Who’s Who in 1910, Woman-Wise in Canada (and US)

Emma LaJeunesse, opera singer, known as Madame Albani. She was French Canadian and world renown.

I found a copy of a 1910 Canadian Who’s Who online and on one of the first pages I saw Madame Albani, the opera star, otherwise known as Emma La Jeunesse so I decided to scan the book to see how many women were included.

I first went to see if Julia Grace Parker Drummond was listed there, and she was! Her husband wasn’t, as he had just died. She had a long entry. “One of the founders and first President of the Canadian Women’s Club of Montreal (Montreal Council of Women.) And then her many leadership positions are listed. Lady Drummond is featured in my story Threshold Girl  www.tighsolas.ca/page10.pdf.pdf
and she will be featured even more in the follow up, “Edith’s Story” tentatively called the 1912 Diary of a Confirmed Spinster, www.tighsolas.ca/page11.pdf.pdf

I then went to look for Carrie Derick, not expecting her to be there : but she was. In 1910, she is listed as Assistant Professor of Botany, McGill. Her many academic accomplishments are listed (Gold Medalist, first female faculty member, McGill 1891), and leaves out her McGill Normal School teaching work. (Now, THAT says something about how low in people’s esteem teaching was held. In fact there are no educators listed in this Who’s Who, despite the fact there were quite a few women in that field.)

Then I went through the entire book, start to finish to see how many other illustrious female figures are listed. NOT MANY.

In fact, it seems any journalistic credentials got a young woman into the Who’s Who. A few articles published, a few poems. Nellie McClung is listed, but only as a minor writer. Lucy Maude Montgomery, who published Anne of Green Gables in 1908, isn’t there.

For an actress to be listed, she has had to won international acclaim, or at least US acclaim. And that pretty well goes for the other females listed. Hence Madame Albani.

And there are not many society women listed, which surprises me. A Society Woman only got listed if she had something to do with good works on her local council of women.

Now, taking a rough guess, there is one woman listed for about every three pages of men listed, with about 10 listings to a page. So 1 in 30 on the 1910 Canadian Who’s Who is a woman. And often it’s a woman of little accomplishment like Mrs. Valance Patriarche, Newspaper articles, magazine stories and a few poems.

Mary Riter Hamilton, the impressionist painters, isn’t there, and only one other woman painter. Mary Ella Dingham. Education Paris, France and Italy. Exhibitor in many European and North American exhibitions. President of the Women’s Art Association of Canada. And, of course, Emily Carr isn’t there either.

One nurse, one professor of Philosophy at Wellesley College near Boston. Miss Eliza Richie, daughter of a Supreme Court Judge in Nova Scotia. One doctor I think and no lawyer, although there was one famous woman lawyer being written about in the era magazines, Mabel French. I’ve a post about her on this blog.

And a missionary, working with her (more famous) husband.

Also a couple of musicians who have performed internationally. Miss Evelyn Street, Second Violinist, American String Quartet of Boston.

And just like today, there are Canadian-born women who have made a mark entirely in the US. Miss Annie Diggs of London, Ontario, worker for temperance, chairman of D.C. People’s Party and a Suffragette in Kansas. Writer of short stories and a lecturer in sociology.

Why is this interesting in the context of my story? Because in 1910, it was widely believed that A YOUNG WOMAN COULD DO ANYTHING when it came to the professions (although most sensible women wanted to be mothers and wives). That all doors were open to women. That no more barriers existed to a woman’s career ambitions.

Magazine articles featured stories about women making, say, 10,ooo a year, when the ‘average’ salary for a man was 1,000 a year.

Actresses were often featured in magazines, but in real life they were both put on pedestals and villifed as one step above a prostitute.

The two women scientists I see here, Carrie Derick and another I can’t recall the name of, were both botanists. I suspect botany was considered a soft science, because of its association with flowers and art.

In Threshold Girl I bring this up…as Flora Nicholson likes to draw so does well in botany.

But Carrie Derick’s botany background gave her credibility in a very iffy area, eugenics. And that situation will be tackled in the continuation of Edith’s Story.

I think I will have Edith peruse this Who’s Who.

Motions Pictures, Movies, Films, Cinema, Interactive….and on and on

My husband noticed a while back that the plaque on the old Ouimetoscope building had disappeared. A few days later he noticed that a historic placard of sorts, commemorating the Ouimetoscope was placed in the neighbourhood. Yesterday, he noticed that the Ouimetoscope building is being converted into condos, keeping the historic name.

Hmm. Good, I guess. If you can’t turn it back into a theatre.

I’ve written a lot about Montreal in the Nickelodeon era.. and Threshold Girl is available at www.tighsolas.ca/page10.pdf.pdf

Threshold Girl tells the story of Flora Nicholson in 1911 as she attends Macdonald Teaching College. And it has public domain pictures from the Delineator Magazines of the era.

I’ve decided to do the follow up about her sister Edith and call it The Diary of a Confirmed Spinster.  It’s here in drafty form.. www.tighsolas.ca/page11.pdf.pdf

It’s kind of a storyboard thing…Recently, I saw (read) an NFB digital story about a town closing down in Canada, called Welcome to… ah.. Pinpoint  and thought it lovely. It’s award winning.

http://pinepoint.nfb.ca/#/pinepoint

So I decided to describe Edith’s Story, which is a mix of fiction and fact, more visually. I’m not using any film, but this story is about the film era and I am going to work hard to capture that flavour.

 It’s a work in progress.

Political Prisoners vs Criminals -Let a suffragette explain

 

I was transcribing this piece from VOTES FOR WOMEN, May 27, 1910.. for my story, Edith’s Story, the follow up to Threshold Girl www.tighsolas.ca/page10.pdf.pdf and I realized that this piece is relevent to the discussion happening today after the London Riots. Militant Suffragettes were considered hooligans by many and treated as such by politicians like the Home Secretary (who was Winston Churchill at this time, I think) but this beautifully written article proves otherwise.

Of all the actions of the Suffragettes none have been so widely misunderstood as the prison mutiny and the hunger strike. Even among those who have nothing but admiration for the women who have faced ill-usage and imprisonment for protesting at Cabinet Minister’s meetings, or for taking part in deputations  to the Prime Minister at the House of Commons, there are many who regard the hunger strike not merely as tactically and perhaps morally wrong, but as justifying to some extent the statement that the militant Suffragists are hysterical and unbalanced.

 

This criticism is partly due to the fact that the prison mutiny and hunger strike were the latest phase of militancy – and it has been a noteworthy feature at every stage of the present campaign that critics have fastened upon the latest militant methods for attack, while condoning and even sometimes expressing approval of earlier militant methods – and partly due to the fact that the outside public have never properly realized that there was an important principle underlying the apparently unaccountable behaviour of the Suffragettes in prison.

To incur WANTONLY additional punishment in prison, to undergo GRATUITOUSLY the terrible ordeal of starvation, to submit to the torture and forcible feeding rather than act rationally – these might be evidences of hysteria; but to determine, FOR A SUFFICIENTLY IMPROTANT PURPOSE, on a course of action without flinching, and to carry it through to the bitter end – these are evidences of a well-balanced mind and an heroic and untameable spirit.

 

To understand the action of the Suffragettes it is necessary to go back in history and trace in brief the treatment which has been adopted in past centuries and in other countries towards those who, like the present day Suffragettes, have incurred imprisonment, not on account of degrading crimes implying moral turpitude, but on account of actions taken with a political object.

In ancient days shoe who conspired to reform the government were dealt with barbarously; first they were tortured, then they were killed, and finally their bodies were mutilated. Later on, though the death penalty was still enacted, the savage accompaniments were omitted. As times advance, public opinion demanded greater and greater differentiation between the treatment of ordinary criminals punished for their selfish anti-social actions and that of men and women who had run counter to the law in consequence of their political views.

 

Even in the Bastille, we find political prisoners given considerable privileges; thus Parades was allowed to have what books he pleased, to carry on correspondence, and to be visited by friends. In the early part of the last century Cobbett was imprisoned in this country; not only did he have books and correspondence, but he was actually allowed to have the constant company of one of his children, who took up his abode in the prison to be with him. The condition of the political prisons of Neapolitan King Bomba in the forties raised a storm of indignation in the is country, because though they had certain privileges as to writing and reading, they were in other respects treated as common criminals and subjected to unhealthy and degrading conditions.

From the commencement, in dealing with the Suffrage prisoners, the Government departed from this honourable tradition.

Christobel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney, in October 1905, were sentenced to the third division in Strangways Gaol, Manchester, and were thus classed as the lowest criminals.  Again in July, 1906, Annie Kenney and the others suffered imprisonment in the second division (a slightly better class, but still totally different from that allotted to political offenders.) In October 1906, ten more women were arrested and nine were sent to the second division and one to the third. This time, considerable feeling was aroused, because among the number was the daughter of Richard Cobden. Liberal members appealed to the Home Secretary, Mr. Gladstone, and he made representations to the magistrate, and they were transferred to the first division and received treatment approximating to that of political prisoners. For some twelve months, this practice prevailed, then once again, the old methods was adopted. Suffrage prisoners were sent to the second and in some cased to the third division and there suffered the full  treatment of prison discipline. Visitors and correspondence were only allowed at rare intervals, and the latter was always open to inspection by the authorities. Permission was refused Christabel Pankhurst to write a book in prison, which was not to have been published until she came out.

 

At first women suffrage prisoners accepted this without protest the punishment which was meted out to them; their compassion for the ordinary prisoners (many of whom for quite trivial offences were being treated in a way which would evidently unfit them for life when they came out) prompted them to protest rather against the whole system of prison treatment than against the absence of differentiation in their favour. But as time went on they realized that by remaining silent on this matter they were allowing the traditions of proper treatment of political offenders  to be abrogated, and in order that the future political prisoners might not suffer It was necessary to protest.

At first their protest was confined to words; the Home Secretary appealed to. He refused to make any change, and offered two excused for his position – firstly, that the matter was one for the magistrate and not for himself, secondly, that the offenses were ordinary breaches of the law and to be punished as such. To these he subsequently added a third excuse to the effect that the prisoners had for a time been put in the first division but had abused their privileges. There is an element of inconsistency in these replies, which are to some extend mutually destructive, but in addition each can be directly answered.

The Home Secretary undoubtedly possesses the power by the use of the Royal Prerogative of mercy to order the removal of a prison to a higher class. Even without using this he can make recommendations to the magistrate, as was actually done in 1906. …

With regard to the second assertion, that the Suffragettes are not political offenders, we have the decision of an English Court in the year 1891 in the extradition case of Rex vs. Cathioni, in which it was laid down that an offence is political if it is committed with a political object, even thought it be the offence of murder itself. Moreover, we have the test offered by the Rr. Honorable Gladstone, of public opinion , whether in the eyes of the public the offender is considered guilty of moral turpitude.

According to both these, all the women suffrage prisoners have been political offenders.

As for Mr. Gladstone’s third excuse, no charge was ever made at the time, nor has any charge whatever been formulated since.

When Mrs. Pankurst and Christable Pankhurst had been in prison together in the autumn of 1908, Mrs. Pankhurst had claimed the right to speak to her daughter while in exercise. This led to a severe reproof from the wardresses, which roused the anger of the other suffragettes present., who made a protest.  Punishments were meted out all around, and Mrs. Pankhurst was kept in close confinement, but at length, the Government gave in and she was permitted to talk to her daughter at stated times.

It was not, however, till June 1909, that prison tactics were decided on by the members of the WSPU, as a definite ploy. The essential feature was that a claim was to be made for treatment as political offenders. If this was disregarded a protest was to be made inside the walls of the prison. This would take the shape of a passive resistance to prison regulations, to wearing prison dress, to confinement in separate cells, to routines of prison life; and this was to be followed by breaking the windows of the cells, at once a vigorous protest against prison discipline and a concrete and effective method o f remedying a serious abuse, the absence of proper ventilation.

All these methods were, in fact, carried out, but by the heroic courage of one woman a still more terrible method was been put into operation. Miss Wallace Dunlop adopted as the strongest protest she could make, a method used in the Russian Prisons by the prisoners –hunger strike. The hunger strike is passive resistance carried to its supreme limit. It offers no active resistance to wrong, but it frankly stakes life in the effort to win justice.

Mrs Wallace Dunlop said in effect to the Government; “I hold the rights of political prisoners so sacred that I am willing to die in their defence; choose, therefore, between doing justice and allowing me to die in prison.”

It was a terrible step to take, involving untold suffering as well as risk of life, but Mrs. Wallace Dunlop with a full sense of seriousness of what she was doing, had made up her mind and intended to go through with what  she had undertaken. In sprite of threats and cajoling, in spite of great physical distress, she remained firm. And the end of four days, the Government gave in. They would not give her political treatment, it is true, but equally, they would not let her die in prison. They ordered her release. Thirteen other woman suffrage prisoners who went to Holloway a few days later also adopted the hunger strike. They first they carried out the protest against prison discipline which they had premeditated. For this they had to face the severe rigours of prison punishment, close confinement for several days without exercise in narrow, airless and semi dark cells, and under under these conditions may of them faced hunger for three, four, five and some for over six days. In the end they all won; their spirit proved triumphant over physical suffering. They were released by order of the Government lest that great releaser, Death should free them from their bondage before their sentences expired.

 

WOMAN’S TRUE NATURE 4th installment

Flora and friend, let’s say Mae, off to a costume ball. Tighsolas wall is behind them. Norman, Flo’s father, built Tighsolas in 1896, the year Sir Wilfrid Laurier came to power. He examined every brick and board and roof tile, apparently, well, he was a building inspector. He also kept a record of costs: total to build Tighsolas, $2,700 dollars, a big sum back then. Tighsolas was a mix of styles, I think. With it’s asymmetrical roof in the Queen Anne style – and a bit of Scottish Baronial.

Flora pressed her school books to her chest with her right arm and opened the door to the kitchen with her free hand.

If she worked indoors she could think ‘out loud’ about “the Canadian character” and Mother Margaret was sure to toss in her two cents. She would not be able to help herself: It was in her nature.

Flora placed her scribbler and pencils down on the maplewood table which had not yet been laid for tea. Fresh graham rolls, on the counter, were perfuming the kitchen with a comforting sense of calm.

She pulled out the stenciled sheet with the examination questions and opened her Composition Textbook to the passage at hand.

Women in the Thirties:

The women of the family found their hands very full. Besides the daily round of housewifely cares, every season brought its special duties. There were wild strawberries and raspberries to be
picked and prepared for daily consumption, or to be preserved for
winter use.

Besides milking, there was the making both of butter and cheese.
There was no nurse to take care of the children, no cook to prepare the
dinner.

The girls in those days were more at home in a kitchen than a drawing-room. They did better execution at a tub than at a spinet, and
could handle a rolling-pin more satisfactorily than a sketch-book. At a
pinch, they could even use a rake or fork to good purpose in field or
barn. Their finishing education was received at the country school along with their brothers. Of fashion books and milliners, few of them had anyexperiences.

Country life in Canada was plodding in the “Thirties” and there was no varied outlook. The girls’ training for future life was mainly at the hands of their mothers. They were content to live as their parents had done. And though we can see that, as compared with later conditions,there may be something wanting in such an existence, this at least we know, that, in such a school and by such masters, the foundations of Canadian
character and prosperity were laid.

Finishing school? Who goes to finishing school? she thought.

Even Eleanor C. expects to attend secretarial school so that she can help out in her father’s business. And Flora personally knew of few families who employed full-time maids and housekeepers and cooks.

Well, the Wales. But they were the wealthiest people in town.

And, yes, the H’s had a cook and a woman to do the washing once a week. But he was in the business of tombstones and that field never wants for customers.

Question : In your opinion, what is meant by “Canadian character.”

Flora sighed. She really could use some help here.

Then Margaret suddenly materialized, holding her corset up to the afternoon light. It was inside out with the slightly rusty side steels and wiring exposed. Like the inside of a fish, Flora thought.

“Well, that’s done. I’m off to Mrs. M’s to see if she has a sturdy lock for my trunk. Trains are full of thieves. I’m afraid we are eating left over cottage pie for tea. But if you get hungry have one of the rolls with butter.”

Margaret laid the corset on a kitchen chair and untied her apron and slipped it off of her shoulders, and put it with the corset – which signaled to Flora that her visit would be a long one.

“Mrs. M is sure to ask you nosy questions about your trip, ” Flora remarked.

“Yes, but I don’t have to answer.”

“She’ll want to know about Edith’s flirtation.”

“Yes, and I will tell her just enough to repay her for keeping an eye on you girls while I’m away. It’s a fair exchange, a little gossip for a little peace of mind. I see you are hard at work, so I won’t disturb you any longer. Oh, leave your jumper on the chair tonight. I have time to get to it after all.”

“Ah,” Flora thought.”So, all is right with the world, after all.”

Still, no homework help. Canadian character? Funny, how when she thought of those two words she thought of her mother, with all her patriotic clippings, and poems by the likes of Pauline Johnson, an Indian Squaw.

She looked up at Margaret’s kitchen note- board for inspiration. A recipe board it may have been at one time, but Margaret had long committed all her favourite recipes to memory. They couldn’t be stolen that way. Instead the metal framed piece of cork was covered in slips of paper, news clippings, mostly from the Montreal Witness Newspaper: jokes, poems, and longer items with headlines such as Montreal: Canada’s Greatest City. Or Plato was a Feminist. Or Modern Parents. Or Away From Nature which was about factory work and how unhealthy it was especially for girls.

A suffrage pamphlet Marion had brought home from that city on her last visit was prominently pinned over a long grocery invoice from McKae’s.

“Women’s Vote in Australia” By E H. Macnagten, McGill Professor of Greek.

Margaret had read it out loud to all her daughters, one evening and they had clapped and cheered at all the best passages.

Beside that was pinned another smaller pamphlet: INVEST IN MEN. The California Oil Company. Herb had brought that one home on a different occasion to a very different reception. Indeed, it had precipitated an argument.

Herbert’s bizarre money-making schemes usually had that effect on his parents.

Why oil? Margaret had asked.

The automobile! Herb had answered.

And what about the automobile?

Soon everyone will have one. And they run on oil.

Everyone, you say? What nonsense. It’s merely a foolish fad. Men and their ideas!

Women like automobiles, too. You’ve taken tours with Mr. Wales and his chauffeur.

Well, I’d rather have a fine horse any day.

That was Margaret’s pride speaking.

The Nicholsons, in the condition they were at present, could never dream of buying an automobile. They had had to give up their pedigreed trotter, Regan, and all that remained to recall the family’s former easy lifestyle, was a fine carriage in the back barn, awaiting a purchase offer.

This memory gave Flora an idea, She picked up her pencil and began to write: I am not of the opinion that hard work gives you character, for leisure time gives you the opportunity to read and keep up with world events and if women have more leisure time it can be used to improve the world, to help the less advantaged, especially poor children, as it is well known that men are only concerned with making money.

This was what the women’s suffrage people liked to say, but was making money such a bad thing? Flora had to wonder. Was money really the root of all evil?

One thing for sure, having no money, when everyone around you seems to be flush, was no fun at all.