It's good to blow your top: women's magazines and a discourse of discontent

"It's Good to Blow Your Top": Women's Magazines and a Discourseof Discontent, 1945-1965

Eva Moskowitz

Journal of Women's History, Volume 8, Number 3, Fall 1996, pp. 66-98(Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/jowh.2010.0458

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by The University of Iowa Libraries at 08/13/12 11:04PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jowh/summary/v008/8.3.moskowitz.html

"Irs Good to Blow Your Top":Women's Magazines and a Discourse of Discontent,1945-1965

Eva Moskowitz

Americans of the Cold War years are often remembered for their zeal-ous commitment to domesticity. One prominent source identified

with this cult of domesticity is women's magazines. As such, they becametargets of feminist criticism. Beginning with The Feminine Mystique (1963),Betty Friedan condemned women's magazines for their "happyhousewife" images. She accused them of representing women as "gailycontent in a world of bedroom, kitchen, sex, babies, and home," whilewomen experienced pain, dissatisfaction, and self-loathing.1 Buildingupon these complaints, radical feminists took direct action against themagazines. In the 1970s, for example, feminists occupied the offices of theLadies Home Journal.2

To this day, women's magazines of the Cold War era remain symbolsof antifeminism.3 Scholarly and popular accounts portray them as contain-ing grossly distorted images of womanhood. They criticize them for"depict[ing] happiness where there was frustration," portraying the"home" as a "haven," and "promulgating a happy-housewife syndrome,"in the service of what popular writer Marcia Cohen described as the "allwas peach nectar heaven" editorial standard.4 Whether women's maga-zines relentlessly filled their pages with images of happy women is animportant question, not only because these images can tell us much abouta powerful ideology directed primarily at white middle-class Americanwomen during the Cold War era, but also because they can shed light onthe context out of which recent feminism emerged.

In accounts of this emergence, Cold War women's magazines occupya critical place. According to feminist historiography, women's magazinesmisrepresented women as fulfilled, thereby keeping them in the privateworld of home and bedroom, in contrast to feminists who presentedwomen with the truth about their condition, encouraging them to freethemselves from the bondage of domesticity. Students of women's historyemphasize the role of Betty Friedan and feminists in the Civil Rightsmovement and the New Left in exposing the myth that domesticity fulfills.One historian describes these women as among those "finally willing tosay that the emperor had no clothes";5 another as those who "like theproverbial child who points out that the emperor had no clothes" firstrealized "the discrepancy between myth and reality."6

Â© 1996 Journal of Women's History, Vol. 8 No. 3 (Fall)

1996 EvaMOSKOWTTZ 67

Tltis article reexamines the myths about womanhood that feministssought to deconstruct and that Cold War era women's magazines pro-moted, by looking at the three with the largest circulation of the period1945 to 1965: Ladies Home Journal, McCaIIs, and Cosmopolitan.7 Myresearch suggests that these magazines did not merely promote "thehappy housewife" image. Indeed, far from imagining the home as ahaven, the women's magazines often rendered it as a deadly battlefieldon which women lost their happiness, if not their minds. Images ofunhappy, angry, and depressed women figure prominently in thesemagazines, and this is found to be particularly evident in maritalrelations. In monthly columns such as "Can This Marriage Be Saved?,""Making Marriage Work," and "Why Marriages Fail," the magazinesdocument women's discontent.

This discourse of discontent requires that we rethink the dichotomybetween women's magazines as mythmakers and feminists as unveilers.While it is beyond the scope of this essay to theorize the distinctivecontribution of recent feminist rhetoric, I would like to suggest that theconceptualization of feminism as a "eureka" moment against a back-ground of the magazines' silence about women's unhappiness is inade-quate. Instead, I propose that we recognize women's magazines'discursive contribution to this problem. I also suggest that the rhetoricalcontinuities between women's magazines and recent feminism are worthexamining, because the shared use of psychological discourse can help usunderstand not only the historical context for, but also some of the politicallimitations of, 1960s and 1970s feminist rhetoric.

The Unhappy HousewifeMonth after month women's magazines reported the difficulties

women encountered in realizing the satisfaction that marriage and moth-erhood supposedly guaranteed. Women, it turned out, did not effortlesslynor easily achieve the domestic ideal. Indeed, many found it exceedinglydifficult to attain the happiness domesticity potentially afforded. Women'smagazines not only documented this problem, but also sought to helpwomen overcome it. They assumed this could be done by raising theirreaders' consciousness about the psychological satisfaction to be found indomesticity and inculcating therapeutic principles of psychologicalchange.8

Even Marynia Farnham, coauthor of the infamous The ModernWoman: The Lost Sex, explored women's difficulties achieving the domesticideal. In the article, for example, "Women and Wives," she discussed thechallenges domesticity posed for women, finding that women sometimes

68 JOURNAL OF WOMEN'S HISTORY FALL

possessed strong negative feelings. Many suffered from "envy of herhusband's supposedly exciting and stimulating life by contrast with herquiet, less apparently stimulating vivid existence."9 Others suffered fromresentment. Women felt angry because they experienced "drudgery andthe monotony of dirty dishes, difficult children and household routineswhile [their husbands] enjoy[ed] a glamorous life."10 Farnham found thatwomen's dissatisfaction was a serious problem, and one that oftenstemmed from their inability to accept the gendered effects of the domesticideal. Farnham thus promoted domesticity while she described the diffi-culties women had in fulfilling its prescriptions. She issued warningsabout any departures from domesticity in the same breath as she warnedsociety of the consequences of failing to deal with women's dissatisfac-tions with domesticity.

Dorothy Thompson, another writer with a well-deserved antif eministreputation, also grappled with the problems of domesticity. She found thatwomen had deep reservations about their roles as wives and mothers. In"Occupation: Housewife," for example, Thompson focused on women'snegative feelings about their occupation. She found that many women feltthat "when I write it, I realize that here I am, a middle-aged woman witha university education and I've never made anything out of my life. I'mjust a housewife."11 Women, she explained to her readers, often sufferedfrom "an inferiority complex."12 According to Thompson, such a sense ofunderachievement stemmed from women's failure to understand theimportance of housewifery and the psychological satisfaction it pro-vided. She also maintained that the "real solution to this problem liesin your mental attitude."13 But as Thompson herself acknowledged, agood mental attitude toward domesticity appeared difficult for manywomen to obtain.

Drawing upon the work of pollsters and social scientists, the maga-zines provided statistical as well as qualitative pictures of the precariouspsychological situation of the American housewife. As one magazineannounced, it had made "a scientific study of the problem within recentyears" and was in the process of "uncovering the hard, cold facts of whatcauses happiness and unhappiness... ."u Investigations of the Americanwoman's state of mind indicated that women were more unhappy thanmen. Their unhappiness apparently stemmed from their dissatisfactionwith their domestic roles:

The explanation seems to be bound up with the responsibility ofmarriage and rearing a family. Women are inclined to think anundue share of these responsibilities falls on the wives; the majorityof women think they lead a harder life than men; and they think theirhappiest years end sooner. Perhaps too, they think a housewife's life

1996 EvaMoskowttz 69

is duller; an earlier Journal survey found that the group of workersleast likely to enjoy their jobs wasÂ—housewives!15

Women's magazines also found that marriage contributed greatly towomen's dissatisfaction. As one article reported, "from the testimony ofmore than a thousand married couples" and the "replies from the onehundred unhappiest wives," surveyors concluded that unhappy wiveswere dissatisfied with their marriages and, given the chance, would notmarry their husband again.16 Drawing upon surveys and in-depth inter-views, the magazines kept readers up-to-date on the housewife's dissatis-factions.17

Articles on selected topics also indicate that women's magazines gaveconsiderable attention to women's unhappiness. In articles such as "HowDo You Beat the Blues?," "What Do You Do When Worries Get YouDown?," "I Can't Stand It Anymore," "Why Do Women Cry?," "How toRecognize Suicidal Depression," "Blues and How to Chase Them," and"How to Get Over Feeling Low," women's magazines normalized theirreaders' feelings of discontent.18 They reported that unhappiness was acommon affliction among women. "Crying as Catharsis," for example,reminded readers that they were not alone in feeling frustrated andunhappy. As the author explained, "tears are a natural and universalrelease for many minor emotions. They siphon off the small frustrationsthat confront all of us every hour of every day. They are a way of protestingthe things we can't do anything about." The article recommended cryingas "a natural safety valve to dissolve away many of our tensions."19Recognition of acute emotional tension was not uncommon for women'smagazines.

Indeed, women's magazines featured a steady stream of articlesabout overwrought and depressed women. "How Emotions Cause Un-necessary Surgery," for example, told the gruesome story of a woman whohad twenty-nine needless operations. It warned about "women whosehusbands are too busy to notice them" who "may, in desperation use theoperating table to regain their love"20 (Fig. 1). "Autoconditioning CanMake You a Happy Person" also took for granted a high level of dissatis-faction and depression among its readers. It recommended reading aboutautoconditioning "if, like most people you are searching for a way to liveyour daily life free from worry and depression."21 The article encouragedwomen to acknowledge their discontent by assuring them that it was quitecommon and normal to feel bad: "Before we realize it, we find ourselvessinking into discouragement, or feeling resentful, or lying awake at nightin an agony of worry, fear, and perhaps self-disgust"22 (Figs. 2-3). Citingrecent examples of how autoconditioning helped people with various

70 Journal of Women's History Fall

Figure 1. Danger Signal: When daily demands make you want to scream,"How much more can I take?" From "Have You Reached Your EmotionalBreaking Point?" Cosmopolitan January, 1957.

1996 Eva Moskowttz 71

forms of depression, including those with suicidal impulses, the articleencouraged women to try this new method of feeling better. As proof ofthis technique's effectiveness, the article offered the following testimony:"High marks on the mood meter were achieved by those suffering from avariety of emotional problems." Some even achieved moods ranging from

Figure 2. The first truly scientific answer to unhappiness, autoconditioning isno mere theory, but a proven, demonstrable technique. Try it and see howquickly you can learn to face your problems with joy and courage. From"Autoconditioning Can Make You a Happy Person." Cosmopolitan January,1956.


"purposeful" to "joyful." To help housewives determine how they feltabout their lives, the article included a special mood-reader scale (Fig. 4).

Women's magazines, in fact, promoted a whole new genre of articlesthat involved housewives in interpreting their own states of mind. Everymonth the magazines administered inini-tests to help women evaluatehow they felt about their Uves. All that was needed was a pencil (Figs. 5-7).

Figure 3. If, like most people, you are searching for a way to live your daily lifefree from worry and depression, this exclusive report on autoconditioning isthe most important article you will ever read. From "Autoconditioning CanMake You a Happy Person." Cosmopolitan January, 1956.

1996 EvaMoskowitz 73

In "Ask Yourself: Is Your Life Satisfying?," for example, women could ratetheir level of satisfaction by answering a few simple questions such as,"Are you usually happy and contented?," "Does the future have realpurpose (meaning) for you?," and "Do you look forward to each new

MOOD-METER

13 ECSTATIC14 TRIUMPHANT13 JUBILANT

12 ELATED1 1 DELIGHTED

IO JOYFUL9 GAY8 LIGHTHEAHTEDT HAPPY6 PLEASED

S ENCOURAGED4 CHEERFUL3 ALERT2 PURPOSEFUL1 DETERMINED

- 1 WORRIED-2 ANXIOUS-3 LONELY-4 UPSET-3 FRUSTRATED

-6 DOWNCAST

-T GLOOMY-8 DISILLUSIONED-9 DOWNHEARTED-IO DISCOURAGED

-11 DISGUSTED-12 DESPAIRING-13 DEPRESSED

-14Â· DESPERATE-13 MISERABLE

TOP PLUS NURIBERLOWEST MINUS NO.

SUM - SCORE

INSTItICTIONS

1. Coing both up and down from thezero space on the Mood-Meter put acheck murk oppose each word winchdescribeÂ« the way you feel noÂ»Â·. Checkall the happy word; and all the unhappyones which are correct for your presentmood. Alv.av; be sincere when you checkthe list: otherwise, this instrument willbe of no value to you.

2. Now note the number which ap-pears at the left of the highen wordabove O which you have checked. Enterthat number in the space opposite thewords "Top Plus Number" at the bottomof the Mood-Meter. If the highest wordwhich you checked has a minus number,enter O here.

:j- Do the same for the number of theword farthest below O which you havechecked, entering this number oppositethe words "Lowest Minu- Number.'" Ifyou checked no word below O, enter Ohere.

4. Now find the sum of these I o num-bers. If both the word; have positivenumbers, the total will be positive. Ifboth have negative numbers, the totalwill be negative. If one number is posi-tive and llie other negative, the smallernumber must be subtracted from thelarger one. and the difference mast takethe sign of the larger. The answer is yourmood-score. Put a circle (O) at the levelof that score.

Figure 4. From "Autoconditioning Can Make You a Happy Person." Cosmopol-itan January, 1956.


Ask Yourself: Is Your Life Satisfying?Health and temperament, job, friends and marriage

all play a part in a full life. These questions will helpyou assess your achievement this past year. Omit thelast five questions if you are single.

1. Are you usually happy and contented?2. DoÂ«^> the future have real purpose (meaning)

for yoti?3. IÂ« your life free from any serious frustration ?4. Do >ou loot forward to each new day?5. Are you iu good physical health?

1. Do you plan ahead for greater work effi-ciency?

2. Are you more skilled at your job than la.ityear?

3. Do you find increasing pleasure in your work?i. Are you proud of your job?S. Does its income cover your essential needs?

1. Are your social activities satisfying and re-warding?

2. Do you have more friends today than a yeara(to?

3. Have you improved at least one social skill?t. Do you have someone in whom to confide?5. Is your program of recreation balanced and

complete?

1. Do you and your husband love each other?2. Arc you two free from financial strains?3. Has your husband been a good companion?I. Do you and he talk things over freely?5. Is your marriage free from any serious dis-

appointment?

Ideally all questions should be answered "Yes." Ascore of less than t in any group suggests a real handicapin that area. Your "No'' answers can show you where toseek improvement in 1950.

Figure 5. Psychological Mini Test: "Is Your Life Satisfying?" Ladies HomeJournal June, 1954.


Are You a Restless Wife?

After the ^rst few years of marriage, somewives feel frustrated by restrictions and a lackof challenge. Is this your attitude? Be abso-lutely honest in answering these questions yesor no.

. tic Ã® ou:L. Restless, anil dissatisfied with life?2. IJored by \our household routine?3. Lmions of the freedom men have?4. Very fond of livel> exciting parties?5. L iieertain of your love for your husband?6. Thinking moreuhout tomorrow than

today ?T. Reluctant or hesitant about making

decisions?

Do you often feel that:8. You are lonely and misunderstood?9. Your husband is too settled?

IU. You have more men than womenfriends?

11. Most marriages are not very happy?12. You may have married too soon?l.'J. Life is passing >ou by?14. You may have married the wrong man?

With four or fewer "yes" answers, you seemno more restless than the aserage wife. Thehigher your "yes" score, the more serious yourmaladjustment. If your score is the or more,you are neither very happy in your marriagenor in most of your close relationships. Thoughyour husband may be partly responsible, yourtrouble is probably within yourself. Unless youcan take a greater interest in your marriageand in your husband, you should seek profes-sional help. To delay action is to court disaster.

Figure 6. Psychological Mini Test: "Are You a Restless Housewife?" LadiesHome Journal August, 1954.


Do You Enjoy Life?Contentment comes from the spirit and atti

tude with which we face our environment rathe,than from circumstances alone. Your happinesdependÃ- far more on yourself than on othersAnswer these "iuestions \es or no in terms of whayou think is true most of the time.Do Yoit:

1. Sometimes fear that people don't likeyou?

2. Often feel downcast and unuanted?3. Think that you are unattractive?4. Feel uneasy with new acquaintances?5. Dread going to bedÂ—and getting up?6. Dislike your present living arrange-

ments?T. ^ orry excessively over small matters?8. Usually wonder if jour clothes be-

come you?9. Find >our work dull and uninterest-

ing?10. Let others take advantage of \ou?11. Have periods of feeling lonely and

neglected?12. Doubt that the future will be

brighter?13. Get upset and easilv discouraged?Ii. At times, think that nohodv loves

you?

If your ''No" answers total ten or more, \ouhappiness rating is as good as or better tfuthat of the average woman between 20 and UIf seven or fewer questions are answered "Nuyou are not getting the most out of life. Mariage will not solve vour problem until >ou lu\changed vour attitude if you are single, nor u Îdivorce if vou are married.

Figure 7. Psychological Mini Test: "Do You Enjoy Life?" Ladies Home JournalApril, 1953.

1996 EvaMOSKOWITZ 77

day?"23 Women having more than a specified number of "no" answers onthese "happiness tests" were urged to seek professional help. Such testsassumed that whatever discontent was found could be contained, with thehelp of experts, within the confines of domesticity.

The tension in women's magazines between their encouragement ofreaders to consider and express their unhappiness and their subscriptionto the ideals of domesticity is best illustrated in "It's Good to Blow YourTop" published in McCaWs in January, 1950. The article compared thesituation of the American housewife to pressure-cooking: "When thingsare going smoothly, the steam is under controlÂ—and the meat gets done toa turn. But when problems begin to pick up, the pressure rises to adangerous level. Unless it is released in some unusual manner, the cookermay explode." The article called upon women not to "suffer in silence." Itadvised readers to deal with such pressures by expressing their tension,frustration, and anger. As with the mini-tests, this article urged women toacknowledge and express their discontent, but assumed it could be con-tained. The article explained that there were a variety of ways for womento discharge their discontent. Throwing old plates against the wall wasone possibility: "When you are on the verge of a blow up, let fly" (Fig. 8).For the woman who found herself brooding about her husband andhaving such thoughts about him as what a "beast, ogre, bum he is," thearticle recommended that she "write it downÂ—all of it. Go into detail. Useunmaidenly language. Say every horrible thing you've ever wanted tosay." Sports or cleaning could also help release tension and anger. "Youcan even beat the daylights out of your rugs or superpolish every table inyour house," explained the article.24

These images of the American housewife as unhappy, frustrated, andangry presented in this and other articles reveal that women's magazinesdid not avoid the question of how women felt about their lives; rather theydevoted considerable attention to the subject by focusing on the psycho-logical tensions experienced by the housewife and her difficulties con-forming to the domestic ideal. Applying the new standard ofpsychological happiness, the magazines found evidence of women's dis-satisfaction. Of course, their purpose was to persuade women to overcomeit. They assumed that women needed to be educated about the value ofdomesticity and helped with adjusting to its gendered effects. Women'smagazines informed readers that their feelings of frustration, anger, andsadness were normal.25 They also promoted a variety of therapeutic tech-niques to help women achieve moods of joy and purposefulness. Asfeminists, however, have been quick to point out, the magazines did notpromote feminist solutions to the problem of discontent. Indeed, somehave argued that the magazines' solutions were antifeminist. Women's


Figure 8. From "If s Good To Blow Your Top." McCaWs January, 1950.

magazines of the postwar era have been read in most accounts as havingfunctioned to depolitidze discontent; they have been condemned forsuggesting that women deal with their dissatisfaction by autocondition-ing or crying instead of protesting.26

There is, however, another way to understand this chapter inwomen's cultural history. By focusing public attention on the plight of theAmerican housewife, turning her into a national social problem, thesemagazines contributed to a discourse of discontent. They documented onan unprecedented scale the difficulty women had in finding satisfaction intheir homes and personal lives. In an admittedly oblique way, theypointed to a problem that Betty Friedan would later name, "the problemthat has no name." More radical feminists, a few years later, would namethis problem sexism and develop a comprehensive set of strategies tocombat it.


Marriage, Discontent, and Self-Fulfillment in Women'sMagazines

Women's magazines articulated a discourse of discontent mostdirectly through their discussion of marriage. Both feature articles andmarriage counseling columns focused on the tension women experiencedin their personal lives. In such columns as "Can This Marriage Be Saved?,""Why Marriages Fail?," and "Making Marriage Work" readers learnedabout women's narrow escapes from marital dissolution.27 They describedin devastating detail the psychological effects of bad marriages. They alsopromoted a new set of expectations about marriage. Preaching the idealsof self-fulfillment and self-realization, they instructed readers to measuretheir marriages against psychological standards. While the magazinesinsisted that women had a right to be happy, they also insisted that womencould adjust to the gendered effects of marriage. Women's magazines didnot simply glorify marriage but instead created a complex and contradic-tory discourse that focused on discontent and self-fulfillment, celebratingthe possibilities of adjustment to the domestic ideal.

One important context in which the topic emerged were articles thatsought to de-romanticize marriage by emphasizing that happiness withinmarriage was neither easily nor effortlessly attained. As one articlewarned, "we've all been sadly misled by fairy tales that ended 'and so theywere married and lived happily ever after/ It simply is not true."28 Themagazines often took the position that their readers glorified marriage andhad to be told the truth about it. As this article explained, readers had toaccept that "reality is the only basis for love" and that reality included "theanxieties, weaknesses, and miseries of life."29 Another bluntly proclaimed,"marriage does not guarantee security, being cared for, or being loved.Marriage guarantees nothing except experience."30 Indeed, the magazinespresumed that women needed to possess a realistic understanding of thedifficulties of achieving marital success.

Warning against falling prey to superlatives, they sought to disabusereaders of their overly optimistic conceptions of marriage. Readers' expec-tations were deflated in a variety of ways. Sometimes statistics wereinvoked. One article reported, for example, that after extensive researchscientists found that the chances of a happy marriage were "roughly onein twenty."31 At other times the magazines simply repeated their mantraabout marriage: "there is just no such thing" as perfection in marriage; thebest women could hope for was "a perfect state of give and take."32 Itseems that even this state of "give and take" was achieved with difficulty.For many women, it appeared, the "give and take" of marriage became asituation in which men did all the taking.


Figure 9. From "Can This Marriage Be Saved?" Ladies Home Journal October,1953.


"When a couple want to co-oper-ate in working for the successof their marriage, the Amer-ican Institute of Family Rela-tions is able to show them howto do this satisfactorily in morethan 80 per cent of the cases;and, indeed, is often able tostraighten out the difficultiesof the marriage by seeing onlyone partner. Over the past 23years, since the founding ofthis institute, we have beenable to help 20,000 people to

happily adjusted marriage. We strongly advocate pre-marital counseling as the basis for insuring happymarriage without crises later on. The institute staffnow includes 37 counselors; the one responsible forthis case was Dr. Fenna B. Simms."

Paul Popenoe, Director

Dr. Paul Popenoe

Figure 10. Paul Popenoe, Director of the Institute of Family Relations andAuthor of "Can This Marriage Be Saved?".

The marriage counseling sections of women's magazines providedthe most detailed glimpse of women's dissatisfactions with marriage.Through such columns as "Can this Marriage Be Saved?," "Making Mar-riage Work," and "Why Marriages Fail?," women's magazines investi-gated the friction of domestic life. Indeed, they represented, sometimes ingruesome detail, the explosive strife men and women experienced in theirdaily interactions. Far from obscuring women's tortuous relationship todomesticity and denying their right to achieve satisfaction, women's mag-azines and the experts who wrote for them brought the issue of women'smarital unhappiness into sharp focus.

Marriage counseling columns of the postwar period normalized mar-ital conflict by writing about it as an almost universal social problem.Marriage counselor Clifford R. Adams in his column, "Making MarriageWork," for example, explained that "Alice Rand is an unhappy woman


and she and her husband have a thoroughly unhappy marriage." But heassured readers, "Alice is not unique."33 Marriage counselor David Macewent further: after recounting an example of what he called "a spiraling-down marriage interaction pattern," he informed his readers that "similarconversations go on day after day in thousands of homes."34 Othersexplained that marital difficulties were the "daily dilemma of millions ofmarried couples in the modern world."35

These difficulties were generally related to domesticity and its con-comitant strict division of sex roles. In "Is My Marriage a Mistake?," forexample, Mace told the story of Thelma who was very unhappy andharbored strong feelings of resentment against her husband Joe. But shefelt that anyone looking at her situation would not understand: "As theworld sees him, he's a steady, hard-working, up-and-coming young exec-utive in a safe job with good prospects. . . . [but to me] he's just a bigdisappointment. I feel thwarted. I get mad at Joe. Not a fighting madÂ—justa dull, growing anger. Yet its hard to justify this. As I said, he doesn't beatme up or run around or come home drunk." Even her friends could notunderstand Thelma's feelings of desperation: "My girl friends say I shouldfeel fortunate to have such a husbandÂ—so steady and dependable, sohard-working. When they say that, I get even madder still. I say to myself,'If only you could know how I feel inside!' " Thelma went on to explainthat " 'if s a shut-in kind of feeling.... I feel trapped, and somehow Joe isto blame/ " Thelma described herself as plagued by vague feelings ofdissatisfaction, frustration, and anger. She remained unable to name feel-ings that Betty Friedan would call "the problem that has no name" about5 years later.36

Though the marriage counselor sought to solve Thelma's and Joe'sproblem by promoting communication and understanding, most of whichmust be done by Thelma, he did not avoid the question of the source ofThelma's trouble. His exploration of her feelings led to the discovery thather marriage entailed sacrifice. Apparently, her resentment and unhappi-ness stemmed from her having to give up activities that gave her anindependent sense of identity and accomplishment. As Thelma explained,"I had a lot of dreams before I got married___I was in college. I was keenon literature. I wanted to write. I even started a novel. And, of course, therewas my music.... Getting married squelched all that. I didn't even grad-uate. I quit college to marry Joe."37 Although Mace documented Thelma'sdissatisfaction with an impressive attention to detail, drawing out themyriad manifestations of her unhappiness, he cursorily summed up thesolution to the problem: "understanding." Once Thelma recognized thatall Joe did was actually for her, the counselor had solved the problem.


Figure 11. From "Can This Marriage Be Saved?" Ladies Home Journal January,1953.


Marriage problems analyzed by women's magazines frequentlystemmed from women's dissatisfaction with the gendered effects of thedomestic ideal. In "Is Your Husband a Partner to Be Encouraged andApplauded? Or is He a Rival to Be Beaten?," for example, the caseinvolved the marriage of a woman named Marcia who was always com-peting with her husband Phil. Although the counselor granted that therewas nothing wrong with Marcia's desire to excel, the problem occurredwhen Marcia tried to excel in those areas that Phil and the marriagecounselor considered Phil's own area of achievement:

Granted, there's nothing unwholesome in Marcia's seeking to excelat some things, for recognized skills help to win the social approvalwhich every human being needs. . . . But Marcia tries to beat herhusband at his own game, while neglecting to develop skills of herown... .Îœ

Marcia's behavior, the counselor informed his readers, stemmed from herunhappiness. She felt a "deep sense of inferiority." He went on to explainthat "secretly, she feels inadequate; in trying to outdo Phil, she is uncon-sciously seeking proof of her own worth." While Marcia's unhappinessleads her to challenge one of the central tenets of domestic ideology, thestrict division of sex roles, and brings her marriage to the brink of disaster,the counselor recommended that Marcia "cultivate self-respect, not bycompeting with Phil but by pursuing her own talents and skills indepen-dently. Perfecting her needlework, becoming an expert gardenerÂ—theseare just a few of her opportunities to demonstrate her worth."39

Thus, while marriage counseling columns publicized the psycholog-ical tensions experienced by women living under the domestic ideal, theydid so with the aim of persuading women to conform to its standards.Successfully imposing domestic ideology on their female clients wasclearly one of their main goals. But it would be incorrect to see this as theonly goal of the marriage counseling columns. In addition to promotingdomesticity, marriage counselors also promoted self-fulfillment as awoman's right.40 As counselor Reuben Hill explained, "Any woman has aright to feel unsatisfied if she isn't getting what she really needs from hermarriage." Clifford Adams insisted that the "first step toward a well-adjusted personality [and, therefore, marriage] is to face their needs, thenmake an honest effort to satisfy them."41 Marriage counselors claimed that"an essential ingredient of every truly satisfying human relationship" is"the development and realization of the individual's potentialities forgrowth, achievement, and well-being."42 Indeed, marriage counselorsexplained some of the basic tenets of human potential psychology to theirfemale readers. Adams, for example, listed the five essential needs for


mental health and contentment: social approval, belongingness, mastery,need for love and affection, and sexual satisfaction. He even recom-mended exercises for readers, who were instructed to list the needs "ofimportance to you," and "then list the ways you are satisfying them." "Ifsomething is lacking," he explained, "see what you can do to correct thesituation."43

Marriage counselors also advised women constantly "to take stock ofyour marriage." Counselors advised readers not only to look for the flawsin their domestic relations but also to evaluate whether their marriage"had stopped growing."44 Mature women, they warned, did not shirkfrom such a responsibility. They confronted the marital relation head on,recognizing it for exactly what it was. With the help of marriage counselorsand "constant attention to the quality of your marriage," readers wereassured that happiness and success in marriage could be achieved.45

Thus, marriage counselors writing for women's magazines duringthe postwar period created a peculiar version of domestic discourse out oftwo, sometimes competing, goals: the promotion of conformity to domes-ticity and the ideal of self-fulfillment. The resulting discourse containedcontradictions: it emphasized both the necessity and virtue of domesticitybut revealed women's unhappiness under this regime; and it encouragedwomen to submit to the requirements of domesticity and yet to scrutinizetheir domestic relations and expect happiness and self-fulfillment.

That the profession might not be able to contain these contradictionsdoes not appear to have been recognized by the marriage counselors. Theymaintained a strong faith that the expression of women's discontent andbetter communication between couples would lead to submission by allwomen to the domestic ideal. They also believed that as marriage counsel-ors they would receive the credit for being the architects of a new socialorder, free from the conflict between the sexes. Of course, they were wrongon both counts. Drawing upon the rhetoric of discontent, Betty Friedanand later, more radical feminists exhorted women to recognize that thecult of domesticity itself led to psychological unhappiness, denied womena separate identity, and categorized as pathological women who sought toescape the private realm. In doing so, feminists blamed the experts forbeing the architects of an oppressive social order.

Naming the ProblemBetty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique is considered the first shot

across the bow of domestic discourse of the Cold War period. As onescholar put it, she was the first to proclaim that "housework was intrinsi-cally boring," that the home had become "a comfortable concentration


Figure 12. From "Can This Marriage Be Saved?" Ladies Home Journal December,1953.

1996 Eva Moskowitz 87

camp." Another explains that she "articulated heretofore unarticulatedgrievances." A third views the publication of Friedan's book as a sign that"someone was finally willing to say that the emperor had no clothes."These views mirror Friedan's own sense of the place of her work in theculture of her times. According to Friedan, although women were con-sumed by "a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning" thatwould not go away, "in the millions of words written about women, forwomen, in all the columns, books, articles by experts, there was no wordof this yearning."46

Friedan's investigation of women's lives and her conclusions aboutdomesticity were clearly innovative. Injecting an unprecedented dramainto the public discussion of women's roles, Friedan turned womanhoodand domesticity into matters of intense public controversy. She identifieda pathological tendency in American culture to deny women a sense ofidentity, offering a profound indictment of domestic ideology. Friedanurged women to reject "the ferninine mystique" which she believed pre-vented women from gratifying "their basic need to grow and fulfill theirpotentialities as human beings." She also insisted that only an entirely newunderstanding of themselves and their roles as women would enablewomen to develop "a new sense of identity" and to live with "the enjoy-ment, the sense of purpose that is characteristic of true human health."Thus, Friedan put her critique of domesticity directly in the service ofwomen, ultimately leading to important changes in the political, cultural,intellectual, and economic landscape of America.47

But while Friedan's view of domesticity was innovative, her discus-sion of women's psychological condition was not as unprecedented as sheor subsequent historians believed. Her view that "in the millions ofwords" written about women there was "no word" of the yearning anddissatisfaction women experienced was incorrect.48 In fact, like Friedan,the women's magazines used personal testimony from women across thecountry to document unhappiness. Similarly, her discovery of "a strangediscrepancy between the reality of our lives as women and the image towhich we are trying to conform" was one women's magazines had beenmaking for years. They, too, found that despite domesticity's promise offulfillment, "the group of workers least likely to enjoy their jobs wasÂ—housewives."49 Though Friedan claimed that this problem of dissatisfac-tion "lay buried, unspoken of" and that each woman "struggled with italone," month after month millions of readers learned from their trustedwomen's magazines about such problems as "spiraling-down marriageinteraction patterns" and depression. Indeed, there exists more discursivecontinuity between the women's magazines and Betty Friedan than hasbeen acknowledged.


One other indication of discursive continuity comes, surprisingly,from contemporary readers of women's magazines, who reacted stronglyto a Betty Friedan article published in 1963 by McCaWs magazine. "Fraudof Fernininity" summarizes the arguments against domesticity found inher book published that same year. Feminist scholars today see it as one ofthe earliest departures from the "peach nectar heaven" editorial standard,in which attention is called to the false promises of domesticity in light ofthe reality of women's lives. McCaWs received hundreds of letters inresponse. It is interesting to note that many respondents reacted nega-tively.50 But far more important, and unexpected, given our concern withthe sources for recent feminists' ideological commitments, is that theyclaim to be already familiar with Friedan's message, indeed of being tiredof hearing her message.51

Women readers accused Friedan and women's magazines of promot-ing a "negativistic attitude" toward domesticity in general and women'sroles as housewives in particular.52 As one housewife and devotedwomen's magazine reader explained, I am "a proud and fulfilled wife,mother, daughter, sister, daughter-in-law, and friend; trying to live up tomy purpose of being here on this earth; no small nor ignominious task, Ican assure you. And I am sick, sick, sick of reading just this type of article,as I am sure many other happily married women are."53 Respondentsobjected to the portrait of women as "empty, wasted, or filled with frus-tration."54

They saw the publication of Friedan's article as confirmation of atendency of women's magazines to put down the housewife and domes-ticity. In the face of an emerging consensus, one housewife from Pennsyl-vania, expressed her intention to maintain an independent view: "I willnot be a sheep following the rest of the herd because I have certain idealsand ideas. And although I was married at 19 and left college after 1 and a1/2 years, no statistic can convince me that my life is empty and that mywork is not 'serious' and important to society."55 Women wrote of being"sick and tired" or "so mad they could scream at" all the articles suggest-ing that women find their lives depressing or meaningless.56 They com-plained that they "have been reading articles similar to Mrs. Friedan's foryears and boil with rage" every time another appears.57 Another com-plained that Friedan's article is "only one of many similar articles that aremaking me more and more disgusted."58 "Tired of hearing about the poorlittle housewife who is trapped, frustrated, guilty, wasting her life, unap-preciated, dependent, passive and whatever else she is called," readersinsisted that they did not want experts to define their lives as a nationalproblem.59 "The public barrage of vapid articles" that many saw as"designed to trigger a few insecurities in neurotic women and cause the


rest of us to doubt our own eyes" enraged many of them.60 They were "fedup with being studied and analyzed, praised and damned"61 and wished"educated people would quit analyzing and studying us as though wewere microbes in a test tube."62

Ironically, while Friedan saw herself in opposition to the experts whopromoted the "feminine mystique," many housewives perceived her asyet another expert analyzing and complaining about the state of women'slives.63 They wanted Friedan and the magazines to "stop knocking thehomemaker."64 Signing their letters with closures such as "from a veryhappy, contented, but obviously without knowing it, trapped housewife,"some even insisted that they would cancel their subscriptions, if themagazines did not stop publishing "Friedan-type articles."65 Readers didnot appear to make a distinction between Friedan's critique of domesticityand that of the magazines; instead, they found continuity.

While readers overlooked some very real and substantial differences,they were not completely off the mark. Betty Friedan, like many of theantifeminist and afeminist writers for women's magazines that camebefore her, viewed women as unhappy, frustrated, and stifled. Bothfocused on the psychological effects of domesticity and emphasized theimportance of self-fulfillment. But whereas women's magazines and theexperts who wrote for them sought to help women be happy within theconfines of domesticity, Friedan categorically rejected both. She did so, Isuggest, not by uncovering "what lay buried and unspoken of," but byspeaking in new ways about what had already been identified as a prob-lem and taking what was a constant concern of women's magazines andputting it to new political uses. Friedan described domesticity and theeffects of experts in pathological terms. She insisted that the psychologicaleffects of domesticity were so damaging that only a wholesale rejection ofit would save women from obliterating their sense of self. While Friedanfirmly rejected the adjustment strategies promoted by women's maga-zines, her critique of domesticity and political demands relied heavilyupon a psychological discourse that itself emphasized unhappiness andself-fulfillment.

That psychological discourse was an essential aspect of Friedan'spolitics should not be surprising, given her educational background andthe general enthusiasm for psychological and therapeutic thinking duringthe post-World War Î period. Friedan majored in psychology as an under-graduate at Smith College, spent summers studying with Kurt Lewin atthe University of Iowa, studied as a graduate student with Erik Erikson atthe University of California at Berkeley, underwent psychoanalysis inNew York City where she explains "she began to focus on her rage," andworked for a while at the Westchester mental health facility. Friedan also


came of age at a time when American society placed special emphasis onpersonal problems and the psychological goal of fulfillment. During thepostwar era, large-scale national organizations including the federal gov-ernment, corporations, and institutions of mass culture gave unprece-dented attention to the problems of psychological adjustment anddiscontent. This new focus on personal problems and psychological hap-piness, I suggest, profoundly affected both the domestic rhetoric pro-moted by women's magazines and the feminist rhetoric of the women'smovement.66

Friedan defined "the problem that has no name" in largely psycho-logical terms. She identified the injustice done to women as the myth ofthe fulfilled woman and blamed popular culture and experts for thesedistortions.67 Friedan was outraged that while women "suffer from afeeling of desperation," "a strange stirring sense of dissatisfaction," afeeling that "there's nothing to look forward to," the image of women thatpervaded American popular culture and the social scientific literature wasthat of the "happy housewife." Friedan argued that these misrepresenta-tions denied women the capacity to address their unhappiness and seekfulfillment outside the domestic realm. It also denied women a "firm core

of self." In response to this injustice, Friedan advocated that women shunthose definitions of themselves that "do not demand or permit realizationof women's full abilities." She urged women to "unequivocally say no" toconstructions of womanhood "that do not provide adequate self-esteem,much less pave the way to a higher level of self-realization."68

For Friedan, the injustice facing American women consisted not of thedenial of economic and political sources of power, but rather, the obstruc-tion of women's achievement of personhood. She asked "Why, with theremoval of all the legal, political, economic, and educational barriers thatonce kept woman from being man's equal, a person in her own right, anindividual free to develop her own potential, should she accept this newimage which insists she is not a person ... ?"69 American culture's denialto women of an appropriate self-image formed the centerpiece ofFriedan's political commentary.

Friedan found no conceptual tradition that women could draw uponto challenge this denial. In fact, she urged women to acknowledge that theproblem facing women "cannot be understood in the generally acceptedterms by which scientists have studied women, doctors have treated them,counselors have advised them, and writers have written about them." Sherejected expertise in favor of personal experience. By ignoring expertadvice and listening to "that voice inside herself," Friedan believedwomen could eliminate the obstacles to their self-development. Friedan


made women's own understanding of their lives her political startingpoint.70

Beginning with Friedan and continuing with more radical feminists,feminism sought to construct a new kind of politics in which personalexperience provided the basis for political interpretation and socialchange. Feminists also assigned the so-called "woman's world" a radi-cally new meaning. In their domestic discourse the home became neithera separate nor a sacred world but a "comfortable concentration camp," aninstitution that denied women their full humanity. Feminists saw them-selves as once and for all ending the era and ideology of the "home ashaven" and creating a politics in which the personal and the politicalcould no longer be separated.

However, while feminists often imagined themselves as beginningcompletely anew, rejecting the categories of thought foisted upon them byexperts and the mass media, and creating a politics purely out of theirimmediate experiences and personal feelings, their political discourse wasconnected to the popular culture and expertise of their era. A survey ofwomen's magazines during the postwar period suggests that there was,indeed, a popular context and a history to the ideological work theyperformed. Recent feminism took as its starting point the cult of domestic-ity and its psychological effects upon women. Women's magazines andthe experts who wrote for them, however, had already focused massattention on the psychological difficulties women had in adjusting todomesticity. They publicized the problems women experienced in con-forming to domesticity and their difficulty securing happiness. They alsosimultaneously emphasized the virtues of domesticity and the value ofpsychological happiness. While they clearly did not advocate feministsolutions or have feminist intentions, they contributed to a discourse ofdiscontent and a new standard of psychological happiness. In addition, itcan be argued that this legacy of revealed discontent and unresolvedcontradictions was a source of a new political discourse fashioned by BettyFriedan and subsequent feminists.

Notes

The author thanks the Mary Lizzie Saunders Clapp Fund Fellowship of The Arthurand Elizabeth Schlesinger Library on The History of Women in America, RadcliffeCollege for its financial support. Thanks to Ron Walters and Louis Galambos fortheir helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay. Special thanks are alsoextended to Walter Michaels whose critical insights enormously improved theessay. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous readers for their comments andsuggestions.


1 Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell Publishing Co.,1963), 30.

2 Incident described in Marcia Cohen, The Sisterhood: The Inside Story of theWomen's Movement and the Leaders Who Made It Happen (New York: Fawcett Colum-bine: 1989), 185.

3 The one scholar who has recently sought to reevaluate women's maga-zines is Joanne Meyerowitz. In her study entitled "Beyond the Feminine Mystique:A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946-1958," Meyerowitz examinesissues of eight popular magazines (several oÃ- which were geared specificallytoward a black audience), including three women's magazines, for the purpose of"test[ing] generalizations about postwar mass culture." Meyerowitz takes issueprimarily with the view that Cold War popular magazines were uniformly criticalof women's roles outside of the home and never presented positive images ofpolitically active women. She thus rebuts the claim that popular magazines por-trayed women's activities outside the home seldom and negatively. In this articleI do not reevaluate this aspect of the women's magazines. Rather, I take up an evenmore prominent aspect of the traditional view of Cold War popular culture, andone that has yet to be critically reexaminedÂ—the claim that women's magazinesalways portrayed women as blissfully happy.

4 Sara Evans, Personal Politics: The Roots of Women's Liberation in the CivilRights Movement and the New Left (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 213; GIennaMatthews, "Just A Housewife": The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in America (New York:Oxford University Press, 1987), 212; William L. CNeil, Feminism in America: AHistory (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2nd ed.,1989), 308;Cohen, The Sisterhood, 196. See also, Elaine May, Homeward Bound: American Familiesin the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1988); Winifred Wandersee, On theMove: American Women in the 1970s (Boston: Twayne, 1988); Leila J. Rupp and VertaTaylor, Survival in the Doldrums: The American Woman's Rights Movement, 1945 to the1960s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Cynthia Harrison, On Account ofSex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945-1968 (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1988); Peter G. Filene, HimlHer Self. Sex Roles in Modern America (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975); Susan M. Hartmann, T7ie Homefront andBeyond: American Women in the 1940s (Boston: Twayne, 1982); Annegret Ogden, TheGreat American Housewife: From Helpmate to Wage Earner, 1776-1986 (Westport,Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986); and Maureen Honey, Creating Rosie the Riveter:Class, Gender and Propaganda During World War II (Amherst: University of Massa-chusetts Press, 1984).

5 May, Homeward Bound, 209.6 Evans, Personal Politics, 212.

7 My effort to reevaluate women's magazines is part of a more general effortby scholars working in a variety of disciplines to reevaluate the Cold War era.Rejecting a reductionist portrait of the 1950s, they have portrayed the period asmore complex and contradictory than previously thought, often finding within theCold War era the seeds of its own destruction. Political scientist Michael Rogin, forexample, in his provocative article, "Kiss Me Deadly: Communism, Motherhood,and Cold War Movies" in Ronald Reagan, the Movie and Other Episodes in PoliticalDemonology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), finds that postwar


popular culture simultaneously glorified and vilified motherhood. SociologistWird Breines, in her recent book Young, White, and Miserable: Growing Up Female inthe 1950s (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), argues that women's revolt "surreptitiouslybegan in the quiet fifties." Far from being monolithic and merely constraining forwomen, postwar popular culture, with all its tensions and contradictions, actuallyprovided the basis for women's construction of new identities and new means ofempowerment. Historian Susan Ware in a study of League of Women Voters's localchapters entitled "American Women in the 1950s: Nonpartisan Politics andWomen's Politicization" in Women, Politics, and Change, eds. Louise My andPatricia Gurin (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1990), suggests that Leaguewomen defied the stereotype of the unfulfilled, politically reticent Cold Warwoman. Challenging Friedan's characterization of women in postwar America,Ware argues that League women were "not suffering from a crisis in women'sidentity." I examined all of the nonaction articles dealing with women and theirstate of mind during the years under consideration. I did a less systematic reviewof other women's magazines, including Woman's Home Companion, Good Housekeep-ing, Better Homes and Gardens, Redbook, Colliers, and Coronet. See endnotes 18 and 30for the prevalence of the theme of women's dissatisfaction.

8 My argument that women's magazines of the postwar era promoted adiscourse of discontent is difficult to express in quantitative terms. It is certainlynot the case that most of the pages in the magazines were devoted to this subject.The bulk of the magazines consists of advertisements, which portray womenhappily consuming products or women who are unhappy because they haveneglected to consume products. The remainder was devoted to fiction, articles oncooking, cleaning, child rearing, beauty, fashion, women's psychological condi-tion, and, as Joanne Meyerowitz has recently shown, women's roles outside thehome. Articles on women's psychological condition, therefore, represent a rela-tively small portion of the total. However, when evaluating the significance of myevidence two things should be kept in mind. First, I found no articles on women'sstate of mind that reported on women's contentment in the home. The articles werealways framed negatively, as the problem of women's unhappiness or poor psy-chological state of mind. Second, the articles dealing with women's unhappinesswere given a prominent position both within the magazine and on the cover.Women's magazines sold their issues in part by daiming to deal with this problem.The marriage counseling columns, in particular, were a key part of marketingstrategy. They appeared each month, were accompanied by large black and whitephotographs, and were featured as the lead article on the covers of these maga-zines.

9 Marynia Farnham, "Women and Wives," McCaIVs, October 1945, 60.10 Ibid., 60.

11 Dorothy Thompson, "Occupation: Housewife," Ladies Home Journal,March 1949,11.

12 Ibid.

Â« Ibid., 26.

14 Dr. James F. Bender, Director of the National Institute for Human Rela-tions, "What Sends People to Reno?," Ladies Home Journal, April 1948,296.


15 Barbara Benson, "Would You Marry Your Husband Again?," Ladies HomeJournal, February 1947,26.

16 "What Makes Wives Unhappy," Ladies Home Journal, January 1949,26.17 Before presenting the results of surveys and in-depth interviews, the

magazines often instructed women to measure their own responses against thoseof the nation's. One article, for example, recommended that "before reading thereplies of other husbands and wives, you might jot down your answer to thesequestions. Express your honest opinions, frankly and in detail." Benson, "WouldYou Marry Your Husband Again?," 31.

18 For some further examples see, "How Do You Beat the Blues?," Women'sHome Companion, March 1948,153-155; "What Do You Do When Worries Get YouDown?," Women's Home Companion, December 1952, 9; "How to Live With Your-self," McCaWs, March 1960,116-117; "I Can't Stand It Anymore," Good Housekeep-ing, March 1961,86-87; "Why Do Women Cry?," Ladies Home Journal, October 1948,44; "How to Recognize Suicidal Depression," Ladies Home Journal, September 1964,26; "Blues and How to Chase Them," McCaWs, August 1960,98; "How to Get OverFeeling Low," Better Homes and Garden, October 1950, 66-67; "When Don't YouNeed a Psychiatrist?," Coronet, March 1956, 93-97; "Lonely Wife," Women's HomeCompanion, June 1956, 16-18; "You Can Be Happier Than You Are," Better Homesand Gardens, February 1956, 31; "Are You Afraid You're Going Crazy?," GoodHousekeeping, August 1957, 118-121; "Do You Need a Psychiatrist?," Coronet,December 1954,31-34; "Emotional Upsets Are Good For You," Colliers, September1953, 88-93.

19 Karl Huber, "Crying as Catharsis," McCaWs, November 1960,46,48.20 "How Emotions Cause Unnecessary Surgery," Cosmopolitan, November

1955, 20, 24.

21 Cosmopolitan, January 1956,18. Though there was more of an emphasis onglamour than homemaking in Cosmopolitan than in other women's magazines, theshift toward sex and the single girl did not occur until the end of the Cold Warperiod, after 1962 when Helen Gurley Brown published a book with that title.Throughout the period from 1945 to 1965 the magazine had a readership interestedin marital discontent and psychological unhappiness. See, for example, "Survey ofAmerican Marriage," Cosmopolitan, June 1954, 8-14; "Are Marriage CounselorsAny Good?," Cosmopolitan, January 1953,104-107; "Tests That Tell You All AboutYou," Cosmopolitan, September 1957,40-44; "When a Wife is Second Best," Cosmo-politan, January 1958, 62-65; "Where to Take Your Troubles," Cosmopolitan, April1958, 54-61; "Psychological First-Aid Kit For You," Cosmopolitan, December 1958,70-73; "What You Should Know About Psychiatry," Cosmopolitan, March 1955,64-69; "Why They Fight About Money," Cosmopolitan, December 1955,70-73; "LiveWith Your Nerves and Like It," Cosmopolitan, February 1957,40-45; "What It Meansto Find Yourself," Cosmopolitan, January 1959, 24-29; "American Wife: Sympo-sium," Cosmopolitan, January 1958, 20-73.

22 "Autoconditioning," Cosmopolitan, 20.23 Clifford R. Adams, "Making Marriage Work," Ladies Home Journal, June

1954,26.


24 Kate Holliday, "Ifs Good To Blow Your Top," McCaWs, January 1950, 59,4.

25 This normalization of discontent contrasts with the claims made by manyscholars that women's magazines defined unhappy women as abnormal. Histo-rian Glenna Matthews, for example, explains the logic she found at work inwomen's magazines and other forms of popular culture: "The 'normal', femininewoman would be happy staying at home. One who was unhappy was, in fact, bydefinition not normal." Matthews, "Just a Housewife," 211.

26 As Elaine May explains, for example, this rhetoric and its therapeuticcorollary "undermined the potential for the political activism and reinforced thechilling effects of anticommunism and the cold war consensus," May, HomewardBound, 14. For examples of works not already cited that treat women's magazinesas obstacles to feminist protest, see Maureen Honey, Creating Rosie the Riveter,Cynthia White, Women's Magazines, 1693-1968 (London: Joseph, 1970); Janice Win-ship, Inside Women's Magazines (New York: Pandora, 1987); Ester R. Sineman,"What the Ladies Were Reading," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago,1976); Marjorie Ferguson, "Imagery and Ideology: The Cover Photographs ofTraditional Women's Magazines," in Hearth and Home, ed. Gaye Tuchman, ArleneKaplan Daniels, and James Benet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978); JoyLeman, "The Advice of a Real Friend: Codes of Intimacy and Oppression inWomen's Magazines, 1937-1955," Women's Studies International Quarterly 3 (Fall1980); Susan M. Hartmann, "Prescriptions for Penelope: Literature on Women'sObligations to Returning World War Î Veterans," Women's Studies 5 (1978): 223-239; Maureen Honey, "Images of Women in the Saturday Evening Post, 1931-1936,"Journal of Popular Culture 10 (1976): 352-358.

27 In addition to these columns, Women's Home Companion had a columnentitled "Help for Love and Marriage: Case Histories." But all women's magazinesaddressed the marital problems. See, for example, "How to Stay Married ThoughUnhappy," Good Housekeeping, February 1953, 59; "Does a Blow-up Ever Help aMarriage?," Better Homes and Gardens, August 1962, 44-45; "Where to Get a Mar-riage Counselor When You Need One," Good Housekeeping, July 1959,113-114; "TenCommandments for a Happy Marriage," Coronet August, 1949, 93-96; "WhatBreaks it Up? Analysis of a Thousand Letters," Good Housekeeping, May 1949,40-41;"How to Get Marriage Counseling?," Women's Home Companion, August 1949, 36;"How to Hold on to a Happy Marriage," Better Homes and Garden, August 1950,12-13; "Happy Marriage Week," Good Housekeeping, July 1950, 49; "Happier Mar-riages," Redbook, March 1961, 42-43; "Before Love Goes Wrong," Ladies HomeJournal, June 1959, 31-32; "Where to Take Your Troubles," Women's Home Compan-ion, October 1948, 36-37; "Check Up For a Happy Marriage" Women's Home Com-panion, September 1952,9-10; "Unselfishness Could Spoil Your Marriage," Women'sHome Companion, July 1952,4; "They Learned to Love Again," Ladies Home Journal,October 1952,171-174; "What Do You Want From Your Marriage Today?," Women'sHome Companion, April 1956, 70-73; "Are You Afraid to Quarrel?," Women's HomeCompanion, May 1953,4.

28 Jacques W. Bacal and E. B. Foskett, "DivorceÂ—the Lonesome Road,"McCaWs, December 1945,103.

29 Ibid., 60.


30 Mary Fisher Langmuir, "Lef s Be Realistic About Divorce," Ladies HomeJournal, March 1947, 240.

31 John E. Gibson, "Science Looks at Love," Ladies Home Journal, June 1948,69.

32 Bacal and Foskett, "Divorce," 102.

33 Clifford R. Adams, "Making Marriage Work: Is it You or Your MarriageThat Js Getting Out of Hand?," Ladies Home Journal, January 1948,26.

34 Mace, "Marriage is a Private Affair," McCaWs, October 1960, 34.35 Adams, "Making Marriage Work," Ladies Home Journal, September 1949,

26.

36 Mace, "Marriage is a Private Affair," McCaWs, October 1957, 97. In TheFeminine Mystique Betty Friedan describes women as suffering from a "strangestirring, a sense of dissatisfaction..." Friedan, 11. She calls this the "problem thathas no name," Friedan, 28.

37 Mace, "Marriage is a Private Affair," McCaWs, October 1957, 97.38 Adams, "Making Marriage Work," Ladies Home Journal, January 1952,14.39 Ibid.

40 The domestic discourse promoted by marriage counselors was shaped bythe particular exigencies of the profession. For a history of marriage counseling,see Eva S. Moskowitz, "Naming the Problem: How Experts and Popular CulturePaved the Way for 'Personal Politics' " (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University,1992).

41 Adams, "Making Marriage Work" Ladies Home Journal, January 1948,26.42 Mace, "Marriage is a Private Affair," McCaWs, April 1959,36.43 Adams, "Making Marriage Work," Ladies Home Journal, January 1950,26.44 Ibid.

Â« Ibid.

46 Evans, Personal Politics, 18; Kerber and de Hart Mathews, Women's America,408; May, Homeward Bound, 209; Friedan, 77ie Feminine Mystique, 11.

47 Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 69,281. Most accounts of recent feminismemphasize its distinctiveness. This was particularly true of those accounts thatcame directly out of the movement. See, for example, Robin Morgan, Going Too Far:The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist (New York: Vintage Books, 1978); and EllenWillis, Beginning to See the Light (New York Knopf, 1981). There were also contem-porary accounts of the movement, including Jo Freeman, The Politics of Women'sLiberation: A Case Study of an Emerging Social Movement and its Relation to the PolicyProcess (New York: Longman, 1975); and Edith Hole and Ellen Levine, Rebirth ofFeminism (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1971).

48 Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 11.49 Barbara Benson, "Would You Marry Your Husband Again?," Ladies Home

Journal, February 1947,26.


50 The Schlesinger Library houses two important collections of letters writtento Betty Friedan. One group was written in response to her book, The FeminineMystique; the other to McCall's magazine in response to "The Fraud of Femininity"published in its September 1963 issue. It is frequently assumed that Friedanreceived an overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic response from women. Onescholar who examined the letters claims, for example, that "a perusal of a smallsample of them confirms that Friedan touched a responsive chord in the minds ofmany women." While it is true that responses to The Feminine Mystique were byand large positive, the same cannot be said of the responses to "The Fraud ofFemininity." My rough estimate indicates that about 80 percent of respondentswere displeased with Friedan's argument.

51 Class appears to be a determining factor in their responses. Many respon-dents talk about their struggle to achieve the status of housewife. Before theybecame housewives they worked outside the home. Many appear completelybaffled by Friedan's assumption that work outside the home is creative or psycho-logically uplifting. They found their clerical jobs not only boring but oppressive.Submitting to every whim of a boss did not compare to the independence and joyof working for their families in the home. While many were confused, others weredownright angry. They found Friedan's outlook snobbish and humiliating. Theyresented the interpretation given to their lives by experts. They strongly resistedthe idea that being a housewife and enjoying it meant that they were living apathological existence. Indeed some, in turn, considered experts like Friedan sickand perverse.

52 Betty Friedan papers, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe College (hereafter BF),Box 744.

s3 BF, Box 743.

s* BF, Box 744.

55 BF, Box 744.

sÂ« BF, Box 742.s7 BF, Box 742.

5S BF, Box 741.

59 BF, Box 745.

Â«> BF, Box 744.

Â« BF, Box 741.

62 BF, Box 741.

63 It is important to note that Friedan's relationship to expertise even in herbook is contradictory. Rhetorically, she emphasizes experts' neglect of the "prob-lem that has no name" and the silence of professionals on the question of women'sunhappiness. But in her preface she thanks a long list of experts. She does,however, qualify her acknowledgements by adding that although "experts in agreat many fields have been holding pieces of the truth under their microscopesfor a long time" they have often not realized it. Friedan, 77ze Feminist Mystique,preface.


64 BF, Box 741.65 BF, Box 742.

66 Cohen, The Sisterhood, 63.1 am currently working on a detailed history ofthis phenomenon entitled "The Therapeutic Gospel: Personal Problems and PublicDebate in America, 1860-1990." For a preliminary account of the psychologizationof American society see Moskowitz, "Naming the Problem."

67 The psychological nature of Friedan's political discourse can also be illus-trated by contrasting it with the discourse of her contemporary, Martin LutherKing. King invoked traditional notions of political justice, calling the plight ofBlacks the "American dream unfulfilled." He demanded the birthright of freedomand equality, and located these rights in the Constitution. Though Friedan and latermore radical feminists would also find the language of rights a useful one, therights they identified were of a newer variety, rights to satisfaction and self-esteem.Similarly, it was not the injustice of the American dream unfulfilled, but the mythof the fulfilled woman that compelled Friedan to demand social change. See ATestament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, ed. James MelvinWashington (New York: Harper and Row, 1986).

68 Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 11-24, 293,304.69 Ibid., 61.70 Ibid., 22,26.

It's good to blow your top: women's magazines and a discourse of discontent

Documents

Transcript of It's good to blow your top: women's magazines and a discourse of discontent