Talk:Culture of Domesticity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChelseaCom. Peer reviewers: Gianni dejesus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I removed the following text:

"The significance of the cult of domesticity was the rise of women and the Declaration of Sentiments, written at the Seneca Falls Convention."

I do not dispute relationship between the cult of domesticity and the rise of women, nor do I affirm it. However, this article does not address the relationship at all, and such a bold claim should be backed up better. This article should most definitely address the cult of D's relationship to first-wave feminism, but the excised passage does not do this.Zantastik 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Susan Anthony

Was Susan B. Anthony really at Seneca Falls as this article claims? I don't think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Sentence Rework

This sentence needs fixed (I bolded text in question)

After the rise of feminism and the fight for women's rights, the cult of domesticity arose again in the 1950s when television began to present shows that involved wholesome families where the mother would stay at home with the children while the man went to workstay dressed as a goth forever, could I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.71.80 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Virginity

This sentence is phrased a bit oddly: "Virginity was seen as a woman's greatest treasure which she had to lose before her marriage night."

She had to lose her virginity before her marriage night? That seems a bit off to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.248.116 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Origins

It would be good if the article discussed the origins of the phrases, it appears that they were developed in the latter half of the twentieth century, but my research is by no means complete and Walters implies that they may be earlier. The article gives the impression that there was a period when a group of people said "hey- let's have a cult of domesticity that will be fun" whereas the nomenclature appears to be solely a post-hoc matter. It would also be useful to delineate the time frame of the phenomenon, again Walters talks about 1820-60, others of the whole of the nineteenth century. Inequality: A Contemporary Approach to Race, Class, and Gender discusses the problems that arose from the end of the phenomenon - we should cover this too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

Susan A. Cruea subheading

I'm puzzled by the devotion of a whole subsection to Susan A. Cruea's article. The article appeared in 2005 in a very minor journal and didn't really contribute anything new to the discussion; it's a good overview that ties some things together, but all the basic material in this entry had been advanced decades earlier by other cited historians. It's also odd that this section doesn't really capture what's central to Cruea's paper, which is the linking of the so-called "Cult of Domesticity" to the "New Woman." It reads as if someone had read Cruea's paper (or taken her class) and wanted to give her a boost. It feels inappropriate to give this much attention to one scholar who was not in the forefront of the research. Jonesgerard57 (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2016

Virtues

In the fifty years since Barbara Welter's (very important) article first focused attention on this subject, a whole lot of work--both research and discussion--has challenged and modified some of its basic assumptions; but those assumptions are presented here as historical fact. E.g. the suggestion here that women were encouraged to be weak and fragile by publications like Godey's Lady's Book is demonstrably untrue; under Sarah Hale's long editorship of that magazine, women were specifically encouraged to be strong, healthy, and active. Overall, there's a misleading blurring here of the ideas of women's "proper sphere" (as in Catharine Beecher's writings) and of women as helpless creatures, the latter of which were actually promoted by a completely different set of cultural voices. It's a daunting amount of work, but I think this entry needs to heavily reworked--or at the very least, it should be clearer what's an interpretation from one source vs. what's generally accepted. Jonesgerard57 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Among the specific problems is the comment that women were discouraged from reading anything but "religious biographies" when the aforementioned Godey's Lady's Book (used as an example of a proponent of this "cult of domesticity") published short stories, poetry, and a other forms. Jonesgerard57 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (Gerard Jones)

Domesticity Representation in Media

I added this section as I felt there was a content gap on this page. Modern representations of domesticity in media often are more inclusive and less restrictive. Family life is no longer limited to the nuclear family model.

I have also edited this article and removed broken links and wordy sentences. ChelseaCom (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC) ChelseaCom

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Le Repas de bébé (1895).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this article about an influential idea in historiography, or about the history itself?

The lead paragraph introduces the "cult of domesticity" as an influential academic interpretation of a particular social phenomenon, and does so well. But by the end of the article, it has morphed into a mere exposition of this idea: a synopsis of American women's history as interpreted by a particular strain of scholarship in the latter half of the 20th century.

An article about a conceptual device employed in historical scholarship should not consist, in the main, of a recount of the historical phenomenon of which the concept is an interpretation. It should focus on the theory: the academic context in which it was proposed, the rationale for its proposal, the development, refinement, and application of the theory, and the scholarly reception of and reaction to it.

It should also be noted that the specific phrase associated with this concept specifically uses the word "cult" — which is not an abbreviation of the word "culture". Furthermore, much of the work cited towards the end of this article bears no obvious relationship to this concept beyond a general focus on changing conceptions of femininity and family.

For example, consider the following:

"Coworkers often behave in a familial manner and have unique interpersonal connections. This interpretation of domesticity has become permanently embedded into popular culture with cult favorites like The Office, Parks and Recreation, Grey’s Anatomy, Mad Men. With households working more combined hours than ever before, workplaces sometimes serve as social support, especially when home life is less than ideal."

The citation at the end of this passage refers to a sociological paper — which contains no mention of either the "cult of domesticity" or any of these television programs!

Much work is required here. Whoever fancies the task might consider beginning with a thorough account of the concept as first proposed by Welter. Foxmilder (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)