Baby Janet has contributed her ideas and impressions to Julia's page, 'Reflections on Petticoating', which aims to concentrate on readers' more thoughtful and meditative musings on petticoating, rather than on first-hand accounts.

My Dear Susan,

Your predicament reminds me of one of the earlier letters in which the wife was in the kitchen doing the dishes while her friends were admiring her husband's pretty pinafore in the living room - it was titled 'Another Pinafored Prisoner'.  It wasn't until her mother reminded her that she should be in the living room enjoying conversation with her friends that she realised that her husband belonged in the kitchen. Once the situation was corrected, life became much more tolerable for her.

Too many women, for much too long, have felt that if something needs to be done, and done right, then they have to do it.  Thus they have sacrificed the pleasures of life to which they are rightly entitled, and born the majority of the burden at home with often little thanks, acknowledgment or appreciation.  It is all so easy for the 'bumbling' spouse or 'Master of the House' to foist upon his wife duties which should rightfully be his.  That many women accept such a fate as their lot in life is not only unfortunate, but unjust.

During a recent 'Biography' channel presentation on the modern artists Renoir, Pisarro, Manet, Monet, et al, Renoir was quoted as saying that, 'A woman is at her most beautiful when on her knees scrubbing the floor or doing the washing'.  Interestingly enough, it
was a woman commentator who justified his comments as merely being 'reflective of the attitudes of the men of his day'.

It is attitudes such as these that breed deep and enduring resentment on the part of women for their 'lot in life'.  Much has changed in the past hundred years in regards to women's 'rights'.  Much of what should have been in place right from the start has been rectified.  The right to vote, to have a voice on issues that matter, to hold a job, to hold public office, to dress with greater freedom and choice, and endure less constriction either from the garments they wear or from others' opinions, to enter areas previously forbidden to them whether within the power structure (clubs, athletics, etc.) or the political arena.

Great strides have been made.  Today, women hold office in virtually all of the democratic countries. In Scotland, Denmark and Sweden they hold 37% or more of the parliamentary seats.  Their voices and their causes are those of reason, peace, compassion, and social and educational justice.  Their accomplishments, though hindered at times by some of the establishment, are numerous and growing.

Yet, despite all of this, attitudes which perpetuate what has come to be known as the 'glass ceiling' still persist.  This form of insidious, 'justifiable' unfairness is still with us.  For all those who reject bigotry and hatred in any form, this is certainly one area of difficulty and challenge in terms of transformation to a state of fairness and equity.  A more slippery or cunning foe would be difficult to find. It is all too tempting to accept the situation and wait it out in the hope of eventual betterment.

One means of transformation is clearly at hand. If women are to assume ascendancy across the board, it must clearly begin within the home, and within their closest relationships.  Acquiescing to attitudes which are out of date and out of step with reality will only
perpetuate those attitudes, and perpetuate the existing problem. Many women have been brought up to believe that they are second-class citizens. After all, men do rule the world, don't they?

It's interesting, isn't it? How beliefs beget attitudes, which beget reality.  So, if you're going to tranform things, it would appear that you need to transform beliefs first if you intend to affect attitudes and reality.

The interesting thing about petticoating is that it hoists men (and boys) on the petard of their own beliefs and attitudes.  It is a consummate form of social justice in that it renders the subject the effect of his own attitudes and beliefs. If you want a man to walk a mile in your shoes, petticoating is clearly the road to follow.  The greater the obduracy, the greater the eventual submission.  You have only to resist something to be overcome and controlled by it. It is not so much a matter of strength or weakness, as
much as resisting or denying reality making you the just victim of your attitudes.

To get back to the first paragraph of this rather long letter, I'm glad to see Susan that you are beginning to choose some of the more enjoyable tasks and to farm out some of the humdrum items to those who might be of service. I would hope that you would stay in contact with those who have had recent or ongoing transformations within their lives, and encourage them to keep us posted on developments on the 'home front'. Yet, no one can tell you which way to set your sails.  I only know that what you do will be for the best.
With kindest regards,

Baby Janet

P.S. It might be nice to have an ongoing 'Honor Roll' or list of some kind for those newly converted to dresses and bonnets.  As the ranks grow, so will the list.

Dear Susan,

I hope you'll forgive any rough appearance in my previous missive.  It was written pretty much off-the-cuff, and most likely lacked the refinements that further thought and revision might have supplied.

There are a few additional comments I'd like to make, if I may.

First, what is most striking and most important about your site is the emphasis on love and gentleness.  For a fact, anger, hatred and resistance breed similarly bitter offspring, and further trouble.  Therefore, it should be clear to anyone that the use of love and
gentility provides a more enduring and permanent result, with the likelihood of much fewer problems in the relationship.

Second, one of the more vexing problems is how to transform the transformer.  Women, in my opinion, need to examine their attitudes and beliefs also, and to ask of themselves whether their attitudes and beliefs are the result of some male 'world view' or whether they are truly their own.  There may be some degree of safety and certainty within the confines of an established viewpoint, however there is certainly limited growth or change.  The willingness to entertain different viewpoints, and to experiment to some degree on  the social and sexual frontiers of life, can have rewarding outcomes if handled from the standpoints of responsibility, consideration, love and gentleness.

Many women are caught up in the 'work at work; work at home' syndrome, with little time to recover.  They tend to lose perspective, and lack a sense of power over their situation, which can be extremely frustrating to them.  A little inventiveness and a goal worth
achieving could transform their situation.

Third, the evolutions begun in the last century in the areas of women's rights, the family structure, job security and the sexual revolution have not only achieved noteworthy results in those areas, but also have affected men's self-perception to an extent that
is still little understood or comprehended by either society, or by men themselves. The stolid breadwinner who came home to a wife who had dinner on the table, the house in some degree of order, and the children cared for, is fast fading into the woodwork of history.

Yet men still cling to much of the 'macho' pastimes and attitudes which were the basis of their previous self-definition, yet which no longer truly serve very well in this rapidly changing world.  Many are finding the roles they have to fulfill at work (in terms of authority, responsibility and contribution), in front of the 'guys' (in terms of who they are, and how a man should appear, and what a man does) and at home (in terms of relational, home and financial responsibilities that must be assumed) leave them exhausted, and with little true sense of themselves.  They are increasingly defined by what they do or don't do, rather than who they are.  Many feel they have held the reins for too long, and yearn for a place to find some sense of peace, security and rest.

Many women have come to find that, in such a situation, the introduction of petticoating and babification into the lives of their men has been far easier than they would have dreamed.  It has transformed the women's lives in ways that have gladdened their hearts and, whether the men admit it or not, has beneficially changed their husbands or significant others.  The burden of responsibility is lifted from the man, yet he still has a mission to serve.  Sexual expression within the relationship is more defined and controlled, with the woman now the dominant partner, yet is also enhanced in many ways.  Lastly, the wife finally has time for the things she finds rewarding and satisfying in life.

I would not say that petticoating is the be-all and end-all in any relationship.  However, it does have rewarding and lasting elements of satisfaction for both partners and, if used properly, can be a continuing source of excitement, satisfaction and happiness within their relationship.  An open mind, patience, a willing heart and some gentle, loving persistence will win out in the end every time.
Baby Janet

Thank you for those insights, Janet. I would add my own comments regarding Renoir's quoted comment from the television production ('A woman is at her most beautiful when on her knees scrubbing the floor or doing the washing'):

1) I doubt if he really meant it. Renoir's painting was extremely sensual, and he painted the velvet and fur clad women and girls of the middle and upper classes a good deal more than he painted proletarian housfraus. It sounds to me as though that comment was made in the context of defending the subject matter of impressionism, which found its themes amongst the ordinary concerns of day-to-day life.

2) The woman commentator who stated that his comment was 'reflective of the attitudes of the men of his day' was just indulging in a bit of easy, unthinking modern feminism, without any analytical  thought behind it. Renoir's comment is confronting precisely because it does not reflect the attitudes of men either in his day, or in any other day.

Certainly women were condemned to submissive drudgery in the house, and many factors have contributed to releasing the female sex from that bondage: petticoat discipline, which has enabled women to become the mistresses, rather than the servants, in their homes, has happily done its part. But to imagine that men find women most attractive when they are dressed, and are working, like exhausted housewives is ludicrous. I can assure my male readers that if you are going out with a male friend, you do not remove your powder and lipstick, put on a dirty limp apron, and tie a dish clout in your hair.

Poor men! I am not anti-male, as I have had occasion to point out before in these pages, and too often these days men have attitudes forced upon them which they never actually entertained. A friend of mine has a daughter who is deeply into the gothick look, and is having a corset of rich imperial purple with black lace trimmings made for her. The friend, her mother, said that she had admonished her daughter, and told her that women had had to fight for decades to free themselves from the male-imposed bondage of corsets.

I did not want to start an argument with her, but what she had said was completely untrue. Men have always preferred women to be plumper and softer, and a glance at any 'naughty postcard' from the 1890s will show that it was as true then as it is today. Women laced themselves cruelly into corsets to show off to each other, not to attract males, whilst the opposition to corsets - and it was considerable in Victorian times - came almost exclusively from men, usually doctors.

Men may be arrogant, and often rather selfish and insensitive, and the male ego is certainly one of the wonders of creation (I have often thought that the unseen 'dark matter' which is thought to make up 90% of the matter in the universe might be largely male ego - only joking), but I believe in the truth, and will not tolerate ideologically driven feminist subversion of the truth.

I am afraid I have got completely away from Baby Janet's reflections. I would also suggest that female politicians have not shown themselves to be much better than the men they replaced (with one great, shining exception) but I will not pursue that. Nevertheless, I agree with at least half of Baby Janet's first letter, and with every word of her excellent second letter.
Susan