Meghan Markle and the curious pull of public domesticity on ambitious women.
From Martha Stewart to Emily Mariko: examining the kitchen as a safe outlet for female fame.
Hi. I’m back! Didn’t realize I was gone? Well, good. That was intentional.
At the beginning of summer I re-mixed and recycled some former articles into new articles, and scheduled them all out to give myself the summer off. But now I’m back. With lots of new ideas. Exciting!
Speaking of which, I’m going to try this new thing where you can ask me questions and I will answer them at the end of my posts or sometimes as their own posts. Could be anything—advice, curiosities or topics you want me to write about. Go on- try it out.
The second season of Meghan Markle’s cooking/crafting/homemaking show dropped on Netflix this week.
Season two opens with Meghan whipping up a quick caramelized onion tart for her soon-to-arrive celebrity guests. The next episode finds Meghan sitting down with fellow mom Chrissy Teagan to make resin necklaces using their children’s birth flowers.
Onion-tart-maker and resin-necklace-crafter are rather interesting deviations from Meghan’s former roles as UN Women’s advocate and World Vision ambassador.
And listen, if you are rubbing your hands together in gleeful anticipation of a shitting on Meghan Markle sesh, I’m afraid I’m going to have to stop your schadenfreude preparation right there.
Meghan Markle has had many lifetime’s worth of shit shat on her as it is. I do not wish to add to the pile.
I would like to discuss patterns, not individuals. And an ambitious woman who gained success in one area then pivoted towards Public Performances of Domesticity (PPD) feels like a weirdly familiar pattern.
Consider if you will….
It’s 1963. A very ambitious young lady just graduated with a double major in history and architecture from Barnard.
After which she went to work on Wall Street as a stockbroker. Despite being its sole female employee, she quickly moved up in the company and did very well for herself.
But eventually, she left Wall Street to become an entrepreneur.
What kind of services would her new company provide? Finance? Consulting? Law? Real Estate?
Nope.
Cooking and home decor.
That woman is Martha Stewart.
But wait that story reminds me of something.
During World War II, another ambitious young woman worked as a secret agent in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)—the forerunner of the CIA—a spy network created by President Franklin Roosevelt.
She worked her way up until she was working directly under the head of the OSS. She worked with highly classified communication in Sri Lanka and China. She invented a way to ensure sharks would not set off underwater bombs that is still in use today.
She earned the Emblem of Meritorious Service award for her time heading the OSS Registry.
But no one knows her for that. Rather, we know her for cooking.
Her name is Julia Child.
Hey that reminds me of the plot of the book-turned-show Lessons in Chemistry where an ambitious young woman works as a chemist at Hastings Research Institute, but her intelligence and contributions are dismissed and de-valued.
She ends up hosting a day time cooking show and finds her ambition has a much more fruitful home in the kitchen than it ever did in the lab.
Hm that reminds me of another ambitious young woman who got a Master’s degree in government from Harvard in 1945.
She wrote books and was a regular political commentator on national news programs. She ran for Congress in 1952 and again in 1970.
But none of those endeavors earned her international fame.
That would come when she donned an apron and started telling millions of women they should not work outside the home.
She made her mark leading the campaign against including women in the Constitution. Her and her followers baked pies for Senators and handed them out on the steps of state capitol buildings with the slogan “I am for Mom and apple pie.”
Her name is Phyllis Schlafly.
But wait this reminds me of the many women today who find more success as fashion or cooking influencers online than they did in their corporate jobs.
It reminds me of an ambitious young gal who graduated from Columbia in Neuroscience, then worked for L’Oreal and Facebook in global marketing.
But those endeavors did not make her famous. Rather, she gained fame posting fashion and cooking videos on YouTube and TikTok.
Her name is Emily Mariko.
And now we have Meghan— from a PrimeTime actress to the Buckingham Palace to the kitchen.
Wouldn’t we expect this pattern to be the other way around? A woman begins in her kitchen, then her ambition leads her out into the worlds of law, government or tech.
But in a reverse Uno, these women’s ambition leads them from the boardroom to the kitchen1. From the One World Summit to flower arranging. From Wall Street to hors d’oeuvres. From the CIA to roast chicken. From Harvard to apple pies. From Columbia to microwaving rice.2
And its not as if these pivots towards rice and apple pies were in any way a step down success-wise for these women. On the contrary, they found significantly more success, fame and money performing domesticity than they did in the boardroom.
“What does it say about our society that a girl can find more success cosplaying a 1950s housewife than working in tech?” - 3
What is going on here? Why do so many ambitious, successful women wind up setting their sights on PPD (Public Displays of Domesticity)?
Is it that these women simply found no satisfaction in their jobs in tech, government and finance? Do they just really like to cook?
Or…
Is there a specific type of woman we crown worthy of fame and applause?
Is there some model of womanhood that our society is most comfortable holding up to the limelight?
And have smart, ambitious women discovered they must align themselves with that particular brand of womanhood if they would like to stay in the limelight and the public’s good graces?
The Kitchen as an Acceptable Outlet for Female Fame
Powerful women, particularly those daring enough to seek political influence, have often turned to Public Displays of Domesticity to tame the harsh, unsavory image of an ambitious woman.
For example:
Hattie Wyatt Caraway— the first woman elected to the US Senate, in the early days of her career continually downplayed her political ambition and highlighted her domesticity during interviews saying, “I just added voting to cooking and sewing and other household duties.” When first entering the Senate chamber she reportedly remarked, “the windows need washing!”
Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman on the US Supreme Court, often published recipes in women’s magazines. Press profiles describe her baking casseroles for her clerks as if to say ‘she may be a judge, but don’t worry, she’s still a lady!’
Eleanor Roosevelt, re-wrote the script for the political involvement of a First Lady to include more than hosting dinners and choosing the White House drapes. She faced continual criticism for her lack of ladylike behavior, being accused of wearing the pants in her relationship and overstepping her role.
To this day she is largely considered the most politically active first lady, and perhaps not unrelatedly, seen as the worst cook.
But in order for her social activism to gain public approval, it seemed she herself would need public approval. And to do that she needed to up her feminine game. So she wrote articles for Ladies’ Home Journal, McCall’s and Vogue. Eventually she wrote her own daily article called My Day.4 These articles often included homemaking tips and recipes alongside convictions of social justice.
Kamala Harris. And who could forget Cooking with Kamala5? The YouTube show Kamala Harris did in 2020 while running for Vice President?
Hmm, a cooking show interviewing famous chefs, showcasing favorite recipes and inviting celebrities over for dinner? Starring a bi-racial woman with political power?
Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah, it’s the exact premise of With Love, Meghan. Both have even had actress Mindy Kaling over to cook with them.
Interesting.
Interesting that a woman facing both sexism and racism while trying to win political office would have the exact same game plan as a woman facing both sexism and racism while recovering from public slander.
And can we really blame Kamala or Sandra or Meghan for cosplaying a domestic matron?
Do we not push outrageous feats of femininity onto our female celebrities?
What Happens to Famous Women Who Disobey the Rules of Womanhood?
In her book Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud,
brilliantly demonstrates just how thin our tolerance is for women who do not fit the mold.What is the mold? According to Petersen— we like our famous women skinny, white, chaste, quiet, young, weak, clothed, demure and straight.
She outlines exactly what happens to female celebrities when they defiantly go against the mold: they are slaughtered in the media.
Her first chapter “Too Strong” follows Serena Williams, who despite the public’s relentless attempts to shame her into following in the footsteps of her more demure, white tennis peers, stubbornly kept being her strong self.
She was shamed for being too celebratory and not humble enough after her wins. She was shamed for her body being too masculine—her effort and skill reduced to brute strength. She was shamed for her personality being too masculine- for showing anger, speaking up for herself, arguing, being opinionated, “too cocky” and a sore loser.
The chapter called “Too Shrill” analyzes Hillary Clinton and how her ambition has had reporters calling her “too shrill” for four decades. Her laugh? A cackle. Her voice? Grating. Her clear communication? Off-putting. Her confidence? Unnatural.
Other chapters include: Too Fat (Melissa McCarthy), Too Gross (Ilana Glazer and Abby Jacobson), Too Slutty (Nicki Minaj), Too Old (Madonna), Too Pregnant (Kim Kardashian), Too Naked (Lena Dunham), Too Loud (Jennifer Weiner) and Too Queer (Caitlyn Jenner).
The book makes a very strong case that if you happen to be a gal who wants positive public acclaim—the more traditionally “feminine” you are, the better your chances.
Which brings us back to PPD. After all, what is more traditionally feminine than beautiful women publicly performing domesticity?
Can we really blame Meghan Markle for seeking a safer outlet for her fame?
While Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud doesn’t have a chapter on Meghan Markle, she has been labeled each and every one of those chapter titles.
Let’s peruse a few screenshots of Meghan-critical headlines associated with each:
Too Loud.
The Hollywood Reporter said Meghan is a "dictator in high heels, fuming and barking orders." She is critiqued for oversharing, yelling, and demanding attention. Routinely criticized for not keeping silent about her negative experiences with the royal family, she is altogether thought to be too loud.
Too Old.
Markle was 36 when she joined the royal family, older than Diana or Catherine. Many worried that her age made her a risky choice of bride as that biological clock was a ticking.
Too Slutty.
The Sun published an article in 2016 called “Harry’s Girl on Pornhub.” They later apologized as it was a false accusation. Someone put up footage from her show Suits on the site.
Too Naked.
In 2018, Markle wore this off-the-shoulder dress, which broke with the traditional practice of royal women covering their shoulders for formal daytime events.
She was criticized for dressing too immodestly during a recent trip to Nigeria in 2024. Critics wrote that “nakedness” is not accepted in Nigerian culture.
Too Fat
British tabloids have at times described Meghan as “chubby,” “chunky” and “hefty” with “no waist.” They criticized her for not losing her baby weight fast enough, but also for being too skinny and too concerned with her body.
Too Shrill
Meghan has earned the nickname “Duchess Difficult” for being too demanding, too controlling and too shrill.
Too Gross
The ‘beyond disgusting detail’ was a small bug was spotted next to a plate of cookies and tea. She’s also been called gross for mixing a salad with her hands, handling raw chicken and having no manners at royal dinners.
Too Queer
Good God are we tired yet?
Despite being a near perfect specimen of femininity, Meghan is scrutinized on every tiny deviation.
Is it any wonder Meghan sought out the kitchen as a setting for her ambition?6
When they are slandered every time they don’t act feminine enough, is it any wonder that ambitious women turn to public displays of domesticity?
Maybe the real question here is: why do we have so little tolerance for famous women deviating from femininity?
Do you enjoy thinking about and discussing all things patriarchy and feminism?? Cool me too. Come discuss with me and the Matriarchal Blessing community by becoming a paying subscriber. For our next gathering we will be discussing Invisible Women by Caroline Criado in October.
Alternatively, you could also just pay me for my work just cause, that is also very cool and very appreciated! Thank you!
Some maybe for the first time? We do not know how much time these women spend in the kitchen privately. We do know as multi-millionaires they can all certainly afford to hire out whichever housework and cooking they wish.
Thank you Emily Mariko for teaching us the proper technique for re-heating leftover rice: covering it with an ice cube and a paper towel.
This is a quote from a now-deleted TikTok of Caro’s when she was discussing Emily Mariko, but I enjoyed the sentence so much when I heard it that I jotted it down. If you’re at all interested in discussing the intersection of trad wives and capitalism, definitely give her and
a follow.which she published 6 days a week for 27 years (!)
Me. I forgot about Cooking with Kamala.
Although for Meghan, I fear there is no safe harbor for her ambition. She seems to have exceeded our tolerance for female ambition regardless of what she does.
Perhaps if she had been a little more like Catherine—who seems to execute femininity flawlessly—quiet, skinny, white, demure, clothed and chaste.
Yes I read this piece this morning and thought it was a good piece. Now I'm reading Audre Lorde's Sister Outsider this evening and just came across this apt quote, and although MM isn't a white woman, I guess this (subconsciously) might be part of it and I don't blame any of them: "Today, with the defeat of ERA, the tightening economy, and increased conservatism, it is easier once again for white women to believe the dangerous fantasy that if you are good enough, pretty enough, sweet enough, quiet enough, teach the children to behave, hate the right people, and marry the right men, then you will be allowed to co-exist with patriarchy in relative peace, at least until a man needs your job or the neighborhood rapist happens along. And true, unless one lives and loves in the trenches it is difficult to remember that the war against dehumanization is ceaseless."
Thank you, Celeste, for pointing this out. Once again, your laser-sharp observations of society’s views and demands of women remind me I am not crazy or inventing things. It’s not us. It’s the system.
How I miss RBG.