#MeToo: Essays...Part I

#MeToo: Essays About How and Why This Happened, 

What it Means and How to Make Sure It Never Happens Again 

by Lisa Perkins

I established a 30-day free trial account on scribd to mainly listen to the audiobook of poetry, Long Way Down by Jason Reynolds, to satisfy the 2020 Read Harder Challenge prompt #8.

I rarely listen to audiobooks and didn't wish to pay for something I wouldn't listen to again. 

If you happen to listen to this, be sure to listen to his interview at the end. 
It is definitely noteworthy! I did find Reynolds' narration to be wonderful 

and would highly recommend this audiobook.

However, I will also own the actual book and read it as well. 

Just because I overall prefer a book in my hands. But on to #metoo.

I wanted to read a collection of essays regarding the #metoo movement.

I wanted a bit of introduction to some of the stories out there.

Another Goodreads member had read this and recommended it. 

And since I had another 2 weeks left of that 30-day free trial, I decided I would read the ebook on scribd. Just because... This ebook was published by Smashwords.com.

Not a publisher with which I am familiar. They have a very intimidating message in the "Smashwords edition, license notes" to be sure to purchase this book and any more copies of this book that you may wish to gift to others so they can also read it. 

Okay. Fine. I get that. "Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author." 

Again. I agree wholeheartedly. But...

On page 10 of 165 (actually the first page of text) 

there is a VERY obvious typo--defiNed rather than defied!

It is such a glaring error because the sentence is about a woman 

who literally DEFIED the nondisclosure agreement she had signed. 

Obviously, this particular book could have used a good editor's scrutiny just one last time!

Or maybe even a mediocre editor's once over...but whatever. 

I am reading it for free. What did I expect? So onward and upward...

Perkins begins by detailing two encounters she had with 

"totally out of place sexual behavior within a work environment."

These two stories alone enraged me! We can be so gullible and naive when young, 

can't we? She admitted she had never told anyone 

nor had she written about these experiences, until now. As she states:

We have to tell our stories, point the finger, shame this behavior and make it stop.

And if we have to do it every day for the next month, or year, or decade, we have to make that commitment. (p 13)

Agreed! We may well need to do this for the rest of our life!

...we have to change how we look at the behavior, and make sure that there are consequences. (p 14)

We are not a mob. We are a movement. (p 14)

And, as she notes, this movement which Patricia Douglas initiated clear back in 1937 in Hollywood, through Anita Hill's brave testimony, is now a worldwide/global call to action!

Back legislation to change the nondisclosure laws in the workplace. (p 14)

I remember being horrified when I learned this was even a thing! 

And a perfectly LEGAL, often used thing, at that! 

That was with regard to Donald Trump's own sexual antics revealed during the 2016 Presidential election. (And how has that worked out for our country?)

I love this quote:

Don't just lean in. Take the reins. (p 14)

I did read Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead as part of our campus Office of Women Book Club about six months after its release in 2013. 
I felt the main point it made was that each individual should have the right to choose 
what they do with their life, regardless of gender. 
But I know the book received some negative reactions...so this did make me chuckle.
Perkins states her goal is "to reach people in the most permanent ways possible" and to achieve that end, the paperback version of this book is being sold at cost.
So pass this book around. Share it with your sons, brothers, fathers, 
your daughters, sisters, mothers, your co-workers and friends. 
Read passages to them, if they won't read it for themselves. 
Leave it on the desk of someone who should know better. 
Help us make this movement more than a hashtag. (p 15)

1937. That is the year Patricia Douglas became the first woman to publicly call out the studios (MGM specifically) for such behaviors. At the age of 20 she was one of 120 women to show up for an audition for You Must Remember This. Each woman was "fancied up" and "given a skimpy outfit" and taken to a party thrown for studio executives and 300 salesmen, as the evening's entertainment. (In addition to the 500 cases of scotch and champagne.) Patricia (and all the other women) were repeatedly sexually assaulted and eventually Patricia was raped. Since MGM owned everyone and everything at that time, nothing came of the criminal charges filed although a grand jury was convened). Civil lawsuits went nowhere, but Douglas persevered and finally tried to file a lawsuit in federal court, to which her own lawyer did not appear, nor any of the MGM bigwigs, so it was dismissed. However, this 

was "an apparent legal first" in that "a female plaintiff 

made rape a federal case, based on its violation of her civil rights. (p 21)

Even when interviewed at the age of 86, Douglas stated

"It ruined my life. It absolutely ruined my life"...

"They put me through such misery. It took away all my confidence." (p 21)

Patricia was willing to go public again due to her advanced age.

"When I die, the truth dies with me, and that means those bastards win." 

Not today. (p 22)

Thanks to Raechal Leone Shewfelt and Lisa Perkins, that is not what happened. Patricia Douglas's story has seen the light of day... :)

A.M. Carley asserts that such abuse is common knowledge, especially when you consider the 2016 Presidential election when the current "Predator-in-Chief" was 'elected' by the electoral college, not by the popular vote. Carley cites the Stockholm Syndrome as the main reason so many "conservative white middle-class women voted Republican." 

They took on the views of their oppressors long ago. 

Now, like the rest of us, they're wedded to their story, 

and recalcitrant about ceding any ground. (p 30)

What should we do to fight back? Promote "girl power"! Educate all children, female and male, about when "physical contact feels unwelcome" and how to report it. But most of all, train society to believe such reports and act upon them. Empower all individuals so each person can think clearly and form their own attitudes and opinions without caving to the oppressors and their desires. Most importantly--MOBILIZE and VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE! 2020 is our year! 

But only if we exercise our rights. And, as Ambassador Susan Rice said on March 2nd as a Steward Speakers Lecture Series presenter in Indianapolis, Indiana, (I'm paraphrasing): It is not only imperative that YOU vote, but that you make sure all your family and friends vote as well! 

Jesse Berdinka writes in "The Bully Culture of the Weinsteins" what really resonated for him was not to be on the red carpet, but rather the idea of the "culture of constantly trying to be the best at something, trying to prove something." As Berdinka says, the Weinsteins always portrayed themselves as "two kids from Queens fighting and besting a system that didn't think they were good enough to get in." That attitude permeated all the way down the authority chain. He describes how anyone could move up in the Weinstein corporation and in fact, it was perhaps easier for those from the 'outside' to do so than the typical Ivy League grad...

The problem is you can't be the outsider forever. 

At some point you have to find something to be for instead of against. 

Scrappiness often turns into ego. Ego turns into anger. 

The culture was one where you had to make a choice. (p 40)

He describes how you had to become a bully to "fit in." And then rationalize that in whatever way you saw fit--typically self-medicating with alcohol and/or drugs. 

The real power of abuse isn't the big things. It's the subtle drip. 

The slow wearing down of a person, by small comments, looks or actions.

It wears on you day after day, sand blown hard even against the hardest of rocks. 

(p 42)

He admits to having witnessed absolutely reprehensible and unacceptable behaviors and doing nothing since they were not "crimes." But as he notes, is that our level of attention? Only when such behavior qualifies as criminal is it to be addressed? For him, it came down to a choice regarding what he valued as a person. He determined that he valued kindness, and he left the Weinstein corporation. 

Paul M. Sammon describes "The Big Ugly" as "pay to play" that has always existed in the underbelly of Hollywood. He is aware of many such alliances with "willing" participants. He describes several situations where he was able to extricate himself before anything untoward or unwelcome was offered to him directly. He credits a law enforcement background and knowledge for this 'sixth sense' of avoidance. Sammon also realizes that as a male he is certainly much more able to care for himself than females and doesn't even try to extend his own experiences to any others. He also has a 40-year-long successful marriage, so has found it easy to remember that any short-term pleasure is not worth risking that long-term committed relationship. 

I do know that I don't like bullying. Of any kind. To any gender. (p 50)

Sammon believes the "casting couch" culture will persist.

Because demanding unwanted sexual favors is a smaller manifestation of our country's larger, ongoing, deeply troubling war against gender equality--a war which some men continue to wage by using fiscal threats and sexual coercion as anti-woman power tools. (p 51)

As successful actor, screenwriter, and producer Brit Marling states: 

The real danger inside the present moment...would be for us all to separate the alleged deeds of [Bill] Cosby, [Roger] Ailes, [Bill] O'Reilly, or Weinstein 

from a culture that continues to allow for dramatic imbalances of power. 

It's not these bad men. Or that dirty industry. It's this inhumane economic system 

of which we are all a part. As producers and as consumers. 

As storytellers and as listeners. As human beings. 

That's a very uncomfortable truth to sit inside. 

But perhaps discomfort is what's required. (p 52)

Agreed. Discomfort is the least of it. I feel that Harvey Weinstein being convicted AND jailed is just a start...

In "Wall Street Assets" Veronica Vera describes her early days on Wall Street, which included mind-blowing sex with one of the worst sexual predators, but the highest-earning salesperson, in a major Wall Street Firm. Of course, this man was retained at this firm because of his "success." At least "success" as measured in dollars of sales. Otherwise, he was one of the worst creeps! (Granted this was in the 1960's, but still...) Veronica did come around to a feminist mindset and has done well for herself and serves as a mentor to others in many ways. But that description of her first job and the sexual relationship with this guy...gave me the creeps! Seriously, I had to take a break from reading this and return to it. Ugh.

Camilla Saly-Monzingo provides some details of her life as a rock'n'roll runaway teen in the 1970's. Scary to read of the times she was raped and otherwise assaulted. And I keep asking myself: Why do these men feel this is "right"? Obviously, our society gives them permission to do as they please. Period. Fortunately for her, Camilla becomes a stable adult who serves as a teacher and mentor to others. 

This myth that men often cite, that the girls are hanging around, in my case 

in a club or backstage or in a hotel lobby, "because they want it, and that means "they were asking for it," has to be dissected, examined and addressed. 

I did want attention. I did want approval. I was a sexual being. 

But I did not want to be coerced, abused and raped. 

Those are very, very different things. (p 64)

While we do need to empower girls/females as Saly-Monzingo states, we must educate boys/men/all adults to realize their responsibility to others, but especially those younger than themselves/teens/children! 

We also have to teach men that, when dealing with young people, 

what looks to them like "I'm into it" doesn't give them license to do whatever 

they want, regardless of the power and age differential. 

And it is never okay to coerce or force sex on anyone. (p 68)

In "Consent: Breaking the Silence" Mary Billiter describes the initial sexual assault she suffered, at the hands of "a distant family relative" who began staying at her parent's house. He would come to her room at night, always when she was sleeping and rape/sexually assault her. She was 11 years old. And as so often happens, her parents blamed her for the nightshirt she wore. At this point in the story, I am saying out loud: "un-fucking-believable"! When the people on whom you should be able to rely the most to listen to and believe you and then protect you from further harm deny your truth, where the hell can/do you turn? As with many children--alcohol became the answer. To escape and mask the pain. Fortunately for Mary, a friend called her years later in the aftermath of a sexual assault she had suffered which prompted Mary to finally discuss and disclose her own sexual assaults. Billiter quotes some of the astounding statistics available: 

(1) 80% of female rape victims are assaulted before the age of 25

(2) One of every six American women has been the fiction of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime

(3) Nine of every ten victims of rape are female

(4) Per a survey conducted by the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) focused on what the sexual assault survivor was doing when the crime occurred:

48% were sleeping

29% were traveling to or from school or work

12% were working

7% were attending school

5% were doing an unknown or other activity

No matter the situation, sexual assaults are 

physically debilitating, emotionally draining, unimaginably traumatic and shameful.

There is no timetable for when someone will heal form a sexual assault. (p 74)

Since I am about halfway through this book, I am ending this Part 1 review here...

you can find Part 2 here!

Happy reading!

~Lynn

Literary Wives #43

War of the Wives by Tamar Cohen

Welcome to the 43rd "wifely" book review for the Literary Wives online discussion group!

#LiteraryWives

Check out our Facebook page!

And PLEASE, if this interests you, 

read with us and participate in the discussions!

You can post your own review and link it to the FB page and any or all of our blogs!

Or just comment right along with us!

Please make sure you read 

the other hosting bloggers' reviews:

Naomi of Consumed by Ink

Kay of whatmeread
Eva of The Paperback Princess

I am interested as to others' reactions to this book.
I found it to be extremely compelling. 
I literally read it in one day. I simply could not put it down. 
I did not remember this was a mystery...but...bonus! :)
I not only found the mystery compelling, but the characters and their interactions were just as compelling to me as my need to know "whodunnit" if Simon did not commit suicide. 
It seemed as if every single character prompted both compassion and sympathy/empathy. 
Each character was complex, while still being relatable.
I was reminded of The Aviator's Wife by Melanie Benjamin, 
since Charles Lindbergh was also a bigamist. 
Actually, he had multiple families around the world.
Quite the "family guy," huh?
Simon was rather similar, though he only had 
two "wives" and one mistress. That we know of...
In addition to being wives, both Lottie and Selina 
were mothers to teenagers. They both had their 
challenges dealing with their children in the wake of Simon's death.

I particularly appreciated Selina and Lottie's various challenges in dealing with their children. As Lottie says:

I can understand why Mum worried so much. When your children are younger 

you think you want to raise them to make their own choices, but gradually 

you realize what you really mean is the right choices, your choices. (p 42)

I did laugh at this, because I believe it is a trap most parents fall into very easily. However, I'm sure in no small part in reaction to my own mother's overbearing and overly judgmental behaviors, I tried very hard not to expect my sons to do what I wanted them to do, but rather tried to educate them to all the possibilities their adult life presented to them. It is, after all, their life...not mine! And I refuse to try to 'live through my children'. That is so unfair and unjust. 

Dealing with my own children became trickier as they aged. As they become adults, you truly have no control and very little opportunity for meaningful input. For the most part you simply sit back and watch unless you intend to alienate them by giving your opinion(s) and/or 'lecturing' them... As Selina discusses what she wishes to say to her daughter Flora regarding her hairstyle: 

...or any of the stupid things overbearing mothers want to 

say to their grown-up daughters. (p 13)

I had to chuckle at this statement. Though it made me recall the fact that my own mother never ever hesitated to give me her opinion, no matter how rude or overbearing she may have been in doing so. (That would go a long way in describing our fraught relationship.) Likewise Lottie with her teenage daughter, Sadie, often choosing to keep her comments to herself to hopefully encourage the girl to confide in her as much as possible. As Lottie states, 

There's something about mothers and daughters, isn't there? (p 39)

Sadie was a "daddy's girl" according to Lottie. I wouldn't know about that either since I never had a father in my life. But I feel as if I would have connected better with a male since I tend to be quite androgynous in my behaviors in many ways. While I have never dealt with a daughter I know that it can be a very difficult relationship to maintain between mothers and daughters, at least from my perspective as a daughter of an extremely judgmental mother. But I digress...

I could appreciate Lottie's bemoaning the fact that her mother didn't live long enough to see just how happy she and Simon have been...

Sometimes I wonder if that's the thing you miss most when someone dies, 

not so much the person themselves as the things they'll never know about you 

and what's happened in your life. The you they'll never meet. (p 42)

As I read this I remembered a friend who stated that he felt what I missed most in the wake of my mother's death was that there would never be a chance for us to have a good relationship since she was no longer in this world. And he was correct. That is what I yearned for my whole adult life and now knew I would never have...

Selina feels "Grief has made her selfish." (p 57) This is the result of her being unable to speak with her son Josh regarding his own grief and emotions in the wake of his father's death. Though I would argue that Selina had buried her own feelings and needs for so long that she was unable to express her own emotions, let alone help her children do so. She cites the fact that "Josh has never been faced with something irreversible" (p 98) and is finding the "brutal finality" of it difficult to accept. 

When the worst that can happen has already happened, 

what can you do but start again? (p 356)

Through all this family trauma, and was there ever trauma, Cohen manages to slip in some humor, mainly through Selina. For example, as she describes the downsides of Skyping: 
     (1) you can never get away/hang up
     (2) you can see each other and that is so "intimate." 
I don't Skype but I had never considered those two factors. I'm sure that's true.  

In the end, Lottie discovers after the funeral that she is pregnant with Simon's child and it is hopeful to see Selina and her own children rally round Lottie during the pregnancy and childbirth. While looking at the new baby, Hope, in her hospital bed

[Lottie] felt that jolt of betrayal when she thought about Simon, 

but the pain had eased, and sometimes now she could remember him just as he was, without that need to eulogize or attack him. 

She could see now that he hadn't been a bad person.

He'd just been able to tuck secrets away in pockets so far inside him 

that he didn't need to see or think bout them--until it was too late. 

And he'd convinced himself that love was the thing, 

that you could forgive yourself anything if it was done for love. (p 373)

I guess that is true... I feel as if Lottie is a much more forgiving person than I, however...

The woman in the hospital bed next to Lottie's comments:

'You've a big family...Is your husband around?"

"No."

"Oh, well...You've got plenty of support from the looks of it, so who needs him, hey?

It's his funeral, at the end of the day."

Just a silly expression, so the woman couldn't really understand why her neighbor ...seemed to find it so very, very funny. (p 374)

Sometimes, unconsciously, others say things that just capture the truth in a very humorous way...

And now for that Literary Wives question:

What does this book say about wives 

or about the experience of being a wife? 

I felt this book had much to say about wives and 

the experience of being a wife.

Each of these wives, Selina and Lottie, loved Simon in their 

own way. However, they were very different people and

Simon's relationship with each wife was very different,

as depicted in the following conversation:

Simon: I know now that happiness isn't about sipping fine chianti while the sun sets over the hills. It's something else, something visceral. (p. 363)

I can't explain. I feel known by her. I feel like me... 
Selina: You're saying I stop you being who you are?
Simon: Sel...
Selina: You're wrong!...I give you the stability to go off into the world and be who you are. Stability is the thing--not love.(p. 364)

This is included at the very end of the book. We learn that Simon had actually been honest with Selina at one point in time and tried to divorce her. However, upon learning she is pregnant with their third child (a lie Selina perpetrates to keep him in the marriage), he decided to remain married to her... I admit that for me, this conversation brought back memories. 

Selina's situation of remaining in a loveless marriage was familiar to me. I remained in my first marriage for another 12 years after I decided my spouse was never going to be the parent he had claimed he would be to our three sons and I was "stuck" due to lack of financial resources. I could not see how it would be possible to raise my sons as a single mother. This was before social safety net programs to help poor folks survive were available and I'm sure I was petrified to try it, as well. So I spent 12 years never considering or evaluating my own happiness in a relationship, it was simply a means to an end--hopefully somehow being able to raise my own children to be responsible, kind, caring adults, regardless of the poor role model I felt their father portrayed.

So that paragraph above sounded rather familiar to me. I don't know if I would have lied to Simon to keep him or not, but perhaps I would have done the exact same thing as Selina. I'm not sure Selina was the type of person capable of forming a truly 'passionate' relationship. She seemed rather cold and distant, though she was phenomenal at organizing her life to keep current on all tasks and provide everything to be expected of a wife and 'good' mother, particularly one whose husband is stationed away from home at least half the time. I'm not sure we can ever know how we might react to any given situation until we are in it ourselves. 

Selina is very proud of the fact that she and Simon do not feel the need to talk to each other all the time, or even every single day. In describing her best friends' relationship:

Hettie and Ian...call each other ten times a day to talk about absolutely nothing at all...

And always finishing with an "I love you." So unnecessary. 

Love is like any other commodity. The more you flaunt it, the less value it has. 

The real trick is to make the other person feel loved... (p 19)

This made me pause. I do believe it to be true...for me, at least. However, I also realize that any two people need to construct their own relationship in ways that are meaningful to them. It is not up to me to decide what is 'good' or 'bad' in any other relationships, only to try to make my own relationships work well for me and the others involved. Is that easy? Sometimes. But certainly not all the time. There are definitely challenges and pitfalls to be overcome. But there should also be times of harmony and happiness and those need to be recalled as often as possible to help overcome the challenging bits, in my opinion.

I could particularly relate to Selina's belief that if she made all the effort to do her best to raise her children and make her marriage work as well as possible, there would be some reward. That was the same fairy tale in which I believed as I stayed in a marriage even after I had lost virtually any respect for my spouse. And even worse for her since she KNEW that Simon was no longer as invested in their relationship and really wanted out, having found another person with whom he could "feel like me." She thought if she was a 'good wife and mother' she would reap rewards. Not necessarily so, however. And, of course, Selina was all about the easy 'rich' lifestyle to which she had become accustomed, hence a further discouragement from divorcing.
                         Maybe in the end we all settle, just to be left with nothing. (p 280)

Unbeknownst to Selina, Simon decided to "marry" this 'other woman', Lottie. So although Selina lied to Simon so he would not divorce her, she did know he was in a relationship with another woman at that time. What she didn't know was that he was maintaining two families in addition to an "extramarital affair"/another sexual relationship which extended over 30 years. All I can say is, Simon evidently had an unlimited supply of energy... And I honestly wondered just how many other women he had sex with while "married." I admit to being very old-fashioned when it comes to the concept of marriage. I always wonder why men can't just keep their pants zipped and maintain a monogamous relationship. It doesn't seem that difficult to do, IMHO! It is a commitment you made, so "just do it"! (Or don't "do it," however you wish to state it. :))

According to Simon

Love is about wanting more. 

Wanting more of someone, more for someone, more life, more love. (p 355)

But as Lottie watches Karen Griffiths embrace her husband and realizes that she followed him and waited for the appropriate time to intervene, loving him regardless of his dependence upon lithium to maintain emotional balance, she felt that Simon's definition was somehow incorrect. Perhaps there was more to love than Simon's definition... Though Simon was definitely selfish with his life. He wanted what he wanted but he lacked the balls to divorce Selina so he could have a monogamous relationship with Lottie--though I feel monogamy was perhaps not an attainable goal for Simon since we know he also maintained a relationship with a third woman throughout these 30 years, albeit off and on... 

Once Selina learns there is a reasonable chance that Simon was actually murdered and did not commit suicide, she feels relieved, thinking 

Maybe I'm not such a failure as a wife, if my husband didn't choose to leave me. 

(p 320)

Uhm. Actually, he did choose to leave you years ago and you convinced him to remain by lying to him about a third pregnancy. But our memories can become selective, can't they? Again, I believe she thought she had 'played the game well' and deserved a prize/reward, rather than destitution. 

As Selina apologizes to Greg's wife (Simon's partner with whom she has been having sex) she thinks...
                                             All of us sorry. None of us safe. (p 320)

I truly wondered what Cohen meant by this statement. Perhaps we are all 'sorry' for people wronged? Yet we know we can become a victim at any time? I thought it a rather ominous thought.

So what exactly is love? And does that lead to other feelings such as commitment that overtake passionate feelings or even hopes and desires? I believe it is different for different people, just as Lottie and Selina obviously provided very different experiences in a marriage for Simon, so do each of us provide "unique-to-us" experiences for our own partners. 

Happy reading!

~Lynn

This is the next book we will review 
on Monday, June 1st! 

The Dutch House

My first Ann Patchett!

Literary Wives #42

The Home-Maker

by Dorothy Canfield Fisher

Actually, one of my favorite reads for this year!

This is one of my classic literary favorites! 

I had never read any of this writer's works before, but I will definitely read more!

I love the cover image depicted here. This is a Persephone reprint I ordered months ago. 

If you are not familiar with this UK company, please follow the link to learn more.

I love their books: the paper used, the cover formatting, etc. 

I find their pricing reasonable considering the quality of materials and their purpose--

Per The Guardian: "A unique publishing house that champions forgotten female authors."

I'm not sure exactly how "forgotten" Fisher may have been since there is the 

Dorothy Canfield Fisher Book Award selected by 4th - 8th graders each year.

Though I admit I was unfamiliar with her.

Welcome to the 42nd "wifely" book review for the Literary Wives online discussion group!

#LiteraryWives

Check out our Facebook page!

And PLEASE, if this interests you, 

read with us and participate in the discussions!

You can post your own review and link it to the FB page and any or all of our blogs!

Or just comment right along with us!

Please make sure you read 

the other hosting bloggers' reviews:

Naomi of Consumed by Ink

Kay of whatmeread
Eva of The Paperback Princess

This book was released in 1924, but the issues depicted are still relevant in today's society. 
Which is sad...just plain sad. 

Although overall I believe U.S. society is becoming much more accepting of 

non-traditional roles, especially within families, the stigma still exists very strongly.

Whether we are discussing two same-sex partners or a heterosexual couple who play 'reverse roles' within the family, or single parents, anything other than a "traditional" arrangement (male father, female mother), there are still way too many people in this country who view such family units as "unnatural," even "immoral." 

Each person and each partnership is unique. My recommendation? Live and let live. 

It makes for a much happier, more contented life.

But, back to this book!

According to Karen Knox in the preface, 

Dorothy Canfield Fisher published eleven novels between 1907 and 1939: 

all of them illustrate her conviction that it is inner, personal change that makes the most difference in the lives of human beings rather than changes in external circumstances. (viii)

And it is exactly this that I most appreciated about this book! Especially with regard to Stephen, the youngest and most ill-behaved of the three Knapp children. Though we also get 'inside the heads' of the other two older children, Henry and Helen, it is Stephen of whom we learn the most. 

In Part One we learn of the wife, Evangeline's/Eva's, thoughts and behaviors during daily life. It is not good! I could connect directly with Eva in several ways... As the one person in the family to be relied upon...seemingly for everything! It was that way for me when raising children. Though at least Lester worked! Not so with the father of my children... She suffered from eczema, just as I did from ages 6-9. For me, it was simply a result of my mother's own anxious behaviors and actions toward me inducing these symptoms. It was quite unpleasant. I realized from the beginning Eva was inadvertently/unconsciously doing this to herself. And finally how I, like her, did everything 'from scratch' to save money and make a healthier home environment for the family. Though obviously it wasn't healthier for her. Unfortunately, Eva shared many personality characteristics with my own mother: perfectionism, anxiety over every little detail...of everything, and constant worry of what others thought...of both herself and me. Though my mother also excelled in criticizing every-body for every-thing, making for a very negative environment--I didn't get the impression Eva did that as she was too busy criticizing each and every little move her children and husband did or did not make! 

Lester's personality is also depicted in Part One. We learn he is suffering from constant indigestion, especially intense immediately after eating. I recognized this as a result Eva's constant 'vigilance'/criticism, although she made it a point to "never criticize their father before the children." Her silences made her disapproval quite clear to everyone, especially to Lester. They weren't even allowed to eat supper in peace but Eva was salting Helen's potatoes right on her plate until they suited Eva, and Stephen was told to take smaller mouthfuls, until eventually Eva states

I know I keep at the children all the time! But how can I help it? 

They've got to learn, haven't they? It certainly is no pleasure to me to do it!

Somebody's got to bring them up! (22)

After supper one night she congratulates herself on never making "scenes" and never having "lost her self-control" until a "terrifying but really unavoidable breakdown" one night. Eva complains to herself that there were

...moments in a mother's life about which nobody ever warned you,...moments of arid clear sight when you saw helplessly that your children would never measure up to your standard, 

never would be really close to you, because they were not your kind of human beings,...but 

merely other human beings for whom you were responsible. How solitary it made you feel! (36)

Henry suffers from nausea and vomiting, which bouts appear to be a direct result of Eva's anger regarding anything that messes up her perfectly clean house! We learn that Helen is rather puny, often suffering from a cold. Eva actually corrects Helen's wringing out of the wash rags by redoing it and rehanging them in a 'perfect' fashion to dry. She constantly corrects and reminds the children how to do every single little thing in their life! How to walk. How to take off their shoes. How to place their shoes on the floor. They can't get more than a few feet into the house without being told how to do 3-4 different things! It's a wonder these people are still functioning at all. Though we can see they are about at a breaking point. Especially poor little Stephen who is still a preschooler and under his mother's thumb each and every minute of each and every day. Poor little guy...

As the book opens we see Eva scrubbing away all afternoon on the grease spots Henry has left on the kitchen floor by tipping the meat tray as he brought it into the kitchen from the dining room after supper the evening before. She is angry as hell about this! Then she notices Stephen is missing. She begins to hunt for him, getting angrier all the time, as the bucket of cleaning water in the kitchen cools while she hunts in every imaginable spot for her youngest child, who, we learn, is purposefully hiding from her! It's due to his Teddy-bear, which he has just discovered poorly hidden in a drawer in his/his parents' bedroom. (Due to limited space in their house, Stephen sleeps on a cot in Eva and Lester's bedroom.) Eva had confiscated it during the night until she had the opportunity to wash it. But Stephen had seen the results of a 'washed' Teddy-bear and it wasn't good... To Stephen 

...Teddy meant quiet and rest and safety...and Stephen needed all he could get of those elements 

in his stormy little life, made up, so much of it, 

of fierce struggles against forces stronger than he. (11)

He would hold Teddy in his arms as long as he could, and hide, and let Mother call to him all she wanted to, while he braced himself to endure with courage the tortures that would inevitably follow...the scolding which mother called 'talking to him', the beating invisible waves of fury flaming at him from all over Mother, which made Stephen suffer more than 

the physical blows which always ended things, for by the time they arrived 

he was usually so rigid with hysteria himself that he did not feel them much.

Under the stairs...she would not think of that for a long time. 

He crept in over the immaculately clean floor, drew the curtains back of him, sat upright, 

cross-legged, holding Teddy to his breast with all his might, dry-eyed, scowling, 

a magnificent sulphurous conflagration of Promethean flames blazing in his little heart. (14-15)

This passage! Those descriptors! I read that passage several times just because...it was so powerful! I could easily picture Stephen...

As Stephen walks about the bedroom "drawing long breaths" he notes that 

The bed, the floor, the bureau, everything looked different to you in the times when 

Mother forgot about you for a minute. It occurred to Stephen that maybe it was a rest to them, 

too, to have Mother forget about them and stop dusting and polishing and pushing them around. They looked sort of peaceful, the way he felt. 

He nodded his head to the bed and looked with sympathy at the bureau. (11)

Eva created so much tension that nobody could be healthy in the environment she created! It struck me yet again that if my mother and I had not lived with my grandmother so that she was my main caregiver, my daily life would have been so much worse! My mother would have been just as bad (or maybe even worse?) than Eva. I had been lucky in that regard. Not so for Stephen! Until...

Lester despairs after having been fired from his job at the local department store and purposefully throws himself off his neighbor's icy roof as he ostensibly hauls water to try to extinguish a fire. His thought was to provide for Eva and the children via the life insurance money they would have as a result of his death. But as he later bemoans, he can't even cause his own death, but rather simply causes his legs to be useless in the aftermath. The medical prognosis is that he may be able to regain use with time, but there are no guarantees. 

Part Two depicts Jerome and Nell Willing, the two new co-owners of the local department store, inherited from Jerome's uncle who owned and managed it for many years. They are both college-educated with experience working in retail institutions and are determined to build this small-town store into a much more economically efficient machine. All for the good of the local/rural folks, of course! [Wink! Wink!] The fact that they would have more money is viewed simply as a bonus to the changes and expansion they have planned. They debate the need for a store manager to free Jerome to complete buying trips. If only they knew someone who would be capable and yet personable with customers... 

And you guessed it! Three weeks after returning the Willings' check for $100 sent to her immediately following Lester's accident, Eva enters the store to ask for a job. Jerome has a practiced interviewing technique and recognizes what he feels is her natural affinity, knowledge, and pertinent skills set to work in retail. After all, her father owned and managed his own store in which she worked as a child/teen, so she also has on-the-job experience. It is many of those same skills that have worked to drive her children and husband to physical ailments as well as create an environment of nearly unbearable  psychological stress for them. It isn't that Eva isn't a devoted "home-maker" or that she doesn't love each member of her family, it is just her emphasis on perfection with no regard for others' feelings or respect in the wake of her unrealistic expectations. 

As you might well have also guessed, Eva excels at the store and is immediately promoted from stock girl to seller. She even takes notes in the evenings of her ideas/plans for work. Eva actually learns to overlook a 'less than perfectly' clean house when she is home. Her earnings allow them to hire a housekeeper who cleans once a week to prevent Eva from spending her leisure time working constantly in the house. (Per doctor's orders.) And then Miss Flynn, the department manager resigns and Eva is promoted and earning even more money than Lester ever made or ever thought he would be capable of making at the same store. Of course, Jerome and Nell plan to groom Eva to become the store manager they had foreseen needing. She fits in beautifully with their own management philosophy.

This book has prompted me to relate plot details to a much greater degree than I usually do, but I feel it is very important to truly understanding the ramifications to each character in the book. Part Three depicts the astounding affect that Lester has on his children as he takes over as a true "home-maker" (not just "housekeeper") by cooking and caring for the children. Due to his physical limitations he is unable to accomplish much cleaning, but the children pitch in as they can. Friends and neighbors help as well. We learn Lester had befriended and helped quite a few people in town who were more than happy to return the favor in his hour of need. Lester provides to the children what Eva was unable to provide: patience, caring, and respect. She was very efficient in the pragmatic tasks of "house-keeping," but quite lacking in creating a nurturing, gentle, and kind environment. It is this section I liked best. Fisher does a very believable job of recreating how I would imagine these children might feel as they are freed to become themselves and develop their own interests and skills while experiencing a supportive relationship with their father. 

And now for the Literary Wives portion 

of the review! 

What does this book say about wives or 

about the experience of being a wife?

One of my first observations is that finally we have 

a book which does not have a philandering male 

as the "husband." I appreciate that! 

I admit that I was disappointed in all these 

characters in Part Four which deals with the 

fact that Eva and Lester both realize he has 

regained control of his legs and 

could walk if he chose to do so. 

However, rather than creating joy, 

this realization creates much more stress

for each of them as they consider the ramifications.

An able-bodied male remaining at home as a "home-maker" while his wife works to provide income to support the family was just not feasible, according to Eva. She refuses to even consider this due to the social stigma of such an arrangement. Lester's refusal is based upon the benefits he now realizes he provides to his children, and the fact that Eva is much happier and more fulfilled by working outside the home than she ever was being a "home-maker." Though I would argue she was a "house-keeper" much more than a "home-maker," as distinguished by the title, which, according to Elaine Showalter's afterword, 

...clearly signaled [Dorothy Canfield Fisher's] subject and her educational mission...

Calling someone a "home-maker" rather than a 'house-keeper' 

implies more importance, authority, and creativity. (269)

Although I had never thought of these two words in this way, I can recognize the underlying logic. It is stated multiple times in the book that being a wife instantly meant you were the home-maker, the patient caregiver, the nurturer. 

That complacent unquestioned generalisation, 'The mother is the natural home-maker' (257)

Proved to not always be true! Just being born 'female' or just being in the designated 'working-at-home' role doesn't automatically mean you have these skills. I knew a woman who was a "stay-at-home" mom but her children literally lived with her parents until they started school and since her parents' home lay outside their home school district, they would stay with their parents Monday-Friday and spend weekends and all vacations at their grandparents' house. So just being at home all the time doesn't mean you are parenting, or necessarily an effective parent. Each of us is different, regardless of our role or gender. 

Likewise, Lester feels himself to be a complete and total failure since 

he had long ago seen that he was incapable of giving to Eva and the children anything that anybody in the world would consider worth having. The only thing he was supposed 

to give them was money, and he couldn't make that. (68)

So we see very distinct roles set by society for a woman as a wife and a man as a husband. One is to be at home caring for the house and children and the other is to earn sufficient income to support them all. However, if it weren't for Lester becoming the "home-maker," no one would have realized the trauma Stephen underwent regarding his Teddy-bear. 

What was terrifying to Lester was the thought that the conception of 

trying to understand Stephen's point of view had been 

as remote from their minds as the existence of the fourth dimension. (145)

I can understand being so busy as a parent that you overlook and/or are oblivious to some aspects of your children's psychological needs. It is sad when that happens. It was this realization that awoke in him a "desire to get well, to live again."

Fisher addresses the issue of consumerism as she describes Jerome Willing's "notion of being a good business-man" was to exploit women by "play[ing] for his own purposes on a weakness of theirs only too tragically exaggerated already, their love for buying things." (That stereotype of a women always shopping/buying things!) He tried to ignore the fact that, in his opinion, Eva was doing the exact same thing. And although there is a strong emphasis on the rights of children to have love, security, and unconditional positive regard/respect, Fisher also points out that with the extra income from Eva's work, they would be able to save for their children's college education and provide more for their children. As Eva states,

She felt an impulsive longing to share her emotion with Lester, to put her arms 

about his neck and let him know that she did not take his loyalty, his gentleness, 

his faithfulness, his fineness, so coldly for granted as she had seemed.

She had been unhappy about their hideous poverty. That was all. It was abominable to be poor! 

It brought out the worst in everyone. When you were distracted with worry about money, 

you simply weren't yourself. (236)

I do believe finances are at the heart of many relationship break-ups. Statistics do prove that out. 

As Lester considers the possibility of both he and Eva working he muses over the possibility of hiring someone to care for the children:

...it was conceivable that by paying a high cash price you might be able to hire a little intelligence, 

enough intelligence to give them good material care. 

But you could never hire intelligence sharpened by love. 

In other words, you could not hire a parent.

And children without parents were orphans. (255)

As Lester contemplates the possibility of him being able-bodied once again, 

...the fanatic feminists were right, after all. Under its greasy camouflage of chivalry, 

society is really based on a contempt for women's work in the home. 

The only women who were paid, either in human respect or money, 

were women who gave up their traditional job of creating harmony out of human relationships 

and did something really useful, bought or sold or created material objects. (260)

It is true. You are paid nothing to be a full-time parent. But there is great satisfaction in knowing that you gave it 1000% when they were young and dependent. My finances as an older adult reflect the fact that I did not work outside my home for 13 years while raising my children, but I wouldn't trade the experiences with and insights into my children gained over those years for anything. 

I can imagine this was quite a groundbreaking work when released in 1924. 

Unfortunately, I fear we still have a long way to go before this changes significantly. 

But I do believe progress has been made and more and more people are learning to 

not only accept and respect, but also appreciate alternative family units to the 

"traditional" male-income-earner-husband and female-"home-maker'-mother model. 

Up next for Literary Wives:

The War of the Wives by Tamar Cohen

Join us March 2, 2020