separate spheres – Empowering women through fiction and history.

The Separate Sphere Advantage: Lizzie Borden

I love historical true crime and I love family crimes. That’s one of the reasons why Book 3 of my series uses one of the staples of mystery fiction: The family gathering at the family mansion for the holidays (though usually, the mansion is haunted, which isn’t the case in my book). So it’s no surprise that I, along with many other people, have always been fascinated by Lizzie Borden and the Borden family murder.

There have been countless films, TV shows, and mini-series devoted to unraveling the Lizzie Borden case. I dug up an older movie recently, a made-for-TV film dating back to the 1970s. The Legend of Lizzie Borden (1975) stars Elizabeth Montgomery (aka, Samantha in the 1960s Bewitched series) and follows the events of the murders of Andrew and Abby Borden (Lizzie’s father and stepmother) and trial and acquittal pretty much as many sources report them. The film adds another element, though — it gives a theory (that has been accepted by many) of how the crimes were committed.

Photo Credit: (Elizabeth Montgomery (as Lizzie) and Katherine Helmond (as Emma, Lizzie’s older sister) from a scene from The Legend of Lizzie Borden, where women are picketing in front of the courthouse in support of Lizzie. 10 Feb 1975, Paramount Television: 995577823Xyn/Wikimedia Commons/PD US no notice

The film also takes a definite stance as to whether Lizzie was guilty or not. Keep in mind that, technically, the case is still unsolved. There’s also a lot of controversy over whether the evidence really shows Lizzie’s guilt. This film takes the stance that Lizzie was guilty because she had all the necessary requirements that point toward guilt: means, motive, and opportunity.

But this film brings in also another element to the motive piece I found especially interesting. It didn’t really surprise me, considering the film was made at the height of the second-wave women’s movement in the 1970s. Part of the movement’s purpose was to bring awareness to women’s oppression in the past. We already know the 19th century was not exactly a time of freedom for most women. They were dominated by the ideology of the separate spheres which kept them confined to certain areas of life (home, family, children, church), and venturing outside of that was considered transgressive.

For a young woman of Lizzie’s social standing (small town high society), those confines were present and oppressive. She and her older sister often complained to their father about not being able to go where they liked or do what they liked and of being chained to the house. Both unmarried, they lived with their strict father and stepmother with little or no money of their own and were expected to fulfill household duties assigned to them. The film doesn’t fail to bring this out in some scenes between the family and also in one interesting scene between the prosecuting attorney (who is dead-set on convicting Lizzie) and his own wife (who, much to his chagrin, shows sympathy for Lizzie’s situation).

But could it be the separate spheres actually worked in Lizzie’s favor during the trial? This is a theory many sources put forth and the one the film supports. Since Lizzie was a well-respected, well-to-do young woman, active in her church and high society, and, of course, a woman, she couldn’t possibly have committed such horrendous crimes as to chop up her father and stepmother. Many believe Lizzie was acquitted not based on the evidence but based on who and what she was and the jury’s refusal to believe such a woman could commit murder.

If you want to know the ins and outs of the Lizzie Borden case and weigh in on your opinion on whether she did or did not commit the crimes, I invite you to join my mailing list. In honor of the release of Book 3 of my series, Death At Will, I’ll be talking all next month about the Borden case, bringing forth the details like the crime itself, the victims, the perpetrator, and the trial. But you only get access to those emails if you’re on my list.

Oh, and did I mention you also get a free book if you sign up? If you don’t want to miss out, you can join here.

Fatherhood in the 19th Century

Photo Credit: A family in a drawing room, artist unknown, 19^th century, Bonhams: FA2010/Wikimedia Commons/PD art (PD old)

As the title of the second book in the Waxwood Series, False Fathers, suggests, the idea of fathers plays a huge role in the story and in the psychological reality of Jake Alderdice, the main character. Like everything else in the Gilded Age, fatherhood was a complex and changing concept in the late 19^th century.

Before the 19^th century, the role of the father was less removed from the family. Since so many Americans lived in rural towns and kept farms or other small ma-and-pa businesses, fathers worked close to home and sometimes even alongside their families. Their involvement with their wives and children was more intimate because of their close proximity to their families.

But this changed in the 19^th century, and the concept of the separate spheres played a role. As industrialization and urbanization became the norm for many families (that is, families moved to the cities, and men worked in larger companies owned by someone other than themselves), men’s “place” was regulated more to the pubic sphere. That is, their attention shifted to the larger spaces of business, law, and finance. As such, fathers were more detached from what went on in the home, though they still maintained a certain level of control as the main disciplinarians and educators of their children. The separate spheres also put women more firmly in private places such as the home. Their role as mothers and caregivers became more important, thus removing fathers even further from the day-to-day workings of the family.

We also want to remember the characteristics of the Gilded Age — success at any price, excess, and flaunting wealth. This was an ideal many American men wanted to achieve and, as such, they needed to put all of their focus on their business and financial endeavors to get it. This didn’t leave them much time or emotional energy to devote to their families. Thus, the identity of the father became one of the bread-winner.

There was something else that factored into the extrication of fathers from family life — public schooling. Up until the 1850’s, sending children to public schools was optional. As I mention above, many Americans were still living in rural areas and tending to farms or small businesses. In this atmosphere, children were often times given a very spotty education that depended more upon when they were needed to help out with the family (for example, on the family farm or during harvest seasons) than upon the idea that children should get a steady education. But in the 1850’s, that began to change as states issued laws that made sending children to public schools mandatory. Although the transition to mandatory public schooling for all states didn’t happen until the late 1910’s, it took the role of educator out of the hands of many fathers.

But while fathers lost their hold on their children as educators, their role shifted to business advisors, mainly for their sons (since most women did not and weren’t expected to work). This put the emotional connection between fathers and sons on a different level, a more authority-oriented level that we can imagine may have been somewhat less affectionate than it had been in earlier times. This is indeed the role various father figures take in relation to Jake in False Fathers. Much of his struggle for masculine identity lies in what his future success in the public sphere will look like. In this, he asks and receives help from a number of older men in the book.

I realize this paints a pretty dismal picture of fatherhood in the 19^th century, since it makes it sound as if men were little more than bread-winners and business advisors for their families. This is not to say that fathers were emotionally remote from their wives and children by any means (as the painting above shows). And, in the 1920’s, when women had earned more of their rights, they began to demand men share in the raising of their families, both physically and psychologically. In turn, men themselves were advocating for this, starting a Fatherhood Movement which, thankfully, has gained a lot of ground today and continues to do so.

To read more about False Fathers (which is now on sale at a special preorder price), you can go here. If you want to find out more about Jake and other characters in the Waxwood Series, read the series page here. And if you’d like to read an excerpt from False Fathers, you can join my readers group.

A Place for Everyone and Everyone in Place: The Separate Spheres

We now have a whole new generation (Generation Z) who are continuing the fight for women’s rights that started in the early 19th century. Some studies show more than half of Gen Z women consider themselves feminists and are deeply supportive of women’s rights. But with this also comes the backlash. The same studies point to many Gen Z men feeling feminism is either outdated or so extreme that it’s become reverse sexism.

I became a feminist in college in the 1990s when I began studying literature and women’s fiction. My parents are from a very patriarchal culture that supports the idea of male rule, and women’s purpose in life is serving everyone around them — parents, husband, children, community. Feminism was my way of breaking free from that.

I think this is why so many of my women characters embody independence and fight not only for their own rights but the rights of others during time periods when, like my parents’ culture, patriarchy ruled. From Adele Gossling (who admits she seeks justice for the dead as well as the living) to the Grave Sisters (for whom the newly ratified 19th Amendment permeates their thinking and beliefs). Even my Gilded Age family saga, the Waxwood Series, traces the awakening of Vivian Alderdice, a wealthy debutante, as she discovers she wants much more than what the rigid rules of Nob Hill society dictate for a young woman.

Photo Credit: OpenClipartVectors/Pixabay/CC0 1.0

To put it as simply as I can, the term “separate spheres” embraces the idea that men and women each have a very specific “place” in the world. I use the word “place” here a bit ironically, because confinement in the physical, emotional, and spiritual sense has been one of the greatest battles women have had to fight. In the 19th century, philosophers, religious leaders, and intellectuals believed men were born for the public sphere, which includes politics, business, and law, and women were destined for the private sphere, such as home, family, and community. In other words, men’s purpose in life was to go out and make money, make laws, and run the world, and women’s purpose was to take care of everyone. This is a very simplified definition of the separate spheres, but it gives you an idea of how the spaces occupied by women and men, for that matter, were rigidly defined and very limited.

When we look at the separate spheres more closely, we see they not only outlined what women (and men) could do and be, but what they couldn’t do or be. Women were expected to stay out of medicine, for example, because medicine came under the heading of the public sphere. Similarly, the idea of the stay-at-home dad was all but inconceivable since the home was women’s domain. Each was allowed to reap the rewards of the other sphere. For women, this meant financial support and social respect (since an unmarried woman was considered a castoff). For men, it meant a comfortable home and loving family and a small world where he was always (or most of the time) the master. There were exceptions, of course, but in general, this was the status quo.

In the mid-nineteenth century, business, politics, and economics were developing at a rapid pace. Jobs were opening up in the cities and people left behind the slower, simpler life they had known in the rural towns. At the same time, in the minds of many people, these spheres were full of big, bad monsters capable of luring people, especially young people, to evil, greed and sin, soiling their minds, souls, and bodies.

Because of this, home and family were idealized as the symbol of purity, comfort and refuge (which is one reason why Victorian homes were so ornate and overstuffed – a world apart from the public sphere). And who better to take care of them than infantilized, unsoiled women?

This thinking produced a third ideology: the Angel in the House. This was the eyelash-fluttering, childlike wife and mother who spent her days cleaning, cooking, attending to children, and engaging in religious and charitable work. This ideal of the Angel in the House had existed for a long time, but it took on a more important role in the 19th century. Many saw the separate spheres as necessary to modern life. Women had to be protected because they were the protectors of morals and values. Is it any wonder author Virginia Woolf once wrote how, for a woman to get any significant (non-domestic) work done, she had to kill the Angel in the House?

The ideal of the angel in the house actually derived from a popular, book-length poem written in 1854 by Coventry Patmore, and the model for this ideal was Patmore’s wife, pictured above.

Photo Credit: Portrait of Mrs. Coventry Patmore, John Everett Millais, 1851, oil on panel, The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: PKM/Wikimedia Commons/PD Art (PD old 100)

Patemore’s poem might sound like a gross stereotype, but it illustrates the whole idea behind the separate spheres. It was, after all an ideology – the way people wished things would be or believed they should be.

The problem with the Angel in the House and the separate spheres was that they created a model of womanhood most women found impossible to live up to, and many found unsatisfying. That ideal would come back to haunt society a hundred years later when Betty Friedan published her seminal work, The Feminine Mystique, and labeled this same model of womanhood, somewhat modified in the post-World War II generation, as “The Problem That Has No Name”.

When a woman’s temperament did not fit the sphere to which she was confined, illness ensued. A famous example of this is the Charlotte Perkins Gilman story “The Yellow Wallpaper”, which I mention here.

Welter refers to the cult of true womanhood, but it should really be called the myth of true womanhood. Ideologies take on the proportions of myths because these narratives cannot be realized as anything but legends.

Thankfully, the idea of the separate spheres began to crumble in the 20th century when women thrust their way into the public sphere through progressive movements like suffragism. The New Woman also emerged during this time, completely turning the Angel in the House on her ear. In the 1920s, the New Woman became the flapper, an even more revolutionary type that broke all the rules the Angel in the House had set.

If you’re looking for books about women breaking out of the separate spheres, there’s no better place to start than mine. If you like historical mysteries, you can begin with The Carnation Murder, the first book of my Adele Gossling Mysteries. The book is free on all bookstore sites here. For some flapper fun, check out the first book of my Grave Sisters Mysteries here. If you’re more into women’s fiction, I have a family saga set in the Gilded Age called the Waxwood Series. You can check out the first book of that 4-book series, The Specter, for just 99¢ at all bookstores by going to this link.