Categories
1900-1949 Women

Mary Pickford’s Advice to Wives, 1934

Mary Pickford was a mega-success story – one of the biggest stars of early cinema, she co-founded the United Artists film studio, was one of the original founders of the Academy of Motion Pictures and won the second ever Best Actress Oscar given by them. She was described by a silent film journalist at the time as “the best known woman who has ever lived, the woman who was known to more people and loved by more people than any other woman that has been in all history.” Quite a claim.

One of the original career women, this is the advice she had for wives in 1934. “Be selfish.”

Sunderland Daily Echo, 19th January 1934
Sunderland Daily Echo, 19th January 1934

 

ADVICE TO WIVES

“BE SELFISH,” SAYS MARY PICKFORD

Wives should learn to be selfish.

This is the advice of Miss Mary Pickford.

She thinks wives ought to have schools where selfishness would be one of the subjects of the curriculum.

“Women,” she said, “ought to learn that kindness is sometimes the most devastating and weakening influence.

“Wives, especially, make this mistake. It is the unselfish ones who ruin themselves and everyone depending on them.

Mary Pickford confessed that she had made a New Year resolution to treat herself as well as she treats the people she likes best, says a Reuter Chicago cable.

Categories
1900-1949 Women

The Abnormality of Youth, 1926

I read something once that said that “the good old days” have always been regarded as being around 50 years ago. That’s 50 years ago from the vantage point of whatever the current year is. I suppose for the older generation, it was the time of their rose-tinted youth, and for everyone younger, it was a semi-legendary time just out of reach – near enough to feel like we’re almost part of it, but long enough ago to feel definitely of a different age.

Of course, now the 1960s are an unbelievable 50 years ago and are officially “the good old days”. I wasn’t there, but that is absolutely my sentiment now. Ever since I was a teenager I wished I was somehow, magically in the 1960s. I thought if I thought about it hard enough, I might wake up in 1967. But it never happened (obviously).

One of my favourite books in 1987 was “It was twenty years ago today” by Derek Taylor, telling the story of the Beatles, Sergeant Pepper, and the exciting times of 1967. As I was 13 at the time, 20 years ago was an unimaginably long length of time to me. That was 28 years ago now, and the thought I was then closer in time to Sergeant Pepper than I am now to the time I read the book almost doesn’t compute in my mind. The march of time is a strange and wondrous thing.

Lord Malmesbury in 1926 was certainly of the opinion that the youth of today didn’t know they were born. As pretty much every generation thinks about the next one, or the one after, at some point. And the younger generation in turn are baffled and dismiss the oldies as not knowing what the hell they’re talking about.

As Zygon Clara wisely said in Doctor Who the other week, “You’re just middle-aged. No offence, but everybody middle-­aged always thinks the world’s about to come to an end. It never does.”

Malmesbury comes to the frankly startling conclusion that womens place is in the wrong, them and their damned emancipation, and “the wage-earning classes” leave much to be desired. Upper class males were absolutely unreproachable though, no problem there. Hang on though – what exactly does he mean by “the gradual weakening of the individualism which had hitherto characterised our race”? Is he talking about mixed race relationships?

Portsmouth Evening News, 24th February 1926
Portsmouth Evening News, 24th February 1926

LORD MALMESBURY’S

WARNING
______________

Abnormality of Youth
______________

“There is something wrong with the youth of to-day – something not quite normal,” said the Earl of Malmesbury, speaking on “Modern Youth” at the 1912 Club in London last night.

The value of youth, he said, could not be estimated, but lately we had been indulging in an actual worship of youth, which was wrong. We must have ideals, but we had been disposed to make youth an idol, rather than an ideal.

The worship, and too great freedom of youth, was largely due to the emancipation of women.

The children, seeing their mothers bent upon amusing themselves, thought they could do the same, and a child always took the cue from the mother, and not from the father.

Young men of what was formerly called the “leisured classes” had greatly improved in tone and character, although the girls of the same classes still showed room for improvement.

In the great mass of the young people of the wage-earning classes, the most deplorable feature was the gradual weakening of the individualism which had hitherto characterised our race.”

Categories
Victorian Women

The Beautiful Mrs Maybrick, 1889

Well, this is interesting.

I’m a sucker for a historical mystery, and the Jack the Ripper case is an enduring and gruesome loose end from a fascinating period in history. The news here that the director Bruce Robinson has thrown his deerstalker in the ring is welcome, not only because I love him as the director of one of my favourite films, Withnail and I, but also because his conclusions are intensely interesting to me. The article is to promote his new book They All Love Jack, which is now on my to-read list. It just arrived a few days ago in fact, a massive 800-pager that I can’t wait to get stuck into.

Bruce says, “I honestly think I’ve nailed the horrible fucker.” The nailee is, in his opinion, Michael Maybrick, a celebrated Victorian songwriter better known under his songwriting alias of Stephen Adams. They All Love Jack, the title of Robinson’s book, is also the title of one of Maybrick’s songs. He concludes the police knew he was the Ripper, but he was shielded by the umbrella of Freemasonry.

Interesting stuff, but this is where it gets more interesting still. Michael’s brother, the Liverpudlian cotton broker James Maybrick, has been on the list of Ripper suspects ever since the incriminating “Diary” which bore his name was released in 1992. The Diary is an unresolved piece of the puzzle – it was written in a Victorian scrapbook with what appears to be, after extensive testing, actual Victorian ink. It apparently described details of the murders only known to the police at the time. But it is also said to be more in line with 20th century writing styles, and one of the owners of the diary subsequently confessed to writing it, although he later withdrew that statement. It has been generally dismissed as a hoax in the years since, but no-one has conclusively proved that.

And then there’s the strange case of another piece of evidence related to the family, the Maybrick watch. Following the publication of the Diary, a man in Wallasey came forward with an engraved pocket watch, which suddenly looked very interesting. The watch was a genuine Victorian artefact, made in 1847-48. On the inside cover were scratched the words “J.Maybrick”, “I am Jack” and the initials of the five definitely agreed Ripper victims. It’s too incriminating to feel like it could be real – but analysis has discovered that the scratches really were made decades earlier. At least, it was definitely not created purely on the appearance of the Diary.

And so James Maybrick’s shadowy figure has remained in the line up of likely suspects. The evidence pointing towards him hasn’t been disproved, despite the fact that both the Diary and the watch give the appearance of being fake, but without any of their components actually being fake. Now, I don’t know what Bruce Robinson concludes, but if it was Michael Maybrick, then the possibility that he faked them to put his brother in the frame after his death is very interesting indeed. The idea that the real Ripper actually made them, but as a fraud, is certainly a tantalising one.

Living in Liverpool as I do, of course the Liverpool connection is the most interesting line of research to me and I have been interested in the Maybrick family for some time. The reason I am excited about the switch from James to Michael Maybrick is because of some curious piece of family history I half-came across some time ago. I used to work with a man whose girlfriend was a descendant of the family. He told me they had a family diary or some other written documents which he had read, and which had convinced him of Maybrick’s guilt. I was dying to see what the evidence was myself, but I never did, as I had the impression that this was something that the family didn’t want to advertise. I did ask if anyone else had ever seen it, and he said no, they hadn’t. Now, what confused me was that this was a decade after the “hoax” Maybrick diary had been published and it didn’t really make sense that he was referring to that. But what else could it be? And so the possibility that there is a different suspect, in the same family, is a very interesting one.

However, my post today isn’t covering the Ripper murders, but another death connected with the whole saga. The murder of James Maybrick himself, in 1889, ostensibly by his wife, Florence. She was American, 23 years younger than her husband, a popular member of Liverpool society, and a noted beauty of her day. Her trial was one of the most sensational and controversial of the Victorian era.

James Maybrick was absolutely not a Ripper suspect at the time of his murder, at least as far as it is known. His death was not newsworthy on those terms – it was widely written about because his brother was a famous composer, his wife was a beautiful younger woman, and because it was a classic whodunnit scenario of death by poisoning. If Robinson is right, though, maybe his brother was the real killer. There’s everything in there that one of those modern-day murder mystery entertainments could wish for, in other words.

We know Florence was beautiful by the fact that this was noted in newspaper reports of her arrest, subsequent imprisonment, and eventual release. Of course, there’s all the associated implications hiding between the lines – a beautiful but untrustworthy woman, a temptress, a gold-digger, a beautiful face which masks a psychopathic intent. It occurred to me that I couldn’t imagine reporting of this nature nowadays – and then I remembered the circus around Amanda Knox, “Foxy Knoxy”, and how the more things change, they more they stay the same.

This is the way Florence Maybrick’s case, otherwise known as “The Aigburth Poisoning Case”, was reported.

Florence and James Maybrick
Florence and James Maybrick

Florence and James Maybrick lived in Battlecrease House, Riversdale Road, Aigburth, Liverpool. The house is still there. Here’s what it looks like now, from Google Earth.

What used to be called Battlecrease House.
What used to be called Battlecrease House.

James Maybrick died at Battlecrease on 11th May 1889 after suddenly being taken ill two weeks earlier. His brother, Michael Maybrick, thought the circumstances of his illness and death were suspicious and an inquest was held in a hotel nearby. This concluded that he was most probably killed by arsenic poisoning. Rumours abounded as to who the killer may have been, with his wife’s name at the forefront of suspicion. On 20th May 1889 she was charged with his murder, the trial due to be held at Liverpool Crown Court.

All was not well with the marriage, evidently – Maybrick had multiple mistresses and Florence was also having an affair with another Liverpool cotton broker named Alfred Brierley. Alfred is presumably the person mentioned at the bottom of the following article – “The name of a third party has been freely mentioned in connection with Mr Maybrick’s mysterious death”.

Manchester Courier 18th May 1889
Manchester Courier 18th May 1889

There was “grave evidence” against Florence – revolving around the fact that she had been seen to be soaking fly-papers in water in her bedroom, an old method of extracting the arsenic contained within. She had also, apparently, poured James’ medicine from one bottle to another larger one, her stated reason being that the sediment in the medicine could not be properly shaken up in the smaller bottle.

Derby Evening Telegraph, 20th May, 1889
Derby Evening Telegraph, 20th May, 1889

She was charged and “exhibited no emotion” although she was looking “very haggard”. A rather negative spin on potentially being in shock – and shades of the way Amanda Knox’s behaviour was reported as well.

Hartlepool Mail, 20th May 1889
Hartlepool Mail, 20th May 1889

I’m a big fan of the invalid cookery of days gone by, beef tea being the mainstay of how the Victorians fed their sick. Here, beef tea destined for James to drink was said to have contained arsenic.

Northern Daily Mail, 23rd May 1889
Northern Daily Mail, 23rd May 1889

Rumours abounded regarding “the other man”, that Florence was involved with.

The Journal, 25th May, 1889
The Journal, 25th May, 1889

Despite being haggard on her arrest, Mrs Maybrick was otherwise “pretty and accomplished”, and of good breeding.

The Cornishman 30th May 1889
The Cornishman 30th May 1889

The motive was established – a scandal of some kind. Florence and James had argued after the Aintree Races in April and Florence was heard to say “Such a scandal; it will be all over town tomorrow.” James replied “Florry, Florry, I never thought it would come to this.” What the scandal was, exactly, was not determined.

An interesting snippet here – James was said to have become sick “from an overdose of the medicine the doctor in London had ordered.” James had, in fact, been staying with his brother Michael in London at this point.

Michael confirmed on 30th May that James had been to visit him five weeks earlier. At this point, James had been dead for three weeks, and had been ill for two weeks before that. The time frame points to Michael just as much as Florence. The London medicine was quite definitely in the frame here – and Michael may well have had access to that himself.

The Cornishman 30th May 1889
The Cornishman 30th May 1889

On being telegraphed that his brother was sick, Michael Maybrick came to Liverpool straight away. He flagged up his suspicions of poisoning very quickly indeed. In fact, he was the one to tell the doctors that he considered his brother to be poisoned, rather than the other way around.

Derby Daily Telegraph, 28th May 1889
Derby Daily Telegraph, 28th May 1889
Burnley Express 3rd August 1889
Burnley Express 3rd August 1889

The “smoking gun” of the trial, alongside those soaking fly-papers, was Florence’s letter to her lover, where she describes her husband as “sick unto death”. The doctors stated at her trial that, at this point, they had not described James’ condition as being inevitably fatal. Florence writes to Alfred that he can “relieve his mind of all fear of discovery now or in the future.” The rest of the letter convinces me that she means discovery of the affair, rather than anything murderous.

Tiverton Gazette, 4th June 1889
Tiverton Gazette, 4th June 1889

However, the circumstances surrounding how her maid got hold of the letter are suspicious – she was allegedly given the letter to post, but it dropped in some mud. She took out the letter, meaning to put it into a clean envelope – but instead she read it, and handed it over to Michael. She couldn’t explain why the letter showed no signs of damage from the wet mud.

image

More evidence – a bottle labelled “poison” and a handkerchief with Florence’s initials on were found in a travelling case. More “Scooby Doo” style obvious murderer clues, bringing to my mind the Diary and that watch. The maid seems very taken with Michael, and hands everything over to him again.

Tiverton Gazette, 4th June 1889
Tiverton Gazette, 4th June 1889

A very important point arose in the trial – James Maybrick was already known to take medicine which contained arsenic. This muddies the fly-paper-water a bit.

I’m imagining Death from Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life” pointing a long, bony finger – “The BEEF TEA!”

Tiverton Gazette, 4th June 1889
Tiverton Gazette, 4th June 1889

“Was it possible that the lady, small in figure, neatly attired in deep mourning, her fair and well-rounded face – that is the lower half of it, for the upper part was hidden behind a thick veil – showing in pale relief against the sombre hue of her attire, could be guilty of the crime laid to her charge?”

Dover Express 14th June 1889
Dover Express 14th June 1889

It was noted that Michael Maybrick was very harshly accusatory of Florence throughout the trial. The letter is considered to be the essential piece of evidence, along with explaining how the arsenic got in James’ liver. I don’t think the letter refers to a poisoning myself, and it was known that James had taken arsenic anyway.

Western Times 7th August 1889
Western Times 7th August 1889

After lengthy proceedings, Florence was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

Yorkshire Evening Post 24th October 1941
Yorkshire Evening Post 24th October 1941

Quite spooky seeing the two big news stories of the time connected here – Bonfire Night in 1889 had many instances of two very topical Guys that year – Jack the Ripper, and Mrs Maybrick. There was no sense at the time that actually these stories may be connected.

Dundee Evening Telegraph 6th November 1889
Dundee Evening Telegraph 6th November 1889

After the trial, Michael Maybrick went to ground for a few months. He reappeared in January 1890, singing his own composition “They All Love Jack”.

Aberdeen Evening Express 7th January 1890
Aberdeen Evening Express 7th January 1890

And he was in the public eye again in 1891, challenging James’ life insurance policy in court. He and his brother argued that the sum of £2000 should be paid out to them and the will in Florence’s favour be overturned. They were unsuccessful.

Derby Daily Telegraph 20th July 1891
Derby Daily Telegraph 20th July 1891

However, there was much support for Florence and a feeling that she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, with the manner of how the judge had conducted her trial being questioned. Again, I’m reminded of Amanda Knox – a trial where, in the initial stages, she was viewed unsympathetically and with the implication that she was already guilty. Then, following conviction, a building sense that she may have been mistreated due to the lack of definite evidence and a questionable trial.

A re-examination of her case reduced her sentence to life imprisonment. In looking at the trial, an important piece of evidence was discovered – Florence had given her maid a prescription to be taken to the local chemist. The chemist refused to make it because it contained a poisonous drug and there was no doctor’s signature on it. Whether the prescription came from James himself, or Florence (or Michael?) is not known. It was also stated that James had in fact died from 21 “irritant poisons” and it had not been a downward spiral into fatal ill-health – he may have initially had gastro-enteritis, which was then exacerbated by harsh medicines, rather than being struck down by poison on day one.

Florence was definitely considered to be mistreated by many – there were numerous petitions submitted to the Home Office. One in Birmingham alone gathered an incredible 45,000 signatures, with an enthusiastic public meeting held as well.

image

In 1892, news arose of a purported “death-bed confession” from a man who said he had conspired to put Mrs Maybrick in the frame.

Northern Daily Mail, 13th October 1892
Northern Daily Mail, 13th October 1892

The Home Office initially refused to release her in 1894, despite the incriminating new evidence. A friend had come forward to say that James had admitted to being “an arsenic-eater” and that he “found it difficult to supply his needs in Liverpool.” Maybrick had also said to him that he “could take with impunity enough arsenic to kill any ordinary man.” An “arsenical face wash” of Mrs Maybrick’s had also been found, the prescription for which had presumed to be lost. The Victorians used arsenic in too many things.

Surprise was expressed that the Home Office had passed over such evidence with no comment. It reeked of corruption.

Tamworth Herald 26th May 1894
Tamworth Herald 26th May 1894

There were many letters written to newspapers arguing her innocence. “In my opinion there was no medical evidence that would hang a dog,” says this commentator.

Manchester Courier 24th August 1896
Manchester Courier 24th August 1896

Florence’s sentence was eventually commuted, and she was released in 1904. She was reported to still be an attractive woman on her release. In fact, she was “more beautiful than she was even on the day of her arrest…”

Western Gazette, 5th February, 1904
Western Gazette, 5th February, 1904

This is her after her release. She looks utterly haunted.

Florriemaybrick

An aside. A specialist in mental health, Dr Forbes Winslow, died in 1913. This article at the time informs us of two points – “He took an especially active search for “Jack the Ripper” and always declared that he knew who the “Ripper” was but that the police refused to act on his information. He also took a leading part in the agitation for the release of Mrs Maybrick.” Admittedly, both were news stories at much the same time, but I still find this juxtaposition very strange indeed, particularly if he did indeed know who the Ripper was. Police refusing to act on information ties in with Bruce Robinson’s Masonic cover-up too.

Excitingly, Dr Winslow thought the world was going mad, quite literally. The numbers of lunatics were spiralling upwards, and he predicted that “one person in every four in 2159 would be mad.” I wonder why he specified the year 2159?

Nottingham Evening Post, 9th June 1913
Nottingham Evening Post, 9th June 1913

Michael Maybrick died two months after Dr Forbes Winslow, in 1913. He had disappeared from London society not long after the trial, got married and moved to the Isle of Wight. He apparently had become the guardian of Florence and James’ two children.

Yorkshire Evening Post 27th August 1913
Yorkshire Evening Post 27th August 1913

He became Mayor of Ryde on the Isle of Wight four times. I love the story above Maybrick’s news in this article. Count Zeppelin was about to make a trial trip on his new airship.

Aberdeen Journal 20th October 1908
Aberdeen Journal 20th October 1908

Florence died on 23rd October 1941 at the age of 80. 74 years ago exactly today.

She had been living in America since her release from prison. A further mystery was that 30 years after her trial (so around 1919) she was left the enormous sum of £150,000 – “the legacy came from a near relative of a man whose name was frequently mentioned in the trial and that at first Mrs Maybrick refused to touch the money because of its source. Subsequently she was said to have withdrawn her opposition after reading a sealed letter from the testator in which he explained the reasons for the legacy.” She partly used the money to try to clear her name, but she refused to live in the Cheshire mansion that was also left to her in the will, as the area held too many bad memories for her. The man whose name was mentioned in the trial – well, that’s most probably Alfred Brierley, I suppose.

Derby Evening Telegraph 24th October 1941
Derby Evening Telegraph 24th October 1941

Wikipedia says that after she was sent to prison, she never saw her children again. But this obituary says that she had been reconciled with them – although I suppose this doesn’t mean she actually saw them. I hope that she did though. I can’t imagine a sadder phrase than “never seeing your children again”. Although her son James had a tragic end himself. While working as a mining engineer at a Canadian goldmine, he apparently died after drinking cyanide, thinking it was water.

Categories
1900-1949 Marriage Advice Women

The Salvation Army’s Advice to Husbands, 1908

A salutory piece of advice to husbands from General Booth, leader of the Salvation Army, in 1908. It is in line with their attitude to women in general, which was cheeringly based on equality, even at that time. William Booth wrote a book “Messages to Soldiers” also in 1908, which stated:

“I insist on the equality of women with men. Every officer and soldier should insist upon the truth that woman is as important, as valuable, as capable and as necessary to the progress and happiness of the world as man. Unfortunately a large number of people of every tribe, class and nationality think otherwise. They still believe woman is inferior to man.”

Nottingham Evening Post, 31st August 1908
Nottingham Evening Post, 31st August 1908

ADVICE TO HUSBANDS

GENERAL BOOTH AND MARRIAGE

In every Salvation Army place of worship yesterday a “Final Message on Woman”, by General Booth, was read out, the General’s instruction being that it should be “read straight through without comment.”

“A higher estimate and a more generous treatment of woman as a wife is needed,” he wrote, and he gave the following advice to husbands:-

“Let him make her realise that he regards her as a being of equal value with himself.
“Let him use all reasonable effort for her support and maintain her as generously as his income will allow.
“Let him have all reasonable care for her health.
“Every husband should love his wife. Without love for her, he ought not to have married her; and if love be there, let him see that he cultivates it.”

Categories
1900-1949 Women

Women and their Ears, 1929

I’ve been hearing a lot of late about body shaming, fat shaming, and all the ways that women (well, mostly women) can be derided physically. I remember quite clearly the first time I became aware that imperfections in my appearance were apparently fair game for mockery. I was fourteen and a devotee of Mizz magazine, which I’d read ever since my mum found a copy on a bus and gave it to me, correctly thinking I would enjoy it. This was the late 80s and I loved all the 1950s revival fashions, beauty advice and mildly scandalous problem pages. Even now I still think about some of those features – a fairground fashion shoot where the models all seemed to be wearing clothes inspired by Ace from Doctor Who, a vox pop by Candida Doyle from Pulp, a tweed waistcoat I coveted and a beautiful coppery-coloured lipstick modelled (I think) by Terri Seymour (now better known as Simon Cowell’s ex).

But it was one uncharacteristically bitchy little article giving advice on how to get back on a hussy who had stolen your boyfriend that stuck with me. One of the ways in which you could do this, apparently, was to “laugh at her open pores.” Never mind that this mythical boyfriend-stealer might well have flawless skin, or that the boyfriend-less girl may not. What was certainly the case was that I had (and still have) oily skin and the accompanying open pores, and until that point it didn’t occur to me that it was something that you could (or even should?) be ashamed of. I remember it in a kind of eating-the-forbidden-fruit kind of way, in that I suddenly became negatively aware of myself physically, having been unaware and unbothered by what I looked like up until that point.

But that’s small fry compared to the gruelling grooming regime that is currently seen as the new normal among young women of today. Waxing, tanning, all manner of eyebrow atrocities. These are frankly a step too far for me to be arsed with, but girls much younger than fourteen are now exposed to such things. Ever since Heat magazine’s “Circle of Shame” a woman’s body has been fair game for general ridicule. And I am still annoyed about the episode in Friends where the perfect Rachel was disparaged for her “chubby ankles”. If Jennifer Aniston can’t escape this, then who can?

Having said that – I’ve never come across an example of “ear-shaming”. Until now, in this rather odd little piece quoted in The Lancashire Daily Post in 1929. I’m glad I didn’t read this as a fourteen-year-old as well. It would have depressed me, as I very soon became incredibly self conscious about my one weird ear. I know now that it’s called Stahl’s ear deformity – I have a extra rib on the top bit of the ear that makes it a bit pointed. Hence the other much cooler (and actual official and medical) names for it being Vulcan Ear, Spock’s Ear, or Elfin Ear. Age fourteen it was a nightmare that meant I never wanted to wear my hair up. Now I love it, although admittedly a turning point to getting to this point was when Lord of the Rings came out and I realised I was basically half-Hobbit. Short, a bit scruffy, and a weird ear that sometimes sticks out of my hair. It’s also very rare in Caucasians, apparently, so that’s interesting.

So, hang on to your ears for a wild and crazy ride into why women should ideally just manage to not have any ears at all, thank you very much. Not even weird ears like mine, just any ears. Incidentally, despite the title of the piece, men don’t escape scot-free. Men’s ears are also hideous but “in men this matters little: the majority of men have no pretensions to beauty, and one unlovely feature more or less can hardly make much difference.”

Lancashire Daily Post, 29th October, 1929
Lancashire Daily Post, 29th October, 1929

Women and Their Ears

Is there anyone who would dare to maintain that men and women would not be improved in appearance if it were possible to do away with ears, or at any rate to fix them in some less prominent part of the anatomy than the side of the head (writes W.H.U. in the “Birmingham Post”)? The modern generation of womankind, recognising that ears are rarely beautiful, sensibly hides the offensive feature from sight, and one could wish that all her elder sisters would copy her example. For at present a state of topsy-turveydom exists.

Young girls, whose ears, if not actually pretty, are at least tolerable, invariably hide them under their hair, whilst grandmothers and great-aunts display theirs with the utmost abandonment. And it is unfortunately true that the human ear, like the human nose, tends to get larger and more fleshy as it gets older. In men this matters little: the majority of men have no pretensions to beauty, and one unlovely feature more or less can hardly make much difference. But women are the ornamental sex and it is a shame to see old ladies of handsome and dignified mien spoiling their appearance by exposing their ears when they might just as easily train their hair to cover them up.

And how useless, too, is the ear as a feature. Admittedly it provides a useful support for spectacles and equestrian bowler hats, but otherwise what useful purpose does it serve? It is capable of showing no emotions, save shyness and embarrassment, and this only in the young (whoever heard of an elderly man’s ears turning pink?)

It is not event expert at the job for which it is intended by Nature, for when a man desires to listen with unusual intentness he generally finds it necessary to enlist the help of his open mouth. And everyone knows how much keener hearing a dog has than a man.

The ears do not even denote character to any great extent. If they stick out prominently they make a man look foolish; if they are flat and inclined to bulge in at a certain point they encourage the suspicion that their owner was once a prize-fighter in a boxing booth. Moreover, does not the ear contain the projection called “Darwin’s Point,” an ever-present, and perhaps a little humiliating, reminder that in some remote age it tapered in the manner of those of most animals?

Categories
1900-1949 Victorian Women

Women-Only Railway Carriages, 1891

This August the most zeitgeisty thing you could be doing was voting in the Labour Party leadership election. Specifically, voting for Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party leadership election, if the “Jez We Can” polls are to be believed.

That his campaign has steadily grown in strength while press coverage for him has been relentlessly negative is fascinating – even The Guardian of all papers ran article after article warning of the disaster to come if he was elected. But who knows what will happen? We learned how unreliable polls could be a few months ago on the day of the General Election. And if Corbyn does win, maybe it will be a disaster, maybe it will be the start of a new era, or maybe it will be less interesting than anyone currently thinks. As far as I’m concerned though, this is an exciting time for grass-roots Labour supporters right now.

As we’ve seen though, the press is overwhelmingly against Corbyn. And I can’t see that changing if he is elected leader. The furore of the last few days over the idea of reinstating women-only train carriages reminds me of the 1980s, where “looney left” was thrown around as a conversation-ending, ridicule-inducing tactic for left wing policy ideas. Notice how there wasn’t this furore when Tory Transport Minister Claire Perry mooted the idea herself not too long ago?

For the record, Corbyn said this, as part of a proposal on ending street harassment

“Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself. However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome – and also if piloting this at times and modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest.”

It wasn’t his idea, and it’s not even something he’s definitely proposing. He’s simply listened to women giving their opinions and offered a consultation process on their brainstormed ideas to solve a problem.

It might well be decided to be an ineffective idea, in the end, but shouting down the debate before it even starts, well, it’s doesn’t feel very helpful – a sign of a media that is encouraged to be full of fully-formed, strongly-held opinions on everything, immediately. If we don’t have the space to consider new ideas without ridicule, then nothing much will change.

Well, I say “new ideas”, but this isn’t new, as has been repeatedly stated by opponent of the concept, worried that the way forward wouldn’t involve such a retrograde move. Railway carriages marked “Ladies Only” were finally withdrawn in 1977, when the old type of corridor-less train became obsolete. The old-style train was made up of a series of compartments with no access between them, and so was potentially a dangerous trap for a woman alone with a predatory man. Because of this style of carriage, and an increasing number of assaults suffered by female travellers on the trains, the concept of the women-only carriage was discussed from the middle of the nineteenth century onwards.

This article from 1874 shows that the Metropolitan railways had already introduced ladies’ carriages – but there was some debate as to whether this was legal. This was the first mention I found of women eschewing the ladies’ carriages in favour of sitting in the smoking compartments instead – an issue that men complained about for the next half century at least. I don’t know why women intuitively flocked to the smoking carriages for fifty years or more, but I would guess that it was because they were popular and so routinely full of travellers. Perhaps there may have been both less chance of being left alone with an unknown man, and a higher likelihood of other women travellers there as well. If not all train companies designated separate carriages for women, then it may have been easier to adopt this method instead.

Staffordshire Sentinel, 16th November 1874
Staffordshire Sentinel, 16th November 1874

There were a lot of reports of assaults on women on the railways in the nineteenth century, and the debate on ladies’ only carriages became a hot topic of the day. Here’s a letter from 1876 referring to recent attacks and calling for ladies’ carriages to be introduced in all trains.

Dundee Evening Telegraph, 5th September 1887
Dundee Evening Telegraph, 5th September 1887

And another, where Ellen Johnson was saved from attempting to jump from the train to escape her attacker, by another passenger walking along the outside footboard to reach her carriage.

Huddersfield Chronicle, 6th June 1891
Huddersfield Chronicle, 6th June 1891

This is a fantastic piece, quoted from the Queen – this wasn’t Queen Victoria wading into the debate, that wouldn’t have been quite her style. It’s Queen magazine – which is still around, although these days it’s called Harper’s Bazaar. It points out that the cases of assault on women that the public hears about are the dramatic ones – where the woman has fought off her assailant, or else felt forced to take the dramatic step of jumping from the train to escape. But “We hear nothing of the cases, probably far more numerous, where the woman, whether successful or not in keeping off her assailant, has afterwards from dread of publicity kept silent….The risk that a woman travelling by herself runs is not one whit less to-day than it was yesterday; indeed it is rather greater, for the opportunities for attack are greater.”

This piece describes how the Victorian communication cord used to work – it consisted of a cord on the outside of the train linked to the guard’s van. So a woman, mid-attack, would need to open the window, and attempt to reach the cord far above her head on the outside of the train, then pull it hard enough to attract the attention of the guard. The article calls for other means of instantaneous communication to be introduced, which could now be electrically-powered, and that this should be enforced by Parliament if the train companies did not agree of their own volition.

Dorking and Leatherhead Advertiser, 16th April 1892
Dorking and Leatherhead Advertiser, 16th April 1892

This article in The Morning Post from 1896 says that ladies didn’t tend to make use of specially-designated carriages very often, when they were available. Although there was apparently a litle known, and therefore little-used, policy of the railway staff being obliged to provide any women who asked with a suitable carriage to sit in which would then become a carriage where only women would be allowed to be admitted.

An MP, Mr Ritchie, confirms to a correspondent that The Board of Trade has written to all railway companies to encourage the introduction of women-only carriages on all their trains, in 1897.

Edinburgh Evening News, 26th March 1897
Edinburgh Evening News, 26th March 1897

Commercial travellers complain about the long-standing “problem” of women sitting in the smoking compartments. This was evidently the Victorian and Edwardian equivalent of the person having a loud conversation on their phone in the “quiet carriage” today. Here, the problem is that “Travellers could walk up and down a train, and find every compartment labelled “smoking” packed with women and children, who gleefully looked out of the windows and smiled at those who wanted to smoke.” Smiling and gleefully looking out of the window – the cheek of it! Mr R. Mitchell, making the complaint, says that “he knew women often preferred to travel in smoking compartments because they said they felt safer; but he thought railway companies should prohibit women or children travelling in smoking compartments unless they were accompanied by a male adult.” Priorities, there.

Nottingham Evening Post, 28th October 1912
Nottingham Evening Post, 28th October 1912

In 1924, the introduction of women-only carriages on all trains is still being discussed in the House of Commons – showing that it was still a far from widespread practice. Again, the issue of women in smoking compartments is raised, but this time it’s stated that this is quite likely to be on account of the lack of aforementioned ladies’ carriages. Mr “Not All Men” Becker was standing up for men’s rights here with his “May I ask whether carriages could be provided for men only?”

Gloucester Journal, 26th July 1924
Gloucester Journal, 26th July 1924

As the old-style trains were replaced with the new designs, so the debate lessened. The issue has raised its head again now, because of the increased number of attacks on women on the railways – the number of sex offences on UK railways rose by a quarter last year. The idea of women-only carriages is still a current one in some countries – Japan, Brazil and India still have them, after all. My twopenn’orth is that this could only really be enforced, particularly on night trains, by guards on the train, and if there’s guards on the train, then why do you need the separate carriage? But I’m open to the discussion.

Categories
1900-1949 Women

Women’s Business Wear, 1912

I had to double-check the date of this newspaper because 1912 seemed very early to be giving advice to women on what to wear in the workplace.

But then again, the invention of the typewriter had opened up a new field of jobs for women, and I found out that in 1901, 25% of office workers were women. And that meant there was a new market for appropriate women’s work-wear. It’s interesting reading this, as the proscribed new “uniform” for women in business is still relevant today – white shirts, black skirts, simple hairstyles…not much has changed in office-wear in 100 years.

Sheffield Evening Telegraph, 17th September 1912
Sheffield Evening Telegraph, 17th September 1912

A Dress Revolution

The Business Girl to Wear a Uniform

There are indications that a revolution in dress is imminent in the world of business women. The “gaudy typist” whose large hat, coloured stockings, suede shoes, jewellery and scent, have been the subject of adverse comment, will shortly be seen no more. Her place will be taken by the girl robed in black, dark blue, grey, or some other quiet colour, with skirt of decorous length, says the “Standard”. In short, the idea of office uniform for women is becoming increasingly popular amongst the heads of business houses where women typists and secretaries are extensively employed. Quite recently a large City firm drew up a code of dress regulations, to which every employee is expected to conform, and from which every dress accessory generally supposed to be dear to the heart of a typist is rigorously excluded.

Blouses of the “Peek-a-boo” type, against which American business men lately waged ruthless war to the disgust of the wearers, are strictly forbidden. These garments are to be of the shirt order and make of white silk.

A profusion of stray locks and curls not being considered conducive to concentrated thought, any attempt to dress the hair outside the plainest and simplest fashion is sternly repressed.

At first it seemed as if the new order of things would lead to open rebellion amongst those concerned, but the tact of the superintendent and the good sense of the girls themselves prevailed and the scheme is working quite well.

“Every office that employs women typists to any extent should insist on a uniform style of dress,” said the head of a large business establishment yesterday; “it looks more businesslike, and in my opinion, tend towards the increase of efficiency amongst the workers themselves. The girl who knows that her neighbour’s dress is precisely similar to her own is spared the temptation of studying its possible points of superiority, and my experience is that office dress helps to inculcate a businesslike frame of mind.”

An aside – these aren’t examples of work-wear as these ladies are at the races, but I do think these are absolutely beautiful examples of fashion from 1910. I would definitely wear the black and white fringed one (and her fabulous boots) right now.

Categories
1900-1949 Marriage Advice Women

A Policeman’s Advice to Wives, 1912

When Mrs Quan of St Louis put in a divorce petition against her husband in 1912, the Judge made a rather unusual decision. In what sounds like an idea for a reality show, he appointed a policeman, Patrick J. Egan, “to supervise the domestic affairs of the couple, and to visit their home daily for thirty days.” Mr Egan’s qualifications in this regard apparently being that “I have had a long talk with my wife. She and I have been married sixteen years, and we have never had a quarrel. This one qualification I have brought to this job of peacemaker.”

Sheffield Evening Telegraph, 17th September 1912
Sheffield Evening Telegraph, 17th September 1912

Mr Egan visited, he supervised and he talked with Mrs Quan “on her attitude towards her husband and his treatment of her”. He then came up with a list of precepts, and it didn’t take him long to do it – at the time of this article, he’d only completed 15 of the designated 30 visits.

This was his advice.

Don’t remonstrate with your husband when he has been drinking. Wait until next morning. Then give him a cup of coffee for his headache. Afterwards lead him into the parlour, put your arms about him and give him a lecture. It will have more weight with him than any number of quarrels.

If he has to drink, let him have it at home.

Avoid mothers-in-law. Don’t let them live with you or interfere in your affairs.

If you must have your own way, do not let your husband know you are trying to boss him. Have your own way by letting him think he is having his.

Dress to suit your husband’s taste and income. Husbands usually don’t like their wives to wear tight dresses. Consult him on these matters.

Don’t be jealous or give your husband cause for jealousy.

When your husband is in a bad humour be in a good humour. It may be difficult but it will pay.

Sheffield Evening Telegraph, 17th September 1912
Sheffield Evening Telegraph, 17th September 1912

What did the Quans do with this advice? They had it printed, framed and placed in the sitting room. They were reportedly delighted with the “policeman-philosopher” and “presented the saviour of their marital bliss with a handsome token of their gratitude in the form of a gold watch.”

Now. I don’t want to be the pourer of cold water all over this marital bliss, but come on.

For one thing, Mrs Quan was the instigator of the divorce, which rather implies some kind of unreasonable conduct on the part of her husband. And yet, she’s the only one to be talked to, and the only one given advice on how to alter her behaviour. Plus, Mr Egan has only visited 15 times so far and so he came up with his advice pretty quickly. Assuming the list was drawn up after the first week, then this has given the Quans eight whole days to put this advice into action, including alerting the media on their state of bliss, commissioning a printer and framer to display the advice, and going gold watch shopping to boot. Well, I hope it worked out for them, but it seems a bit too soon to declare everything was fixed, don’t you think?

Categories
1900-1949 Women

Feminists Condemned, 1939

I’ve posted before about the frisson of anger-enjoyment, perversely getting a bit of a kick out of things that wind you up. I had it in abundance in this curmudgeonly-in-the-extreme Advice for Wives article from 1895.

But here my feminist hackles are raised, good and proper. It’s a report from “The National Association of Schoolmasters” 1939 conference, where “a resolution opposing the principle of equality of salaries between men and women teachers was passed.” Well, they might have had to even go so far as to change the name of the association.

“It declared the application of equal pay must compel schoolmasters to accept a lower standard.”

The kicker is from Mr H. Meigh, mover of the proposition, who stated that “the feminist movement was a case of the tail wagging the dog. A small politically-minded section of advanced feminists in the teaching profession, who cursed their Maker because He did not allow them to enter the world wearing trousers, were prepared to cast aside the superiority which all true men automatically accorded them in favour of mere equality.”

Isn’t that annoying? All true men apparently consider women to be superior, in an undefined and unapparent way, and so why should women “settle” for equality?

I can’t help but be reminded of Bic’s recent woefully backwards-looking advert released for Women’s Day in South Africa – here. It’s a similarly irritating attempt to maintain the sexist status quo while cack-handedly pretending to compliment or inspire women. If Bic really thought that any one of their shameful statements was in any way progressive I’d be amazed. And never mind “Work like a boss”, how about “Get paid like a boss?”

Sheffield Telegraph, 12th April 1939
Sheffield Telegraph, 12th April 1939

Women, know your limits.

Categories
1900-1949 Adverts Women

Advice to Husbands – (Dont’) Kill Your Wife, 1932

Here’s a 1930s example of what became known as “shockvertising“. It still works as an attention-grabbing technique – it made me gasp when I found it.

The Hawick News, 25th November, 1932
The Hawick News, 25th November, 1932

It’s a rather strong method of advertising from Brown of Myreslawgreen, an economical clothes shop. You need to read the small print to see what it’s really saying, and I expect everyone did read it – I can’t imagine many people blithely turning the page without investigating further.

“Every husband worthy of the name likes to see his wife and children well-dressed. It is a difficult problem these hard times, and our advice is – don’t KILL YOUR WIFE with worry trying to make ends meet….”