Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3I5nqEqQElSFZmQEdG8o...TV4eEGl_Xa]](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3I5nqEqQElSFZmQEdG8of07Fehr-v6ob3pEcKwoTV4eEGl_Xa)
The Gilded Age in America followed directly on the heels of the Civil War that lasted up until the assassination of President William McKinley. It is a widely misunderstood era, as serious rumblings began with regards to the changes in society – many of it dominated by female voices. It was referred to as the Gilded Age because a thin veneer of gold that lined the serious, festering problems of wider society. In my opinion the 1950’s wasn’t the height of patriarchal approaches to family, leadership and society in general – it was the last gasp. The Gilded Age was the zenith of patriarchal society in America, with storm clouds slowly but surely gathering of the horizons of North America. Do note that there were serious problems – most especially with race and stabilizing male/female relationships – however, the Gilded Age's emphasis on gender roles is very important. For families and society to be stable, there has to be a division of labor based on sex.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQl_OqWbCTRWC1PcyCGOIC...oVaTwwaQ4n]](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQl_OqWbCTRWC1PcyCGOIC3z2lhtPAs1NeNLD4VIqoVaTwwaQ4n)
Let’s step through a couple important back-stories before digging into the era. Mary Stone Wollencraft, a British 18th century feminist (yes, they existed that long ago) published a pamphlet called “The Vindication of the Rights of Women.” It was fairly standard script, calling for women to be more than wives and become companions to their husbands – essentially, going to the same schools and working in same jobs as men. Of course, this primordial hamster doesn’t consider hypergamy – which makes a notable appearance in the Gilded Age. Further, the Seneca Falls Convention occurred in 1848, where prominent feminists of the age came to organize for women’s liberation. Important women like Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were on hand for the two day convention. As expected, fights erupted over male participation and race. Sojourner Truth gave her famous “Ain’t I Woman” speech to convince the middle and upper class females black women have value too. The issues were voting, contractual and property rights, educational access and prohibition of alcohol. Women were upset with their limited roles as wife and mother – many women expressed serious concern over “having” to love their children – note that Ibsen’s “A Doll House” was written 1878 and detailed women’s unhappiness with children and wifehood. In any event, the convention was a success, but of course, slavery was the issue that dominated the next one and a half decades.
The 1850’s were a tumultuous period in American history as the country teetered on the verge of civil war. A handful of ineffective American Presidents were elected who did little to stave off what would eventually erupt in a bloody and costly civil war. When Lincoln was elected in 1860 it all but assured Southern secession. The war ended four years later, with North winning a decisive victory; Lincoln himself was assassinated the next year. This setup of events leads to the Gilded Age – an age of unprecedented American economic growth and social transformation. Think of a Civilization game where you knock out the only other civilization on a big island and you hit your Golden Age.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTt9B9TFdiivFp8XrD65c...cTZEIxo5jw]](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTt9B9TFdiivFp8XrD65cXIArsiwpZhvemoMKwT17BcTZEIxo5jw)
Let’s step through a few relevant issues about the Gilded Age. First, let’s outline some the big issues in the era. Politically, race was huge issue. There were many divisions, as some anti-slavery whites adopted a “not in my neighborhood” policy whereby they supported freeing blacks, but didn’t really support anything else for blacks. As a result, blacks were sometimes in a worse situation than being slaves as they literally starved to death because of the lack of jobs and private charities or churches that often did nothing to help. The government did establish the Freedman’s Bureau, but it was poorly funded and staffed by, frankly, idiots. I read a good book on its history, but its name escapes me. In any event, the bureau did establish hospitals for blacks, but many still died from famine despite the rations dispensed. However, the greatest legacy was the establishment of schools and universities for blacks – most historically black colleges, like Howard, were founded in this era.
Also consider the massive influx of European immigrants into the country. Irish, Italians, Brits, Germans and all manner of Scandinavian flooded the country. They did for many different reasons – mostly related to chasing wealth in the US. This was a time of rapid urbanization and immigrants flocked to the cities, looking to work for factories. Urban centers became hotbeds of disorganization, crime and poverty. Modern approaches to urban planning and policing often came out of this era. Also, many moved West and formed communities all over the country, often taking to farming as indigenous Americans were more keen to move to urban areas. This created much racial and cultural strife, most especially for the Irish and Italians (my own grandmother, who was French, once remarked in her waning days of sanity about Italians – “Fuck those n******”). Times were tense and two marked depressions struck the country – in 1873 and 1893. As such, issues like monetary policy and tariffs were huge political issues.
However, what was going on with gender relations is fascinating. The groundwork had been laid for changes for women. There are two categories of female that competed against one another in this age: the “New Woman” and the Gibson girl. Let’s step through the “New Woman.” This woman was the literal embodiment of the primitive feminist. White, middle class and upper class and college educated, they were the founders of modern feminism. Many of them never married and never had kids, part of the reason fertility rates slowed at the outset of the 20th century. They flocked to urban areas, as there can be no feminism when you are a subsistence farmer or just a farmer in general. They enjoyed increased employment opportunities. Feminists claim that women lacked jobs until second-wave feminism came around - that is utter garbage. Women regularly were typists, telephone dispatchers, worked as secretaries and, in some states, worked in the civil service. They championed looser sexual mores, but were far more discreet about it than later generations. Also, understand the legal concept of coveture – whereby a woman gives up her legal rights to her husband upon marriage. If a woman remained unmarried, her right to own property and contract were maintained. Not marrying was a way of retaining legal rights that might otherwise get extinguished.
![[Image: 220px-Victoria_Woodhull.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Victoria_Woodhull.jpg/220px-Victoria_Woodhull.jpg)
The champion of this sort of women was Victoria Woodhull. Born into poverty, she worked her way up the ladder and became rich and engaged in a variety of activities. She married at 14 to a 28 year-old, by all accounts, a very charming doctor. He turned out to be a raging alcoholic and a serial womanizer. See where this train is heading? She became one of the most influential feminists of her time. She founded the first female-run Wall Street brokerage firm with her sister and raked in the scratch. She was the first female candidate for the Presidency, running under the Equal Right party. She also was the first woman to advocate for “free love” for women. Based on her experiences in her first (of three) marriages, she concluded people (women) should have the universal ability to marry, divorce and get custody of the children - with maintenance (alimony), of course. Despite her professed love for monogamy, she said people personally reserved the right to “love others exclusively” outside the marriage. A Gilded Age hamster, to be sure.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5STfxwEu_VdcM1Vgb36h...ZV-07GeJGg]](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5STfxwEu_VdcM1Vgb36h1MsFu5tiXyUiizTAYdnMdZV-07GeJGg)
However, let’s leave these “New Women” behind and focus on Gibson girls. The term Gibson girl was coined in 1892 (towards the end of the era) by Charles Dana Gibson, as he saw the Gibson girl as emblematic of the beauty reflected in the era. She was tall, skinny with “ample bosom and buttocks.” A politically correct of saying a great rack and ass? Well, this woman did incorporate some of the "New Woman's" ways while trying to maintain some sense of tradition. She was considered to be upper-class, refined, educated and sensitive. However, she broke traditional convention, as she could be see working out in public, like biking. She typically eschewed campaigning for women’s suffrage or any political movements. She would most likely be whispering in husband’s ear about the changes she wants to see in society or starting or helping in charities, the church or just general social betterment.
She was seen as not usurping masculinity nor male roles, but carefully sought out to expand her world. She sought to be more worldly, intelligent and to help her community in roles outside her home. Part of this impetus was urbanization and the strict gender role divide that emerged. Note that in rural farming communities, a level of equality exists as there is too much work for a woman to just sit around and dust the house – she has to feed livestock, tend to the yard and all manner of other stuff. The wage earning male that leaves a woman behind to tend to the home makes her restless. Plus, considering these women had excess income to hire nannies, tutors and maids, it makes sense she could get bored. As usual, these women assumed their grievances were universal to all women and sought to expand their roles.
The final important point was the development of the concept of the "domestic goddess." These women helped play up these roles, as they wanted more and more accolades for their domestic endeavors. Further, the men (betas) of the era sought to edify these women. Common complaints about the era involved men fawning over the beauty of women - as it reduces women to mere objects to admire their beauty. Further, common complaints of sexism arose from the "domestic goddess" concept. "New Women" wanted to emphasize their nonreproductive capacities, Gibson girls enjoyed the admiration but would have nothing to do with their thirsty admirers. However, the important takeaway is that the home was seen the under the control of a "domestic goddess," while work outside the home was seen as best under the control of a male. Pure gender role division.
![[Image: 300px-Gibson_Girls_Magnifying_Glass_by_C...Gibson.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Gibson_Girls_Magnifying_Glass_by_Charles_Dana_Gibson.jpg/300px-Gibson_Girls_Magnifying_Glass_by_Charles_Dana_Gibson.jpg)
However, do note these women emphasized propriety, marriage and refinement in women. No burgeoning Ke$has here. She helped popularize the corset and started and aided in many important charities in cities across the nation. However, it isn’t all rainbows and sunshine. Like the pic posted above, they began to belittle men. They would run cartoons like that one, showing men to be weak, ineffective and impotent. They referred to themselves as equals to men and sometimes considered themselves to be the snarky sidekick to their husband. They liked to portray men as simps and fools – think a predecessor to the “Everybody Loves Raymond” show. Their growing distaste for American men is palpable. It’s almost as if when men give women what they claim to want they immediately begin to resent that which men give into their demands – sound familiar?
Where does that leave the analysis? Let's start with the easy part - this sort of social setup reeks of privilege. Moneyed, racially privileged and urban in a rapidly technologically advancing society - they were setup at the apex of society. Of course, they could afford to be single and not reproduce. For the "New Women," they depended on poor women and Gibson girls to keep up fertility rates so they didn't have too. Like the flapper girls of the 1920's, the "New Women" lived lives of somewhat superficiality. Many didn't reproduce and they didn't inspire any men to work to provide for his family. As for Gibson girls, they didn't step outside the box, but backed up right against it. They flirted with stepping across the line, but ultimately did not. However, they helped pave the way for feminism to penetrate into society.
Let's consider human sexuality. I strongly believe women will always, once a degree of comfort and wealth is accumulated as a society, demand "free love" and be allowed to indulge their hypergamic impulses. It will start at the top of society and trickle down the poorest, once welfare programs are established that allow for a woman to have a husband's income with no husband. Women will call it "helping the poor" but I think part of the impulse is helping other women achieve hamster transcendence and allow her to have two distinct men in her life - providers and alphas. Of course, she may know the provider as a husband or not, as he is just a taxpayer. In this era, there were not many federal or state programs to help women, but part of this is that women who decided to go without marriage went without children. Per usual, poor women who worked still had many children.
Notice how generous women are with men's money. In the Gilded Era, men made the money that went to taxes. There was no federal income tax and the jobs women did often did not produce much tax revenue. Women shamelessly spent men's money on all sorts of pet projects that allowed them to self-aggrandize. The articles I reviewed all seemed to be reverential of generosity women displayed. A rich guy in the era founds a university? Greedy 1%er better cough up the damn money. A rich guy's wife founds a soup kitchen? Women really are the morally superior sex.
Which is one the big takeaways from this writeup. Not only did women haltingly began to assemble the machinery of feminism, but they also helped to establish a more expansive view of women. They helped alter fashion and social standards. Most importantly, they helped establish the idea of the domestic goddess and a woman's moral superiority. This idea is very relevant to today, as this idea has seeped into any institution in which women have sought access. The domestic goddess idea helped fuel the psychology of women who went to college but got married, had kids and was a housewife. It was a way of self-aggrandizing that didn't involve independent income or jobs outside the home. It was a way of helping women who wanted to cast off the chains of marriage and motherhood and just do for themselves and canoodle with all manner of alpha male.
Take the US Senate. Recent mainstream publications have trumpeted the fresh views women will bring. Less competition and more cooperation (stricter hierarchies), more sensitive to the oppressed (we get it, every woman is oppressed - especially female Senators) and just general betterment of the institution. This sort of idea has its roots in the Gilded Era idea of a woman - a morally pure female who only has the goodness and betterment of the world in her heart. The self-worship women subjected themselves to was at once furthered by so many men kowtowing to that idea. The women of this era invented the beta orbiter.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxJWtcit2OH3AnANvczg2...2BQp33nMPA]](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxJWtcit2OH3AnANvczg2dhDzufCt-oKiEoCSY6Nf62BQp33nMPA)
I could get into the psychological breakdown of that false mentality, but that is for another day. I will close with a bit about Ibsen's "A Doll House," which I noted in passing above. Ibsen penned the work in 1878 in Norway. In it, he lays out pure liberal autonomy theory - that people have a duty first to themselves before all else. The problem is a wife and mother is asserting this view. In the shocking ending, the wife, Nora, leaves the husband, Torvald and never returns to her family. It was beyond scandalous when it was published. The most famous line is that she claimed they never, ever had a serious discussion about serious matters in their relationship. Which highlights two things.
First, is women's inability to reconcile serious matters with the superficial. They claim to want taken seriously, but don't want to do the work that it takes. Women want to be taken seriously intellectually, but then blame their lack of desire for hard knowledge as male privilege. Nora wanted to have serious discussions, but about what? She claims it was his fault, as he saw her as nothing more than a doll, a plaything. While she may be right, does she consider what she does to reinforce that view?
Finally, is the whole concept of a doll house. Women want to pretend patriarchy is just a way of reducing them to breeding stock, property and objects. However, any society that wants to progress from the bottom needs patriarchy. Yeah, show me that "equal" society that allowed many women to never get married or reproduce. I will show you a society that is in the dustbin of history. We may very well tinker with the social expectations of a patriarchy - we should once a level of progress is made. However, the concept of a doll house reinforces what happens when society progresses - women being made to feel irrelevant.
More primitive societies don't have feminists because women are highly relevant in the day-to-day grind. In advanced societies, there is no need to churn butter, no need for her to feed the chickens, no need for her to educate her children. Society takes care of that. Women feel like they are in a doll house once technology and society relieves her of her duties as a housewife and mother.
The American women's relationship with the her perception of herself as being in a dollhouse started in this era. The urbanization, technological and fiscal privilege allowed women to stretch out and do things they never could before. The cracks in the foundation of the dollhouse began to appear. Some were superficial as Gibson girls merely wanted to change the color of the house and its decoration. "New Women" wanted to move it a bit, but nothing over-the-top. However, the change the "New Women" demanded was merely the start of a down a slippery slope. Like a house built on the California coast, a little push the wrong way - and it will fold like a house of cards. Which a metaphor for the US - women started to a blow a bit, then harder and until the the whole card-house collapses.
The Gilded Age in America followed directly on the heels of the Civil War that lasted up until the assassination of President William McKinley. It is a widely misunderstood era, as serious rumblings began with regards to the changes in society – many of it dominated by female voices. It was referred to as the Gilded Age because a thin veneer of gold that lined the serious, festering problems of wider society. In my opinion the 1950’s wasn’t the height of patriarchal approaches to family, leadership and society in general – it was the last gasp. The Gilded Age was the zenith of patriarchal society in America, with storm clouds slowly but surely gathering of the horizons of North America. Do note that there were serious problems – most especially with race and stabilizing male/female relationships – however, the Gilded Age's emphasis on gender roles is very important. For families and society to be stable, there has to be a division of labor based on sex.
Let’s step through a couple important back-stories before digging into the era. Mary Stone Wollencraft, a British 18th century feminist (yes, they existed that long ago) published a pamphlet called “The Vindication of the Rights of Women.” It was fairly standard script, calling for women to be more than wives and become companions to their husbands – essentially, going to the same schools and working in same jobs as men. Of course, this primordial hamster doesn’t consider hypergamy – which makes a notable appearance in the Gilded Age. Further, the Seneca Falls Convention occurred in 1848, where prominent feminists of the age came to organize for women’s liberation. Important women like Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were on hand for the two day convention. As expected, fights erupted over male participation and race. Sojourner Truth gave her famous “Ain’t I Woman” speech to convince the middle and upper class females black women have value too. The issues were voting, contractual and property rights, educational access and prohibition of alcohol. Women were upset with their limited roles as wife and mother – many women expressed serious concern over “having” to love their children – note that Ibsen’s “A Doll House” was written 1878 and detailed women’s unhappiness with children and wifehood. In any event, the convention was a success, but of course, slavery was the issue that dominated the next one and a half decades.
The 1850’s were a tumultuous period in American history as the country teetered on the verge of civil war. A handful of ineffective American Presidents were elected who did little to stave off what would eventually erupt in a bloody and costly civil war. When Lincoln was elected in 1860 it all but assured Southern secession. The war ended four years later, with North winning a decisive victory; Lincoln himself was assassinated the next year. This setup of events leads to the Gilded Age – an age of unprecedented American economic growth and social transformation. Think of a Civilization game where you knock out the only other civilization on a big island and you hit your Golden Age.
Let’s step through a few relevant issues about the Gilded Age. First, let’s outline some the big issues in the era. Politically, race was huge issue. There were many divisions, as some anti-slavery whites adopted a “not in my neighborhood” policy whereby they supported freeing blacks, but didn’t really support anything else for blacks. As a result, blacks were sometimes in a worse situation than being slaves as they literally starved to death because of the lack of jobs and private charities or churches that often did nothing to help. The government did establish the Freedman’s Bureau, but it was poorly funded and staffed by, frankly, idiots. I read a good book on its history, but its name escapes me. In any event, the bureau did establish hospitals for blacks, but many still died from famine despite the rations dispensed. However, the greatest legacy was the establishment of schools and universities for blacks – most historically black colleges, like Howard, were founded in this era.
Also consider the massive influx of European immigrants into the country. Irish, Italians, Brits, Germans and all manner of Scandinavian flooded the country. They did for many different reasons – mostly related to chasing wealth in the US. This was a time of rapid urbanization and immigrants flocked to the cities, looking to work for factories. Urban centers became hotbeds of disorganization, crime and poverty. Modern approaches to urban planning and policing often came out of this era. Also, many moved West and formed communities all over the country, often taking to farming as indigenous Americans were more keen to move to urban areas. This created much racial and cultural strife, most especially for the Irish and Italians (my own grandmother, who was French, once remarked in her waning days of sanity about Italians – “Fuck those n******”). Times were tense and two marked depressions struck the country – in 1873 and 1893. As such, issues like monetary policy and tariffs were huge political issues.
However, what was going on with gender relations is fascinating. The groundwork had been laid for changes for women. There are two categories of female that competed against one another in this age: the “New Woman” and the Gibson girl. Let’s step through the “New Woman.” This woman was the literal embodiment of the primitive feminist. White, middle class and upper class and college educated, they were the founders of modern feminism. Many of them never married and never had kids, part of the reason fertility rates slowed at the outset of the 20th century. They flocked to urban areas, as there can be no feminism when you are a subsistence farmer or just a farmer in general. They enjoyed increased employment opportunities. Feminists claim that women lacked jobs until second-wave feminism came around - that is utter garbage. Women regularly were typists, telephone dispatchers, worked as secretaries and, in some states, worked in the civil service. They championed looser sexual mores, but were far more discreet about it than later generations. Also, understand the legal concept of coveture – whereby a woman gives up her legal rights to her husband upon marriage. If a woman remained unmarried, her right to own property and contract were maintained. Not marrying was a way of retaining legal rights that might otherwise get extinguished.
The champion of this sort of women was Victoria Woodhull. Born into poverty, she worked her way up the ladder and became rich and engaged in a variety of activities. She married at 14 to a 28 year-old, by all accounts, a very charming doctor. He turned out to be a raging alcoholic and a serial womanizer. See where this train is heading? She became one of the most influential feminists of her time. She founded the first female-run Wall Street brokerage firm with her sister and raked in the scratch. She was the first female candidate for the Presidency, running under the Equal Right party. She also was the first woman to advocate for “free love” for women. Based on her experiences in her first (of three) marriages, she concluded people (women) should have the universal ability to marry, divorce and get custody of the children - with maintenance (alimony), of course. Despite her professed love for monogamy, she said people personally reserved the right to “love others exclusively” outside the marriage. A Gilded Age hamster, to be sure.
However, let’s leave these “New Women” behind and focus on Gibson girls. The term Gibson girl was coined in 1892 (towards the end of the era) by Charles Dana Gibson, as he saw the Gibson girl as emblematic of the beauty reflected in the era. She was tall, skinny with “ample bosom and buttocks.” A politically correct of saying a great rack and ass? Well, this woman did incorporate some of the "New Woman's" ways while trying to maintain some sense of tradition. She was considered to be upper-class, refined, educated and sensitive. However, she broke traditional convention, as she could be see working out in public, like biking. She typically eschewed campaigning for women’s suffrage or any political movements. She would most likely be whispering in husband’s ear about the changes she wants to see in society or starting or helping in charities, the church or just general social betterment.
She was seen as not usurping masculinity nor male roles, but carefully sought out to expand her world. She sought to be more worldly, intelligent and to help her community in roles outside her home. Part of this impetus was urbanization and the strict gender role divide that emerged. Note that in rural farming communities, a level of equality exists as there is too much work for a woman to just sit around and dust the house – she has to feed livestock, tend to the yard and all manner of other stuff. The wage earning male that leaves a woman behind to tend to the home makes her restless. Plus, considering these women had excess income to hire nannies, tutors and maids, it makes sense she could get bored. As usual, these women assumed their grievances were universal to all women and sought to expand their roles.
The final important point was the development of the concept of the "domestic goddess." These women helped play up these roles, as they wanted more and more accolades for their domestic endeavors. Further, the men (betas) of the era sought to edify these women. Common complaints about the era involved men fawning over the beauty of women - as it reduces women to mere objects to admire their beauty. Further, common complaints of sexism arose from the "domestic goddess" concept. "New Women" wanted to emphasize their nonreproductive capacities, Gibson girls enjoyed the admiration but would have nothing to do with their thirsty admirers. However, the important takeaway is that the home was seen the under the control of a "domestic goddess," while work outside the home was seen as best under the control of a male. Pure gender role division.
However, do note these women emphasized propriety, marriage and refinement in women. No burgeoning Ke$has here. She helped popularize the corset and started and aided in many important charities in cities across the nation. However, it isn’t all rainbows and sunshine. Like the pic posted above, they began to belittle men. They would run cartoons like that one, showing men to be weak, ineffective and impotent. They referred to themselves as equals to men and sometimes considered themselves to be the snarky sidekick to their husband. They liked to portray men as simps and fools – think a predecessor to the “Everybody Loves Raymond” show. Their growing distaste for American men is palpable. It’s almost as if when men give women what they claim to want they immediately begin to resent that which men give into their demands – sound familiar?
Where does that leave the analysis? Let's start with the easy part - this sort of social setup reeks of privilege. Moneyed, racially privileged and urban in a rapidly technologically advancing society - they were setup at the apex of society. Of course, they could afford to be single and not reproduce. For the "New Women," they depended on poor women and Gibson girls to keep up fertility rates so they didn't have too. Like the flapper girls of the 1920's, the "New Women" lived lives of somewhat superficiality. Many didn't reproduce and they didn't inspire any men to work to provide for his family. As for Gibson girls, they didn't step outside the box, but backed up right against it. They flirted with stepping across the line, but ultimately did not. However, they helped pave the way for feminism to penetrate into society.
Let's consider human sexuality. I strongly believe women will always, once a degree of comfort and wealth is accumulated as a society, demand "free love" and be allowed to indulge their hypergamic impulses. It will start at the top of society and trickle down the poorest, once welfare programs are established that allow for a woman to have a husband's income with no husband. Women will call it "helping the poor" but I think part of the impulse is helping other women achieve hamster transcendence and allow her to have two distinct men in her life - providers and alphas. Of course, she may know the provider as a husband or not, as he is just a taxpayer. In this era, there were not many federal or state programs to help women, but part of this is that women who decided to go without marriage went without children. Per usual, poor women who worked still had many children.
Notice how generous women are with men's money. In the Gilded Era, men made the money that went to taxes. There was no federal income tax and the jobs women did often did not produce much tax revenue. Women shamelessly spent men's money on all sorts of pet projects that allowed them to self-aggrandize. The articles I reviewed all seemed to be reverential of generosity women displayed. A rich guy in the era founds a university? Greedy 1%er better cough up the damn money. A rich guy's wife founds a soup kitchen? Women really are the morally superior sex.
Which is one the big takeaways from this writeup. Not only did women haltingly began to assemble the machinery of feminism, but they also helped to establish a more expansive view of women. They helped alter fashion and social standards. Most importantly, they helped establish the idea of the domestic goddess and a woman's moral superiority. This idea is very relevant to today, as this idea has seeped into any institution in which women have sought access. The domestic goddess idea helped fuel the psychology of women who went to college but got married, had kids and was a housewife. It was a way of self-aggrandizing that didn't involve independent income or jobs outside the home. It was a way of helping women who wanted to cast off the chains of marriage and motherhood and just do for themselves and canoodle with all manner of alpha male.
Take the US Senate. Recent mainstream publications have trumpeted the fresh views women will bring. Less competition and more cooperation (stricter hierarchies), more sensitive to the oppressed (we get it, every woman is oppressed - especially female Senators) and just general betterment of the institution. This sort of idea has its roots in the Gilded Era idea of a woman - a morally pure female who only has the goodness and betterment of the world in her heart. The self-worship women subjected themselves to was at once furthered by so many men kowtowing to that idea. The women of this era invented the beta orbiter.
I could get into the psychological breakdown of that false mentality, but that is for another day. I will close with a bit about Ibsen's "A Doll House," which I noted in passing above. Ibsen penned the work in 1878 in Norway. In it, he lays out pure liberal autonomy theory - that people have a duty first to themselves before all else. The problem is a wife and mother is asserting this view. In the shocking ending, the wife, Nora, leaves the husband, Torvald and never returns to her family. It was beyond scandalous when it was published. The most famous line is that she claimed they never, ever had a serious discussion about serious matters in their relationship. Which highlights two things.
First, is women's inability to reconcile serious matters with the superficial. They claim to want taken seriously, but don't want to do the work that it takes. Women want to be taken seriously intellectually, but then blame their lack of desire for hard knowledge as male privilege. Nora wanted to have serious discussions, but about what? She claims it was his fault, as he saw her as nothing more than a doll, a plaything. While she may be right, does she consider what she does to reinforce that view?
Finally, is the whole concept of a doll house. Women want to pretend patriarchy is just a way of reducing them to breeding stock, property and objects. However, any society that wants to progress from the bottom needs patriarchy. Yeah, show me that "equal" society that allowed many women to never get married or reproduce. I will show you a society that is in the dustbin of history. We may very well tinker with the social expectations of a patriarchy - we should once a level of progress is made. However, the concept of a doll house reinforces what happens when society progresses - women being made to feel irrelevant.
More primitive societies don't have feminists because women are highly relevant in the day-to-day grind. In advanced societies, there is no need to churn butter, no need for her to feed the chickens, no need for her to educate her children. Society takes care of that. Women feel like they are in a doll house once technology and society relieves her of her duties as a housewife and mother.
The American women's relationship with the her perception of herself as being in a dollhouse started in this era. The urbanization, technological and fiscal privilege allowed women to stretch out and do things they never could before. The cracks in the foundation of the dollhouse began to appear. Some were superficial as Gibson girls merely wanted to change the color of the house and its decoration. "New Women" wanted to move it a bit, but nothing over-the-top. However, the change the "New Women" demanded was merely the start of a down a slippery slope. Like a house built on the California coast, a little push the wrong way - and it will fold like a house of cards. Which a metaphor for the US - women started to a blow a bit, then harder and until the the whole card-house collapses.
