Amy T Peterson, Valerie Hewitt, Heather Vaughan, et al
Page 21
tablecloths.
outside the home needed to become more acceptable for businesses to
succeed. As more women worked, the accepted standards of morality
began to change.
In a minor way, President Theodore Roosevelt may have helped the
cause of the ‘ new woman.’’ His daughter Alice was not a prim and proper
example of Victorian womanhood. Alice had a mind of her own and felt
no restrictions if she wanted to share her opinions. Alice enjoyed causing
trouble in staid Washington, DC. People felt that if the president allowed
his daughter to adopt a modern role, they should be able to treat their
own daughters the same way.
SEXUALITY AND MORALITY
Sexuality at the beginning of the twentieth century was considered a mas-
culine characteristic. It was common knowledge that men had sexual
desires, and many men saw nothing wrong with satisfying those desires.
Women were raised to be mothers, not sexual creatures. Sex was consid-
ered a woman’s duty and necessary for the production of children, but
women were not supposed to have sexual desires. They were to satisfy
their husband’s desires and to produce children, especially boys who could
carry on the family name.
Men were considered to be far more passionate than women, so it was
not uncommon for men to engage in sexual activities outside their home.
In many situations, these extramarital affairs were frowned on only if the
relationship was obvious. Sexual relations with women other than a man’s
wife were accepted, provided they did not exceed the boundaries of a
given community’s tolerance. In wealthy families, it was not uncommon
for the wife to have a party or other social activity without her husband.
Women, however, had little, if any, latitude regarding appropriate sex-
ual behavior. It was totally unacceptable for any woman to display an
122
THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY
‘ unnatural’ desire for sex simply for pleasure. Because women can get
pregnant, many women who had sex outside of the boundaries of mar-
riage were ostracized and considered to be somehow unfit and possibly
even evil. A community’s reaction to a pregnant, unmarried woman, or a
woman who was not pregnant with her husband’s child, could face a vari-
ety of sanctions, depending on the size and location of the community.
Many families would not allow their unmarried daughters to associate
with a pregnant, unmarried woman for fear that the reputation of the
‘ innocent’ daughter would be damaged. That might mean that the
daughter could not get a good husband, which was the primary goal for
most young women.
Most people expected to be married for life, because most marriages
existed until one of the partners died. Divorce was rarely an option; at the
beginning of the century, only about 5 percent of the entire population
had been divorced (Chadwick and Heaton 1992). There were times when
divorce would have been socially acceptable, usually when a man refused
to support his wife and children, but many women would not divorce a
husband because they had no skills to support a family without the hus-
band’s presence. In some cases, women could return to their birth families,
but many women did not have relatives who could support a woman with
children. Whereas a divorced woman also found it difficult to remarry, a
divorced man usually had no problem.
This dual sense of morality existed in one form or another for centu-
ries. It might have been modified somewhat in the frontier communities
in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Some frontier communities
had few women, and those women were allowed more freedoms than
women in the more established rural communities of the east. It was not
uncommon for a young woman to come west to live in a town with few
other single women. A young girl could become a prostitute, earn a re-
spectable amount of money, and then later make a good marriage. Once
she was married, her past had little meaning. Once the community began
to grow, however, and the number of men and women were more equal,
this tolerance diminished. This change in behavior was attributable par-
tially to the fact that many women from ‘ back east,’’ with their more con-
servative expectations, were now living in what had been a more liberal
community.
Originally, families needed many children because the children could
be put to work on the family farm. Many children also died before they
grew to maturity, so families needed a high birth rate to partially compen-
sate for the high child mortality rate. As the country grew and became
urbanized and healthcare improved, large numbers of children were no
The 1900s
123
longer a necessity. Some women wanted to limit the size of their families,
for a variety of reasons, but birth control was not considered an appropri-
ate topic for discussion or an appropriate choice for any woman.
In the latter part of the 1800s, birth control and abortion became, if
not popular topics of conversation, at least more available if one knew
how to find information. Literature on birth control was easy to obtain
through the mail. Accurate information, however, was harder to get. The
birth rate was declining, but sex, menstruation, birth control, and abortion
were considered inappropriate topics of conversation, even between a
woman and her doctor.
This was taken to such an extreme that it was not even wise for a male
physician to look directly at a woman while she was giving birth. It was
thought that the physician would develop ‘ impure’’ ideas if he actually
saw his patient naked. Some women would not let their husbands see
them naked and refused to visit a doctor because of their sense of mod-
esty. Women began to get medical training, but women physicians were
rare. Those women who did practice medicine were thought to be abor-
tionists and were frequently ostracized.
GROWING UP IN AMERICA
Considering what is known in the twenty-first century about children and
how to raise a child, it is somewhat surprising that so many children from
earlier centuries actually survived childhood. The first obstacle was child-
birth. Many children, or their mothers, did not survive childbirth in the
early days of this century because little was known about infections and
how to prevent excessive bleeding. Very little was known about miscar-
riages or reasons for early births. If a woman was going into labor before
the fetus had matured enough to live on its own, there was little a woman
could do to help her child.
Once born, infants in urban areas were often raised in less than sani-
tary conditions because everyone lived in those conditions. Other than the
wealthiest city dwellers, most urbanites dealt with inadequate sewer sys-
tems, lack of clean water, and air pollution from factories. Because the
general public did not understand germs, children’s diapers might not be
washed thoroughly between uses. Many children would be wrapped so
that
they could hardly move. They would be left like that for hours, if not
an entire day. This practice continued even into the beginning of the
twentieth century.
Healthy children might be in contact with sick children or sick adults.
Standard medications for childhood diseases did not exist. If a child
124
THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY
caught the measles, it was potentially fatal. If a child cried a lot, good
parents were known to give their children alcohol or drugs to quiet them.
Some children were even given laudanum, an opium derivative, to keep
them calm and quiet.
Because mothers had almost total supervision of their children, they
were deemed responsible for the outcome of their children. If a child was
too noisy, too lazy, or did not behave as the community expected, it was
the mother’s fault. The Victorian ideal that the woman was responsible
for the family’s morality continued in the first decade of the century.
Unless a girl was born into a wealthy family, she was expected to help
her mother with her younger siblings as well as the household chores.
Depending on where the family lived, a girl might attend some school. If
a school was available, some girls would attend only when they were not
needed at home. Most families did not think that girls needed as much
education as boys did. Many women, especially in rural areas, received
very little education.
Girls born into urban families might have no education at all. If they
were old enough, some girls would stay at home and care for their siblings
and keep house while their parents were working. In some cases, children
could earn more than their parents did, so both girls and boys would get
jobs as soon as they were able to do so. Most of these jobs lasted ten or
more hours a day and consisted of difficult work that adults did not want
to do or could not do.
Generally speaking, most boys were raised with the belief that they
needed to learn the skills necessary to be a wage earner. Some boys would
become apprentices, some would work on farms or at unskilled labor, and
some, if the family could afford it, would attend school. Girls, conversely,
would learn the domestic skills they would need when they became wives
and mothers. Many girls, however, would learn skills such as needlecraft
or singing, but they rarely learned the skills necessary to run a household.
Many marriages suffered when a young wife was suddenly faced with the
need to cook, clean, and manage a household.
Urban children of the working-class poor, which included most of the
newly arrived immigrants, usually started working as soon as they were
old enough. Many children worked in dirty, dangerous jobs that needed
someone small or agile, and children were prime candidates. Many of
these jobs were cleaning up after the older adult workers. Children, for
example, would take away the used bobbin spools in mills and return with
full bobbins so the adults could continue their work. They worked long
hours and got little pay. What money they did earn they brought home to
their families.
The 1900s
125
Society was not making children work. Children started working
because business owners became increasingly greedy. There were no rules
or guidelines to protect workers from unscrupulous supervisors. If the na-
ture of the work did not require an adult, many business owners simply
hired children because children earned less money. In some communities,
the parents could not find work because companies hired children. Thus,
to have any money, a family would be forced to send the children to
work.
Some children, especially girls, did not work outside their home. They
worked in their homes. Many mothers had to go to work because they
had no husband or because their husband’s job did not pay enough to sup-
port the family. These mothers would have to entrust the care of the chil-
dren to the oldest children in the families. These children, if they were
old enough, would actually remain at home and care for their smaller
siblings. Some children would be sent to live with other relatives until
the parents were able to obtain jobs that could keep the entire family
together.
Another option was for the mother and the children to work at home.
This would allow the mother to be home with her children, but she
would have to enlist the aid of her children in the job as well. Many
times, the children would have little or no schooling, because they were
needed to help supply income to the family. Poor families wanted their
children to get educations because they viewed education as the way out
of poverty.
Initially, there were no laws that covered child labor. As the use of
child labor grew unchecked, many practices got worse. Only in the 1900s
did some of the advocates of the Progressive movement begin to push for
change. One such demonstration was led by an Irish-born woman called
‘‘Mother Jones.’’ In 1903, in an attempt to gain recognition for the plight
of child workers, she organized a march of children past President Theo-
dore Roosevelt’s home in Long Island. Mother Jones also managed to
have the march publicized. Her intent was to make a comparison between
Roosevelt’s children and the child workers. Roosevelt did not acknowl-
edge the children, but the publicity helped Mother Jones draw attention
to the needs of children.
African-American families wanted their children educated, but preju-
dice kept the children in poorer schools. Their parents were not able to
get jobs that would allow the children to attend a better school. In many
cases, African-American women would have to take jobs as domestic
workers, because that was the only job they could get. For many women,
this meant that they would have to live in the home of their employer
126
THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY
and be ready to do any work that the employer wanted done at any time.
Many African-American women rarely got to see their children, unless
they quit their jobs.
Children in the middle and upper classes were able to get some formal
education. Children who did not live in urban areas might have to be sent
away to school, but children in cities frequently had schools they could
attend that were close to home. Boys would attend school to learn the
skills necessary to acquire an occupation and earn the money necessary to
maintain a family.
T H E
1910S
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
Perhaps because parents had some idea of the restrictions place on married
women, young, unmarried American women were allowed considerable
freedom. This freedom, however, totally disappeared, for most women, the
moment they married. Visitors to the United States were surprised at this
sudden shift of behaviors. Over time, American women began to wonder
about it themselves. Young women debated the benefits of a restricted
married life versus a life as an unmarried spinster. Although most women
ultimate
ly did marry, an increasing number of them believed that married
women should have some of the freedoms of their unmarried sisters.
At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twenti-
eth, ‘ women’s causes’’ were varied. It was not unusual for a woman to
want more freedom, but many of them were also anti-abortion and anti-
suffrage. There were many women who wanted the right to vote but did
not think women needed additional changes in their lives.
There were just as many women who vocally opposed the changes that
feminists proposed. They believed that the concepts of feminism and fam-
ily were fundamentally at conflict. Like women’s rights activists, they saw
feminism as the right to lead one’s own life as an individual. Anti-suffrage
women saw the feminist as turning her back on society and family. They
also saw it as deposing the man as the breadwinner of the family. These
women held meetings and lectures at private houses and in public places
to disseminate their opinions. These meetings were often covered in local
newspapers.
Young marriages continued to be frequent in the 1910s. The marriage
of minors became a Supreme Court issue in 1910, when the court found
The 1910s
127
a conflict in the Domestic Relations Act that governed marriages. One
portion of the act allowed city clerks to issue marriage licenses to minors
as long as there was parental permission. Another portion of the act gave
courts the right to void marriages of minors. For a period, city clerks
stopped issuing licenses to minors, which included men under 21 and
women under 18, until the conflict in the law could be resolved (New York
Times 1910).
Once a woman married, she was expected to give up her job, stay at
home, and take care of her husband. This belief remained prevalent in the
1910s despite a Supreme Court ruling that made it illegal to dismiss a
female employee because she was married. In 1913, many teachers in the
New York public school system hid their marriages to continue working,
because the school system opposed employing married women (New York
Times March 23, 1913).
WWI created a ‘ matrimonial drive’’ among many young men. When
President Wilson announced in 1917 that the draft may be instituted for
single men aged 19 to 25, many young couples rushed their wedding