Societies throughout history have had a way of forming themselves into a social hierarchy. The very first civilizations of Mesopotamia and the Medieval Europe, Feudal Japan and Colonial America, all had some form of social hierarchy based on monetary values. Today societies around the world still experience the effects of a capital based hierarchy, even the United States, a nation that prides itself on its social equality is subjected to the inevitable structure. Through the course of history this system has been for the most part applied to the patriarchy. Men rose and fell through the ranks, meanwhile women were less subjected to the turbulent rise and fall of economics. But in today’s society, specifically American society, where women have gained the power to vote and have obtained relatively equality, women have found their place in the socio-economic ladder. As with the male socio-ecamonic scheme women fall into a class system based on income, inheritance, and other monetary transactions. The lives of women at the bottom are clearly documented in film, literature, research, but the pinnacle is often left unobserved. Unobserved and untouched due to the exclusive nature of high society, it is difficult to pinpoint the differences between the average American and the 1%. This is especially true on the island of Manhattan. Perhaps one of the most elusive crowds is located in the island of New York City, in the East 70’s. The Upper East Side is known for it’s multimillion dollar townhouses and luxury apartments and the millionaires (sometimes billionaires) who inhabit them.
Despite the mystery that veils this community there is a general assent of what the life of a male Upper East-sider is like. The perceived image is Ivy League graduate, white collar worker, and identifying as caucasian on official documents. This stereo type is strongly upheld not only by official polls displaying the area’s demographics but also by public figures who have and do live in the Upper East Side; these men include the president-elect Donald Trump, Woody Allen, Tom Brokaw, Michael Bloomberg, to name a few. But what about the women who live in the most expensive neighborhood in New York City? What is the life of an upper class, Upper East Side woman like? Is it the extravagance of Dubai where women stay at home while their male counterparts work and go on thousand dollar shopping spree’s? Or Bloomfield Hills where married women own private medical practices and can pay the absurd cost of their child’s private elementary education?The best way to attempt to understand the women of the Upper East Side and their daily routine is to look at history, specifically the evolution of gender roles and gender perceptions (specifically those of the upper class patriarchy).
Within the patriarchal focused history of socio-economics, men have always been tied to money; often expected to be the breadwinners. This was especially prevalent in upper class society, where men were historically expected to provide for their families while their trophy wives stayed at home, taking care of children, entertaining guests, and going through the motions of running a household. Modern history especially, presents this sort of view point. This is exemplified in fiction throughout modern history (starting with the conception of the Industrial Revolution that was ushered in towards the end of the eighteenth century), in Jane Austen and Leo Tolstoy though F.S. Fitzgerald and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Austen especially, influenced by her experiences, was able to document (in a factionalized manner) the life of middle and upper class women:
“…No [woman] can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing and the modern language, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved” (Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen).
Despite the fictionalization there is great truth in Austen’s words. She accurately describes the societal expectations placed on women during the Georgian Era, and for centuries to follow. This is upheld primarily be research and study of countless first hand accounts, written by educated women who had the time to write and document their lives. Dr. Kathryn Hughes, who received her PhD in Victorian history, describes the shaping of gender roles during the industrial age:
“As the nineteenth century progressed men increasingly commuted to their place of work — the factory, shop, or office. Wives, daughters, and sisters were left at home all day to oversee the domestic duties that were increasingly carried out by servants. From the 1830s, women started to adopt the crinoline, a huge bell-shaped skirt that made it virtually impossible to clean a grate or sweep the stairs without tumbling over” (Gender Roles in the nineteenth Century, Katheryn Hughes).
The change in circumstance as well as fashion perpetuated the stereotype that upper class women were decorative items in the same class as a vase placed on the mantel, to be admired, observed but not heard. This was accepted in upper class societies across the western world, particularly in the urban setting; large cities such as London, Chicago, and New York (to name a few) were most affected by the changes of industrialism. Over the next centuries, cities would become the centers of change and the epicenter of the Women's Rights Movement.
Prior to 1914 when women won the right to vote in the United States, women were considered “second-class citizens” with limited freedoms. The Suffrage Movement began to question the stereotypes and conventions placed on women. In October of 1850 the first National Women's Rights Convention took place in Worcester, Massachusetts. During the convention participants, the majority of whom were women, addressed the necessity for equality for women. Ten conventions followed the first, where concerns for women rights were discussed. These conventions created the platform for the Suffrage Movement of the twentieth century, the movement that would go on to win the vote for women.
Despite the great unity and perseverance which won the women’s vote in 1920 there was a great deal of dissent that came to be known as the anti-feminist movement. The first traces of disparagement against women’s rights in modern history can be located in Edward H. Clarke’s novel, Sex in Education: Or, a Fair Chance for Girls. Written in the 1873 this short work argues that girls and boys cannot be educated in the same way due to limitations inherent in the feminine gender, “Without denying the self-evident proposition, that whatever a woman can do she has a right to do, the question at once arises, what can she do? And this includes the further question, what can she best do?” (12, Sex in Education: Or, a Fair Chance for Girls). There are countless examples of men denying and dismissing any attempt at equality for the female sex, unfortunately there are also examples of women corroborating with the entrenched notion of male supremacy. The primary rhetoric of the first anti-feminists in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century was focused on the notion that “women were adequately represented in politics through their husbands” (Artour Aslanian, The Use of Rhetoric in Anti-Suffrage and Anti-Feminist Publications).
The women who rallied against the Suffrage movement were primarily white upper or middle class. They were "generally women of wealth, privilege, social status and even political power” states Corrine McConnaughy, the author of The Woman Suffrage Movement in America: A Reassessment, she continues, "In short, they were women who were doing, comparatively, quite well under the existing system, with incentives to hang onto a system that privileged them”. These women were supported by the clergy, their wealthy husbands, and politically influential figures. In 1911 the anti-suffrage organizations united with the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOW). The NAOW was a New York City based organization led by Josephine Dodge. The organization united women and men who shared a sentiment against equality for both sexes. The ideology that this anti-suffrage wave focused on was that a woman’s place was in the home and when she went out to protest for her rights she was neglecting her duties. This is exemplified in this political document by J. B. Sanford, Chairmen of Democratic Caucus,
“The mother's influence is needed in the home. She can do little good by gadding the streets and neglecting her children. Let her teach her daughters that modesty, patience, and gentleness are the charms of a women. Let her teach her sons that an honest conscience is every man's first political law; that no splendor can rob him nor no force justify the surrender of the simplest right of a free and independent citizen. The mothers of this country can shape the destinies of the nation by keeping in their places and attending to those duties that God Almighty intended for them. The kindly, gentle influence of the mother in the home and the dignified influence of the teacher in the school will far outweigh all the influence of all the mannish female politicians on earth.”
The women as much as the men shared this sentiment, and were just as vocal about it in their own perspective groups. For example Josephine Dodge is notably, under her married name (Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge), quoted in the Harrisburg, PA, Courier. The headline of one of these articles is as follows, “Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge Tells Women Decent Dress is More Important Than Votes”. The article goes on to quote her,
“The suffrage disturbance is, in plain words, a sex disturbance…One morning in New York I heard a young women discoursing with great eloquence on how she and her sister could improve the morals and manners of men if they were given the ballot. That evening this same girl was at a fashionable dance. She was gowned in an extremely decollate fashion, and they way she danced and bore herself was suggestive, to say the least. I do not believe this girl even realized that, while her vote be powerless in an election, the cut of her gown, the manner of her dancing, and the words of her conversation could be made a tremendous influence for good amongst her friends, men and women…”
Even after the right to vote was won in 1920 the action of upper class women against the suffrage movement continued, although in not as vocal a manner as before. Instead there was an implied movement towards Victorian values. This was seen in two primary ways, the first being television, the second, “MSR” degrees. Television was perhaps the most powerful tool used to corral women into the roles delegated by society. In the earlier days to television shows such as Father Knows Best and I Love Lucy depicted the nuclear family and clearly outlined gender roles. After the turn of the century the golden age of television began. Although the gender line was slowly being breached and women were reviving bigger parts there was still a great division. For example the most watched television show of the twentieth century, M*A*S*H, still (even if done through satire and meant in good healthy) depicted its female characters as flimsy, emotional, incapable. Even later into the century when shows such as The Big Bang Theory came out, the female leads were still a depiction of societal projection as to what women ought to be like.
The other influential factor of internalized anti-feminism amongst upper class women was the “MRS” degree. An MRS is a symbolic degree that can be described as the process where women attend college, particularly high ranked colleges, in order to find a husband. To quote Susan Patton, a “Princeton Mom” who wrote a book on the topic of marriage, “Women should spend 75% of their time in college looking for a man versus 25% on their career” (Marry Smart, Susan Patton). Patton comes from a wealthy family and was amongst the first classes of women to graduate Princeton in 1977, she now resides on the Upper East Side where she published her novel in 2008. As an upper class woman of influence in the twenty-first century she is encouraging younger women to not only neglect education and career but place their dependency upon their male counterparts. Although she claims to be a feminist, she certainly criticizes and denies some of the privileges allot to women:
“Of course, I am fully supportive of equal rights and equal opportunity for women, and I recognize that I am one of the earliest beneficiaries of the good works of the women's movement…However, feminism has taken a turn to the dark side…In my experience, I certainly agree that modern women today do want marriage and motherhood. The problem is they're afraid to say so because of the vitriol, because of this antagonist feminist doctrine that would have them believe that marriage and motherhood is somehow not cool. ... It's so retro. It's so backwards. It's so 1950s.” (Should you go to college for Mrs. degree? Princeton Mom weighs in, Kelly Wallace, CNN)
The conclusion that comes from looking at the detailed history of anti-female freedoms is simple, upper class women in conjunction with their male counterparts and constituents strove towards maintaining an equilibrium; a consistency that women stay at home and keep themselves out of politics. These women, were primarily the upper crust of major cities such as New York. This gives a sort of introductory insight as to what the lives of these exclusive women may be like.
In 2015 Wednesday Martin, an anthropologist by profession, wrote a novel about her experiences living on the Upper East Side. From the perspective of a mother, fellow woman, outsider, and neighbor, she examined the lives of other Upper East Side mothers. She observes the women she comes in contact with every day and comes to some shocking conclusions: the patriarchal hierarchy that has slowly been chipped away at across the globe, still holds in the Upper East Side. Upper class women of New York are subject to the ancient and misogynistic system that women have been battling for hundreds of years; and rather than being independent of their male counterparts rely on them so intensely for support and lively hood. Frankly, the way Martin describes the society, or “tribe” as she labels it, is like something out of a Charlotte Bronte novel or the movie Mean Girls.
The book immediately received a great deal of interest due to the elusive subject matter, rising to #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list. Despite the memoir’s intention to clear up any ambiguity and to paint a relatively accurate picture of the females living in the most expensive neighborhood in New York City, she managed to deepen the mystery. Shortly after the novels release there was an uproar as women began to react to the novel which at moments incriminated and assumed instead of conducting proper research. The women who spoke out about their experienced seemed to have a different experience than the one projected by Martin. “‘Can you please find 20 women who would reflect the characters of primates of Park Avenue,’ said one of over a hundred commentators on the lengthy news thread that had popped up. ‘I just find all this so stupid’” (We Asked 10 Real U.E.S. Mommas (and One Husband) About the Primates of Park Avenue, Carson Griffith), this reflects the general consensus gauged from the countless interviews and statements post the novels release. But other accounts were much more defensive, “I have a B.A. from a top college and an M.A. in cultural studies from an Ivy League university, which is why I was particularly dismayed by what struck me as reductive and sensationalist click-bait” (We're Not All "Poor Little Rich Women”, Blair Schmaldorf). Overall the response from women living on the Upper East Side is perfectly reflected in the quote from Carson Griffith’s article, “Still, Martin’s representation of the ritual seems to be slightly askew”. In result the novel managed to spark a great controversy rather than clear up the ambiguity, and poised the question, what is a woman’s life actually like on the Upper East Side?
Looking at the history of feminist and anti-feminist tendencies of upper class women, there is a visible trend. The trend can be described as women wanting to maintain the privilege and comfort of being a house wife supported by their affluent husbands. In addition to the tendencies over the course of history there is also certain evidence through publications to support the claim that the women of the Upper East Side retain a certain decadence. This is supported by the articles published in newspapers and more frequently by Wednesday Martin in her memoir, Primates of Park Avenue. Although there is no perfected evidence that women of the upper classes living in the most expensive neighborhood in New York City, it can be assumed that women are slightly more in line with Victorian values.
