they became at all prevalent. As the cult of domesticity reached its peak, women's rights activists turned it on its head. If women were so angelic, then women should have a say in government. If women were supposed to be in charge of the education of children, then women should be educated. (The medical profession claimed "too much" education would atrophy a woman's ovaries, if it didn't outright kill her.) If the house was supposed to be a home, husbands should respect their wives and stop visiting taverns and brothels. These activists very consciously deployed mores that had been used to oppress women in order to gain women rights. This made anti-women's rights people apoplectic.
At the same time, more radical activists were saying women are human beings, period, and must be treated as such. This made anti-women's rights people even more apoplectic than the so-called moderates did. And of course suffragettes were almost invariably portrayed as "manly", unnatural creatures, who were, worst of all, ugly. This untrue caricature of feminists persists today, but from about the 1850s to just before WWI it was as all-pervasive as caricatures of "darkies".
Anonymous,
I think it's less the attitude that his wife is "superior" (he still reserves the right to tell her what to do), but that supporting a SAHW can be held up to society as a trophy demonstrating his own status.
Here is the crux of my problem. John Patterson desires that his wife be a stay-at-home mother. However, as we know from the history of the comic strip, John is not reserving the right to tell her what to do. Is John Patterson a male chauvinist pig for having the desire? Is John Patterson a male chauvinist pig for wanting to be able to support a stay-at-home mother, because that would be treating his wife as a trophy? The men that I know who have these desires rarely ever say they want it for the sake of the wife, but more for the sake of their children. Or is that just a cover?
Clio,
Mm, not exactly. A man's wife might be superior to other women, but not to him.
Not to the husband then. But is she superior only to other women, or is she superior to other women and a good number of men? If the idea of male chauvinism is that women are innately inferior to all men, then I am not sure this applies here. Within the confines of your society’s rules, you can only elevate your wife so far. Would John Patterson be a male chauvinist in Victorian society, if he wanted the best that could be provided for his wife and family at that time? Or does the simple fact that wanting the best for your wife puts her in a situation where she is considered less capable of doing work than a scullery maid, mean that he is actually forcing his wife into an inferior position?
Why, women couldn't handle the workplace, and they weren't doing their duty if they tried to force themselves into the public arena by wanting to vote, or own property in their own names, or anything like that.
Certainly this is true, but I am not sure it is related to just women staying at home. My impression is that all women in the Victorian era were not allowed in the public arena, or to vote, or to own property.
But is she superior only to other women, or is she superior to other women and a good number of men?
Only to other women. Women were considered virtually a different, and vastly inferior, species.
Within the confines of your society’s rules, you can only elevate your wife so far.
I am very uncomfortable with this phrasing. The entire point of feminism has been to stop preventing women from being allowed to elevate themselves. Many women in the Victorian era did elevate themselves, and most of them had supportive fathers, brothers, or husbands, though not all of them did. There were many women who became artists or novelists, for instance. But societal mores, personal relationships, as well as law, combined to prevent many more women from reaching their potentials, whether in careers, marriage, or as mothers.
Women in the Victorian era were certainly allowed in the public arena: most of them worked outside the home. They could not vote. They could own property if they were widows or there were other unusual circumstances.
There was no such thing as a "male chauvinist" in Victorian society. Among the middle and upper classes, there were men who treated the women over whom they had power better or worse. There were a few men who even helped fight for women's rights. But the vast majority of middle and upper class men did not think of women as capable adult human beings.
I have no idea who John Patterson would have been if he had been born in 1850. He would not have been John Patterson. Actually, his parents were farmers, so (since he's not at all exceptional) he would have been either a farmer or a factory worker, and therefore not middle class. His wife would, of course, work, just like every other woman he knew. Everything would have been different.
As for Elly? Well, she would have known what real injustice and oppression were, whatever her class. I can't envision her as other than middle class though. She wouldn't be an activist -- she would probably be one of those women who got one unidentifiable illness after another because she was so damnably bored, and because she had absolutely no control over her life. She would be incessantly told what was best for her by her well-meaning husband, who would treat her like a child because he couldn't conceive of a woman being able to make her own decisions. I'm thinking a Yellow Wallpaper situation.
Elly would not break out on her own. She would not be like Nora in A Doll's House, and see "But our home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll-wife, just as at home I was papa's doll-child."
Clio,
Only to other women. Women were considered virtually a different, and vastly inferior, species.
I don't think I agree with this one. Surely in the Victorian era, Queen Victoria was considered superior to most men.
Surely in the Victorian era, Queen Victoria was considered superior to most men.
You're confusing her position with her gender. :)
Men respected her, allowed her to expand her horizons beyond the accepted POV of womanhood, because they had to. She was their monarch, and this was not an elected position.
Historically, the concept of an English queen regnant had been an extremely fraught one -- women were 'obviously' too weakminded to rule men, but on the other hand they were there by right (itself unusual, as many countries, notably France, banned women from inheriting thrones altogether.)
It is worth noting that Elizabeth 1's most famous speech begins "I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the stomach of a king, and a King of England too..."
And Elizabeth was the exception, the one English queen who could be said to truly be personally respected. The more usual compromise involved the queen conceding her frailty and immediately finding a husband to remove her 'burden'. Victoria was no exception:
"The Queen is most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection."
Post a Comment
<< Home