Experimental Living

Chances are you are aware of a prevalent feminist attitude in recent decades. The one I’m speaking of is the increasing trend of stereotyping historical female figures. It has become popular, especially during the last 30 years of the 20th century, due to feminism’s influence on sociology, philosophy, and even theology.

Today, this mindset screams, “Women who lived before The Feminine Mystique and NOW were deprived of their natural rights and had been socialized to become child-bearing machines!”  Feminists smother their pity with scorn and denounce women in several historical eras and cultures as having been brainless, disillusioned, and weak-willed. From Oregonian farmers’ wives to Jane Austen-esque aristocrats, they argue, perhaps not directly but subtly, in literature, articles, and oral lectures that many of these figures were not strong, but instead weak.

Why? Because, as they might phrase it, they “gave in to society’s demands.”

Well, we’ll take a look at a few of these stereotypes and determine whether or not feminist writers are justified in their presentations. (With the help of Wikipedia, of course.)

Stereotype #1: The Lady of the Manor (circa 1220, A.D.)

Feminist Description:

For the wife of an English baron during the high Middle Ages, life was dull and arduous. Required only to give birth to an indomitable number of children (a large number of which were male) and stitch delicate tapestries, leisure seemed to be the main chore. Intelligence was lacking in the minds of these pathetic examples of womanhood.

Reality:

Life was certainly not dull, but it was difficult for an English baron’s wife during one of the most tenuous periods in English history. For example, the 5th Crusade was an ongoing event, and as a result many knights and feudal lords were away from home. It was the lady’s responsibility to see that the large manor household was running smoothly, and, though she had vassals and stewards in charge of overseeing things, there were many minute details to attend to throughout the day. For example, it was imperative that a high standard of cleanliness be maintained, as disease and plague were prevalent in England, especially during the hot summer months when the heat could be unbearable.

As for childbearing: yes, it was a main responsibility. But it was not an arduous “chore”. It was considered a blessing in that day to have as many children as possible; and the more, the better. (Though I do admit I often wonder at the sanity of those who had over 15 children in their households.)

Perhaps the reason that many women did not have as large a palette for reading as their male counterparts was due to the fact that they did not have time for much leisure. While their husbands were off hunting and fighting for the king, they were doing the math and working to ensure that their families were well taken care of and provided for.

Stereotype #2: The 18th Century Society Girl (circa 1793, A.D.)

Feminist Description:

Ever read any of Jane Austen’s debasing and demoralizing novels? No? Good! Don’t touch them! They are full of examples of the most pathetic of all female specimens: the 18th century society girl. These women were man-eating wenches whose only goal was to be married and live in a house full of servants and Chippendale furniture (and decorating their ballrooms in the French style, too). If they were lucky, they could have a basic knowledge of literature, but most of the time they just took turns about the room, went riding in phaetons, and attended balls teeming with the militia.

Reality:

How many of us (who are girls, that is) haven’t wished that we lived during Jane Austen’s time? Well, despite the fact that recent films portray the life of an 18th century aristocrat as being glamorous and leisurely, the fact remains that it was oftentimes very hard. Women were required to be rational and practical when marrying, and marrying for love was often not an option. Despite common opinion, daughters of aristocrats and gentlemen did not sit around eating bonbons and laughing about last night’s ball; they wrote tirelessly (if only letters of correspondence), ran their husbands’ and fathers’ households, perfected their social skills (not an easy task), and built up their contacts in society (definitely not easy). For those without a large income, housework was often a way of life. And that in itself was not quite simple, either.

Stereotype #3: The Oregonian Farmwife (circa 1840, A.D.)

Feminist Description:

What? You married a pioneer? Then your life was a wreck from the start. You were a major childbearing machine if you were the wife of a farmer; the more farmhands, the better- especially if you can get ‘em for free. And what did you do all day? Oh yeah- you churned butter and attended quilting bees to gossip about the latest Indian attack.

Reality:

Don’t you just love Hollywood?

Actually, life was definitely not a quilting party for those who risked their lives and left their families behind to start building a new life out West. A simple list of hazards and perils might help in persuading any feminists otherwise:

-Indian attacks

-Tornadoes/bad weather

-Prairie fires

-Disease

-Accidents (do-it-yourself barn raising: not too easy)

-Fighting/rivalry

-Miscarriages

-Lack of medical care

-Kidnapping (see Indian attacks)

-Food/water poisoning

-Dangerous wildlife (poisonous snakes, coyotes, etc.)

And that’s the short list.

Conclusion:

Despite the fact that we examined only three different cultures and eras, I think it’s safe to assume that feminists are entirely wrong in creating fictional stereotypes to pursue their agenda.

Lying will never accomplish any long-term goals; it will only destroy them.

Tags: femininity, feminism, historical analysis, Politics, women

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm and is filed under Expositional, History, Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.