I belong to a book club and our recent selection, LOVING FRANK by Nancy Horan triggered memories from the feminist rhetoric of the 1960's. The novel is a fictionalized rendition of the actual affair between famous architect, Frank Lloyd Wright and a woman named Mamah Borthwick Cheney. Mamah and Frank are already married when they meet and they soon fall madly in love and embark upon an affair, leaving their respective spouses and children abandoned to the care of others. They believe they have a right to do this because they are seeking a "true" relationship that mirrors their "true" selves. They travel through Europe, specifically Germany and Italy, exploring the "truth" of their relationship and their art (particularly Frank), with only fleeting moments of their parental responsibilities visiting their love nests. Mr. Wright particularly feels he is above any moral code because of his artistic gifts and what he will bring to American architecture. Mamah is an educated (university) woman, who says she loves her children but must leave them to the care of others because ultimately she will be a better mother because she left them. (?) She then becomes a disciple of a Swedish feminist named Ellen Key (actual person) who entrusts upon Mamah the task of translating her texts into American English, so American women can read about true freedom in all aspects, including sexual.
As I was reading this book, and be sure it is a good read, particularly when one realizes that it is based on fact, so many thoughts about the sixties feminist movement pummelled me.
Yes, back in the 60's I was in college and considered myself a feminist. Though I didn't burn my bra, I did have a subscription to Ms. Magazine and read a lot of Gloria Steinman. I wanted to make sure that women had every right a man did, especially in the workplace and home. Equal pay for sure. Sharing a home meant sharing household responsibilities like cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, laundry. When children came along, parental responsibilities were also to be equally shared. HOWEVER, leaving husband and children to find one's "true" self was never one of the options I ever considered. I was too busy finding my "true" self in the context of wife and mother, along with many other selves, adult daughter, friend, co-worker, neighbor, church member, etc. According to the philosophies expounded by the characters in this book I was lying to myself by allowing myself to be limited by societal structures of the female identify. Now, I realize that these characters lived at a time when women didn't even have the right to vote, but to proclaim freedom from parental/spousal responsibility in the name of true love makes me want to do more than clear my throat. Narcissism is replete within these characters, and I do feel sorry for them, because they are so caught up in living a lie rather than the truth. (No spoilers here. You'll have to read the book for yourself to see how it ends.) LOVE is suppose to be sacrificial. That is the nature of love. From Paul, "It is not self-seeking...it always perseveres and it rejoices in truth. " And what is truth? No, rather who is TRUTH? His name is Jesus, who shows us the truth of a loving father for all times and all eras.
No comments:
Post a Comment