Divorce, Jefferson, and My Wedding Cake.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I begin this article I realize that many of those who are curious enough to read through the first few paragraphs are likely to adopt the following opinion… “This is the most sexist, most offensive, most chauvinistic piece of rabble I’ve ever had the displeasure to read!” Well, as usual, I’m not about to offer an apology. However, I would like to go on record that I’m not writing this “piece of rabble” to express whatever chauvinistic feelings I may or may not possess. In fact, I ask those of you who become offended to pause from your reading, locate a durable stick to bite on, clench your enraged jaws tightly, and finish reading this entry in its entirety. If you can calm yourself long enough to allow for rational thought you will see I’m not trying to insult the progress of a hundred-plus years of human rights efforts… Rather, I’m taking notice of that progress and simply making an opinionated observation regarding one of its side effects. |
Prior to the 1600’s divorce (that is, the disassembly of a previously legally-recognized union between man and wife) had been unheard of. During that era of American history the grounds for divorce were extremely limited in comparison to more modern times… Around the time of the first recorded divorce (1639) the only grounds by which a divorce would be granted had been issues of female infertility/male impotency, desertion, female infidelity, spousal abuse (if committed by the male), and (with the exception of a few less popular religions of the time) bigamy.
And it was RARE. Or at least I would call it rare… Considering there are only 98 divorces on record by the turn of century in 1699 and the population (based on the American Census Bureau of the time) had been approximately 251,000 by 1700, the rate of divorce had been nothing to worry about.
But as our population grew and society continued to undergo evolutionary changes, people began to do just that… Worry.
Years passed... By the late 1800’s the number of recorded divorces had reached over 210,000. Of course, we can attempt to find comfort in the rationale that “well, sure the number is higher by 1890… the population increased by some 62 million people since 1700”. But let’s talk percentages. Based on the number of marriages versus the number of recorded divorces we start to see the rise in divorce rates that has brought us to it current rate of about 50%. In 1880, 8 percent of marriages ended in divorce. From 1901 to 1910, the divorce rate averaged about 12%. It rose 6 percent over the next ten years to give a total of 18% of marriages ending in divorce by 1920. |
Now, keep in mind, that these numbers are just those that we can get our hands on (so to speak)… Meaning that these are the percentages of documented, legal divorces. These rates do not include the marriages that ended in undocumented desertion or separation.
So just what the Hell is going on? Did the spouses of the early 1600s love each other more than the couples of today? Is it that in the centuries preceding ours, Husbands and Wives were so different from the men and women of today?…. (Maybe so).
What happened?… Plenty.
In the 1600s, adulterous women could be publicly whipped. (Ever read The Scarlet Letter?) It wasn’t uncommon for a wife -after having been found guilty of adultery- to be branded or, in some cases, even executed. But aside from the punitive aspects associated with the consequences of infidelity, the women of yesteryear placed greater value in male hegemony than their modern descendants. But even the men were different back then… The husbands of the 17th Century found a greater sense of identity from the family they governed. Individualism wasn’t what it is today.
So just what the Hell is going on? Did the spouses of the early 1600s love each other more than the couples of today? Is it that in the centuries preceding ours, Husbands and Wives were so different from the men and women of today?…. (Maybe so).
What happened?… Plenty.
In the 1600s, adulterous women could be publicly whipped. (Ever read The Scarlet Letter?) It wasn’t uncommon for a wife -after having been found guilty of adultery- to be branded or, in some cases, even executed. But aside from the punitive aspects associated with the consequences of infidelity, the women of yesteryear placed greater value in male hegemony than their modern descendants. But even the men were different back then… The husbands of the 17th Century found a greater sense of identity from the family they governed. Individualism wasn’t what it is today.
Early on, America had been a country thriving primarily on Agriculture. And all but 10% of the population not only worked but lived on family-run farms. Husbands generally saw to the fields (plowing, planting, harvesting) while wives maintained the household duties (child rearing, cooking, quilting, weaving, etc.). These gender roles seemed to develop naturally, as if they were instinctual. Agricultural men and women functioned happily together; their system had proven itself for years, allowing families the luxury of being self-supporting. Nearly everything they needed they could supply for themselves. That which they couldn’t grow/make personally they could normally acquire from local markets (which -commonly- would include imported items from abroad… like, for example, larger amounts of Cloth). Now… I like to think of the remainder of this article as: “Thomas Jefferson Farted on My Wedding Cake”. In 1803, Great Britain -growing increasingly uncomfortable with French ruler Napoleon Bonaparte’s conquest for European Domination- declared war against France. Shortly after (in 1807) President Jefferson decides to officiate the Embargo Act… Thus freezing all commerce between America and Europe. Suddenly, our nation of self-sufficient tradesmen and farmers would have to become even more self-sufficient. |
And… They did...
Remember the surplus of Cloth I mentioned about 76 words ago? Well, seeing as how we could no longer import it, American textile merchants got busy building a rather powerful industry right here. Thanks to our demanding need for Cloth, a Boston man named Francis Cabot Lowell founded the first modern factory (1814). First of all, his factory could produce cloth thousands of times faster than a farmwife with a loom (even if she had a handful daughters helping her). And secondly, he needed workers. Husbands needed to stay home to manage their lands, wives weren’t going too far from their husbands, sons were sometimes available but the majority were needed in the fields with their fathers. See where I’m going with this? Daughters… Unmarried daughters.
Remember the surplus of Cloth I mentioned about 76 words ago? Well, seeing as how we could no longer import it, American textile merchants got busy building a rather powerful industry right here. Thanks to our demanding need for Cloth, a Boston man named Francis Cabot Lowell founded the first modern factory (1814). First of all, his factory could produce cloth thousands of times faster than a farmwife with a loom (even if she had a handful daughters helping her). And secondly, he needed workers. Husbands needed to stay home to manage their lands, wives weren’t going too far from their husbands, sons were sometimes available but the majority were needed in the fields with their fathers. See where I’m going with this? Daughters… Unmarried daughters.
Lowell found that (after convincing the Parent’s that they’re daughters would be well cared for) he could easily fill his workforce with the unmarried daughters of America’s farmers. It was cheaper for him since he didn’t have to pay them as much as the men; AND, he found they were easier to manage since they were conditionally more complacent. Accompanying his new factory he built a housing development, much like a communal living project, for the young women where they lived and worked together.
His factory, as expected, was extremely profitable. The idea spread like cancer. Factories and the boarding houses to go with them were popping up all over the country’s major cities. Large numbers of young women were now living together, sharing ideas and dreams, learning from one another (instead of maintaining the traditions likely to be learnt by staying home with mother). More and more people left their |
country-lives in exchange for the city-life... And we called it the “Industrial Revolution“.
The initial momentum of the Industrial Revolution wasn’t the end of traditionalism in America however. Most women, having an upbringing on the farm, worked only at the factory until they got married. And married women generally never worked in factories (only about 5 ½ percent of female factory workers were married by the end of the 19th century). In fact, a married women working in a factory usually meant that her family had serious financial troubles or her husband were unable to work because of some disability.
And, like I said, although thousands of unmarried young women working in factories didn’t put an end to the original order of things… It certainly paved the way for what was to come.
The initial momentum of the Industrial Revolution wasn’t the end of traditionalism in America however. Most women, having an upbringing on the farm, worked only at the factory until they got married. And married women generally never worked in factories (only about 5 ½ percent of female factory workers were married by the end of the 19th century). In fact, a married women working in a factory usually meant that her family had serious financial troubles or her husband were unable to work because of some disability.
And, like I said, although thousands of unmarried young women working in factories didn’t put an end to the original order of things… It certainly paved the way for what was to come.
In 1914 came “The First Great War”. World War One… It called nearly ever able-bodied husband and son away from their farmhouses or city flats and into the war-torn countryside, beaches, and cities of Europe. And so, the nation needed workers not only to fill vacancies but, thousands of workers to meet the demands of supplying a military movement with the resources it would consume. A large percent of unmarried women already populated the workforce by this time so it wasn’t impossible to fathom the concept of accepting more married women. The number of married women in factories rose about 20 percent during the first 19 years of the 20th century. PLUS… For the first time in American history women were officially allowed to enlist in the military and obtain rank (although they were generally limited to positions involving deskwork). During WWI there were over 12,000 women enlisted in the United States Navy.
As you continue to read think of this…*What is Evolution? Some would agree that is it adaptation through mutation. If an organism lives generation after generation without any need to change… It won’t. Or, at least the changes will be very subtle. (Take a look at the Saltwater Crocodile for instance… It’s basically the same creature it was a million years ago). But, when an organism is challenged/threatened by either another organism or some natural mechanism (like the weather, for example), it either adapts/changes as needed to survive… Or it suffers great loses… Even goes extinct. |
Although economist continue to disagree as to what ultimately caused the American Stock Exchange to collapse in 1929; and historians or sociological theorists will always have a variety of explanations for the Great Depression of the 1930s… The fact is that these factors became serious threats to the American (even the World) Community. Many husbands, having been programmed by Nature as well as the Agrarian Society that had sustain us for so many years, found themselves lost in desperation. The rate of family desertion rose. Many women found themselves alone to fend for their families.
There’s nothing like another World War to put an end to unemployment. And there’s nothing quite like a World War when it comes to stimulating Sociological Evolution.
By 1941 the United States began showing signs of intolerance towards Hitler. On June 14th, President Roosevelt saw to the freezing of German financial assets in America… Shortly after (July 26th) Japanese assets are frozen and relations are suspended… On August 1st, an Oil Embargo was initiated against Countries considered to be the aggressors… And, finally, the U.S. declares war against Japan on December 8th (immediately following the Pearl Harbor incident). By January 26th (1942) American forces were arriving in Great Britain. We were, once again, immersed in a large scale war.
There’s nothing like another World War to put an end to unemployment. And there’s nothing quite like a World War when it comes to stimulating Sociological Evolution.
By 1941 the United States began showing signs of intolerance towards Hitler. On June 14th, President Roosevelt saw to the freezing of German financial assets in America… Shortly after (July 26th) Japanese assets are frozen and relations are suspended… On August 1st, an Oil Embargo was initiated against Countries considered to be the aggressors… And, finally, the U.S. declares war against Japan on December 8th (immediately following the Pearl Harbor incident). By January 26th (1942) American forces were arriving in Great Britain. We were, once again, immersed in a large scale war.
Norman Rockwell's depiction of Rosie the Riveter made the cover of The Saturday Evening Post: May 29, 1943
|
Men were enlisting and being drafted. Warfare had evolved since the first Great War and resources were needed in massive amounts. We needed steel, ammunition, uniforms, survival gear, aircrafts manufactured, tanks, and Naval vessels. And, as it were proven during World War One, women (both wed and unwed) were available. But the need for workers had been greater than ever before. Manufacturers and War-suppliers needed not only available, willing women workers to sign on but, they needed every worker they could possibly get (regardless of marital status and whether or not the women had children at home). Nonetheless, for many women a social stigma still loomed above the notion of abandoning their instincts and traditions… They needed a push.
In 1942 the government-controlled “Magazine Bureau” mandated what topics popular magazines should cover. Magazines were instructed to cover stories glorifying the working woman, especially if her job were unflattering or usually avoided. The media gave birth to Rosie the Riveter. Heroic and idolized by American women, Rosie became an icon as inspirational as Uncle Sam himself. Advertisement campaigns bombarded the American public with images of patriotic women working to ‘win the war’ by working selflessly in factories. Rosie the Riveter even came with her own jingle: “All the day long, Whether rain or shine, She’s a part of the assembly line. She’s making history, Working for victory. Rosie the Riveter. There’s something true about, Red - White- and Blue about… Rosie the Riveter”. |
During America’s involvement with World War Two… Six million women joined the workforce. American society had reconditioned the majority of it’s population; laboring for a paycheck was no longer “improper“ for women … Despite the traditions they were taught and the instincts American women had once possessed, the government (through the use of its Media) seemed to successfully rewrite Human Nature.
After the war, men were coming back to find many of their jobs were taken. Factory owners were reluctant to support the consensus that women (having served the purpose as substitutes) should return home and reinvest their interests in being housekeeping and child rearing… Women were more economical to employ since there were no litigation enforcing fair wages. The government, seeing the need, once again launched advertisement campaigns intended to illustrate the value of a woman in the household opposed to the assembly line. Nonetheless, they found closing Pandora’s box more difficult than opening it.
The Media’s efforts to convince women that they needed to leave the workforce and return to simpler times failed miserable. What women didn’t stay employed because of true economic hardship maintained employment because they wanted the money. Directly following the end of the war came the beginning of consumerism. |
By the end of the 1950s nearly every family in America had something they never use to… A television set. And, unlike the families of our century (numbed and desensitized by decades of consumerism), television had been relatively new to them… They watched it intensely… Even (perhaps especially) the commercials. Women “needed” things they never use to. Many rationalized since they worked in manufacturing to “win the war” why not keep working to afford the things the television said they needed.
The men of the 1950s and 60s found work as well and, with many of their wives gainfully employed, their children found themselves raised by grandparents, nannies, or (unfortunately) the media. Many young children spent their wakeful hours glued to the TV. As women continued to assume more significant roles in the financial income of the family maintaining the position of “housewife” seemed to pale in comparison. Not only were women showing less interest in previously conditioned traditions like raising children, cooking and organizing family dinners, or making sure the laundry were caught up… But, more and more women started demanding husbands rewire their own programming to accept responsibility for such things. Over the years to come, the shift in the family hierarchy became more apparent and thereby more confrontational. We can see sociological problems stemming from the unsupervised development of children, the confusion generated by spousal role-reversal (from the roles previously accepted), and even the progressive decline of family cohesion.
The men of the 1950s and 60s found work as well and, with many of their wives gainfully employed, their children found themselves raised by grandparents, nannies, or (unfortunately) the media. Many young children spent their wakeful hours glued to the TV. As women continued to assume more significant roles in the financial income of the family maintaining the position of “housewife” seemed to pale in comparison. Not only were women showing less interest in previously conditioned traditions like raising children, cooking and organizing family dinners, or making sure the laundry were caught up… But, more and more women started demanding husbands rewire their own programming to accept responsibility for such things. Over the years to come, the shift in the family hierarchy became more apparent and thereby more confrontational. We can see sociological problems stemming from the unsupervised development of children, the confusion generated by spousal role-reversal (from the roles previously accepted), and even the progressive decline of family cohesion.
Currently, the driving force behind our growing female workforce, the illusion of fair treatment (or “Equality“, if you will), is alive and well. Millions of women continue to follow the trends set over the last one hundred years (despite the centuries of success we had prior to recent changes). Family structure continues to depreciate in exchange for the promise of the “good life” depicted on our televisions. Truth is, regardless of the promises, although approximately 50% of the American workforce is female, 78% of our cashiers are female, 98% of secretaries are women, and only 30% of administrative (managerial) positions are held by women.
|
Where is the Equality in that? The term “Pyrrhic victory” comes to mind. Based on the tone of this article, you’ve probably condemned me to being a chauvinist, sexist, or something of the like. No way. I love women. Hell, I was raised by women. If I could turn back certain aspects of time it certainly wouldn’t involve the loss of the rights we, as a Nation, struggle to protect. Simply put, “have the cake” but, goddamn it(!) “eat it too!”. What good is a Nation of “equals” if: A) Statistics show equality is a myth, B) Children are growing up without family values, and C) Fifty percent of marriages are ending in divorce?
To me… It seems we’re curing an ankle infection by amputating the leg. Sure, the sordid, infectious tissue (in this case “social inequality”) has been removed but the body is forever handicapped. I’m asking us for a better solution… Continue to cure the infection but save the patient’s leg.
To me… It seems we’re curing an ankle infection by amputating the leg. Sure, the sordid, infectious tissue (in this case “social inequality”) has been removed but the body is forever handicapped. I’m asking us for a better solution… Continue to cure the infection but save the patient’s leg.
Putting an end to undisputed male hegemony, financial independence and stability, balancing the work ascribed to gender roles… These are infallible interests to obtain. Nonetheless, a subsequent rise in intolerance and increase in the inability to integrate oneself into the family unit effectively is ongoing. American women wield Divorce like a weapon. Over 71% of divorces over the last six years were initiated by wives… More than half of those cited “male behavior” as the underlying grounds for divorce.
Where in the Hell are we going? Less than 60% of children now grow up with both parents in the same household. Fuck, people! That’s nearly half of America’s children never knowing -first hand- what a traditional family is like. Children are growing up a few days a week with their Mom and her boyfriend (or girlfriend) and the remainder with Dad and his partner. And second (or third) generation split-family children have grown up, had their own kids and may never participate in the lives of their offspring at all… It’s Babylonia all over again. |
Whew!
Well, once again, I’ve turned a perhaps not-so-innocent topic into a multi-paged rant. I’m done now. In short… Men, accept the fact that you should respect women and do your share of so-called “women’s work”. Women, assume your role as man’s social equal but, there’s no need to punish us for the crimes of ancestors, remember you have a softer side -by nature- don’t be afraid you’ll lose liberation if you show it. If your man’s worth keeping, he’ll appreciate the tenderness. And, both of you, if you really love the "stereo you bought", try to get it fixed -at all costs- before throwing it out and buying a new one.
Well, once again, I’ve turned a perhaps not-so-innocent topic into a multi-paged rant. I’m done now. In short… Men, accept the fact that you should respect women and do your share of so-called “women’s work”. Women, assume your role as man’s social equal but, there’s no need to punish us for the crimes of ancestors, remember you have a softer side -by nature- don’t be afraid you’ll lose liberation if you show it. If your man’s worth keeping, he’ll appreciate the tenderness. And, both of you, if you really love the "stereo you bought", try to get it fixed -at all costs- before throwing it out and buying a new one.