Women in 20th Century Canadian Society

Women in 20th Century Canadian Society: Social Conventions and Change

20th century society placed Canadian women within restrictive conventions and norms. There was a very pronounced domestic expectation placed upon women that they would have jobs or careers, but only until they married. Once married, the expectation was that they would abandon their careers to be housewives, working within the domestic sphere of the home, cooking and cleaning and tending to the general needs of the family. During this period, the expectation was that the husband and father was the man of the house and the sole financial provider or “breadwinner” for the family. Given the narrowness of existence for these women, and how limited their choices were, their reactions to this type of domestic captivity were all very diverse. Some women responded to the limiting social conventions by conforming to the expectations placed upon them, while others made great effort to expand their horizons and possibilities, by taking jobs outside the home: there was literally no static pattern to how women responded to the social constraints placed upon them.

The excerpt from the primary source, "I played lady with some little friends" by Dorothy May King, demonstrates that the social restrictions and expectations on women are so severe, they have trickled down to young girls, who manifested these expectations within their games and during playtime. It is common for children to play or imitate the adults around them: in this manner, children are like little parrots, mimicking the adult world that surrounds them. The young girls in this excerpt demonstrate how they imitated the social constraints put on women by recreating them in their playtime, and essentially normalizing them. The women would lift up their skirts, most likely for two reasons: the first was to make sure the hems of their skirts didn’t get muddy or trampled when crossing the street. The other reason was most likely to put themselves on display: when they’re walking down the street they have the attention of men. By lifting their skirts a little, they’re almost showing themselves off as a commodity, as doing so “would show off her figure nicely” (204).[footnoteRef:1] The excerpt demonstrates how these social constraints have been so hard-wired into women, the women are almost treating themselves as a product or good that should be on display and that had to be protected by walking in pairs. The women walked in pairs because there was probably a social convention at the time which dictated that a woman could not be unaccompanied not without a chaperone when walking down the street. It can also be interpreted as a way of infantilizing women, and forcing the expectation of “the buddy system” upon them. This source demonstrates the sheer and utter conformity towards the establishment of being a woman: it shows that women embraced and accepted the role of being feminine, of being perceived as “weaker” and needing to walk in pairs.

However, in the poem “Only a Working Girl" by Marie Joussaye Fotheringham, the author demonstrates how she responds to the norm of women not being working women, and how she views her ability to work as a source of immense pride. As stated earlier, the intense social constraints on women revolved around the expectation that they would work for a finite period of time: only until they got married. For a woman to work indefinitely or for her entire life (and to be happy about it) was an intense subversion of social norms. Hence, Fotheringham responds to the social constraints by ignoring them and by clearly stating that she doesn’t care if people find her lifestyle strange or if her choices mean that she “belongs to the ‘lower classes’”.[footnoteRef:2] This woman writes a poem to express her viewpoint because a poem best demonstrates the beauty and grace present in the life choices she had made. The poem has a sense of vividness and melody, which imprint her life choices with a sense of beauty to them. This poem is written for both those who condemn her choices as well as those who imitate her choices as well. It is a rebuttal to all the people who deem her as lower class, as well as for all the women who struggle with such a life choice as well—they too can celebrate their independence. The poem is a form of resistance as it does celebrate these often maligned and scorned life choices of the workingwoman.

On the other hand, the Great War offered an opportunity for many women to break free of the massive social constraints they were placed under. Prior to the war, women were defined and confined by what was known as the “cult of domesticity” and opportunities for them to work outside of the domestic sphere were very few.[footnoteRef:3] “The Great War… was to give many women the opportunity—in many cases the necessity—to move out of a familiar environment, that even when typing and shorthand were involved, was essentially an extension of their homes.”[footnoteRef:4] This indicates that the Great War represented an opportunity to expand the boundaries of their own lives for many women and the possibilities of what they could achieve. “A sociological and psychic change had already taken place: the war had liberated many women from their own hearth.”[footnoteRef:5] This quote demonstrates that the war changed the opportunities for work that women had, freeing them from the confines of domestic work. “Old-fashioned views about women’s work were challenged and public opinion began to accept that perhaps women had a right to earn their own living, and indeed, could make vital contributions to the economy.”[footnoteRef:6] In a sense, the war represented a paradigm shift and demonstrated that women could be valuable members of society who contributed directly to the economy. This directly challenged the perspective of the typical woman. Hence, during the war, women responded to their circumstances by taking the jobs of their husbands, not merely to make money, but as a means of breaking free from social constraints. [1: Dorothy May King quoted in Linda Goyette and Carolina Jakeway Roemmich, eds. Edmonton: In Our Own Words, (Edmonton, University of Alberta Press, 2004), p. 204.] [2: Marie Joussaye, The Songs that Quinte Sang (Belleville: Sun, 1895): 66-67] [3: Kori Street, “Patriotic, Not Permanent: Attitudes about Women’s Making Bombs and Being Bankers.” A Sisterhood of Suffering and Service (UBC Press, 2012), 148-170.] [4: Sandra Gwyn, Tapestry of war: a Private View of Canadians in the Great War, (Toronto, HarperCollins, 1992), p.438.] [5: Ibid.] [6: Graham Lowe, Women in the administrative revolution: The feminization of clerical work. (Toronto, Univ of Toronto Press, 1987) p. 106-107.]

However, it is important to acknowledge that when it came to the greater workforce, some women responded to the ever-present social constraints that they were up against with more conformity. Much of this had to do with the fact that gender roles had been hardwired into women by society, and many women believed wholeheartedly in the way that they had been programmed. When it came to perhaps filling certain jobs typically held by men, “…women themselves would not apply because they held the conventional assumptions that they were by nature unsuited for such work… a woman who packed cereal for years explained: I was still a woman and I don’t believe in taking a man’s job.’” This quote demonstrates how many women would enforce the gender roles they had been taught all their lives and the notion that there was men’s work versus women’s work, and that men’s jobs need to be protected. So while these women did work, they did so somewhat reluctantly, and mentally conformed to what they had been taught about gender roles.

While the Great War called upon women to work, there were still many who preferred not to. This fear was connected to the concern about taking over the jobs of men, but also connected to fears about damaging the foundation of civilized Canadian society, and rocking the very world under their feet. The safety and security of normative Canadian society was shaped by the idea of having a male breadwinner; hence, having all of these women in the workplace was rocking people to their core. More than that there was also the fear of the unknown inherent in women and girls joining the workforce: “Fears of immorality also pervaded the debates about women’s and girl’s work. Participation in paid work in public spaces might expose female workers to moral dangers in the shape of exploitative foreman or bosses, and their low wages might tempt them to a life of prostitution.”[footnoteRef:7] It is understandable why these fears existed: the workforce definitely represented a form of uncharted territory for women and was clearly a zone that was unfamiliar to them. Furthermore, some workplaces did have predatory male bosses, and for some women prostitution did offer a tempting alternative, so these fears weren’t completely irrational. A female worker by the name of Jean Scott asserted, “Man was intended by nature to by the breadwinner of the family; and if family life is to be maintained such he must remain.”[footnoteRef:8] Such a quote shows without a doubt the mentality that many women had at the time: the sanctity of family life was dependent on having a strong male present and working. This represents a clear internalization of the strict gender roles of the era. [7: Linda Kealey, Enlisting Women for the Cause: Women, Labour, and the Left in Canada, 1890-1920. Vol. 8. (Toronto, Univ of Toronto Pr, 1998), p.17-23.] [8: Ibid.]

At this point, it’s important to determine how women faced off with certain social constraints in other aspects of Canada, such as in the political sphere. The fact that the suffragettes had to fight so long and so hard for their right to vote, a right that their husbands, brothers and sons had long enjoyed, demonstrated that women weren’t fully recognized as people. How women responded to these constraints demonstrated that they still internalized much of the misogyny and gender roles that they had been taught, as women weren’t fighting for total equality, just the right to vote. “Most of them agreed with their opponents that women belonged in the home, differing only in their belief that voting was compatible with women’s sacred place in home and family.”[footnoteRef:9] However, in 1927, five Alberta women asked the federal government to appoint a woman to Senate. Initially, this was denied, as women were not deemed “persons” in the legal sense of the term. Though in October of 1929, the judicial committee ruled that Canadian women were indeed persons under section 24 of the constitution, which meant that a woman could be appointed as senator. [9: Heather MacIvor, Women and politics in Canada. (Orchard Park, Broadview Press, 1996) p. 75-79.]

These sources show how some women, specifically Emily Murphy and the Famous Five, responded to the social constraints of women in politics and in law. 

These particular letters show that Emily Murphy and the Famous Five were against the fact that the Canadian government did not recognize a woman as a “person.”

This group of five women was able to achieve this immense rectification of injustice through the writing of letters, as a means of response to damaging social conventions. Emily Murphy wrote to Stuart Edwards, the deputy minister of justice in Ottawa, Canada. She wrote to him to engage in a line of questioning to determine if a woman might be appointed to senate. The social constraints of the era dictate that such an endeavor was the best means of resistance.

In conclusion, the social conventions of the era created many constraints for women at this time. The manner in which women responded to these constraints was as varied as the women themselves. Some seized these opportunities as a way to forge a higher degree of freedom for themselves. Other women only reluctantly engaged in work outside of the domestic sphere, still believing that “men’s jobs” belong to men. This period was instrumental in forming rights for women and greater liberties, eventually leading to the appointment of the first female senator in 1929. Essentially, from the research conducted, I feel that I have illuminated many of the nuances in relation to the overall research question. Of course, it is impossible to comprehend how every woman in Canada felt about certain restrictions.

Bibliography

Frager, Ruth A., and Carmela Patrias. Discounted Labour: Women Workers in Canada, 1870-1939. Vol. 8. University of Toronto Press, 2005.

Glassford, Sarah, and Amy Shaw, eds. A Sisterhood of Suffering and Service: Women and Girls of Canada and Newfoundland during the First World War. UBC Press, 2012.

Goyette, Linda, and Carolina Jakeway Roemmich. Edmonton in our own words. University of Alberta, 2005.

Gwyn, Sandra. Tapestry of war: a Private View of Canadians in the Great War. HarperCollins, 1992.

Joussaye, Marie The Songs that Quinte Sang (Belleville, Sun, 1895): 66-67.

Kealey, Linda. Enlisting Women for the Cause: Women, Labour, and the Left in Canada, 1890-1920. Vol. 8. Univ of Toronto Pr, 1998.

Lowe, Graham S. Women in the administrative revolution: The feminization of clerical work. Univ of Toronto Pr, 1987.

MacIvor, Heather. Women and politics in Canada. Broadview Press, 1996.

Street, Kori. "Patriotic, Not Permanent: Attitudes about Women’s Making Bombs and Being Bankers." A Sisterhood of Suffering and Service (2012): 148-170.