Gender Analysis.
How do we see this divorce through a gendered lens?
Testimony from the trial and commentary from newspapers shed light on the expectations for femininity and masculinity in 19th Century New York.
Discourses on Femininity:
Reporting on the trial proceedings, the New York Times (NYT) praised that plaintiff witness Matilda Mussehl for her “very prepossessing appearance” and commended her “modesty and grace” at trial. The fact that the NYT believed these qualities deserved praise indicates that she possessed ideal feminine characteristics. By offering these descriptions, the NYT—perhaps inadvertently—may have lent credibility to her testimony. There also seems to be a glaring double standard at play, as no one reports on the physical appearance of the men. The parties also disagree over whether or not Mary was the temptress in the affair, which seems to allude to the traditional archetype of “deviant” women being seductresses
Discourses on Masculinity:
Mary Strong’s counsel assert that one of the witnesses in the case was blind but still knew that Mary Stevens seemed to be too “familiar” with Edward Strong. They argue that if even this woman realized this, so too should have Mary’s husband. Her attorneys also say that Peter “treated her with gross neglect for a series of years.” These arguments illustrate how the defense counsel questioned Peter Strong’s fitness as a husband and thereby undermined his masculinity
The Role of Agency:
Mary's attorneys argued that she should not be held in any way accountable for the affair, and that the affair should be blamed on her lover Edward. They suggested that Peter was also to blame because he was responsible for taking care of Mary as the husband. By blaming the affair solely on the men, these attorneys denied Mary's agency as a women and exploited the expectation that women could not care for themselves.
​
Gender and the Public:
Actions and commentary from both Peter Strong and Mary Stevens highlight how serious, shameful, and undesirable it was for individuals of their social status to have a family scandal play out in public. After hearing about the affair Peter Strong first indicated that he would not cut Mary out of the will because his children would face too much disgrace if their mother was in this position. Before Peter filed for divorce, Mary allegedly said she would accept any punishment from Peter—even if that meant losing her children—but hoped at the very least that she would be “spared… of a public trial.” For Mary, it seems that nothing was worse than having a public divorce that chronicled her adultery. Just as the Strongs feared, the public took great interest in this scandalous divorce. The NYT, for example, characterized Peter Strong’s divorce suit as being of a “terrible” nature and said that this was one of the most “remarkable cases of the day.” The case received extensive coverage in New York and even in other states across the nation.
​
("Strong Divorce Case," New York times, December 1, 1865)
​
​
An excerpt from Strong's book, Awful!
