Gilliandr's Blog

Random Historical, Social and Cultural Moments


Social commentary

How to sell your husband (and yourself) on an electric dishwasher, Toronto, 1965

The Globe Magazine

24 April 1965, pg. 13

How to sell your husband (and yourself) on an electric dishwasher

  1. Tell him it saves time. You can easily prove this.  During one week, record every minute you spend washing and drying dishes.  Multiply that figure by 52.  Then in a cool, logical way, tell your husband how much time an electric dishwasher will save ou in just one year. It will [illegible] you too! If there are four in your family you will spend at least 225 hours a month doing dishes – a whole working month!
  2. Tell him an electric dishwasher sanitizes dishes. While he is still reeling over all the time you can save show him more figures.  This time, you can talk about bacteria.  University medical research has found the bacteria count on hand-washed plates averaged 390.  The average count on dishwasher-washed plates was under 5! (Dishwashers use water much hotter than hands can stand.  And really hot water kills germs.) Ask your husband to think about the number o family colds you could discourage with an electric dishwasher.
  3. Tell him about your hands. Caress his cheek. Then tell him your touch will be even smoother when your hands aren’t in dirty dishwater three times a day, every day of the year. Talk about the electric touch you can have!
  4. Tell him about economy. An electric dishwasher will do a full load of dishes for 3 to 5c.  This includes heating the water and running the machine.  Also point out to your husband that an electric dishwasher saves money on detergent and towels – and it never drops a plate!  You save hot water too.  There’s no need to hand rinse dirty dishes to get them ready for an electric dishwasher.  You can load them right in from the table.
  5. Tell him about convenience. Tell him that any standard-sized dishwasher can take the whole day’s dishes of an average family in one load! Explain that there are three kinds of electric dishwashers: built-in, portable and convertible.  Built-ins go right under the kitchen counter for permanent convenience. Portables go anywhere – to the dining room for direct loading – to the cottage to give you a real summer holiday.  Convertibles are portables that can become built-ins at any time.

Tell him now!  Tell him how wonderful he is to take away the sheer monotony of washing, rinsing and drying some 48,000 dishes, glasses, pieces of cutlery, pots and pans each year. (Remind him how often he has helped in this never-ending job.) Explain how your new electric dishwasher will give you (and him) a whole working month of freedom each year.

Better go over all these points with your husband again.  It’s worth it… because when your electric dishwasher arrives, so does your Lifetime Holiday from Dishes!

Take a lifetime holiday from dishes!

Ask your electric dishwasher dealer for a demonstration of one of these leading brands:

Eaton’s Viking, Frigidaire, General Electric, Inglis, Kelvinator, Kitchen Aid, Ling-Temco, RCA, Whirlpool, Tappan-Gurney, Westinghouse.


Get out the tape-measure! Marylike Standards of Dress, California, c1973

Found this pamphlet in my travels in the archives.  It was published in 1973.  I find it amusing to see how they link modesty to morality to the Virgin Mary.  Key thing to note – we have no clue what Mary wore in her day, so these strictures are just made up by people who have nothing better to do than to worry what women wear.

Warning – I do not actually agree with this stuff – so if you take the strictures seriously, sorry.  I cannot.


Pamphlet by the Apostolate of Christian Action in California circa 1973

Marylike Standards of Modesty in Dress

Our Lady of Fatima

“O Mary conceived without sin, pray of us who have recourse to Thee”

“A Dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees.  Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI.

1.       Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s mother.

2.       Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows, and skirts reaching below the knees.  (Note: because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.)

3.       Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in back, and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.

4.       Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics – laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. – unless sufficient backing is added.  However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.

5.       Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.

6.       Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize unduly parts of the body.

7.       Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.

“Marylike” fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal.  This would automatically eliminate such fashions such as tight slacks, jeans, sweaters, shorts: shorts which do not reach down to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses; etc. the Marylike standards are a guide to instill a “sense of modesty”.  A girl who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem of modesty in dress.  She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.

Keep this folder with you at all times to use as a guide when buying clothes.  Make sure that you purchase only garments which meet the Marylike standards.  “Be Marylike by being modest – be modest by being Marylike.”

Canadian Fashions, 1914


Montreal Daily Star, 26 November 1914, page 11


By Lillian E Young

Brass buttons do make an appeal.  We always did accept that assertion in the abstract, but now no more convincing proof of the respect accorded them, and all things military is needed than the alacrity with which such styles have been adopted and brought to the fore of the fashion world.

The war, of course, is responsible, and as one young woman was heard to remark when trying on a martial looking suit, “I almost feel as if I could go there and enlist.”

Here is one in black velvet with oxidized silver buttons and braid, and a woven silk hussar such in dull blue. The fur for the military collar and cuffs may be of Australian opossum, taupe moufflon or skunk. The short jacket stands outward at its lower edge and runs a trifle longer in back.

The fronts fasten closely about the neck and are trimmed on either side with horizontal strappings of silver braid.  The jacket hooks directly down the centre front.  A five inch band across the bottom of the jacket in front, holds in a barely perceptible fullness of the blouse portion above and is one with the entire back of the jacket, started from the underarm scam.


Mrs Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound, 1907

Montreal Standard, 12 January 1907, page 8

Interesting Letter Written by a Notable Woman

Mrs Sarah Kellog of Denver, Color. Bearer of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Sends thanks to Mrs Pinkham.

The following letter was written by Mrs Kellog of 1628 Lincoln Ave, Denver, Colo, to Mrs Pinkham, Lynn, Mass:

Dear Mrs Pinkham:

“For five years I was troubled with a tumor which kept growing causing me intense agony and great mental of depression.  I was unable to attend to my house work, and life became a burden to me.  I was confined for days to my bed, lost my appetite, my courage and all hope.

“I hope not bear to think of an operation, and in my distress I tried every remedy which I thought would be of any use to me, and reading of the value of Lydia E Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound to sick women decided to give it a trial. I felt so discouraged that I had little hope of recovery, and when I began to feel better, after the second week, thought it only meant temporary relief; but to my great surprise I found that I kept gaining while the tumor lessened in size.

“The Compound continued to build up my general health and the tumor seemed to be absorbed, until in seven months the tumor was entirely gone and I a well woman. I am so thankful for my recovery that I ask you to publish my letter in newspapers, so other women may know of the wonderful curative powers of Lydia E Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound.”

When women are troubled with irregular or painful periods, weakness, displacements or ulceration of the female organs, that bearing-down feeling, inflammation, backache, flatulence, general debility, indigestion and nervous prostration, they should remember there is one tried and true remedy.  Lydia E Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound at once removes such trouble.

No other medicine in the world has received such widespread and unqualified endorsement.  No other medicine has such a record of cures of female trouble.

Mrs Pinkham invites all sick women to write her for advice.  She is daughter-in-law of Lydia E Pinkham and for twenty-five years under her direction and since her decease has been advising sick women free of charge.  She has guided thousands to health.  Address, Lynn, Mass.

Remember that it is Lydia E Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound that is curing women, and don’t allow any druggist to sell you anything else in its place.

What girls may do – Independent Girl is a Valuable Worker, Montreal, 1914

Montreal Daily Star, 13 October 1914, page 11.


What Girls May Do

Independent Girl is Valuable as Worker

By Jessie Roberts

There are several opinions concerning the woman who is not obliged to earn a living, and who yet fills a salaried position.

Many contend that such a woman is taking bread from the mouths of others who must work or starve.  They say she has no right to work when she need not do so.  If she has a husband or a father who is able to support her, let her stay at home and leave the earning field to those who must depend upon themselves.

Others say that every woman has a right to the independence which self-earned money gives. That the relations between men and women would be better and happier if men did not support women in idleness.  Lately some one has come forward with the following expression on the subject.

The woman who goes out to earn a little extra pin money and is willing to take some job at a greatly reduced salary, since whatever she makes is just pure gain, that woman is distinctly harmful and entirely selfish. She runs salaries below the living margin, and her sisters, who must live on what they make, suffer in consequence.

But the right sort of woman who does not have to depend on her salary for sole income can be of immense value in bringing about a better state of affairs as to the standards and rewards of women’s work.

She can set herself steadily to the establishment of a proper recompense for labor given. She can insist on healthful surroundings, shorter hours, and humane treatment.  Since she is not afraid of losing her position, not being dependent upon it for subsistence, she can fight the battles of those who are weaker than she.

The Procession Question, Montreal, 1877

Montreal Daily Star, 13 July 1877, page 2

The Procession Question

[Opinions of the Press]

Some people have the habit of standing upon their rights, come what will.  It may be conceded that this disposition may be pushed too far in individual cases, and become so much temporary inconvenience.  At the same time, history is full of instances in which popular rights have been gained or maintained by just such dogged determination as that exhibited at Montreal on the part of Orangemen.  One is at a loss to know why a procession on their part should not be tolerated.  Such an incident may not be agreeable to the majority in Quebec, but in this world, and particularly in this country, we must give and take on matters of opinion in order to live together in reasonable harmony. – London Free Press

Whatever may be any one’s views of the wisdom or otherwise of holding an Orange celebration on the 12th of July, there is no room to question its legality, and being legal, those who engage in it are entitled to the full protection of the law. – Hamilton Spectator

The white feather of fear should never be shown by the authorities. The denial of any right is always a sufficient incentive to the strongest assertion of it.  Were the right to celebrate the 12th of July in their own way freely conceded to the Orangemen of Montreal by their Roman Catholic fellow citizens, it is not likely there would be such a fixed and strong determination to exercise it.  The avowed opposition to the proposed street parade of Thursday has had, therefore, the inevitable effect of inspiring Orangemen with a stronger resolution to carry out their purpose – if for no other reason than to vindicate their unquestionable right to do so.  If the Orangemen should, at the very last moment, reconsider their intention, they would be entitled the public appreciation of the sacrifice such a step would imply in the interests of the public peace, although a few may say that in such a self-denying course they had been actuated by fear.  If, however, they should hold their original intention to celebrate their anniversary by a procession, British law, which guarantees protection to every law abiding citizen, would be tarnished and dishonoured if it should fail to extend that protection to them.  At all events equal rights must be secured to every citizen of free Canada. – Whig

Out of deference to public feeling in the matter and not from fear of immediate consequences, they (Orangemen) can afford to abandon even yet that part of their programme which is most likely to give rise to disturbance.  While saying this we do not wish to be challenging in the slightest degree their right to walk the streets of Montreal.  They have not only a right to go in procession but also to be fully protected while they are in procession. – Globe.

Fashion and vulgarity, 1922/37

Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage by Emily Post, New York and London, Funk & Wagnalls Co, 1922/37.


Fashion ought to be likened to a tide or epidemic; sometimes one might define it as a sort of hypnotism, seemingly exerted by the gods as a joke. Fashion has the power to appear temporarily in the guise of beauty, though it is the antithesis of beauty as often as not.

Vulgar clothes are those which, no matter what the fashion of the moment may be, are always too elaborate for the occasion; they are too exaggerated in style, or have accessories out of proportion.  People of uncultivated taste are apt to fancy distortions, and to exaggerate rather than modify the prevailing fashions.


Ostentation is always vulgar but extravagance is not necessarily vulgar- not by any means.  Extravagance can however become destroying if carried beyond one’s income.  Nearly everything that is beautiful or valuable is an extravagance- for most of us.


Hair ornaments always look well at a ball but are not especially appropriate – unless universally in fashion – on other occasions.  A lady in a ball dress with nothing added to the head looks a little like being hatless in the street.


Mourning Materials

Cotton, linen, woolen, and all lustreless silks, are suitable for deepest mourning.  Uncut velvet is as deep mourning as crepe, but cut velvet is not mourning at all! Nor is sating or lace. The only lace permissible is a plain or hemstitched net known as ‘footing’.

Fancy weaves in stockings are not mourning, nor is bright jet or silver. A very perplexing decree is that clothes entirely of white are deepest mourning but the addition of a black belt or hat or gloves produces second mourning.

In Appreciation of the Suffragettes, 2018

I was approached in late 2017 about my grandfather’s cousin, Maude Smith, who was a suffragette, for information about her, her family, and the location of photographs for a series of specials planned in Britain about the suffragettes in honour of the centenary of the women’s vote.  While talking with the researcher she asked me if was planning on somehow commemorating the anniversary, and I said no.  Truthfully, I was really oblivious to the fact that it was coming on a century.  But that has got me thinking about women’s suffrage, and the various legislation which have allowed our democracy to expand.

Of course the lady from the BBC was referring to the anniversary of the Representation of the People Act which received royal ascent on the 6th of February 1918.  This law allowed women in Britain over the age of 30 with some property qualifications able to vote in elections.  For Maude Smith and her fellow suffragettes, this legislation was the culmination of years of serious work, sacrifice and pain.  They had fought to have a voice in their government, in their country, in their lives.  The rest of the women over 21 had to wait a further 10 years in Britain for the Representation of the People [Equal Franchise Act] to get royal ascent on the 2nd of July 1928.

But of course, as a Canadian I am also aware of when the women of my Canadian family were able to vote.  The provincial vote came first to the women of Manitoba the 28th of January 1916, and the federal vote came to all women over 21 on the 24th of May 1918, a few months after their British sisters.  My grandmother and great-grandmothers were not able to vote in the Quebec provincial elections until the 25th of April 1940. [For a great article on  suffrage in Canada click here] Their struggle was a part of a larger struggle for universal adult suffrage, which we now enjoy in Canada. The vote is an important part of what makes a democracy function.

I think what amazes me the most the suffragettes is that they had the gumption to do something about what they believe in.  What an enormous amount of courage they had.  I often think that faced with the same kind of problem, and the belief that women were entitled to vote, but couldn’t, I wouldn’t have had the courage to act in the way that they did.  It takes a special kind of person to involve themselves so whole-heartedly in a social movement.  And so I thank them so much for their sacrifice.  This I do every election, when I vote.

Comment on women singing and bowing, Montreal, 1907

Montreal Standard, 2 February 1907, page 11

Our Canadian Girls


The most aggravating thing about the girl of our period is that she can play and sing so well that the occasion is never good enough for her to display her accomplishments.

In fact, so hedged in are these gifts now, with affectations, that a hostess feels as if she were committing a downright breach of the proprieties if she asks a guest for a little song!

I admit on the rare occasions when a “Maud who has studied abroad” consents to play or sing, the effort to please is not received as it used to be before we all began to “take lessons.”

We used to listen to the words and melody, and enjoy the sympathetic rendering of them.  Now we prick up our critical ears for a malicious detection of technical crimes, and the result is that our little birds won’t sing!

One doesn’t imagine it can be very gratifying to parents who have had the voices “produced” and “trained” at no very inconsiderable expense, to find that “lessons” and “practice” are all that can possibly be expected.

But it has come to be tacitly understood now, in society, that a girl who is not on the professional level has no right to sing at all!

And as for the piano – no one, of course, dares to play now who has not some original “interpretation” to give the masters! Gone!  Gone are the old days when we played a Strauss valse so feelingly that everyone yearned for a partner and a good floor, and felt the joy of being alive in every fibre!

We must, of course, come back to that again, and be our good old natural selves once more.  The superman microbe is self-exterminating, so let us be hopeful!

This from Lord Beaconsfield, is a tribute we must hope we deserve: There is [illegible] however keen; no misery, however desperate’ which the spirit of women cannot in some degree lighten or alleviate – “Coningsby”


One of the truly great privations of life – from the social point of view – is not being able to see ourselves “doing things”.

We all know how we are intending to walk; and the sort of smile we wish to wear, and the kind hand-shake we mean to give; and our assortment of bows, is very well-defined, indeed, in our own minds. But we unfortunately never can know whether we really “hit off” our innermost design until somebody’s compliment or criticism reaches our ears.

The readiest indicator of our social impressions is “the bow”, and how busy we keep it in a morning’s walk, or during the day’s programme generally?

It is the quickest-fired of all our small ammunition.  No one ever saw a girl yet, who wasn’t ready on the instant to decide whether an encounter called for a mere flicker of the eyelids; a nod of the head; a half, or a whole smile, or the homage of the whole body – which is the equivalent of the curtsey.

One can enjoy the thought of what our streets and crowds would look like if the custom of bowing were suppressed; if we took each other as usually as the animals do when we meet! We might look solemn without it, but there is no doubt it would remove as many opportunities from the snob and the self-conceited, as it would from the courteous and the genial.

A sojourn in Spain would be beneficial to the narrow-hearted girl who flays people with her bows. Custom would compel her there to say “I kiss your hand” to the most insignificant people; and the gallant retort, “I kiss your feet” might or might not compensate her!”

It is in these dear old countries that one gets the true leaven of good breeding, however. The impulse to hurt the feelings of people because they are of less consequence, in our opinion, than ourselves, or because they are “old friends” who recall stages of our social progress we prefer to forget, is peculiar to new and raw civilizations.

In all Eastern countries greetings are most effusive, as we know; and it is the highest circles among Western peoples that true graciousness, and a kind consideration for the feelings of the fellow [illegible]

So the cold, disdainful, or haughty bow – (unless it be to some one who has wrecked one’s fortunes or one’s reputation) injuries her that gives it more than her who gets it.

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: