Men Should Weep – Exam Revision

The play can be examined from the following perspectives:

  • Use of History and Nostalgia
  • Issues Of Gender
  • Social Conditions
  • Political Dimensions

The following main themes should be revised:

  • Tenement family life in the 1930’s ‘slums’ of Glasgow
  • The importance of community
  • Role of the mother within the family
  • Balance of power within the family and in marital relationships
  • Role of women in 1930’s urban Scotland
  • Social conditions and their effect upon the individual and the family.

HISTORY AND NOSTALGIA

MEN SHOULD WEEP by Ena Lamont Stewart was written in the 1940’s however the action of the play is set in the depression of the 1930’s. As a reflection on working class Glasgow at this time, the use of the historical setting in the play works both as a record of a specific time and place (a social commentary) and a contemporary critique of social deprivation. The play still has a clear resonance today – outbreaks of Dysentery on Glasgow housing schemes are still being recorded and in the past ten years it has been reported that the incidence of Tuberculosis is rising for the first time in many years. A recent report also stated that one in three Scottish children are currently living significantly below the poverty line.

In the 1930’s, Scotland, in common with the rest of the world, was in the throes of a depression. Unemployment was high and disease and poverty were rife. Tenement life was hard. Several families lived ‘up the same close’ in one-roomed (the infamous ‘single-end’) or two-roomed houses – the main room serving as a living area, kitchen and bedroom. The second room (if there was one) was another bedroom. A toilet was shared with the other families on the same landing. Bathrooms were a luxury to be found in the homes of the ‘better off’. Poorer families made do with a zinc bath in front of the cooking range or visits to the local washhouse.

There was little work for the men and so they hung around on street corners waiting to hear if any firm was ‘taking on’ – often on a daily or weekly basis.

John: I’m on casual labour; ye never ken whit’s comin up. There might be work and there might no…Hundreds o us, Maggie, beggin for the chance tae earn enough for food and a roof ower our heids. P.14 – 15.

Families existed on a meagre dole allowance and whatever the ‘parish’ could provide. To qualify for extra money families had to undergo the cruel and humiliating Means Test whereby all possessions and income were assessed and any ‘luxuries’ (e.g. clocks, small items of jewellery etc.) had to be sold (or pawned) and the money used, before help was given. As a result of this test families and homes were often stripped to the bare essentials.

Despite this there was great community spirit in areas like Govan, the Gorbals and the east end of Glasgow that is sadly lacking today. Electronic entertainment, in the form of television, videos and computer games, was yet to be invented but there were the cinema and dance halls and, of course, the local public house. Occasionally, when money allowed, the monotony could be broken by taking a trip to one of these venues, however, for families like the Morrisons’, this would have been a very rare occurrence. If you had no choice than to stay at home, there was always the wireless (radio) – if you could afford one.

Children played street games like peever (hopscotch), skipping ropes, and football, either with or without a ball – an old tin can often had to serve the purpose. Singing games were also enjoyed, which the mothers often joined in with.

There was little privacy in tenement living and neighbours were well aware of all that went on within their closes – beneficial when you needed help and support but not when you wanted to keep events to yourself. There were few secrets kept in tenement living.

Mrs. Wilson: Problems! She hasnae hauf got them. Puir Maggie. And she’s no the only yin on this stair. The Bones Wis at it again last night. P.17

Gossip spread like wildfire through the practise of the ‘windae-hing’ – no coffee mornings or light lunches here. Instead, women would lean out their front or back windows and chat to their neighbours, who were either out in the street or leaning out of their own windows. Sometimes, on sunnier days, chairs would be taken into the backcourts and the women could share their worries and joys with others in the same position as themselves.

Children were the property of all. If any child misbehaved it was the responsibility of whoever witnessed the misdemeanour to chastise – be it the parent or another nearby adult.

Although this sense of community spirit and enjoyment is apparent in the play - which at times takes on an almost nostalgic tone, especially at the beginning of Act three - things quickly take a turn for the worst and we are left only with hardship and suffering. The nostalgic moments of the play are in clear juxtaposition to the real toil and hardship experienced by the family, and thus the social injustice of the piece is further underlined.

Life was rarely harmonious in the East End of Glasgow in the 1930’s. Living in such close proximity often led to arguments (‘stair-heid rows’) as nerves frayed and tempers rose. A simple act like forgetting your turn of washing the close stairs could mean incurring the wrath of more fastidious (exacting) neighbours.

Maggie: Are you insinuating that I don’t take ma turn o the close?

Mrs. Harris: No, I’m no insinyatin. I’m telling ye. P.18.

Health suffered due to the poor living conditions and inadequate diets. Doctors required payment for their services – the National Health Service was not yet in force – and so ailments, major or minor, were neglected until the few shillings needed for medical attention was found. Dysentry and tuberculosis were common (as was scarlet fever and all the childhood diseases) and because families lived in such close proximity, infection spread quickly. One child with dysentery could infect a whole close. Because of the unhygienic living conditions head lice, nits, scabies and the like were commonplace despite frantic efforts to keep them at bay.

Maggie: I’ll tell ye whit an odd louse is: it’s the mither o a hale battalion that’s no content tae bide on hame grun. So jist you get something frae the chemist’s, or I’ll get the Sanitary tae ye. P.18

Women worked hard both within and outwith the home, often combining a cleaning job or work in the local bakery with looking after their often large families. Husbands offered little practical help in the day-to-day running of the home – it was not their job to cook, clean or look after children. That was women’s work.

Maggie: It’s no fair! Naebody lifts a haun tae help me! I’ve tae go oot charrin a day and then come hame tae this! Whaurs’s yer feyther? P.42

Men spent their time in the company of other men – in the streets or public houses. Their inability (through no fault of their own in most cases) to provide for their families led many men to find solace in drink. This caused many a family dispute – money that was spent in the pub, that should have been spent on food or rent, was the basis for many family rows. It was not the age of enlightenment, no ‘nineties’ men here, and a man was still considered to be head of the family no matter what his shortcomings. It was a rare woman indeed who tried to usurp a man’s position within the household. His word was law and all major decisions were left to him. Most women of the working classes accepted this without question (if not without comment), hence the reason why Maggie’s journey to self-assertion is so significant.

ISSUES OF GENDER

Above all, the play explores the growth of female emancipation (liberation) through Maggie’s journey to self-assertion. Maggie’s relationships with her husband, John, and sister, Lily, are central to the play and offer scope for examining Issues of Gender in some depth.

The role of women within the play is that of daughter, wife, mother, granny, stoic, prostitute and redeemed Magdalen. The main character in the play is clearly Maggie Morrison. She works both within and out with the home. At the start of the play she is very supportive of her husband. She gives him his place and ensures that others do likewise. When Lily suggests that John should be ashamed of himself for giving Maggie so many children, Maggie defends her husband:

Maggie: He’s a man and I’m a wumman. We’re flesh and blood. P.6.

Lily often criticises John and his role within the family, Maggie always defends him:

Lily: If John wid gie hissel a shake…

Maggie: You leave John alane! He does his best for us. P.8.

Lily has an unusual role for a woman of her day – a spinster. Maggie feels sorry that Lily has no man in her life and no children of her own. Lily, however, cannot see that being a slave to a husband and family would be a life that held any kind of satisfaction:

Lily: Livin in a slum an slavin efter a useless man an his greetin weans. P.8.

Maggie, however, is just as disparaging about Lily’s chosen lifestyle:

Maggie: Servin dirty hulkin brutes of men in a Coocaddens pub. P.8.

The relationship between the sisters is an integral part of the play and Lily’s presence in the final scene underlines her role within her sister’s family. They see each other’s faults and are at times exasperated with one another, but are ultimately joined together in their wish for a better life for Maggie and her children. Lily is on Maggie’s side:

Lily:Maggie’s ma sister! An I’ve had tae fight hauf your battles for ye John Morrison, or the hale lot o ye would hae been oot on the street mair than once! P.72.

Maggie’s neighbours also have a role to play in the gender battle that ensues in the drama, in that they are a device used to reinforce the women’s view of marriage and the gender divide within it:

Lily (Of Mrs. Bone): I jist canna understand a woman that lets her man bash her aboot. Catch me bidin wae him!

Maggie: If ye’ve got weans, ye’ve got to put up wi the fella that gied ye them…I bet she’ll hae a black eye the morn, but she’ll never let dab how she got it. P. 11.

In terms of her duty to her husband and family, Maggie clearly has a lot to deal with, not least John’s apparent inability to find work. However, John is painfully aware of his inability to provide:

John: If I could hae jist…jist done better by ye a…every time I’ve had tae say “no” tae you an the weans its doubled me up like a kick in the stomach. Christ Almighty! A we’ve din wrong is tae be born intae poverty! Whit dae they think this kind of life does tae a man? Whiles it turns ye intae a wild animal. Whiles yer a human question mark, aye askin why? Why? Why? There’s nae answer. Ye end up a bent back and a heid hangin in shame fir what ye canna help. P.40.

John feels a great deal of guilt and clearly cares about Maggie but still won’t allow his feelings to become a threat to his masculinity. He will not help her to ease her workload, even though he is not working:

John: Tae hell wae this Jessie business every time I’m oot o a job! I’m no turning masel intae a bloomin skivvy! I’m a man! P.44.

John’s role, as head of the family, is ultimately challenged, and we see a change in his role as the play progresses:

John: I’d an idea I wis head o this hoose. P. 71

Maggie’s final speech is extremely revealing in that it demonstrates that she is the one who now has the power within their marriage:

Maggie: I can manage him…I can aye manage him. P.74.

Maggie has become the familial matriarch, taking over from John in his role as patriarch.

The central characters of the play are all classic potential stereotypes. One of the play’s strengths, perhaps, is that it does not descend to stereotyping in the manner of other classic contemporary Scottish plays – such as THE STEAMIE. Stewart handles their characterisation incredibly carefully and with great flair. She explores the relationships between the characters in an objective, realistic and, ultimately, positive fashion.

The three main characters:

Maggie –

  • Downtrodden, oppressed, poor, overburdened, working class housewife with several children.
  • However her journey to self – assertion is untypical and destroys any accusation of stereotyping.
  • What would certainly have been controversial for the 1930’s is perhaps much less so today, however this ‘journey’ still holds contemporary relevance.
  • Her journey to self-assertion is the central theme of the play and reaches fruition at the end of the piece when she humiliates John into accepting her wishes for once – that they will take Jenny’s money so that they can rent a cleaner, healthier home.
  • Her relationship with John may never be the same again, “I can manage him, I can aye manage him” (P.74). She has taken control of her own life and the future of her family.

John –

  • Although he is an unemployed, idle, chauvinistic male, he is portrayed with a very cleverly crafted sympathy throughout the play. We like him as a character and feel that he genuinely loves his wife.
  • The play contains criticisms of male power, female oppression, misplaced pride and vanity and it is the development of these issues that works towards John’s final humiliation at the hands of his wife.
  • Lily’s values seem to be condemned by the community far more than John’s.
  • John’s assertion in Act 3 that, “I’d an idea that I wis heid o this hoose” (P.71), is closely followed by a series of crucial moments, all of which, although happening within his house, are actually out of his control.
  • Lily’s truth about how she has helped the family financially is a severe public blow to his pride – however, as mentioned earlier, he is already more than aware that he is unable to provide for his family, “ John: A man’s got nae right tae bring weans intae the world if he canna provide for them” p.20
  • Jenny’s direct attack that she couldn’t get a “decent fella” because of the “midden” of a house is another dent to John’s injured pride.
  • Maggie’s public reproach concerning John’s unrestrained, irresponsible and potentially forceful sexual appetite undermines him completely and would have been extremely shocking to see on the 1940’s stage. However, this rebuke is not countered by anger on John’s part, as we may expect. He is shamed into silence. However, remember that we do not know how this scene unfolded, or whether it even existed, in the original version of the play.
  • At the end of the piece we see John as an almost broken man, passively accepting his wife’s wishes regardless of the effect that he believes this will have on his standing within the family and the community.

Lily-

  • Probably the most controversial character in the 1947 production of the play due to her unrestrained diatribes against men.
  • Curiously, this made her less of a potential stereotype in 1947 than it does today.
  • Single and independent with a publicly voiced hostility towards men, Lily could be said to be a caricature of the politically active feminist of today.
  • The final humiliation of John is a triumph for her. She revels in this humiliation as a condemnation of the male species, whereas Maggie’s triumph is the discovery of her own individuality and independence.
  • Maggie undergoes self-recognition, a positive experience, whereas Lily’s glee might be interpreted as bitter and rather negative because it is at the expense of John’s feelings and not, principally, in celebration of Maggie’s new freedom.

Other characters in the play:

Alec and Isa-

  • These characters act as a kind of sub-plot to the main action.
  • They are an almost grotesque version of John and Lily (although Lily is not interested in flirting).
  • Alec is ineffectual, weak and, finally, violent. However, even his final act of violence is rendered impotent by his wife.
  • Alec is a spoiled young man who, it might be argued, is perpetuating the role of men like his father.
  • Alec cannot find a way in which to please his wife and, thus, can only tackle the problems in his marriage through an attempt at violence. He exits the play vowing revenge on Isa and her new man, however, we suspect that he will be unsuccessful in this task also.
  • Isa has a fiercely independent nature and enjoys flirting. Her blatant sexual appetite, not to mention her advances towards her father-in-law, would have been controversial on the 1940’s stage.
  • Isa is unlike Alec’s mother and will not bend to his demands, in fact, she throws them back in his face.
  • Isa’s ‘independence’ does not extend to living her life according to her own sense of identity. Her means of escape from an unsatisfying marriage is to take up with another man, who is financially more secure.
  • Her independence, therefore, is less economic than Lily’s and less revolutionary than Maggie’s.

Jenny-