THE HOUSEWIFE AND HER HUSBAND
The husband differs from the wife in this fundamental,--that essentially
he is not a house man as she is a house woman. For the man the home is
the place where he houses his family and where he rests at night. Here
also he spends his leisure time in amount varying with his domesticity.
Man writes songs and books about the home, but the woman lives there.
Perhaps that is why women have not written sentimental verse about it.
Marriage is variously regarded. "It is a sacrament, a religious
sanction, and not to be dissolved by anything but Death." So say a very
large group of our people. "It is a contract, governed by law, entered
into under certain conditions and to be dissolved only by law." This is
the attitude of practically all the governments of the world and rapidly
is becoming the dominant point of view. Though the religious combat
this conception of marriage, no marriage is legal on religious sanction
alone, and the increase of divorce among those claiming to be Catholics
is an undisputed fact.
It is only in the last century that the contract side of marriage has
been emphasized and become dominant. There has resulted a conflict
between the sacramental, sacred point of view and the secular. This
conflict, like all other social conflicts, is a part of the inner life
of most of the men and women of this generation, influencing their
attitude toward marriage, the home, the mate.
For when we say a thing is part of the "spirit of the times" we mean
merely that arising as a development of, or a change from, old ideas in
the minds of leaders, it has become propagated among the mass. It has
become part of their thought, incentive to their action, source of their
energies.
Thus sentiment and religion proclaim the sacredness of marriage, its
eternal nature, its indissolubility. The law asserts it to be a civil
relationship, to be made or unmade by law itself; experience teaches
that if it is sacred, then sacredness includes folly, indiscretion,
brutality, and crime. Therefore the marriage relationship has become a
source of conflict for our times, with opposing champions shouting out
their point of view, with books, the movies, the press, the stage, with
daily experience adducing cases. The scene of conflict is in the moods
and emotions of all of us.
This divided view is particularly the attitude of women and becomes part
of the neurosis of the housewife.
After all a woman does not marry an institution; she marries a man with
whom she lives, sharing his life. In the natural course of events she
becomes the mother of the children to whom he is father. We may dismiss
as nonimportant the occasional freak marriage where a man and woman live
apart, have no children and meet occasionally,--for obvious purposes.
Such a marriage is not only sterile biologically, not only empty of the
virtues of marriage, but encounters none of its difficulties.
This intimate individual relationship makes marriage when complete and
successful the happiest human experience. Soberly speaking, it is then
the flower of existence, satisfying biologically and humanly, giving
peace and satisfaction to body and mind. This is the ideal, the "happy
ending" at which most romances, novels, plays, and all the daydreams of
youth leave us. Warm, cozy, intense domesticity, where passion is
legitimate and love and friendship eternal; where children play around
the hearth fire; of which death only is the ending!
This ideal is not realized largely because no ideal is. How often is it
closely approximated? Experience says seldom. That implies no reproach
against marriage, for we are to judge marriage by the rest of life and
not by an ideal. A world in which great wars occur frequently, in which
economic conflict is constant, in which sickness and disaster are never
absent; where education is occasional, where reason has yet to rule in
the larger policies and where folly occupies the high places,--why
expect marriage to be more nearly perfect than the life of which it is a
part? To be reasonably comfortable and happy in marriage is all we may
expect.
What are the difficulties confronting the partners which impede
happiness and especially which bring the neurosis of the housewife? For
after all we can only examine the field for our own purpose.
We may divide the difficulties as follows from the standpoint of the
neurosis of the housewife:
1. Those that arise from the sex relationship itself.
2. Those that arise from conflicts of will, purpose, ideas.
3. Those that arise from the types of husbands.
4. Those that arise from the types of wives. (This has already been
considered under the heading Types Predisposed to the Neurosis.)
Before we go on to the consideration of these various factors we must
repeat what has been emphasized frequently in this book.
That the change in the status of woman implies difficulty in the
marriage relationship. If only _one_ will is expected to be dominant in
the household, the man's, then there can arise no conflict. If the form
of the household is unaltered, but if the woman demands its control or
expects equality, then conflict arises. If a woman expects a man to beat
her at his pleasure, as has everywhere been the case and still is in
some places, if she considers it just, brutality exists only in extremes
of violence. If she considers a blow, or even a rough word, an
unendurable insult, then brutality arises with the commonest
disagreement. In other words, it is comparatively easy to deal with a
woman expecting an inferior position, whose individual tastes, wills,
ideas, and ideals have never been developed,--the ancient woman; it is
very much more difficult to deal with her modern sister.
Happily the day is passing when prudery governed the discussion of sex.
Lewdness exists in concealment, suggestion is more provocatory than
frankness. The morbidness of men who condemned themselves to celibacy
has influenced the world; their fear of sex led to a misguided silence
shrouding the wrecks of many a life.
The sex relationship is the basis of marriage. The famous couplet of
Rosalind still holds good. The sex instinct (or rather instincts, for
coupled with sex-desire is love of beauty, admiration, joy of
possession, triumph, etc.) has the unique place of being more regulated
by law and custom than any other basic instinct. The law holds that no
marriage is consummated until the sex act has taken place, regardless
of the words of preacher or State official. The happiness of the first
year or years of married life is mostly in its voluptuous bonds, for
companionship and comradeship have really not yet arisen. Complementary
to this it may be said that much of married misery, especially for the
woman, arises from the first marital embrace.
This last is because of the ignorance of men and women, an ignorance
wholly due to prudery. The majority of women have been chaste before
marriage; the majority of men have not. One would expect therefore
knowledge of men, the knowledge of experience. But the experience has
been gained with women of a certain type and has not equipped the man to
deal with his wife. Though most women know in advance what is expected
of them, some are even ignorant of the most elemental facts of sex, and
even those who know are unprepared for reality.
Too frequently the man regards himself as a Grand Seigneur with a
paramount "Jus Primis Noctis." True, the majority of men are abashed in
the presence of innocence and deal gently with it,--but others follow in
a repellent way their instinct of possession. Any neurologist of
experience has cases where sexual frigidity and neurasthenia in a woman
can be traced back to the shock of that all-important first night.
There are savage races in which preparation for marriage is an
elementary part of education. We need not follow them into absurdity,
but more than the last silly whispered words to bride and groom at the
ceremony is necessary. A formal antenuptial enlightenment, frank and
expert, is needed by our civilization.
The sex appetite varies as widely as any other human character.
Generally speaking, it is believed that sexual passion in women is more
episodic than in men, often relating to the menstrual period. In many
cases it does not develop as a conscious factor in the woman's life
until after marriage, and sometimes not until the first child is born.
Certainly desire in the girl is a more generalized, less local, less
conscious excitement than it is in the boy who cannot misunderstand his
feelings. I think it may safely be said that allowing for the freedom of
boys and men, there is native to the male a more urgent passion than to
the female. This would be biologically necessary, since upon him
devolves not only courtship but the fundamental activity in the sexual
act. A passionless woman may have sexual relation, a passionless man
cannot.
The disparity in sex desire between a husband and wife may be slight or
great. No statistics on the subject will ever be gathered, from the very
nature of the facts, but it is safe to say that much more disparity
exists than is suspected. And likewise it causes more trouble than is
suspected. Where the virility of the mate is inadequate there breeds a
subtle dissatisfaction that may corrode domestic happiness and bring
about conflict on subjects quite remote from the real issue.
Contrariwise, to have relations forced or coaxed on one where desire is
lacking brings about disgust, nervous reactions, fatigue of marked
nature.
A woman sexually well mated often clings beyond reason to an unworthy
mate. Many an inexplicable marriage, many a fantastic loyalty of a good
woman to a bad man has its origin where it is least expected, in the sex
attachment. Demureness of appearance, refinement of manner, noble
ideals are not at all inconsistent with powerful sex feeling. There is
no reason why strong, well-controlled passion should be considered
anything but a virtue, why the pleasure of the sexual field should,
under the social restriction, be regarded as impure.
Too often the latter is the case. Fantastic puritanical ideas often
govern both men and women. I have in mind several couples who desired to
live continent until such time as children were desired. The biological
reasons for the sexual relations seemed to them the only "pure" reasons.
Needless to say the resolution broke down under the intimacy of one
roof, but meanwhile a conflict was engendered that took some vigorous
counsel to dissipate.
This purely occidental idea that sexual pleasure is somehow unworthy is
responsible for a disparity of a further kind. There are parts of the
physical side of love in which the majority of men need education,
though in the well-adjusted married life the proper knowledge comes.
Nature has not completely adjusted the sexes to one another; it is the
part of the man to bring about that adjustment. This part of the
adjustment need not here be detailed; the books of Havelock Ellis are
explicit on the matter. Certainly no small share of the difficulties of
our housewife result, for it is a law that excitement without
gratification brings about nervous instability.
Whether or not the American domestic life is too intimate, too constant,
is an important question. For the majority of people, after the first
ecstasy of the bridal year, separate rooms might be better than a single
chamber occupied together. There are people to whom one bed and one room
is symbolic of their close unity, of their joined lives, who find
comfort and companionship in the knowledge that their life partner
sleeps beside them. Where sexual compatibility or adjustment exists,
there is nothing but commendation for this arrangement. Where it does
not exist, the separate chambers are better for obvious reasons.
A development of recent times is the rapidly increasing use of what are
politely known as birth-control measures. This development is rapidly
changing the number of births in the community to a figure below that
necessary for the perpetuation of the race. We are not concerned here
with the morality or immorality of these measures. Modern woman
undoubtedly will continue to take the stand that childbearing should be
voluntary, that involuntary motherhood is incompatible with her dignity
and status as a person. In this, through the increasing cost of living
as well as sympathy with her attitude, she will be backed by her
husband. I predict without fear that Church and State will have to
adjust themselves to this situation.
The fear of pregnancy has brought about this situation, that many a
woman undergoes an agony of symptoms which is only relieved when her
monthly function appears. This fear makes the sexual relationship a risk
almost outweighing its pleasure. The notoriously "unsafe" character of
the contraceptive measures has only diminished this fear, not completely
allayed it.
Moreover the contraceptive measures, according to the law that every
"solution" breeds new problems, have their place in causing nervousness.
Rarely do these measures replace the natural act in satisfaction.
Further, some are unable to conquer their repugnance and disgust and
some are left excited and unsatisfied. Vasomotor disturbances,
neurasthenic symptoms, obsessions, and hysterical phenomena occur in
many women as well as in some men. One of the stock questions of the
neurologists when examining a married man or woman complaining of
neurasthenic symptoms relates to the contraceptive measures used. The
channel of discharge of sexual excitement is race old. And this new
development blocks that channel. For many persons this is sufficient to
deënergize the organism.
At the present time there are two trends in the sex sphere, so far as
women are concerned. There is the masculine trend, which is usually
called feminism. Women tend to take up the work formerly exclusively
belonging to men; they tend to dress more like men, with flat shoes,
collars and ties, and tailor-made clothes. They take up the vices of
men,--smoking, drinking,--are building up a club life, live in bachelor
apartments, call each other by their last names, etc.
Whether with this goes a greater sexual license or not it is difficult
to say. The observers best qualified to comment think there has been a
decrease in female chastity,--that the entrance of women in industrial
life, the growth of the cities, the increase in automobiles, the greater
freedom of women, the dropping of restraint in manner and speech, have
brought women's morals somewhat nearer to men's.
The other trend, not entirely separate except for externals, is marked
by a hyper-sexuality, an emphasis of femaleness. This is by far the more
common phenomenon and probably more widely spread through society. The
dress of women in general is more daring, more designed for sex
allurement than for a century past. Women paint and powder in a way that
only the demimonde did a generation ago, reminding one of the ladies of
the French Court in the eighteenth century. Further, the plays of the
day would be called mere burlesque a generation back; the girl and music
show has the center of the stage, and the drama in America has almost
disappeared. There is an epidemic of magazines that flirt with the
risqué; with titles that are sometimes much more clever than their
contents.
Such eras have been with us before this, have come and gone. It is
doubtful if they ever affected so large a number of people. The
excitement of the daily life is increased in a sexual way, and this
brings an unrest that reacts on the anchor of the home, the housewife.
She too tugs at her moorings; life must be speeded up for her too as
well as for the younger and unattached women. She becomes more
dissatisfied and therefore more nervous.
Altogether the sexual relationship of modern marriage needs a candid
examination. No drastic change is indicated, but education in sexual
affairs for men and women is a need. Even the prudish admit the pleasure
of the sex-life, and that seems to be their fundamental aversion to it.
Most of the advice and injunctions in the past seem to have come from
the sexually abnormal. It is time that this was changed; in fact, it is
being changed. The danger lies in a swing to extremes, in leaving the
fields to those who think reform lies in the abolition of restraint, in
the disregard of all social supervision and obligation. Free love is
more disastrous if possible than prudery.