Interpreting Gender Roles

[Chris Gordy]

Throughout the years in working with living history museums, the subject of gender roles has surfaced in many forms. Some may say that it is a subject which cannot be defined since it takes on many roles (an opinion I hold as well), while others argue the significance of one gender over another. One can also find museum professionals who unconsciously over-weigh one gender role over another while interpreting everyday life-ways in American history. Dangerous? Yes. To chose not to look at groups of people as working units but gender factions forces one to divide the historical picture into battling groups.

I thought that this would be a great place to discuss peoples views on interpreting gender roles in the early nineteenth and the importance it plays on the frontier. To start, I thought I would guote Glenda Riley in her book The Female Frontier. In this work Glenda examines the role of women in the historic frontier as a whole. Works such as this may seem a bit one-sided at first, but remember that the purpose of the research is to focus on one faction.

She writes: My intention in this study is to demonstrate not only that women did play highly significant and multifaceted roles in the development of the American West but also that their lives as settlers displayed fairly consistent patterns that these shared experiences and responses of frontierswomen constituted a 'female frontier.' In other words, frontierswomen's responsibilities, life styles, and sensibilities were shaped more by gender considerations than by region. Men's lives, on the other hand, often took form as a result of their physical setting and its resources. The activities, interests, and attitudes of a male settler who was a rancher diverged in important ways from that of a frontier merchant, while those of a farmer assumed far-different configurations from those of a miner. Yet, because women's lives focussed upon domestic production, childbirth and childcare, family relationships, and other 'female' tasks, the mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters of these men were touched only marginally by the resources of the area and by the resulting occupations of their menfolk."

[mary]

I am curious as to how Ms. Riley's comments apply to the situation in the lead region.

We know from several sources that the ratio of women to men was very low. The majority of lead diggers being young men keeping "bachelors hall."

However, it would seem to me that the gradual appearance of women in the region slowly changed the character and the appearances of the region to outsiders. Rather than being detached with the duties of household and domestic concerns, women in the region became integral to the development of resources and the "resulting occupations" of their menfolk."

In 1832, who tended the hearth, the corn and potato fields, and the diggings while the menfolk were off in the militia? And wouldn't the maintenence of these "occupations" of their menfolk and the preservation of societal fabric during months of strife contribute as much to the region as to the "female frontier?"

[Chris Gordy]

Sorry that it's been a while since I've been active on this board. But that's a good response Mary.

In answer to your question And wouldn't the maintenence of these "occupations" of their menfolk and the preservation of societal fabric during months of strife contribute as much to the region as to the "female frontier?" : The region dictates the occupation and the occupation dictates the role of the woman, and the man for that matter. Wouldn't the change that would come about in the region's physical appearance be more in the cult of domesticity?
The interesting thing about examining this theory of the "female frontier", outside the cult of domesticity, is that the gender roles indeed become intermixed in the areas of the farm, smokehouse, hearth, store, tavern and maybe even the diggings. But is this a situation seen only during times of strife? I would argue that it is not and I see that you would probably argue the same. But doesn't your statement more support the idea that it takes both genders, being intermixed in responsibilites, to shape the character and resource use of the region? A character that most women in the east would certainly object to.

[mary]

Chris, I find a portion of Ms. Riley's thesis, particularly

Yet, because women's lives focussed upon domestic production, childbirth and childcare, family relationships, and other 'female' tasks, the mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters of these men were touched only marginally by the resources of the area and by the resulting occupations of their menfolk.

very much outside our findings regarding the lead region.

When the prices were high, people couldn't help to be drawn to the resources of the region, in terms of digging lead ore, and its transportation and processing. When lead prices dropped---corresponding to the huge influx of emigrants to the region, including women-- people, particularly families, needed to combine their resources in order to survive. This, I think, is what you meant in terms of combining or intermixing responsibilities, to change the character and resource use of the Lead District.

The character of the region changed---undeniably changed-- whith the increase in the presence of women and children. Before 1827, the area was known for its rough, frontier, "bachelor hall" mode of living. With the arrival of women and children, the entire character of the region began to change-- and it's simply not because women were keeping hearth and "birthin' babies." It's because they were an integral part of the reshaping of the region-- both in terms of character and resource use.

Respectfully, Mary.

[Robert Braun]

Not surprisingly, I agree with Mary.

We have some accounts of Eastern emigrants to Illinois, etc. that seem to indicate a certain reluctance for ladies of "fashionable society" to descend to the daily tasks popularly described as the "cult of domesticity." I read, and will include one account from the Lebabon/Platteville diggings in the Michigan Territory, of the use of maids or other domestic servants---possibly a more common practice among families supposedly occupying "lower rungs" of the social order. Again-- this seems to support the thesis.

HOWEVER, these accounts do not speak to the majority of ordinary persons of lower class society that frankly emigrated to and performed the lion's share of labor in the Lead Region. Did the use of maids indicate a reluctance to do the work, or point to the abundance of chores to be done, and the lack of enough skilled hands to do it?

I differ mightily with outside observation like Featherstonhaugh's and Sir Charles Augustus Murray's snooty "snapshot" analyses of American femininity. They were visitors---passing though what is commonly referred to today as "fly-over" country-- and did not dwell in-country (or in any one locale for that matter) sufficiently to truly learn the character and nature of American ladies in the 1830s. Their writings are interesting reflections, but not IMHO either pursuasive nor particularly insightful as to women and the nature of women in America.

[Susan Gordy]

Well, I would agree with Chris and Mary and Bob. How's that for pacifism?

All kidding aside, it would appear that we are all referring and agreeing to roughly the same topic. I don't think the thesis presented by Ms. Riley is whether or not women contributed to society rather that their roles (ie: tasks etc,) did not change from region to region particularly when settling in a new area. In a general sense (my emphasis on general) women's roles in the lead mining region did not change. They still cooked, cleaned, watched over children, engaged in domestic production, milked cows, cared for chickens, planted, harvested, and preserved gardens, on a pretty regular basis. Kind of goes back to that whole, people have to eat theory. ;D ;D

When the men were off in the militia during the war I would argue that based upon the depradation claims that largely and universally reported a failure of crops, that women did not pick up where the gents left off. Rather they either left the region entirely as witnessed by the reported boat loads leaving Galena (to be fair, men and women both were on the boats) or they stayed put in the forts put up for the protection of the families and miners in the area. And I seem to recall a time or two when gentlemen ventured outside the forts and returned to their fields only to be shot at and killed by roving bands of Indians.

In regards to the women digging for lead I would love to see any reports. It fascinates me largely because one of the main cultural differences between Native Americans and European settlers is in the interpretation of gender roles. Native American women mined the mines as reported at the Mines of Spain which were specifically protected prior to the war from encroaching whites. Native American women also farmed as reported by Black Hawk and the women at Saukenauk who stood behind Black Hawk in an effort to get their fields back.

Sorry, went off on a tangent there. How does one preserve societal fabric during a war that directly surrounds you? Lacking evidence of a daily nature, I go to the reports of the battle at Apple River Fort. The paper quotes, "May God have no greater cowards in his army than the ladies of Apple River Fort". So, yes, it would appear that in times of strife, the women stepped up to the plate repeatedly. No argument there.

Now, I am confused by the differences between Chris and Mary.

Chris says: "But doesn't your statement more support the idea that it takes both genders, being intermixed in responsibilites, to shape the character and resource use of the region"?

Mary says: "including women-- people, particularly families, needed to combine their resources in order to survive. This, I think, is what you meant in terms of combining or intermixing responsibilities, to change the character and resource use of the Lead District.

So what is the argument here? Both agree that women helped to "shape" or "change" the character of a region. At no point does Glenda Riley say they did not. Rather women's tasks were only marginally affected by the resources in the area.

[Robert Braun]

Mary provided the essential quote of contention:

...the mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters of these men were touched only marginally by the resources of the area and by the resulting occupations of their menfolk.

I say... "baloney" when it comes to the Lead Region. And the situation you described at Apple River Fort is the preeminant example.

I submit that Ms. Reilly's synopsis of her thesis argues with itself. She opens by claiming:

My intention in this study is to demonstrate not only that women did play highly significant and multifaceted roles in the development of the American West ...

Then closes with the above quote:

Well... which was it, Ms. Reilly? You can't have it both ways-- if your postulate is that historic women "touched only marginally by the resources of the area and by the resulting occupations of their menfolk" went on to play a "highly significant and multifaceted roles in the development of the American West."