Laura Ingalls Wilder and submission

[saraelise]

Hey, y'all, I'm a new member, but I've been lurking for a while.

I've been reading The Little House on the Prairie recently, and reached These Happy Golden Years today. In one of the later chapters, Almanzo and Laura are talking about their wedding, and Laura asks Almanzo whether he wants her to promise to obey him. His reponse: "Of course not. I know it is in the wedding ceremony, but it is only something that women say. I never knew one that did it, nor any decent man that wanted her to."

Considering the average fundie's love for all things Victorian and the (supposedly) romantic ideal this time fostered, I thought it was really interesting to find direct proof that even the women of the day, and Laura herself, weren't as enamored with "Biblical Womanhood" or however you want to put it.

The part about decent men not wanting their wives to submit to them, must really grate male fundies. They are Big Strong Manly Men , after all :roll:

(If I messed something up, please let me know and once again, hi everyone!)

[GenerationCedarchip]

You know what? That went right over my head when I read that book in elementary school. However, years later, I do remember our fundie church having a mention of how parents should "carefully discuss" These Happy Golden Years with their children when they read it, and I remember wondering what scandalous content could possibly be in there.

I think you just answered my question. Not obeying one's husband? That would make most of the women's circle take to the fainting couch! :lol:

[contrary]

laura was quite a spitfire. i would not be at all surprised if she wasn't fundie-approved.

[Confused_by_religion]

Hey, y'all, I'm a new member, but I've been lurking for a while.

I've been reading The Little House on the Prairie recently, and reached These Happy Golden Years today. In one of the later chapters, Almanzo and Laura are talking about their wedding, and Laura asks Almanzo whether he wants her to promise to obey him. His reponse: "Of course not. I know it is in the wedding ceremony, but it is only something that women say. I never knew one that did it, nor any decent man that wanted her to."

Considering the average fundie's love for all things Victorian and the (supposedly) romantic ideal this time fostered, I thought it was really interesting to find direct proof that even the women of the day, and Laura herself, weren't as enamored with "Biblical Womanhood" or however you want to put it.

The part about decent men not wanting their wives to submit to them, must really grate male fundies. They are Big Strong Manly Men , after all :roll:

(If I messed something up, please let me know and once again, hi everyone!)

It's just like their refusal to acknowledge that Jane Austen was anything but submissive and "sweet".

BTW, in another lifetime I did a thesis on children's books about the Pioneers. I compared contemporary children's books and the "classics", including Laura Ingalls Wilder, and found that the fiction from the late 19th century and early 20th century had a lot more independent, less "sweet" heroines than much of the contemporary books. Possibly because the authors then WERE pioneers or at least knew them and many of the authors now are catering to a very naive, romantic, nostalgic audience. So if you're a fundie mom, don't rely on Laura Ingalls Wilder and her contemporaries to brainwash your child, lol.

[Grace]

You know what? That went right over my head when I read that book in elementary school. However, years later, I do remember our fundie church having a mention of how parents should "carefully discuss" These Happy Golden Years with their children when they read it, and I remember wondering what scandalous content could possibly be in there.

I think you just answered my question. Not obeying one's husband? That would make most of the women's circle take to the fainting couch! :lol:

Well, Laura also allows Almanzo to kiss her once they are engaged. :snooty: :shock:

Oh! Aaaaand they go off together for hours and hours every Sunday in the buggy with no chaperone. The hussy. Which totally makes me suspect that the "We're engaged so you may kiss me now" scene was fabricated for the book. ;)

[starfish]

Crystal's old site "Biblical Womanhood" had some discussion of the Little House books and whether they are appropriate for doormattedness.

I think Crystal herself reads them to the daughters.

Some of the fundies, though, had flagged them as insufficiently dour.

[Hisey]

Crystal's old site "Biblical Womanhood" had some discussion of the Little House books and whether they are appropriate for doormattedness.

.

Thank you for giving me a good laugh first thing in the morning!

[Joykins]

You know what? That went right over my head when I read that book in elementary school. However, years later, I do remember our fundie church having a mention of how parents should "carefully discuss" These Happy Golden Years with their children when they read it, and I remember wondering what scandalous content could possibly be in there.

I think you just answered my question. Not obeying one's husband? That would make most of the women's circle take to the fainting couch! :lol:

Well, to be fair, it could also be that terrifying part about the mother of the family Laura was staying with wandering around at night brandishing a big knife. That scene always gave me the chills.

[Kitty]

I suspect that in any point in history, women had a lot more power in their households than fundies like to pretend.

I'm not even saying that maybe some of those women were spitfires like Wilder, but I suspect that not all men expected their wives to be total doormats. After all, the women were the ones raising the kids and cleaning the house, and lower-class women did work outside the home. Women were educated even centuries ago, as in taught to read and write and at least do basic math.

I also suspect that with the way boys are raised in patriarchal cultures, they soon come to depend on their wives as adults. After all, sewing and cooking and cleaning are women's work, so when the Mrs. dies of the plague (or childbirth) and leaves her children behind, Mr. Manly Man is a bit SOL when his kids are either all boys, or the girls are too young to take over. Until he finds a new Mrs., at least.

[Bookworm89]

I loved the series when I was younger and didn't connect to anything fundies would object to, now I want to reread them just to read the "unappropriate" parts (I'll have to read with a fundy mindset though, that might be a struggle)

[ElphabaGalinda]

Laura Ingalls Wilder was never submissive like fundies make her out to be. She was a much more independent thinker for her time than fundies allow, even in present day. Same with how they think Jane Austen is a role model for the stay at home daughters. The problem, I think is that they lack reading comprehension, so they read it all superficially, and they also lack real historical knowledge so they have no idea what things were like for women back then.

[Kitty]

Laura Ingalls Wilder was never submissive like fundies make her out to be. She was a much more independent thinker for her time than fundies allow, even in present day. Same with how they think Jane Austen is a role model for the stay at home daughters. The problem, I think is that they lack reading comprehension, so they read it all superficially, and they also lack real historical knowledge so they have no idea what things were like for women back then.

I don't think even her mother was all that submissive either, at least not a complete fucking slave to her husband.

There's absolutely no record of Charles Ingalls ever doing anything to Caroline that would be considered abusive today. Plus, Caroline does "men's work" and nobody really comments on this- then again the only people around to comment on it are Charles, Laura, and Mary. FFS Caroline broke her ankle trying to help Charles build the cabin!

It's been a very long time since I've read the series, but I'm having trouble believing the Ingalls family were particularly unusual for their time. Maybe it's a case of Reality is Unrealistic, but out in the prairie, a family of four needed all the help they could get, gender roles be damned.

[Trynn]

You've also got Laura doing "mens work" by helping her Pa stamp hay when he had no man/boy to help him, and that Laura was secretly hoping to take off her corset while she worked.

And from what I've read, it was perfectly legitimate for couples to kiss after they were engaged, but not before. Maybe that was the part parents are supposed to "talk" to their children about?

I would think the fundies would have more issues with The Rose Years, as there is a plot line involving Rose running around with a man of questionable reputation, and indeed if you read Rose's biography you learn that there were rumors in real life, though nothing's confirmed.

[Antigone]

I read Little House books when I was young, and I LOVED them all. My mother as well, and hopefully my daughter will when she's a little older...but anyway, I've never really seen Laura as a doormat. I can't believe for one second that any woman in the Quiner/Lake/Wilder/Ingalls households were submissive or doormats. Respectful, yes, which sometimes can be taken as submissive at times, I suppose....

If fundies want a good figurehead for the good old days and submission, Laura Ingalls Wilder is not a good choice :) Back then if you had to survive, gender roles sometimes went out of the window. It was all about survival back then.

[GenerationCedarchip]

Crystal's old site "Biblical Womanhood" had some discussion of the Little House books and whether they are appropriate for doormattedness.

I think Crystal herself reads them to the daughters.

Some of the fundies, though, had flagged them as insufficiently dour.

That seems to be on the rise in modern fundie-dom and I think it's depressing. There's actually debate over whether fiction in general is good reading material or whether it's all too frivolous. If you look at sites like Vision Forum, there aren't many options beyond GA Henty and Elsie Dinsmore. When I was a kid, we got to go way beyond Elsie. There were the Mandie books (fundies now routinely forbid these but fundie-lites still have the love), Little House, LM Montgomery, Jane Austen, Narnia, and pretty much any Victorian kids' book you wanted to lay hands on.

[dawn9476]

With all the obstacles that the pioneer's faced, the periods where they fell into traditional gender roles were most likely not very long.

[demgirl]

I have the strongest feeling that Laura Ingalls Wilder would have hated the things that many of our most extreme fundies say, so maybe it's fitting that they hate her books.

[Hane]

Re the opening anecdote here: Makes me all the more surprised when Laura said, in one book, "I do not want to vote."

[Destiny]

That seems to be on the rise in modern fundie-dom and I think it's depressing. There's actually debate over whether fiction in general is good reading material or whether it's all too frivolous. If you look at sites like Vision Forum, there aren't many options beyond GA Henty and Elsie Dinsmore. When I was a kid, we got to go way beyond Elsie. There were the Mandie books (fundies now routinely forbid these but fundie-lites still have the love), Little House, LM Montgomery, Jane Austen, Narnia, and pretty much any Victorian kids' book you wanted to lay hands on.

What could they possibly have against the Mandie books? I loved them as a (fundie-lite) teen. I look back on them now and roll my eyes in horror that I ever read them, but I guess that's growing up for you. :) It's been a long while, but I honestly can't remember anything objectionable.

[PennySycamore]

The Prairie Muffin Manifesto, among all its other batshit craziness, had a big spiel about how Laura Ingalls Wilder was not worthy of emulation.

[kaetrin]

What could they possibly have against the Mandie books? I loved them as a (fundie-lite) teen. I look back on them now and roll my eyes in horror that I ever read them, but I guess that's growing up for you. :) It's been a long while, but I honestly can't remember anything objectionable.

As I recall, she goes away to boarding school, breaks lots of rules, doesn't consult her dad about much of anything, and has a boyfriend. I liked them as a pre-teen too.

I suppose banning all fiction is the inevitable result of the stricter-than-thou wars.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think Rose Wilder Lane cleaned up a lot of her mother's writing, perhaps making it a bit more innocent sounding/less gritty than life actually was. The First Four Years wasn't edited by Rose, and I always was amused by the comment "those who play must pay the piper" (or something close to it) made by Laura when she finds out she's pregnant. People living in those times didn't have time to worry about submission/gender roles - work had to be done to survive, whether it was building a shelter or tending cattle etc and so on....fundies today have the luxury of playing manly man and submissive doormat.

[YPestis]

The Little House books were banned from the Maxwell homes because of the nature of Laura's courting habits. Heavens forbid kids read about Laura and Almanzo going on horse buggy rides unsupervised!

The problem is fundies have such a superficial read of their fiction and fail to place them in historical context. The Little House books are ok in some fundie circles because the women are living in a somewhat gender segregated world. The Maxwells didn't think anything of Laura Ingalls teaching or working on the farm. However, in their days, those ideas were not traditional at all. Two of the Ingalls daughters became teachers, one was a reporter, and one (the blind one, Mary) went to college. In the 19th century, that was NOT the norm for women.

As others pointed out, Laura and Ma Ingalls did man's work when they had to because they had no options. However, that was hardly "ladylike". The women weren't pretty wallflowers who spent their day knitting, having tea parties and supervising homeschooling as some of these fundies like to believe women did in those days. They spent in back breaking physical labor and they provided for their family in their own way. Farming, gardening, mending, and running a farm were all income generating activities. Laura Ingalls was eager to teach to contribute to the family. The entire family, in the book, spent a great deal of time saving money so Mary can go to college.

I'm often surprised fundies think those books are close to acceptable given that, in those days, many conservatives disapproved of college, or education for women. The conservatives of the day certainly not like the idea of single women working outside the home, even to teach.

And in real life, Rose Ingalls was most definitely a spitfire and liberated women----even by today's standards. She was a successful writer, traveled around the world, divorcee, who ended up supporting her family during the Great Depression with her very successful career. Not someone fundies would ever want for their daughters LOL.

[Trynn]

I have the strongest feeling that Laura Ingalls Wilder would have hated the things that many of our most extreme fundies say, so maybe it's fitting that they hate her books.

While it is possible that that is true in some cases, it's possible that that's not so. If you read her biography, you know that she and her daughter were very much against government interference and assistance of any kind, including financial. This was during the 30s/40s during the Depression and the second world war, mind you, and Laura and Rose were advocating self sufficiency and that hard work could get you anywhere, and in some cases that wasn't necessarily true anymore. It seems to me like a lot of the fundies say the same thing.

Laura was also very frugal, to the point of sometimes doing without what she needed, which seems to at least be what fundie families preach.

Though not at all the submissive one in her marriage, Laura was also not much of a feminist. That was more her daughter's territory. I'm not sure whether or not Laura was against the movement, she just didn't seem to care one way or the other.

Laura might have been ahead of her time in some ways, but, especially as she got older, in other things she was very much so behind. Unless we can think in the proper historical context, we really don't know what she might think about a lot of fundamentalists.

(Although it is evident that she was not a fan of the hellfire and brimstone "revivals" of the time...)

[longskirtlotsakids]

Laura also rode her little gray pony Trixie astride! The hot-blooded strumpet!

Something not mentioned here was the fact that Almanzo, IRL, was permanently crippled by Diptheria. Laura was quite the little workhorse when she wanted to be, and did a good deal of business dealing in Manly's stead.

There is also the spinoff series of Little House books where Laura, a mature schoolteacher, stands up for immigrants and children of farmers, saying that all had the right to be educated. THese books are *not* written in any way by the Wilder family, but an authorized ghostwriter.

She may claim to not be a feminist, but her determination to be educated makes me think otherwise. She was also dedicated to making sure her blind sister was also educated, saving her earnings for Mary's tuition for college.

An interesting tidbit... in the First Four Years, Laura and Manly's house burns down. In the book it is just left to chance, but Rose revealed in a biography that she started the fire by messing with straw near the woodstove. She remembers being two and knowing that she was the cause of heartbreak. Very sad.