Ok, so some things in the golden era were not too cool...

[LizzieMaine]

The way Hogarth was using it, it is. A bit like G. K. Chesterton's comment about nationalism: "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.' ". Chesterton says that because the idea of a woman being drunk was seen as uniquely repellent; he would never have used "My father, drunk or sober". Hogarth was exploiting the same prejudice. There is no image in his work showing a man as such a bad father. Drunks, yes, but betrayers of children no. That's misogyny.

Ask the child of a drunken father, and she'll tell you. There are few greater betrayers of children. In the world where I grew up, a man who staggered out of a bar while his kids were hungry was the most disgusting of human scum. You wouldn't even call such a person a "man."

 

[itsbruce]

Did I say anything to deny that? You are either missing or distorting my point. I was talking about the way Hogarth and Chesterton uniquely use female drunkenness as an evil image. And I mention that because this is something that can be found in some parts of the temperance movement. The result is that, in the case of somebody like Carrie Natioin, you can find a paradox where a strong woman is promoting a cause which doesn't always aid women. A bit like the paradox of Margaret Thatcher, a very strong woman who was very anti-feminist, preferred to promote men rather than women to work for her and believed that most woman should stay at home and not work at all. In some ways her example strengthened the idea that women could be leaders, radicals and inspirational examples, in other ways it was much more complicated and difficult. Same applies to Carrie.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Some factions of the Temperance Movement like the "Womens Christian Temperance Movement" may have had an alliance with Womens Sufferage for the sake of opposing alcohol, but prohibition has its roots in the Protestant churches going back to the very early colonial times.

And early-twentieth century feminism grew out of that movement -- a feminism which wasn't just about getting the vote, but about remaking the foundations of society along "communitarian" lines, the idea that every individual has an obligation to the greater society in which she, or he, lives. The prohibition movement fit right into that ideal, along with the abolition of child labor, the promotion of labor unions, and, of course, women's suffrage. The success of the movement in getting Prohibition enacted into law can't really be understood unless you look at it within that greater context -- it wasn't just a bunch of grape-juice Methodists on a rampage. It was part of what was seen at the time as a genuine social revolution which was sweeping the nation.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Did I say anything to deny that? You are either missing or distorting my point. I was talking about the way Hogarth and Chesterton uniquely use female drunkenness as an evil image. And I mention that because this is something that can be found in some parts of the temperance movement. The result is that, in the case of somebody like Carrie Natioin, you can find a paradox where a strong woman is aiding a cause which doesn't always aid women. A bit like the paradox of Margaret Thatcher, a very strong woman who was very anti-feminist and believed that most woman should stay at home and not work.

I'm simply pointing out the context in which those images arose. A person in 1910 would not interpret that as being a misogynist image -- because there would be no need to say that male drunkenness was a betrayal of children. It was commonly understood to be such, and was, in fact, one of the greatest social problems of the time. And a drunken woman *is* a betrayer of her children. I don't consider it the least bit misogynist to point that out, and I don't see it as in any way contrary to the interests of women to point that out.

I do see your point. I just don't agree with it.

 

[itsbruce]

Um, so why was there a special need to say that female drunkenness in the care of children was a betrayal of children? Why didn't Hogarth or Chesterton choose male abandonment of children as examples (particulary Hogarth, who produced so much on the general theme of drunken dissolution). There wasn't a special need. Femaile drunkenness was simply seen as more repellent. That was misogyny.

 

[itsbruce]

And early-twentieth century feminism grew out of that movement

Feminism had rather more sources than just the temperance movement. In the United Kingdom - the home of the suffragettes and suffragists -it had almost nothing to do with it at all.

"I only drink on two occasions; when it's my birthday... and when it's not." -- Emmeline Pankhurst.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Feminism had rather more sources than just the temperance movement. In the United Kingdom - the home of the suffragettes and suffragists -it had almost nothing to do with it at all.

"I only drink on two occasions; when it's my birthday... and when it's not." -- Emmeline Pankhurst.

America's a different country.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Um, so why was there a special need to say that female drunkenness in the care of children was a betrayal of children? Why didn't Hogarth or Chesterton choose male abandonment of children as examples (particulary Hogarth, who produced so much on the general theme of drunken dissolution). There wasn't a special need. Femaile drunkenness was simply seen as more repellent. That was misogyny.

I don't see it that way at all. I see it as simply pointing out that women are just as capable of the same level of degeneracy as men, and need to be just as much on guard against it.

No big argument -- it's just two people looking at the same thing with two different sets of eyes, two different sets of values, and two different perspectives.

By the way, I wasn't trying to edit your post -- I pressed the wrong button when I was posting the reply.

 

[sheeplady]

Um, so why was there a special need to say that female drunkenness in the care of children was a betrayal of children? Why didn't Hogarth or Chesterton choose male abandonment of children as examples (particulary Hogarth, who produced so much on the general theme of drunken dissolution). There wasn't a special need. Femaile drunkenness was simply seen as more repellent. That was misogyny.

I think it was important to say because at that time (and still) mother's drunkenness does impact her children.

The plain truth of the fact is that often things happening to women IS seen as more repellent and therefore better for sending your message. There's a reason why campaigns against abuse tend to picture female children. It strikes home more readily with men and women, but most importantly, a campaign that pictures women is going to resonate more strongly with women. And in a society where women make far more choices about their families' lives than they are given credit for, why shouldn't a message be marketed towards women?

I think it is also important to note that at that time, women were the primary caretakers of children. If a man got drunk it was likely at the local saloon; he could wander around all night and not even come home until sober. If a woman wanted to get drunk, there weren't places that would serve her. If a woman got drunk, it was likely that she was at home. And if she had children, they were likely home too. And she was the one who was responsible for them.

It's not misogynic to say that in a world where a woman was likely fully responsible for the day-to-day care of her children, where a woman would have to drink at home, and a woman's children would be home that her drunkenness would impact them.

 

[T Jones]

And early-twentieth century feminism grew out of that movement -- a feminism which wasn't just about getting the vote, but about remaking the foundations of society along "communitarian" lines, the idea that every individual has an obligation to the greater society in which she, or he, lives. The prohibition movement fit right into that ideal, along with the abolition of child labor, the promotion of labor unions, and, of course, women's suffrage. The success of the movement in getting Prohibition enacted into law can't really be understood unless you look at it within that greater context -- it wasn't just a bunch of grape-juice Methodists on a rampage. It was part of what was seen at the time as a genuine social revolution which was sweeping the nation.

Those were the days of Anarchists like, "Red" Emma Goldman, Carl Sanburg, the leftist political activist and Journalist, John Reed, the liberal Social Gospeler, Reverend William Gladden....what some would call a genuine social revolution others would refer to that time as a battle for the American culture...In any event there were some moral and social goals which converged between the Christian conservative cultural purists and the liberal social revolutionists. Both railed against the abuses of child labor, both supported a woman's right to vote, and both fought for prohibition. Beyond a few things like that there was very little else of similarity between the two groups. Both contrasted sharply in their socio / political world view. But the railings against social injustice and moral corruption, and the fight for prohibition began first in the churches. I don't see Carrie Nation siding with the likes of Emma Goldman.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Just briefly noting a few points here.

1. Hogarth's Gin Lane illustration is really about an issue of 1750's England..... and it really was not meant to advocate the total prohibition of alcohol. The drinking of foreign spirits, and domestic spirits distilled as their domestic alternatives, was seen as the unpatriotic alternative to consuming good old English ale. Small gin shops flourished among the areas inhabited by the urban poor. Hogarth wanted to see gin consumption reduced. Here is his Gin Lane illustration:


2. Contra, Hogarth gives us Beer Street. Hale and hearty English folks enjoy their beer not in squalor or in a manner endangering children, but in a manner befitting an appreciation of hard work and industry.


3. I'd be careful about embracing sweeping generalizations regarding the American Prohibition era as being a triumph of Progressivism. Among the biggest supporters of it during the 1920's was the revitalized Ku Klux Klan, and those who supported it in previous decades were not without their nativist and white supremacist elements. To cite but one example: in 1897 WCTU president Frances Willard spoke before Congress advocating that they " ..enact a stringent immigration law prohibiting the entry into our land of more of the scum of the Old World until we have educated those who are here." [ref. Samuel P. Piazza, Margaret Mehring: The Making of a Reformer---Personal Tragedy, War and Religion]

 

[LizzieMaine]

Progressivism didn't include racial justice among its goals, nor did pretty much any other major American social movement of its time. But I don't think it's out of the way to suggest that without the foundation laid by the Progressives, the other major social movements of the 20th century -- the women's movement, organized labor, and the civil rights movement -- would have had a much deeper row to hoe.

 

[Veronica T]

I had a drink at a saloon in which Carry held a hatchetation.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Those were the days of Anarchists like, "Red" Emma Goldman, Carl Sanburg, the leftist political activist and Journalist, John Reed, the liberal Social Gospeler, Reverend William Gladden....what some would call a genuine social revolution others would refer to that time as a battle for the American culture...In any event there were some moral and social goals which converged between the Christian conservative cultural purists and the liberal social revolutionists. Both railed against the abuses of child labor, both supported a woman's right to vote, and both fought for prohibition. Beyond a few things like that there was very little else of similarity between the two groups. Both contrasted sharply in their socio / political world view. But the railings against social injustice and moral corruption, and the fight for prohibition began first in the churches. I don't see Carrie Nation siding with the likes of Emma Goldman.

I think you and I are probably quite far apart on most issues -- my own social and cultural views were shaped by the Methodist Social Creed, which Emma Goldman probably thought to be a bit too namby-pamby, John Reed wouldn't have bothered with at all, and Carl Sandburg would have wholeheartedly supported. But there isn't a clause in it that Carry A. Nation didn't wholeheartedly support during her lifetime.

The Methodist Episcopal Church stands:

For equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life.

For the principles of conciliation and arbitration in industrial dissensions.

For the protection of the worker from dangerous machinery, occupational diseases, injuries and mortality.

For the abolition of child labor.

For such regulation of the conditions of labor for women as shall safeguard the physical and moral health of the community.

For the suppression of the "sweating system."

For the gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest practical point, with work for all; and for that degree of leisure for all which is the condition of the highest human life.

For a release from employment one day in seven.

For a living wage in every industry.

For the highest wage that each industry can afford, and for the most equitable division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised.

For the recognition of the Golden Rule and the mind of Christ as the supreme law of society and the sure remedy for all social ills.

You'll find similar ideas expressed in the writings of Charles "In His Steps" Sheldon, perhaps the most popular "Social Gospel" author of the early 20th Century, and of Newell Dwight Hillis, who believed social improvement to be the highest attainment of practical Christianity. These types of ideas, which demanded the Christian focus not just on personal piety or on "saving souls," but on actually fighting to improve the lot of the suffering and the abused in the everyday world, were indeed the major force behind Progressivism -- I've never argued otherwise. There was a time -- and it was the early years of the 20th Century -- where you could be a political radical *and* a committed Christian, and nobody thought there was anything odd or inappropriate about that. Many believed that such a connection wasn't just appropriate but *inevitable.* William Jennings Bryan may have been the most politically-radical mainstream candidate ever nominated for President -- and he was also a committed Christian. That was the flavor of Progressivism.

I don't claim there was no connection between the church and Progressivism -- far from it. I believe that connection was something that was very good for society, very good for men, for women, and for humanity. What I do claim is that what's come to be called "first wave feminism" descended directly from that wave of social awareness. Nothing that's been said here gives me any reason to believe otherwise.

 

[ChiTownScion]

There was a time -- and it was the early years of the 20th Century -- where you could be a political radical *and* a committed Christian, and nobody thought there was anything odd or inappropriate about that. Many believed that such a connection wasn't just appropriate but *inevitable.* William Jennings Bryan may have been the most politically-radical mainstream candidate ever nominated for President -- and he was also a committed Christian. That was the flavor of Progressivism.

I've always regarded Bryan as more Populist than "Progressive," at least in the Robert La Follette sense. The lines of the two are somewhat blurred as the former essentially evolved to the latter.

But I have also felt that Bryan was a man who today is misunderstood by both the Left and the Right. The former errs in dismissing him as a creationist buffoon because of events (some real, some misplaced after watching too many reruns of "Inherit the Wind") in Dayton Tennessee 1924. Unlike many contemporary creationists, he at least took the time and effort to actually read Charles Darwin, and one position is that his real objection was to Social Darwinism.

The Right tends to deify him as a champion of "God's Word"... but they conveniently overlook the fact that his Cross of Gold speech of 1892 was seen by the Bible thumpers of that time as offensive blasphemy. Moreover, his Fundamentalism (capital "F") was really rooted in the struggle that was then taking place at his denomination's preeminent seminary, Princeton Theological. The Fundamentalism of that time, of true scholars as Cornelius Van Tyl, John Gresham Machen, and Benjamin B. Warfield, was not the fundamentalism of anti-intellectuals who embraced the title at other times and places.

 

[sheeplady]

But I have also felt that Bryan was a man who today is misunderstood by both the Left and the Right. The former errs in dismissing him as a creationist buffoon because of events (some real, some misplaced after watching too many reruns of "Inherit the Wind") in Dayton Tennessee 1924. Unlike many contemporary creationists, he at least took the time and effort to actually read Charles Darwin, and one position is that his real objection was to Social Darwinism.

What is interesting about this perspective is that although the ideas surrounding Social Darwinism are from the 19th century- the term doesn't really appear until around WWII. The use of the term "Social Darwinism" (had it existed at the time) would have lent some clarity to his position. But without using that specific term, it is open to interpretation, as social darwinism actually applies to a host of ideas floating around then, but that didn't have a "catch-all term" at the time.

I would hope that most people with a conscience have (had) an objection to Social Darwinism. The idea is absolutely repulsive.

Darwin himself wrote about the impact of (at the time) modern medicine and what that meant for the human race (which I will note is a debate still today). Darwin himself seems to have believed that being emphatic was an important human characteristic and should outweigh cold logic; and in fact he believed that the development of such empathy was an important part of a species development. I am sure that Darwin would find the twisting of his ideas to support things as far-flung as eugenics to be repulsive. I wish more people read Darwin to understand what was actually proposed in his theory of Natural Selection. Actually, scratch that, I wish more people read, period.

 

[LizzieMaine]

But I have also felt that Bryan was a man who today is misunderstood by both the Left and the Right. The former errs in dismissing him as a creationist buffoon because of events (some real, some misplaced after watching too many reruns of "Inherit the Wind") in Dayton Tennessee 1924. Unlike many contemporary creationists, he at least took the time and effort to actually read Charles Darwin, and one position is that his real objection was to Social Darwinism.

The Right tends to deify him as a champion of "God's Word"... but they conveniently overlook the fact that his Cross of Gold speech of 1892 was seen by the Bible thumpers of that time as offensive blasphemy. Moreover, his Fundamentalism (capital "F") was really rooted in the struggle that was then taking place at his denomination's preeminent seminary, Princeton Theological. The Fundamentalism of that time, of true scholars as Cornelius Van Tyl, John Gresham Machen, and Benjamin B. Warfield, was not the fundamentalism of anti-intellectuals who embraced the title at other times and places.

Absolutely agreed. Bryan is the most misunderstood figure of his era. The caricature of "Inherit The Wind" is pretty much the only frame of reference most people in the last sixty years have had for him, but he was very very far from being some kind of simple-minded Bible-thumping suspender-snapping rube.

 

[T Jones]

I think you and I are probably quite far apart on most issues -- my own social and cultural views were shaped by the Methodist Social Creed, which Emma Goldman probably thought to be a bit too namby-pamby, John Reed wouldn't have bothered with at all, and Carl Sandburg would have wholeheartedly supported. But there isn't a clause in it that Carry A. Nation didn't wholeheartedly support during her lifetime.

The Methodist Episcopal Church stands:

For equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life.

For the principles of conciliation and arbitration in industrial dissensions.

For the protection of the worker from dangerous machinery, occupational diseases, injuries and mortality.

For the abolition of child labor.

For such regulation of the conditions of labor for women as shall safeguard the physical and moral health of the community.

For the suppression of the "sweating system."

For the gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest practical point, with work for all; and for that degree of leisure for all which is the condition of the highest human life.

For a release from employment one day in seven.

For a living wage in every industry.

For the highest wage that each industry can afford, and for the most equitable division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised.

For the recognition of the Golden Rule and the mind of Christ as the supreme law of society and the sure remedy for all social ills.

You'll find similar ideas expressed in the writings of Charles "In His Steps" Sheldon, perhaps the most popular "Social Gospel" author of the early 20th Century, and of Newell Dwight Hillis, who believed social improvement to be the highest attainment of practical Christianity. These types of ideas, which demanded the Christian focus not just on personal piety or on "saving souls," but on actually fighting to improve the lot of the suffering and the abused in the everyday world, were indeed the major force behind Progressivism -- I've never argued otherwise. There was a time -- and it was the early years of the 20th Century -- where you could be a political radical *and* a committed Christian, and nobody thought there was anything odd or inappropriate about that. Many believed that such a connection wasn't just appropriate but *inevitable.* William Jennings Bryan may have been the most politically-radical mainstream candidate ever nominated for President -- and he was also a committed Christian. That was the flavor of Progressivism.

I don't claim there was no connection between the church and Progressivism -- far from it. I believe that connection was something that was very good for society, very good for men, for women, and for humanity. What I do claim is that what's come to be called "first wave feminism" descended directly from that wave of social awareness. Nothing that's been said here gives me any reason to believe otherwise.

The point I was making is that social reform movements began first in the Christian churches, most beginning in the 1830s after the Second Great Awakening. The first great reformers were Christians, Pastors, and Evangelists, like the Reverend Charles Finney i.e...social reform movements began,(were motivated), from a post-millennial belief that a 1000 year Golden Age of social justice and moral purity in Christ must first be established before the physical return of Jesus Christ to the earth....the Protestant Christian faith played a much larger role in the development of this country than some would want to give it credit for and a Christian culture had already been long established here even before the Founding Fathers came along....as one 19th century English commentator on American culture, Lord Bryce, noted...."Christianity in its Evangelical form is in fact understood to be, though not the legally established religion, yet the national religion"... Social Reform began first in the churches. Later on some social reformers stayed true to their Christian beginnings while others splintered off seeking social reform without the benefit of the church or a motivation from a belief in God. Despite a lot of the anti-Christian biases these days, without doubt, Protestant Christiany played a major and beneficial role in developing the culture of this country....

just a side note: During the "Scopes Monkey Trial", William Jennings Bryan was along in years and in poor health. He was a mere shadow of his younger days as "The Great Commoner". So I agree that it would be sorely unfair to judge him as an unread bungler based on his preformance during that trial.

 

[ChiTownScion]

just a side note: During the "Scopes Monkey Trial", William Jennings Bryan was along in years and in poor health. He was a mere shadow of his younger days as "The Great Commoner". So I agree that it would be sorely unfair to judge him as an unread bungler based on his preformance during that trial.

His performance was not all that shabby, if you bear in mind that the courtroom was Darrow's venue and that Bryan had not tried a case in decades. What a lot of the contemporary Young Earth creationist types forget is that he did concede that the Seven Days of the Genesis creation account could refer to seven historical periods rather than 24 hour periods.

The other thing that people need to remember, contra "Inherit the Wind," is that the real trial was, essentially, a set up by local boosters to put Dayton TN on the map. And things were far more congenial: John Scopes never languished in a jail cell- in fact, on one occasion he and Bryan's son went fishing for an afternoon. The "Monkey Trial" generated tourist revenue, and all John Scopes ever faced was a fine....and that was subsequently overturned on appeal.

Ironic, really, because Darrow's other "great trial" of that time (Illinois v. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb) wasn't a " trial" at all: it was a contested sentencing hearing where the State wanted the death penalty and really didn't stand a very good chance of getting it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The "creative periods" approach to Genesis was actually very common during Bryan's era. It was actually a foundation part of Second Adventism and its offshoots, with the six "days" followed by a "day" of rest seen as a type of God's plan for the universe. The essential idea of the "days" as being epochs instead of literal 24-hour days goes all the way back to medieval rabbinical writings.

As for "Inherit The Wind," what too many people today forget is that it was a play -- a fictionalized account "inspired" by real events. It was not a documentary. Matthew Harrison Brady was not a real person.