Whatever else she is… – Sunday, May 24, 1959
We have concerned ourselves somewhat these past two weeks with mothers, and daughters, and wives, and the place of women in the world, and should like to pursue the subject with these few further thoughts: In considering ideals and objectives, and the sometimes overemphasis on social considerations, and appeals merely to appearance.
Ruskin wrote: “The courage or sincerity [of girls is hardly] thought of half so much importance as their way of coming in at a door; … [We bring] for the purpose of our own pride, the full glow of the world’s worst vanity upon a girl’s eyes, at the very period when the whole happiness of her future . . . depends upon her remaining undazzled—… “1 Thus, he appeals for the simple standards, the solid values, for the lasting things, indeed the everlasting things of life, not unduly emphasizing the sometimes-shallow externals or the sometimes-superficial social show.
As to competition between the sexes, “We are foolish,” he said, “and without excuse foolish, in speaking of the ‘superiority’ of one sex to the other, as if they could be compared . . . Each completes the other and is completed by the other …. You may chisel a boy into shape, as you would a rock, or hammer him into it, if he be of a better kind, as you would a piece of bronze.
But you cannot hammer a girl into anything. She grows as a flower does . . . you cannot fetter her; she must take her own fair form and way and have— ‘Her household motions light and free, And steps of virgin liberty.’ “1
With the citing of these words, we would summarize again by saying that despite woman’s so-called emancipated place, and her many added opportunities, there are some things she should continue to be, whatever else she is: the mother, the wife, the helpmate and homemaker, the true and virtuous teacher of children, the symbol of service, of purity and compassion, and of the living of a good and gracious life—not the competitor of men, not the pawn of men, not the partaker of men’s vices, not the reflection of men, but something which she should be for herself, except for which there would be a letting down rather than a lifting of our lives.
This question from an ancient Roman writer somewhat summarizes and somewhat suggests the next subject to be considered: “Do you expect, forsooth,” he said, “that a mother will hand down to her children’s principles which differ from her own?”2
1 John Ruskin, Lilies: Of Queens’ Gardens
2 Juvenal, Satires. Sat. vi, 1. 239
May 24, 1959
Broadcast Number 1,553