childbirth expert submitted an article to a leading womanâs magazine called âHow to Have a Baby in an Atom Bomb Shelter.â âThe article was not well written,â an editor told me, âor we might have bought it.â According to the mystique, women, in their mysterious femininity, might be interested in the concrete biological details of having a baby in a bomb shelter, but never in the abstract idea of the bombâs power to destroy the human race.
Such a belief, of course, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In 1960, a perceptive social psychologist showed me some sad statistics which seemed to prove unmistakably that American women under thirty-five are not interested in politics. âThey may have the vote, but they donât dream about running for office,â he told me. âIf you write a political piece, they wonât read it. You have to translate it into issues they can understandâromance, pregnancy, nursing, home furnishings, clothes. Run an article on the economy, or the race question, civil rights, and youâd think that women had never heard of them.â
Maybe they hadnât heard of them. Ideas are not like instincts of the blood that spring into the mind intact. They are communicated by education, by the printed word. The new young housewives, who leave high school or college to marry, do not read books, the psychological surveys say. They only read magazines. Magazines today assume women are not interested in ideas. But going back to the bound volumes in the library, I found in the thirties and forties that the mass-circulation magazines like Ladiesâ Home Journal carried hundreds of articles about the world outside the home. âThe first inside story of American diplomatic relations preceding declared warâ; âCan the U. S. Have Peace After This War?â by Walter Lippman; âStalin at Midnight,â by Harold Stassen; âGeneral Stilwell Reports on Chinaâ; articles about the last days of Czechoslovakia by Vincent Sheean; the persecution of Jews in Germany; the New Deal; Carl Sandburgâs account of Lincolnâs assassination; Faulknerâs stories of Mississippi, and Margaret Sangerâs battle for birth control.
In the 1950âs they printed virtually no articles except those that serviced women as housewives, or described women as housewives, or permitted a purely feminine identification like the Duchess of Windsor or Princess Margaret. âIf we get an article about a woman who does anything adventurous, out of the way, something by herself, you know, we figure she must be terribly aggressive, neurotic,â a Ladiesâ Home Journal editor told me. Margaret Sanger would never get in today.
In 1960, I saw statistics that showed that women under thirty-five could not identify with a spirited heroine of a story who worked in an ad agency and persuaded the boy to stay and fight for his principles in the big city instead of running home to the security of a family business. Nor could these new young housewives identify with a young minister, acting on his belief in defiance of convention. But they had no trouble at all identifying with a young man paralyzed at eighteen. (âI regained consciousness to discover that I could not move or even speak. I could wiggle only one finger of one hand.â With help from faith and a psychiatrist, âI am now finding reasons to live as fully as possible.â)
Does it say something about the new housewife readers that, as any editor can testify, they can identify completely with the victims of blindness, deafness, physical maiming, cerebral palsy, paralysis, cancer, or approaching death? Such articles about people who cannot see or speak or move have been an enduring staple of the womenâs magazines in the era of âOccupation: housewife.â They are told with infinitely realistic detail over and over again, replacing the articles about the nation, the