J. R. Miller (1) (1840–1912)

This pamphlet, containing behavioural advice from a prissy Victorian-era reverend to contemporary young men, is shorter than the one he published a year earlier, on young girls, but it was created using the same formula, though gender-flipped: this time round he asked young women to write him letters detailing what they considered to be flaws and virtues in men.

The list of faults includes self-conceit, lack of refinement, and a lack of respect for women, which Miller sprinkles with admonishments to behave better overall. A number of notable criticisms involve the unequal treatment of the genders: men fail to take advantage of those opportunities they have that are denied to the women writing these letters; and men also fail to live up to ideal of purity that women are expected to embody. Interestingly, men fearing “to unite with the Church” for fear of “taunts and sneers of companions” gets labelled a lack of courage, along with giving in to drinking and gambling. Throughout Miller emphasizes that these faults are not proper Christian behaviour.

On the list of ideals there are virtues such as honesty, purity and perseverance. Millers correspondents also complain about men’s fear of being seen as too feminine, which drives them away from the gentle side of manliness towards machismo. As a running commentary, Miller adds a reminder that the desired virtue was either discussed favourably by Jesus or illustrated perfectly in his life. After all, he says, "It is in Christ only that we find the true ideal of manliness realized." And of course, at the end of this list, Miller emphasizes that the most important ideal to be attained is faith in Christ: being a Christian first is of the utmost importance.

The baseline assumption in both these lists is that men were not subjected to the same constraints as women. Miller does remark, in a change from the previous pamphlet in which he stressed women's subordinate position, that women were created to be man's equal, only he doesn't seem to implement that thought – at least not in the way that I would define equality. Miller’s ideas of equality do seem more rooted in the duality of an intrinsically male and an intrinsically female ideal that the sexes just ought to live up to.

In short, his pamphlet aimed at young men was not as sexist or hypocritical as the one for girls; it's comes across as more of a well-meaning spur to be more like gentle Jesus meek and mild, encouraging men to be kinder and to live up to their full potential, and, of course, to be good Christians. So there was less nastiness, but a lot more blandness.… (altro)

Well, this was frustrating. Very brief (only a couple of pages), but frustrating.

This 1892 lecture is a series of admonishments given to girls on how to behave properly. The central idea is to hunt for hidden faults and sincerely trying to remedy them; and to aspire to a series of desirable qualities.

The faults include things such as dressing up, gossiping, not showing enough deference for prayers and priests, disagreeing with parental advice and generally not being agreeable and submissive. The virtues that Mr. Miller extolls include gentleness, purity and faithfulness. In other words: shut up and be subservient; it is better for girls to toil away at housework and to pour all their efforts in background activities that enrich the lives of their families and the lives of men than to disagree with their elders and to act un-girllike. After all, the roles of "womanhood" are the ones that their divine Master calls girls to: Accept your duty, and do it. Accept your responsibility, and meet it. Be true in every relation you are called to fill, Be brave enough to be loyal always to your womanhood.

At times Miller engages in exquisite games of doublethink, such as when he implores his audience to not waste their time in idle gossip:

Dear girls, I plead for sincerity in speech. "Do not yield to the passion for miserable gossip which is so common. Talk about things, not people. Do not malign or backbite your absent friend. What is friendship worth if the moment the person is out of sight the tongue that has professed affection becomes a poisoned fang, and the lips which gave their warm kiss utter the word of ridicule, or sneer, or aspersion? Better be dumb than have the gift of speech to be used in the miserable idle words, insincerities, and backbitings too common in modern society. Surely something better can be found to talk about; if not, utter silence is more heaven-like.

This, of course, is completely at odds with how he compiled his list of "faults and ideals": by asking "a number of Christian young men" to answer the question What are some of the most common faults in young women of your acquaintance?. Priceless!

Subject-wise, I dislike this pamphlet immensely: it's a tasteless study in religious finger-wagging, full of the smug self-righteousness of 19thC white male moralizing. But it was interesting nonetheless to witness the complete obliviousness with which Miller utters his advice, and the way in which his male superiority and the strict notions of acceptable behaviour go unquestioned. I wonder what people will think of my writings 120 years from now.

One more thing: I'll certainly read another of Miller's pamphlets, entitled "Faults and Ideals of Young Men". Just to see how he treats girls' criticisms of boys and which ones he includes.… (altro)