diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-21 20:37:12 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-21 20:37:12 -0800 |
| commit | 46666803bf143d98f2a589b3f22258a22b043a6b (patch) | |
| tree | c11a22de6058632a57e347c46cd04f2e9e4e3482 | |
| parent | 556fa50a9e422f21fad99d702900ce833531db74 (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68226-0.txt | 6416 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68226-0.zip | bin | 144394 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68226-h.zip | bin | 261244 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68226-h/68226-h.htm | 6600 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68226-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 94417 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68226-h/images/front.jpg | bin | 24978 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68226-h/images/logo.jpg | bin | 3499 -> 0 bytes |
10 files changed, 17 insertions, 13016 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5118081 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #68226 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68226) diff --git a/old/68226-0.txt b/old/68226-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 70d1876..0000000 --- a/old/68226-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6416 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Concerning Women, by Suzanne La -Follette - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Concerning Women - -Author: Suzanne La Follette - -Release Date: June 3, 2022 [eBook #68226] - -Language: English - -Produced by: MWS, Martin Pettit and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from - images generously made available by The Internet - Archive/American Libraries.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONCERNING WOMEN *** - - -+-------------------------------------------------+ -|Transcriber’s note: | -| | -|Obvious typographic errors have been corrected. | -| | -+-------------------------------------------------+ - - -CONCERNING -WOMEN - -_by_ - -SUZANNE LA FOLLETTE - -[Illustration: Logo] - -ALBERT & CHARLES BONI -NEW YORK 1926 - - -_Copyright, 1926, by Albert & Charles Boni, Inc._ - -_Manufactured in the United States of America_ - - -_To_ - -ELLEN WINSOR - -and - -REBECCA WINSOR EVANS - - - - -CONTENTS - -CHAPTER PAGE - I THE BEGINNINGS OF EMANCIPATION 1 - - II WOMAN’S STATUS, PAST AND PRESENT 19 - -III INSTITUTIONAL MARRIAGE AND ITS ECONOMIC ASPECTS 56 - - IV WOMAN AND MARRIAGE 93 - - V THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF WOMEN 157 - - VI WHAT IS TO BE DONE 207 - -VII SIGNS OF PROMISE 270 - - - - -CONCERNING -WOMEN - - -_Let there be, then, no coercion established in society, and the common -law of gravity prevailing, the sexes will fall into their proper -places._ - -MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT. - - - - -CHAPTER I - -THE BEGINNINGS OF EMANCIPATION - - -It will be foolish to assume that women are free, until books about -them shall have ceased to have more than an antiquarian interest. All -such books, including this one, imply by their existence that women may -be regarded as a class in society; that they have in common certain -characteristics, conditions or disabilities which, predominating over -their individual variations, warrant grouping them on the basis of sex. -No such assumption about men would be thinkable. Certain masculine -qualities, so-called, may be singled out by amateur psychologists -and opposed to certain feminine qualities, so-called; but from books -about the sphere of man, the rights of man, the intelligence of man, -the psychology of man, the soul of man, our shelves are mercifully -free. Such books may one day appear, but when they do it will mean -that society has passed from its present state through a state of -sex-equality and into a state of female domination. In that day, in -place of the edifying spectacle of men proclaiming that woman is useful -only as a bearer of children, society may behold the equally edifying -spectacle of women proclaiming that man is useful only as a begetter -of children; since it seems to be characteristic of the dominant sex -to regard the other sex chiefly as a source of pleasure and as a means -of reproduction. It seems also to be characteristic of the dominant -sex--I judge from the world’s experience during the domination of -men--to regard itself as humanity, and the other sex as a class of -somewhat lower beings created by Providence for its convenience and -enjoyment; just as it is characteristic of a dominant class, such as an -aristocracy, to regard the lower classes as being created solely for -the purpose of supporting its power and doing its will. When once a -social order is well established, no matter what injustice it involves, -those who occupy a position of advantage are not long in coming to -believe that it is the only possible and reasonable order, and imposing -their belief, by force if necessary, on those whom circumstances have -placed in their power. There is nothing more innately human than the -tendency to transmute what has become customary into what has been -divinely ordained. - -Thus among the Hebrews the subordination of woman gave rise to the -notion that she was fashioned out of man’s rib. She was the result of -a divine afterthought, the _sexus sequior_ of the ancients and more -recently of Schopenhauer, “inferior in every respect to the first.” -Since the Divine Artist had had good practice in creating Adam, it -might logically have been expected that His second sex would turn out -even better than His first; we must therefore lay His failure to the -somewhat sketchy nature of the materials He chose to work with. This -Hebrew myth of the creation of woman has had considerable effect on -her status in the era known as Christian. Being “only a supernumerary -bone,” as Bossuet reminded her, she could naturally not aspire to a -position of equality with man. She must remember her origin, and be -humble and subservient as befitted a mere rib. - -She was humble and subservient, as a matter of fact, for an incredibly -long time; so long that there exists a general suspicion even at the -present day that there is something in her nature which makes her want -to be subject to man and to live as it were at second hand. This -thought would be even more alarming than it is, perhaps, if it were -not true that men themselves have stood for a good deal of subjection -during the world’s known history. Chattel slavery and serfdom were -abolished from the civilized world only at about the time that the -subjection of women began to be modified; and men still endure, not -only with resignation but with positive cheerfulness, a high degree of -industrial and political slavery. The man who is entirely dependent for -his livelihood upon the will of an employer is an industrial slave, and -the man who may be drafted into an army and made to fight and perhaps -die for a cause in which he can have no possible interest is the -slave of the State; yet one can not see that this proves Aristotle’s -assumption that there are free natures and slave natures, any more than -the subjection of women proves that they want to be subjected. What the -slavery of men, as of women, implies is the existence of an economic -and social order that is inimical to their interests as human beings; -and it implies nothing more than this. - -Nor does the opposition to the emancipation of women which still finds -expression in this country and in Europe, prove anything more than that -superstitious addiction to custom of which I have already spoken. -Those anxious critics who protest that women have got more freedom than -is good for Society make the mistake of supposing that Society can -exist only if its organization remains unchanged. The same conservatism -has opposed all the revolutionary adaptations which have fitted the -social order to the breakdown of old forms and their replacement by -new ones. Yet when the need for such adaptations ceases, the growth of -the social organism ceases with it, and we have such a spectacle of -arrested development as the civilization of India presents. Society, in -so far as it has become organic, is governed by the same rules as any -other organism: the condition of its health is growth, and growth is -change. - -Certainly the present tendency of woman to assume a position of -equality with man involves, and will continue even more to involve, -profound psychic and material readjustments. But to assume that such -readjustments will injure or destroy Society is to adopt toward -Society an attitude of philosophical realism, to attribute to it a -personality, to suppose that it is equally capable of destruction with -the individual, and that it may in some mystical way derive benefit -from the sacrifice of the individual’s best interests. But what is -Society save an aggregation of individuals, half male, half female? -Where you have a handful of people forming a community, there you have -Society; and if the individuals are enlightened and humane it may be -called a civilized Society, if they are ignorant and brutal it will -be uncivilized. To assume that its “interests” may be promoted by -the enslavement of one-half its members, is unreasonable. One may be -permitted the doubtful assumption that this enslavement promotes the -welfare of the other half of Society, but it is obvious that it can -not promote the welfare of the whole, unless we assume that slavery -is beneficial to the slave (the classic assumption, indeed, where the -slaves have been women). When we consider the political organization -known as the State, we have a different matter. The State always -represents the organized interest of a dominant class; therefore the -subjection of other classes may be said to benefit the State, and their -emancipation may be opposed as a danger to the State. - -It is evident from the very nature of the State[1] that its interests -are opposed to those of Society; and while the complete emancipation of -women, as I shall show later, would undoubtedly imply the destruction -of the State, since it must accrue from the emancipation of other -subject classes, their emancipation, far from destroying Society, must -be of inestimable benefit to it. Those critics, and there are many, who -argue that women must submit to restrictions upon their freedom for the -good of the State, as well as those advocates of woman’s rights who -argue that women must be emancipated for the good of the State, simply -fail to make this vital distinction between the State and Society; and -their failure to do so is one of the potent reasons why the nonsense -that has been written about women is limited only by the literature of -the subject. - -Feminist and anti-feminist arguments from this standpoint centre in -the function of childbearing; therefore it should be noted that the -emphasis which is placed on this function by the interest of the State -is quite different from the emphasis that would be placed upon it by -the interest of Society; for the interest of the State is numerical, -while the interest of Society is qualitative. The State requires as -many subjects as possible, both as labour-motors and as fighters. -The interest of Society, on the other hand, is the interest of -civilization: if a community is to be wholesome and intelligent, it is -necessary not that the individuals who compose it shall be as numerous -as possible, but that they shall be as wholesome and intelligent as -possible. In general, the interest of the State is promoted by the -number of its subjects; that of Society by the quality of its members. - -The interest of the State in this respect has been most concisely -expressed by Nietzsche. “Man,” said he, “shall be trained for war, -and woman for the re-creation of the warrior: all else is folly”, -and if one accept his premises he is exactly right. But there have -been many writers on women who have not accepted his premises--not at -least without qualification--and who have yet failed to observe the -antithesis between the interest which the State has, and the interest -which Society has, in the question of population. Hence, mingled -with the voices of those critics who have demanded the subjection -of woman for the sake of children, have been the voices of other -critics demanding her emancipation for the sake of children: and both -these schools of critics have overlooked her claim to freedom on her -own behalf. It is for the sake of humanity, and not for the sake of -children, that women ought to have equal status with men. That children -will gain enormously by the change is true; but this is beside the -issue, which is justice. - -The argument that woman must be free for the sake of the race, is -an argument of expediency; as nine-tenths of the arguments against -her legal subjection have been, and indeed had to be. Unfortunately, -humanity is likely to turn a deaf ear to the claims of justice, -especially when they conflict with established abuses, unless these -claims are backed by the claims of expediency plus a good measure of -necessity. Adventitious circumstances have made the social recognition -of woman’s claims a necessity, and their political recognition a -matter of expediency. Otherwise she would have to wait much longer -for the establishment of her rights as man’s equal than now appears -likely. In the Western world her battle is very largely won; full -equality, social, industrial and legal, seems to be only a matter of -time and tactics. This she owes to the great political and industrial -revolutions of the eighteenth century. - -The conscious movement towards freedom for women may be said to have -originated in the great emancipatory movement which found expression in -the American and French revolutions. The revolutionists did not succeed -in establishing human freedom; they poured the new wine of belief in -equal rights for all men into the old bottle of privilege for some; -and it soured. But they did succeed in creating political forms which -admitted, in theory at least, the principle of equality. Their chief -contribution to progress was that they dramatically and powerfully -impressed the idea of liberty upon the minds of men, and thus altered -the whole course of human thought. Mary Wollstonecraft’s book, “A -Vindication of the Rights of Women,” revolutionary though it seemed in -its day, was a perfectly natural and logical application of this idea -of liberty to the situation of her sex. This remarkable book may be -said to have marked the beginning of the conscious movement towards -the emancipation of women. - -The unconscious movement was the outgrowth of the revolution in -industry, brought about by the introduction of the machine. Women had -always been industrial workers, but their work, after the break-up of -the gilds, was for the most part carried on at home. When the factory -supplanted the family as the producing unit in society, the environment -of women was altered; and the change affected not only those women -who followed industry to the factories, but also those who remained -housewives, for where these had before been required to perform, or -at least to superintend, a large amount of productive work, they now -found their function, as the family became a consuming unit, reduced to -the superintendence of expenditures and the operation of the household -machinery--a labour which was increasingly lightened by the progress of -invention. With domestic conditions so changed, what was more natural -than that the daughters should go into the factory; or, if the family -were well-to-do, into the schools, which were forced reluctantly to -open their doors to women? And what was more natural than that women, -as their minds were developed through education, should perceive the -injustice and humiliation of their position, and organize to defend -their right to recognition as human beings? “If we dared,” says -Stendhal, “we would give girls the education of a slave.... Arm a man -and then continue to oppress him, and you will see that he can be so -perverse as to turn his arms against you as soon as he can.” - -Women in the factories and shops; women in the schools--from this it -was only a moment to their invasion of the professions, and not a -very long time until they would be invading every field that had been -held the special province of men. This is the great unconscious and -unorganized woman’s movement which has aroused such fear and resentment -among people who saw it without understanding it. - -The organized movement may be regarded simply as an attempt to get this -changing relation of women to their environment translated into the -kind of law that the eighteenth century had taught the world to regard -as just: law based on the theory of equal rights for all human beings. -The opposition that the movement encountered offers ample testimony to -the fact that “acceptance in principle” is more than a mere subterfuge -of diplomats and politicians. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries -resolutely clung to the theory of equality, and as resolutely opposed -its logical application. This is not surprising; most people, no doubt, -when they espouse human rights, make their own mental reservations -about the proper application of the word “human.” Women had hardly been -regarded as human in mediaeval Europe; they were considered something -a little more from the chivalrous point of view, and something a -little less from the more common, workaday standpoint. The shadow of -this old superstition still clouded the minds of men: therefore it -is hardly surprising that the egalitarians of the French Revolution -excluded women from equal political and legal rights with men; and -that the young American republic which had adopted the Declaration of -Independence, continued to sanction the slavery of negroes and the -subjection of women. How firmly rooted this superstition was, may be -seen in the following irresistibly funny excerpt from the writings of -that great American advocate of freedom, the author of the Declaration, -Thomas Jefferson. - - - Were our State a pure democracy, in which all its inhabitants - should meet together to transact all their business, there would - yet be excluded from their deliberations (1) infants until arrived - at years of discretion. (2) Women, who, to prevent depravation of - morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the - public meetings of men. (3) Slaves. - - -Thus does superstition cast out logic. Nor does superstition die -easily. The masculine assumption, usually quite unconscious, that women -are unfit for freedom, bids fair to persevere as stubbornly as the -feminine assumption that marriage offers a legitimate and established -mode of extortion.[2] - -If the conscious feminists bore the brunt of the resentment aroused -by woman’s changing relation to the world about her, it was because -their opponents did them the honour of believing that they were -responsible for the change. It was a strangely incurious attitude that -permitted such an assumption to be held; for it really takes a very -feeble exercise of intelligence to perceive that a handful of feminist -agitators could hardly coax millions of women into industry--under -conditions often extremely disadvantageous--into business, the schools -and the professions. I believe the cause of this incuriousness lay in -the very fear aroused by these changes and the social revaluations -which they implied; fear for a relation between the sexes which, -having been established for so long, seemed the only reasonable, or -indeed possible, relation. Filled as they were with this fear of -change, which is one of the strongest human emotions, the opponents of -woman’s emancipation were incapable of objectivity. Their intellectual -curiosity was paralyzed. This accounts, perhaps, for the utterances of -two such eminent philosophers as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. They came -to the subject strongly prejudiced: the idea of any claims on behalf of -women filled them with disgust; therefore, as one may take a certain -malicious pleasure in observing, their thought on the subject was -hampered by that “weakness of the reasoning faculty” which Schopenhauer -found characteristic of women. If, when discussing woman, they had -not been as “childish, frivolous and short-sighted” as they believed -women to be, they might, along with lesser minds, have arrived at some -understanding of a subject which has always been thought much more -mysterious and baffling than it really is. The woman of their day may -have been the poor creature they pronounced her to be, but if she was, -the obvious question was, Why? Was she a poor creature by nature, or -because of centuries of adaptation to a certain kind of life? This -question neither Schopenhauer nor Nietzsche took the trouble to ask. -They weighed her as she was--or as they thought she was--and arrived -at the sage conclusion that the West had much to learn from the Orient -concerning the proper attitude toward her. - - - It would be a very desirable thing [says Schopenhauer] if this - Number Two of the human race were in Europe also relegated to - their natural place [which he conceives to be the harem of a - polygamous household] and an end put to this lady-nuisance, which - not only moves all Asia to laughter but would have been ridiculed - by Greece and Rome as well. - - -Nietzsche, in the same vein, remarks that - - - a man who has depth of spirit as well as of desires, and has - also the depth of benevolence which is capable of severity and - harshness, and easily confounded with them, can only think of - woman as Orientals do: he must conceive of her as a possession, - as confinable property, as a being predestined for service and - accomplishing her mission therein. - - -Such a view of the “weaker sex” of course proves nothing about women, -but it proves a good deal about the effect that their subjection -has had on the minds of men. It is a significant fact that both -Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were Germans, and that in their day the -status of women was lower in Germany than in any other important -country of the Western World, except Italy. - -The corruption of both sexes that results from the subjection of -one, has been too convincingly dealt with by other writers to need -discussion here. What I should like to emphasize is the futility -of approaching the so-called “woman question” with any sort of -pre-conceived notion concerning the nature of woman, or her sphere, or -her duty to the State or to Society; and above all, of approaching it -with the idea--the idea that obsesses all reformers--that she is a more -or less passive creature about whom something either ought or ought -not to be done, or, for that matter, about whom something can be done. -What she should and can do for herself is a different matter; and to -that question I intend to address myself before I leave this subject. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] For a most enlightening treatment of the genesis and nature of -the State, I refer my readers to Franz Oppenheimer’s short treatise -on the subject (“The State,” B. W. Huebsch, Inc., New York). It is -sufficient here to define it as an organization primarily designed to -perpetuate the division of Society into an owning and exploiting class -and a landless, exploited class. In its genesis it is an organization -of a conquering group, by means of which that group maintains its -economic exploitation of those subjugated. In its later stages, when -the conquering class has become merely an owning class, the State is an -organization controlled by this class through its control of wealth, -for the purpose of protecting ownership against the propertyless -classes and facilitating their exploitation by the owning class. The -State is thus the natural enemy of all its citizens except those of the -owning class. - -[2] I shall take up this question later; but I might remark that this -point is well illustrated by a suit recently brought in the State -of New York. The former wife of a wealthy man, whom he had divorced -twenty years before, brought action against him for separation and -maintenance. When asked why she had waited twenty years before -questioning the validity of the divorce and her husband’s subsequent -remarriage, her lawyer stated that _she had never been in need of money -before_, but that she had been swindled out of the money settled upon -her by her husband at the time of the divorce. The italics are mine; -and no comment, I think, is needed. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -WOMAN’S STATUS, PAST AND PRESENT - - -I - -Woman tends to assume a position of equality with man only where the -idea of property in human beings has not yet arisen or where it has -disappeared: that is to say, only in extremely primitive or highly -civilized communities. In all the intermediate stages of civilization, -woman is in some degree regarded as a purchasable commodity. Her status -varies widely among different peoples: there are primitive tribes -where she holds a position of comparative independence; and there are -civilized peoples, on the other hand, among whom she is virtually a -slave. But always there is present the idea of subordination to a male -owner, husband, father or brother, even though it may survive only in -ceremonial observances, _e.g._, in the ritual practice of “giving in -marriage,” or in certain legal disabilities, such, for instance, as the -law entitling a man to his wife’s services without remuneration. - -The subjection of women, then, bears a close intrinsic resemblance -to both chattel slavery and industrial slavery, in that its basis -is economic. As soon as civilization advances to the point of a -rudimentary organization of agriculture and industry, woman becomes -valuable as a labour-motor and a potential producer of children -who will become labour-motors and fighters. Her economic value, or -chattel-value, then, is a commodity for which her family may demand -payment; and hence, apparently, arises the custom of exacting a -bride-price from the man who wishes to marry her. Once established, -this custom of barter in marriage strikes root so deeply that the -woman who has brought no bride-price is often regarded with scorn and -her children considered illegitimate; and the idea of male ownership -that accompanies it becomes so pronounced that it persists even where, -owing to an excess of women coupled with monogamy, the custom has been -practically reversed, and the father buys a husband for his daughter. -An instance of this survival is the system of dowry which exists in -France. Unless it is otherwise stipulated by pre-nuptial agreement, the -dowry is at the disposal of the husband, and the wife, under the law, -owes him obedience. - -When the bargain has been made and the bride delivered to her husband’s -family, her services generally become, save in tribes where residence -is matrilocal, the property of her purchasers, and she is subject to -her husband, or, where the patriarchal system is highly developed, to -the head of his tribe. It must be remarked, however, that although this -is the usual arrangement, it is not invariable. Among some peoples, -the husband’s rights are purely sexual, the services of the wife, and -often even her children, belonging to her own tribe; and among others, -the husband must pay for his bride in services which render him for a -long period the virtual slave of his wife’s relatives. The point to be -remarked in all this is that any conception of woman as an individual -entity, as in any sense belonging to herself, and not to her own -relatives or to her husband and his family, seems to be practically -non-existent among primitive peoples, as it was until recently among -civilized peoples. But it must be remarked, too, that in this respect -her position is only less desirable than that of the man; for in -primitive society the group so dominates the individual that in almost -every phase of life he is hedged about with restrictions and taboos -which leave little room for the play of personality and the pursuit of -individual desires. All social advancement has been in the direction of -the individual’s escape from this group-tyranny. - -So important is the part that the labour of women plays in the -primitive world, that the wife or wives are often the sole support -of husband and family; and a man’s wealth and social prestige may -actually depend upon the number of his wives. “Manual labour among -savages,” says Westermarck, “is undertaken chiefly by the women; and -as there are no day-labourers or persons who will work for hire, it -becomes necessary for any one who requires many servants to have many -wives.” _There are no day-labourers or persons who will work for hire._ -Women, then, are the first victims of that deep-rooted and instinctive -preference for living by the labour of other people, which has played -so momentous and sinister a rôle in the world’s history. Among tribes -whose mode of life has made them exploitable by stronger and more -highly organized hordes--as, for example, an agricultural people which -is conquered by a more mobile and disciplined tribe of herders--there, -among the expropriated class, are day-labourers and people who will -work for hire, for these have no choice or alternative; but among -peoples where militant exploitation is impossible--as among the -hunting-tribes--no man can be forced to work for another man, for the -simple reason that there is no way of compelling him to share the -product of his labour. But even here we see the economic phenomenon of -the labour of women being exploited as the labour of man is exploited -after conquest and the foundation of the exploiting State; and this -is the case chiefly because certain natural disadvantages render them -easily exploitable, as I shall show later. - -It may be remarked in this connexion, that sexual division of labour -appears to be quite arbitrary among primitive peoples; and that it -often bears little resemblance to the division which has existed -for so long among Europeans that it has apologists who regard it as -being divinely ordained.[3] This suggests at least that the European -division is arbitrary too. Indeed, it has undergone considerable -change. Brewing, for example, was regarded as woman’s work in mediaeval -England. It is even supposed that the monasteries, which excluded -women from other service within their walls, employed women brewers. In -general, it appears a fair conclusion that the occupations which are -considered least desirable are given over to the subordinate sex. Thus -men, according to the Vaertings, during the period when women dominated -in Egypt, were forced to care for children and perform the drudgery of -the household. Where military enterprise plays a part in tribal life, -the division of labour appears to give validity to the contention of -Spencer and others that man is militant and woman industrial; yet -the exclusion of women from military activity is no doubt primarily -due quite as much to the taboos against them as to their own lack of -warlike spirit. Indeed, there are tribes where women take active part -in fighting; and there are folk-tales in plenty which tell of their -prowess--as, for example, in the epic lore of Greece and Russia. But -because of a primitive awe of the function of menstruation, women are -often considered unclean, and excluded on this account from many tribal -activities, particularly from religious rites. Among such peoples, it -would not be surprising to find that the same superstition excluded -women from participation in any enterprise in which the tribal gods -are so active and their aid so important as in war. In certain tribes -of South Africa there is, according to Dr. Elsie Clews Parsons, a -direct connexion between militancy and a taboo against woman. “A man -sleeping with his wife must be careful not to touch her with his right -hand. Otherwise his strength as a warrior goes from him and he will -surely be killed.” - -Whatever be the basis of sexual division of labour among different -tribes, and whatever minor differences there be in the relative -position of the sexes, one thing is certain, and it is all we are -at present concerned with, namely: in what Dr. Lowie has called -“that planless hodge-podge, that thing of shreds and patches called -civilization,” woman almost invariably occupies a more or less inferior -position. Dr. Lowie himself is careful to warn his readers against -the popular assumption that the position of primitive woman is always -abject, and that the status of woman offers a sure index of cultural -advancement; nevertheless he says that “It is true that in by far the -majority of both primitive and more complex cultures woman enjoys, if -we apply our most advanced ethical standards, a less desirable position -than man.” - -The obvious question is, Why? The answer is equally obvious, and has -been so often stated and discussed that I need do no more than mention -it here. Woman, however nearly her physical strength in the natural -state may approximate that of man, is under a peculiar disadvantage in -being the childbearing sex. During pregnancy, at least in its later -stages, and during childbirth, she is powerless to defend herself -against aggression. She is also at considerable disadvantage during -the early infancy of her child. Man in the savage state, having -none of that consideration which proceeds in a rough ratio with -cultural development, takes advantage of her periodic weakness and -her consequent need of protection, to force her into a subordinate -position. Superstition, masculine jealousy and desire for domination, -have of course been joined with the economic motive in bringing about -this subjection to the male; but these motives could not have operated -if her subjection had not been physically possible. If woman had had -the natural advantage over man, she would have used it to subject him, -precisely as he used his advantage to subject her; for the human being -in the ruder stages exploits other human beings, when possible, as a -matter of course, without any of those pretexts and indirections that -characterize communities where the sense of human rights has become -sufficiently general to gain the doubtful tribute of disingenuousness. -It is among these more enlightened communities that the subjection of -woman--or of any class--becomes reprehensible: a society that exploits -human beings through ignorant brutality is not open to the same -criticism as a society which continues to exploit them when clearly -aware that in doing so it is violating a natural right. - - -II - -So much for the cause of woman’s subjection and exploitation. It has -had powerful abetment in superstitious notions concerning sex, such as -the primitive horror of menstruation. “Even educated Indians,” says Dr. -Lowie, “have been known to remain under the sway of this sentiment, and -its influence in moulding savage conceptions of the female sex as a -whole should not be underrated. The monthly seclusion of women has been -accepted as a proof of their degradation in primitive communities, but -it is far more likely that the causal sequence is to be reversed and -that her exclusion from certain spheres of activity and consequently -lesser freedom is the consequence of the awe inspired by the phenomena -of periodicity.” - -It is evident that this superstition has operated powerfully to -segregate women into a special class, excluded from full and equal -participation in the life of the community. It is also reasonable to -assume that it has stimulated the growth of many other superstitions -that have hedged them about from time immemorial. It is probably, for -example, closely connected with the Chinese association of evil with -the female principle of the Universe, and with the Hebrew notion that -sorrow entered the world through the sin of a woman. No doubt it may be -connected with the mediaeval tendency to regard woman as a mysterious -and supernatural being, either angelic or demoniac. The conception -of sibyls and witches is derived from it; and likewise the notion -which shows an interesting persistence even now, that a good woman is -somewhat nearer the angels than a good man, and a bad woman much more -satanic than a bad man.[4] Once the idea is established that woman is -a being extra-human, minds prepossessed by this superstition may see -her as either subhuman or superhuman; or these two notions may coexist, -as in Christian society. - -The notion that there is always a savour of sin in the indulgence of -sexual appetite, even when exercised under due and formal regulation, -has also had a profound effect on the status of women. This notion is -to be found in both primitive and civilized communities; and since -to each sex the other sex represents the means of gratifying sexual -desire, the other sex naturally comes, where such a notion obtains, -to represent temptation and sin. But where one sex is dominant and -tends to regard itself as the sum of humanity, the other sex is forced -to bear alone the burden of responsibility for the evil that sex -represents; and it is therefore hedged about by the dominant sex with -all sorts of restrictions intended to reduce its opportunities to be -tempting, and thus to minimize its harmfulness. - -It seems a fair assumption that the association of sin with sex-desire -may have arisen from the antagonism between individual inclination -and the domination of the group. Among peoples where the clan or the -family is the final category, marriage is far from being exclusively a -matter of individual interest and preference; indeed the individuals -concerned may have little or nothing to say about it. The marriage -is arranged by their elders, and the principals may not even see one -another before their wedding day. Marriage under these conditions is a -contract between families, an arrangement for founding a new economic -unit and for perpetuating the tribe, as royal marriages are purely -dynastic arrangements in behalf of a political order. Sexual preference -can have little place in such a scheme; nothing, indeed, is more -inimical to it. Love becomes an interloping passion, threatening the -purely utilitarian basis upon which sex has been placed; and as such it -must be discountenanced, and young men and women carefully segregated -in order that this inconvenient sentiment may have no chance to spring -up unauthorized between them. - -In the Christian world this association of sin with the sexual -appetite has prevailed since the days of St. Paul.[5] Sexual desire -has been regarded as a base instinct, and its gratification under -any circumstances as a kind of moral concession; therefore woman, as -the instrument of sexual satisfaction in the dominant male, must be -repressed and regulated accordingly, and to this end she was always to -be under obedience to some man, either her husband or a male relative. -“Nothing disgraceful,” says Clement of Alexandria, “is proper for -man, who is endowed with reason; much less for woman, to whom it -brings shame even to reflect of what nature she is.” Repression has -combined with the proprietary idea to make chastity a woman’s principal -if not her only virtue, and unchastity a sin to be punished with a -severity that, in another view, seems irrational and disproportionate, -by permanent social ostracism, for example, as in most modern -communities, or, as in Egypt and mediaeval Europe, by violent death. An -extraordinary inconsistency appears in the fact that since Christian -thought has chiefly connected morality with chastity, woman came to be -regarded as the repository of morality, and as such to be considered -on a higher moral plane than man. But it was really her economic and -social inferiority that made her the repository of morality. She must -embody the ideal of sexual restraint that her husband often found it -inconvenient or onerous to attain for himself; and any unfaithfulness -to this ideal on her part inflicted upon him a mysterious injury -called “dishonour.” He might indulge his own polygamous leanings with -impunity, but his failure to make effective his sexual monopoly of his -wife made him liable to contempt and ridicule. So strongly does this -notion persist that one may find anthropologists, usually the most -objective among our men of science, gauging the morality of a primitive -people by the chastity of its women. - -Of course the effect of the attempt to make the chastity of women -a matter of morality and law, has been the precise opposite of the -one aimed at. Society can never be made virtuous through arbitrary -regulation; it can only be made unhappy and unamiable. The attempt -to suppress all unauthorized expression of the sex-impulse in women -tended to make them not only miserable and abject, but hypocritical -and deceitful; and it tended also to make men predatory. This was its -inevitable result in a society where women paid an exorbitant penalty -for unchastity and men paid no penalty at all; a result which has made -the relations between the sexes in the Christian world about as bad -as any that could be imagined. Theoretically, to be sure, Christianity -exacted of men the same degree of chastity as of women; practically -it did no such thing, as may be amply proved even now by a study of -the marriage and divorce laws of Christian nations, not excepting -our own.[6] The sexual license of the dominant male was limited only -by the practicable correspondence between his own desires and his -opportunities; and thanks to that convenient being, the prostitute, -his opportunities were plentiful. Hence for him, women were divided -into two classes: the chaste and respectable from whom he chose the -wife who kept his home, bore his children, and embodied his virtue; -and those outcasts from society who promoted the chastity of the first -class by offering themselves, for a price, as sacrifices to illicit -sexual desire. Neither class was he bound to respect; for the only -thing that compels respect is independence, and in neither the first -nor the second class were women independent. From the man’s point of -view, such a social arrangement was superficially satisfactory. It -provided for what might be called the utilitarian ends of sex; that -is to say, the man’s name was perpetuated and his natural appetites -gratified. But beyond this it left a good deal to be desired. Its worst -effect was by way of a complete evaporation of the spiritual quality of -union between man and woman and the very considerable dehumanization -that in consequence set in. Both the wife and the prostitute were man’s -creatures _quoad hoc_, to be used for different purposes but equally -to be used. It is hardly to be wondered at that man came to regard -women as “the sex,” and through his own management of their degradation -came to feel and to express toward them a degree of contempt that -cast considerable doubt on his own humanity. It is invariable that -the person who is able to regard any class of human beings as _per -se_ his natural inferiors, will by so doing sacrifice something of -his own spiritual integrity. In his relation to woman, man occupied a -position of privilege analogous to that occupied by the aristocracy -in the State; and he paid the same penalty for his exercise of a -usurped and irresponsible power: a coarsening of his spiritual fibre. -One of the oddest of the many odd superstitions that have grown out -of male domination is the notion that men suffer less spiritual harm -from sexual promiscuity than women; and this in spite of the biblical -injunction, applied exclusively to their sex: “None who go unto her -return again.” This superstition is accountable for abundant and -incurable misery; and so slow is it to disappear that one is inclined -to advocate a movement for the emancipation of men, a movement to free -them from the prejudices and prepossessions concerning women that are -inculcated by the traditional point of view. - -We have seen that the Christian philosophy looked upon woman as man’s -creature and his chief temptation, and that Christian society took -good care to keep her in that position. In doing so, it made her the -enemy of man’s better self in a way that apparently was not foreseen -by St. Paul, whose concern with the temptations of the flesh seems -to have been a matter of more passionate conviction than his concern -with those of the spirit. Woman’s subordinate position; her enforced -ignorance; the narrowness of the interests that were allowed her; the -exaggerated regard for the opinion of other people that was bound -to be developed in a creature whose whole life depended on her -reputation--these conditions were calculated to evolve the sort of -being which is hardly able to give clear recognition either to her own -spiritual interest or to that of other people. Such a being would be -the enemy of man’s spiritual interest primarily through sheer inability -to understand it. Public opinion was the arbiter of her own destiny; -how could she be expected to conceive of any other or higher for man? -Her whole life must be lived for appearances; how could she help man -to live for actualities, and to make the sacrifice of appearances -that such an ideal might entail? The only renunciation of the world -that figured in her life was that which led to the convent; of that -renunciation which involves being in the world but not of it--that -steady repudiation of its standards which clears the way to spiritual -freedom--of such a renunciation she would almost certainly be unable -even to dream. The inevitable result of this enforced narrowness was -well stated by John Stuart Mill in the essay which remains the classic -of feminist literature; he pointed out that in a world where women -are almost exclusively occupied with material interests, where their -standard of appraisal is the opinion of other people, their ambition -will naturally connect itself with material things, with wealth -and prestige, no matter how inimical such an ambition may be to the -spiritual interests of the men upon whom they depend. That there have -been distinguished exceptions to this rule does credit to the strength -of character which has enabled an individual now and then to attain -something like spiritual maturity in spite of a disabling and retarding -environment. - - -III - -The effects of repression and seclusion on the character of woman -have given rise, and an appearance of reason, to a host of other -superstitions about her nature; notions which have been expressed in -terms by many writers and have coloured the thought of many others. To -offer a petty but interesting example, one of the most widely prevalent -and most easily disproved of these is the belief that women are by -nature more given to self-decoration than men. Certainly the practice -in civilized society at present seems to bear out this notion. But when -we turn to primitive communities we find, on the contrary, that the men -are likely to be vainer of finery and more given to it than the women. -The reason is simple: decoration of the person arises from the desire -to enhance sex-attraction; and it is most industriously practised by -that sex among whose members there is the keener competition for favour -with members of the opposite sex. In European civilization marriage -has been practically the only economic occupation open to women; -but monogamous marriage, accompanied by an excess of females and an -increasing proportion of celibacy among males, has made it impossible -for every woman to get a husband; therefore the rivalry among them -has been keen, and their interest in self-decoration has been largely -professional. “If in countries with European civilization,” says -Westermarck, “women nevertheless are more particular about their -appearance and more addicted to self-decoration than the other sex, the -reason for it may be sought for in the greater difficulty they have in -getting married. But there is seldom any such difficulty in the savage -world. Here it is, on the contrary, the man who runs the risk of being -obliged to lead a single life.” - -M. Vaerting, on this subject, takes the view that “the inclination to -bright and ornamental clothing is dependent not upon sex, but upon -the power-relation of the sexes. The subordinate sex, whether male or -female, seeks ornament.” But it would seem, in view of the accepted -theory that self-decoration originates in the desire to enhance -sex-attraction, that Westermarck’s is the more reasonable explanation; -moreover it covers certain cases in primitive life where the women, -although their position is abject, nevertheless go plainly clad while -the men are given to elaborate decoration of their persons. - -In spite of all the evidence which anthropology arrays against it, -however, the notion persists that woman is by nature more addicted -to self-decoration than man; and there are not wanting advocates of -her subjection, among them many women, who maintain that it shows the -essential immaturity of her mind! - -The notion that women are by nature mentally inferior to men, is -primarily due to the fact that their enforced ignorance made them -appear inferior. This is one of the strongest superstitions concerning -women, as it is also one of the oldest. It has been much weakened -by modern experience, but it has by no means disappeared. Indeed, -it has stood in the way of dispassionate scientific study of the -relative mental capacity of the sexes. Havelock Ellis, in his “Man and -Woman,” says that “the history of opinion regarding cerebral sexual -difference forms a painful page in scientific annals. It is full of -prejudices, assumptions, fallacies, over-hasty generalizations. The -unscientific have a predilection for this subject; and men of science -seem to have lost the scientific spirit when they approached the study -of its seat.... It is only of recent years that a comparatively calm -and disinterested study of the brain has become in any degree common; -and even today the fairly well ascertained facts concerning sexual -differences may be easily summed up.” He then proceeds to show that -those differences are few. It might be remarked here that such actual -differences as appear are differences between man and woman as they -now are, and can not be taken as final. If brain-mass, for example, -depends to some extent on physical size and strength, the mass of -woman’s brain should tend to increase as she abandons her unnatural -seclusion, engages in exacting occupations and indulges in vigorous -physical exercise. Already there has been an astonishing change in the -female figure. An interesting indication of this is a recent dispatch -from Germany stating that according to the shoe-manufacturers of that -country the average German woman of today wears a shoe two sizes larger -than the woman of a century ago. If woman’s body tends thus to enlarge -with proper use, so in all likelihood will her brain. - -Even Plato, who advocated the education of woman, held that while her -capacities did not differ in kind from those of man, they differed -in degree because of her inferiority in physical strength. It was a -broad-minded view; for the most part women have simply been held to be -by nature relatively weak-minded and therefore relatively ineducable. -They have already passed one general test of educability, by entering -schools on the same footing with men and showing themselves equally -able to achieve a high scholastic standing; yet the Platonic notion -persists that they are physically incapable of going as far as men -can go in intellectual pursuits. This question can probably not be -settled a priori to any one’s satisfaction. It must be conceded, -after the fact, however, that considering the short time that women -have been tolerated in the schools and in the practical prosecution -of intellectual pursuits, the showing they have made has really been -quite as good as might reasonably be expected, and that it certainly -has not been such as to warrant any arbitrary fixing of limits -beyond which they can not or shall not go. Moreover, the physical -weakness which is supposed to disable woman intellectually may be -itself a result of her adaptation to her environment. There is no -way that I know of to forecast with any kind of accuracy what a few -generations of freedom will accomplish specifically in the way of -spiritual development. Considering that human beings are “creatures -of a large discourse,” the matter is probably determinable only by -experiment--_solvitur ambulando_. - -Nor will there be any reason to agree with the numerous adherents of -the idea that women are naturally incapable of great creative work in -any field until they shall have failed, after generations and even -centuries of complete freedom, to produce great creative work. This -notion represents the last stand of a priori judgment concerning female -intelligence. It is based on the theory, at present much in fashion, -that men are more variable than women, and that both idiocy and genius -are thus much more frequent in the male sex, while the intelligence of -women tends to keep to the safe ground of mediocrity. The implications -of this theory manifestly are that genius of the highest order can -not be expected to appear in a woman. Since all cats are grey in the -dark, according to the proverb, nothing worth saying can be said -against this theory or for it. The data which underly it are simply -incompetent and immaterial to any conclusion, one way or the other. -They represent only a projection of men and women as they now are, -and therefore can not be taken as a basis for speculation concerning -men and women as they may become. To say, for instance, that because -there has never been, to our knowledge, any woman, with the possible -exception of Sappho, who showed the highest order of genius in the -arts it is probable that there never can or will be, is much the same -as to say that because there has never been a woman President of the -United States no woman ever can or will be President. Let it be freely -admitted that women have had opportunities in the creative field, and -have fallen short of supremacy. What of it? One must yet perceive -that the woman who has had those opportunities has been the product -of a civilization constitutionally inimical to her use of them, and -one may not assume that she has entirely escaped the effects of the -continuous repression and discouragement exercised upon her by her -social, domestic and political environment. When the power and purchase -of this influence are fully taken into account, one would say it is -not half so remarkable that women have missed supreme greatness in the -arts as that they have been able to achieve anything at all. For in the -arts, more than anywhere else, spiritual freedom is essential to great -achievement; and spiritual freedom means a great deal more than the -mere absence of formal restraint upon the processes of writing books -or painting pictures. It is this important distinction that writers -like Dr. Ellis and Dr. Hall, for example, have overlooked or ignored. -They have simply failed to take into account the effect of a generally -debilitating environment on the activities of the human spirit. - -The environment of women has long been such as tends to make them, -much more than men, the slaves of “_was uns alle bändigt, das -Gemeine_,” and therefore to win release from the commonplace was, -and still is, proportionately harder for a woman than for a man. -The prevailing notion that a woman must at all costs cultivate -the approval of the world lest she fail, through lack of it, to -manœuvre herself successfully into the only occupation that society -showed any cordiality about opening to her--this put a heavy premium -on dissimulation and artifice. Women have not dared freely to be -themselves, even to themselves. It was the effect of this constraint -that Stendhal noted when he remarked that “the reason why women, when -they become authors, rarely attain the sublime, ... is that they never -dare to be more than half candid.” - -It can not be gainsaid that the east wind of indifference which has -chilled the fire of many a masculine artist who found himself part of -an age indifferent to his order of talent, has always blown its coldest -upon the woman who essayed creative work. The woman who undertakes to -achieve artistic or intellectual distinction in a world dominated by -men, finds herself opposed by many disabling influences. In an earlier -day she had to endure being thought unwomanly, freakish, or wicked -because she dared venture outside the limited sphere of sexuality that -had been assigned to her. Now her presence in the field of spiritual -endeavour is taken quietly; but she is constantly meeting with the -tacit assumption, which finds expression in a thousand subtle ways, -that her work must be inferior on account of her sex.[7] Again, the -idea that marriage and reproduction constitute an exclusive calling -and are really the natural and proper calling for every woman, still -has general currency; and the very fact that a vast majority of women -tacitly acquiesce in this idea, constitutes a strong pull upon the -individual towards the orthodox and expected. Human beings are always -powerfully drawn to be like their fellows; to be different requires -a somewhat uncommon independence of spirit and toughness of fibre, -and the fewer the individuals who attempt it, the more independence -and tenacity it requires. “The fewer there be who follow the way to -heaven,” says the author of the Imitation, “the harder that way is to -find.” - -The position of woman in creative work the world over is analogous -to that of the man in America who ventures into the arts: he will be -tolerated; he may even be respected; but he will not find in his -environment the interest and encouragement that will help to develop -his talents and spur him to his best efforts. He may get sympathy and -encouragement from individuals; but his environment as a whole will -not yield what Sylvia Kopald has well termed the “tolerant expectancy” -which nourishes and develops genius. In American civilization the -prevailing ideal for men is business--material success; and our people -retain, as Van Wyck Brooks has pointed out, the suspicious dislike and -disregard which the pioneer community displays towards the individual -whose governing ideals take a different line of development from those -of his fellows. The artist, therefore, is likely to be looked upon as -a queer being who loses something of his manhood by taking up purely -cultural pursuits, unless and until, indeed, he happens to make money -by it. Yet one never hears the intimation that because no Shakespeare -or Raphael has ever yet appeared in this country, none ever will. Very -well--imagine instead the prevailing ideal to be domesticity, and you -perceive at once the invidious position of the woman artist in an -exclusively or dominantly masculine civilization. - -But what if the emergence of genius does not depend so much on -variability as upon the degree of spiritual freedom that the -environment allows, and the amount and kind of culture that is current -in it? “The number of geniuses produced in a nation,” says Stendhal, -“is in proportion to the number of men receiving sufficient culture, -and there is nothing to prove to me that my bootmaker has not the soul -to write like Corneille. He wants the education necessary to develop -his feelings and teach him to communicate them to the public.” The -fact that prominent men of science accept the theory that genius is -explained by variability, along with a number of conclusions which -they have seen fit to draw from it, is no reason why their view should -be considered final. Whole schools of scientists have before now gone -wrong in the ticklish business of making speculative generalizations; -they may go wrong again, for men of science are human, and may not be -supposed to live wholly above the miasma arising from the stagnant mass -of current prepossessions. So long as the apparent dearth of female -genius may be satisfactorily accounted for on other grounds, one is -under no compulsion to accept the theory that it is due to a natural -and inescapable tendency toward mediocrity. When regarded fairly, -indeed, this theory has something of an _ad captandum_ character; it -is not in itself disingenuous, perhaps, but it lends itself with great -ease to an interested use. It offers strong support, for example, to -an advocacy of an actual qualitative difference in the education of -men and women. Women, being assumed to be fixed by nature at or below -the line of mediocrity, shall be educated exclusively for marriage, -motherhood, and the occupations which require no more than an average -of reflective intelligence. This assumption underlies the educational -plans of even such great libertarians as Thomas Jefferson and Theodore -Hertzka; it represents a reversion, conscious or unconscious, to the -primitive ideology which subordinates the individual to the group, -taking for granted that the individual is to be educated not primarily -for his or her own sake, but for an impersonal “good of society.” -Thus, whether they are aware of it or not, those who subscribe to this -theory would not only keep in woman’s way the discouraging postulate -of inferiority that at present stands against her, but they would -reinforce upon her those arbitrary limitations of opportunity to -which her position of inferiority in the past may not unreasonably be -ascribed. - - -IV - -I have mentioned the repression of natural impulse inculcated upon -women by their upbringing. This will probably not disappear entirely -until the prevailing ideal in bringing up girls shall be to help them -to become fully human beings, rather than to make them marriageable; -for humanity and market-value have really little in common. For -centuries the minds and bodies of women have been moulded to suit the -more or less casual taste of men. This was the condition of their -profession, which was to please men. Woman, in a word, got her living -by her sex; her artificially-induced deformities and imbecilities -had an economic value: they helped to get her married. It would be -impossible to imagine a more profoundly corrupting influence than the -dual ideal of sexuality and chastity that has been held up before -womankind. “We train them up,” says Montaigne, “from their infancy -to the traffic of love.” Yet men would have them, he says, “in full -health, vigorous, in good keeping, high-fed and chaste together;[8] -that is to say, both hot and cold.” The utter levity of this -traditional attitude makes it fair to say that woman is man’s worst -failure. I know of no stronger argument for the social philosophy of -the anarchist; for there is no more striking proof of the incapacity of -human beings to be their brothers’ keepers than man’s failure, through -sheer levity, over thousands of years to govern woman either for his -good or her own. - -With the growing disposition of women to take their interests into -their own hands, this state of things is changing; but the curious -superstitions to which its effect on the female character has given -rise will long survive it. The world’s literature, from the Sanscrit -proverbs to the comic magazine of the twentieth century, is full of -disparaging references to the character of women; to their frailty, -their cunning, their deceitfulness, their irresponsibility, their -treachery--qualities, all of them, which in a fair view they seem bound -to have extemporized as their only defence in a social order which -was proof against more honourable weapons. “A woman,” says Amiel, -“is sometimes fugitive, irrational, indeterminable, illogical and -contradictory. A great deal of forbearance ought to be shown her, and a -good deal of prudence exercised with regard to her, for she may bring -about innumerable evils without knowing it.” This is no doubt true, -and the purposes of the moralist perhaps demand no more than a mere -statement of the fact. But the critic’s purposes demand that the fact -should give an account of itself. Why does woman so regularly bear this -character? Well, certainly the only life that European civilization -offered to women in Amiel’s day--the only views of life that it -accorded them, the only demands on life that it allowed them--was a -specific for producing the kind of creature he describes; and there is -no doubt that it must have produced them by the million. The inference -is inescapable that an equivalent incidence of the same educational and -environmental influences upon men would have produced the same kind -of men. The matter, in short, is not one of the primary or even the -secondary character of women _qua_ women or of men _qua_ men; it is -one of the effect of education and environment upon human beings _qua_ -human beings. - -The effort to escape this inference gives rise to extraordinary -inconsistencies in the current estimate of female character, and -even the estimate put upon it by men of scientific habit. Women -are supposed, for instance, to be tenderer and gentler than -men--“Tenderness,” says Ellen Key, “distinguishes her whole way of -thinking and feeling, of wishing and working”--yet they are also -supposed to be more vengeful--“Hell hath no fury....” They are supposed -to be creatures of impulse and sentiment “_la femme, dont l’impulsion -sentimentale est le seul guide écouté_”[9]--yet they are at the same -time supposed to be calculating, particularly in their relations with -men. Diluvial irruptions of sentimentalism are continually spewed -over their nobility and self-sacrifice in the rôle of motherhood; yet -men have taken care in the past to deny them guardianship of their -own children. Schopenhauer, far on the right wing, again, appears to -represent the legalistic point of view on this relation: he does not -trust them in it beyond the first purely instinctive love for the child -while it is physically helpless; he thinks they should “never be given -free control of their children, wherever it can be avoided.” Man, now, -is more likely, he thinks, to love his child with a lasting love, -because “in the child he recognizes his own inner self; that is to -say his love for it is metaphysical [or egotistical?] in its origin.” -Occasionally, again, the world is treated to the diverting spectacle -of some woman writer, like Dr. Gina Lombroso, trotting out all the -poor old spavined superstitions and putting them through their paces -in order to prove the strange contention that women are incapable of -making the progress they have already made. Dr. Lombroso’s ideal woman, -as I have already remarked elsewhere in a review of her recent book, -is something of a cross between an imbecile and a saint; that is to -say, she conforms closely to the ideal which has been held up before -the women of the Christian world; an ideal towards which millions of -them have striven with a faithfulness which does more credit to their -devotion than to their intelligence. - -Since any discussion of woman’s place in society must necessarily be -to some extent a study in superstition, one can not really have done -with superstition until one is done with the subject. It has seemed -to warrant some special attention at the outset of this work not only -because the past and present status of womankind can not be explained -without reference to it, but because the future of womankind will in -large measure depend upon the expeditiousness with which it and those -prepossessions which spring from it, are laid aside. The sum of these -superstitions and prepossessions may be expressed in the generalization -that woman is primarily a function; and wherever any remote approach -to this generalization may be discerned in a discussion of her status -or her rights--as it may at once be discerned, for instance, in the -sentimental side of the work of feminists as staunch as Ellen Key and -Olive Schreiner--at just that point the abdication of the scientific -spirit in favour of superstition may be suspected. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[3] Among the Chinese, for example, the woman never goes near the -kitchen. - -[4] According to news-reports on the day that this is written, Judge -McIntyre of New York, sentencing a young woman in a criminal case, -said: “When a woman is bad she is vicious and worse than a man, many, -many times over.” - -[5] It finds grotesque expression now and then. I remember seeing in -a San Francisco newspaper a few years ago this headline: “Accused of -having immoral relations with a woman other than his wife.” - -[6] In the State of Maryland, if the wife be found to have been -unchaste before marriage, the husband is entitled to a divorce; but -premarital unchastity on the part of the husband gives the wife no -corresponding ground. - -[7] As the only woman member of an editorial staff during a period of -four years, I had ample opportunity for experience of this attitude. It -was openly expressed only twice, both times, oddly enough, by women; -but so universal was the unconscious assumption of inferiority that I -may say without great exaggeration that it was only among my colleagues -that I did not meet with it. - -[8] This was written, needless to say, before the casual taste of men -set the fashion for women to be mincing and sickly. - -[9] Elie Faure. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -INSTITUTIONAL MARRIAGE AND ITS ECONOMIC ASPECTS - - -I - -Marriage, by a strictly technical definition, is a natural habit; that -is to say, it is a relationship proceeding out of the common instinct -of male and female to mate, and to remain together until after the -birth of one or more children.[10] Organized society, on the other -hand, always makes it a civil institution, and sometimes a religious -institution. So long as man remained in the natural state, roaming -about in search of his food as do the apes today, it may be supposed -that marriage was based on personal preference and involved only -the selective disposition of the individual man and woman and their -common concern for the safety of their offspring. But as advancing -civilization enabled mankind more easily to obtain and augment its -food-supply, and consequently to secure greater safety and also to -satisfy its gregarious instinct by living in numerous communities, the -habit of marriage underwent a process of sanction and regulation by -the group, and was thus transformed into a civil institution. While -society remains ethnical, the family exercises supervision over the -sexual relations of its members, but always subject to the approval or -disapproval of the larger group--the tribe or clan. When the political -State emerges, this function continues to be exercised by the family, -but it is subject to sanction by the State and is gradually absorbed by -it. Yet even where the State has usurped almost all the prerogatives of -the family, custom continues to give powerful sanction to interference -in marriage both by relatives and by the community. - -Where the tribal religion takes on the form of ancestor-worship, -or where much importance is attached to burial-rites, marriage and -reproduction take on a religious significance. “As the dead,” says Dr. -Elsie Clews Parsons, “are dependent on the living for the performance -of their funeral rites and sacrificial observances, marriage itself as -well as marriage according to prescribed conditions, child-begetting -and bearing, become religious duties. Marriage ceremonial not -infrequently takes on a religious character. Infanticide, abortion, -celibacy other than celibacy of a sacerdotal character, and adultery, -become sins. The punishment of the adulteress is particularly severe, -although in some cases her value as property may guarantee her against -punishment by death.”[11] - -Thus there may be, and in most civilized societies there is, a fourfold -interference in marriage: interference by the family, by the community, -by the State, and by the Church. An old Russian song had it that -marriages were contracted - - - By the will of God, - By decree of the Czar, - By order of the Master, - By decision of the community, - - ---with not a word about the two persons immediately concerned. Nor is -this strange, for marriage is not generally conceived of among either -primitive or highly civilized peoples as a personal relationship. It -is an economic arrangement, an alliance between families, a means for -getting children. To allow so unruly a passion as love to figure in -the selection of a mate, is an irregularity which may under certain -circumstances be tolerated, but one which is nevertheless likely to -be regarded with extreme disapproval. As individualism makes progress -against group-tyranny, the preliminaries and the actual contracting of -marriage become less the affair of God, the State, the family and the -community, and more the affair of the two people chiefly interested; -but once contracted, the marriage can hardly be said, even in the most -civilized community, to be free of considerable regulation by these -four influences. The time which Spencer foresaw, when “the union by -affection will be held of primary moment and the union by law as of -secondary moment,” has by no means arrived. If the married couple be -Roman Catholics, for example, they may not free themselves from an -unhappy marriage without paying the penalty of excommunication; and -if they live in a State dominated by the Catholic Church, they may be -legally estopped from freeing themselves at all. Nor may they, save by -continence, limit the number of their offspring without risking the -same penalty. If they are Episcopalians or Lutherans they may divorce -only on the ground of adultery, and the guilty party is forbidden to -remarry. In communities where the influence of other Protestant sects -predominates, and where, therefore, divorce and remarriage are not -formally forbidden by the Church, the pressure of public opinion may -yet operate to prevent them. The State not only prescribes the form -that marriage shall take, but it may also either prohibit divorce--as -in South Carolina, for example--or forbid it save in accordance with -such regulations as it sees fit to make; and these regulations are -not only of a kind that make divorce prohibitive to the poor, but -they are often so humiliating as to constitute an effective barrier -to the dissolution of unhappy unions. The State of New York offers an -excellent illustration. Adultery is the only ground upon which divorce -is allowed, and even then it may be refused if the action is taken by -mutual consent. The couple who wish to be divorced must therefore, -if there be no legal cause, go through the demoralizing business of -making a case, which means that one or the other must provide at least -the appearance of “misconduct”; and even then they are in danger of -being found in collusion. But suppose one party to be giving legal -ground; then the other party, in order to get proof, is obliged to -resort to the lowest kind of espionage. Such disreputable methods, -however much they be in keeping with the nature and practices of -the State, are hardly becoming to civilized society, and civilized -persons are indisposed towards them. Their general effect is therefore -to discourage application for divorce in New York and encourage it -elsewhere. - -It is significant of the unspiritual estimate generally put upon -marriage, that incompatibility is rarely allowed as a legal ground -of divorce. Violation of the sexual monopoly that marriage implies; -pre-nuptial unchastity on the part of the woman; impotence; cruelty; -desertion; failure of support; insanity; all of these or some of -them are the grounds generally recognized where divorce is allowed -at all. This is to say that society demands a specific grievance of -one party against the other, a grievance having physical or economic -consequences, as a prerequisite to freedom from the marriage-bond. -The fact that marriage may be a failure spiritually is seldom taken -into account. Yet there is no difficulty about which less can be -done. Infidelity may be forgiven and in time forgotten; the deserter -may return; the delinquent may be persuaded to support his family; -the insane person may recover; even impotence may be cured. But if -two people are out of spiritual correspondence, if they are not at -ease in one another’s society, there is nothing to be done about it. -“Anything,” says Turgenev, “may be smoothed over, memories of even -the most tragic domestic incidents gradually lose their strength and -bitterness; but if once a sense of being ill at ease installs itself -between two closely united persons, it can never be dislodged.” Modern -society is slowly, very slowly, coming into the wisdom which prompted -this observation. The gradual liberalization of the divorce-laws -which our moralists regard as a symptom of modern disrespect for the -sacredness of marriage, is in fact a symptom of a directly opposite -tendency--the tendency to place marriage on a higher spiritual plane -than it has hitherto occupied. - -The State assumes the right either to allow artificial limitation of -offspring or to make it a crime; and it exercises this assumption -according to its need for citizens[12] or the complexion of its -religious establishment. It also fixes the relative status and -rights of the two parties. In several American States, for instance, -a married woman is incompetent to make contracts or to fix her legal -residence. The Virginia law recognizes the primary right of the father -to the custody of the child, yet it makes the mother criminally -liable for the support of children. On the other hand, the husband is -everywhere required by law to support his wife. Such laws, of course, -like most laws, are felt only when the individual comes into conflict -with them. The State does not interfere in many cases where married -couples subvert its regulations--for example, the law which entitles -the husband to his wife’s services in the home and permits him to -control her right to work outside the home, does not become binding -save in cases where the husband sees fit to invoke it. As a rule the -State forbids fornication and adultery.[13] In case of separation and -divorce, if the parties disagree concerning financial arrangements or -the custody of children, it exercises the right to arbitrate these -matters. - -The sanctions of interference by the family, save in the contracting of -marriage by minors, are at present those of custom, affection, and (in -so far as it exists and may be made effective) economic power. When two -persons have decided to marry, for instance, it remains quite generally -customary for the man to go through the formality of asking the woman’s -nearest male relation for her hand. This is of course a survival from -the period when a woman’s male guardian had actual power to prevent her -marrying without his consent. The influence of affection is too obvious -to require illustration; it is the subtlest and most powerful sanction -of family interference. Economic power is perhaps most commonly used -to prevent or compel the contracting of marriage. It may make itself -felt, where parents or other relatives are well-to-do, in threats of -disinheritance if prospective heirs undertake to make marriages which -are displeasing to them. A striking instance of the use of this power -is the will of the late Jay Gould, which required each of his children -to obtain consent of the others before marrying. It is not uncommon for -legators to stipulate that legatees shall or shall not marry before a -certain age under penalty of losing their inheritance. - -These influences do not always, of course, take the same direction. -At present, for example, artificial limitation of offspring receives -irregular but effective community-sanction in face of opposition by -Church and State. Or again, public opinion almost universally condemns -the idea that a father may, by his will, remove his children from -the custody of their mother, although the State, as in Maryland and -Delaware, may sanction such an act. But, however much they may check -one another, these influences are all constantly operating to restrict -and regulate marriage away from its original intention as a purely -personal relationship, and to keep it in the groove of economic and -social institutionalism. The reasons for this are to be found in the -vestigiary fear of sex, love of power, love of the habitual, religious -superstition, and above all in the notion that the major interests of -the group are essentially opposed to those of the individual and are -more important than his. A combination of two of these motives has -recently come under my own observation in the case of a young woman -whose parents can not forgive her for having divorced a man whom she -did not love and married a man whom she did. They were accustomed -to their first son-in-law, and resent the necessity of adjusting -themselves to the idea of having a new one. Moreover, they feel that -their daughter should have spared them the “disgrace” of a divorce. The -fact that she was unhappy in her first marriage and is happy in her -second seems to have little weight with them. They did their best to -prevent her second marriage and are at present exerting every effort to -make it unsuccessful. It is needless to emphasize the fact that this -order of interference can not be expected to disappear while the notion -persists that the actions of one adult member of a family or group can -possibly reflect credit or discredit upon all the other members. - - -II - -If one be an apologist for the present economic and social order, -there is little fault to be found with this endless and manifold -regulation of the most intimate concern of the individual, save that it -is not as effective as it once was. Society, we are being constantly -reminded, is founded in the family. No one, I think, will quarrel -with this statement, particularly at this stage of the world’s rule -by the exploiting State. Marriage is, to quote Dr. E. C. Parsons, “an -incomparable protection of society--as society has been constituted”; -and this for a reason which Dr. Parsons did not mention. Nor has the -reason been stated by anyone else, so far as I am aware, although the -fact is emphasized often enough. It is emphasized, however, largely -in the spirit of a contemporary French writer who declares that “an -institution upon which society[14] is based should not be represented -to society as an instrument of torture, a barbarous apparatus. We know, -on the contrary that this institution is good, and that it would be -impossible to conceive of a better one upon which to base our customs.” -Well, but suppose it _is_ an instrument of torture, or at least that we -have come to find it highly unsatisfactory; must we, in spite of the -fact, resolve to think it good because society is based upon it? Ought -we not, rather, to examine the order of society that institutionalized -marriage helps to perpetuate, in order to determine whether it is worth -preserving at the cost of preserving also an institution which has -become “an instrument of torture”? - -The reason why marriage is “an incomparable protection to society” -lies in the fact that the continuance of the power of the exploiting -State depends upon the relative helplessness of its exploited subjects; -and nothing renders the subject more helpless against the dominance -of the State than marriage. For monopoly, under the protection of the -State, has rendered the support of a family extremely difficult, by -closing free access of labour to natural resources and thus enabling -the constant maintenance of a labour-surplus. Where there is little -or no land not legally occupied, access to the soil is impossible -save on terms that render it, if not downright prohibitive, at least -unprofitable. The breadwinner who has neither land nor capital is -thus forced to take his chance in a labour-market overcrowded by -applicants for work who are in exactly his position: they are shut out -from opportunity to work for themselves, and obliged to accept such -employment as they can get at a wage determined not by their capacity -to produce, but by the number of their competitors. Not only is the -wage-earner thus obliged to content himself with a small share of what -his labour produces; he is forced to pay out of that share further -tribute to monopoly in most of the things he buys. For shelter, for the -products of the soil and mines, he pays tribute to the monopolist of -land and natural resources; for industrial products, in most countries, -he pays to the monopoly created by high tariffs. Or he may have to pay -to both, as in the case of the purchaser of steel products. - -Such disadvantages tend not only to keep wages near the -subsistence-level, but to keep opinions orthodox--or if not orthodox, -unexpressed. For the wage-earner gets his living on sufferance: while -he continues to please his employer he may earn a living, however -inadequate, for himself and family; but if he show signs of discontent -with the established order, by which his employer benefits or thinks -he benefits, he is likely to find himself supplanted by some other -worker whose need makes him more willing to conform, in appearance -at least. There are even conditions under which his mere unorthodoxy -may bring him to jail, in thirty-four States of this enlightened -Republic. There are exceptional cases, of course, where his skill -or special training makes him a virtual monopolist in his line and -thus renders him indispensable, like a certain well-known professor -who continues to hold his position in spite of his avowed economic -unorthodoxy simply because there is no one else who can fill it. But -it may be perceived at once that the average wage-earner with a family -to support will be under much greater pressure to dissemble than -will the worker who has no family; for where the single worker risks -privation for himself alone, the married worker takes this risk for -his family as well. Nor does economic pressure operate only towards -the appearance of conformity; it operates towards actual conformity, -for the person who has children to rear and educate will be strongly -impelled towards conservatism by his situation. If he can get along at -all under the present order, the mere _vis inertiae_ will incline him -to fear for the sake of his family the economic dislocation attendant -upon any revolutionary change, and to choose rather to keep the ills -he has.[15] Moreover, the unnatural situation popularly called the -“labour-problem,” brought about through exclusion from the land, tends -to create the psychology of the wage-slave: it tends to make people -regard the opportunity to earn one’s living not as a natural right, but -as something that one receives as a boon from one’s employer, and hence -to accept the idea that an employer may be justified in dictating to -his employees in matters of conduct and opinion. - -Thus the economic conditions brought about by the State operate to make -marriage the State’s strongest bulwark; and those who believe that the -preservation of the State, or of a particular form of it, is a sacred -duty--their number among its victims is legion--are quite logical in -taking alarm at the increasing unwillingness of men and women to -marry, or if they do marry, to have children. They are logical not only -because marriage and children make for endurance of established abuses, -but because, as I have already remarked, it is important for the State -to have as many subjects as possible, to keep up a labour-surplus at -home and to fight for the interests of its privileged class abroad; -that is, so long as industry is able to meet the exactions of monopoly -and still pay interest and wages. Where monopoly has reduced interest -and wages to the vanishing-point, the State can no longer be said -to be a going concern; its breakdown is then only a matter of time. -This point has been reached in England, and hence the condition of -which I have spoken: a numerous population is no longer desirable, -for as unemployed they are a burden on the State and a menace to its -existence. But as long as the State is a going concern, the Spartan -rule is that best suited to its interests: obligatory marriage, and -unlimited reproduction. - -In modern civilization, however, in spite of the enormous power of -the State, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to -enforce this rule. The State, with all its power, can not force its -subjects to obey any law which they do not really want to obey--or -perhaps I should say, which they want not to obey; and the growth of -individualism has created a general distaste for any effort on the part -of government to meddle directly in the affairs of citizens. Attempts -to do so are likely to bring humiliation on the Government through -its inability to enforce them, and to generate in the population a -salutary disrespect for law; as the attempt to enforce the fourteenth -and eighteenth Amendments has done in this country. With the decline -of the patriarchal system, the contracting of marriage if not the -status of marriage, is coming to be regarded as the exclusive concern -of the individual. Many who would not for a moment tolerate compulsory -marriage will tolerate a humiliating regulation of marriage; they -will allow the State to make of marriage a life-long bondage, but -they reserve the right to refuse to enter into bondage. The State may -penalize celibacy by levying a special tax on unmarried persons; but it -can no longer force people to abandon it. - -Indeed, one may say without overmuch exaggeration that at present -the preservation of marriage as an institution is almost solely due -to its tenacity as an instinctive habit. For while marriage is the -strongest bulwark of the State, the economic order for the sake of -which the State exists tends nevertheless to discourage marriage -because it progressively concentrates wealth in a few hands, and thus -deprives the great mass of people of adequate means to rear and educate -families. This condition is largely responsible for the fact that -celibacy, illegitimacy and prostitution are on the increase in every -civilized country; and that the average age at which marriage takes -place tends steadily to become higher, as it takes longer to get into -an economic position which makes possible the support of a family. In -this connexion, Katharine Anthony’s statement that factory-girls and -heiresses are the country’s youngest brides is significant. Neither -the heiress nor the factory-girl has anything to gain by waiting: the -heiress already has economic security and the factory-girl never will -have it, for she and her husband--if she marries in her own class--will -always be pretty much at the mercy of conditions in the labour-market. -It should also be remarked that among the great middle class the -standard of education for both sexes, but more particularly for women, -is higher than among the very rich and the very poor; and this tends -to advance the average age for marriage. - -It tends as well to make children a heavy burden on the parents. Among -primitive peoples, where difficulty in supporting a family is virtually -unknown, where adjustment to the environment offers no complexities and -childhood is therefore not so prolonged, and where, moreover, children -through their labour become an economic asset, they are desirable.[16] -But in a civilized society where the parental sense of responsibility -has developed to the point where the child is reared for its own sake, -where adaptation to the environment is a complex and lengthy process -involving expensive education and prolonged dependence of the child -upon the parents, and where the difficulty of getting a start in life -tends also to lengthen the period of dependence; in such a society -it is natural that the parental sense of responsibility should find -expression in an artificial limitation of offspring to the number that -the circumstances of the parents will enable them to educate properly. -There is a further step that this feeling can suggest in these days of -excessive economic exploitation and ruinous wars; that is, refusal to -reproduce at all: and this step an increasing number of married people -are taking, to the great distress of self-appointed guardians of our -customs and morals. - -Failure to perceive the decisive importance of the connexion between -the economic condition of the parents and the proper equipment -of children for making their way in life often leads to absurd -contradictions; as for example in that staunch friend of childhood, -the late Ellen Key. No one is more insistent than this writer upon -the importance of rearing the child for its own good; yet she gravely -declares that “from the point of view of the nation, always from -that of the children, and most frequently from that of the parents, -the normal condition must be, that the number of children shall not -fall short of three or four.” Miss Key’s primary failure is one that -must be judged with great severity because it is both fundamental -and typical--it pervades and vitiates the whole body of feminist -literature. It is a failure in intellectual seriousness. Miss Key -is fully aware of a persistent economic dislocation bearing on her -thesis--“At present there is a shortage of labour for those willing -to work, of food for the hungry, of educational advantages for those -thirsting for knowledge, of nursing for the sick, of care for the -children. The circumstances of the majority are now such as to produce, -directly or indirectly, crime, drunkenness, insanity, consumption, -or sexual diseases in large sections of the population.” Again, “The -struggle for daily bread, the cares of livelihood ... are now the -stamp of public as well as private life.... Married people have no -time to cultivate their feelings for one another.... Through the cares -of livelihood parents have no time to live with their children, to -study them in order to be able really to educate them.”[17] One must -suspect a peculiar incapacity for logic in the writer who recognizes -such conditions and still recommends three or four children as being -the minimum number that people should have who wish to do their duty by -their country, their children and themselves. Miss Key has been content -to shirk inquiry into the fundamental cause of these conditions, and -hence the means she recommends for their cure are silly and feeble. -An international universal organization which is to regulate all -competition and all co-operation; trade-unionism, the abolition of -inheritances; the exercise of “collective motherliness” in public -affairs; these are some of the means she offers for the regeneration of -society. Probably never since the remark attributed to Marie Antoinette -that if the starving populace could not get bread they should eat cake, -has ineptitude gone further. If Miss Key’s call to duty were brought -to the attention of the well-to-do married couple of the city of New -York whose means are sufficient to permit them to occupy an apartment -of, let us say, two or three or four rooms, often without kitchen, they -might agree with her in principle; but they would probably not attempt -to bring up three or four children in such straitened surroundings and -to educate them over a long span of years, for a very doubtful future. -If this example seem special and far-fetched, I would remind my readers -that over fifty per cent of people in this country are urban dwellers, -and that the vast majority of them are worse off for dwelling space, -not better, than the hypothetical couple I have cited. - -It is, of course, among those who are worse off that children are -most numerous. Ignorance and religious scruples--for the Church is -strongest among the ignorant because of their ignorance--combine to -produce large families among the class that can least afford them. For -civilization, although it denies these people most things, grants them -too great a fecundity. Among primitive peoples fecundity is decreased -by various causes, such as excessively hard work, childbearing at a -too early age, and prolonged lactation during which continence is -often the rule. The average number of children borne by a savage -does not often exceed five or six, whereas the civilized woman may -bear eighteen or twenty, and it is not at all exceptional for the -woman of our slums to bear ten or twelve. Among west-side women of -New York whom Katherine Anthony questioned concerning frequency of -pregnancies, one reported fifteen in nineteen years, another ten in -twelve years, and another six in nine years. Obviously, then, when -eugenists and moralists deplore what they term the modern tendency to -race-suicide, they refer to the educated classes. The moralist argues -from prepossession and may be dismissed from consideration; but the -eugenist has scientific pretensions which are not without a certain -degree of validity and can therefore not be lightly passed over. So -long as he argues for improvement in the quality of the race through -the substitution of intelligence for blind instinct in propagation, he -is on solid ground: no one unprepossessed by the sentimentalism which -regards legitimate children, however untoward be the circumstances -of their birth and breeding, as a direct visitation from God, can -deny that voluntary and intelligent attention to the quality of -offspring offers better prospects for civilization than hit-or-miss -quantity-production. The eugenist deplores the fact that at present -this exercise of intelligence is confined to the comparatively small -class of the educated and well-to-do, and that therefore the birth-rate -among that class is all too small to offset the unchecked propagation -of the ignorant and unfit. This is unfortunately true; and it suggests -the obvious question: Why is there in every modern State so large -a class of ignorant and unfit persons as to constitute a menace to -the vitality of that State? If it is solely because the unfit are -allowed to propagate unchecked, then those eugenists who advocate -the sterilization of paupers and imbeciles and the encouragement of -propagation among the intelligent classes by an elaborate system of -State subsidy, may be listened to with respect if not with perfect -faith in the practicability of their proposals. But how about that -large mass of the physically and mentally normal who live at the -subsistence-level, and whose progeny, if economic pressure tighten -a little, are likely to be forced down into the class of underfed -beings, dulled and brutalized by poverty, from whose ranks our paupers, -imbeciles and criminals are largely recruited? To ignore the existence -of this perennial source of unfitness is levity. To recognize it, and -to assume that it results from over-propagation is to assume at the -same time that the earth’s population is too numerous for comfortable -subsistence on the amount of cultivable land in existence. If this -disproportion be real, the only hope lies in persuading this class to -limit its offspring voluntarily to the number that the earth’s surface -will comfortably support. If it be only an apparent disproportion -due to an artificial shortage of land created by monopoly, then -the eugenist’s program amounts simply to a recommendation that the -population be somehow restricted to the number that can get subsistence -on the terms of the monopolist. Henry George has conclusively disproved -the validity of the Malthusian theory which underlies the assumption -of over-population, while Oppenheimer’s figures show that if land -were freely available for use, the earth’s present population might -easily be supported on one-third of its arable surface.[18] Here, -really, is the most convincing answer to the standard arguments for -birth-control; yet so far as I know, the opponents of birth-control -have never done much with it, whether out of ignorance or because of -the profound economic readjustments that it implies. The eugenist, -too, generally displays a constitutional aversion to attacking the -problem of unfitness at the right end--which is, to inquire, first of -all, why it exists. Hence the ineptitude of his proposals for social -betterment: they would involve much unwieldy governmental machinery and -considerably more intelligence than any State has ever displayed in -dealing with social questions; and they would attack only the results -of our social ills, leaving the causes freely operative.[19] - -While those causes continue to operate, the support of a family, save -in the comparatively small class of wealthy people, will be more or -less of a burden. At present, this burden bears most heavily upon the -middle-class man and the lower-class woman. Meretricious standards of -respectability, among them the idea that a married woman must not work -outside her home even when she is childless, tend to make marriage -from the outset a burden on the man of the middle class. For it must -be remembered that since the so-called feminine occupations have been -taken out of the home, a man no longer gains an economic asset in -taking unto himself a wife. Rather, he assumes a liability. This is -especially true among the middle classes, where social standing has -come to be gauged to some extent by the degree in which wives are -economically unproductive. It is a commonplace in this country that -women form the leisure class; and this leisure class of women, like -leisured classes everywhere, has its leisure at the expense of other -people, who in this case are the husbands. Moreover, it is among the -middle classes that the standards of education are highest and the -rearing of children therefore most expensive; and this burden is -usually borne by the husband alone. Hence the emergence of the type -of harassed _pater familias_ at whom our comic artists poke much -sympathetic fun, who meets his family now and then on Sundays, foots -their bills, and is rewarded for his unremitting toil in their behalf -by being regarded much in the light of a cash-register. - -This sort of thing, of course, is not the invariable rule. There are -many middle-class women who give their families untiring service, and -an increasing number who, either from choice or necessity, engage in -gainful occupations outside their homes. Of this country’s eight and -one half million women breadwinners, two million are married; and -it may be assumed that a fair percentage of these are of the middle -class. The great majority, however, are of the labouring class; and -upon these, economic injustice weighs most heavily. It is these women -who bear most children; and it is they who, when their husbands are -unable or unwilling to meet the growing expenses of the family, assume -the double burden of “woman’s work” in the home and whatever they can -get to do outside that will enable them to earn a few dollars a week, -in order to “keep the family together.” Miss Katharine Anthony, in -her book, “Mothers Who Must Earn,” gives a striking picture of the -unskilled married women workers of west-side New York, victims of a -crowded labour-market, who take the hardest jobs at the lowest pay, in -order that they may give some few poor advantages to the children they -have brought into the world unwillingly, knowing that they could not -afford them. “The same mother,” says Miss Anthony, “who resents the -coming of children and resigns them so apathetically to death, will -toil fourteen hours a day and seven days a week to keep up a home for -the young lives in her charge.” - -Such testimony, and testimony of a similar kind from governmental -investigators, somehow makes the general run of social criticism -appear frivolous and superficial. The married wage-earner, worn with -excessive childbearing, who still finds strength to work long hours -in laundry or factory during the day and do her housework at night, -hardly fits into the picture of selfish, emancipated women, wilfully -deserting their proper sphere of domesticity either to seek pleasure or -to maintain their economic independence. Indeed, the idea of economic -independence is quite at variance with her notions of respectability. -“Not to work,” says Miss Anthony, “is a mark of the middle-class -married woman, and the ambitious west-side family covets that mark. -Hence comes the attempt to conceal the mother’s employment, if she -has one, which is one of the little snobberies of the poor.” The sole -object of these women’s toil is to preserve the home, chief prop of -a social order which bears upon it with crushing weight; and their -adherence to a social philosophy which regards the preservation of -the home as peculiarly the business of women is evident in the fact -that they contribute the whole of their meagre earnings to its upkeep, -whereas their husbands are likely to contribute only as much of their -own earnings as they see fit. - -It goes without saying that the conditions I have cited have a profound -effect on the psychology of parents, and therefore on the lives of -children. The rearing of children, if justice is to be done them, is -one of the most exacting tasks that can be undertaken. The adjustment -that is required to fit parents to the personalities of their children -and children to those of their parents and of one another, is in itself -a most delicate and difficult process, and one upon which the nature -of the child’s adjustment to the larger world greatly depends. Such -a process naturally involves friction, and therefore, if it is to be -successful, calls for no little tact and patience in the parents; and -cramped quarters, sordid poverty, and exhausting labour are hardly -conducive to the possession of either of these qualities. Children -of the middle class, it is remarked often enough, hardly know their -harassed, overworked fathers; but children of the labouring class -are likely to know neither of their parents, or to know them only as -fretful, quarrelsome people, brutalized by overwork. “The strain of -bringing up a family on the average workingman’s wage,” says Miss -Anthony, “reduced as this is likely to be by unemployment, sickness, -or drink, constitutes, indeed, the dark age of the tenement mother’s -life. It is not strange that the good will existing between husband -and wife often gives way beneath it. ‘I tell my husband,’ said Mrs. -Gurney, ‘it’s not right for us to be quarreling all the time before the -children. But it seems like we can’t help it. He’s so worried all the -time and I’m so tired. If we were easy in our minds we wouldn’t do it.’” - -Nor do the children of these people have anything much better to look -forward to than such a lot as that of their parents, for poverty -drives them too into the labour-market as soon as they are old enough -to earn, to the profound distress of reformers who refuse to face -the basic question of child-labour, namely: whether it is better for -human beings, even if they be children, to work for their living or -to starve. This applies not only to the children of our industrial -labouring classes, but to those of the agricultural labourer and -the tenant-farmer, who pay the same penalty for the exploitation of -their parents. There is no little irony in the fact that our growing -consciousness of the right of children to be well born and well reared -proceeds hand in hand with an economic injustice which renders it -impossible to secure that right for all children. - -If responsibility for the upbringing of children is to continue to -be vested in the family, then the rights of children will be secured -only when parents are able to make a living for their families with -so little difficulty that they may give their best thought and energy -to the child’s development and the problem of helping it to adjust -itself to the complexities of the modern environment. Such a condition -is not utopian, but quite possible of attainment, as I shall show -later. But for the present, and for some time to come, marriage and -parenthood will continue to make men and women virtual slaves of the -economic order which they help to perpetuate. Small wonder that -the women of whom Miss Anthony writes are thoroughly disillusioned -concerning “marriage life,” and would avoid it if they “had it to do -over.” Marriage as an institution has little to offer these people -save toil and suffering; it is, as I have remarked, its tenacity as an -instinctive habit that makes them its victims. And if it were not for -the responsibilities that marriage entails, responsibilities which make -people fearful of the economic uncertainty involved in revolutionary -change, the economic order that makes marriage “an instrument of -torture” and thwarts the development of children, would not last -overnight. - -Both as a personal relationship and as an institution, marriage is at -present undergoing a profound modification resulting from the changing -industrial and social position of women. The elevation of woman from -the position of a chattel to that of a free citizen must inevitably -affect the institution in which her subordinate position has been most -strongly emphasized--which has been, indeed, the chief instrument of -her subordination. The woman who is demanding her rightful place in -the world as man’s equal, can no longer be expected to accept without -question an institution under whose rules she is obliged to remain -the victim of injustice. There is every reason therefore, assuming -that the process of emancipation shall not be interrupted, to expect -a continuous alteration in the laws and customs bearing on marriage, -until some adjustment shall be reached which allows scope for the -individuality of both parties, instead of one only. The psychological -conflict involved in the adaptation of marriage to woman’s changing -position and the changing mentality that results from it, is not to -be underrated. At present the process of adjustment is needlessly -complicated and this attendant conflict immensely exaggerated, by -an economic injustice which bears most heavily on married people. -Individualism is developing in modern society to such an extent that -marriage based on anything but affection seems degrading; but economic -injustice is progressing simultaneously with such strides that marriage -based on nothing but affection is likely to end in disaster; for -affection and the harassment of poverty are hardly compatible. If this -complication were removed, as it could be, we should probably find that -the adjustment of marriage to shifting ideals and conditions would come -about in a natural and advantageous manner, as adjustments usually do -when vexing and hampering conditions are removed. The question will -settle itself in any case. Just how, no one, of course, can tell; but -however revolutionary the adaptation to new conditions may be, it will -not _seem_ revolutionary to the people of the future because “the minds -of men will be fitted to it.” This is an all-important fact, and one -that is too little respected; for the desire to enforce our own moral -and spiritual criteria upon posterity is quite as strong as the desire -to enforce them upon contemporaries. It is a desire which finds a large -measure of fulfilment--where is the society which does not struggle -along under a dead weight of tradition and law inherited from its -grandfathers? All political and religious systems have their root and -their strength in the innate conservatism of the human mind, and its -intense fear of autonomy. Because of this conservatism, people never -move towards revolution; they are pushed towards it by intolerable -injustices in the economic and social order under which they live. -There were, and are, such injustices in the laws and customs of the -Christian world governing marriage and the relations of the sexes; -hence the changes which have already begun, and may conceivably proceed -until they shall prove as far-reaching as those by which marriage in -the past was transformed from an instinctive habit into an institution -subject to regulation by everyone except the two people most intimately -concerned. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[10] Westermarck defines it as “a more or less durable connexion -between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till -after the birth of the offspring.” - -[11] E. C. Parsons: “The Family.” - -[12] It is interesting in this connexion to note that in post-war -England, where the thousands of unemployed workers constitute a heavy -drain on the public purse and a baffling political problem, it has -been made lawful to sell devices for birth-control. One now sees these -devices conspicuously displayed in druggists’ windows. - -[13] In Maryland fornication is not a crime, although it may entitle -a husband to divorce if he did not know of it at the time of the -marriage. Adultery is punishable by a fine of ten dollars. - -[14] It is important to call attention to the loose use of the word -“Society” in this quotation, as practically synonomous with the -State. In their final definition, the two terms are antithetical. -There is general agreement among scholars, according to Professor -Beard, that in the genesis of the State, exploitation was primary, -and organization for other purposes, e.g., what we know as “law and -order,” was incidental and secondary. The term Society, then, really -implies the disappearance of the State, and is commonly so used by -scholars. Even now, too, tribes which have never formed a State and -are without government of any kind, maintain society, i.e., a quite -highly organized mode of communal life. Thomas Jefferson remarked this -phenomenon among the American Indian hunting tribes, and so did the -historian Parkman. - -[15] This motive is especially powerful in the United States, because -monopoly in this country even now permits people to do relatively well. -Moreover, there is still a strong current of optimism attributable -to the failure of Americans to see that the old days of almost -unlimited opportunity ended with the closing of the frontier. If the -American family finds itself in straitened circumstances, its members -are likely to attribute the fact to “hard times,” and to expect an -improvement before long, since the country has recovered from a panic -about every twenty years for the past century. They do not understand -that the measure of recovery they hope for is now impossible. How -many Americans, I wonder, have stopped to ask themselves why this -country has suffered from _uninterrupted_ economic “depression,” with -the exception of the war-period, ever since the panic of 1907? What -they regard as depression is really the normal result of complete -land-monopoly and high tariffs. Prices have continued to rise since the -war; which is to say that real wages have fallen. - -[16] According to Herriot, children form the wealth of savage tribes. - -[17] The first passage I have quoted is from “Love and Marriage”; -the other two I have taken from Miss Key’s “The Younger Generation,” -simply because I found the ideas they contain somewhat more clearly and -definitely expressed in that book than in the other. - -[18] Franz Oppenheimer, Theorie der Reinen und Politischen Œkonomie. -Berlin, 1912. - -[19] For a striking and characteristic example of this ineptitude, I -refer my readers to Dr. Havelock Ellis’s little book, “Eugenics Made -Plain.” - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -WOMAN AND MARRIAGE - - -I - -Perhaps the most pronounced conventional distinction between the sexes -is made in their relation to marriage. For man, marriage is regarded as -a state; for woman, as a vocation. For man, it is a means of ordering -his life and perpetuating his name, for woman it is considered a proper -and fitting aim of existence. This conventional view is yielding before -the changing attitude of women toward themselves; but it will be long -before it ceases to colour the instinctive attitude of the great -majority of people toward women. It is because of the usual assumption -that marriage is woman’s special province, that I have discussed its -general aspect somewhat at length before considering its relation to -women in particular. This assumption, I may remark, has been justified -expressly or by implication by all those advocates of freedom for -women who have assured the world that woman’s “mission” of wifehood -and motherhood would be better fulfilled rather than worse through an -extension of her rights. If we imagine the signers of the Declaration -of Independence, in place of proclaiming the natural right of all men -to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, arguing with King -George that a little more freedom would make them better husbands and -fathers, we shall imagine a pretty exact parallel for this kind of -argument on behalf of the emancipation of women. - -The belief that marriage and parenthood are the especial concern of -women is rooted in the idea that the individual exists for the sake of -the species. Biologically, this is of course true; but it is equally -true of male and female. Among primitive peoples, where individuation -has not progressed as far as among more highly civilized peoples, this -idea still prevails in regard to both sexes. Among these peoples the -man who must remain unmarried and childless is considered quite as -unfortunate as the woman who suffers the same fate. Among civilized -peoples, on the other hand, where individuation has progressed -farthest, it is not usual to look upon the male as existing solely -for the species; but it is usual for the female to be so regarded, -because, having had less freedom than the male, she has not been -able to assert to the same extent her right to live for herself. The -one-sided view that the future of the race depends solely on women -has curious results: a nation may send the best of its male youth -to be destroyed in war without overmuch anxiety being manifested in -any quarter over the effect of this wholesale slaughter upon future -generations; but if the idea of enlisting women in military service -be so much as broached, there is an immediate outcry about the danger -to posterity that such a course would involve. Yet it requires only a -moderate exercise of intelligence to perceive that if there must be -periodic slaughter it would be better, both for the survivors and for -posterity, if the sexes were to be slaughtered in equal numbers; and -more especially is this true, for obvious reasons, where monogamy is -the accepted form of marriage. Again, although it is extremely hard to -get laws passed to protect men from the hazards of industry, the laws -designed to protect women--_i.e._, posterity--which have been passed -at the instance of reformers and social workers, already constitute a -serious handicap to women workers in their necessary competition with -men in the labour-market. Yet every child must have two parents, and -certainly unfitness or disability in the father must have a bad effect -upon his offspring, even though it be less harmful than unfitness or -disability in the mother. - -The view of woman as a biological function might be strongly defended -on the ground of racial strength if that function were respected and -she were free in discharging it. But it is not respected and she is -not free. The same restrictions that have kept her in the status -of a function have denied her freedom and proper respect even in -the exercise of that function. Motherhood, to be sure, receives a -great deal of sentimental adulation, but only if it is committed in -accordance with rules which have been prescribed by a predominantly -masculine society. _Per se_ it is accorded no respect whatever. When -it results from a sexual relationship which has been duly sanctioned -by organized society, it is holy, no matter how much it may transgress -the rules of decency, health, or common sense. Otherwise it is a sin -meriting social ostracism for the mother and obloquy for the child--an -ostracism and an obloquy, significantly enough, in which the father -does not share. - -The motives behind the universal condemnation of extra-legal -motherhood are various and complex; but I believe it is safe to say -that the strongest is masculine jealousy. Motherhood out of wedlock -constitutes a defiance of that theory of male proprietorship on which -most societies are based; it implies on the part of woman a seizure -of sexual freedom which, if it were countenanced, would threaten the -long-established dominance of the male in sexual matters, a dominance -which has been enforced by imposing all manner of unnatural social and -legal disabilities upon women, such, for example, as the demand for -virginity before marriage and chastity after it. The woman who bears -an illegitimate child violates one of these two restrictions. On the -other hand, the man who begets an illegitimate child violates no such -restriction, for society demands of him neither virginity nor chastity; -therefore he is not only not punished by social ostracism, but he is -often protected by law from being found out.[20] - -The fact that paternity may so easily be doubtful furnishes a strong -motive for the attempt to enforce chastity upon women; but that this -is not so potent as the idea of male proprietorship is evident from -the practice which exists in many primitive societies, and appears -formerly to have existed in Europe, of lending wives to visitors, as a -mark of hospitality. Adultery thus imposed on a woman by her husband -is not only regarded as quite proper, but the children that may result -are considered his legitimate offspring. The superstitious notion -that a woman’s honour is a matter of sex, and that she can not be -considered virtuous if her sex-life is not conducted in accordance with -regulations imposed by organized society, also has something to do with -the disgrace that attaches to illegitimate motherhood; but of course -this superstition itself has its source in masculine dominance. Indeed, -there is no need to emphasize the fact that the whole mass of taboo and -discrimination arrayed against the unwedded mother and her child is the -direct result of the subjection of women; for in a society where women -dominated--or even where they were the equals of men--illegitimacy -would either not exist at all, or its consequences would be made to -bear either upon the father or upon both parents equally. This may -seem an extravagant statement in view of the harshness with which -women themselves are prone to treat the unmarried mother. But it should -not be forgotten that women are what the procrustean adaptations of a -factitious morality have made them. They have been taught to believe -that motherhood out of wedlock is a cardinal sin, and the value and -fragility of reputation have been effective hindrances to any impulse -of lenience toward the sinner. Their attitude, moreover, has been -tinged with a feeling that may be termed professional. Marriage has -been, generally speaking, the only profession open to them; their -living and their social position have depended on it, and still do in -great measure; therefore the woman who commits a sexual irregularity -acts unprofessionally, somewhat as the trader who smuggles wares into -a tariff ridden country and undercuts his competitors. The position -of the unmarried mother is analogous to that of the married mother -in certain societies of which I have already spoken, whose children -are considered illegitimate because she has not been bought. Even the -prostitute, although she is a social outcast, is sooner tolerated, -because while prostitution, like marriage, has been established on a -commercial basis, it is a non-competing institution. It does not impair -the economic value of the “virtuous” woman’s chief asset. Prostitution -is condoned as a protective concession to the postulated sexual needs -of men; the prostitute has been justified, and even praised in a -back-handed way, as “the most efficient guardian of virtue”;[21] that -is to say, of the arbitrary restraints on women which pass for virtue -in a society where woman is the repository of morality. Illegitimacy, -on the other hand, or at least that large share of it which implies a -fall from conventional virtue, is an embarrassing suggestion of sexual -need in woman. Therefore, it is a disturbing phenomenon, intimating -as it does to virtuous women that the duplex morality to which their -freedom is sacrificed is unnatural and unworkable. - -There is a sense, of course, in which extra-legal motherhood is, if -not sinful, at least unjust. The mother knows that the child she bears -out of wedlock will be forced, although innocent, to share with her -in the world’s displeasure at her defiance of conventional taboo, -and that the sneers of its legitimately born playmates may have a -blighting effect upon its spiritual development. She knows also, -unless she be well-to-do or especially well qualified to earn, that -her child will be at a disadvantage from the start in the matter of -livelihood and education unless the father be willing--or required -by law--to contribute to its support. There is likely to be a grim -consistency in legal injustices. Sometimes the denial of one right -makes expedient the denial of another, as when the poor, having been -reduced by legalized privilege to want and squalor, are legally -deprived of the alcohol with which they increase their wretchedness -in an attempt to find forgetfulness of their misery. The denial to -women of economic opportunity has made expedient denial of freedom in -performing the function of motherhood. Men, having enjoyed a virtual -monopoly of earning power, have been regarded as the natural providers -for women and children; therefore a woman has been required to get -a legal provider before she could legally get a child; and if one -accepted her legal disabilities without questioning their justice, -this restraint might appear quite justifiable. This may be taken as an -argument for weakness or wantonness in the unmarried mother. If so, it -must certainly apply with equal force to the unmarried father--with -double force indeed, for he knows that his act will not only add to the -difficulties, numerous enough under the best circumstances, that his -child will have to contend with, but that it means social ostracism for -the mother. Thus every illegitimate child, as society is at present -constituted, is the victim not only of social but of parental injustice. - -It is hardly necessary to discuss further the economic aspects of -the question. In a society where economic opportunity is pretty well -monopolized by men, the task of the mother with children to support -is, as I have shown in the preceding chapter, extremely difficult; and -it may even be rendered impossible where the disgrace of unmarried -motherhood decreases such comparatively slight opportunity as industry, -even now, offers a woman. The effect of this disability shows clearly -in any comparison of the death-rates among legitimate and illegitimate -babies. The rate among illegitimate children is often twice as high as -that among children born in wedlock. Truly marriage is an invaluable -protection to motherhood and childhood in a society which denies them -any other. - -Instead of joining in the universal condemnation of illegitimacy, it -seems more reasonable to question the ethics of a society which permits -it to exist. Certainly no social usage could be more degrading to -women as mothers of the race than that which makes it a sin to bear -a child; and nothing could be more grotesquely unjust than a code of -morals, reinforced by laws, which relieves men from responsibility -for irregular sexual acts, and for the same acts drives women to -abortion, infanticide, prostitution and self-destruction. I know of -no word that may be said in justification of such a code or of a -society that tolerates it. As marriage ceases to be a vested interest -with women, and as their growing freedom enables them to perceive the -insult to their humanity that this kind of morality involves, they -will refuse to stand for it. Those who prefer to regard woman as a -function will devote their energy to securing conditions under which -she may bear and bring up children with a greater degree of freedom and -self-respect than conventional morality allows her. As for those who -prefer to regard her as a human being, they will naturally demand the -abolition of all discriminations based on sex; while all women must -certainly repudiate the barbarous injustice of organized society to the -illegitimate child. - -This is hardly to be regarded as a prophecy, for the revolt has already -begun. A small minority of women in Europe have for some time been -denouncing this injustice, the most prominent among them being the -famous Swedish champion of childhood, Ellen Key. Their influence -has already been reflected in the laws of several countries. In -Scandinavia, in Switzerland, and even in France, laws have already -been enacted either removing or modifying the legal disabilities of -the child born out of wedlock, and fixing the responsibilities of the -father. There are similar laws in Australia and New Zealand. These -laws vary in scope, but their general tendency is toward the abolition -of illegitimacy and recognition of joint parental responsibility for -every child brought into the world. In this country, where unjust -legal discriminations against unmarried mothers and their children are -still in force, the Woman’s Party is demanding laws recognizing every -child as legitimate, and determining the responsibilities of unmarried -parents. The abolition of illegitimacy will naturally mean that the -child of unmarried parents will have the same right to the father’s -name, and to support and inheritance, as the child born in wedlock. - -There is a general impression, to which I have adverted, that marriage -is a great protection to women. Bachofen and his followers even went -so far as to suppose that she herself originally devised it for that -purpose. This school quite overlooked the fact that in so far as it has -been a protection it has been so only because society has been inimical -to her interests, and has allowed her no other defence against itself. -Marriage has certainly not protected her in the past from hard labour, -cruelty, and mental and spiritual deterioration. In spite of these -well-known facts, the notion persists that it is of inestimable benefit -to her; and those influenced by this superstition are likely to fear -that to abolish illegitimacy, with its humiliating consequences, will -be to encourage “free love” and thus to expose women to victimization -by unscrupulous men. Such a view not only carries an untenable -assumption of feminine inferiority, but it carries an equally untenable -assumption that marriage constitutes a protection against victimization -by unscrupulous men. Not only did our marriage-laws until recently give -a woman into the absolute power of her husband, however unscrupulous he -might be, but they left her no way of escape. On the other hand, they -protected the husband’s sexual monopoly of his wife and his right to be -considered the only legal parent of their children. Indeed, the law -has gone further; it has exposed women to victimization by protecting -men from detection in illegitimate parentage. Laws equalizing the -responsibilities of men and women towards illegitimate children, will -reduce temptation to unscrupulous conduct, for men will be aware -that if it result in the birth of a child they will be obliged to -acknowledge their parenthood and assume the attendant responsibilities. - -I might remark here that some communities have tried to deal with -this question in what seems to me a very bungling manner, namely: by -forcing the “seducer” of a woman under the legal age of consent to -choose between marrying her and going to jail. Such laws represent -concessions to traditional prejudices, and have little relation either -to justice or common sense. They take no cognizance of the inclination -of the parties or their fitness for marriage; hence they afford a -stupid way of legitimizing the child. It would be much more sensible to -regard every child as legitimate by the very fact of having arrived in -the world, and to demand of its parents a full discharge of parental -responsibility, without complicating it with the very different -question of marital obligations. Another legal provision which is as -general as it is humiliating to women is that which permits a father to -recover damages from the seducer of his daughter. This law, which is in -force in several of our States, is supposed to find justification in -the daughter’s status as a servant in her father’s house; but since the -law grants him no similar redress for the seduction of a servant who is -not his daughter, it is evident that its real basis is in a surviving -notion of woman as the natural property of a male owner. These laws do -not lessen the disgrace that attaches to extra-legal birth; rather they -recognize and endorse it. - -The importance of abolishing illegitimacy is not to be underrated, -for it means the removal of the legal sanctions which have enforced a -barbarous custom. But the abolition of illegitimacy can not be expected -entirely to remove the stigma attaching to unmarried motherhood and -birth out of wedlock. That will disappear only when the economic -independence of women shall have resulted in a spiritual independence -which will lead them to examine critically the social dogmas that -have been forced upon them, and to repudiate those which conflict -with justice. In other words, it will involve an adaptation to more -humane ethical standards; an adaptation which has begun but may be -long in reaching completion, for superstition and taboo are not easily -eradicated. - - -II - -The assumption that justice to motherhood and childhood will undermine -the institution of marriage implies that marriage as an institution -is based on injustice; which is to assume that it is fundamentally -unsound. That it does, under present economic conditions, involve -serious injustice to both sexes I have shown in the preceding chapter. -But this notion implies something more: it implies that marriage is -acceptable to women only or chiefly because it offers them a position -of privilege--the privilege of exemption from the social and economic -consequences of illegitimate motherhood. There is some show of reason -in this; for the disabilities which marriage puts on women are in -most communities humiliating and onerous, more particularly since the -unmarried woman has so generally succeeded in establishing her right -to be treated as a free agent. The abolition of illegitimacy may -conceivably undermine institutional marriage; yet hardly before women -are economically free. For her need of society’s protection against -itself in the discharge of her maternal function has certainly had -less to do with woman’s long acquiescence in the disabilities which -marriage involves than the fact that marriage offered the only career -which society approved for her or gave her much opportunity to pursue. -She was under enormous economic and social pressure to accept those -disabilities, and she yielded, precisely as thousands of men who have -been under analogous pressure to get their living under humiliating -conditions, have yielded, rather than not get it at all. - -Since we have been discussing unmarried motherhood, we may -appropriately begin our consideration of these disabilities by -examining the status of motherhood in marriage. The married mother, -particularly in modern times, is the object of a sickly pawing and -adulation and enjoys a certain formal respect--not, however, as a -mother, but as a mother of legitimate children. While she continues -to live with her husband, she may exercise considerable supervision -over the rearing of her offspring; indeed in some communities she -is, by force of custom, supreme in this province. But in case of -separation or the death of her husband, she may find herself without -any legal claim to their guardianship or custody, for until recently -children born in wedlock have been generally held to belong exclusively -to the father. The principle of joint guardianship is coming to be -recognized in modern jurisprudence, but there are communities where -the old laws still hold. In Virginia, for example, the father’s claim -is always preferred to that of the mother. In Maryland and Delaware -it is preferred to such an extent that he may even, by his will, -deprive her of the guardianship and custody of her children after -his death. This provision is a survival from English common law, and -is a logical correlative of woman’s status under that law, which was -that of a minor. Her position with regard to her children was one -of responsibilities with no compensating rights; and although the -discriminations against her have been modified here and there, this -is still pretty generally her position. In this respect the unmarried -mother is better off than the mother of legitimate children, for in -most countries, as the only legal parent of her child, she exercises -the right of guardianship and control and possesses full claim to -their services and earnings. The unmarried mother, in a word, bears her -own children; the married mother bears the children of her husband. - -Usage, as every one knows, is far ahead of the laws governing the -rights of the married mother. In France, where her legal position is -notoriously bad, her relation to her family is nevertheless one of -influence and authority. In this country also her actual position is -generally far better than that allowed her by the law. But this is -merely to say that most husbands are more humane than the law; and the -fact may not be ignored that so long as legal discriminations bar her -from an equal share with her husband in the control and guardianship of -her children, she exercises parental rights only on sufferance. It is -the law which finally fixes her status in this as in other matters; and -as long as she may legally be made to suffer injustice on account of -her sex, she can hardly be called her husband’s equal, no matter what -privileges she may enjoy by virtue of his indulgence. - -So much for the disabilities of the married mother. Her compensations -are the immunity that marriage affords her from society’s displeasure -and consequent persecution; the inestimable advantage of her husband’s -co-operation in making a home for her children, and in rearing and -educating them; and the fact that they have a legal claim upon him for -support and inheritance. - -Her own claim for support does not depend, in law, upon her motherhood, -but upon her wifehood. She is entitled to support whether she has -children or not. On the other hand the law, in most communities, allows -her nothing more than mere support, while at the same time it maintains -certain restrictions upon her economic independence. Although most -States now allow the wife to control her own earnings in industry, her -services in the home are still pretty generally her husband’s property, -and any savings that result from economy in her domestic management -belong to him, and so does any money earned by her in her own house, -as from taking in boarders or lodgers. In short, while she works in -the home her status is that of her husband’s servant[22]. He may even, -as in Michigan, still prevent her from undertaking employment outside -the home, simply by withholding his consent. Nor is this the only -way in which the opportunities of a married woman are restricted. She -is frequently disqualified by her status for engaging in business on -her own account, or for doing so without her husband’s consent. She -may also be disqualified by law or prejudice for engaging in certain -professions, such as teaching, an occupation in which, strangely -enough, a married woman is frequently held to be incapable. - -The claim for alimony which at present constitutes such a fecund source -of injustice to men and corruption among women, implies the assumption -that a woman is economically helpless, that she is a natural dependent -whose support, having been undertaken by her husband, must be continued -even after divorce, until she dies or finds another husband to support -her. It does not take into account the woman’s rightful claim to any -property that she may have helped her husband to accumulate, for -the question whether or not she shall receive alimony is within the -discretion of the court. On the other hand, the awarding of alimony may -give a woman a claim to income from property possessed by her husband -before marriage and therefore not rightfully to be enjoyed by her; it -may, furthermore, give her an equally unjustifiable lien on his future -earnings. Thus it allows women at once too little and too much. If the -community is to continue to fix the economic obligations which marriage -shall entail, it might be fairer to both sexes if those obligations -were fixed as they have been in certain of our Western States. In -those States, property acquired during marriage is regarded as common -property, and in case of separation must be divided equally. Neither -party may, during the marriage, dispose of such property without -consent of the other; nor may either party dispose of more than half -of it by will. On the other hand, either party has free disposal of -property acquired before marriage, or inherited during marriage. In -case one party dies intestate, the other shares equally with children -in his or her half of the common property, and in other property. Thus -the law raises woman above the status of a dependent and recognizes -marriage as an equal partnership. Such laws, of course, do not fit -all cases, for all marriages are by no means equal partnerships; but -so long as the State insists upon maintaining a blanket-regulation of -the marital relation, some such arrangement would seem to be more -nearly just, both to men and women, than the laws now in force in most -communities. - -I have given only a partial list of the economic disabilities enforced -upon a good many millions of married women. Their status in the various -countries of the civilized world ranges all the way from complete -subjection to their husbands to complete equality with them[23]. The -subjection of women, like all slavery, has been enforced by legally -established economic disadvantages; and upon the married woman these -disadvantages, or some of them, are still binding in most communities. -The law deprived her of the right to her own property and her own -labour, and in return gave her a claim upon her husband for bare -subsistence, which is the claim of a serf. Since woman’s partial -emergence from her subjection, and the consequent modification of the -discriminations against her, laws which were logical and effective when -her status was that of a chattel have been allowed to survive other -laws which made them necessary. The result is a grotesque hodge-podge -of illogical and contradictory provisions which involve injustice to -both sexes, and should be abolished by the simple expedient of making -men and women equal in all respects before the law, and sweeping away -all legal claims which they now exercise against one another by virtue -of the marriage-bond. - -This would mean, of course, that a woman might no longer legally claim -support from her husband by virtue of her wifehood; nor should she -in fairness be able to do so when all his claims to her property and -services had been abolished. There is no reason why the disabilities -which marriage imposes on women should be done away with and those -which it imposes on men retained. To take such a course would be to -turn the tables and place women in a position of privilege. The fact -that women are still at considerable disadvantage in the industrial -world might appear to justify such a position; but there is a better -way of dealing with their economic handicaps than the way of penalizing -husbands and demoralizing a large number of women by degrading -marriage, for them, to the level of a means of livelihood, gained -sometimes through virtual blackmail. Given complete equality of the -sexes, so that prejudice may no longer avail itself of legal sanction -for excluding women from the occupations in which they may elect -to engage, the economic handicaps from which they may still suffer -will be those resulting from the overcrowded condition of the general -labour-market. The ultimate emancipation of woman, then, will depend -not upon the abolition of the restrictions which have subjected her -to man--that is but a step, though a necessary one--but upon _the -abolition of all those restrictions of natural human rights that -subject the mass of humanity to a privileged class_. - -This phase of woman’s problem is the main thesis of my book; and since -it will come in for detailed consideration in subsequent chapters, I -leave it for the present and proceed to discuss some probable results -of sex-equality and the removal of legal claims which marriage now -gives husband and wife against one another. - -The wife would no longer be humiliated by the assumption that as a -married woman she is the natural inferior of her husband, and entitled -to society’s protection against the extreme results of the disabilities -that her status involves. If she became his housekeeper, she would -do so by free choice, and not because her services were his legal -property; and her resultant claim on his purse would be fixed by -mutual arrangement rather than by laws allowing her the claims of a -serf. The marriage, if it became an economic partnership, would be -so by mutual consent and arrangement, and would thus no longer be a -one-sided contract, legally defined, in which all the rights were on -the side of the husband, but compensated in too many cases by unjust -privileges on that of the wife. At the same time, the temptation to -marry for economic security or ease would be lessened. This temptation -besets both men and women, though not in the same degree, because men, -through the economic advantage enjoyed by their sex, are oftener in -a position of ease than women are. It is the temptation, arising out -of man’s natural desire to gratify his needs with the least possible -exertion, to live by the means of others rather than by one’s own -labour. Its gratification through marriage would not be rendered -impossible by the mere abolition of coercive laws governing the -marriage relation; but at least its cruder manifestations, such as the -frequent attempts of unscrupulous or demoralized women to use marriage -for purposes of extortion, would no longer assail the nostrils of the -public. Its reduction to a minimum must await the establishment of an -economic order under which self-support will be easy and certain. - -More general and binding, even, than the economic obligations that -marriage entails are the personal claims that it creates. In so far -as these claims are psychological--those of affection and habit, or -attachment to children--their regulation and abrogation will always -afford a problem which must be solved by the two persons concerned. -There is at present a strong tendency to equalize the incidence of the -laws whereby the State defines these relations and imposes them on -married people. The old assumption of feminine inferiority in sexual -rights is gradually yielding to a single standard for both sexes. So, -also, the requirement that the wife shall in all matters subordinate -her will and judgment to the will and judgment of her husband, tends to -be modified by the new view of woman as a free agent rather than a mere -adjunct to man. Qualifications for marriage and grounds for divorce -tend to become the same for both sexes as the State is forced to -relinquish its right to regard as offences in one sex actions which it -does not recognize as offences in the other. It would appear, indeed, -that the time is not far distant when the marriage-law, however -humiliating its provisions may be, will bear equally on men and women. - -But mere equalization of the law’s incidence leaves untouched the -previous question whether any third person--and the State assumes the -rôle of a third person--has a legitimate right to define and regulate -the personal relations of adult and presumably mature people. So -long as the basic assumption goes unchallenged that the State may -grant to man and woman lifelong monopoly-rights in one another, or -monopoly-rights which shall endure, despite the inclination of the -persons concerned, during the State’s pleasure, so long will complaints -of harsh or unjust marriage or divorce laws prove the truth of Mill’s -dictum that “no enslaved class ever asked for complete liberty at once -... those who are under any power of ancient origin, never begin by -complaining of the power itself, but only of its oppressive exercise.” -Marriage under conditions arbitrarily fixed by an external agency is -slavery; and if we allow the right of an external agency--be it State, -family, or community--to place marriage in so degrading a position, we -necessarily deny the freedom of the individual in this most intimate -of relationships, and put ourselves in the position of petitioners for -privilege when we sue for an improvement in the rules to which we have -subjected ourselves. - -When this fundamental fact is borne in mind, it becomes at once -apparent that marriage will gain in dignity through the abolition -of all legal sanction upon the personal claims that it involves. In -a community which had renounced all claim to prescribe legally the -nature of the marriage-bond, its duration, and the manner of its -observance, there would be no washing of soiled domestic linen in the -squalid publicity of courtrooms and newspaper-columns; no arbitration -of noisy domestic differences by judges whose only qualification for -the office is that they have had enough political influence to get -themselves elected; none of the demoralizing consequences that the -sense of proprietorship in one another has on the dispositions of -married people. Marriage might still be publicly registered; it would -no longer be publicly regulated. Its regulation would be left to the -people whom it concerned, as it properly should be and safely could -be; for as Mill remarked, “the modern conviction, the fruit of a -thousand years experience, is that things in which the individual is -the person directly interested, never go right but as they are left to -his own discretion, and that any regulation of them by authority, save -to protect the rights of others, is sure to be mischievous.” The only -way to protect married people against the bad faith which one may show -toward the other, is to leave the door wide open for either of them -to be quit of the union the minute it ceases to be satisfactory. If -society for any reason sees fit to close the door to freedom, it sets -union by law above the union by affection on which alone true marriage -is based; and in so doing it is responsible for an amount of injustice, -spiritual conflict, and suffering which no attempt at equitable -regulation can ever compensate. Such attempts are in reality mere -efforts to adjust the marriage-relation to the fundamental injustice of -the marriage-law. - -Perhaps the most serious objection to the union by law is that it is -so often an effective barrier against the union by affection; for the -union by law complicates marriage with a great many uses that are not -properly germane to it; such as the custom of taking on one another’s -family and friends, and the setting up of a common menage where this -most intimate and delicate of relationships is maintained in a trying -semi-publicity under the critical and unwavering scrutiny of relatives -and friends. The influence of the expected extends to the regulation of -the menage and the division of labour. A lover would hardly, perhaps, -require his mistress to darn his socks; but if she became his wife -he would probably yield to the immemorial expectation that a married -woman shall do her husband’s mending. So, likewise, a woman may refuse -to accept support from her lover so long as he is only her lover, and -accept it as a matter of course when the union has been legalized. All -conventional uses have a purely fortuitous and incidental connexion -with marriage; yet they often fret it into failure. As Jane Littell -remarked not long ago in the _Atlantic Monthly_, “being friends with -someone to whom the law binds one is not so easy as it sounds.” This -is especially true where the law assumes a natural inferiority in one -party to the contract, as it almost universally does. - -I have not forgotten the children. One could hardly do so in an age -when sentimentalism offers them as the final and unanswerable reason -for continuing to tolerate the injustice involved in institutionalized -marriage. But the very fact that it is the sentimentalist who thus -defends established abuses is in itself enough to warrant considerable -wariness in dealing with his arguments; for when the defenders of any -cause have recourse to sentimentality, it is likely to be for want -of solid ground under their feet, or in order to obscure a doubtful -ulterior motive. Sentimentalism is a sugar coating on the pill of -things as they are, which makes it easier for many people to swallow -it than to contemplate a dose which is at once more salutary and more -formidable, namely: things as they ought to be. When one hears the -sentimentalist proclaiming the sacredness of marriage, one may agree -with him; but at the same time one must wonder what kind of marriage -he means; whether it is the ceremony performed by a minister or a -magistrate, or the union which two people have made sacred through -mutual respect, confidence and love. Such marriages as this last have -sometimes been without benefit of clergy--Would these be as sacred to -the sentimentalist as the marriage which has been sanctified only in -law? Again, when one listens to the good old saws about the glory of -motherhood, one may be interested to know the conditions under which -it is proposed to call it glorious; and when domesticity is held up -to admiration as woman’s natural vocation, one wonders whether the -sponsor of domesticity is willing to put his argument to the test -by leaving her free to choose that vocation or not, as she will, or -whether his praise is a mere preface to the demand that she be forced -into this natural vocation by the method of denying her an alternative. -So, likewise, when one hears the argument that marriage should be -indissoluble for the sake of children, one cannot help wondering -whether the protagonist is really such a firm friend of childhood, -or whether his concern for the welfare of children is merely so much -protective coloration for a constitutional and superstitious fear of -change. - -Children are really as helpless as women have always been held to be; -and in their case the reason is not merely supposition. Woman was -supposed to be undeveloped man. The child _is_ undeveloped man or -woman; and because of its lack of development it needs protection. To -place it in the absolute power of its parents as its natural protectors -and assume that its interests will invariably be well guarded, would -be as cruel as was the assumption that a woman rendered legally and -economically helpless and delivered over to a husband or other male -guardian, was sure of humane treatment. No human being, man, woman, or -child, may safely be entrusted to the power of another; for no human -being may safely be trusted with absolute power. It is fair, therefore, -that in the case of those whose physical or mental immaturity renders -them comparatively helpless, there should be a watchful third person -who from the vantage-point of a disinterested neutrality may detect -and stop any infringement of their rights by their guardians, be they -parents or other people. Here then, is a legitimate office for the -community: to arbitrate, in the interest of justice, between children -and their guardians. - -But the community has a more direct and less disinterested concern in -the welfare of children: every child is a potential power for good or -ill; what its children become, that will the community become. It is -knowledge of this that prompts the establishment of public schools -and colleges, and all the manifold associational activities intended -to promote the physical and spiritual welfare of children. It is back -of the mothers’ pension system, which is properly, as the Children’s -Bureau insists, a system of assistance for children. From all this -activity it is only a step to the assumption by the community of -entire responsibility for the upbringing and education of every child. -This idea has some advocates; it is a perfectly logical corollary -of the modern conception of the child’s relation to the community. -Yet it invites a wary and conditional acceptance. It is fair that -the community should assume the burden of the child’s support and -education, particularly so long as the community sanctions an economic -system which makes this burden too heavy for the great majority of -parents, and a political system which may force male children to -sacrifice their lives in war as soon as parents have completed the task -of bringing them up. But the advisibility of accomplishing this purpose -through the substitution of institutionalized care for parental care -is more than a little doubtful; for to institutionalize means in great -degree to mechanize. To establish such a system and make it obligatory, -would be to remove many children from the custody of parents entirely -unfitted to bring them up; but it would likewise involve the removal -of many children from the custody of parents eminently well fitted for -such a responsibility. It would imply an assumption that the people who -might be engaged to substitute for parents would be better qualified -for their task than the parents themselves; and such an assumption -would be dangerous so long as the work of educators continues to be as -little respected and as poorly paid as it now is. Moreover, so long as -society remains organized in the exploiting State, the opportunity to -corrupt young minds and turn out rubber-stamp patriots would be much -greater than that which is now afforded by the public school system, -whose influence intelligent parents are sometimes able to neutralize. - -Perhaps the best argument against such a system is that it would not -work. If experience teaches anything, it is that what the community -undertakes to do is usually done badly. This is due in part to the -temptation to corruption that such enterprises involve, but even -more, perhaps, to the lack of personal interest on the part of those -engaged in them. Those people who advocate bringing up children in -institutions do not take into account the value of parental interest in -the child; nor do they respect the parental affection which would cause -many parents to suffer keenly if they were forced to part with their -children. The family is by no means always the best milieu for young -people; but before we seek to substitute a dubious institutionalism, -it would be wise to ascertain whether the change is imperative. In -a matter which touches, as this one does, the most profound human -instincts, there is need to observe Lord Falkland’s dictum that “where -it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” As I -have shown in the preceding chapter, parents are at present under heavy -economic handicaps in discharging their parental duties, handicaps -which not only render those duties a heavy burden, but lengthen -inordinately the period for which they must be undertaken. Until those -handicaps are removed, it will not be fair to say that the family is a -failure; and until they are removed, we may be certain that any other -institution charged with the care of the young will be a failure, for -it will be filled with people who are there less because of their -understanding of children and their peculiar fitness to rear them, than -because such work offers an avenue of escape from starvation. - -These same considerations apply to the argument that the rearing of -children should be institutionalized in order to emancipate women -from the immemorial burden of “woman’s work.” There is a simpler way -of dealing with this problem, a way which eliminates an element that -dooms to failure any scheme of human affairs in which it is involved, -namely: the element of coercion. To contend that all mothers should be -forced to devote themselves exclusively to the rearing of children, -or that they should be forcibly relieved of this responsibility, is -to ignore the right of the individual to free choice in personal -matters. There is no relation more intimately personal than that of -parents to the child they have brought into the world; and there is -therefore no relationship in which the community should be slower to -interfere. This is a principle universally recognized: the community -at present interferes only when the interest of the child, or that of -the community in the child, is obviously suffering. The emancipation -of women by no means necessitates the abandonment of this principle. -It necessitates nothing more than a guarantee to women of free -choice either to undertake themselves the actual work of caring for -their children, or to delegate that work to others. There is nothing -revolutionary about this: well-to-do parents have always exercised -this choice. In mediaeval Europe people of the upper classes regularly -sent their children to be brought up by other people, and took the -children of other people into their own houses. In Renaissance Italy -the wealthy urban dwellers, almost as soon as their children were born, -sent them out of the plague-infested cities to nurse with peasants. In -modern times people who can afford it often place their children in -boarding schools at an early age, and keep them at home only during -vacations--when they do not place them in camps. Under a system of -free economic opportunity all people, instead of a few, would have -this alternative to rearing their children at home, for they would all -be able to afford it. Even under the present economic order it would -be possible if the system of children’s assistance were extended to -include every child, whether the parents were living or not. But under -a system of free opportunity there would be greater certainty that the -child would not suffer through separation from its parents; for the -paid educator would be in his position because it interested him. If -it did not, he would take advantage of the opportunity, freely open to -him, to do something that did. - -So long as responsibility for the care and support of children -continues to be vested in the parents, so long, for the sake of the -child, will it be the duty of society to insist that parents shall not -neglect this responsibility. But when society had renounced all claim -to regulate the affairs of married people, it would content itself -with holding all parents, married or unmarried, jointly liable for -the support and care of their children. If the parents were married, -then the apportioning of this burden between them would be arranged by -mutual agreement, and the community’s only interest in the contract -would be that of arbiter in case of a dispute between the parties, -precisely as in case of other contracts. To assume that the community’s -interest in children justifies its claim to “preserve the home” by -making marriage indissoluble or dissoluble only under humiliating -conditions, is to confuse issues. The practice of perpetuating -marriage merely for the sake of children defeats its own end; for -it is, far from being good for children, likely to be injurious to -them. It condemns them to be brought up in what Mr. Shaw has well -called a little private hell. For the home, as other critics than Mr. -Shaw have pointed out, is a proper place for children only when it -provides harmonious conditions for their development; and harmony is -not characteristic of homes where mutual love and confidence no longer -exist between the parents. The demand that the freedom and happiness -of parents shall be sacrificed to the so-called interest of the child -is in reality a demand that injustice shall be done one person for -the sake of another; and where this demand is effective it serves no -end but that of frustration and discord, as might be expected. It is -far better, as modern society is coming to realize, for the community -to content itself with insisting upon the discharge of parental -responsibility, without prescribing too minutely the conditions under -which it shall be done. - -It is not, perhaps, so much a concern for the preservation of the home -that makes people afraid of divorce, as it is for other time-honoured -concepts; such, for instance, as the idea that marriage is a sacrament, -that it is made in heaven and is therefore indissoluble in this world. -Curiously enough, this idea of the essential holiness and consequent -indissolubility of the marriage-bond has coexisted in Christian society -with the most cold-blooded practice of marrying for convenience, for -money, for social prestige, for place and power, for everything that -ignores or negates the spiritual element in sexual union. The marriage -arranged for social or mercenary reasons by the families of the -contracting parties, who might not even meet before the wedding-day, -was as sacred as if it had been founded upon an intimate acquaintance -and tender passion between them. Thus was utilitarianism invested -with a spurious holiness. Small wonder that a mediaeval court of love -denied the possibility of romantic attachment between husband and -wife. The Church, to be sure, introduced the principle of free consent -of the contracting parties; but so long as the subjection of women -endured, there could be little more than a perfunctory regard for this -principle. There can be no real freedom of consent when the alternative -to an unwelcome marriage is the cloister or lifelong celibacy at the -mercy of relatives whose wishes and interests one has defied, in a -society where to be unmarried is, for a woman, to be nobody. A son, -because of the greater independence that his sex gave him, might -safely exercise some degree of choice in marrying. A daughter might -safely exercise none. As women have become more independent, and their -economic opportunities have increased, consent has become more closely -related to inclination, and in many places, notably the United States, -it is actually dependent upon inclination;[24] but while women remain -at an economic disadvantage it is hardly to be expected that the -motives behind inclination and consent will always be entirely free -from an ignoble self-interest. - -So long as woman’s economic and social welfare was bound up with -marriage, indissoluble marriage undeniably offered her a certain -kind of protection. It did not, as I have remarked, protect her from -cruelty and infidelity on the part of her husband; but it generally -assured her of a living and a respected position in society--that is, -so long as she violated none of the conventional taboos against her -sex. Even now the chivalrous man often feels that he must endure an -unhappy marriage rather than cause his wife to incur the economic and -social consequences of divorce. He generally feels that her chance of -finding another husband to support her would be considerably worse than -his of getting another wife to support; a feeling which, considering -the relative desirability of supporting and being supported, will be -justified so long as it is considered tolerable for women to be an -economic dead weight on the shoulders of men. - - -III - -The sanctions of monogamic marriage have been enforced on women -only. The Christian Church, after some indecision, finally decided -that indissoluble monogamy was the only allowable form of marriage; -and in theory it exacted from man and woman the same faithfulness -to the marriage-vows. Practically, of course, it did no such thing. -Being dominated by men, it eventually came to condone the sexual -irregularities of men, if it did not sanction them; but sexual -irregularity in the subject sex continued to be both theoretically -and practically intolerable. Woman became the repository of morality -in a society which regarded morality as chiefly a matter of sex. But -since she was at the same time the means of satisfying those sexual -needs which Christianity disparaged, she also bore the brunt of -social displeasure at violation of the ascetic creed. Womankind, as -I have already remarked, was divided into two classes: the virtuous -wives and cloistered virgins who embodied Christian morals; and -those unfortunate social outcasts who sold their bodies to gratify -un-Christian desires. The prostitute, the “companion” of the Greeks, -who had been in the Greek world the only educated woman, the only woman -who enjoyed comparative freedom, became in the Christian world a social -outcast, reviled and persecuted, a convenient scapegoat for man’s sins -of the flesh, who atoned vicariously by her misery for his failure to -live up to the Christian ideal of sexual purity. Nothing reflects more -discredit upon the dominance of the male under Christianity than the -fact that he took advantage of the economic helplessness which forced -millions of women to sell their sex for a living, and then persecuted -them outrageously because he had outrageously mistreated them. For -prostitution, however much it may reflect upon the morality and, more -especially, upon the taste, of men, has nothing whatever to do with the -morality of women. It is, with women, a question of economics, purely -and simply. The man who buys gratification of his sexual desire has at -least an option in the matter; he will not starve if he abstains; but -the woman who sells her body indiscriminately to any man who will buy, -does so because her need to earn a living for herself or her family -forces her to do violence to her natural selective sexual disposition. - -This economic pressure has been strikingly illustrated in Central -Europe since the war, where thousands of women of gentle breeding -have been literally driven to the streets by the compelling scourge -of want. The men upon whom these women in normal times would have -depended for a living had been either killed or incapacitated in the -war, or their power to earn had disappeared in the economic collapse -which followed. When men, in a society so organized as to give them -an economic advantage over women, can no longer earn enough to -maintain their dependents even at the subsistence-level, the chance -of women, for the most part untrained to breadwinning, to do so will -be poor indeed. Under such circumstances the woman thrown on her own -resources may, through some extraordinary stroke of luck, find a way to -self-sufficiency through labour; but more often she is obliged, after -her possessions have been disposed of, to take refuge from starvation -by selling the only marketable commodity that is left her--her sex. -Of course there is the alternative of starvation, which for herself -she may choose; but if this choice would involve starvation for her -children or other dependents she is likelier to choose prostitution, -precisely as so many German and Austrian mothers and daughters have -done. Mrs. O’Shaughnessy’s little story of Vienna after the war, -“Viennese Medley,” depicts a situation which is not untypical. A -middle-class Viennese family which had enjoyed a mediocre prosperity -before the war, is suffering, with all that suffering city, from the -nightmare of want that followed a savage peace. In the background, -unspoken of, the only ray of hope across the bleakness of their -extremity, moves the sister who sells her beauty to foreign officials -and native, war-made millionaires. It is she who, when the young -half-brother is struck by the dreaded plague of tuberculosis, sends -him to the mountains and health. It is she who helps the sister-in-law -to establish herself in trade, after the brilliant young surgeon, her -brother, has come back a nervous ruin from the war. It is she who -buries, with decent ceremony, the child of a sister whose husband, once -a distinguished professor, is now able to do little more than starve -with his numerous family. She even saves from want the young nobleman -whom she loves, and his family as well. Not every woman who has sold -herself in stricken Europe could command so high a price, but there is -no doubt that many of them stood between their suffering families and -death. - -War releases all that is brutal in man, and places woman in a -peculiarly helpless position; therefore it is a prolific immediate -source of prostitution. But the ultimate and permanent source is the -source of war itself, the economic exploitation of man by man. So long -as society is organized to protect the exploiter, so long will peace -be an incessant struggle--for more wealth with the privileged classes; -for existence with the exploited masses--and war will be, as it has -always been, merely a final explosion of the struggling forces. So long -as human beings may starve in the midst of plenty, so long will woman -be under temptation to sell the use of her body. She may prostitute -herself because she has literally no other way to get a living; she -may do so in order to eke out an insufficient wage; she may do so -because prostitution seems to offer a relief from hopeless drudgery; -she may do so because she has made what the world calls a misstep and -is cut off thereby from respectability and the chance to earn a decent -living; or she may prostitute herself legally, in marriage, as women -have been forced to do from time immemorial. In every case there is -one motive force, and that motive force is economic pressure, which -bears hardest upon women because of the social, educational, and -economic disadvantages from which they are forced to suffer in a world -dominated by men. No amount of masculine chivalry has ever mitigated -this evil, and no amount ever will; for chivalry is not compulsory, -while prostitution is. No amount of exhortation, no amount of devoted -labour on the part of reformers will touch it; for it is not a question -of morality. No amount of persecution--of arrests, of manhandling, -of night-courts, public insult, fine and imprisonment--will check -it, for the necessity which prompts it is too imperious to be balked -by the uncomprehending guardians of public decency. The peril of -this necessity threatens all womankind; one turn of fortune’s wheel -may bring its stark aspect before the eyes of the most sheltered -of women. It is the sheltered women, indeed, who are peculiarly in -danger; those women whose preparation for the struggle to wrest a -living from economic injustice has consisted in waiting for men to -marry and support them. The parent who, in a world where celibacy and -prostitution are on the increase, fails to give a girl child education -or training which will enable her to get her living by her own efforts, -forces her to take a dangerous risk; for the woman who is brought up -in the expectation of getting her living by her sex may ultimately -be driven to accept prostitution if she fails to find a husband, or, -having found one, loses him. - -There is only one remedy for prostitution, and that remedy is economic -freedom--freedom to labour and to enjoy what one produces. When women -have this freedom there will be no more prostitution; for no woman will -get a living by doing violence to her deep-rooted selective instinct -when opportunities are plentiful and a little labour will yield an -ample living. There may still be women who are sexually promiscuous; -but there is a vast gulf between promiscuity and prostitution: the -sexually promiscuous woman may choose her men; the prostitute may not. -It is the abysmal gulf between choice and necessity. - - -IV - -Marriage, illegitimacy and prostitution are so closely related, -as social problems, that it is impossible to draw firm lines of -demarcation between them. The unlegalized union--which is betrayed by -illegitimate birth--may be a marriage in all but law; the legalized -marriage may be merely a respectable form of prostitution; prostitution -may take the form of a more or less permanent union which may even -assume the dignity of a true marriage. Illegitimacy, marriage, and -prostitution do not exist independently; they exist in relation to one -another and are often confused in people’s minds--as when it is assumed -that all mistresses are essentially harlots. They are the three faces -of mankind’s disastrous attempt to impose arbitrary regulation upon the -unruly and terrifying force of sex; they form a triptych of which the -central panel is institutionalized marriage and the other panels the -two chief aspects of its failure. The title might appropriately be “The -Martyrdom of Woman.” - -Experience has amply proved that as individualism progresses, it -becomes increasingly difficult to impose upon people more than an -appearance of conformity in sexual matters. Society can not really -regulate anything so essentially personal and private in its nature -as the sexual relation: it can only take revenge upon its natural -result--and thereby encourage the prevention of that result by -artificial means. For every unmarried mother who is persecuted -by society, there are ten unmarried women who escape the social -consequences of an unauthorized sexual relation. For every faithful -husband there is another who deceives his wife with other women; -nor are wedded wives by any means always faithful to their marriage -vows. There are people who live together in the sexual uncleanness of -loveless marriages; and there are those who live purely in extra-legal -union. The sexual impulse is too variable and too imperious to be -compressed into a formula. - -Christian society, as I have remarked, early surrendered its -uncompromising asceticism and settled down to an easy acceptance of the -mere appearance of conventional sexual virtue--that is, so far as men -were concerned. Women, as inferior and evil beings, who, incongruously -enough, at the same time embodied Christian morality, must naturally -be under the rigid surveillance of their male tutors, and no deviation -from established rules might be allowed them. Thus worldly motives -in marrying might be united with sacramental monogamy; for the man -might avail himself of extra-marital union as a safety-valve for the -emotional needs to which marriage gave no scope. The needs of the -woman were not considered, save when savage punishment was visited -upon their illicit satisfaction. Thus hypocrisy and deceit were tacitly -encouraged, and the monogamic ideal was degraded; and countless -generations lived a gigantic social lie which distorted and perverted -their spiritual vision as only an accepted lie can distort and pervert -it. - -I do not mean by this that there have not been millions of really -monogamous marriages. To intimate that the greater sexual freedom -allowed men by law and custom has led all men into licence would be -as stupid as to assume that repression and surveillance have kept -all women chaste. But the institution of marriage, in Christian -society, has represented compromise, and the fruit of compromise is -insincerity--such insincerity, for example, as the Government of -South Carolina shows when it forbids divorce, and fixes by law what -proportion of his estate a man may leave to his concubine. - -Any people which wishes to attain dignity and seriousness in its -collective life must resolve to cast aside compromise and insincerity, -and to look at all questions--even the vexed one of sex--squarely and -honestly. The person who would do this has first some prepossessions -to overcome: he must forget tradition long enough to appraise -institutionalized marriage by its value to the human spirit; he must -resolve for the time to regard men and women as equally human beings, -entitled to be judged by the same standards, and not by different sets -of traditional criteria; and he must put away fear of sex and fear of -autonomy. If he can do these things, he may be able to look clear-eyed -down the long vista of the centuries and realize the havoc that has -been wrought in the souls of men and women by a sexual code and a -system of marriage based on a double standard of spiritual values and -of conduct. He may perceive how constant tutelage degrades the human -spirit, and how much greater would be the sum of human joy if freedom -were substituted for coercion and regulation--if men and women were -without legal power to harass and bedevil one another simply because -the State, through the marriage-bond, allows them humiliating rights -in one another; if virginity and chastity were matters of self-respect -and taste, instead of being matters of worldly self-interest to women -and unconcern to men; if the relations between the sexes were based on -equality and regulated only by affection and the desire to serve and -give happiness. - -The modification which institutionalized marriage has been undergoing -since the partial emergence of woman, its chief victim, have been -in the direction of equality and freedom. The relative ease with -which divorce may now be had marks a long step towards recognition -of marriage as a personal rather than a social concern; and so does -the tendency to abolish the legal disabilities resulting from the -marriage-bond. Nothing augurs better for the elevation of marriage to -a higher plane than the growing economic independence of women and the -consequent improvement in the social position of the unmarried woman; -for only when marriage is placed above all considerations of economic -or social advantage will it be in a way to satisfy the highest demands -of the human spirit. - -But the emergence of women has had another significant effect, namely: -an increase in frankness concerning extra-legal sexual relations, if -not in their number. Of late there has been much public discussion of -the wantonness of our modern youth; which, being interpreted, means -the disposition of our girls to take the same liberty of indulgence -in pre-nuptial sexual affairs that has always been countenanced -in boys. This tendency is an entirely natural result of woman’s -increased freedom. The conditions of economic and social life have -undergone revolutionary change in the past half-century; and codes of -morals always yield before economic and social exigency, for this is -imperious. It is for this reason, as Dr. A. Maude Royden has acutely -observed, that women of the lower classes have always enjoyed a certain -immunity from the taboos that reduced women of the middle and upper -classes to virtual slavery. “If among the poor,” says Dr. Royden, -“these ‘protections’ have been dispensed with, it has not been because -the poor have thought either better or worse of their women, but merely -because they are too poor to dispense with their labour, and labour -demands some small degree of freedom.” Labour not only demands, it -gives freedom. The woman who is economically independent need no longer -observe rules based on male dominance; hence the new candour in woman’s -attitude towards the awe-inspiring fetich of sex. - -If there is about this attitude an element of bravado, akin to that -of the youth who thinks it clever and smart to carry a hip-pocket -flask, it bears testimony, not to the dangers of freedom, but to the -bankruptcy of conventional morality. The worst effect of tutelage is -that it negates self-discipline, and therefore people suddenly released -from it are almost bound to make fools of themselves. The women who are -emerging from it, if they have not learned to substitute an enlightened -self-interest for the morality of repression, are certainly in danger -of carrying sexual freedom to dishevelling extremes, simply to -demonstrate to themselves their emancipation from unjust conventions. -There is no reason to expect that women, emerging from tutelage, will -be wiser than men. One should expect the contrary. It is necessary to -grow accustomed to freedom before one may walk in it sure-footedly. -“Everything,” says Goethe, “which frees our spirit without increasing -our self-control, is deteriorating.” This so-called wantonness, this -silly bravado, simply shows that the new freedom is a step ahead of the -self-discipline that will eventually take the place of surveillance -and repression. It would not be so, perhaps, if girls and boys had -ever been enlightened concerning the real sins of sex, and their true -consequences. Women, in the past, have been taught to keep virgin or -chaste for the sake of their reputations, of their families, of their -chances in the marriage-market; they have been scared into chastity in -the name of religion; but they have not been taught to be chaste for -the sake of the spiritual value of chastity to themselves. Men, having -been expected to “sow their wild oats”, have been taught to sow them -with a certain degree of circumspection. Girls have been intimidated -by pictures of the social consequences of a misstep; boys have been -warned of the physical danger involved in promiscuous sexual relations. -This may not have been the invariable preparation of youth for the -experiences of sex; but it has unquestionably been the usual one, and -it is one of utter levity and indecency. - -The real sins of sex are identical for men and women; and they differ -from infractions of the conventional moral code in this respect among -others: that they do not have to be found out in order to be punished. -They carry their punishment in themselves, and that punishment is their -deteriorative effect upon the human spirit. They are infractions of -spiritual law; and there is this significant distinction to be observed -between spiritual laws and the laws of men: that regulation plays no -part in their administration. The law of freedom is the law of God, who -does not attempt to regulate the human soul, but sets instinct there -as a guide and leaves man free to choose whether he will follow the -instinct which prompts obedience to spiritual law, or the desire which -urges disregard of it. The extreme sophistication of the conventional -attitude towards sex has dulled the voice of instinct for countless -generations, with the inevitable result of much unnecessary suffering -and irreparable spiritual loss. - -A healthy instinct warns against lightness in sexual relationships; -and with reason, for the impulse of sex is one of the strongest motive -forces in human development and human action. It touches the obscurest -depths of the soul; it affects profoundly the functions of the mind -and the imagination--can not, indeed, be dissociated from them. The -fact that it is also strongly physical leads to misunderstanding and -disregard of its relation to the mind and spirit; a misunderstanding -and disregard which are immensely aggravated in a society where woman, -because of her inferior position, may be used for the gratification -of physical desire, with no consideration of her own desires or her -spiritual claims. Prostitution, for example, has exerted a most -deleterious influence on the attitude of men toward sex and toward -women. But degradation of the sex-impulse is inevitably punished. The -sheerly physical indulgence to which it leads produces a coarsening of -spiritual fibre, an incapacity for appreciation of spiritual values. -Moreover, it produces a cleavage between passion and affection which -renders impossible the highest and most beautiful form of the sexual -relation, the relation in which passion and affection are fused in a -love which offers complete understanding and fulfilment. It is to this -fusion (and not to monogamy, which, Spencer thought, developed love) -that we owe “the many and keen pleasures derived from music, poetry, -fiction, the drama, etc., all of them having for their predominant -theme the passion of love.” True monogamy, the product of this -highest love, is not a regulation to be observed; it is an ideal to -be attained, and it will not be attained by the person who fails to -recognize and to respect the spiritual aspects of the sexual relation. - -Nor will it be attained by the person who mistakes excitement for -love, and who flits from one temporary attachment to another, thinking -always to find the beautiful in the new. Such promiscuous philandering -not only precludes depth of affection and thus renders constancy -impossible; it also blunts perception. Its effect was never better -expressed than by Burns, who was one of its unhappy victims. - - - I waive the quantum o’ the sin, - The hazard of concealin’, - But och! it hardens a’ within, - And petrifies the feelin’. - - -This is the penalty of levity in human relations: that it _petrifies -feeling_. One pays the price in spiritual deterioration. There is -probably no more striking testimony to this than the first part of -Goethe’s “Faust.” Consider what we know of the nature of Goethe’s -relations with women; and then consider the spiritual insensitivity, -the failure to perceive and draw upon the inexhaustible spiritual -treasures that life holds in store, that are implied in his failure -to devise for Faust, brought back from the brink of the grave at cost -of his immortal soul, any more animating employment for his new-found -youth than a low intrigue with an ignorant peasant girl. - -I will pass by the contention that men are by nature polygamous and -women monogamous; for it rests on evidence created by a dual standard -of conduct for the sexes. Certain women of independent spirit are at -present rather conspicuously engaged in proving themselves not merely -polygamous but promiscuous; and a great many men have always proved -themselves to be monogamous. Probably human beings vary in respect of -these tendencies as of others. All people, perhaps, can not attain the -highest plane in love, either for want of capacity or of opportunity; -nor can all people conform to a single mode of conduct. But all people -can attain sincerity in sexual relations, and at least a certain degree -of self-knowledge. Sincerity, self-knowledge, respect for oneself and -for other people; these are essential to a genuine ethic of sex; and -they are uncontemplated by the sanctions of conventional morality. Yet -the person who violates this ethic sins against his own spirit, which -is to sin against the Holy Ghost, and on the spiritual plane he will be -punished. - -An increase in extra-legal relationships does not of itself imply -spiritual retrogression. It might imply instead one of two things, or -both, namely: an increase in the economic obstacles to legal marriage; -or a growing disinclination to admit an affair so personal as the -sex-relation to sanction and regulation by people whom it did not -concern. If men and women were economically equal and independent, -the number of marriages might increase enormously; on the other hand, -institutionalized marriage might be superseded by marriage without -legal sanction, which before the birth of children might not be even -known or recognized as marriage.[25] Free people would probably want -less of official interference in their personal affairs, rather than -more. But for those who wanted to avoid the terrors of autonomy there -would still be marriage; and for those who wanted to walk in the strait -and ennobling way of freedom, there would be the right to love without -official permission, and to bring forth children unashamed. Those who -wished to sell themselves would be free to do so if they could find -buyers; but no one would be forced to live by violating the law of love -which is the law of life. Freedom implies the right to live badly, but -it also implies the right to live nobly and beautifully; and for one -who has faith in the essential goodness of the human spirit, in the -natural aspiration towards perfection which flowers with touching -beauty even in the bleak soil of that hardship, degradation and crime -to which injustice condemns the mass of humanity--for one who has this -faith in the human spirit, there can be no question what its ultimate -choice would be. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[20] Code Napoléon: “_La recherche de la paternité est interdite_.” -This provision was expunged in 1913. In Massachusetts, the father’s -name may not be given in the record of birth except on the written -request of both father and mother. No similar protection against -publicity is provided for the mother. - -[21] Lecky, “History of European Morals.” Chapter V. - -[22] A recent decision in the State of New York declared that a husband -is not required to fulfil his promise to return money loaned him by his -wife, when she has accumulated it through economy in her housekeeping; -because every saving of the kind is the property of the husband, as are -the services of the wife. The wife has no money of her own. - -[23] The State of Wisconsin has made men and women equal before the law. - -[24] In countries where the custom of dowry persists the parents are -obviously in a position to exact a great degree of regard for their -wishes, more particularly where economic opportunity is no longer -plentiful. In this country, where abundance of free land made the -support of a family comparatively easy and secure, marriage early -became a matter to be arranged by the contracting parties. In modern -France, on the other hand, it is still largely a matter to be arranged -between families. - -[25] Several feminists have already, indeed, urged public sanction -of extra-legal sexual relations, and C. Gasquoine Hartley, with -a genuinely Teutonic passion for order, has even advocated their -regulation by the State. This is probably impossible, for people who -choose such relationships usually do so to escape regulation. - - - - -CHAPTER V - -THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF WOMEN - - -I - -It is to the industrial revolution more than anything else, perhaps, -that women owe such freedom as they now enjoy; yet if proof were -wanting of the distance they have still to cover in order to attain, -not freedom, but mere equality with men, their position in the -industrial world would amply supply it. Men in industry suffer from -injustices and hardships due to the overcrowding of the labour-market. -Women suffer from these same injustices and hardships; and they have -an additional handicap in their sex. The world of work, embracing -industry, business, the professions, is primarily a man’s world. Women -are admitted, but not yet on an equal footing. Their opportunities -for employment are restricted, sometimes by law, but more often by -lack of training; and their remuneration as wage-earners and salaried -workers is generally less than that of men. They have to contend with -traditional notions of what occupations are fitting for their sex; -with the jealousy of male workers; with the prejudices of employers; -and finally with their own inertia and their own addiction to -traditional concepts. All these difficulties are immensely aggravated -by the keenness of the competition for work. If the opportunity to work -were, as it should be, an unimpeded right instead of a privilege doled -out by an employer, these handicaps of women would be easily overridden -by the demand for their labour. I shall discuss this point more fully -later on. It is sufficient here to note that when the war created a -temporary shortage of labour, women were not only employed in, but -were urged in the name of patriotism to enter, occupations in which -until then only men had been employed. The effect of this temporary -shortage on their industrial opportunities affords a hint of what their -position would be if the glutting of the labour-market were permanently -relieved. A shortage of labour means opportunity for the worker, male -or female. - -Women have always been industrial workers. Otis T. Mason even went -so far as to declare that “All the peaceful arts of today were once -woman’s peculiar province. Along the lines of industrialism she was -pioneer, inventor, author, originator.” This view is in rather -striking contrast with the contemptuous derogation which has been for -a long time current in European civilization, and has found expression -in such cutting remarks as that of Proudhon, that woman “could not even -invent her own distaff.” It is no doubt a fairer view, although it -is probably somewhat exaggerated. There is certainly no valid reason -to suppose that sex is a barrier to the invention and improvement of -industrial processes. Be this as it may, it is undeniable that women -have always been producers. Among some primitive tribes, indeed, they -are the only industrialists, the men occupying themselves with war and -the chase or, among maritime peoples, with fishing. The modern invasion -of the industrial field by women does not, then, represent an attempt -to do something that women have never done before. It does represent -an attempt to adapt themselves to the new conditions created by the -industrial revolution. - -The range of their opportunities has been considerably restricted by -prejudices arising from the traditional sexual division of labour in -European society. “In the developed barbarism of Europe, only a few -simple household industries were on the whole left to women.”[26] It -was natural, then, when women followed industry into the larger field -of machine-production, that it should be assumed that the industries -in which they might fittingly engage would be those most nearly akin -to the occupations which European society has regarded as peculiarly -feminine. Before the World War, according to the Women’s Bureau, -“over seventy-five per cent of all women engaged in manufacture were -concentrated in the textile and garment-making industries”; and we have -the same authority for the statement that “except for certain branches -of food-manufacture--such as flour making ... women constitute from a -third to two-thirds of the working forces in the industries concerned -with the business of clothing and feeding both the fighting and the -civilian population.” The new opportunities opened up by the exigency -of the war-period widened considerably the scope of women’s activity; -they were employed in machine-shops and tool-rooms, in steel- and -rolling-mills, in instrument-factories, in factories manufacturing -sewing machines and typewriters, in utensil-factories, in plants -working in rubber and leather, in wood-working industries. - -In some of these industries women continue to be employed. In others -they were discharged to make room for men when the emergency was -over. But even where they continue to be employed their opportunities -for training are not equal to those of men. The Women’s Bureau in -1922 issued a valuable bulletin on “Industrial Opportunities and -Training for Women and Girls.” According to this bulletin, the -war-experience of women in new employments made it apparent that the -most promising future for craftswomen in these fields lies in (a) -machine-shops where light parts are made, (b) wood-product factories -where assembling and finishing are important processes, (c) optical- -and instrument-factories, (d) sheet-metal shops. The survey made by -the Bureau to discover how many of the country’s industrial training -schools were fitting women for these trades disclosed the fact that -in nine States where women, because of industrial conditions, are -most in need of training for machine-shop, sheet-metal, furniture, or -optical work, they are either excluded by public vocational schools -from the courses in such works, or they are not encouraged, as men are, -to enter those courses. In Ohio, for example, women were enrolled in -only five of the fifty-three public vocational schools reporting, and -in these five schools they were taught dressmaking, costume-design, -dress-pattern making, embroidery, power-machine sewing, and pottery -making. Men on the other hand, received instruction in the following -courses which women needed: machine-shop practice, tool-making, shop -mathematics, mechanical drafting, blue-print reading, metallurgy, -pattern-making, sheet-metal work, welding, auto-mechanics and repair, -motor-cycle mechanics, gas engineering, cabinet-making and woodworking. -Women were not debarred by rule or law from entering these courses, but -they were not encouraged to do so. The courses, as one superintendent -wrote, were “designed for men.” The situation in Ohio is more or less -the same as that in the other eight States. Women are either not -admitted to vocational courses designed to prepare workers for the -industries cited, or they are not encouraged to enroll. Yet, as the -Bureau points out, these institutions are operated at the expense of -the taxpayers, women as well as men, and their equipment should be -used to serve women as well as men. “It is obvious,” says the Bureau, -“that the public vocational school authorities, with few exceptions, -think of trade for women only in terms of dressmaking and millinery, -and are as yet quite oblivious to the fact that these trades, except in -certain clothing centers, are not the big employers of woman labour, -nor are they always the best trades at which to earn a livelihood. It -is the semi-public school that is beginning first to recognize the new -position which woman occupies in industry as a result of the war and -is opening to her its doors and guiding her into courses leading to -efficiency in the new occupations.” - -This blindness of the school authorities to the vocational needs of -women goes to prove how strong is the force of traditional prejudices. -The making of clothing has been largely in the hands of women for so -long that even in cities where the only industries employing women -are mechanical or woodworking, the public schools offer them courses -in sewing and millinery. Prepossession does not yield all at once to -established fact. If women can make a permanent place for themselves -in their new occupations, public officials will eventually come to -associate them with these occupations and follow the lead of the -semi-public schools in fitting girls to engage in them on an equal -footing with boys. But it will take time; and meanwhile women will -continue to be at a disadvantage in entering these occupations. So -will they be at a disadvantage in entering any occupation where they -have not before been employed, or where they are employed only in -insignificant numbers, so long as prejudice or conservatism continues -to debar them, and the necessary training is not as freely available to -them as it is to men. - -Above all, so long as their industrial status continues to be, as the -Women’s Bureau expresses it, “subsidiary to their home status,” they -can never be on a really secure footing in the industrial world. While -employers assume that all male workers have families to support and -that all female workers are in industry rather through choice than -necessity and may, in periods when work is slack, fall back on the -support of male relatives, so long will women be the first workers -to suffer from any slowing down of industry. This was strikingly -illustrated during the period of unemployment which succeeded the -intense industrial activity made necessary by the war, when women were -discharged in great numbers to make room for men, and much resentment -was voiced against their retention in places which might be filled by -men. “Back to the home,” says the Women’s Bureau, “was a slogan all -too easily and indiscriminately flung at the wage-earning woman by -those who had little conception of the causes which forced her into -wage-earning pursuits.” In periods of industrial depression it appears -to be the regular practice to lay off the married women workers first, -then the single women, and the men last. - -How unjust to the woman worker, and how little justified by actual -facts, is this survival of the idea that woman’s place is the home, -has been shown through investigations undertaken by the Women’s Bureau -and other agencies. The results of these investigations, published -in Bulletin No. 30 of the Women’s Bureau, show that the woman in -industry is not merely working for pin-money, as thoughtless people -assume, but that she is more often not only supporting herself on -her inadequate wage, but contributing materially to the support of -dependents. “Contributing all earnings to the family fund,” says the -Bureau, “is a very general practice among wage-earning women.” This of -course means, as the Bureau remarks, that however much or little her -contribution may mean to the family, for the woman herself it means -a surrender of economic independence. The contrast between single men -and single women in this respect is significant. In an investigation -conducted among workers in the shoe-making industry of Manchester, -New Hampshire, the Bureau found that “comparing single men and women, -the women contributed (to the family income) more extensively, both -actually and relatively.” The percentage of earnings contributed by -sons and daughters is particularly interesting. The Bureau found that -“in the families with per capita earnings of less than $500, 49.3 -per cent of the sons and 71.6 per cent of the daughters contributed -all their earnings, while in families with per capita earnings of -$500 or more, 36.8 per cent of the sons and 53.4 per cent of the -daughters contributed all earnings.” When one remembers that the wage -paid to women was so much lower than that paid to men that the Bureau -pronounced them to be scarcely comparable, the fact that “the daughters -contributed a somewhat larger proportion of the family earnings than -did the sons” takes on added significance. The sons contributed almost -as much in actual money as the daughters, but out of their higher wages -they retained something for themselves, “thus assuring themselves of a -degree of independence and an opportunity to strike out for themselves -which is denied the daughters.” - -It is evident, then, that women, even in the “emancipation” of the -industrial world, are continuing their immemorial self-sacrifice -to the family, and that it is not the married woman alone, but the -single woman as well, who makes this sacrifice. The conditions of the -sacrifice have changed with the changes in industry, but the sacrifice -continues. The productive labour of women appears to be quite as -indispensable to their families as it was in the days when they spun -and wove and sewed and baked at home. This being the case, there is -obviously no other ground than prejudice for the assumption that men, -as the natural providers, should have preference in the labour-market. -According to the census of 1920, thirty-five per cent of the men in the -country are single; therefore it is fair to assume that thirty-five -per cent of the men in industry are single. Two-thirds of the women in -industry are single, but the available figures show that a much larger -percentage of these women than of single men are contributing all or -most of their earnings to their families, while married women workers -are contributing all of their earnings. In view of these figures, -there is patent injustice in the assumption that all men and no women -have dependents to support. - -So is there injustice in the assumption that women are naturally at -least partly dependent on male workers, and therefore may fairly be -forced to accept a smaller wage than men. This assumption is not only -grossly unfair to the woman worker, but it does not tally with fact. A -fine example of the kind of defence for the practice of sweating women -workers that can be based on this assumption is quoted by the Women’s -Bureau from an unnamed commercial magazine. “Eighty-six per cent of -women workers,” runs this masterpiece of sophistry, “live at home or -with relatives. [So, in all likelihood, do eighty-six per cent of male -workers.] It is immaterial in these cases whether the earnings of each -measure up to the cost of living scheduled for a single woman living -alone, so that the theory of the need of a sufficient wage to support a -single woman living alone does not apply to eighty-six per cent of the -entire population [_sic_].” This quotation, says the Bureau, is typical -of the attitude of the employer who pays his women employees less than -a living wage on the plea that they live at home and therefore have -few expenses. It is equally remarkable in its ruthless disregard of -the just claim of the woman worker to the same share in the product of -her toil that the male worker is allowed; and in its disregard of the -fact that so long as eighty-six per cent of women workers are forced to -accept a starvation-wage because they live at home, the other fourteen -per cent who do not live at home will be forced by the pressure of -competition to accept the same starvation-wage. The question how this -fourteen per cent will eke out a living--whether through overwork, -begging or prostitution--does not of course concern the employer; for -it is one of the striking differences between chattel-slavery and -wage-slavery that the owner of the wage-slave is under no obligation to -keep his workers from starving. That is, presumably, their own lookout. - -If employers are not given to concerning themselves with this question, -however, communities are. Thirteen States have enacted laws fixing a -minimum wage for women, three have fixed minimum wages in specified -occupations, one has fixed a minimum wage which its industrial welfare -commission has power to change, and nine have created boards or -commissions with power to fix minimum wage-rates. It may be noted that -in those States where the rate is fixed by law, it has not responded -to the rising cost of living. In Utah and Arkansas, for example, -the minimum wage for an experienced woman is $7.50 a week. There is -constant effort by interested individuals and organizations to get -similar laws enacted in other States, in spite of the fact that in 1923 -the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional the -minimum wage-law of the District of Columbia. Such efforts, of course, -are in reality efforts to secure class-legislation, as are all attempts -to secure special enactments designed to benefit or protect women. - -Of such enactments there is an ever increasing number. So rapidly -do they increase, indeed, that women may be said to be in a fair -way to exchange the tyranny of men for that of organized uplift. -They are sponsored by those well-meaning individuals who deplore -social injustice enough to yearn to mitigate its evil results, but -do not understand it well enough to attack its causes; by women’s -organizations whose intelligence is hardly commensurate with their zeal -to uplift their sex; and by men’s labour-organizations which are quite -frankly in favour of any legislation that will lessen the chances of -women to compete with men in the labour-market.[27] Given the combined -suasion of these forces, and the inveterate sentimentalism which makes -it hard for legislators to resist any plea on behalf of “the women -and children,” almost anything in the way of rash and ill-considered -legislation is possible, and even probable. There is on the -statute-books of the various States an imposing array of laws designed -to “protect” women workers. There are only four States which do not -in some way limit the hours of work for women; there are eleven which -limit the number of successive days that they may work; fourteen have -fixed the amount of time that shall be allowed them for their midday -meal; twelve have ruled that a woman may work only a given number of -hours without a rest-period. Sixteen States prohibit night-work in -certain industries or occupations; two limit her hours of night-work to -eight. There is also a tendency to extend to women special protection -against the hazards of industry. In seventeen States the employment of -women in mines is prohibited. Two States prohibit their employment in -any industry using abrasives. In four States they are not allowed to -oil moving machinery. Three regulate their employment in core-making; -and four regulate the amount of the weight that they may be required to -lift--the maximum ranging, oddly enough, from fifteen pounds in Ohio -and Pennsylvania to seventy-four pounds in Massachusetts. In addition -to those regulations which prohibit women from working in certain -occupations or under certain conditions, “each State,” says the Women’s -Bureau, “has many laws and rulings which prescribe the conditions -under which women should work, covering such matters as the lifting -of weights, provision of seats, and proper provision for sanitation -and comfort.” In six States, industrial commissions have power to make -regulations for the health and welfare of workers. In three, the -commissions have power to make regulations for women and minors only, -and in one, for women, minors, learners, and apprentices. - -Perhaps the most striking thing about all these multiform regulations -governing the employment of women is the amount of misplaced zeal that -they denote. “In most cases,” says the Women’s Bureau, “the laws which -prohibit their employment have little bearing on the real hazards to -which they are exposed.... Prohibiting the employment of women on -certain dusty processes does not solve the problem of any industrial -disease in a community. Men are also liable to contract pulmonary -diseases from exposure to dusts.... It is very possible that under the -guise of ‘protection’ women may be shut out from occupations which are -really less harmful to them than much of the tedious, heavy work both -in the home and in the factory which has long been considered their -special province. _Safe standards of work for women must come to be -safe standards for men also if women are to have an equal chance in -industry._” The italics are mine. It is worth mentioning here that -only two States prohibit the employment of women in the lead-industry, -which so far is the only one that has been proved more harmful to -women than to men. The mass of legislation and regulation designed -to protect women from the fatigues and hazards of industry would -seem, then, to have been animated more by chivalry than by scientific -knowledge; and while chivalry may be all very well in its place, it can -hardly be expected to solve the industrial problem of women. - -In connexion with so-called welfare-legislation, it is interesting -to observe that women and children are customarily grouped together -as classes requiring protection; and that various laws affecting -their position in industry have been sanctioned by the courts as -being for the good of the race and therefore not to be regarded -as class-legislation. Such decisions certainly would appear to be -reasonable in so far as they apply to children, who are the rising -generation of men and women, and should be protected during their -immaturity. But they can be held valid as they affect women only if -woman is regarded as primarily a reproductive function. This view, -apparently, is held by most legislators, courts, and uplifters; and -they have an unquestionable right to hold it. Whether, however, -they are just in attempting to add to the burdens of the working -woman by imposing it upon her in the form of rules that restrict -her opportunities, is another question. One thing is certain: if -discriminative laws and customs are to continue to restrict the -opportunities of women and hamper them in their undertakings, it makes -little difference for whose benefit those laws and customs are supposed -to operate, whether for the benefit of men, of the home, of the race, -or of women themselves; their effect on the mind of woman and her -opportunities, will be the same. While society discriminates against -her sex, for whatever reason, she can not be free as an individual. - -Should nothing, then, be done to protect women from the disabilities -and hazards to which they are subject in the industrial world? Better -nothing, perhaps, than protection which creates new disabilities. -Laws which fix fewer hours of work for women than for men may -result in shortening men’s hours also in factories where many women -are employed; but they may result in the substitution of men--or -children--for women in factories where but few have been employed. -Laws prohibiting night-work may reduce the chances of women to get -much-needed employment, and may sometimes shut them out of work which -would offer higher returns on their labour than anything they might -get to do during the day--as, for example, night-work in restaurants, -where the generous tips of after-theatre patrons add considerably to -the earnings of waiters. Moreover, it is hard to see on what ground -night-work could be held to be more harmful for women than for men. -Minimum-wage laws may fix a legal limit to the greed of employers, but -they can not prevent the underpayment of women workers, for they are -based on theoretical notions of a living wage, and have no relation to -the actual value of the individual’s labour. Where they are fixed by -law, as I have remarked, a rise in the cost of living may render them -ineffectual. As for those laws which undertake to protect women against -the hazards of industry, they have usually, as the Women’s Bureau has -shown, very little relation to the hazards to which women are actually -exposed; but they constitute a real barrier to industrial opportunity. -On the whole, the vast and unwieldy array of laws and rules designed -either to protect the woman worker, or to safeguard the future of the -race at her expense, are a pretty lame result of a great deal of -humanitarian sound and fury. _Parturiunt montes._ - -It is quite natural that the result should be lame; for these -protections and safeguards represent so many attempts to mind some one -else’s business; and the great difficulty about minding some one else’s -business is that however good one’s intentions may be, one can never -really know just where that some one’s real interests lie, or perfectly -understand the circumstances under which he may be most advantageously -placed in the way to advance them, for the circumstances are too -intimately bound up with his peculiar temperament and situation. As -Mill has remarked in a passage which I have already quoted, the world -has learned by long experience that affairs in which the individual -is the person directly interested go right only when they are left to -his own discretion, and that any interference by authority, save to -protect the rights of others, is mischievous. The tendency of modern -welfare-legislation is to make a complete sacrifice of individual -rights not to the rights but to the hypothetical interests of others; -and for every individual who happens to benefit by the sacrifice, there -is another who suffers by it. If it is hard to regulate one human -being for his own good, it is impossible to regulate people _en masse_ -for their own good; for there is no way of making a general rule affect -all individuals in the same way, since no two individuals are to be -found who are of precisely the same temperament and in precisely the -same situation. - -There is in all this bungling effort to ameliorate the ills of working -women and to safeguard through them the future of the race, a tacit -recognition of economic injustice and a strange incuriousness about -its causes. One would naturally expect that the conditions which move -people to seek protective legislation would move them to question the -nature of an economic system which permits such rapacity that any class -of employees requires to be protected from it. Surely the forces of -righteousness must know that there are reasons for the existence of -the conditions which move them to pity and alarm; yet they seem quite -willing to go on indefinitely battling against the conditions, and -winning with great effort legislative victories which are constantly -being rendered ineffectual through lax administration of laws, through -the reluctance of employees to jeopardize their positions by testifying -against employers, or through unforeseen changes in economic -conditions. During all this waste of time and effort, this building -and crumbling and rebuilding of protective walls around the labourer, -the causes of economic injustice continue their incessant operation, -producing continuously a new crop of effects which are like so many -windmills inviting attack by the Don Quixotes of reform. - -Let us consider the effects of economic injustice on women, side by -side with the reformer’s work upon those effects. Women in industry -suffer, as I have shown, the injustice of inequality with men as -regards wages, opportunities, training, and tenure of employment. -The reformer attacks the problem of wages, and secures minimum-wage -laws based on some one’s theory of what constitutes a living wage. -No allowance is made for dependents because women, theoretically, -have none. The amount allowed may from the first be inadequate, even -for one person, or it may be rendered inadequate by a rise in the -cost of living. In either case, it is purely arbitrary, and bears no -relation whatever to the value of the worker’s services. Still, such -legislation might be better than nothing if there were nothing better -to be done. The reformer is less zealous in his attempt to provide -women with opportunities; his showing in this field is less impressive -than in that of wages. Still, he has done something. If he has not -been entirely responsible for the opening to women of many positions -in government service, he has at least greatly assisted in securing -them these opportunities. Farther than this, it must be admitted, it is -difficult for him to go. He might, indeed, exert himself to see that -women are provided by one means or another with equal opportunities to -get training, but he can do little to affect the policies of private -employers of labour, who can hardly be dictated to concerning whom they -shall hire and whom they shall retain. Nor can he prevent employers -from laying off women workers first when there is a slowing down in -production. In three, then, out of four of the disadvantages which -bear more heavily on women in industry than on men, the reformer, with -all his excellent intentions, is unable to be very helpful; while in -his zeal to safeguard the race, whose future appears to him to depend -entirely on the health of the female sex, he has multiplied their -disadvantages in the manner I have already described, without, however, -having made any noteworthy advance toward the accomplishment of his -purpose. - -Now, had he chosen to inquire into the causes of the artificial -disabilities by which women workers are handicapped, he might have -discovered that these and the industrial hazards which cause him -such grave concern may be traced to the same fundamental source; and -that the just and only effective way of removing these disabilities -and hazards is to eradicate the source. Women in industry are the -victims of traditional prejudices: I have shown what those prejudices -are--the idea that woman’s place is the home, that women workers have -no dependents, that they work for pin-money and therefore do not -need a living wage, that upon them alone depends the future health -of the race. But as I remarked at the beginning of this chapter, -these prejudices could not be turned to the disadvantage of the woman -worker if it were not for the overcrowding of the labour-market. So -long as there are more people looking for work than there are jobs to -be had, the advantage in fixing terms and conditions of labour is on -the side of the employer. If men are obliged by their need to put up -with underpayment, women will be forced to accept an even worse rate; -if the tenure of men is uncertain, that of women will be even more -so. If the conditions of industry are hazardous, the alternative of -starvation will force the workers to risk injury or death unless the -employer be required by law to maintain the proper safeguards. Suppose, -however, that labour were scarce, that for every worker looking for -employment there were a dozen employers looking for workers. Under -such circumstances, the employer would be glad enough to hire the -worker who could fill his particular requirements, without regard to -sex, as employers did during the war when labour was scarce; and he -would pay the worker a wage determined not by theory or prejudice, -but by the amount of competition for the worker’s services. If the -employment he offered were hazardous, he would be obliged to maintain -proper safeguards in order to retain his employees, and in addition -would probably be forced to pay them a higher wage than they could earn -in some safer employment. If he did not do these things, his workers -would simply leave him for more satisfactory positions. Nor would he -be able to overwork his employees, for if he attempted to do so, some -rival employer would outbid him for their services by offering better -hours and easier conditions of labour. Thus the peculiar disabilities -of women workers would disappear with the disabilities of labourers -in general, and not a stroke of legislation would be required to make -industry both safe and profitable for the woman worker. - -This condition is not unnatural or impossible. It is the present -condition of chronic unemployment, of expensive and ineffectual -“welfare” legislation, of wasteful and futile struggles between -organized capital and organized labour--it is this condition that is -entirely unnatural. I have mentioned its cause in Chapter III, and I -shall discuss it further in my next chapter. Upon its removal, and not -upon regulations which hamper the woman worker and reduce her to the -status of a function, the future of the race depends. The ancestors of -coming generations are men as well as women, and posterity will derive -its heritage of health from its ancestors of both sexes. Its prospect -of health will not be improved by legislation calculated to safeguard -the health of women workers, so long as the children they bear continue -to be exposed to an involuntary poverty which breeds ignorance, -imbecility, disease and crime. The happiness as well as the health -of future generations will depend in great measure upon the extent to -which both men and women can release themselves from the deteriorating -conditions of economic exploitation. - - -II - -It is in business and in professional pursuits that the occupational -progress of women, and their emancipation from traditional prejudices, -are most marked. Although in the lower ranks of labour in these -pursuits there is a mass of women who, impelled by necessity, -work for low wages at mechanical tasks which offer no chance of -advancement, there is, nearer the top, a large group of women who -have been more fortunate in worldly position and education, and who -are spurred as much either by interest in their work or a desire to -be self-supporting, as by actual need to earn; who share, in other -words, the attitude that leads young men to strike out for themselves -even though their fathers may be able to support them. It is the woman -animated by these motives who is doing most for the advancement of her -sex; for it is she, and not the woman who works through necessity, -who really challenges the traditional prejudices concerning the proper -place of women. The woman labourer proves the _need_ of women to earn; -the business woman or professional woman who works because she wants to -work, is establishing the _right_ of women to earn. More than this, as -she makes her way into one after another of the occupations that have -been held to belong to men by prescriptive right, she is establishing -her claim, as a human being, to choose her work from the whole wide -field of human activity. It is owing to the attitude towards life -adopted by such women, to their preference of independence and action -over the dependence and passivity in vogue not so many years ago, that -it is coming to be quite the expected thing that young women of the -well-to-do classes shall set out to earn their living, as young men do, -instead of stopping under the parental roof, with a watchful eye out -for men who will marry and support them. Need I remark that nothing is -more likely than this new attitude to bring about the substitution of -the “union by affection” for the union by interest? The woman who is -economically independent is under much less temptation to marry from -economic motives than the woman for whom marriage represents the only -prospect of security. - -There is still a goodly number of prejudices and discriminations to -be overcome before women in business and the professions shall stand -on an equal footing with men as regards opportunity and remuneration. -Except where she is in business for herself, the woman in these -pursuits must generally be content with a lower rate of pay than men; -and if observation may be taken to count for anything, she is expected -to work somewhat harder for what she gets--less loafing on the job is -tolerated in her than in the male employee. She is also more likely -to find herself pocketed; that is to say, in a position from which, -because of her sex, there is no possibility of further advance because -the higher positions are reserved for men. It is so universally the -rule that women must content themselves with reaching the lower rungs -of the occupational ladder, that the instances where they manage to -attain to places of responsibility and authority are still rare enough -to be found worthy of remark in the press. The same thing is true of -political positions; women are not yet represented in politics in -anything like a just proportion to their numbers, nor are they often -able to get themselves either elected or appointed to responsible -positions. None the less, considering the comparatively short time -since their emergence into the business world and the world of public -affairs, they are already making an excellent showing. - -The world of business and the professions, like the world of industry, -has its occupations which are considered peculiarly suitable for women. -Strictly subordinate positions are thought to suit them very well; -hence there is quite an army of women stenographers, bookkeepers, -clerks and secretaries to be found in the business section of any -modern city. The personnel of the nursing profession is made up almost -exclusively of women; and the work of teaching in our public schools, -especially where it is most conspicuously underpaid, is largely in -their hands. There is, to be sure, an impression current among members -of school boards that marriage disqualifies a woman for the teaching -profession; but the single woman is fairly secure in her position, -possibly because it does not pay well enough to be very attractive -to men. Occupations connected with the arts are also held, in this -country, to be particularly well adapted for women, although it must -be noted that the prejudice of male musicians is effective enough to -exclude them from the personnel of our important orchestras. It is in -the creative arts that their work is most welcomed; more especially -in the field of literature; and this may seem strange, in view of the -fact that so many eminent authorities believe that their sex renders -them incapable of attaining any significance in creative work. It is, -I apprehend, rather to the low opinion in which aesthetic pursuits are -held in this country than to a high opinion of female ability, that -this peculiar condition must be ascribed. - -But if certain occupations are considered peculiarly appropriate for -women, there is none the less a great deal of prejudice against them in -others. The idea that woman’s place is the home has no more disappeared -from the world of business and the professions than it has disappeared -from the world of industry, even though it is the business woman and -the professional woman who are doing most to dislodge it. And here it -may be well to remark a fact that has already been noted, with some -pointed comment, by Ethel Snowden, namely: that woman’s invasion of the -gainful occupations appears to be found unwomanly in proportion to the -importance of the position to which she aspires. - -It is the married woman in business or in professional work, as it is -in industry, who suffers most from the surviving prejudices concerning -her sex. When there are economies to be effected through the discharge -of workers, the idea that the married woman is normally a dependent -comes immediately to the fore, and she is the first employee to be -discharged. For example, _Equal Rights_ of 8 August, 1925, noted in an -editorial that the city of St. Louis had begun a campaign for economy -by discharging twelve married women; that there was a movement on in -Germany to reduce governmental expenses by a wholesale discharge of -women employees; and that, according to rumour, Mr. Coolidge’s campaign -of economy was being made to bear most heavily on married women. The -comment of _Equal Rights_ on the action of the city of St. Louis is -worth quoting: - - - St. Louis employed twenty-seven married women. It investigated - the economic condition of all these, retained nine, discharged - twelve, and was, at last report, still considering the case of the - other six. St. Louis did not investigate the economic condition - of the men employees, to see whether or not these might continue - to live if they were discharged. St. Louis did not try to find out - whether or not these men had fathers, brothers, mothers, or wives - who might support them while they were looking for other jobs. St. - Louis assumed that men have a right to economic independence and - the increased happiness and opportunity that it brings. St. Louis - assumed that women have no such right. - - -In other words, St. Louis assumed, as the German and American -Governments apparently assume, and as most private employers assume, -that women are employed on sufferance; especially married women. Of -course it should be remembered that the position of the married woman -in this respect is only worse than that of single women, and that -the position of women is only worse than that of men; for, as I have -already remarked, under a monopolistic economic system the opportunity -to earn a living by one’s labour comes to be regarded as a privilege -instead of a natural right. Women are simply held to be less entitled -to this privilege than men. - -That marriage should so often assume the nature of a disability -for the woman who either wishes or is obliged to earn, whereas it -often operates in favour of the male worker, may be attributed to -the traditional assumption that married women are dependent on, and -subject to, their husbands. I remarked in the preceding chapter that -the married woman who wishes to engage in business finds herself, -in many communities, hampered by legal disabilities arising from -her marital status, whereas her husband is under no corresponding -disabilities. Her position as an industrial and salaried worker is -rendered insecure if not by law, at least by the same psychology that -keeps legal disabilities in force. This psychology may be defined -as the expectation that a woman when she marries shall surrender a -much greater degree of personal freedom than the man she marries. The -man who does not object to his wife’s having a career is considered -generous and long-suffering. His insistence on her abandoning it and -contenting herself with looking out for his domestic comfort is thought -to be quite natural.[28] On the other hand, the woman who interferes -in any way with a husband’s career is regarded as an extremely selfish -person; while any sacrifice of herself and her ambitions to her husband -and his, is thought of merely as a matter of wifely duty. How often -does one hear that such and such a woman has given up her position -because “her husband didn’t want her to work.” There is, too, a very -general assumption that every married woman has children and should -stay at home and take care of them. Now, perhaps every married woman -should have children; perhaps in a future state of society men and -women will marry only when they wish to bring up a family. But at -present it is not so; therefore at present the assumption that a -married woman should stay at home and take care of her children leaves -out of account the fact that a large and increasing number of married -women are childless. It may be contended that these women should stay -at home and take care of their husbands; but even if we assume that the -unremitting personal attention of his wife is essential to the comfort -and happiness of a married man, there would still remain the question -of his title to this attention at the cost of her own interests. - -We are dealing here with an attitude which, general though it be, has -been outmoded by the conditions of modern life. The sexual division -of interests and labour which has been insisted upon so long among -European peoples does not very well fit in with the organization -of industrial and social life in the twentieth century. Our social -ideology, like our political ideology, is of the eighteenth century; -and its especial effectiveness at present is by way of obscuring our -vision of the changed world that has emerged from the great economic -revolution of the last century. A division of interests and labour -which was convenient if not just under the conditions of economic -and social life which preceded the industrial revolution, is neither -convenient nor just under the conditions which prevail today. The care -of young children and the management of a household may result in an -unequal division of labour in families where the husband’s inability -to provide for the needs of his family forces the wife to assume the -burdens of a breadwinner. When one reads through the literature on -the question of hours of labour for women in industry, one is struck -by the persistent stressing of the married woman’s double burden of -breadwinning and housekeeping. These women, it seems, must not only -earn money to contribute to their families’ support, but they must, -before setting out for work and after returning from it, prepare the -family meals, get the children ready for school or the day-nursery, -take them there and call for them, wash, sew, and perform a hundred -other household tasks. This double burden is often made an argument for -establishing shorter hours of work for women in industry, but never for -expecting the husband to share the wife’s traditional burden as she has -been forced to share his. I have no doubt that innumerable husbands are -doing this; but there is no expectation put upon them to do it, and -those who do not are in no wise thought to shirk their duty to their -families, as their wives would be thought to do if they neglected to -perform the labour of the household. - -Quite analogous to this attitude of the advocates of special -legislation for working women is that of the people who concern -themselves with the so-called problem of the educated woman, which -is supposed to be that of reconciling domesticity with intellectual -pursuits. A timely illustration of this attitude is the establishment -by Smith College of an institute for the “co-ordination of women’s -interests.” The purpose of this institute, in the words of President -Neilson, is “to find a solution of the problem which confronts -almost every educated woman today--how to reconcile a normal life -of marriage and motherhood with a life of intellectual activity, -professional or otherwise.” Here again is the tacit assumption that -marriage is the special concern of woman, and one whose claims must -take precedence over her other interests, whatever they may be; that -marriage and motherhood constitute her normal life, and her other -interests something extra-normal which must somehow be made to fit in -if possible. I have heard of no institute intended to find a way to -reconcile the normal life of marriage and fatherhood with a life of -intellectual activity, professional or otherwise; although when one -considers how many educated men of today are obliged to compromise with -their consciences in order to secure themselves in positions which -will enable them to provide for their families, one is persuaded that -some such institute might be at least equally appropriate and equally -helpful with that which Smith College has established. - -Let us forget for a moment the sophisticated traditional attitude -toward this question of marriage and parenthood, and go back, as -it were, to the beginning--to a fact recognized in the animal world -and not entirely overlooked by primitive man, namely: that every -offspring has two parents who are equally responsible for its care and -protection. In the animal kingdom one finds a widely varied division -of the labour connected with the care of the young. For example, the -male of certain species is found to perform functions which our own -usage has led us to regard as maternal. Among the viviparous animals -the heavier share of responsibility rests with the female during -the gestation, birth and extreme youth of the offspring; and among -primitive human beings the actual physical dependence of the offspring -on the mother is likely to be prolonged over a period of several years. -It was, perhaps, this necessity of a close physical association between -mother and child that led to a sexual division of labour under which -the mother undertook the physical care of children while the father -undertook the task of providing food. It must be remarked, however, -that this division of labour by no means excludes productive labour on -the part of the woman. Among most tribes she augments the food-supply -through agriculture, grubbing, or sometimes through fishing or -hunting; and there are tribes, notably in Africa, where she is the sole -provider for the family. The Vaertings have remarked that the drudgery -connected with the care of children is invariably imposed by the -dominant upon the subject sex; a view which is in perfect consonance -with what we know of the general human willingness to transfer to other -shoulders the burden of uninteresting though necessary labour. Since -women have most often been subject, they have most often been forced to -undertake this drudgery, either in lieu of or in addition to the labour -of providing food and shelter for their families. - -This is to say that their subject position has added considerably to -what newspaper editors and other commentators are fond of calling the -burden of Eve. Since woman is the childbearing sex, it has seemed -natural to a great many peoples to increase the disadvantage at -which her share in reproduction naturally places her, by making her -confinement at home permanent instead of occasional, and by permitting -her few, if any, interests save those connected with reproduction; in -short, by prolonging and enhancing her subjection to the demands of -the race. This is why the term married woman is still taken to imply -the term housekeeper; an implication which, as the _Freeman_ remarked -editorially some years ago, modern civilization must renounce “if -it wants such of its women as are editors and bank-presidents to be -mothers as well.” - -Civilization shortens the period of the child’s physical dependence on -the mother by shortening the period of lactation. On the other hand, it -increases fecundity to such an extent that where religious superstition -or ignorance prevents the use of contraceptives, the burden of -childbearing is greatly increased. This result of civilization is -not, however, commonly found among the educated classes; and even -among those classes where children are most numerous, I have already -shown that women are not restrained by motherhood from engaging in -gainful occupations outside the home. On the contrary, the number of -their offspring is more often their chief incentive to this course. -Among well-to-do families, prepared foods and wet-nursing have for a -long time been rather generally employed to relieve mothers even of -the responsibility of lactation, while the custom of assigning the -physical care of children to hired substitutes has reduced their actual -work to that of bringing the child into the world. That this mode of -caring for children is approved by all classes is evident from their -readiness to adopt it when fortune favours them with an opportunity. -It is occasionally inveighed against by moralists, but on the whole it -is coveted and approved, especially while women devote to frivolous -pursuits the leisure that it leaves them. When a woman adopts this -mode in order to reconcile motherhood with a serious interest outside -the home, it is a different matter, and lays her open to the charge -of neglecting her family, though in fact she may spend no more hours -away from home than the woman who gives her morning to shopping and her -afternoon to playing bridge. Why this should be the case I am at a loss -to know, unless it be that a serious interest outside the home appears -to smack too much of an assertion of her right to live her life for her -own sake rather than for the sake of the race or that of her husband--a -self-assertion not readily to be accepted without such reservations -as find expression in institutes designed to “co-ordinate women’s -interests.” - -It appears, then, that the care of the young is the concern of both -sexes, and is so recognized in the animal world and among human -beings; and that among the latter such differences in usage as -exist touching this matter are differences in the apportioning of -the burden. Even in our own day, when there is observable a tendency -to forget that the child has more than one parent--that parent being -the mother--the father’s claim to his children is still recognized -in law, often to the prejudice of the mother’s; and so, likewise, is -his obligation to provide for them. Indeed, the child may be said to -be regarded as exclusively the mother’s only while it is young; for -it is a general custom among us to speak of Mrs. So-and-So’s baby, -but of Mr. So-and-So’s son or daughter. Let us, then, recognize the -claim and interest of both parents. Let us also remember that the -economic organization has so extensively altered that the traditional -division of labour--this division is always profoundly affected by -consideration of the young--has been outmoded as far as thousands of -families are concerned. Let us also assume that woman has established -her right to be considered as a human being rather than a function or a -chattel. Then it must seem reasonable to assume that the co-ordination -of interests to be brought about concerns both sexes equally; that -the problem to be confronted is that of reconciling a normal life of -marriage and parenthood not only with the freest possible development -of intellectual interest but with the utmost devotion to any chosen -profession. - -I can not pretend to foretell how this problem will be settled; for its -solution will depend upon the general solution of the labour-problem. -It may be that the necessary collectivism of modern industry will -result in a collectivist system of caring for children. Such a system -would by no means be an innovation; it would simply constitute an -extension and adaptation of means which already exist--of nurseries for -very small children and schools for older ones. Whatever its demerits -might be, such a system would certainly represent an enormous economy -of effort. The average home is adapted less to the needs of children -than to those of adults; hence a mother of young children must spend a -great deal of her time in preventing her young charges from injuring -themselves with dangerous household implements, from falling downstairs -or off of furniture too high for them, and from touching objects which -would not be safe in their hands. In a properly equipped nursery, on -the other hand, the furniture and all the objects are adapted to the -size and intelligence of the children. Children have the advantage of -numerous playmates; and one person can supervise the play of a dozen of -them with less fatigue than the mother of one is likely to feel at the -end of a day in the average home. - -The Russians have already taken some steps in this direction by -establishing both nurseries and schools in connexion with certain -factories. From what I can gather of their policy, it would seem that -they regard the care and education of children as being very much -the concern of the whole community. They look upon childbearing as -a service to the community, but they do not appear to take the view -that women should be required to perform this service at the expense -of their independence, for they have instituted a system of subsidies -for pregnant and nursing working mothers, with rest-periods before and -after confinement, and a subsidy during confinement amounting to the -daily subsidy multiplied by fifteen.[29] - -I have already indicated in the preceding chapter what it seems to me -would be the course of a free people in this matter of reconciling the -care of children with the greatest possible freedom for both parents. -It seems hardly necessary to call attention to the obvious fact that -the question is simply that of placing the care of the young in the -hands of those who are interested in it and fitted for it, instead -of forcing it willy-nilly upon either sex through a traditional -expectation and a traditional division of labour. In a free society, -those parents who wished to pursue careers incompatible with the actual -care of young children would avail themselves of the services of -substitutes, as the well-to-do classes do at present; and they might -do so with even greater confidence because, as I have remarked, those -engaged in caring for and teaching the young would do so as a matter of -interest primarily and only secondarily as a means of livelihood. There -is another important consideration to be taken into account, and that -is, that in a free society the problem of reconciling the occupations -of the parents with their personal supervision of their children would -be much easier to solve; for their hours of labour would be greatly -decreased. It is only where production must support an enormous amount -of idleness and waste that it is necessary to overwork producers. - -It is possible, of course, that the institution of economic freedom -might check the present tendency of women to engage in gainful -occupations outside the home. It most certainly would if the vast -increase of opportunity which it offered were reserved exclusively -for men; but to bring about this result it would be necessary for -traditional anti-feminist prejudices to survive much more strongly -than they do today. The position of women has too radically changed to -admit of their exclusion from direct participation in the benefits of -economic freedom; therefore if they resigned the increased economic -opportunities that it offered them, and withdrew to the sphere of -domesticity, they would do so as a matter of choice. Why should we -not expect them to choose the exclusive domesticity which might be -rendered possible through the increased earning power of men? They -probably would, where it suited their taste to do so; but one of the -most powerful incentives to do so would no longer exist, namely: the -desire for economic security. Women, to be sure, are not exempt from -the characteristic willingness of humankind to live by the exertions -of others; but I would remark that there is this difference between the -person who does this indirectly, through legalized privilege, and the -person who depends directly on the bounty of another: that the former -is independent and the latter is dependent. Women are not strangers -to the human desire for freedom; and when the fear of want is allayed -they are quite likely to prefer an easy and secure self-support to the -alternative of economic dependence. Moreover, economic freedom would -set domesticity in competition with the interests of women rather than -their needs; for it would set all people free to engage in occupations -that interested them, whereas at present the vast majority do whatever -offers them a living. Under these circumstances it might reasonably be -expected that the number of women who would continue in business and in -industrial and professional pursuits, even after marriage and the birth -of children, would greatly increase. - -Indeed, if we postulate an economic system under which every human -being would be free to choose his occupation in accordance with his -interests, I see no more reason to suppose that women would invariably -choose domesticity than to suppose that all men would choose -blacksmithing. Under such a régime I doubt that even the power of the -expected which affects them so strongly at present, would long continue -in an effectiveness which it has already begun to lose. Women, I think, -might be expected to choose their occupations with the same freedom -as men, and to look for no serious interruption from marriage and the -birth of children. There are a good many women at present who very ably -reconcile motherhood with a chosen career. I think we might expect to -find more of them rather than fewer, in a free society. One thing is -certain, and it is the important thing: they would be free to choose. -If it be woman’s nature, as some people still believe, to wish to live -at second hand, then in a free society they will freely make that -choice, and no one can complain of it--unless it be the men on whom -they elect to depend. However, to assume from past experience that they -do want to live at second hand is to assume that all the social and -legal injustices which have been employed to force them to do so, were -unnecessary; and when have Governments and communities wasted their -power in exercising compulsion where no compulsion was needed? - -FOOTNOTES: - -[26] Ellis: Man and Woman. 5th ed. p. 14. - -[27] Katharine Anthony found the workmen of Germany frankly in favour -of any “protective” legislation that would hamper German working women -(“Feminism in Germany and Scandinavia”); and the Woman’s Party has -met with the same attitude among unions in this country. Among the -resolutions passed at the twenty-fifth convention of the International -Moulders’ Union of North America was the following: “_Resolved_, that -the decision of this convention be the restriction of the further -employment of child and woman labour in union core rooms and foundries, -and eventually the elimination of such labour in all foundries by -the example set by union foundries in the uplifting of humanity.... -_Resolved_, that the incoming officers be directed to, either by -themselves or in co-operation with others in the labour movement, give -their best thought and effort in opposing the employment of female and -child labour in jobs recognized as men’s employment.” - -[28] There are, of course, exceptions to this rule; as when a woman -has, before her marriage, already made a great reputation. In such a -case the husband would be thought selfish who demanded the sacrifice of -her career. But the husband who demands the sacrifice of a potential -career is generally thought to be well within his rights. - -[29] From the Laws and Decrees of the Soviet Government on medical -questions, sanitation, etc., published in Moscow, 1922. - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -WHAT IS TO BE DONE - - -I - -In the foregoing chapters I have intimated that every phase of the -question of freedom for women is bound up with the larger question -of human freedom. If it is freedom that women want, they can not be -content to be legally equal with men; but having gained this equality -they must carry on their struggle against the oppressions which -privilege exercises upon humanity at large by virtue of an usurped -economic power. All human beings, presumably, would gain by freedom; -but women particularly stand to gain by it, for as I have shown, they -are victims of special prepossessions which mere legal equality with -men may hardly be expected to affect. - -If, on the other hand, it is dominance that they desire, they might, -indeed, conceivably attain this without freedom; but one can not see -much encouragement for that wish in the present trend of affairs. -Before women could dominate, they would not only have to overcome -the prejudices, superstitions, and legal disabilities which have -contributed to their subjection; but they would also have to get the -upper hand of men economically. They would have to manœuvre themselves -into that advantage in opportunity which men at present enjoy. One -can hardly see how this could be brought about except by some kind of -_coup d’état_, for the tendency of modern legislation, as I have shown, -far from being calculated to enlarge the scope of women’s economic -activity, is likely rather to narrow it; nor is it entirely probable -that the establishment of mere legal equality would count for much in -the premises, for the courts may always decide that any legislation -designed for the Larger Good is valid even though it may clash with -the principle of equal rights.[30] Suppose, however, that the momentum -gathered by the woman’s movement should carry society through a period -of sex-equality and bring it out on the other side--the side of female -domination--then men and women would simply have exchanged places, -and the social evils which now afflict mankind would remain, _mutatis -mutandis_. Women would be more nearly free than men, as men are now -more nearly free than women; but no one would be really free, because -real freedom is not a matter of the shifting of advantage from one -sex to the other or from one class to another. Real freedom means the -disappearance of advantage, and primarily of economic advantage. It -can not be too often repeated that political and social freedom are -unattainable unless and until economic freedom has been attained--but -this is not a concern of either sex or class. In order to live, women, -like men, must eat; to eat, they, like men, must labour; to labour, -they, like men, must have opportunity. Control of men’s and women’s -economic opportunity, therefore, means control of their livelihood, -and control of men’s and women’s livelihood means control of men and -women. Real freedom, therefore, does not come in sight of either men -or women until this control is abated; that is to say, until (speaking -in technical terms) the two active factors in production, capital and -labour, which are _pro tanto_ sexless, have free access to the passive -factor, natural resources--in other words, until the private monopoly -of natural resources is dissolved. - -If the struggle of women to rid themselves of their peculiar -disabilities were to turn out into an attempt to dominate men as men -have for so long dominated women, one could perfectly understand -the psychology behind such an attempt. With the exception of a few -individuals, humankind has thus far achieved no very high idea of -freedom. The ambition of subject classes has never gone much beyond -the desire to enjoy the privileges usurped by their masters. They -have resented being dominated, but not domination; they have had no -repugnance to the thought of dominating others. Their psychology was -very well summed up by _Punch_, in the remark of one old market-woman -to another (I quote from memory): “You see, Mrs. ----, when we have a -Labour Government we’ll all be equal, and then I shall have a servant -to do my work for me.” It is because of this myopic view of the nature -of freedom that all revolutions have been mere scrambles for advantage, -and have accomplished nothing more than a shifting of power from one -class to another, or as John Adams said, “a mere change of impostors.” -If the woman’s movement should resolve itself into a similar scramble, -it would be unfortunate but not surprising, for women may hardly be -expected to rise at once above the retaliatory spirit which is one of -the common curses of humanity. - -They would have good _ex parte_ arguments ready to their tongue; many -an argument, indeed, which has been advanced to defend their subjection -might be effectively turned around. Their part in parenthood for -example, has long been held to justify their subjection under the -guise of protection in this function. It would be equally logical to -argue that women, as mothers of the race, should dominate the family -because, as givers of life, they have a deeper personal interest and -a greater natural right in their children than men have. It might be -argued that they should control all public affairs because of the -greater understanding of the value of human life and deeper interest -in the welfare of humanity that motherhood brings. One often hears the -argument--which no amount of female bloodthirst in time of war ever -seems to make effectively ridiculous--that if women were in power there -would be no wars, because they, knowing the cost of giving life, would -not consent to its wilful wholesale destruction. The doctrine that -women are closer to the race than men is really dangerous to those who -now preach it; for it affords the best kind of basis for the contention -that women should dominate in all matters concerning the race--and all -human affairs may be held to concern the race in one way or another. - -Perhaps the best argument for the domination of women is that if -society, like parliamentary government, must for ever contemplate a -mere sterile succession of outs and ins, it is time that women had -their innings. But the analogy with the parliamentary system goes -further. Public faith in the parliamentary principle has waned almost -to the disappearing-point, and the system has suffered wholesale -discredit, because it became slowly but surely evident that what -actually kept them up was “the cohesive power of public plunder.” -If women took what might be called by analogy the political view of -their right to their innings, and let it animate them in a scuffle for -predominance, the general reaction would be similar. In a matter of -this kind, great numbers of people would be found objective enough to -glance at such an effort and pass it by in disapproval of the waste of -energy involved in bringing about a readjustment that promised nothing -better than a shifting of the incidence of injustice. Women would thus -forfeit a great deal of sympathy, and at the same time probably create -even more antagonism than they have thus far had to face. They would -place themselves in a position similar to that of organized labour, -which is so intent on contending for what it conceives to be its own -interest--a position of advantage in bargaining on wages and conditions -of labour--that by the narrowness of its policy it antagonizes a great -deal of public sentiment which must inevitably be enlisted on its -behalf if it undertook to contend for the general interest, in which -its own is included, and in the service of which its own is bound, in -the long run, to be best served. - -What the nature of this general interest is, I have already intimated. -It is economic, and it can be advanced only through the establishment -of an order of society in which every human being shall enjoy the -natural right to labour and to enjoy all that his labour produces. -It is upon mankind’s security in this right that human freedom, -in whatever mode or aspect--social, philosophical, political, -religious--primarily depends. - -The right to labour and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labour means -only the right of free access to the source of subsistence, which is -land.[31] If access to that source may be arbitrarily denied, the right -to labour is denied, and the opportunity to get one’s living becomes -a privilege which may be withheld or granted as suits the need or -convenience of the person who bestows it, and wholly on his own terms. -If access may be had only on the payment of tribute, the condition -abrogates the right to enjoy the fruit of one’s labour, for the tribute -consumes a share of it. - -While access to land is free, no one need know want; for he may always -get his living by applying his labour to natural resources “on his -own.” He may always, that is, work for himself instead of depending -for his living on the chance to work for an employer. Under such -conditions, moreover, no one need content himself, as the labourer -is forced to content himself at present, with a small share of what -his labour produces, for as Turgot pointed out a century and a half -ago, he can always demand of an employer the full equivalent of what -he could earn by working for himself. It is clear that under such an -economic system, the share of the capitalist in any product would -amount only to a fair competitive return on his actual investment. -Under the present system the capitalist often enjoys both directly and -indirectly the advantage of monopoly, which enables him to appropriate -an unfair proportion of his workers’ labour-product. He is a direct -beneficiary of monopoly when he holds legal title to the source of -his product--cultivable land, mines, forests, water-power--or where -he holds franchises or profits by protective tariffs or embargoes. -He is an indirect beneficiary when he profits by the competition -for work among workers whom monopoly has deprived of free access to -land. The steel-trust, as I have remarked, is a striking example of a -capitalist organization which benefits both directly and indirectly by -monopoly. On the one hand, it monopolizes and holds out of access vast -mining-properties, and monopolizes the home market through a protective -tariff. On the other, it levies tribute on labour by virtue of the -scarcity of opportunity created by monopoly in general. - -Another excellent instance of this dual advantage is furnished by the -railways of this country. Not only have they received governmental -land-grants worth enough to cover their construction-costs many times -over, but they hold a valuable franchise-monopoly in the exclusive -right to do business over a long continuous strip of land called their -“right of way”; by means of which monopoly they drain the commerce -of a vast area as a river drains its waters. Through the enormous -wealth which these monopolies have enabled them to accumulate, they -have been able to influence governmental policy in ways designed to -enhance their privileges; for example, they have been able to curtail -water-transportation and thus reduce competition. They have profited by -tariffs, as through the emergency-law some years ago, which raised the -tariff on wheat just enough to cover the difference between the cost -of landing a bushel of wheat from the Argentine at one of our Eastern -ports, and the rate for transporting it by railway from our Western -wheat-fields. Through the Interstate Commerce Commission, of which they -captured control almost as soon as it was formed, they are allowed -to levy rates which represent not the cost of transportation but the -amount which can be exacted for it. So much for their direct benefit -from monopoly. Indirectly they benefit in the same way as any other -capitalist, through the opportunity to exploit a labour-surplus created -and maintained by monopoly; and while they are somewhat hindered in -making the most of this opportunity by the effectiveness of defensive -organization among their skilled employees, they have a pretty free -hand with their thousands of unskilled workers, and manage on the whole -to do very well out of them. - -Even where the capitalist is not himself to any significant extent a -monopolist, he derives great benefit from monopoly, for it is thanks to -the monopolist of natural resources that he is able to keep labourers -at, or very near, the margin of subsistence. He is not always, however, -undisturbed in the enjoyment of his advantage; for he may be himself -quite as much at the mercy of monopoly as the workers he exploits. -The tenant-farmer affords an excellent example of this. He is the -capitalist in the farming-industry, who pays to the land-monopolist -tribute in the form of rent, to the railways tribute in exorbitant -freight-rates on his implements and products, to the manufacturers of -his implements tribute in the form of tariffs. He furnishes the capital -necessary for operating the farm, pays the wages of such labour as he -may require, and takes for himself what is left after all these charges -have been met, which in this country is so little that it does not -suffice to pay him both interest on his capital and wages for his own -labour--a condition which explains the steady drift of our population -from the farms to the cities, and which also accounts for the -extraordinary fact that agriculture, which is in volume our greatest -industry is, _qua_ industry, bankrupt. All the money in farming is now, -and for some time has been, in the rise of land-values. It is evident, -then, that save where capital and monopoly are united, capital as well -as labour is victimized by monopoly. This is one of the most important -facts of our system, and almost everyone overlooks it. The whole -producing organization is levied upon by a power which itself performs -no service whatever in return for the wealth that it appropriates; -which is, on the contrary, an incubus on the producing organization. -To put this statement more clearly, the monopolist, whose control of -the sources of production makes his exactions inescapable, is limited -in those exactions only by the amount that the traffic will bear. If a -condition arises which makes a certain kind of production especially -desirable, there will naturally be a pressure of people desiring to -undertake that kind of production, and the monopolist who controls its -source will exact in payment for access to that source an amount fixed -by the number of competitors seeking access. He is thus able to absorb -all the returns of the industry which depends on his monopoly, except -just so much as is necessary to encourage people to keep on with it. -For example, during the war the owners of our Western wheat-lands, who -had been demanding one-third of the crop in rent, raised the amount to -two-fifths, because at the price fixed by the Government wheat-growing -was profitable and there were many would-be producers seeking access to -wheat-lands. The same condition was reflected in the selling price of -land. Farms were sold and resold at advancing prices until land that -had sold before the war for sixty-five dollars an acre was bringing -two hundred. During the period of deflation thousands of acres bought -on mortgages reverted from one buyer to another until the original -owner had back his land plus whatever profit he had had from its sale. -All this raising of rents and this buying and selling at inflated -prices, did nothing for production, obviously, except to drain off the -lion’s share of its proceeds into the pocket of the monopolist; for all -speculative values must necessarily be paid finally out of production, -since there is no other source for them to come from. The producing -organization thus carries an enormous load of people who draw their -living from it and give neither goods nor services in return; who live, -that is to say, by appropriating the labour-products of others without -compensation--in other words, by legalized theft. - -As monopoly extends and tightens its grip on the sources of production, -it is enabled to exact an increasing share of the proceeds, until -the point is reached where industry can no longer meet its demands -and continue to pay interest and wages. For example, so long as this -country had a frontier, the monopolist was in no position to exact a -very great share of production, for the producer had the alternative -of pushing on to the margin of cultivation where there were as yet -no landlords to support. The monopolist, therefore, could exact no -more than the difference between what a man might earn in a sparsely -settled country, remote from markets, and what he could earn by -carrying on production in a more thickly settled and more nearly -monopolized region. So long as this condition endured, production in -this country was able to pay tribute to monopoly and still pay the -capitalist a fairly good rate of interest and the labourer a fairly -good wage. But since the late nineteenth century, when the frontier -was closed, all the best of the country’s land and natural resources -being legally occupied, monopoly has been able to exact an ever greater -share of production; for while monopoly progresses, the population -grows, and competitive demand for access to the source of production -increases; and these two causes combine to cut down free economic -opportunity to the disappearing point. Thus it seems only a matter of -time until production will break down under the exactions of monopoly -and revolution and readjustment will follow. The breakdown has already -begun in the basic industry, agriculture, for, as I have stated above, -the tenant farmer is no longer able to meet the charges of monopoly -and still earn interest and wages. Therefore our agrarian population, -literally starved off the land, is steadily drifting to the cities, to -swell the numbers of workers who crowd the industrial labour-market. -This is to say that our civilization is dying at the root; and this -having presently grown too rotten to nourish it or support it, a little -wind of revolution or foreign invasion will one day overturn it, as all -civilizations which have hitherto existed have been overturned by the -same cause. “_Latifundia_,” said Pliny, “_perdiderunt Romam_.” - -This same economic system exists in all the great countries of the -world save Russia, where it broke down under the Czarist régime and has -not been re-established. It is farther advanced in the countries of -the old world than it is here, because this country is more recently -settled. This fact constitutes the only difference between the economic -order in the old world and that in the new--a difference in the degree -that exploitation has reached. - -Wherever exploitation exists, whether in the new world or the old, it -exists by means of a governmental organization which its beneficiaries -control and use to protect their privileges against the expropriated -and exploited masses. There is general agreement among scholars that in -government, exploitation came first, and what we know as law and order -are its incidental by-products; and that however far the development -of these by-products may go, they are never allowed to interfere with -exploitation. “The State,” says Oppenheimer, “grew from the subjugation -of one group of men by another. Its basic justification, its _raison -d’être_, was and is the economic exploitation of those subjugated.” -Both the origin and the essential nature of the State remain perfectly -clear so long as the conquering class remains distinct from the subject -classes and keeps these in a state of vassalage, without freedom of -movement, and subject to transfer from one owner to another along with -the land on which they dwell. In our own age, they are quite evident -in the dealings of the Western powers with weak peoples, as in India -or the Philippine Islands, or the mandated territories under the -League of Nations, where foreign Governments, through their military -organizations, protect their nationals in an economic exploitation of -the native population, and themselves levy taxes upon the natives to -pay the costs of the process. The nature and purpose of the State are -clear, indeed, in any community where the owning and exploiting class -exercises direct control over the propertyless dependent classes -as more or less chattels. The landed aristocracy of Europe formerly -exercised this direct control, as their titles, now grown meaningless, -indicate. - -But where the form of the State has undergone a change which precludes -this direct control by the owning class, the nature of the State, and -its essential function, are obscured. Under the republicanism which -succeeded the American and French revolutions, the expropriated classes -have gained freedom of movement, a limited freedom of opinion, and a -nominal share in the exercise of government. The peasant is no longer -bound to the soil he tills; he may leave it at will to seek his fortune -elsewhere--on the terms of another landlord. The owning classes no -longer directly exercise government or directly enjoy honours and -titles by virtue of ownership. The peoples of the Western world, -at least where parliamentarism has not broken down, have a nominal -freedom with little of the reality. Nominal freedom of movement is -worth little to the man who faces the alternative of being exploited -where he is, or being exploited elsewhere. Nominal freedom of opinion -is not extremely valuable when expression of opinion may cost one the -opportunity to earn one’s living; and the right to vote offers little -satisfaction when it means merely a right of choice between rival -parties and candidates representing exactly the same system of economic -exploitation. - -The political revolution which followed the breakdown of feudalism did -the world its greatest service in launching the _idea_ of freedom; it -did nothing--or relatively very little--for its substance. Through its -agency the equal right of all human beings to “life, liberty, and the -pursuit of happiness” has come to be granted in theory though not in -fact; it remained for the Russian Revolution to proclaim the further -idea that the basis of this right is not political but economic. The -political revolution did more; by establishing political democracy, -it put into the hands of the people the power to achieve economic -democracy by peaceful means. But by that very act it obscured the -essential function of the State and the source of its power, which -remained clear as long as those who owned ruled directly by virtue -of ownership; and thus it hindered a clear perception of the causal -relation between privilege and slavery. By abolishing hereditary power, -it effected a redistribution of privilege, and at the same time forced -privilege to exercise its control of government by indirect means. -Privilege was no longer seated on the throne, but it remained, through -its control of economic opportunity, the power behind the throne;[32] a -power all the more difficult to dislodge now that it exercised control -without assuming responsibility. Republicanism has proved the futility -of dislodging a privileged class without abolishing privilege; for this -simply prepares the way for the rise of a new privileged class which -will use government to enforce its exploitation of the propertyless -class, in a different way, perhaps, but quite as effectively as its -predecessors. - -The psychological effect of the political equality established under -republicanism is extremely demoralizing. As I have remarked, the -subject classes have never desired freedom so much as a chance at -the privileges that they see other people enjoy. Political equality, -with its breaking-down of class distinctions, creates an impression -of equality of opportunity--and indeed to the extent that government -maintains no disabling legal discriminations among members of the -enfranchised class,[33] it actually establishes equality. No member -of that class is excluded from the benefits of privilege by anything -save his inability to get possession of it; and this fact, especially -in a country where opportunity is comparatively plentiful, is more -likely to confirm people in their loyalty to a system under which -they stand even a dog’s chance to become beneficiaries of privilege, -than it is to stimulate an endeavour to abolish privilege altogether. -In this country the incalculable richness of natural resources and -the enormous wealth to be gained by speculative enterprise under a -government which gives full rein to monopoly, contributed immensely to -the corruption of the citizenry. Speculation became the normal course -of enterprise, the most approved method of money-getting; and the more -ruinously did the monopolist exploit the country’s resources, as Mr. -Veblen has pointed out, the greater the regard in which he was held -by his fellow citizens. Never before in the world’s history had so -many people a chance at the enjoyment of privilege as in the pioneer -period of American development. The country’s resources were gutted for -profit, not developed for use. The use-value of land was incidental -to its value as real estate. Every farmer became a speculator, and -consequently the margin of cultivation, instead of being pushed out -gradually in response to the natural increase in the country’s needs, -was extended artificially and with extreme rapidity, with the result -that farms were miles apart and unnecessary difficulties in marketing, -and in the maintenance of education and social life, were created. -The country resembled the modern city-addition of the real-estater, -with all the framework of settlement, waiting for the pressure of -population to enhance the selling-price of land. Not only was the -public mind corrupted by the apparently limitless opportunity to enjoy -privilege--not only was speculation confused with production--but -all this opportunity was blindly attributed to the blessings of -republicanism. “The greatest government on earth” came to be regarded -as the guardian of free opportunity for all citizens, in spite of the -very evident fact that no government which protects land-monopoly can -possibly maintain freedom of opportunity, for in the course of monopoly -all available natural resources are shortly pre-empted, and those -people who are born after occupation is complete will find nothing left -to pre-empt. Thus American patriotism took on a religious fervour, and -the corruption of the populace was complete. - -The rise of industrialism has done as much as anything else to -engender misapprehension of the State’s essential nature, its chief -function, and the source of its power. It is significant that the -Physiocrats lived and observed the workings of the State before the -industrial era, in an agricultural country, where the relation between -land-monopoly and government was direct and inescapable; and that -Karl Marx lived and wrote after the rise of the factory-system, in a -highly industrialized country. The Physiocrats, for whom the basic -economic problem was unobscured, therefore attributed involuntary -poverty to its actual cause; while Marx, confusing capital’s fortuitous -advantage from monopoly with monopoly itself, laid the responsibility -at the door of capitalism. To be sure, Marx recognized and stated the -fact that expropriation must precede exploitation; but he did not -draw the obvious conclusion that the way to break capital’s power to -exploit the worker is by simple reimpropriation. At present there -is a general impression that the factory-system lured the population -into the cities, and thus caused the overcrowding that results in -scarcity of jobs and inadequacy of wage. As a matter of fact, the -factory-system found the cities already overcrowded with exploitable -labour. In England, for example, the Enclosures Acts had deprived the -people of what common land remained to them, and had driven them into -the cities where they lived in inconceivable filth and squalor, eking -out a miserable existence under the old family-system of industry. -The machine-system found all this expropriated and exploitable human -material ready to serve its ends--far more, indeed, than it needed, -as the riots among the workers deprived of their livelihood by its -labour-saving tools, plainly indicated. The industrial revolution, -then, did not produce the overcrowding of the labour-market; but the -capitalist of the revolution profited by an overcrowding that already -existed. He reaped indirectly the fruits of monopoly. He profited -likewise, and profits still, by every labour-saving device, for it -enabled him at once to dispense with some labourers and, because of -the increase of unemployment thus caused, to pay his remaining workers -less. Capital was thus enabled to appropriate much more than its -rightful share of production, and hence to amass enormous wealth, by -means of which it influenced government on behalf of its own further -enrichment. In this country, it has secured a system of protective -tariffs which amount to a governmental delegation of taxing-power to -the protected industries; it gives them a monopoly of the home-market -and enables them to add to the price of their product the amount of -the tariff which has been set against the competing foreign article. -Capital has found other ways of creating monopolies, such as the -combinations in restraint of trade at which the ineffectual Sherman -law was levelled. As the exactions of monopoly increase, and the -exploitation of labour nears the point of diminishing return, the -capitalist-monopolist embarks, with the protection of government, -on a policy of economic imperialism. He monopolizes the markets of -weak nations at the point of his Government’s bayonets. He invests -in foreign enterprises which offer high returns for himself and risk -of war for the Government which backs him--that is to say, for the -exploited masses at home who must support the Government and furnish -its soldiers. In short, he constitutes himself a menace to peace and -prosperity both at home and abroad; so that it is not to be wondered -at if people observing his sinister activities, take capital to be -the cause of the economic injustice from which it derives its power. -Yet, if natural resources were put freely in competition with industry -for the employment of labour, the inflamed fortunes of the capitalist -class would disappear. Monopoly having been abolished,[34] the -capitalist-monopolist would no longer exist, and the capitalist would -no longer be in a position to exact from production anything more than -his rightful interest--that is, as I have said, the amount fixed by -free competitive demand for the use of his capital. - -There is yet another cause of confusion in the long-established custom -of regarding land as private property, whereas it is not, rightly -speaking, private property at all, but the source from which property -is produced by the combined efforts of labour and capital. The right -to property in wealth which has been produced, as, for instance, the -coat on one’s back, may be defended on the ground that it is the -product of one’s own labour, or has been acquired through exchange of -an equivalent amount of one’s own product; but the right to property -in land can not be defended on the same ground, because land is not a -labour-product. The distinction is simply between labour-made property -and law-made property. Under our present system of tenure, to be sure, -the purchase price of land--that is, the investment of capital that the -owner has made in order to get title--may represent human labour--but -this is merely to say that the owner has invested his capital in -privilege, or law-made property; that he has purchased, under -governmental guarantee, a certain delegation of taxing-power, precisely -as the investor in governmental securities purchases a governmental -guarantee that a certain share of future labour-products will be -taken from the producers and turned over to him. The fact that, under -political government, capital may be invested in privilege in no wise -alters the iniquitous nature of privilege, and a sound public policy -would disallow an investor’s plea of good faith _ex post facto_.[35] -Under a system which did not permit such investments, those people who -wished to put their capital to gainful use would invest it in the only -legitimate way, which is in productive enterprise. - -It is, perhaps, partly because of the confusion of thought produced by -all these causes, that no revolution has ever abolished the exploiting -State and the privileges that it exists to secure. But it must also be -remembered that all revolutions have risen out of factional disputes -or class-wars, and that in the latter case, the chief interest of the -revolting class has been not to abolish privilege but to redistribute -it. The French Revolution, for instance, expropriated the land-owning -nobility, but its politicians dared not abolish private land-monopoly, -for the bourgeoisie which supported the revolution would not have -tolerated such an interference with their own enjoyment of privilege. -In one important respect the Russian Revolution is an exception to -this rule. It is a class-revolution, but its avowed ultimate purpose -is to abolish even that State-organization which itself at present -maintains.[36] It is too early for any forecast to be made concerning -the outcome of this attempt; but whether it succeeds or not, the -Russian Revolution has already performed an inestimable service to the -world in proclaiming that the nature of freedom is not political but -economic, and in refusing, as a State-organization, to use its power -for the maintenance of an idle, rent-consuming class, living by the -exploitation of labour at home or in spheres of influence abroad. - -In order to abolish privilege it is not necessary, in a political -democracy, to wait for the economic breakdown which its exactions -inevitably bring about--that is to say, it is not necessary to wait -until the number of wasteful idlers that production must support shall -become so numerous and so wasteful that it can no longer meet their -exactions. The ballot has been a pretty ineffectual weapon in the hands -of the rank and file, but--so much must be said for republicanism--it -could be made effective. First, however, the rank and file would -have to learn what it is that this weapon should be used against--it -would have to become aware of the nature of real freedom, and to wish -real freedom to prevail. The power of privilege under republicanism -depends not only on its control of wealth, but much more upon its -control of thought and opinion. That a campaign of education among the -voters can seriously endanger the position of privilege was proved -in England during the great land-values campaign of 1914, which was -cut short by the war. But the task of education is not easy, because -of the conditions I have just been discussing, which obscure the -essential nature of privilege, and of the State. We have had in this -country a great deal of outcry against privilege, and it has aroused -considerable popular sympathy; but the zeal engendered thereby has not -advanced the cause of freedom, because the outcry was directed against -the capitalist and the exploiting power gained by his fortuitous -advantage from privilege, but not against privilege itself. The nature -of privilege was obscured. It is evidently necessary, then, if the -ballot is ever to be successfully employed against privilege, to know -what privilege means and to clear away all confusion about it, so that -the voters may see what is at fault in our economic system, and what -remedial steps are necessary. - -The essential nature of freedom has been already shown. It comes out -in the abolition of monopoly, primarily monopoly of natural resources, -resulting in complete freedom of the individual to apply his productive -labour where he will. It is freedom to produce, and its corollary, -freedom to exchange--the _laissez-faire_, _laissez-passer_ of the -Physiocrats. How this freedom is to be obtained is not for me to say. -I am not a propagandist, nor do I regard the question as at present -so important as that of establishing a clear understanding of the -nature of freedom. When enough people come to see that the root of all -bondage, economic, political, social--even the bondage of superstition -and taboo--is expropriation, reimpropriation will not be long in -following; and it may be achieved by a method quite different from all -those which theorists have thus far devised. When people know what -they need, they are usually pretty resourceful about finding means to -get it; and so long as they do not know what they need, all the means -of securing it that can be suggested, however excellent, must remain -ineffective from the lack of sufficient will to use them. - - -II - -In the foregoing chapters I have spoken of the effect that freedom -would have upon this or that phase of human relations. There is really -no field of human activity that would not be profoundly affected by -it. A system of free economic opportunity would exert upon the lives -of human beings precisely as great an influence as that exerted by the -present economic system: that is to say, their mode of life, their -education, their quality of spirit, their cast of thought, would all -be determined by their command of wealth, precisely as they now are. -But where the present economic system operates to place the great mass -of wealth at the command of a very small percentage of the population -and thus to keep the majority in an involuntary and oppressive poverty -unfavourably affecting body, mind and spirit in a thousand ways, a -system of free opportunity would place in the hands of every human -being all the wealth that his labour, freely employed, could produce, -and at the same time it would relieve productive labour from the heavy -burden of privilege. Thus that huge share of wealth which now goes -to maintain the privileged classes in luxurious idleness, and that -further huge share which supports vast bureaucracies and keeps up -armies and navies to secure the foreign investments of the privileged -classes, would be diverted to its proper use. The number of workers -would be augmented by all those privilegees and placeholders who -now live without producing;[37] but opportunity would be increased -in infinitely greater proportion; therefore these newcomers would -find no difficulty in supporting themselves. On the other hand, the -immense reduction in luxury and waste thus brought about would very -much shorten the hours of labour. The worker whose labour, in addition -to maintaining himself and his dependents, is supporting two or -three idlers and paying for a share of governmental waste besides, -must necessarily spend many more hours at work than the worker whose -exertions are required only for the support of himself and his natural -dependents. But while the labour of each producer would decrease, -production would be increased by the opening of new opportunities, by -the increase in number of the producers, and by the enhanced power of -consumption made possible through their greater command of wealth. -The redistribution which would follow upon the establishment of free -opportunity, and the curtailment of waste, would satisfy a share of -this new demand; but just as production and exchange, in a period of -comparative prosperity at present, are stimulated by the increased -consuming power of the public, so, when artificial restrictions on -production had been removed, the increased power of consumption which -would result would act as a permanent stimulus to production and -exchange. - -I will not speculate about the conditions arising during the period -of adjustment to the new conditions of economic freedom. If bad, -they would be but temporary, and though they are often magnified as -arguments against freedom by those who either can not or do not wish to -see beyond them, they have no proper place in this discussion, which -is concerned only with the permanent effect of free opportunity on the -lives, spirits and minds of human beings. It may be doubted that the -intercalary hardships of the transition would be great; but if they -were to be twice as great as the most timorous would forecast them, -would they not be preferable to those attending the protraction of the -present system to its inevitable break-up? That is the real question. -Thomas Jefferson said that rather than the French Revolution should -fail, he would see half Europe perish, and “though but an Adam and Eve -were left in every country, and left free, it would be better than it -is now.” - -Who can picture the profound alteration in the attitude of people -toward life and their fellow-beings, if they were but emancipated from -the fear of want which now besets all of humankind? Even the rich and -the well-to-do are not exempt from this fear; for an economic security -based on an unsound economic system is like those walks which are -thrown along the thin crust of earth among the geysers of Yellowstone -Park, where those who walk them are in danger that a misstep may plunge -them through the thin crust to perish in the scalding heat beneath. -While an economic system based upon the legalized robbery of one class -by another remains in force, the abyss of involuntary poverty will -always yawn for those who may lose their command of wealth through -their own incapacity for management, or through circumstances beyond -their control. It seems likely that an instinctive sense of this is at -least partly responsible for the constant effort of people already -well off to increase their fortunes. It is certainly responsible for a -great deal of effort to get wealth by dishonest means--that is to say, -by those forms of dishonesty which are without legal sanction. The fear -of want produces avarice, chicanery, fraud, servility, envy, suspicion, -distrust. It leads to unlegalized theft, to murder, to prostitution. -It produces a class of people who, in a society which denies free -opportunity and puts a premium on graft, live by their wits, and in -so doing often display an energy and ability which would be useful -to a society that offered it no opportunity save that for honest -and useful employment. Moreover, this fear of want keeps the great -majority of people constantly occupied with the means of existence, -when they should properly be devoting a large share of their time to -the fulfilment of its purpose, which is that enjoyment gained from -developing one’s spiritual capacities and pursuing spiritual interests. -Those thus preoccupied can not employ with either imagination or profit -what leisure they have. Rather, they will merely use their leisure to -overcome their weariness of themselves. Their pleasures will be mere -pastimes, of the kind that subvert thought and dull imagination. Thus -little scope is left for the higher activities of the spirit, and the -quality of life is impoverished. - -The spiritual effects of the fear of want are naturally most clearly -observable in countries where it is most widespread and deep-rooted. -England offers a particularly good field for observation of these -phenomena, for economic exploitation by a conquering class which has -merged into a powerful owning aristocracy, is there advanced to the -point of breakdown; therefore all the results of economic exploitation -are present in overflowing measure. The most striking, perhaps, are -the servility and snobbery which find sanction even in the Church -catechism, in the passage admonishing candidates for confirmation to -order themselves lowly and reverently unto all their betters--that is -to say, those born to a higher place in the social order. The English -novelists, from the days of Richardson and Fielding down to the -present, have faithfully recorded the unlovely characteristics bred -in a people by the ever-present necessity of keeping an eye to the -main chance; by the knowledge that fortune may depend less on merit -and ability than on a servile currying of favour with those powerful -persons who, through the fortuitous circumstance of birth, are in -control of economic opportunity. Richardson was himself demoralized -by the social system to which the economic system had given rise. His -acceptance of arrogance in the owning class and abjectness in the -exploited, shows how acquiescence in injustice can corrupt even a man -of genius. “Pamela” is a veritable study in servility; an unconscious -and devastating exposition of the basic principle of English society. -Fielding, on the other hand, was too critical to be corrupted by -it, and his books are all the more valuable for the objectivity -with which he presents the demoralization that a predatory economic -system has produced. What an array of characters he parades before -his readers--avaricious, envious, suspicious, self-seeking, arrogant, -venal! Even the hero of his great novel, “Tom Jones,” is not above -prostituting himself to an elderly lady of wealth when he finds himself -in danger of want and with no more honest means of getting a living, -having been brought up as a gentleman, that is to say, an idler. This -greatest of English novelists was well aware of the effect produced on -the collective life of his nation by an arbitrary division of human -kind into “High people and Low people,” and he took occasion to comment -upon it with a penetrating satire. - - - Now the world being divided thus into people of fashion and - people of no fashion, a fierce contention arose between them; nor - would those of one party, to avoid suspicion, be seen publicly - to speak to those of the other, tho’ they often held a very good - correspondence in private ... but we who know them, must have - daily found very high persons know us in one place and not in - another, today and not tomorrow; ... and perhaps if the gods, - according to the opinions of some, made men only to laugh at them, - there is no part of our behavior which answers the end of our - creation better than this. - - -One might say that the profuseness of unamiable qualities with which -Fielding endows so many of his characters, was due to a peculiar humour -or pessimism in this writer, if one did not find those same qualities -plentifully distributed among the characters of his successors. Dickens -created a whole gallery of highly interesting and unadmirable folk, and -one finds such faithful counterparts in Thackeray, for example, or in -George Eliot, that they are to be explained not as the mere creation of -any author’s imagination, but as a product of the society in which he -lived and observed. - -There is material for an excellent study of the relation of the -economic and social system to the literary art, in the important rôle -that money plays in English fiction. That intense preoccupation with -the means of existence which is enforced by the fear of want, has -profoundly affected the plots and characters of English novels. The -number of plots which hinge on someone’s attempt to get someone else’s -money, is astonishing. The number of men and women who either marry -or attempt to marry for money, is legion; and no English novelist has -the hardihood to settle his characters for life without providing them -with a living, generally through inheritance or the generosity of some -wealthy patron. It is significant that if they are going to make their -own fortunes they usually strike out to make them in the new world, -where there is some opportunity. The preoccupation with getting money, -not through industry but through inheritance, cadging, or chicanery, -is reduced to its lowest terms in the stories of W. W. Jacobs about -life along the waterfront of London. These entertaining and racy -stories, with monotonous regularity, present one theme, and that theme -is the attempt of one character to do another--usually his closest -associate--out of some trifling sum of money. It is interesting to note -that one of the striking differences between English and American -fiction is that where the former deals with money-getting the latter is -likelier to deal with money-making. The one represents a society where -opportunity is pretty thoroughly monopolized; the other a society in -which it is as yet somewhat less so. - -It is not the fear of want alone which demoralizes and corrupts. In -a society where the greatest respect is paid to those who live in -idleness through legalized theft; where men of genius may be treated -like lackeys by those whose only claim to superiority is their command -of wealth; where industry and ability yield smaller returns than -flattery and servility; in such a society there is little to encourage -honesty and independence of spirit. So long as honour is paid to those -who live by other people’s labour, in proportion to their power of -commanding it, so long will praise of honesty, industry, and thrift -savour of hypocrisy, and so long will the mass of people be under small -temptation to cultivate these virtues; and so long, also, will the -moralists who seek to inculcate them be open to the same suspicion of -insincerity as are those bankers who stand to profit substantially by -the thrift they preach among depositors. There is something grimly -amusing in the complaints so frequently heard from those who live -in ease, about the shiftlessness of the working classes and their -dishonest workmanship; complaints which are well founded, perhaps, but -do not take into account the slight incentive that is furnished by the -knowledge that the profits of industry and honest workmanship will -be diverted into other pockets than those of the workers. If labour -takes every opportunity of giving as little as it can for as much as -it can get, one must remember that it but follows the example set by -the owning classes, an example that has yielded them rich returns both -in wealth and in the esteem of their fellow-men. Under a free economic -system no such demoralizing example would exist. The material rewards -of honesty, industry, and thrift would accrue to those who practised -these virtues; and since there would be no opportunity to gain esteem -through the appropriation of other people’s labour, those who wished -to enjoy it would be forced to depend on more worthy means, such as -ability, integrity, and uprightness in their dealings with other people. - -In a free society, ignorance, vice and crime would tend to disappear. -We should have no people in high places whose large-scale theft -would make them fitter inmates for jails, and no people in jails for -those petty thefts to which need is a perennial incentive. Jails, -indeed, would be very little needed by such a society; for what with -the abolition of the State, with its long list of law-made crimes, -and the disappearance of those social conditions which are largely -responsible for the few infractions of moral law which constitute real -crime, there would be very few offenders to occupy them. I have already -remarked that need is a constant incentive to theft; it is also the -chief cause of ignorance; and ignorance and misery are fecund sources -of vice, as well as of the physical and mental degeneracy which result -in imbecility and idiocy. If need were removed, if every human being -were assured from birth of physical well-being and ample opportunity to -develop mentally to the full extent of his capacity, these distressing -results of involuntary poverty would not long exist to menace the peace -and health of communities and fill reformers and eugenists with alarm. -The cities where human beings are crowded together under conditions -subversive of health and decency would be gradually emptied of their -surplus population. At present they are largely asylums for the -expropriated, but when land was once more freely available they would -resume their natural character as centres of industry and exchange. -There would be no more centres of want, misery and vice, like centres -of infection, to menace the health and well-being of society. Man, -reclaimed by the land which is his natural home, would appear for -what he really is, a child of the earth, rather than an industrial -machine far removed from his rightful heritage of close, health-giving -connexion with the soil from which his sustenance comes. Life, in -short, having been placed on its natural basis, might be expected -to proceed along natural lines of development. Mankind, assured of -physical health, would progress steadily in health of mind and activity -of spirit; and being freed from its pressing need to take thought of -the morrow, it would have leisure to seek the kingdom of heaven--not -that heaven which the church promises as a future reward for orthodox -communicants, but the kingdom of heaven which “is within you,” the -happiness that comes from the harmonious development of the highest -faculties of body, mind and spirit, and their use in the promotion of a -beautiful individual and collective life. Superstition and intolerance -would disappear with the ignorance that produces them. Thought would -no longer be hampered either by fear or the consciousness of dependence -on an order of things unfit to bear the light of reason; but every -human being would be free to exercise that independence of mind -that only the most courageous or the most securely placed may allow -themselves at present. The long story of martyrdom for opinion would -come to an end when freedom of opinion no longer threatened a vested -interest in the perpetuation of injustice. Thus that “progressive -humanization of man in society” which is civilization in the highest -sense, would be in a way to be promoted as it has never been promoted -in any society of which the world has knowledge. - - -III - -Theoretically, it might still be possible for free economic opportunity -and its benefits to exist for men only or for women only; but in -order to exclude a whole sex from participation in them, it would be -necessary to reduce its members to the status of chattels. Now, to -reduce half of humanity to slavery is practically unthinkable; it would -necessitate a reversion to an order of thought that has largely been -outgrown; for all social injustice, in the last analysis, is founded in -an ignorance and prejudice which cause even its victims to acquiesce -in it. Indeed, without this acquiescence, social injustice may be -called impossible. “After the primary necessities of food and raiment, -freedom is the first and strongest want of human nature.” Because of -this instinct for freedom, the subjection of any class in society can -be continued only so long as that class itself fails clearly to realize -the injustice of its position; when it comes into a clear realization -of this injustice it will demand and eventually obtain the removal -of its disabilities. The subjection of women, such as it has been, -lasted only so long as women themselves acquiesced in it.[38] When they -developed a sense of injury, they began to demand the equality with -men which is their right, and ignorance, prejudice and superstition -are yielding before the demand. There is no reason to suppose that -women, having progressed thus far, would tolerate without a sharp -struggle any reversion to the injustice from which they have escaped. -Ignorance, prejudice, and superstition, moreover, are incompatible -with the enlightenment which will be necessary in order to secure -economic justice even for one-half of humanity; for that enlightenment -postulates not only the desire to enjoy freedom oneself, but the desire -that all people may enjoy it--that is, it postulates repudiation of the -idea of dominance. Thus society not only could not endure half slave, -half free; it would not wish so to endure. - -Women are at present under certain disabilities which legal equality -with men can hardly be expected to remove. Those disabilities are: - -1. Economic: Women are the victims of unjust discriminations in -industry and the professions in regard to training, opportunities, -tenure of employment, and wages. They are also victimized by -ill-considered “welfare” legislation sponsored by benevolent persons, -and by male workers whose purpose is to rid themselves of unwelcome -competition.[39] - -If legal equality of the sexes were established, women might be able, -under the law, to force public industrial schools to give them equal -opportunities for training; they might also be able to enforce a demand -for equal pay with men for equal work. It is even conceivable that they -might force employers to lay off workers, during periods of depression, -on a proportional basis--men and women together, in proportion to -the number of each sex employed. All this, however, would entail -unremitting vigilance, and great effort in getting legal enactments; -it would also entail a great deal of governmental machinery, with all -the waste and ineffectiveness implied by the term; and it would leave -the general labour-problem precisely where it is at present. As for the -matter of opportunity, so long as industry is in the hands of private -concerns, I see no way by which employers can be forced under an -equal-rights law to employ women where they prefer to employ men. Nor -is there any certainty that legal equality will save working women from -having the race “safeguarded” at their expense. But if land were put -freely in competition with industry for the employment of labour, all -these disabilities would disappear. Women would enjoy the same freedom -as men to get their living by their labour, and since there would be no -such thing as a labour-surplus, their wage, like that of men, would be -the full product of their labour, and not that share which employers -or governmental boards thought fit to grant them. There would be no -need for reformers or other benevolent persons to secure them fair -hours and conditions of labour, or to get them excluded from hazardous -employments; for there is no way to make a worker accept onerous -conditions of labour from an employer if he have an ever-present -alternative of going out and creating more agreeable conditions by -working for himself. The worker whose independent position makes it -possible to refuse to work an excessive number of hours or under -unhealthful or dangerous or disagreeable conditions, will simply -refuse, and there will be an end of it. Thus employers, instead of -being prevented from exploiting women beyond a certain point, would be -rendered incapable of exploiting anyone in any degree. Nor would male -workers longer have any incentive to avail themselves of “protective” -legislation in order to reduce the competition of women with men in -the labour-market; for it is only where opportunity is artificially -restricted that there are “not enough jobs to go around.” - -Certain direct consequences of the economic inferiority of women might -be expected to disappear when that inferiority no longer existed. -Foremost among these is the demoralizing temptation to get their -living by their sex. Prostitution would disappear from a society which -offered women ample opportunity to earn their living without doing -violence to their selective sexual disposition. Marriage would no -longer be degraded to the level of a means of livelihood, as it is -today for a great many women; for economic security would no longer -in any wise depend upon it. This being the case, the expectation now -put upon women to undertake marriage as a profession would disappear, -and marriage would come to be regarded in the light of a condition, -freely and voluntarily assumed by both sexes, who would jointly and -equally undertake its responsibilities. Under such circumstances, one -might confidently expect a further modification of institutionalized -marriage which would remove all those privileges and disabilities -now legally enforced on either party by virtue of the contract. The -idea that woman’s place is the home--which implies that marriage, -for her, necessarily involves acquiescence in a traditional sexual -division of labour and a traditional mode of life--with all its -disabling economic and psychological consequences, would disappear -from a society in which she was able freely to choose her occupation -according to her abilities. Thus, from the status of a class regarded -as being divinely ordained to be the world’s housekeepers, women would -emerge into the status of human beings, free to consult their interests -and inclinations in the ordering of their lives, without regard to -traditional expectations which, being no longer enforced by economic or -legal sanctions, would have no longer any power over them. - -2. Psychological: Those prejudices and superstitions which now hamper -women in their development and in the ordering of their lives, might -be expected to disappear from a free society. In so far as they are -the consequences of woman’s subjection, they would yield before her -emergence into the status of a human being, sharing equally with man in -the freedom of opportunity that would result from the establishment of -economic justice, and the increased cultural advantages that freedom -of opportunity would bring. In so far as they are the outgrowth of -primitive ignorance and superstition, they would yield before the -increased intelligence and enlightenment which might be expected to -result from the abundance and leisure afforded to every human being -by economic freedom. Thus those artificial differentiations between -the sexes which have been built up by fear, by superstitions, and by -masculine dominance, would tend to disappear. Women would no longer -be regarded as extra-human beings endowed with superhuman powers for -good or ill; they would no longer be regarded exclusively or chiefly -as a function, being no longer forced to occupy that status; theories -of their mental and spiritual inferiority based on the results of -centuries of subjection would yield before a more humane and scientific -attitude; and as freedom promoted individuation among women, it would -become evident that the traditional notions concerning the feminine -nature were drawn from qualities which, having been bred by their -subjection, should have been regarded as characteristics not of a sex -but of a class. - -3. Social: The superstitious notion that woman’s honour is a matter -of sex would disappear with the masculine dominance from which it -resulted. When women need no longer depend on marriage for their -living or their social position, they will no longer be under any -great compulsion to make their sexual relations conform to standards -which have been adapted to suit the interests, desires and tastes of -men. Being economically independent of men, they will be at liberty to -consult their own interests, desires and tastes, in this as in other -matters. They may desire to preserve those habits of virginity before -marriage and chastity after it, which have been imposed upon them under -masculine dominance; but they will be under no external compulsion to -do so. When they have no longer a professional interest in conforming -to the conventional moral code, their sexual relations will cease to be -regarded as falling within the purview of morality at all; rather they -will be, as those of men have been, a question of manners. For when a -moral precept no longer has social or economic sanctions to enforce it, -its observance ceases to be a matter of worldly interest or expediency, -and becomes a matter of personal taste. Then, if it be not sound, it -will be repudiated; if it be sound, the individual who allows himself -to be guided by it will profit spiritually by doing so, because his -obedience will respond to his own instinct for what is good, rather -than to an external pressure. - -The spiritual gain that will come through the release from bondage to -superstition, discrimination and taboo, is incalculable. Freed from her -slavery to catchwords, woman will be able to discover and appraise for -herself the true spiritual values which catchwords usually obscure. -Having no longer any need to preserve a fearful regard for what other -people may think of her, she will be at liberty to regulate her conduct -by what she wishes to think of herself; and hence she will be able to -cast aside the hypocrisy, duplicity and dissimulation that must be bred -in any class of people whose position in society depends not upon what -they are but upon what they appear to be. Having attained to the full -humanity which this emancipation implies, she will gain sufficient -respect for her sex to tolerate no discriminations against it. Thus we -may expect to see her sexual function of motherhood placed on a basis -of self-respect, and the barbarous injustice of illegitimacy relegated -to the limbo of forgotten abuses. Woman will for the first time undergo -the profound and weighty experience of responsibility to herself, -rather than to social institutions and arrangements which were made -for her, and whose nature is not such as to command the deference of a -free agent. Free from the tyranny of the expected, from the disabling -consequences of surveillance and repression, women will for the first -time be able to develop to their full stature as human beings, in -accordance with the law of spiritual growth which has so long been -thwarted and perverted by the usages of society. - -I have given only a general idea of what economic freedom would do to -promote human happiness. Its effect upon the lives and characters of -men would be quite as emancipating as upon those of women; but this -I have not space to consider in detail. In passing, however, I might -remark that not the least of the benefits that men would gain by it -would be relief from the worry and humiliation which the support of -women so often involves at present. “I have taken mistreatment from -that conductor,” said a young musician recently, “that I never would -have stood for if I were single. But I have a wife, and that makes -us all cowards.” A free people would outgrow on the one hand the -sheepishness that fear of want begets, and on the other the arrogance -bred by consciousness of power. Men would no longer need endure -humiliation for the sake of keeping their jobs; and those over them -would be estopped from arrogance by the knowledge that they were -dealing with free men who were under no compulsion to tolerate it. - -If it appear that I envisage utopian results from the institution of -economic freedom, let me assume the possibility that those spiritual -results which I foresee might not come about. If they did not come -about, however, their failure to do so would imply a profound and -inexplicable change for the worse in human nature; for if the world’s -history proves anything, it is that there is in mankind a natural -disposition to aspire toward what is ennobling and beautiful, and -that this disposition is favoured by economic security--especially -where it is not associated with irresponsible power--and thwarted by -involuntary poverty. Why is it that the middle classes are regarded as -the “backbone” of society, if not because they have had enough command -of wealth to enable the maintenance of health and a high standard of -education, without that excess and power which too often breed idleness -and arrogance? Leisure and abundance stimulate independence of spirit, -thought, education, creative activity. Penury leads to demoralization, -ignorance, dulness. This has been the world’s experience in the past. -“There is in man,” says Goethe, “a creative disposition which comes -into activity as soon as his existence is assured. _As soon as he has -nothing to worry about or to fear_, this semi-divinity in him, working -effectively in his spiritual peace and assurance, grasps materials -into which to breathe its own spirit.” Why should one assume that this -spirit will pass over the material offered by life itself and the -relations of human beings with one another? It has not done so in the -past. Throughout mankind’s long martyrdom of exploitation, through all -the struggling and hatred engendered thereby, this semi-divinity in -man has been leading him towards a more humane conception of life. The -spiritual peace and assurance resulting from economic justice would -set all human beings free not only to share in this conception but to -realize it--to establish upon earth that ideal life of man which, in -the words of George Sand, “is nothing but his normal life as he shall -one day come to know it.” - - -IV - -The whole point of the foregoing, for present purposes, is this: It -is impossible for a sex or a class to have economic freedom until -everybody has it, and until economic freedom is attained for everybody, -there can be no real freedom for anybody. Without economic freedom, -efforts after political and social freedom are nugatory and illusive, -except for what educational value they may have for those concerned -with them. The women of the United States, having now got about all -that is to be had out of these efforts--enough at any rate, to raise -an uneasy suspicion that their ends are lamentably far from final--are -in a peculiarly good position to discern the nature of real freedom, -to see which way it lies, and to feel an ardent interest in what it -can do for them. My purpose, then, is not deliberately to discourage -their prosecution of any enfranchising measures that may lie in their -way to promote, and still less to disparage the successes that they -have already attained. It is rather to invite them thoughtfully to take -stock of what they have really got by these successes, to consider -whether it is all they want, and to settle with themselves whether -their collective experience on the way up from the status of a subject -sex does not point them to a higher ideal of freedom than any they have -hitherto entertained. - -In the past century, women have gained a great deal in the way of -educational, social and political rights. They have gained a fair -degree of economic independence. They are no longer obliged to “keep -silence in the churches,” as they still were at the beginning of the -nineteenth century; indeed, certain sects have even admitted them -to the ministry. The women who now enjoy this comparative freedom, -and accept it more or less as a matter of course, are indebted to -a long line of women who carried on the struggle--sometimes lonely -and discouraging--against political, legal, social and industrial -discrimination, and to the men, as well, who aided and encouraged them. -Thanks to the efforts of these pioneers, the women of today have a new -tradition to maintain, a nobler tradition than any of those which women -were expected to observe in the past: the tradition of active demand -for the establishment of freedom. They will be none the less under -obligation to continue this demand when the freedom that shall remain -to be secured is of a kind not envisaged by their predecessors. Rather, -in the measure that they proceed beyond those ends that seemed ultimate -to their predecessors, they will prove that these built well; for the -best earnest of advancement is the attainment of an ever new and wider -vision of progress. - -The organized feminist movement in England and America has concerned -itself pretty exclusively with securing political rights for women; -that is to say, its conception of freedom has been based on the -eighteenth century misconception of it as a matter of suffrage. Women -have won the vote, and now they are proceeding to use their new -political power to secure the removal of those legal discriminations -which still remain in force against their sex. This is well enough; -it is important that the State should be forced to renounce its -pretension to discriminate against women in favour of men. But even -if we assume that the establishment of legal equality between the -sexes would result in complete social and economic equality, we are -obliged to face the fact that under such a régime women would enjoy -precisely that degree of freedom which men now enjoy--that is to say, -very little. I have remarked that those who control men’s and women’s -economic opportunity control men and women. The State represents the -organized interest of those who control economic opportunity; and -while the State continues to exist, it may be forced to renounce -all legal discriminations against one sex in favour of the other -without in any wise affecting its fundamental discrimination against -the propertyless, dependent class--_which is made up of both men and -women_--in favour of the owning and exploiting classes. Until this -fundamental discrimination is challenged, the State may, without danger -to itself, grant, in principle at least, the claims to political and -legal equality of all classes under its power. The emancipation of -negroes within the political State has not notably improved their -condition; for they are still subject to an economic exploitation -which is enhanced by race-prejudice and the humiliating tradition of -slavery. The emancipation of women within the political State will -leave them subject, like the negro, to an exploitation enhanced by -surviving prejudices against them. The most that can be expected of -the removal of discriminations subjecting one class to another within -the exploiting State, is that it will free the subject class from -dual control--control by the favoured class and by the monopolist of -economic opportunity. - -Even this degree of emancipation is worth a good deal; and therefore -one is bound to regret that it has no guarantee of permanence more -secure than legal enactment. Rights that depend on the sufferance of -the State are of uncertain tenure; for they are in constant danger of -abrogation either through the failure of the State to maintain them, -through a gradual modification of the laws on which they depend, or -through a change in the form of the State.[40] At the present moment -the third of these dangers, which might have seemed remote ten years -ago, may be held to be at least equally pressing with the other two. -It is a misfortune of the woman’s movement that it has succeeded in -securing political rights for women at the very period when political -rights are worth less than they have been at any time since the -eighteenth century. Parliamentary government is breaking down in -Europe, and the guarantees of individual rights which it supported are -disappearing with it. Republicanism in this country has not yet broken -down, but public confidence in it has never been so low, and it seems -certainly on the way to disaster. No system of government can hope -long to survive the cynical disregard of both law and principle which -government in America regularly exhibits. Under these circumstances, no -legal guarantee of rights is worth the paper it is written on, and the -women who rely upon such guarantees to protect them against prejudice -and discrimination are leaning on a broken reed. They will do well to -bear this in mind as they proceed with their demands for equality, and -to remember that however great may be their immediate returns from the -removal of their legal disabilities, they can hardly hope for security -against prejudice and discrimination until their natural rights, not -as women but as human beings, are finally established. This is to say -that if they wish to be really free they must school themselves in “the -magnificent tradition of economic freedom, the instinct to know that -without economic freedom no other freedom is significant or lasting, -and that if economic freedom be attained, no other freedom can be -withheld.” - -FOOTNOTES: - -[30] Still, putting the shoe on the other foot, there is no denying -that discriminative legislation based on the Larger Good might as well -serve to secure to women privileges which would lead toward female -domination, as to create disabilities which would keep them at a -disadvantage compared with men. Even the United States Supreme Court -has been known to reverse itself. - -[31] Land, that is, in the technical economic sense. It does not mean -the solid part of the earth’s surface--earth as distinguished from -water. It means the sum-total of natural resources. - -[32] It is hardly necessary to go into the methods by which this -control is exercised. In a country where government is elected, as -in this, privilege controls through its contribution to party-funds, -through bribery, through economic pressure, and all the other means -which its control of economic opportunity puts at its disposal. - -[33] Women and slaves were discriminated against in this country; and -in the State of California today, no person incapable of citizenship -may hold land--a provision which excludes Japanese and Chinese. - -[34] A great deal is said about credit-monopoly, as if it were -something requiring a new and special kind of instrument to break up. -But what is credit? Merely a device for facilitating the exchange -of wealth, and all wealth is produced from land. The break-up of -land-monopoly would therefore at once break up credit-monopoly. Or, -putting it in another way, the one and only imperishable security is -land--all other forms of security finally run back to it. The break-up -of land-monopoly would therefore break up the monopoly of all the -secondary and derived forms of security upon which credit could be -based. - -[35] There is recent precedent for this in American law. Under -the XVIII Amendment and the Volstead Act, the Federal Government -confiscated _ex post facto_ without a penny of compensation hundreds -of millions invested in the liquor business. All this, too, was -in labour-made property, not in law-made property, which greatly -strengthens the precedent. - -[36] The Constitution of one of the Soviet Republics--I think it is -Georgia--begins something after this fashion: “It is the purpose of -this Government to abolish government.” - -[37] The political placeholder must not be confused with those workers -in business, industry, or the arts who are not manual labourers, but -perform valid services which are exchangeable for wealth and justify -their being accounted productive workers. - -[38] This is not to be taken as a contradiction of what I have said in -Chapter I concerning the argument that women wanted to be subjected. -No class ever voluntarily accepts subjection; but when it has been -subjected by one means or another, the ignorance that its subjection -breeds may cause it to become passively acquiescent in the injustice of -its position. It is worth noting that so long as the _idea_ of slavery -is tolerated, slaves may accept their position with a certain fatalism, -much as the vanquished force in war accepts its defeat. - -[39] It is not to be understood that all male workers, individually or -in union, take this attitude; but that it does exist among them I have -already shown. - -[40] This is not to be taken as contradicting the earlier statement -that women would not renounce without a struggle the rights they have -gained. The world can not move toward freedom without carrying women -along; they would not tolerate a dual movement, towards freedom for men -and slavery for themselves. But when the general movement is away from -freedom, as the movement of political government is at present, the -rights of women are endangered along with those of men. - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -SIGNS OF PROMISE - - -Superficially it may seem that the present is an inappropriate time -to suggest that either women or men go deliberately out of their way -to undertake a process of self-education in the meaning of freedom. -The dominant spirit among us is not only not hospitable to the idea -of freedom; it is openly inimical to the idea. The United States is -the richest and most powerful country in the world. It is in the midst -of the most interesting experiment ever seen in the simplification -of human life. It is undertaking to prove that human beings can live -a generally satisfactory life without the exercise of the reflective -intellect, without ideas, without ideals, and in a proper use of the -word without emotions, so long as they may see the prospect of a -moderate well-being, and so long as they are kept powerfully under the -spell of a great number of mechanical devices for the enhancement of -comfort, convenience and pleasure. This experiment is so universal and -so preoccupying that while it is going on there would seem to be no -chance to get any consideration for so unrelated a matter as freedom. -Hence the only current notion of freedom is freedom to live and behave -as the majority live and behave and to desire what the majority desire; -and notions which diverge from this have not been under stronger -suspicion and disapproval since the eighteenth century than they are -in this country today. Not that any one, probably, fears any degree of -liberty for himself, but every one has a nervous horror of too much -liberty for others. Most people no doubt feel that they themselves -would know exactly what to do with freedom and therefore might be -safely trusted with any measure of it; it is the possible social effect -of other people’s liberty that they dread. No idea, probably, is more -distrusted and feared among us at the present time than that of freedom -for someone else. - -The dominant spirit at present--the spirit which gives tone to our -society--is diametrically opposed to the spirit of freedom. It is a -spirit of coercion and intolerance. Politically this spirit finds -expression in a pronounced reaction from the “progressivism” which had -gained so much support before the war; in an enormous strengthening of -“the cohesive power of public plunder,” with a consequent reversion -to the regimentation of strict party-government; in outrages committed -by government, with popular approval--or at least indifference--upon -the persons and property of people suspected of economic unorthodoxy; -and in a cynical disregard by both government and populace of those -guarantees of individual liberty which were wrested from government -by more liberty-loving generations than our own. It is evident also -in the development of extra-governmental organizations committed to -a programme of violence actuated by religious bigotry, race-hatred, -or inflamed chauvinism, such as the Hackenkreutzers and Fascists -abroad--for the spirit of intolerance is not confined to the United -States--and the Ku Klux Klan in this country; movements which, -although they imply no menace to the exploiting classes themselves, -do constitute a menace, at present imperfectly perceived, to the -established organization through which those classes exercise -exploitation, and an extremely threatening danger to the lives and -liberties of millions among the governed. - -Economically the spirit of coercion is in evidence in the struggles -for advantage between capital and labour, each trying to force the -other to its own terms; in attempts by employers to break up defensive -organization among their workers; and in such laws as the Criminal -Syndicalism Acts, most of which give criminal character to membership -in an organization professing radical economic doctrine. Socially -it is reflected in such laws as the Eighteenth Amendment and the -Volstead Act, and in puerile and evil-minded attempts at censorship of -individual conduct, of public amusement, and of literature and art. -In religion it is manifest in the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, -in the current controversy between Fundamentalism and Modernism in -the Protestant churches, and in the attempt sponsored by bigoted and -influential church-organizations to stop by edict the progress of -biological and anthropological science, because it threatens the tenure -of established superstitions. It is likewise evident in the concern -of those organizations with such social behaviour of individuals as -must rationally be held indifferent, and their efforts to get their -particular code of conduct enforced through sumptuary law. - -The recrudescence of this spirit is the immediate result of war, which -always brings it about. War embodies in its crudest form the doctrine -of government by violence; and when war is dominant, therefore, -the ideals of justice and liberty, which are directly opposed to -it, become so unpopular that those who continue to profess them are -liable to persecution by government and by their war-mad compatriots. -Governments, which never grant their citizens more freedom of opinion -and action than is absolutely necessary in order to get themselves -tolerated, take advantage of this war-spirit to revoke, in practice -if not in law, those guarantees of individual rights which it suits -their purpose to dispense with. When the popular orgy of patriotic -bloodthirst and intolerance is over, and the populace begins to get -back to sanity, it finds government more securely fixed upon its back -than ever, and prepared to ride it without that easy rein and that -sparing of the spur which fear compels. Thus it is that the Governments -of the Western world, since the war, have been carrying on their -imperialist activities abroad and persecuting dissenters at home, with -an excess of cynicism which would have been effectively reprehended by -public opinion before the war. - -The chief reason why this policy of force continues to command a large -measure of popular support is because fear of bolshevism has taken the -place of that fear of the enemy which unifies public opinion behind -Governments in war-time. Economic interests immediately consolidated -against the influence of the Russian Revolution precisely as they did -against that of the French Revolution, and in the same way. Governments -have done all in their power to inculcate fear of this influence upon -their peoples; and in this they command the assistance of practically -the whole institutional organization of their respective countries. -There is other and far better reason for this propaganda than the -mere need of a new bogey with which to cow the timorous and keep the -disaffected under control. The idea of freedom which bolshevist Russia -has launched is a distinct menace to political government and its -beneficiaries, the owning classes. If the expropriated and exploited -masses in other countries once get it through their heads that their -primary interest is not political but economic, the days of political -government will be numbered. The propaganda against bolshevism is -therefore inspired by two motives: the wish to frighten peoples into -approving suppression of those suspected of political and economic -heresy, and the wish to divert attention from the idea behind the -Russian Revolution through the moral effect of real or supposititious -misbehaviour by the Revolutionary Government. It is a curious twist of -human psychology that makes supposed outrages committed by a foreign -Government five thousand miles away appear to justify actual and -equal outrages by one’s own Government in one’s own country; and a -proletarian dictatorship five thousand miles away appear to justify a -dictatorship of the exploiting classes at home. The Soviet Government’s -alleged mistreatment of political dissenters is easily made effective -in ranging popular opinion in this country behind governmental -persecution and deportation of communists and anarchists. Reports of -Red terror in Russia reconcile public opinion--or at least that portion -of it which is articulate--to the reign of a White terror here. It -would appear that the desirability of dictatorship and terrorism is -not in question, but their colour. Civilized persons, perhaps, would -find little to choose between Red terror and White terror, or a Red -dictatorship and a White; they would probably elect to dispense with -terrorism and dictatorship altogether; but civilized persons have -nothing to do with framing the policies of government, and almost -nothing to do with the formation of majority-opinion. - -Superficially, then, an invitation to contemplate freedom seems -untimely. The cause of freedom is neither popular nor fashionable; -therefore it may seem unduly optimistic to expect that there will soon -be an interest in it deep enough or general enough to move many people -to inquire seriously into its meaning or its desirability. Such a study -would imply a critical reappraisal of institutions to which fear of -change impels the majority to cling with a tenacity out of proportion -to the benefits to be derived from their preservation. In this country -this fear of change is especially strong because, as I have remarked -before, the exactions of monopoly have not yet advanced to the point -of choking industry. Moreover, opportunities to enjoy monopoly are not -as extensively pre-empted here as they are elsewhere; and therefore -the chances of the individual to share in the loot of industry are -much better. This fact tends to keep a great many people loyal to -an economic and political order which offers them a chance, however -remote, to live by the earnings of other people, and to make them -inhospitable to an idea of freedom which threatens that chance. There -is another factor, too, which must be taken into account, as explaining -the hostility of our proletariat towards an experiment in proletarian -government which might be expected to gain their tolerance if not their -sympathetic interest: that factor is the tendency of human beings to -prefer an immediate temporary well-being to an ultimate permanent -well-being conditioned on the acceptance of immediate hardship or -uncertainty. “_Après nous le déluge_” is a sentiment by no means -peculiar to dissolute and irresponsible monarchs. Humankind has always -shown a perfect willingness to let posterity pay its bills and atone -for its misdeeds. Labour at present is comparatively well off in this -country; and it is significant that just those sections of it that are -most advantageously situated are strongest in their opposition to the -bolshevist experiment, namely: the unions in the American Federation -of Labour. One can not unreservedly condemn their attitude; there is -much to be said for it. In a society organized as ours is, the mere -loss of a job is, as I have remarked elsewhere, terrible enough to keep -one’s thoughts from wandering on burning ground. The labourer stands -to lose through any radical economic readjustment quite as much as -the monopolist, that is, his all. If his all be sufficient to keep him -from want, he will naturally regard with apprehension any proposal to -take it away for the moment, even for the sake of his own possible -future advantage. The poor man, especially if he have a family, is -likely to feel that a present sufficiency is worth much more than -a future surplus. It is only when people have literally nothing to -lose but their chains that they can face without fear the prospect of -revolutionary change. If the existing economic order remains in force, -that time will come in this country as it came in pre-revolutionary -France, and something over a century later in pre-revolutionary -Russia; and when it does, there will be plenty of active interest -in freedom, and of underground movements to bring it about by -revolutionary methods. But at present the “dissidence of Dissent and -the protestantism of the Protestant religion,” the Anti-Saloon League, -the one-hundred-per-centers, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Republican -party, are in unapproachable ascendancy. - -This does not greatly matter. Force and proscription are in the -long run invariably ineffectual against an idea. The idea released -by the American and French revolutions--the idea of the right of -individual self-expression in politics--prevailed over the combined -forces of European feudalism; and the idea released by the Russian -Revolution will prevail over the combined forces of European and -American imperialism. For ideas can be fought neither with armies nor -with persecutions; nor can attention be for ever diverted from them. -The only thing that has effective force against an idea is a better -one. Whether or not the Soviet Government succeeds in getting beyond -dictatorship to the establishment of economic justice in Russia is -not really important. If it should fail, its failure will not halt -the progress of the idea that human freedom is fundamentally a matter -of economics. Not even that acceptance in principle and denial in -practice which is the chief characteristic of Liberal policy, can -permanently defeat it. Sooner or later it will penetrate into human -consciousness; it will become part of that consciousness; and it -will prevail. Whether or not it will prevail during this era of the -world’s history is another question, whose answer will depend upon the -readiness of mankind to assimilate and be actuated by it. If it is not -assimilated in time to prevent the ruin of European civilization, then -its ultimate victory will take place in a future era, when European -civilization has followed the way of other civilizations to oblivion. - -The process of assimilation is even now at work; with what -effectiveness one may deduce from the strength and determination of -the forces arrayed against it. It was no love for the Czar and the -Russian nobility that caused the Allied Governments to spend millions -of dollars in support of Kolchak, Denikin, and Wrangel, just as it was -no love for Louis XVI and the French nobility that sent the Duke of -Brunswick into France at the head of the Allies’ army. It was fear of -the idea which animates the Bolshevist Government. It was not because -the Allied Governments hated Germany less but because they hated the -Bolsheviki more that they failed to assent to the Soviet Government’s -proposal to surrender Petrograd and Moscow, establish a front in the -Ural mountains, and continue the war against Germany. It was not their -belief in self-determination, but their desire to interpose a buffer -State between the embattled proletariat of Russia and the embattled -imperialists of Western Europe, that caused them to erect Poland into -an independent State. Nor has anything but the most pressing economic -necessity moved any one of the Western Governments to treat with the -cynical realists of Moscow, who have repeatedly embarrassed Allied -politicians by their persistent abstinence from the hypocritical cant -of the diplomat who has predatory designs to justify. Nor was it any -sudden access of friendliness for Germany, or any noble superiority -to sectional jealousies and nationalist ambitions, that moved these -same Governments to sign the agreement of Locarno; it was, rather, a -desire to make common cause against a Government whose avowed purpose -is to destroy the privileged interests by and for which they themselves -exist. Need anyone suppose that they would do all these things if they -believed that the Russian idea could be localized? Not even the desire -of their privilegees to exploit the natural wealth of Russia could -have brought about a Locarno agreement. It was their sense of a common -danger that overcame their mutual jealousies and distrust; the danger -that the proletarians of their own countries may, as their miseries -increase, be moved to emulate the proletarians of Russia, that a sense -of class-solidarity may overcome traditional and national antipathies, -and move them to unite for the purpose of casting off their chains. - -There are tendencies in post-war Europe and America which must be -disturbing to the politician who knows how to interpret them, if -there be such a politician; tendencies far more significant of future -developments than the mere existence of organized revolutionary -minorities or the activities of single communists or anarchists, and -much more difficult to cope with. Chief among these is a growing -disrespect for government; the progress of a healthy cynicism -concerning its nature and purpose, and a promising disregard of -those sumptuary laws which do not meet with the convictions or -desires of citizens. This tendency is by no means confined to any -disaffected group or class. The citizen who is most patriotic, and -most wholeheartedly with his Government in its attempts to coerce -other people, may not scruple to evade its attempts to coerce himself. -There is no articulate sentiment in this country, for example, against -the income-tax law; yet there are few citizens who will not evade its -incidence if possible, and feel themselves quite justified in doing so. -Or again, who has not heard people comfortably provided with contraband -liquor remark that they believe prohibition to be an excellent thing -for the country in general? People may support the policies of a -Government who entertain no illusions whatever about the nature of its -personnel--or about the policies themselves for that matter--but who -support them as a matter of self-interest or because they see nothing -better to do. But all this does not augur especially well for the hold -of government upon the loyalty or imagination of the governed. It is -a truism that the Government which tries to enforce one law to which -its citizens do not subscribe, thereby engenders disrespect for all -law, and thus weakens its authority. Again, the citizen who supports -his Government through self-interest or inertia may oppose it through -self-interest or because his inertia has been overcome. If he does not -support it through respect, its hold upon him is tenuous and uncertain. - -As for the growing numbers of the disaffected, they show their loss -of faith in so-called representative government, and their sense of -helplessness, by a practice of non-co-operation which is none the less -real because it is spontaneous and unorganized. The number of qualified -voters who abstain from using the ballot grows with every election; -and this is not surprising, since every voter of any intelligence -knows precisely what interests control government, and precisely -what measure of self-determination his apparent choice between rival -candidates involves. Even the old faith in Liberalism, or the belief -that the masses may get some voice in government through “putting good -men in office,” is not what it once was. Liberalism displayed its true -colours during the war, and since the war it has not been able to -fool a great many of the people even part of the time. It is worthy -of note that every war-Government of 1914 was a Liberal Government -except Russia’s. Mr. Wilson was a Liberal if there ever was one; and -Mr. Wilson’s Administration led the American people into a costly war -which was of practical moment to only an infinitesimal minority of -our population, and used the opportunity created by war-hysteria to -perpetrate the most high-handed outrages against dissenters from his -war-policy. Mr. Wilson may have been sincerely insincere, as one clever -critic put it; but whether he was so or not, he gave the American -people a thorough, high-priced lesson in the essential hypocrisy of -Liberalism. Mr. Wilson, and his fellow-Liberals of Europe, showed -the world that the real interests of Liberalism and those of Toryism -are identical, and that when those interests are endangered it is -impossible to distinguish between Liberal and Tory behaviour. - -It has, indeed, become abundantly clear since the war that a -realignment of forces is inevitable; a realignment which shall -represent not merely two factions differing slightly in regard to -the non-essentials of government but one in the fundamental purpose -of furthering economic exploitation; but a realignment which shall -represent the cleavage which exists already, and will be widened -as time goes on, between those who wish to perpetuate economic -exploitation and those who wish it abolished. The remark which -one frequently hears, that the two great parties in this country -represent the same interests, means that they are both maintained by, -and directly represent, the interest of monopoly which is engaged -in exploiting industry. Their superficial differences, even, are -notoriously insignificant, and fundamentally their interests and -their source of power are identical. The logical cleavage, therefore, -is between members of those two parties with all mere Liberals and -reformers, on the one side, and advocates of economic justice on the -other. It is really too late for compromise; too late for government -to do everything for the exploited masses except get off their backs, -as the German Imperial Government did so admirably before the war. -Governments have become too corrupt and too ruthless, and the interests -behind them too greedy, to perceive the wisdom of such a course. If -the policy of coercion is in the ascendancy, if the executive arm -of political government is everywhere usurping the function of the -legislative arm, if parliamentarism and republicanism seem about -to merge into dictatorship, it is because the ruling classes are -much more aware of the coming struggle than are those classes whose -interests will range them on the other side; and if many people now -support government whose interests are against it, it is because -they have not yet awakened to a realization of their true position. -The increasing cynicism of the governed concerning the nature and -purposes of government really marks an important advance toward the new -alignment of forces. It is not a long step from the realization that -government does not represent the general interest, to a discovery of -the direction in which that interest lies. - -Along with this cynicism go other signs of a changing attitude. There -is a conspicuous falling off of faith in what might be called the -unofficial adjuncts of government, namely: the press and the pulpit. -The changing attitude towards organized religion was recognized and -defined in the Pope’s recent Encyclical Letter condemning the progress -of laicism in all the countries of the Christian world, and the -accompanying tendency to discuss Christianity as if it were merely -one of the historical faiths, like Mohammedanism or Buddhism, instead -of the only true, revealed religion. It is recognized also in the -attempts to which I have alluded above, by certain Protestant sects in -this country to secure laws forbidding the teaching of the theory of -evolution. It is true that science and the printing-press have robbed -a secularized church of its main source of influence over the minds of -men, the one by discovering and proclaiming the natural laws behind -those phenomena which ignorance attributed to benign or evil spirits; -and the other by facilitating the general dissemination of knowledge. -The Church can no longer effectively appeal to fear. For a church which -very early became a class-organization, and one of the large-scale -promoters and beneficiaries of economic exploitation, this is a serious -thing. Its promises and its comminations are becoming alike ineffectual -in face of mankind’s growing concern with the spiritual effect of -involuntary poverty and wretchedness upon the human spirit in this -present world. The modern cynicism towards paternalism in government -and industry finds its counterpart in cynicism concerning organized -Christianity. In an age which questions the justice of mankind’s -arbitrary division into classes, such an Encyclical as that of Pope -Leo XIII which enjoined masters to be lenient and the subject masses -to be patient is already an anachronism; and the injunction put by the -Church of England upon candidates for confirmation to order themselves -lowly and reverently unto all their betters is more likely to arouse -antagonism than to win compliance. The churches do not understand the -new psychology with which they have to deal. They are offering dogmatic -creeds to an age which is suspicious of all dogma; they are upholding -traditional moral criteria in an age when the foundations of factitious -morality are being generally scrutinized by the light of reason and -knowledge; they are preaching salvationist doctrine in terms which no -longer edify or recommend themselves to serious attention. All this -is merely to say that organized religion, like political government, -remains static in the midst of flux; and like political government -it faces a spontaneous and widespread if entirely unorganized popular -movement of non-coöperation. - -As for that large majority of prosperous newspaper-concerns which are -stigmatized in socialist literature as the “kept press,” they have -been so over-eager in the partisanship of their editorial writing and -in the colouring of their news or its manufacture out of whole cloth, -that there is discernible a decided change in the popular attitude -towards them. The power of the printed word is still great out of -all proportion to its weight; but editorial pronouncements, if they -are read at all, are by no means swallowed as the undiluted milk of -the word, as they were in the day when Horace Greeley used daily in -the _Tribune_ to dictate opinion to a large section of the American -public. It is significant that since the advertising department has -come to take precedence over the editorial department, there has been -a decided falling-off in respect for journalism and a marked decrease -in the number of honest and able people who take up journalistic -work. This was to be expected. The modern newspaper is essentially -an advertising medium, and its editorial writing and presentation of -news must conform to its general character. Under these circumstances -men of intellectual ability and integrity are no longer attracted by -such work, as they are no longer, for an analogous reason, attracted -to governmental office or to the pulpit. The consequent deterioration -in journalistic personnel contributes further to the newspaper’s loss -of prestige--again as in the case of the personnel of government and -of the churches. As all those institutions lose the power to command -respect and allegiance, they progressively lose power to attract able -and honest minds to their service; and as they lose this power of -attraction, their power to command respect progressively dwindles; and -thus by alternate reactions they tend to disintegration. To return to -the press, it is symptomatic of the loss of popular faith in its moral -and intellectual character that people buy this newspaper or that so -largely because of special features--local news, sporting news, this -person’s column or that person’s cartoons. It is no exaggeration to say -that the overwhelming majority of Americans look to their newspapers -not for information but for entertainment or excitement; a fact which -is amply attested by the amount of space devoted to special features, -comic strips and cheap stories, and above all by the extraordinary -success of a new tabloid type of newspaper devoted almost exclusively -to pictures, accompanied by the most sensational kind of backstairs -gossip. In the parlance of the street, the modern newspaper is “giving -’em what they want”; and while the preference is a sad reflection -on public taste, its gratification is an equally sad reflection on -the quality and standing of American journalism. The newspaper, in -short, as I have said, no longer informs or guides opinion; it purveys -amusement. - -The same deterioration, with concomitant loss of prestige, that is -proceeding in government, the church and the press, is evident in -educational institutions. This is a natural and inevitable development, -since education is so largely under political control. The powers -which control government are in control of education; and those powers -quite naturally will not tolerate any teaching which even implies a -revaluation of the existing economic, political or social organization. -This intolerance is effective even in institutions not under direct -control by the State; for those institutions are largely dependent on -wealthy benefactors, and wealth is almost entirely in control of people -who have a direct interest in the preservation of the established -order. Under these circumstances, the primary purpose of education, -which is to develop the mind and help it to independent progress along -the paths of truth and reason, is rendered impossible of fulfilment; -and our schools have pretty generally substituted for this purpose -another and lower one which is calculated neither to embarrass nor -offend the powers on which they depend. This is the vocational purpose. -Thus they have ceased to be centres of culture, and become centres of -training whose object is to turn out graduates who shall resemble one -another as closely as possible in all things save in special vocational -training. As Professor Jerome Davis recently expressed it, our colleges -are turning out machine-made minds. The deterioration in the personnel -of the teaching profession is consequently quite as marked as that -in government, the churches and the press. Independence of spirit is -not tolerated by school-directors and boards of regents. Teaching, -moreover, being held in little respect by the State, to whose interests -it is obviously inimical if prosecuted intelligently and seriously, is -so poorly paid that people who can possibly do better elsewhere are -naturally unwilling to become teachers. It is needless to dwell upon -the demoralizing and vulgarizing effect of these circumstances on the -schools themselves and those who attend them. It is too obvious and -has been already too often discussed, to require consideration here. -What I do wish to note is the fact that this educational system does -not escape criticism and distrust; and that the most interesting and -promising manifestation of this distrust is evident not among outsiders -or alumni, but among undergraduates. Too much may not be expected of -it, but the “youth-movement” which is afoot among students may not be -disregarded; it is symptomatic of a critical attitude and a spirit of -revolt which may not be wholly without effect. - -These are negative signs of progress, if one will, but none the less -impressive for that. They indicate a growing sense of discomfort in -the environment provided by established institutions, and a loss of -faith in those institutions as they deteriorate under the spread of -their own corruption. On the positive side one may cite the growing -power of economic organization, and its tendency to displace political -organization. The appearance in the American Congress of a group known -as the “farm-bloc” is an interesting instance of this tendency. -Here is a group of political representatives with whom an economic -interest is frankly placed ahead of political affiliation. They are -primarily neither Democrats nor Republicans, neither conservatives -nor progressives; they are primarily representative of a producing -group. As such, they stand for a departure from the theory of -representative political government, which assumes that representation -shall be not industrial but geographic. According to this theory, the -representatives from each arbitrarily fixed geographical unit are -supposed to represent the interests of all the citizens within that -unit. This evidently leaves out of account not only the fact that -economic interests are primarily industrial or occupational and only -secondarily and fortuitously sectional, but also the fact that the -economic interests within a given area may be mutually inimical. In -practice, of course, political representatives have really represented -the dominant economic interest within their allotted territory, the -interest which has exercised the strongest political influence; but -since in theory they must represent all interests, they have not -been able to represent that dominant interest openly, but have had -to resort to subterfuge and dishonesty. Even the members of the -farm-bloc, were they representing districts where agriculture was -not the dominant industry, would no doubt be less open in their -espousal of its interest. None the less they have dared, in disregard -of party-discipline, to form a bloc which stands squarely for the -interest of a producing class; and in doing so they have taken a step -towards the system of industrial representation which has of late -made great strides in European countries, more especially in Russia -and Germany. Although the group which has taken this step may be -unimportant politically, save when a close division chances to throw -the balance of power into its hands, the step it has taken is of the -utmost importance; for if economic representation should proceed until -it eventually superseded geographical representation, the change would -not only involve the destruction of the bipartisan machine which -controls government in this country; it would naturally bring about -an open alignment of the producing interests against the interests of -exploitation, and thus make clear the final and fundamental issue of -which I have spoken--the question whether economic exploitation is to -be perpetuated or abolished. - -A good deal of non-political organization shows the same trend. The -growth of co-operation, for example, in production, marketing, and -consumption, is evidence of an attempt to evade through group-action -those exactions of government’s beneficiaries against which the single -individual is powerless to protect himself. The growth of offensive -and defensive organization among capitalists on the one side and -workers on the other, not only implies recognition of the primary -importance of economic interests and the value of co-operation among -groups whose economic interests are identical; it implies also an -acknowledgment that neither capital nor labour receives from government -what it will accept as adequate protection of its interests--as, of -course, neither can, since the interest that government exists to -protect--the interest of monopoly--is directly inimical to both. -Moreover, as this organization becomes international in scope it -constitutes a negation of the political differences which bolster up -rival national organizations. That it has not yet become strong enough -to prevent nationalistic wars, is true; but this is because the fact -that war is a clash, not of rival producing interests, but of rival -exploiting interests has not yet become sufficiently clear to overcome -a specious patriotism and the traditional distrust and prejudice -which governments have assiduously inculcated upon the governed. -The producing classes are really behind the exploiting classes in -discovering that their interests are pretty much the same, whatever -their various nationalities may be. Governments have always co-operated -when any rebellious move by the governed in any country threatened the -established economic and political order; as they co-operated in the -Holy Alliance against France, or in a similar alliance against Russia, -and as they are now co-operating in the League of Nations against -the exploited classes in all countries. When the exploited classes -understand their own position as clearly as the exploiting classes have -understood theirs, organization for defense and offense will no longer -be national and vertical but horizontal and international. The real -issue will be drawn at last. Hence the tendency of capital and labour -toward international organization along the lines of economic interest -is an extremely hopeful sign that the producing classes are beginning -to realize that their major interests are not political but economic, -and that the quarrels of Governments are injurious to those interests; -that they are beginning to outgrow the narrow nationalism which has -facilitated their exploitation in the past, and made it possible to pit -them against one another in the quarrels of rival exploiting classes. - - -II - -All these signs of disaffection under the old order of things and the -gropings towards a new, do not imply, of course, any growth of the -spirit of freedom, or any new consciousness of its nature. They do -indicate, however, the progress of a temper which, when it shall have -become more pervasive and more deeply rooted, will be hospitable to -the doctrine of freedom. Discontent with the established order must -necessarily precede any serious move toward its displacement by a new -order; and discontent, while it is by no means dominant at present, -is widespread enough to cause Governments a good deal of anxiety. -The very tightening of the grip of government which is evident in -the present tendency to suppress legislative bodies, and in ruthless -persecution of economic dissenters, is, as I have already remarked, a -sure indication of the extent and strength of the dissenting forces. -When those people who now endure the harassment of governmental waste -and industrial exploitation, shall perceive that relief is to be -gained not through futile political reforms aimed at amelioration of -their lot, but through a radical readjustment of the whole economic -system--when, in other words, they realize “what is to be done”--then -and not before, will come the real test of the tenacity of the old -order and the strength of the forces moving towards the new. On its -side the old order will have governmental organization and armed -forces, and the enormous influence of the superstitious tendency to -regard as right that which is established, supporting the interest of -a compact, wealthy, and highly organized exploiting class. The new -order will have on its side the newly realized need of the majority -without whose acquiescence a highly organized minority can not long -maintain itself in power. The issue will depend, obviously, not only -on the intelligence, ability and determination of the majority’s -leaders, but upon their clear understanding of the issue involved. If -they compromise, as the leaders of the French Revolution compromised, -the cause of justice will be lost, and the most that will be gained -will be a shifting of privilege. The Western world is faced at present -with the alternative of establishing an enduring civilization on the -sure foundation of economic justice, or of sinking back into barbarism -through a long series of civil and international struggles for -possession of the power to exploit. If it follow the latter course, its -civilization will go the way of the civilization of Egypt, Greece, and -Rome; and its vitality, like theirs, will so decrease under the dual -drain of exploitation and war that it will eventually fall, as they -fell, an easy prey to some strong external force. - -The task before those who wish to avert this fate, whose passionate -desire is to bring about an enduring civilization based on the solid -foundation of economic justice, is the task of educating themselves in -the nature of freedom, of learning to face freedom without fear, and -of communicating to others their understanding and their courage. The -women of today, especially in this country, are in a peculiarly good -position to undertake this task. They enjoy unprecedented advantages -in the way of social and intellectual autonomy, and of educational -opportunity. They have emerged successful from a long struggle for -political equality with men, and they are still engaged in an organized -effort to secure legal equality. Thus they have their hand in, as it -were, with the work of removing the artificial disabilities which -organized society imposes on a subject class in order to keep it -subject; and this work should have engendered in those who have been -active in it a healthy resentment of social injustice and a sense -of the value of freedom to the human spirit. They will still have, -moreover, even after legal equality is won, a considerable number of -discriminations to combat, which should operate against the temptation -to regard their fight as won, and to relax the vigilance which is -always necessary to preserve individual rights against encroachment by -organized society. The organizations through which they have worked -remain intact; it is for them to determine whether those organizations -shall continue as mere agencies for political lobbying or whether they -will carry on the demand for freedom to its logical end. - -The fact that women are in a good position to inquire into the nature -of freedom offers, of course, no earnest that they will do so. In spite -of the reasonableness of such a course, they may content themselves -with trying to effect the ultimate equality of the sexes through -political measures which in their nature can never effect it--provided, -that is, that events do not move too fast for even a serious trial -of such inept methods. A good deal of mirth has already been aroused -in certain quarters by trivial and futile reform-measures which women -politicians have sponsored. If this sort of thing shall prove to be the -sum-total of women’s contribution to social problems, it will merely -prove that they are quite as incapable of an intelligent understanding -of those problems as men have hitherto shown themselves to be. If -women are now in a good position to school themselves in the tradition -of economic freedom, the men of Europe and America have been in an -equally good position to do so since the political revolutions of the -eighteenth century, and as yet they have given no very encouraging -signs of progress. However much one may hope that women will make a -better showing, it would be unfair to expect it of them; for they -are but now emerging from the mental and spiritual condition induced -by centuries of subjection. If, therefore, they fail to grasp their -opportunity to contribute to the process of education which must -precede the establishment of economic justice; if they are content to -fix their minds upon this or that special aspect of social freedom or -of political freedom, instead of looking steadily towards economic -freedom--economic freedom for men and women alike--the judicious critic -may lament their failure or disparage their tactics, but he can hardly -attribute either to any stupidity or incapacity peculiar to their sex, -since it is through the same failure and the same tactics that men have -brought civilization to the critical state in which it is at present. - -The great point, however, is that if they fail they are sure to pay -for their failure a higher price than men will pay. As they have more -to gain from freedom than men, so they have more to lose than men if -the Western world shall fail to establish its civilization on the -firm basis of economic justice. In the relapse into barbarism which -must attend the ultimate breakdown of economic and social life under -the monopolistic system, physical force will be even more strongly -ascendant than it is at present; and when physical force dominates, -the ideals of justice and liberty are, as I have already remarked, -without effective influence--the only right is might. The well-being -of women depends in very great measure on the prevalence of those -ideals; for when force is dominant, woman’s physical disadvantage as -the child-bearing sex places her in a position to be more readily -subjected and exploited than man. Because of this disadvantage she -was the first victim of exploitation; because of it, she will be the -last to escape; and because of it she will be the greater sufferer -from exploitation so long as exploitation shall be the basis of the -economic and social order. There is potential tragedy in the fact -that the Western world has become civilized enough to perceive the -injustice involved in women’s subjection only when the economic -order which determines its social life has become so corrupt that it -threatens the destruction of civilization, with all such gains in -humanity as civilization has yielded. Women have equality almost within -their grasp; they may lose it if this civilization shall follow the -path of its predecessors to ruin and oblivion. There is one way to -avert this tragedy, and one only--the way of economic justice. If the -women who have been active in the struggle to emancipate their sex -shall enlarge their conception of freedom, and with it the scope of -their demand, they can help mightily to preserve civilization through -the establishment of justice. If they could win their sex away from -the exploded formulas of the eighteenth century and bring them to -understand that political and social freedom without economic freedom -are utterly illusory, that true freedom proceeds from economic justice, -and that justice and freedom offer the only hope for the salvaging of -this civilization, they would have won half of humanity, and that would -be a contribution of no small value. One thing is certain: the question -of freedom for women can not proceed much farther as an independent -issue. It has reached the point where it must necessarily merge in the -greater question of human freedom. Upon the fate of the greater cause, -that of the lesser will depend. It is for feminists to choose whether -they will merge the feminist in the humanist, or whether they will play -at political and social make-believe while the issue is being decided, -and either suffer in the event the consequences of a failure which they -shall have made no effort to avert, or enjoy the benefits of a success -which they shall have done nothing to attain. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONCERNING WOMEN *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/68226-0.zip b/old/68226-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index fce118b..0000000 --- a/old/68226-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68226-h.zip b/old/68226-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ac1c9d9..0000000 --- a/old/68226-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68226-h/68226-h.htm b/old/68226-h/68226-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index a597bef..0000000 --- a/old/68226-h/68226-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6600 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> - -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Concerning Women, by Suzanne La Follette. - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - - p { margin-top: .75em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .75em; - } - - p.bold {text-align: center; font-weight: bold;} - p.bold2 {text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 150%;} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; - } - h1 span, h2 span { display: block; text-align: center; } - #id1 { font-size: smaller } - - - hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; - } - - body{margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - } - - table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 5px; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; text-align: right;} - - .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - text-indent: 0px; - } /* page numbers */ - - .center {text-align: center;} - .smaller {font-size: smaller;} - .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - .mynote { background-color: #DDE; color: black; padding: .5em; margin-left: 20%; - margin-right: 20%; } /* colored box for notes at beginning of file */ - .box {max-width: 30em; margin: 1.5em auto;} - .space-above {margin-top: 3em;} - .right {text-align: right;} - .left {text-align: left;} - .s3 {display: inline; margin-left: 3em;} - - .poem {display: inline-block; text-align: left;} - .poem br {display: none;} - .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} - .poem div {margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - - </style> - </head> -<body> -<div lang='en' xml:lang='en'> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of <span lang='' xml:lang=''>Concerning Women</span>, by Suzanne La Follette</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: <span lang='' xml:lang=''>Concerning Women</span></p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Suzanne La Follette</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: June 3, 2022 [eBook #68226]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: MWS, Martin Pettit and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK <span lang='' xml:lang=''>CONCERNING WOMEN</span> ***</div> - -<div class="mynote"><p class="center">Transcriber’s Note:<br /><br /> -Obvious typographic errors have been corrected.<br /></p></div> - -<hr /> - -<h1>CONCERNING<br /> WOMEN</h1> - -<hr /> - -<div class="center"><img src="images/front.jpg" alt="front" /></div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="bold2">CONCERNING<br />WOMEN</p> - -<p class="bold space-above"><i>by</i></p> - -<p class="bold2">SUZANNE LA FOLLETTE</p> - -<div class="center space-above"><img src="images/logo.jpg" alt="logo" /></div> - -<p class="bold space-above">ALBERT & CHARLES BONI<br />NEW YORK <span class="s3"> </span> 1926</p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>Copyright, 1926, by Albert & Charles Boni, Inc.</i></p> - -<p class="center space-above"><i>Manufactured in the United States of America</i></p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>To</i><br /> -<span class="smcap">Ellen Winsor</span><br />and<br /><span class="smcap">Rebecca Winsor Evans</span></p> - -<hr /> - -<h2>CONTENTS</h2> - -<table summary="CONTENTS"> - <tr> - <td colspan="2" class="left"><span class="smaller">CHAPTER</span></td> - <td><span class="smaller">PAGE</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>I </td> - <td class="left"><span class="smcap">The Beginnings of Emancipation</span></td> - <td><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>II </td> - <td class="left"><span class="smcap">Woman’s Status, Past and Present</span></td> - <td><a href="#Page_19">19</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>III </td> - <td class="left"><span class="smcap">Institutional Marriage and Its Economic Aspects</span></td> - <td><a href="#Page_56">56</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>IV </td> - <td class="left"><span class="smcap">Woman and Marriage</span></td> - <td><a href="#Page_93">93</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>V </td> - <td class="left"><span class="smcap">The Economic Position of Women</span></td> - <td><a href="#Page_157">157</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>VI </td> - <td class="left"><span class="smcap">What is to be Done</span></td> - <td><a href="#Page_207">207</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>VII </td> - <td class="left"><span class="smcap">Signs of Promise</span></td> - <td><a href="#Page_270">270</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr /> - -<p class="bold2">CONCERNING<br />WOMEN</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="box"><p><i>Let there be, then, no coercion established in society, and the common -law of gravity prevailing, the sexes will fall into their proper places.</i></p> - -<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Mary Wollstonecraft.</span></p></div> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> - -<h2><span>CHAPTER I</span> <span class="smaller">THE BEGINNINGS OF EMANCIPATION</span></h2> - -<p>It will be foolish to assume that women are free, until books about -them shall have ceased to have more than an antiquarian interest. All -such books, including this one, imply by their existence that women may -be regarded as a class in society; that they have in common certain -characteristics, conditions or disabilities which, predominating over -their individual variations, warrant grouping them on the basis of sex. -No such assumption about men would be thinkable. Certain masculine -qualities, so-called, may be singled out by amateur psychologists -and opposed to certain feminine qualities, so-called; but from books -about the sphere of man, the rights of man, the intelligence of man, -the psychology of man, the soul of man, our shelves are mercifully -free. Such books may one day appear, but when they do it will mean -that society has passed from its present state through a state of -sex-equality <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span>and into a state of female domination. In that day, in -place of the edifying spectacle of men proclaiming that woman is useful -only as a bearer of children, society may behold the equally edifying -spectacle of women proclaiming that man is useful only as a begetter -of children; since it seems to be characteristic of the dominant sex -to regard the other sex chiefly as a source of pleasure and as a means -of reproduction. It seems also to be characteristic of the dominant -sex—I judge from the world’s experience during the domination of -men—to regard itself as humanity, and the other sex as a class of -somewhat lower beings created by Providence for its convenience and -enjoyment; just as it is characteristic of a dominant class, such as an -aristocracy, to regard the lower classes as being created solely for -the purpose of supporting its power and doing its will. When once a -social order is well established, no matter what injustice it involves, -those who occupy a position of advantage are not long in coming to -believe that it is the only possible and reasonable order, and imposing -their belief, by force if necessary, on those whom circumstances have -placed in their power. There is nothing more innately human than the -tendency to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> transmute what has become customary into what has been -divinely ordained.</p> - -<p>Thus among the Hebrews the subordination of woman gave rise to the -notion that she was fashioned out of man’s rib. She was the result of -a divine afterthought, the <i>sexus sequior</i> of the ancients and more -recently of Schopenhauer, “inferior in every respect to the first.” -Since the Divine Artist had had good practice in creating Adam, it -might logically have been expected that His second sex would turn out -even better than His first; we must therefore lay His failure to the -somewhat sketchy nature of the materials He chose to work with. This -Hebrew myth of the creation of woman has had considerable effect on -her status in the era known as Christian. Being “only a supernumerary -bone,” as Bossuet reminded her, she could naturally not aspire to a -position of equality with man. She must remember her origin, and be -humble and subservient as befitted a mere rib.</p> - -<p>She was humble and subservient, as a matter of fact, for an incredibly -long time; so long that there exists a general suspicion even at the -present day that there is something in her nature which makes her want -to be subject to man and to live as it were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> at second hand. This -thought would be even more alarming than it is, perhaps, if it were -not true that men themselves have stood for a good deal of subjection -during the world’s known history. Chattel slavery and serfdom were -abolished from the civilized world only at about the time that the -subjection of women began to be modified; and men still endure, not -only with resignation but with positive cheerfulness, a high degree of -industrial and political slavery. The man who is entirely dependent for -his livelihood upon the will of an employer is an industrial slave, and -the man who may be drafted into an army and made to fight and perhaps -die for a cause in which he can have no possible interest is the -slave of the State; yet one can not see that this proves Aristotle’s -assumption that there are free natures and slave natures, any more than -the subjection of women proves that they want to be subjected. What the -slavery of men, as of women, implies is the existence of an economic -and social order that is inimical to their interests as human beings; -and it implies nothing more than this.</p> - -<p>Nor does the opposition to the emancipation of women which still finds -expression in this country and in Europe, prove anything more than that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span>superstitious addiction to custom of which I have already spoken. -Those anxious critics who protest that women have got more freedom than -is good for Society make the mistake of supposing that Society can -exist only if its organization remains unchanged. The same conservatism -has opposed all the revolutionary adaptations which have fitted the -social order to the breakdown of old forms and their replacement by -new ones. Yet when the need for such adaptations ceases, the growth of -the social organism ceases with it, and we have such a spectacle of -arrested development as the civilization of India presents. Society, in -so far as it has become organic, is governed by the same rules as any -other organism: the condition of its health is growth, and growth is -change.</p> - -<p>Certainly the present tendency of woman to assume a position of -equality with man involves, and will continue even more to involve, -profound psychic and material readjustments. But to assume that such -readjustments will injure or destroy Society is to adopt toward -Society an attitude of philosophical realism, to attribute to it a -personality, to suppose that it is equally capable of destruction with -the individual, and that it may in some mystical way<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> derive benefit -from the sacrifice of the individual’s best interests. But what is -Society save an aggregation of individuals, half male, half female? -Where you have a handful of people forming a community, there you have -Society; and if the individuals are enlightened and humane it may be -called a civilized Society, if they are ignorant and brutal it will -be uncivilized. To assume that its “interests” may be promoted by -the enslavement of one-half its members, is unreasonable. One may be -permitted the doubtful assumption that this enslavement promotes the -welfare of the other half of Society, but it is obvious that it can -not promote the welfare of the whole, unless we assume that slavery -is beneficial to the slave (the classic assumption, indeed, where the -slaves have been women). When we consider the political organization -known as the State, we have a different matter. The State always -represents the organized interest of a dominant class; therefore the -subjection of other classes may be said to benefit the State, and their -emancipation may be opposed as a danger to the State.</p> - -<p>It is evident from the very nature of the State<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1">[1]</a> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span>that its interests -are opposed to those of Society; and while the complete emancipation of -women, as I shall show later, would undoubtedly imply the destruction -of the State, since it must accrue from the emancipation of other -subject classes, their emancipation, far from destroying Society, must -be of inestimable benefit to it. Those critics, and there are many, who -argue that women must submit to restrictions upon their freedom for the -good of the State, as well as those advocates of woman’s rights who -argue that women must be emancipated for the good of the State, simply -fail to make this vital distinction between the State and Society; and -their failure to do so is one of the potent reasons why the nonsense -that has been written about women is limited only by the literature of -the subject.</p> - -<p>Feminist and anti-feminist arguments from this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> standpoint centre in -the function of childbearing; therefore it should be noted that the -emphasis which is placed on this function by the interest of the State -is quite different from the emphasis that would be placed upon it by -the interest of Society; for the interest of the State is numerical, -while the interest of Society is qualitative. The State requires as -many subjects as possible, both as labour-motors and as fighters. -The interest of Society, on the other hand, is the interest of -civilization: if a community is to be wholesome and intelligent, it is -necessary not that the individuals who compose it shall be as numerous -as possible, but that they shall be as wholesome and intelligent as -possible. In general, the interest of the State is promoted by the -number of its subjects; that of Society by the quality of its members.</p> - -<p>The interest of the State in this respect has been most concisely -expressed by Nietzsche. “Man,” said he, “shall be trained for war, -and woman for the re-creation of the warrior: all else is folly”, -and if one accept his premises he is exactly right. But there have -been many writers on women who have not accepted his premises—not at -least without qualification—and who have yet failed to <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span>observe the -antithesis between the interest which the State has, and the interest -which Society has, in the question of population. Hence, mingled -with the voices of those critics who have demanded the subjection -of woman for the sake of children, have been the voices of other -critics demanding her emancipation for the sake of children: and both -these schools of critics have overlooked her claim to freedom on her -own behalf. It is for the sake of humanity, and not for the sake of -children, that women ought to have equal status with men. That children -will gain enormously by the change is true; but this is beside the -issue, which is justice.</p> - -<p>The argument that woman must be free for the sake of the race, is -an argument of expediency; as nine-tenths of the arguments against -her legal subjection have been, and indeed had to be. Unfortunately, -humanity is likely to turn a deaf ear to the claims of justice, -especially when they conflict with established abuses, unless these -claims are backed by the claims of expediency plus a good measure of -necessity. Adventitious circumstances have made the social recognition -of woman’s claims a necessity, and their political recognition a -matter of expediency. Otherwise she would have to wait much<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> longer -for the establishment of her rights as man’s equal than now appears -likely. In the Western world her battle is very largely won; full -equality, social, industrial and legal, seems to be only a matter of -time and tactics. This she owes to the great political and industrial -revolutions of the eighteenth century.</p> - -<p>The conscious movement towards freedom for women may be said to have -originated in the great emancipatory movement which found expression in -the American and French revolutions. The revolutionists did not succeed -in establishing human freedom; they poured the new wine of belief in -equal rights for all men into the old bottle of privilege for some; -and it soured. But they did succeed in creating political forms which -admitted, in theory at least, the principle of equality. Their chief -contribution to progress was that they dramatically and powerfully -impressed the idea of liberty upon the minds of men, and thus altered -the whole course of human thought. Mary Wollstonecraft’s book, “A -Vindication of the Rights of Women,” revolutionary though it seemed in -its day, was a perfectly natural and logical application of this idea -of liberty to the situation of her sex. This remarkable book may be -said<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> to have marked the beginning of the conscious movement towards -the emancipation of women.</p> - -<p>The unconscious movement was the outgrowth of the revolution in -industry, brought about by the introduction of the machine. Women had -always been industrial workers, but their work, after the break-up of -the gilds, was for the most part carried on at home. When the factory -supplanted the family as the producing unit in society, the environment -of women was altered; and the change affected not only those women -who followed industry to the factories, but also those who remained -housewives, for where these had before been required to perform, or -at least to superintend, a large amount of productive work, they now -found their function, as the family became a consuming unit, reduced to -the superintendence of expenditures and the operation of the household -machinery—a labour which was increasingly lightened by the progress of -invention. With domestic conditions so changed, what was more natural -than that the daughters should go into the factory; or, if the family -were well-to-do, into the schools, which were forced reluctantly to -open their doors to women? And what was more natural than that women, -as their minds were developed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> through education, should perceive the -injustice and humiliation of their position, and organize to defend -their right to recognition as human beings? “If we dared,” says -Stendhal, “we would give girls the education of a slave.... Arm a man -and then continue to oppress him, and you will see that he can be so -perverse as to turn his arms against you as soon as he can.”</p> - -<p>Women in the factories and shops; women in the schools—from this it -was only a moment to their invasion of the professions, and not a -very long time until they would be invading every field that had been -held the special province of men. This is the great unconscious and -unorganized woman’s movement which has aroused such fear and resentment -among people who saw it without understanding it.</p> - -<p>The organized movement may be regarded simply as an attempt to get this -changing relation of women to their environment translated into the -kind of law that the eighteenth century had taught the world to regard -as just: law based on the theory of equal rights for all human beings. -The opposition that the movement encountered offers ample testimony to -the fact that “acceptance in principle” is more than a mere subterfuge -of diplomats and politicians.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries -resolutely clung to the theory of equality, and as resolutely opposed -its logical application. This is not surprising; most people, no doubt, -when they espouse human rights, make their own mental reservations -about the proper application of the word “human.” Women had hardly been -regarded as human in mediaeval Europe; they were considered something -a little more from the chivalrous point of view, and something a -little less from the more common, workaday standpoint. The shadow of -this old superstition still clouded the minds of men: therefore it -is hardly surprising that the egalitarians of the French Revolution -excluded women from equal political and legal rights with men; and -that the young American republic which had adopted the Declaration of -Independence, continued to sanction the slavery of negroes and the -subjection of women. How firmly rooted this superstition was, may be -seen in the following irresistibly funny excerpt from the writings of -that great American advocate of freedom, the author of the Declaration, -Thomas Jefferson.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span></p><blockquote> - -<p>Were our State a pure democracy, in which all its inhabitants -should meet together to transact all their business, there would -yet be excluded from their deliberations (1) infants until arrived -at years of discretion. (2) Women, who, to prevent depravation of -morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the -public meetings of men. (3) Slaves.</p></blockquote> - -<p>Thus does superstition cast out logic. Nor does superstition die -easily. The masculine assumption, usually quite unconscious, that women -are unfit for freedom, bids fair to persevere as stubbornly as the -feminine assumption that marriage offers a legitimate and established -mode of extortion.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2">[2]</a></p> - -<p>If the conscious feminists bore the brunt of the resentment aroused -by woman’s changing relation to the world about her, it was because -their opponents did them the honour of believing that they were -responsible for the change. It was a strangely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> incurious attitude that -permitted such an assumption to be held; for it really takes a very -feeble exercise of intelligence to perceive that a handful of feminist -agitators could hardly coax millions of women into industry—under -conditions often extremely disadvantageous—into business, the schools -and the professions. I believe the cause of this incuriousness lay in -the very fear aroused by these changes and the social revaluations -which they implied; fear for a relation between the sexes which, -having been established for so long, seemed the only reasonable, or -indeed possible, relation. Filled as they were with this fear of -change, which is one of the strongest human emotions, the opponents of -woman’s emancipation were incapable of objectivity. Their intellectual -curiosity was paralyzed. This accounts, perhaps, for the utterances of -two such eminent philosophers as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. They came -to the subject strongly prejudiced: the idea of any claims on behalf of -women filled them with disgust; therefore, as one may take a certain -malicious pleasure in observing, their thought on the subject was -hampered by that “weakness of the reasoning faculty” which Schopenhauer -found characteristic of women. If, when <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span>discussing woman, they had -not been as “childish, frivolous and short-sighted” as they believed -women to be, they might, along with lesser minds, have arrived at some -understanding of a subject which has always been thought much more -mysterious and baffling than it really is. The woman of their day may -have been the poor creature they pronounced her to be, but if she was, -the obvious question was, Why? Was she a poor creature by nature, or -because of centuries of adaptation to a certain kind of life? This -question neither Schopenhauer nor Nietzsche took the trouble to ask. -They weighed her as she was—or as they thought she was—and arrived -at the sage conclusion that the West had much to learn from the Orient -concerning the proper attitude toward her.</p> - -<blockquote><p>It would be a very desirable thing [says Schopenhauer] if this -Number Two of the human race were in Europe also relegated to -their natural place [which he conceives to be the harem of a -polygamous household] and an end put to this lady-nuisance, which -not only moves all Asia to laughter but would have been ridiculed -by Greece and Rome as well.</p></blockquote> - -<p>Nietzsche, in the same vein, remarks that </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p> - -<blockquote><p>a man who has depth of spirit as well as of desires, and has -also the depth of benevolence which is capable of severity and -harshness, and easily confounded with them, can only think of -woman as Orientals do: he must conceive of her as a possession, -as confinable property, as a being predestined for service and -accomplishing her mission therein.</p></blockquote> - -<p>Such a view of the “weaker sex” of course proves nothing about women, -but it proves a good deal about the effect that their subjection -has had on the minds of men. It is a significant fact that both -Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were Germans, and that in their day the -status of women was lower in Germany than in any other important -country of the Western World, except Italy.</p> - -<p>The corruption of both sexes that results from the subjection of -one, has been too convincingly dealt with by other writers to need -discussion here. What I should like to emphasize is the futility -of approaching the so-called “woman question” with any sort of -pre-conceived notion concerning the nature of woman, or her sphere, or -her duty to the State or to Society; and above all, of approaching it -with the idea—the idea that obsesses all reformers—that she is a more -or less passive creature about whom<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> something either ought or ought -not to be done, or, for that matter, about whom something can be done. -What she should and can do for herself is a different matter; and to -that question I intend to address myself before I leave this subject.</p> - -<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1">[1]</a> For a most enlightening treatment of the genesis and -nature of the State, I refer my readers to Franz Oppenheimer’s short -treatise on the subject (“The State,” B. W. Huebsch, Inc., New York). -It is sufficient here to define it as an organization primarily -designed to perpetuate the division of Society into an owning and -exploiting class and a landless, exploited class. In its genesis it is -an organization of a conquering group, by means of which that group -maintains its economic exploitation of those subjugated. In its later -stages, when the conquering class has become merely an owning class, -the State is an organization controlled by this class through its -control of wealth, for the purpose of protecting ownership against the -propertyless classes and facilitating their exploitation by the owning -class. The State is thus the natural enemy of all its citizens except -those of the owning class.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2">[2]</a> I shall take up this question later; but I might remark -that this point is well illustrated by a suit recently brought in -the State of New York. The former wife of a wealthy man, whom he had -divorced twenty years before, brought action against him for separation -and maintenance. When asked why she had waited twenty years before -questioning the validity of the divorce and her husband’s subsequent -remarriage, her lawyer stated that <i>she had never been in need of money -before</i>, but that she had been swindled out of the money settled upon -her by her husband at the time of the divorce. The italics are mine; -and no comment, I think, is needed.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span></p> - -<h2><span>CHAPTER II</span> <span class="smaller">WOMAN’S STATUS, PAST AND PRESENT</span></h2> - -<h3>I</h3> - -<p>Woman tends to assume a position of equality with man only where the -idea of property in human beings has not yet arisen or where it has -disappeared: that is to say, only in extremely primitive or highly -civilized communities. In all the intermediate stages of civilization, -woman is in some degree regarded as a purchasable commodity. Her status -varies widely among different peoples: there are primitive tribes -where she holds a position of comparative independence; and there are -civilized peoples, on the other hand, among whom she is virtually a -slave. But always there is present the idea of subordination to a male -owner, husband, father or brother, even though it may survive only in -ceremonial observances, <i>e.g.</i>, in the ritual practice of “giving in -marriage,” or in certain legal disabilities, such, for instance, as the -law entitling a man to his wife’s services without remuneration.</p> - -<p>The subjection of women, then, bears a close <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span>intrinsic resemblance -to both chattel slavery and industrial slavery, in that its basis -is economic. As soon as civilization advances to the point of a -rudimentary organization of agriculture and industry, woman becomes -valuable as a labour-motor and a potential producer of children -who will become labour-motors and fighters. Her economic value, or -chattel-value, then, is a commodity for which her family may demand -payment; and hence, apparently, arises the custom of exacting a -bride-price from the man who wishes to marry her. Once established, -this custom of barter in marriage strikes root so deeply that the -woman who has brought no bride-price is often regarded with scorn and -her children considered illegitimate; and the idea of male ownership -that accompanies it becomes so pronounced that it persists even where, -owing to an excess of women coupled with monogamy, the custom has been -practically reversed, and the father buys a husband for his daughter. -An instance of this survival is the system of dowry which exists in -France. Unless it is otherwise stipulated by pre-nuptial agreement, the -dowry is at the disposal of the husband, and the wife, under the law, -owes him obedience. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span></p> - -<p>When the bargain has been made and the bride delivered to her husband’s -family, her services generally become, save in tribes where residence -is matrilocal, the property of her purchasers, and she is subject to -her husband, or, where the patriarchal system is highly developed, to -the head of his tribe. It must be remarked, however, that although this -is the usual arrangement, it is not invariable. Among some peoples, -the husband’s rights are purely sexual, the services of the wife, and -often even her children, belonging to her own tribe; and among others, -the husband must pay for his bride in services which render him for a -long period the virtual slave of his wife’s relatives. The point to be -remarked in all this is that any conception of woman as an individual -entity, as in any sense belonging to herself, and not to her own -relatives or to her husband and his family, seems to be practically -non-existent among primitive peoples, as it was until recently among -civilized peoples. But it must be remarked, too, that in this respect -her position is only less desirable than that of the man; for in -primitive society the group so dominates the individual that in almost -every phase of life he is hedged about with restrictions and taboos -which leave little room for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> the play of personality and the pursuit of -individual desires. All social advancement has been in the direction of -the individual’s escape from this group-tyranny.</p> - -<p>So important is the part that the labour of women plays in the -primitive world, that the wife or wives are often the sole support -of husband and family; and a man’s wealth and social prestige may -actually depend upon the number of his wives. “Manual labour among -savages,” says Westermarck, “is undertaken chiefly by the women; and -as there are no day-labourers or persons who will work for hire, it -becomes necessary for any one who requires many servants to have many -wives.” <i>There are no day-labourers or persons who will work for hire.</i> -Women, then, are the first victims of that deep-rooted and instinctive -preference for living by the labour of other people, which has played -so momentous and sinister a rôle in the world’s history. Among tribes -whose mode of life has made them exploitable by stronger and more -highly organized hordes—as, for example, an agricultural people which -is conquered by a more mobile and disciplined tribe of herders—there, -among the expropriated class, are day-labourers and people who will -work<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> for hire, for these have no choice or alternative; but among -peoples where militant exploitation is impossible—as among the -hunting-tribes—no man can be forced to work for another man, for the -simple reason that there is no way of compelling him to share the -product of his labour. But even here we see the economic phenomenon of -the labour of women being exploited as the labour of man is exploited -after conquest and the foundation of the exploiting State; and this -is the case chiefly because certain natural disadvantages render them -easily exploitable, as I shall show later.</p> - -<p>It may be remarked in this connexion, that sexual division of labour -appears to be quite arbitrary among primitive peoples; and that it -often bears little resemblance to the division which has existed -for so long among Europeans that it has apologists who regard it as -being divinely ordained.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3">[3]</a> This suggests at least that the European -division is arbitrary too. Indeed, it has undergone considerable -change. Brewing, for example, was regarded as woman’s work in mediaeval -England. It is even supposed that the monasteries, which excluded<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> -women from other service within their walls, employed women brewers. In -general, it appears a fair conclusion that the occupations which are -considered least desirable are given over to the subordinate sex. Thus -men, according to the Vaertings, during the period when women dominated -in Egypt, were forced to care for children and perform the drudgery of -the household. Where military enterprise plays a part in tribal life, -the division of labour appears to give validity to the contention of -Spencer and others that man is militant and woman industrial; yet -the exclusion of women from military activity is no doubt primarily -due quite as much to the taboos against them as to their own lack of -warlike spirit. Indeed, there are tribes where women take active part -in fighting; and there are folk-tales in plenty which tell of their -prowess—as, for example, in the epic lore of Greece and Russia. But -because of a primitive awe of the function of menstruation, women are -often considered unclean, and excluded on this account from many tribal -activities, particularly from religious rites. Among such peoples, it -would not be surprising to find that the same superstition excluded -women from participation in any enterprise in which the tribal gods -are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> so active and their aid so important as in war. In certain tribes -of South Africa there is, according to Dr. Elsie Clews Parsons, a -direct connexion between militancy and a taboo against woman. “A man -sleeping with his wife must be careful not to touch her with his right -hand. Otherwise his strength as a warrior goes from him and he will -surely be killed.”</p> - -<p>Whatever be the basis of sexual division of labour among different -tribes, and whatever minor differences there be in the relative -position of the sexes, one thing is certain, and it is all we are -at present concerned with, namely: in what Dr. Lowie has called -“that planless hodge-podge, that thing of shreds and patches called -civilization,” woman almost invariably occupies a more or less inferior -position. Dr. Lowie himself is careful to warn his readers against -the popular assumption that the position of primitive woman is always -abject, and that the status of woman offers a sure index of cultural -advancement; nevertheless he says that “It is true that in by far the -majority of both primitive and more complex cultures woman enjoys, if -we apply our most advanced ethical standards, a less desirable position -than man.” </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span></p> - -<p>The obvious question is, Why? The answer is equally obvious, and has -been so often stated and discussed that I need do no more than mention -it here. Woman, however nearly her physical strength in the natural -state may approximate that of man, is under a peculiar disadvantage in -being the childbearing sex. During pregnancy, at least in its later -stages, and during childbirth, she is powerless to defend herself -against aggression. She is also at considerable disadvantage during -the early infancy of her child. Man in the savage state, having -none of that consideration which proceeds in a rough ratio with -cultural development, takes advantage of her periodic weakness and -her consequent need of protection, to force her into a subordinate -position. Superstition, masculine jealousy and desire for domination, -have of course been joined with the economic motive in bringing about -this subjection to the male; but these motives could not have operated -if her subjection had not been physically possible. If woman had had -the natural advantage over man, she would have used it to subject him, -precisely as he used his advantage to subject her; for the human being -in the ruder stages exploits other human beings, when possible, as a -matter of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> course, without any of those pretexts and indirections that -characterize communities where the sense of human rights has become -sufficiently general to gain the doubtful tribute of disingenuousness. -It is among these more enlightened communities that the subjection of -woman—or of any class—becomes reprehensible: a society that exploits -human beings through ignorant brutality is not open to the same -criticism as a society which continues to exploit them when clearly -aware that in doing so it is violating a natural right.</p> - -<h3>II</h3> - -<p>So much for the cause of woman’s subjection and exploitation. It has -had powerful abetment in superstitious notions concerning sex, such as -the primitive horror of menstruation. “Even educated Indians,” says Dr. -Lowie, “have been known to remain under the sway of this sentiment, and -its influence in moulding savage conceptions of the female sex as a -whole should not be underrated. The monthly seclusion of women has been -accepted as a proof of their degradation in primitive communities, but -it is far more likely that the causal sequence is to be reversed and -that her exclusion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> from certain spheres of activity and consequently -lesser freedom is the consequence of the awe inspired by the phenomena -of periodicity.”</p> - -<p>It is evident that this superstition has operated powerfully to -segregate women into a special class, excluded from full and equal -participation in the life of the community. It is also reasonable to -assume that it has stimulated the growth of many other superstitions -that have hedged them about from time immemorial. It is probably, for -example, closely connected with the Chinese association of evil with -the female principle of the Universe, and with the Hebrew notion that -sorrow entered the world through the sin of a woman. No doubt it may be -connected with the mediaeval tendency to regard woman as a mysterious -and supernatural being, either angelic or demoniac. The conception -of sibyls and witches is derived from it; and likewise the notion -which shows an interesting persistence even now, that a good woman is -somewhat nearer the angels than a good man, and a bad woman much more -satanic than a bad man.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4">[4]</a> Once<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> the idea is established that woman is -a being extra-human, minds prepossessed by this superstition may see -her as either subhuman or superhuman; or these two notions may coexist, -as in Christian society.</p> - -<p>The notion that there is always a savour of sin in the indulgence of -sexual appetite, even when exercised under due and formal regulation, -has also had a profound effect on the status of women. This notion is -to be found in both primitive and civilized communities; and since -to each sex the other sex represents the means of gratifying sexual -desire, the other sex naturally comes, where such a notion obtains, -to represent temptation and sin. But where one sex is dominant and -tends to regard itself as the sum of humanity, the other sex is forced -to bear alone the burden of responsibility for the evil that sex -represents; and it is therefore hedged about by the dominant sex with -all sorts of restrictions intended to reduce its opportunities to be -tempting, and thus to minimize its harmfulness.</p> - -<p>It seems a fair assumption that the association of sin with sex-desire -may have arisen from the antagonism between individual inclination -and the domination of the group. Among peoples where<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> the clan or the -family is the final category, marriage is far from being exclusively a -matter of individual interest and preference; indeed the individuals -concerned may have little or nothing to say about it. The marriage -is arranged by their elders, and the principals may not even see one -another before their wedding day. Marriage under these conditions is a -contract between families, an arrangement for founding a new economic -unit and for perpetuating the tribe, as royal marriages are purely -dynastic arrangements in behalf of a political order. Sexual preference -can have little place in such a scheme; nothing, indeed, is more -inimical to it. Love becomes an interloping passion, threatening the -purely utilitarian basis upon which sex has been placed; and as such it -must be discountenanced, and young men and women carefully segregated -in order that this inconvenient sentiment may have no chance to spring -up unauthorized between them.</p> - -<p>In the Christian world this association of sin with the sexual -appetite has prevailed since the days of St. Paul.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5">[5]</a> Sexual desire -has been regarded as a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> base instinct, and its gratification under -any circumstances as a kind of moral concession; therefore woman, as -the instrument of sexual satisfaction in the dominant male, must be -repressed and regulated accordingly, and to this end she was always to -be under obedience to some man, either her husband or a male relative. -“Nothing disgraceful,” says Clement of Alexandria, “is proper for -man, who is endowed with reason; much less for woman, to whom it -brings shame even to reflect of what nature she is.” Repression has -combined with the proprietary idea to make chastity a woman’s principal -if not her only virtue, and unchastity a sin to be punished with a -severity that, in another view, seems irrational and disproportionate, -by permanent social ostracism, for example, as in most modern -communities, or, as in Egypt and mediaeval Europe, by violent death. An -extraordinary inconsistency appears in the fact that since Christian -thought has chiefly connected morality with chastity, woman came to be -regarded as the repository of morality, and as such to be considered -on a higher moral plane than man. But it was really her economic and -social inferiority that made her the repository of morality. She must -embody the ideal of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> sexual restraint that her husband often found it -inconvenient or onerous to attain for himself; and any unfaithfulness -to this ideal on her part inflicted upon him a mysterious injury -called “dishonour.” He might indulge his own polygamous leanings with -impunity, but his failure to make effective his sexual monopoly of his -wife made him liable to contempt and ridicule. So strongly does this -notion persist that one may find anthropologists, usually the most -objective among our men of science, gauging the morality of a primitive -people by the chastity of its women.</p> - -<p>Of course the effect of the attempt to make the chastity of women -a matter of morality and law, has been the precise opposite of the -one aimed at. Society can never be made virtuous through arbitrary -regulation; it can only be made unhappy and unamiable. The attempt -to suppress all unauthorized expression of the sex-impulse in women -tended to make them not only miserable and abject, but hypocritical -and deceitful; and it tended also to make men predatory. This was its -inevitable result in a society where women paid an exorbitant penalty -for unchastity and men paid no penalty at all; a result which has made -the relations between the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> sexes in the Christian world about as bad -as any that could be imagined. Theoretically, to be sure, Christianity -exacted of men the same degree of chastity as of women; practically -it did no such thing, as may be amply proved even now by a study of -the marriage and divorce laws of Christian nations, not excepting -our own.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6">[6]</a> The sexual license of the dominant male was limited only -by the practicable correspondence between his own desires and his -opportunities; and thanks to that convenient being, the prostitute, -his opportunities were plentiful. Hence for him, women were divided -into two classes: the chaste and respectable from whom he chose the -wife who kept his home, bore his children, and embodied his virtue; -and those outcasts from society who promoted the chastity of the first -class by offering themselves, for a price, as sacrifices to illicit -sexual desire. Neither class was he bound to respect; for the only -thing that compels respect is independence, and in neither the first -nor the second class were women independent. From the man’s point of -view, such a social <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>arrangement was superficially satisfactory. It -provided for what might be called the utilitarian ends of sex; that -is to say, the man’s name was perpetuated and his natural appetites -gratified. But beyond this it left a good deal to be desired. Its worst -effect was by way of a complete evaporation of the spiritual quality of -union between man and woman and the very considerable dehumanization -that in consequence set in. Both the wife and the prostitute were man’s -creatures <i>quoad hoc</i>, to be used for different purposes but equally -to be used. It is hardly to be wondered at that man came to regard -women as “the sex,” and through his own management of their degradation -came to feel and to express toward them a degree of contempt that -cast considerable doubt on his own humanity. It is invariable that -the person who is able to regard any class of human beings as <i>per -se</i> his natural inferiors, will by so doing sacrifice something of -his own spiritual integrity. In his relation to woman, man occupied a -position of privilege analogous to that occupied by the aristocracy -in the State; and he paid the same penalty for his exercise of a -usurped and irresponsible power: a coarsening of his spiritual fibre. -One of the oddest of the many<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> odd superstitions that have grown out -of male domination is the notion that men suffer less spiritual harm -from sexual promiscuity than women; and this in spite of the biblical -injunction, applied exclusively to their sex: “None who go unto her -return again.” This superstition is accountable for abundant and -incurable misery; and so slow is it to disappear that one is inclined -to advocate a movement for the emancipation of men, a movement to free -them from the prejudices and prepossessions concerning women that are -inculcated by the traditional point of view.</p> - -<p>We have seen that the Christian philosophy looked upon woman as man’s -creature and his chief temptation, and that Christian society took -good care to keep her in that position. In doing so, it made her the -enemy of man’s better self in a way that apparently was not foreseen -by St. Paul, whose concern with the temptations of the flesh seems -to have been a matter of more passionate conviction than his concern -with those of the spirit. Woman’s subordinate position; her enforced -ignorance; the narrowness of the interests that were allowed her; the -exaggerated regard for the opinion of other people that was bound -to be developed in a creature whose whole<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> life depended on her -reputation—these conditions were calculated to evolve the sort of -being which is hardly able to give clear recognition either to her own -spiritual interest or to that of other people. Such a being would be -the enemy of man’s spiritual interest primarily through sheer inability -to understand it. Public opinion was the arbiter of her own destiny; -how could she be expected to conceive of any other or higher for man? -Her whole life must be lived for appearances; how could she help man -to live for actualities, and to make the sacrifice of appearances -that such an ideal might entail? The only renunciation of the world -that figured in her life was that which led to the convent; of that -renunciation which involves being in the world but not of it—that -steady repudiation of its standards which clears the way to spiritual -freedom—of such a renunciation she would almost certainly be unable -even to dream. The inevitable result of this enforced narrowness was -well stated by John Stuart Mill in the essay which remains the classic -of feminist literature; he pointed out that in a world where women -are almost exclusively occupied with material interests, where their -standard of appraisal is the opinion of other people, their ambition -will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> naturally connect itself with material things, with wealth -and prestige, no matter how inimical such an ambition may be to the -spiritual interests of the men upon whom they depend. That there have -been distinguished exceptions to this rule does credit to the strength -of character which has enabled an individual now and then to attain -something like spiritual maturity in spite of a disabling and retarding -environment.</p> - -<h3>III</h3> - -<p>The effects of repression and seclusion on the character of woman -have given rise, and an appearance of reason, to a host of other -superstitions about her nature; notions which have been expressed in -terms by many writers and have coloured the thought of many others. To -offer a petty but interesting example, one of the most widely prevalent -and most easily disproved of these is the belief that women are by -nature more given to self-decoration than men. Certainly the practice -in civilized society at present seems to bear out this notion. But when -we turn to primitive communities we find, on the contrary, that the men -are likely to be vainer of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> finery and more given to it than the women. -The reason is simple: decoration of the person arises from the desire -to enhance sex-attraction; and it is most industriously practised by -that sex among whose members there is the keener competition for favour -with members of the opposite sex. In European civilization marriage -has been practically the only economic occupation open to women; -but monogamous marriage, accompanied by an excess of females and an -increasing proportion of celibacy among males, has made it impossible -for every woman to get a husband; therefore the rivalry among them -has been keen, and their interest in self-decoration has been largely -professional. “If in countries with European civilization,” says -Westermarck, “women nevertheless are more particular about their -appearance and more addicted to self-decoration than the other sex, the -reason for it may be sought for in the greater difficulty they have in -getting married. But there is seldom any such difficulty in the savage -world. Here it is, on the contrary, the man who runs the risk of being -obliged to lead a single life.”</p> - -<p>M. Vaerting, on this subject, takes the view that “the inclination to -bright and ornamental clothing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> is dependent not upon sex, but upon -the power-relation of the sexes. The subordinate sex, whether male or -female, seeks ornament.” But it would seem, in view of the accepted -theory that self-decoration originates in the desire to enhance -sex-attraction, that Westermarck’s is the more reasonable explanation; -moreover it covers certain cases in primitive life where the women, -although their position is abject, nevertheless go plainly clad while -the men are given to elaborate decoration of their persons.</p> - -<p>In spite of all the evidence which anthropology arrays against it, -however, the notion persists that woman is by nature more addicted -to self-decoration than man; and there are not wanting advocates of -her subjection, among them many women, who maintain that it shows the -essential immaturity of her mind!</p> - -<p>The notion that women are by nature mentally inferior to men, is -primarily due to the fact that their enforced ignorance made them -appear inferior. This is one of the strongest superstitions concerning -women, as it is also one of the oldest. It has been much weakened -by modern experience, but it has by no means disappeared. Indeed, -it has stood in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> way of dispassionate scientific study of the -relative mental capacity of the sexes. Havelock Ellis, in his “Man and -Woman,” says that “the history of opinion regarding cerebral sexual -difference forms a painful page in scientific annals. It is full of -prejudices, assumptions, fallacies, over-hasty generalizations. The -unscientific have a predilection for this subject; and men of science -seem to have lost the scientific spirit when they approached the study -of its seat.... It is only of recent years that a comparatively calm -and disinterested study of the brain has become in any degree common; -and even today the fairly well ascertained facts concerning sexual -differences may be easily summed up.” He then proceeds to show that -those differences are few. It might be remarked here that such actual -differences as appear are differences between man and woman as they -now are, and can not be taken as final. If brain-mass, for example, -depends to some extent on physical size and strength, the mass of -woman’s brain should tend to increase as she abandons her unnatural -seclusion, engages in exacting occupations and indulges in vigorous -physical exercise. Already there has been an astonishing change in the -female figure. An interesting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> indication of this is a recent dispatch -from Germany stating that according to the shoe-manufacturers of that -country the average German woman of today wears a shoe two sizes larger -than the woman of a century ago. If woman’s body tends thus to enlarge -with proper use, so in all likelihood will her brain.</p> - -<p>Even Plato, who advocated the education of woman, held that while her -capacities did not differ in kind from those of man, they differed -in degree because of her inferiority in physical strength. It was a -broad-minded view; for the most part women have simply been held to be -by nature relatively weak-minded and therefore relatively ineducable. -They have already passed one general test of educability, by entering -schools on the same footing with men and showing themselves equally -able to achieve a high scholastic standing; yet the Platonic notion -persists that they are physically incapable of going as far as men -can go in intellectual pursuits. This question can probably not be -settled a priori to any one’s satisfaction. It must be conceded, -after the fact, however, that considering the short time that women -have been tolerated in the schools and in the practical prosecution -of intellectual pursuits, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> showing they have made has really been -quite as good as might reasonably be expected, and that it certainly -has not been such as to warrant any arbitrary fixing of limits -beyond which they can not or shall not go. Moreover, the physical -weakness which is supposed to disable woman intellectually may be -itself a result of her adaptation to her environment. There is no -way that I know of to forecast with any kind of accuracy what a few -generations of freedom will accomplish specifically in the way of -spiritual development. Considering that human beings are “creatures -of a large discourse,” the matter is probably determinable only by -experiment—<i>solvitur ambulando</i>.</p> - -<p>Nor will there be any reason to agree with the numerous adherents of -the idea that women are naturally incapable of great creative work in -any field until they shall have failed, after generations and even -centuries of complete freedom, to produce great creative work. This -notion represents the last stand of a priori judgment concerning female -intelligence. It is based on the theory, at present much in fashion, -that men are more variable than women, and that both idiocy and genius -are thus much more frequent in the male sex, while the intelligence of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> -women tends to keep to the safe ground of mediocrity. The implications -of this theory manifestly are that genius of the highest order can -not be expected to appear in a woman. Since all cats are grey in the -dark, according to the proverb, nothing worth saying can be said -against this theory or for it. The data which underly it are simply -incompetent and immaterial to any conclusion, one way or the other. -They represent only a projection of men and women as they now are, -and therefore can not be taken as a basis for speculation concerning -men and women as they may become. To say, for instance, that because -there has never been, to our knowledge, any woman, with the possible -exception of Sappho, who showed the highest order of genius in the -arts it is probable that there never can or will be, is much the same -as to say that because there has never been a woman President of the -United States no woman ever can or will be President. Let it be freely -admitted that women have had opportunities in the creative field, and -have fallen short of supremacy. What of it? One must yet perceive -that the woman who has had those opportunities has been the product -of a civilization constitutionally inimical to her use of them, and -one may not assume that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> she has entirely escaped the effects of the -continuous repression and discouragement exercised upon her by her -social, domestic and political environment. When the power and purchase -of this influence are fully taken into account, one would say it is -not half so remarkable that women have missed supreme greatness in the -arts as that they have been able to achieve anything at all. For in the -arts, more than anywhere else, spiritual freedom is essential to great -achievement; and spiritual freedom means a great deal more than the -mere absence of formal restraint upon the processes of writing books -or painting pictures. It is this important distinction that writers -like Dr. Ellis and Dr. Hall, for example, have overlooked or ignored. -They have simply failed to take into account the effect of a generally -debilitating environment on the activities of the human spirit.</p> - -<p>The environment of women has long been such as tends to make them, -much more than men, the slaves of “<i>was uns alle bändigt, das -Gemeine</i>,” and therefore to win release from the commonplace was, -and still is, proportionately harder for a woman than for a man. -The prevailing notion that a woman must at all costs cultivate -the approval of the world<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> lest she fail, through lack of it, to -manœuvre herself successfully into the only occupation that society -showed any cordiality about opening to her—this put a heavy premium -on dissimulation and artifice. Women have not dared freely to be -themselves, even to themselves. It was the effect of this constraint -that Stendhal noted when he remarked that “the reason why women, when -they become authors, rarely attain the sublime, ... is that they never -dare to be more than half candid.”</p> - -<p>It can not be gainsaid that the east wind of indifference which has -chilled the fire of many a masculine artist who found himself part of -an age indifferent to his order of talent, has always blown its coldest -upon the woman who essayed creative work. The woman who undertakes to -achieve artistic or intellectual distinction in a world dominated by -men, finds herself opposed by many disabling influences. In an earlier -day she had to endure being thought unwomanly, freakish, or wicked -because she dared venture outside the limited sphere of sexuality that -had been assigned to her. Now her presence in the field of spiritual -endeavour is taken quietly; but she is constantly meeting with the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> -tacit assumption, which finds expression in a thousand subtle ways, -that her work must be inferior on account of her sex.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7">[7]</a> Again, the -idea that marriage and reproduction constitute an exclusive calling -and are really the natural and proper calling for every woman, still -has general currency; and the very fact that a vast majority of women -tacitly acquiesce in this idea, constitutes a strong pull upon the -individual towards the orthodox and expected. Human beings are always -powerfully drawn to be like their fellows; to be different requires -a somewhat uncommon independence of spirit and toughness of fibre, -and the fewer the individuals who attempt it, the more independence -and tenacity it requires. “The fewer there be who follow the way to -heaven,” says the author of the Imitation, “the harder that way is to -find.”</p> - -<p>The position of woman in creative work the world over is analogous -to that of the man in America who ventures into the arts: he will be -tolerated; he may even be respected; but he will not find in his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> -environment the interest and encouragement that will help to develop -his talents and spur him to his best efforts. He may get sympathy and -encouragement from individuals; but his environment as a whole will -not yield what Sylvia Kopald has well termed the “tolerant expectancy” -which nourishes and develops genius. In American civilization the -prevailing ideal for men is business—material success; and our people -retain, as Van Wyck Brooks has pointed out, the suspicious dislike and -disregard which the pioneer community displays towards the individual -whose governing ideals take a different line of development from those -of his fellows. The artist, therefore, is likely to be looked upon as -a queer being who loses something of his manhood by taking up purely -cultural pursuits, unless and until, indeed, he happens to make money -by it. Yet one never hears the intimation that because no Shakespeare -or Raphael has ever yet appeared in this country, none ever will. Very -well—imagine instead the prevailing ideal to be domesticity, and you -perceive at once the invidious position of the woman artist in an -exclusively or dominantly masculine civilization.</p> - -<p>But what if the emergence of genius does not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> depend so much on -variability as upon the degree of spiritual freedom that the -environment allows, and the amount and kind of culture that is current -in it? “The number of geniuses produced in a nation,” says Stendhal, -“is in proportion to the number of men receiving sufficient culture, -and there is nothing to prove to me that my bootmaker has not the soul -to write like Corneille. He wants the education necessary to develop -his feelings and teach him to communicate them to the public.” The -fact that prominent men of science accept the theory that genius is -explained by variability, along with a number of conclusions which -they have seen fit to draw from it, is no reason why their view should -be considered final. Whole schools of scientists have before now gone -wrong in the ticklish business of making speculative generalizations; -they may go wrong again, for men of science are human, and may not be -supposed to live wholly above the miasma arising from the stagnant mass -of current prepossessions. So long as the apparent dearth of female -genius may be satisfactorily accounted for on other grounds, one is -under no compulsion to accept the theory that it is due to a natural -and inescapable tendency toward mediocrity. When regarded fairly,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> -indeed, this theory has something of an <i>ad captandum</i> character; it -is not in itself disingenuous, perhaps, but it lends itself with great -ease to an interested use. It offers strong support, for example, to -an advocacy of an actual qualitative difference in the education of -men and women. Women, being assumed to be fixed by nature at or below -the line of mediocrity, shall be educated exclusively for marriage, -motherhood, and the occupations which require no more than an average -of reflective intelligence. This assumption underlies the educational -plans of even such great libertarians as Thomas Jefferson and Theodore -Hertzka; it represents a reversion, conscious or unconscious, to the -primitive ideology which subordinates the individual to the group, -taking for granted that the individual is to be educated not primarily -for his or her own sake, but for an impersonal “good of society.” -Thus, whether they are aware of it or not, those who subscribe to this -theory would not only keep in woman’s way the discouraging postulate -of inferiority that at present stands against her, but they would -reinforce upon her those arbitrary limitations of opportunity to -which her position of inferiority in the past may not unreasonably be -ascribed.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span></p> - -<h3>IV</h3> - -<p>I have mentioned the repression of natural impulse inculcated upon -women by their upbringing. This will probably not disappear entirely -until the prevailing ideal in bringing up girls shall be to help them -to become fully human beings, rather than to make them marriageable; -for humanity and market-value have really little in common. For -centuries the minds and bodies of women have been moulded to suit the -more or less casual taste of men. This was the condition of their -profession, which was to please men. Woman, in a word, got her living -by her sex; her artificially-induced deformities and imbecilities -had an economic value: they helped to get her married. It would be -impossible to imagine a more profoundly corrupting influence than the -dual ideal of sexuality and chastity that has been held up before -womankind. “We train them up,” says Montaigne, “from their infancy -to the traffic of love.” Yet men would have them, he says, “in full -health, vigorous, in good keeping, high-fed and chaste together;<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8">[8]</a> -that is to say, both<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> hot and cold.” The utter levity of this -traditional attitude makes it fair to say that woman is man’s worst -failure. I know of no stronger argument for the social philosophy of -the anarchist; for there is no more striking proof of the incapacity of -human beings to be their brothers’ keepers than man’s failure, through -sheer levity, over thousands of years to govern woman either for his -good or her own.</p> - -<p>With the growing disposition of women to take their interests into -their own hands, this state of things is changing; but the curious -superstitions to which its effect on the female character has given -rise will long survive it. The world’s literature, from the Sanscrit -proverbs to the comic magazine of the twentieth century, is full of -disparaging references to the character of women; to their frailty, -their cunning, their deceitfulness, their irresponsibility, their -treachery—qualities, all of them, which in a fair view they seem bound -to have extemporized as their only defence in a social order which -was proof against more honourable weapons. “A woman,” says Amiel, -“is sometimes fugitive, irrational, indeterminable, illogical and -contradictory. A great deal of forbearance ought to be shown her, and a -good deal of prudence exercised with regard to her,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> for she may bring -about innumerable evils without knowing it.” This is no doubt true, -and the purposes of the moralist perhaps demand no more than a mere -statement of the fact. But the critic’s purposes demand that the fact -should give an account of itself. Why does woman so regularly bear this -character? Well, certainly the only life that European civilization -offered to women in Amiel’s day—the only views of life that it -accorded them, the only demands on life that it allowed them—was a -specific for producing the kind of creature he describes; and there is -no doubt that it must have produced them by the million. The inference -is inescapable that an equivalent incidence of the same educational and -environmental influences upon men would have produced the same kind -of men. The matter, in short, is not one of the primary or even the -secondary character of women <i>qua</i> women or of men <i>qua</i> men; it is -one of the effect of education and environment upon human beings <i>qua</i> -human beings.</p> - -<p>The effort to escape this inference gives rise to extraordinary -inconsistencies in the current estimate of female character, and -even the estimate put upon it by men of scientific habit. Women -are supposed, for instance, to be tenderer and gentler than -men—“Tenderness,” <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span>says Ellen Key, “distinguishes her whole way of -thinking and feeling, of wishing and working”—yet they are also -supposed to be more vengeful—“Hell hath no fury....” They are supposed -to be creatures of impulse and sentiment “<i>la femme, dont l’impulsion -sentimentale est le seul guide écouté</i>”<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9">[9]</a>—yet they are at the same -time supposed to be calculating, particularly in their relations with -men. Diluvial irruptions of sentimentalism are continually spewed -over their nobility and self-sacrifice in the rôle of motherhood; yet -men have taken care in the past to deny them guardianship of their -own children. Schopenhauer, far on the right wing, again, appears to -represent the legalistic point of view on this relation: he does not -trust them in it beyond the first purely instinctive love for the child -while it is physically helpless; he thinks they should “never be given -free control of their children, wherever it can be avoided.” Man, now, -is more likely, he thinks, to love his child with a lasting love, -because “in the child he recognizes his own inner self; that is to -say his love for it is metaphysical [or egotistical?] in its origin.” -Occasionally, again, the world is treated to the diverting spectacle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> -of some woman writer, like Dr. Gina Lombroso, trotting out all the -poor old spavined superstitions and putting them through their paces -in order to prove the strange contention that women are incapable of -making the progress they have already made. Dr. Lombroso’s ideal woman, -as I have already remarked elsewhere in a review of her recent book, -is something of a cross between an imbecile and a saint; that is to -say, she conforms closely to the ideal which has been held up before -the women of the Christian world; an ideal towards which millions of -them have striven with a faithfulness which does more credit to their -devotion than to their intelligence.</p> - -<p>Since any discussion of woman’s place in society must necessarily be -to some extent a study in superstition, one can not really have done -with superstition until one is done with the subject. It has seemed -to warrant some special attention at the outset of this work not only -because the past and present status of womankind can not be explained -without reference to it, but because the future of womankind will in -large measure depend upon the expeditiousness with which it and those -prepossessions which spring from it, are laid aside. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> sum of these -superstitions and prepossessions may be expressed in the generalization -that woman is primarily a function; and wherever any remote approach -to this generalization may be discerned in a discussion of her status -or her rights—as it may at once be discerned, for instance, in the -sentimental side of the work of feminists as staunch as Ellen Key and -Olive Schreiner—at just that point the abdication of the scientific -spirit in favour of superstition may be suspected.</p> - -<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3">[3]</a> Among the Chinese, for example, the woman never goes near -the kitchen.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4">[4]</a> According to news-reports on the day that this is written, -Judge McIntyre of New York, sentencing a young woman in a criminal -case, said: “When a woman is bad she is vicious and worse than a man, -many, many times over.”</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5">[5]</a> It finds grotesque expression now and then. I remember -seeing in a San Francisco newspaper a few years ago this headline: -“Accused of having immoral relations with a woman other than his wife.”</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6">[6]</a> In the State of Maryland, if the wife be found to have -been unchaste before marriage, the husband is entitled to a divorce; -but premarital unchastity on the part of the husband gives the wife no -corresponding ground.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7">[7]</a> As the only woman member of an editorial staff during -a period of four years, I had ample opportunity for experience of -this attitude. It was openly expressed only twice, both times, oddly -enough, by women; but so universal was the unconscious assumption of -inferiority that I may say without great exaggeration that it was only -among my colleagues that I did not meet with it.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8">[8]</a> This was written, needless to say, before the casual taste -of men set the fashion for women to be mincing and sickly.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9">[9]</a> Elie Faure.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span></p> - -<h2><span>CHAPTER III</span> <span class="smaller">INSTITUTIONAL MARRIAGE AND ITS ECONOMIC ASPECTS</span></h2> - -<h3>I</h3> - -<p>Marriage, by a strictly technical definition, is a natural habit; that -is to say, it is a relationship proceeding out of the common instinct -of male and female to mate, and to remain together until after the -birth of one or more children.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10">[10]</a> Organized society, on the other -hand, always makes it a civil institution, and sometimes a religious -institution. So long as man remained in the natural state, roaming -about in search of his food as do the apes today, it may be supposed -that marriage was based on personal preference and involved only -the selective disposition of the individual man and woman and their -common concern for the safety of their offspring. But as advancing -civilization enabled mankind more easily to obtain and augment its -food-supply, and consequently to secure greater<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> safety and also to -satisfy its gregarious instinct by living in numerous communities, the -habit of marriage underwent a process of sanction and regulation by -the group, and was thus transformed into a civil institution. While -society remains ethnical, the family exercises supervision over the -sexual relations of its members, but always subject to the approval or -disapproval of the larger group—the tribe or clan. When the political -State emerges, this function continues to be exercised by the family, -but it is subject to sanction by the State and is gradually absorbed by -it. Yet even where the State has usurped almost all the prerogatives of -the family, custom continues to give powerful sanction to interference -in marriage both by relatives and by the community.</p> - -<p>Where the tribal religion takes on the form of ancestor-worship, -or where much importance is attached to burial-rites, marriage and -reproduction take on a religious significance. “As the dead,” says Dr. -Elsie Clews Parsons, “are dependent on the living for the performance -of their funeral rites and sacrificial observances, marriage itself as -well as marriage according to prescribed conditions, child-begetting -and bearing, become religious duties.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> Marriage ceremonial not -infrequently takes on a religious character. Infanticide, abortion, -celibacy other than celibacy of a sacerdotal character, and adultery, -become sins. The punishment of the adulteress is particularly severe, -although in some cases her value as property may guarantee her against -punishment by death.”<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11">[11]</a></p> - -<p>Thus there may be, and in most civilized societies there is, a fourfold -interference in marriage: interference by the family, by the community, -by the State, and by the Church. An old Russian song had it that -marriages were contracted</p> - -<div class="center"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<div>By the will of God,</div> -<div>By decree of the Czar,</div> -<div>By order of the Master,</div> -<div>By decision of the community,</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>—with not a word about the two persons immediately concerned. Nor is -this strange, for marriage is not generally conceived of among either -primitive or highly civilized peoples as a personal relationship. It -is an economic arrangement, an alliance between families, a means for -getting children. To allow so unruly a passion as love to figure<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> in -the selection of a mate, is an irregularity which may under certain -circumstances be tolerated, but one which is nevertheless likely to -be regarded with extreme disapproval. As individualism makes progress -against group-tyranny, the preliminaries and the actual contracting of -marriage become less the affair of God, the State, the family and the -community, and more the affair of the two people chiefly interested; -but once contracted, the marriage can hardly be said, even in the most -civilized community, to be free of considerable regulation by these -four influences. The time which Spencer foresaw, when “the union by -affection will be held of primary moment and the union by law as of -secondary moment,” has by no means arrived. If the married couple be -Roman Catholics, for example, they may not free themselves from an -unhappy marriage without paying the penalty of excommunication; and -if they live in a State dominated by the Catholic Church, they may be -legally estopped from freeing themselves at all. Nor may they, save by -continence, limit the number of their offspring without risking the -same penalty. If they are Episcopalians or Lutherans they may divorce -only on the ground of adultery, and the guilty party is forbidden to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>remarry. In communities where the influence of other Protestant sects -predominates, and where, therefore, divorce and remarriage are not -formally forbidden by the Church, the pressure of public opinion may -yet operate to prevent them. The State not only prescribes the form -that marriage shall take, but it may also either prohibit divorce—as -in South Carolina, for example—or forbid it save in accordance with -such regulations as it sees fit to make; and these regulations are -not only of a kind that make divorce prohibitive to the poor, but -they are often so humiliating as to constitute an effective barrier -to the dissolution of unhappy unions. The State of New York offers an -excellent illustration. Adultery is the only ground upon which divorce -is allowed, and even then it may be refused if the action is taken by -mutual consent. The couple who wish to be divorced must therefore, -if there be no legal cause, go through the demoralizing business of -making a case, which means that one or the other must provide at least -the appearance of “misconduct”; and even then they are in danger of -being found in collusion. But suppose one party to be giving legal -ground; then the other party, in order to get proof, is obliged to -resort to the lowest kind of espionage.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> Such disreputable methods, -however much they be in keeping with the nature and practices of -the State, are hardly becoming to civilized society, and civilized -persons are indisposed towards them. Their general effect is therefore -to discourage application for divorce in New York and encourage it -elsewhere.</p> - -<p>It is significant of the unspiritual estimate generally put upon -marriage, that incompatibility is rarely allowed as a legal ground -of divorce. Violation of the sexual monopoly that marriage implies; -pre-nuptial unchastity on the part of the woman; impotence; cruelty; -desertion; failure of support; insanity; all of these or some of -them are the grounds generally recognized where divorce is allowed -at all. This is to say that society demands a specific grievance of -one party against the other, a grievance having physical or economic -consequences, as a prerequisite to freedom from the marriage-bond. -The fact that marriage may be a failure spiritually is seldom taken -into account. Yet there is no difficulty about which less can be -done. Infidelity may be forgiven and in time forgotten; the deserter -may return; the delinquent may be persuaded to support his family; -the insane person may recover; even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> impotence may be cured. But if -two people are out of spiritual correspondence, if they are not at -ease in one another’s society, there is nothing to be done about it. -“Anything,” says Turgenev, “may be smoothed over, memories of even -the most tragic domestic incidents gradually lose their strength and -bitterness; but if once a sense of being ill at ease installs itself -between two closely united persons, it can never be dislodged.” Modern -society is slowly, very slowly, coming into the wisdom which prompted -this observation. The gradual liberalization of the divorce-laws -which our moralists regard as a symptom of modern disrespect for the -sacredness of marriage, is in fact a symptom of a directly opposite -tendency—the tendency to place marriage on a higher spiritual plane -than it has hitherto occupied.</p> - -<p>The State assumes the right either to allow artificial limitation of -offspring or to make it a crime; and it exercises this assumption -according to its need for citizens<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12">[12]</a> or the complexion of its -religious establishment. It also fixes the relative status and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> -rights of the two parties. In several American States, for instance, -a married woman is incompetent to make contracts or to fix her legal -residence. The Virginia law recognizes the primary right of the father -to the custody of the child, yet it makes the mother criminally -liable for the support of children. On the other hand, the husband is -everywhere required by law to support his wife. Such laws, of course, -like most laws, are felt only when the individual comes into conflict -with them. The State does not interfere in many cases where married -couples subvert its regulations—for example, the law which entitles -the husband to his wife’s services in the home and permits him to -control her right to work outside the home, does not become binding -save in cases where the husband sees fit to invoke it. As a rule the -State forbids fornication and adultery.<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13">[13]</a> In case of separation and -divorce, if the parties disagree concerning financial arrangements or -the custody of children, it exercises the right to arbitrate these -matters.</p> - -<p>The sanctions of interference by the family, save in the contracting of -marriage by minors, are at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> present those of custom, affection, and (in -so far as it exists and may be made effective) economic power. When two -persons have decided to marry, for instance, it remains quite generally -customary for the man to go through the formality of asking the woman’s -nearest male relation for her hand. This is of course a survival from -the period when a woman’s male guardian had actual power to prevent her -marrying without his consent. The influence of affection is too obvious -to require illustration; it is the subtlest and most powerful sanction -of family interference. Economic power is perhaps most commonly used -to prevent or compel the contracting of marriage. It may make itself -felt, where parents or other relatives are well-to-do, in threats of -disinheritance if prospective heirs undertake to make marriages which -are displeasing to them. A striking instance of the use of this power -is the will of the late Jay Gould, which required each of his children -to obtain consent of the others before marrying. It is not uncommon for -legators to stipulate that legatees shall or shall not marry before a -certain age under penalty of losing their inheritance.</p> - -<p>These influences do not always, of course, take the same direction. -At present, for example, <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span>artificial limitation of offspring receives -irregular but effective community-sanction in face of opposition by -Church and State. Or again, public opinion almost universally condemns -the idea that a father may, by his will, remove his children from -the custody of their mother, although the State, as in Maryland and -Delaware, may sanction such an act. But, however much they may check -one another, these influences are all constantly operating to restrict -and regulate marriage away from its original intention as a purely -personal relationship, and to keep it in the groove of economic and -social institutionalism. The reasons for this are to be found in the -vestigiary fear of sex, love of power, love of the habitual, religious -superstition, and above all in the notion that the major interests of -the group are essentially opposed to those of the individual and are -more important than his. A combination of two of these motives has -recently come under my own observation in the case of a young woman -whose parents can not forgive her for having divorced a man whom she -did not love and married a man whom she did. They were accustomed -to their first son-in-law, and resent the necessity of adjusting -themselves to the idea of having a new one. <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span>Moreover, they feel that -their daughter should have spared them the “disgrace” of a divorce. The -fact that she was unhappy in her first marriage and is happy in her -second seems to have little weight with them. They did their best to -prevent her second marriage and are at present exerting every effort to -make it unsuccessful. It is needless to emphasize the fact that this -order of interference can not be expected to disappear while the notion -persists that the actions of one adult member of a family or group can -possibly reflect credit or discredit upon all the other members.</p> - -<h3>II</h3> - -<p>If one be an apologist for the present economic and social order, -there is little fault to be found with this endless and manifold -regulation of the most intimate concern of the individual, save that it -is not as effective as it once was. Society, we are being constantly -reminded, is founded in the family. No one, I think, will quarrel -with this statement, particularly at this stage of the world’s rule -by the exploiting State. Marriage is, to quote Dr. E. C. Parsons, “an -incomparable protection of society—as <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span>society has been constituted”; -and this for a reason which Dr. Parsons did not mention. Nor has the -reason been stated by anyone else, so far as I am aware, although the -fact is emphasized often enough. It is emphasized, however, largely -in the spirit of a contemporary French writer who declares that “an -institution upon which society<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14">[14]</a> is based should not be represented -to society as an instrument of torture, a barbarous apparatus. We know, -on the contrary that this institution is good, and that it would be -impossible to conceive of a better one upon which to base our customs.” -Well, but suppose it <i>is</i> an instrument of torture, or at least that we -have come to find it highly unsatisfactory; must we, in spite of the -fact, resolve to think it good because society is based upon it? Ought -we not,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> rather, to examine the order of society that institutionalized -marriage helps to perpetuate, in order to determine whether it is worth -preserving at the cost of preserving also an institution which has -become “an instrument of torture”?</p> - -<p>The reason why marriage is “an incomparable protection to society” -lies in the fact that the continuance of the power of the exploiting -State depends upon the relative helplessness of its exploited subjects; -and nothing renders the subject more helpless against the dominance -of the State than marriage. For monopoly, under the protection of the -State, has rendered the support of a family extremely difficult, by -closing free access of labour to natural resources and thus enabling -the constant maintenance of a labour-surplus. Where there is little -or no land not legally occupied, access to the soil is impossible -save on terms that render it, if not downright prohibitive, at least -unprofitable. The breadwinner who has neither land nor capital is -thus forced to take his chance in a labour-market overcrowded by -applicants for work who are in exactly his position: they are shut out -from opportunity to work for themselves, and obliged to accept such -employment as they can get at a wage <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>determined not by their capacity -to produce, but by the number of their competitors. Not only is the -wage-earner thus obliged to content himself with a small share of what -his labour produces; he is forced to pay out of that share further -tribute to monopoly in most of the things he buys. For shelter, for the -products of the soil and mines, he pays tribute to the monopolist of -land and natural resources; for industrial products, in most countries, -he pays to the monopoly created by high tariffs. Or he may have to pay -to both, as in the case of the purchaser of steel products.</p> - -<p>Such disadvantages tend not only to keep wages near the -subsistence-level, but to keep opinions orthodox—or if not orthodox, -unexpressed. For the wage-earner gets his living on sufferance: while -he continues to please his employer he may earn a living, however -inadequate, for himself and family; but if he show signs of discontent -with the established order, by which his employer benefits or thinks -he benefits, he is likely to find himself supplanted by some other -worker whose need makes him more willing to conform, in appearance -at least. There are even conditions under which his mere unorthodoxy -may bring him to jail, in thirty-four<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> States of this enlightened -Republic. There are exceptional cases, of course, where his skill -or special training makes him a virtual monopolist in his line and -thus renders him indispensable, like a certain well-known professor -who continues to hold his position in spite of his avowed economic -unorthodoxy simply because there is no one else who can fill it. But -it may be perceived at once that the average wage-earner with a family -to support will be under much greater pressure to dissemble than -will the worker who has no family; for where the single worker risks -privation for himself alone, the married worker takes this risk for -his family as well. Nor does economic pressure operate only towards -the appearance of conformity; it operates towards actual conformity, -for the person who has children to rear and educate will be strongly -impelled towards conservatism by his situation. If he can get along at -all under the present order, the mere <i>vis inertiae</i> will incline him -to fear for the sake of his family the economic dislocation attendant -upon any revolutionary change, and to choose rather to keep the ills -he has.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15">[15]</a> Moreover, the unnatural situation popularly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> called the -“labour-problem,” brought about through exclusion from the land, tends -to create the psychology of the wage-slave: it tends to make people -regard the opportunity to earn one’s living not as a natural right, but -as something that one receives as a boon from one’s employer, and hence -to accept the idea that an employer may be justified in dictating to -his employees in matters of conduct and opinion.</p> - -<p>Thus the economic conditions brought about by the State operate to make -marriage the State’s strongest bulwark; and those who believe that the -preservation of the State, or of a particular form of it, is a sacred -duty—their number among its victims is legion—are quite logical in -taking alarm at the increasing unwillingness of men and women to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> -marry, or if they do marry, to have children. They are logical not only -because marriage and children make for endurance of established abuses, -but because, as I have already remarked, it is important for the State -to have as many subjects as possible, to keep up a labour-surplus at -home and to fight for the interests of its privileged class abroad; -that is, so long as industry is able to meet the exactions of monopoly -and still pay interest and wages. Where monopoly has reduced interest -and wages to the vanishing-point, the State can no longer be said -to be a going concern; its breakdown is then only a matter of time. -This point has been reached in England, and hence the condition of -which I have spoken: a numerous population is no longer desirable, -for as unemployed they are a burden on the State and a menace to its -existence. But as long as the State is a going concern, the Spartan -rule is that best suited to its interests: obligatory marriage, and -unlimited reproduction.</p> - -<p>In modern civilization, however, in spite of the enormous power of -the State, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to -enforce this rule. The State, with all its power, can not force its -subjects to obey any law which they do not really want to obey<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span>—or -perhaps I should say, which they want not to obey; and the growth of -individualism has created a general distaste for any effort on the part -of government to meddle directly in the affairs of citizens. Attempts -to do so are likely to bring humiliation on the Government through -its inability to enforce them, and to generate in the population a -salutary disrespect for law; as the attempt to enforce the fourteenth -and eighteenth Amendments has done in this country. With the decline -of the patriarchal system, the contracting of marriage if not the -status of marriage, is coming to be regarded as the exclusive concern -of the individual. Many who would not for a moment tolerate compulsory -marriage will tolerate a humiliating regulation of marriage; they -will allow the State to make of marriage a life-long bondage, but -they reserve the right to refuse to enter into bondage. The State may -penalize celibacy by levying a special tax on unmarried persons; but it -can no longer force people to abandon it.</p> - -<p>Indeed, one may say without overmuch exaggeration that at present -the preservation of marriage as an institution is almost solely due -to its tenacity as an instinctive habit. For while marriage is the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> -strongest bulwark of the State, the economic order for the sake of -which the State exists tends nevertheless to discourage marriage -because it progressively concentrates wealth in a few hands, and thus -deprives the great mass of people of adequate means to rear and educate -families. This condition is largely responsible for the fact that -celibacy, illegitimacy and prostitution are on the increase in every -civilized country; and that the average age at which marriage takes -place tends steadily to become higher, as it takes longer to get into -an economic position which makes possible the support of a family. In -this connexion, Katharine Anthony’s statement that factory-girls and -heiresses are the country’s youngest brides is significant. Neither -the heiress nor the factory-girl has anything to gain by waiting: the -heiress already has economic security and the factory-girl never will -have it, for she and her husband—if she marries in her own class—will -always be pretty much at the mercy of conditions in the labour-market. -It should also be remarked that among the great middle class the -standard of education for both sexes, but more particularly for women, -is higher than among the very rich and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> very poor; and this tends -to advance the average age for marriage.</p> - -<p>It tends as well to make children a heavy burden on the parents. Among -primitive peoples, where difficulty in supporting a family is virtually -unknown, where adjustment to the environment offers no complexities and -childhood is therefore not so prolonged, and where, moreover, children -through their labour become an economic asset, they are desirable.<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16">[16]</a> -But in a civilized society where the parental sense of responsibility -has developed to the point where the child is reared for its own sake, -where adaptation to the environment is a complex and lengthy process -involving expensive education and prolonged dependence of the child -upon the parents, and where the difficulty of getting a start in life -tends also to lengthen the period of dependence; in such a society -it is natural that the parental sense of responsibility should find -expression in an artificial limitation of offspring to the number that -the circumstances of the parents will enable them to educate properly. -There is a further step that this feeling can suggest in these days of -excessive <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span>economic exploitation and ruinous wars; that is, refusal to -reproduce at all: and this step an increasing number of married people -are taking, to the great distress of self-appointed guardians of our -customs and morals.</p> - -<p>Failure to perceive the decisive importance of the connexion between -the economic condition of the parents and the proper equipment -of children for making their way in life often leads to absurd -contradictions; as for example in that staunch friend of childhood, -the late Ellen Key. No one is more insistent than this writer upon -the importance of rearing the child for its own good; yet she gravely -declares that “from the point of view of the nation, always from -that of the children, and most frequently from that of the parents, -the normal condition must be, that the number of children shall not -fall short of three or four.” Miss Key’s primary failure is one that -must be judged with great severity because it is both fundamental -and typical—it pervades and vitiates the whole body of feminist -literature. It is a failure in intellectual seriousness. Miss Key -is fully aware of a persistent economic dislocation bearing on her -thesis—“At present there is a shortage of labour for those willing -to work, of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> food for the hungry, of educational advantages for those -thirsting for knowledge, of nursing for the sick, of care for the -children. The circumstances of the majority are now such as to produce, -directly or indirectly, crime, drunkenness, insanity, consumption, -or sexual diseases in large sections of the population.” Again, “The -struggle for daily bread, the cares of livelihood ... are now the -stamp of public as well as private life.... Married people have no -time to cultivate their feelings for one another.... Through the cares -of livelihood parents have no time to live with their children, to -study them in order to be able really to educate them.”<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17">[17]</a> One must -suspect a peculiar incapacity for logic in the writer who recognizes -such conditions and still recommends three or four children as being -the minimum number that people should have who wish to do their duty by -their country, their children and themselves. Miss Key has been content -to shirk inquiry into the fundamental cause of these conditions, and -hence the means she recommends for their cure are silly and feeble. -An international<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> universal organization which is to regulate all -competition and all co-operation; trade-unionism, the abolition of -inheritances; the exercise of “collective motherliness” in public -affairs; these are some of the means she offers for the regeneration of -society. Probably never since the remark attributed to Marie Antoinette -that if the starving populace could not get bread they should eat cake, -has ineptitude gone further. If Miss Key’s call to duty were brought -to the attention of the well-to-do married couple of the city of New -York whose means are sufficient to permit them to occupy an apartment -of, let us say, two or three or four rooms, often without kitchen, they -might agree with her in principle; but they would probably not attempt -to bring up three or four children in such straitened surroundings and -to educate them over a long span of years, for a very doubtful future. -If this example seem special and far-fetched, I would remind my readers -that over fifty per cent of people in this country are urban dwellers, -and that the vast majority of them are worse off for dwelling space, -not better, than the hypothetical couple I have cited.</p> - -<p>It is, of course, among those who are worse off that children are -most numerous. Ignorance and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> religious scruples—for the Church is -strongest among the ignorant because of their ignorance—combine to -produce large families among the class that can least afford them. For -civilization, although it denies these people most things, grants them -too great a fecundity. Among primitive peoples fecundity is decreased -by various causes, such as excessively hard work, childbearing at a -too early age, and prolonged lactation during which continence is -often the rule. The average number of children borne by a savage -does not often exceed five or six, whereas the civilized woman may -bear eighteen or twenty, and it is not at all exceptional for the -woman of our slums to bear ten or twelve. Among west-side women of -New York whom Katherine Anthony questioned concerning frequency of -pregnancies, one reported fifteen in nineteen years, another ten in -twelve years, and another six in nine years. Obviously, then, when -eugenists and moralists deplore what they term the modern tendency to -race-suicide, they refer to the educated classes. The moralist argues -from prepossession and may be dismissed from consideration; but the -eugenist has scientific pretensions which are not without a certain -degree of validity and can therefore not be lightly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> passed over. So -long as he argues for improvement in the quality of the race through -the substitution of intelligence for blind instinct in propagation, he -is on solid ground: no one unprepossessed by the sentimentalism which -regards legitimate children, however untoward be the circumstances -of their birth and breeding, as a direct visitation from God, can -deny that voluntary and intelligent attention to the quality of -offspring offers better prospects for civilization than hit-or-miss -quantity-production. The eugenist deplores the fact that at present -this exercise of intelligence is confined to the comparatively small -class of the educated and well-to-do, and that therefore the birth-rate -among that class is all too small to offset the unchecked propagation -of the ignorant and unfit. This is unfortunately true; and it suggests -the obvious question: Why is there in every modern State so large -a class of ignorant and unfit persons as to constitute a menace to -the vitality of that State? If it is solely because the unfit are -allowed to propagate unchecked, then those eugenists who advocate -the sterilization of paupers and imbeciles and the encouragement of -propagation among the intelligent classes by an elaborate system of -State subsidy, may be listened to with respect if<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> not with perfect -faith in the practicability of their proposals. But how about that -large mass of the physically and mentally normal who live at the -subsistence-level, and whose progeny, if economic pressure tighten -a little, are likely to be forced down into the class of underfed -beings, dulled and brutalized by poverty, from whose ranks our paupers, -imbeciles and criminals are largely recruited? To ignore the existence -of this perennial source of unfitness is levity. To recognize it, and -to assume that it results from over-propagation is to assume at the -same time that the earth’s population is too numerous for comfortable -subsistence on the amount of cultivable land in existence. If this -disproportion be real, the only hope lies in persuading this class to -limit its offspring voluntarily to the number that the earth’s surface -will comfortably support. If it be only an apparent disproportion -due to an artificial shortage of land created by monopoly, then -the eugenist’s program amounts simply to a recommendation that the -population be somehow restricted to the number that can get subsistence -on the terms of the monopolist. Henry George has conclusively disproved -the validity of the Malthusian theory which underlies the assumption -of over-population,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> while Oppenheimer’s figures show that if land -were freely available for use, the earth’s present population might -easily be supported on one-third of its arable surface.<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18">[18]</a> Here, -really, is the most convincing answer to the standard arguments for -birth-control; yet so far as I know, the opponents of birth-control -have never done much with it, whether out of ignorance or because of -the profound economic readjustments that it implies. The eugenist, -too, generally displays a constitutional aversion to attacking the -problem of unfitness at the right end—which is, to inquire, first of -all, why it exists. Hence the ineptitude of his proposals for social -betterment: they would involve much unwieldy governmental machinery and -considerably more intelligence than any State has ever displayed in -dealing with social questions; and they would attack only the results -of our social ills, leaving the causes freely operative.<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19">[19]</a></p> - -<p>While those causes continue to operate, the support of a family, save -in the comparatively small<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> class of wealthy people, will be more or -less of a burden. At present, this burden bears most heavily upon the -middle-class man and the lower-class woman. Meretricious standards of -respectability, among them the idea that a married woman must not work -outside her home even when she is childless, tend to make marriage -from the outset a burden on the man of the middle class. For it must -be remembered that since the so-called feminine occupations have been -taken out of the home, a man no longer gains an economic asset in -taking unto himself a wife. Rather, he assumes a liability. This is -especially true among the middle classes, where social standing has -come to be gauged to some extent by the degree in which wives are -economically unproductive. It is a commonplace in this country that -women form the leisure class; and this leisure class of women, like -leisured classes everywhere, has its leisure at the expense of other -people, who in this case are the husbands. Moreover, it is among the -middle classes that the standards of education are highest and the -rearing of children therefore most expensive; and this burden is -usually borne by the husband alone. Hence the emergence of the type -of harassed <i>pater familias</i> at whom our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> comic artists poke much -sympathetic fun, who meets his family now and then on Sundays, foots -their bills, and is rewarded for his unremitting toil in their behalf -by being regarded much in the light of a cash-register.</p> - -<p>This sort of thing, of course, is not the invariable rule. There are -many middle-class women who give their families untiring service, and -an increasing number who, either from choice or necessity, engage in -gainful occupations outside their homes. Of this country’s eight and -one half million women breadwinners, two million are married; and -it may be assumed that a fair percentage of these are of the middle -class. The great majority, however, are of the labouring class; and -upon these, economic injustice weighs most heavily. It is these women -who bear most children; and it is they who, when their husbands are -unable or unwilling to meet the growing expenses of the family, assume -the double burden of “woman’s work” in the home and whatever they can -get to do outside that will enable them to earn a few dollars a week, -in order to “keep the family together.” Miss Katharine Anthony, in -her book, “Mothers Who Must Earn,” gives a striking picture of the -unskilled married women workers<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> of west-side New York, victims of a -crowded labour-market, who take the hardest jobs at the lowest pay, in -order that they may give some few poor advantages to the children they -have brought into the world unwillingly, knowing that they could not -afford them. “The same mother,” says Miss Anthony, “who resents the -coming of children and resigns them so apathetically to death, will -toil fourteen hours a day and seven days a week to keep up a home for -the young lives in her charge.”</p> - -<p>Such testimony, and testimony of a similar kind from governmental -investigators, somehow makes the general run of social criticism -appear frivolous and superficial. The married wage-earner, worn with -excessive childbearing, who still finds strength to work long hours -in laundry or factory during the day and do her housework at night, -hardly fits into the picture of selfish, emancipated women, wilfully -deserting their proper sphere of domesticity either to seek pleasure or -to maintain their economic independence. Indeed, the idea of economic -independence is quite at variance with her notions of respectability. -“Not to work,” says Miss Anthony, “is a mark of the middle-class -married woman, and the ambitious west-side family covets that mark.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> -Hence comes the attempt to conceal the mother’s employment, if she -has one, which is one of the little snobberies of the poor.” The sole -object of these women’s toil is to preserve the home, chief prop of -a social order which bears upon it with crushing weight; and their -adherence to a social philosophy which regards the preservation of -the home as peculiarly the business of women is evident in the fact -that they contribute the whole of their meagre earnings to its upkeep, -whereas their husbands are likely to contribute only as much of their -own earnings as they see fit.</p> - -<p>It goes without saying that the conditions I have cited have a profound -effect on the psychology of parents, and therefore on the lives of -children. The rearing of children, if justice is to be done them, is -one of the most exacting tasks that can be undertaken. The adjustment -that is required to fit parents to the personalities of their children -and children to those of their parents and of one another, is in itself -a most delicate and difficult process, and one upon which the nature -of the child’s adjustment to the larger world greatly depends. Such -a process naturally involves friction, and therefore, if it is to be -successful, calls for no little tact and patience<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> in the parents; and -cramped quarters, sordid poverty, and exhausting labour are hardly -conducive to the possession of either of these qualities. Children -of the middle class, it is remarked often enough, hardly know their -harassed, overworked fathers; but children of the labouring class -are likely to know neither of their parents, or to know them only as -fretful, quarrelsome people, brutalized by overwork. “The strain of -bringing up a family on the average workingman’s wage,” says Miss -Anthony, “reduced as this is likely to be by unemployment, sickness, -or drink, constitutes, indeed, the dark age of the tenement mother’s -life. It is not strange that the good will existing between husband -and wife often gives way beneath it. ‘I tell my husband,’ said Mrs. -Gurney, ‘it’s not right for us to be quarreling all the time before the -children. But it seems like we can’t help it. He’s so worried all the -time and I’m so tired. If we were easy in our minds we wouldn’t do it.’”</p> - -<p>Nor do the children of these people have anything much better to look -forward to than such a lot as that of their parents, for poverty -drives them too into the labour-market as soon as they are old enough -to earn, to the profound distress of reformers who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> refuse to face -the basic question of child-labour, namely: whether it is better for -human beings, even if they be children, to work for their living or -to starve. This applies not only to the children of our industrial -labouring classes, but to those of the agricultural labourer and -the tenant-farmer, who pay the same penalty for the exploitation of -their parents. There is no little irony in the fact that our growing -consciousness of the right of children to be well born and well reared -proceeds hand in hand with an economic injustice which renders it -impossible to secure that right for all children.</p> - -<p>If responsibility for the upbringing of children is to continue to -be vested in the family, then the rights of children will be secured -only when parents are able to make a living for their families with -so little difficulty that they may give their best thought and energy -to the child’s development and the problem of helping it to adjust -itself to the complexities of the modern environment. Such a condition -is not utopian, but quite possible of attainment, as I shall show -later. But for the present, and for some time to come, marriage and -parenthood will continue to make men and women virtual slaves of the -economic order which they help to perpetuate. Small <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span>wonder that -the women of whom Miss Anthony writes are thoroughly disillusioned -concerning “marriage life,” and would avoid it if they “had it to do -over.” Marriage as an institution has little to offer these people -save toil and suffering; it is, as I have remarked, its tenacity as an -instinctive habit that makes them its victims. And if it were not for -the responsibilities that marriage entails, responsibilities which make -people fearful of the economic uncertainty involved in revolutionary -change, the economic order that makes marriage “an instrument of -torture” and thwarts the development of children, would not last -overnight.</p> - -<p>Both as a personal relationship and as an institution, marriage is at -present undergoing a profound modification resulting from the changing -industrial and social position of women. The elevation of woman from -the position of a chattel to that of a free citizen must inevitably -affect the institution in which her subordinate position has been most -strongly emphasized—which has been, indeed, the chief instrument of -her subordination. The woman who is demanding her rightful place in -the world as man’s equal, can no longer be expected to accept without -question an institution under whose<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> rules she is obliged to remain -the victim of injustice. There is every reason therefore, assuming -that the process of emancipation shall not be interrupted, to expect -a continuous alteration in the laws and customs bearing on marriage, -until some adjustment shall be reached which allows scope for the -individuality of both parties, instead of one only. The psychological -conflict involved in the adaptation of marriage to woman’s changing -position and the changing mentality that results from it, is not to -be underrated. At present the process of adjustment is needlessly -complicated and this attendant conflict immensely exaggerated, by -an economic injustice which bears most heavily on married people. -Individualism is developing in modern society to such an extent that -marriage based on anything but affection seems degrading; but economic -injustice is progressing simultaneously with such strides that marriage -based on nothing but affection is likely to end in disaster; for -affection and the harassment of poverty are hardly compatible. If this -complication were removed, as it could be, we should probably find that -the adjustment of marriage to shifting ideals and conditions would come -about in a natural<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> and advantageous manner, as adjustments usually do -when vexing and hampering conditions are removed. The question will -settle itself in any case. Just how, no one, of course, can tell; but -however revolutionary the adaptation to new conditions may be, it will -not <i>seem</i> revolutionary to the people of the future because “the minds -of men will be fitted to it.” This is an all-important fact, and one -that is too little respected; for the desire to enforce our own moral -and spiritual criteria upon posterity is quite as strong as the desire -to enforce them upon contemporaries. It is a desire which finds a large -measure of fulfilment—where is the society which does not struggle -along under a dead weight of tradition and law inherited from its -grandfathers? All political and religious systems have their root and -their strength in the innate conservatism of the human mind, and its -intense fear of autonomy. Because of this conservatism, people never -move towards revolution; they are pushed towards it by intolerable -injustices in the economic and social order under which they live. -There were, and are, such injustices in the laws and customs of the -Christian world governing marriage and the relations of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> the sexes; -hence the changes which have already begun, and may conceivably proceed -until they shall prove as far-reaching as those by which marriage in -the past was transformed from an instinctive habit into an institution -subject to regulation by everyone except the two people most intimately -concerned.</p> - -<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10">[10]</a> Westermarck defines it as “a more or less durable -connexion between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of -propagation till after the birth of the offspring.”</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11">[11]</a> E. C. Parsons: “The Family.”</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12">[12]</a> It is interesting in this connexion to note that in -post-war England, where the thousands of unemployed workers constitute -a heavy drain on the public purse and a baffling political problem, it -has been made lawful to sell devices for birth-control. One now sees -these devices conspicuously displayed in druggists’ windows.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13">[13]</a> In Maryland fornication is not a crime, although it may -entitle a husband to divorce if he did not know of it at the time of -the marriage. Adultery is punishable by a fine of ten dollars.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14">[14]</a> It is important to call attention to the loose use of -the word “Society” in this quotation, as practically synonomous with -the State. In their final definition, the two terms are antithetical. -There is general agreement among scholars, according to Professor -Beard, that in the genesis of the State, exploitation was primary, -and organization for other purposes, e.g., what we know as “law and -order,” was incidental and secondary. The term Society, then, really -implies the disappearance of the State, and is commonly so used by -scholars. Even now, too, tribes which have never formed a State and -are without government of any kind, maintain society, i.e., a quite -highly organized mode of communal life. Thomas Jefferson remarked this -phenomenon among the American Indian hunting tribes, and so did the -historian Parkman.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15">[15]</a> This motive is especially powerful in the United -States, because monopoly in this country even now permits people -to do relatively well. Moreover, there is still a strong current -of optimism attributable to the failure of Americans to see that -the old days of almost unlimited opportunity ended with the closing -of the frontier. If the American family finds itself in straitened -circumstances, its members are likely to attribute the fact to “hard -times,” and to expect an improvement before long, since the country -has recovered from a panic about every twenty years for the past -century. They do not understand that the measure of recovery they hope -for is now impossible. How many Americans, I wonder, have stopped to -ask themselves why this country has suffered from <i>uninterrupted</i> -economic “depression,” with the exception of the war-period, ever -since the panic of 1907? What they regard as depression is really the -normal result of complete land-monopoly and high tariffs. Prices have -continued to rise since the war; which is to say that real wages have -fallen.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16">[16]</a> According to Herriot, children form the wealth of savage -tribes.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17">[17]</a> The first passage I have quoted is from “Love and -Marriage”; the other two I have taken from Miss Key’s “The Younger -Generation,” simply because I found the ideas they contain somewhat -more clearly and definitely expressed in that book than in the other.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18">[18]</a> Franz Oppenheimer, Theorie der Reinen und Politischen -Œkonomie. Berlin, 1912.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19">[19]</a> For a striking and characteristic example of this -ineptitude, I refer my readers to Dr. Havelock Ellis’s little book, -“Eugenics Made Plain.”</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span></p> - -<h2><span>CHAPTER IV</span> <span class="smaller">WOMAN AND MARRIAGE</span></h2> - -<h3>I</h3> - -<p>Perhaps the most pronounced conventional distinction between the sexes -is made in their relation to marriage. For man, marriage is regarded as -a state; for woman, as a vocation. For man, it is a means of ordering -his life and perpetuating his name, for woman it is considered a proper -and fitting aim of existence. This conventional view is yielding before -the changing attitude of women toward themselves; but it will be long -before it ceases to colour the instinctive attitude of the great -majority of people toward women. It is because of the usual assumption -that marriage is woman’s special province, that I have discussed its -general aspect somewhat at length before considering its relation to -women in particular. This assumption, I may remark, has been justified -expressly or by implication by all those advocates of freedom for -women who have assured the world that woman’s “mission”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> of wifehood -and motherhood would be better fulfilled rather than worse through an -extension of her rights. If we imagine the signers of the Declaration -of Independence, in place of proclaiming the natural right of all men -to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, arguing with King -George that a little more freedom would make them better husbands and -fathers, we shall imagine a pretty exact parallel for this kind of -argument on behalf of the emancipation of women.</p> - -<p>The belief that marriage and parenthood are the especial concern of -women is rooted in the idea that the individual exists for the sake of -the species. Biologically, this is of course true; but it is equally -true of male and female. Among primitive peoples, where individuation -has not progressed as far as among more highly civilized peoples, this -idea still prevails in regard to both sexes. Among these peoples the -man who must remain unmarried and childless is considered quite as -unfortunate as the woman who suffers the same fate. Among civilized -peoples, on the other hand, where individuation has progressed -farthest, it is not usual to look upon the male as existing solely -for the species; but it is usual for the female to be so <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span>regarded, -because, having had less freedom than the male, she has not been -able to assert to the same extent her right to live for herself. The -one-sided view that the future of the race depends solely on women -has curious results: a nation may send the best of its male youth -to be destroyed in war without overmuch anxiety being manifested in -any quarter over the effect of this wholesale slaughter upon future -generations; but if the idea of enlisting women in military service -be so much as broached, there is an immediate outcry about the danger -to posterity that such a course would involve. Yet it requires only a -moderate exercise of intelligence to perceive that if there must be -periodic slaughter it would be better, both for the survivors and for -posterity, if the sexes were to be slaughtered in equal numbers; and -more especially is this true, for obvious reasons, where monogamy is -the accepted form of marriage. Again, although it is extremely hard to -get laws passed to protect men from the hazards of industry, the laws -designed to protect women—<i>i.e.</i>, posterity—which have been passed -at the instance of reformers and social workers, already constitute a -serious handicap to women workers in their necessary competition with -men in the labour-market.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> Yet every child must have two parents, and -certainly unfitness or disability in the father must have a bad effect -upon his offspring, even though it be less harmful than unfitness or -disability in the mother.</p> - -<p>The view of woman as a biological function might be strongly defended -on the ground of racial strength if that function were respected and -she were free in discharging it. But it is not respected and she is -not free. The same restrictions that have kept her in the status -of a function have denied her freedom and proper respect even in -the exercise of that function. Motherhood, to be sure, receives a -great deal of sentimental adulation, but only if it is committed in -accordance with rules which have been prescribed by a predominantly -masculine society. <i>Per se</i> it is accorded no respect whatever. When -it results from a sexual relationship which has been duly sanctioned -by organized society, it is holy, no matter how much it may transgress -the rules of decency, health, or common sense. Otherwise it is a sin -meriting social ostracism for the mother and obloquy for the child—an -ostracism and an obloquy, significantly enough, in which the father -does not share.</p> - -<p>The motives behind the universal condemnation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> of extra-legal -motherhood are various and complex; but I believe it is safe to say -that the strongest is masculine jealousy. Motherhood out of wedlock -constitutes a defiance of that theory of male proprietorship on which -most societies are based; it implies on the part of woman a seizure -of sexual freedom which, if it were countenanced, would threaten the -long-established dominance of the male in sexual matters, a dominance -which has been enforced by imposing all manner of unnatural social and -legal disabilities upon women, such, for example, as the demand for -virginity before marriage and chastity after it. The woman who bears -an illegitimate child violates one of these two restrictions. On the -other hand, the man who begets an illegitimate child violates no such -restriction, for society demands of him neither virginity nor chastity; -therefore he is not only not punished by social ostracism, but he is -often protected by law from being found out.<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20">[20]</a></p> - -<p>The fact that paternity may so easily be doubtful furnishes a strong -motive for the attempt to enforce<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> chastity upon women; but that this -is not so potent as the idea of male proprietorship is evident from -the practice which exists in many primitive societies, and appears -formerly to have existed in Europe, of lending wives to visitors, as a -mark of hospitality. Adultery thus imposed on a woman by her husband -is not only regarded as quite proper, but the children that may result -are considered his legitimate offspring. The superstitious notion -that a woman’s honour is a matter of sex, and that she can not be -considered virtuous if her sex-life is not conducted in accordance with -regulations imposed by organized society, also has something to do with -the disgrace that attaches to illegitimate motherhood; but of course -this superstition itself has its source in masculine dominance. Indeed, -there is no need to emphasize the fact that the whole mass of taboo and -discrimination arrayed against the unwedded mother and her child is the -direct result of the subjection of women; for in a society where women -dominated—or even where they were the equals of men—illegitimacy -would either not exist at all, or its consequences would be made to -bear either upon the father or upon both parents equally. This may -seem an extravagant statement in view of the harshness with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> which -women themselves are prone to treat the unmarried mother. But it should -not be forgotten that women are what the procrustean adaptations of a -factitious morality have made them. They have been taught to believe -that motherhood out of wedlock is a cardinal sin, and the value and -fragility of reputation have been effective hindrances to any impulse -of lenience toward the sinner. Their attitude, moreover, has been -tinged with a feeling that may be termed professional. Marriage has -been, generally speaking, the only profession open to them; their -living and their social position have depended on it, and still do in -great measure; therefore the woman who commits a sexual irregularity -acts unprofessionally, somewhat as the trader who smuggles wares into -a tariff ridden country and undercuts his competitors. The position -of the unmarried mother is analogous to that of the married mother -in certain societies of which I have already spoken, whose children -are considered illegitimate because she has not been bought. Even the -prostitute, although she is a social outcast, is sooner tolerated, -because while prostitution, like marriage, has been established on a -commercial basis, it is a non-competing institution. It does not impair -the economic value of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> “virtuous” woman’s chief asset. Prostitution -is condoned as a protective concession to the postulated sexual needs -of men; the prostitute has been justified, and even praised in a -back-handed way, as “the most efficient guardian of virtue”;<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21">[21]</a> that -is to say, of the arbitrary restraints on women which pass for virtue -in a society where woman is the repository of morality. Illegitimacy, -on the other hand, or at least that large share of it which implies a -fall from conventional virtue, is an embarrassing suggestion of sexual -need in woman. Therefore, it is a disturbing phenomenon, intimating -as it does to virtuous women that the duplex morality to which their -freedom is sacrificed is unnatural and unworkable.</p> - -<p>There is a sense, of course, in which extra-legal motherhood is, if -not sinful, at least unjust. The mother knows that the child she bears -out of wedlock will be forced, although innocent, to share with her -in the world’s displeasure at her defiance of conventional taboo, -and that the sneers of its legitimately born playmates may have a -blighting effect upon its spiritual development. She knows also, -unless she be well-to-do or especially well qualified<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> to earn, that -her child will be at a disadvantage from the start in the matter of -livelihood and education unless the father be willing—or required -by law—to contribute to its support. There is likely to be a grim -consistency in legal injustices. Sometimes the denial of one right -makes expedient the denial of another, as when the poor, having been -reduced by legalized privilege to want and squalor, are legally -deprived of the alcohol with which they increase their wretchedness -in an attempt to find forgetfulness of their misery. The denial to -women of economic opportunity has made expedient denial of freedom in -performing the function of motherhood. Men, having enjoyed a virtual -monopoly of earning power, have been regarded as the natural providers -for women and children; therefore a woman has been required to get -a legal provider before she could legally get a child; and if one -accepted her legal disabilities without questioning their justice, -this restraint might appear quite justifiable. This may be taken as an -argument for weakness or wantonness in the unmarried mother. If so, it -must certainly apply with equal force to the unmarried father—with -double force indeed, for he knows that his act will not only add to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span>difficulties, numerous enough under the best circumstances, that his -child will have to contend with, but that it means social ostracism for -the mother. Thus every illegitimate child, as society is at present -constituted, is the victim not only of social but of parental injustice.</p> - -<p>It is hardly necessary to discuss further the economic aspects of -the question. In a society where economic opportunity is pretty well -monopolized by men, the task of the mother with children to support -is, as I have shown in the preceding chapter, extremely difficult; and -it may even be rendered impossible where the disgrace of unmarried -motherhood decreases such comparatively slight opportunity as industry, -even now, offers a woman. The effect of this disability shows clearly -in any comparison of the death-rates among legitimate and illegitimate -babies. The rate among illegitimate children is often twice as high as -that among children born in wedlock. Truly marriage is an invaluable -protection to motherhood and childhood in a society which denies them -any other.</p> - -<p>Instead of joining in the universal condemnation of illegitimacy, it -seems more reasonable to question the ethics of a society which permits -it to exist.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> Certainly no social usage could be more degrading to -women as mothers of the race than that which makes it a sin to bear -a child; and nothing could be more grotesquely unjust than a code of -morals, reinforced by laws, which relieves men from responsibility -for irregular sexual acts, and for the same acts drives women to -abortion, infanticide, prostitution and self-destruction. I know of -no word that may be said in justification of such a code or of a -society that tolerates it. As marriage ceases to be a vested interest -with women, and as their growing freedom enables them to perceive the -insult to their humanity that this kind of morality involves, they -will refuse to stand for it. Those who prefer to regard woman as a -function will devote their energy to securing conditions under which -she may bear and bring up children with a greater degree of freedom and -self-respect than conventional morality allows her. As for those who -prefer to regard her as a human being, they will naturally demand the -abolition of all discriminations based on sex; while all women must -certainly repudiate the barbarous injustice of organized society to the -illegitimate child.</p> - -<p>This is hardly to be regarded as a prophecy, for the revolt has already -begun. A small minority of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> women in Europe have for some time been -denouncing this injustice, the most prominent among them being the -famous Swedish champion of childhood, Ellen Key. Their influence -has already been reflected in the laws of several countries. In -Scandinavia, in Switzerland, and even in France, laws have already -been enacted either removing or modifying the legal disabilities of -the child born out of wedlock, and fixing the responsibilities of the -father. There are similar laws in Australia and New Zealand. These -laws vary in scope, but their general tendency is toward the abolition -of illegitimacy and recognition of joint parental responsibility for -every child brought into the world. In this country, where unjust -legal discriminations against unmarried mothers and their children are -still in force, the Woman’s Party is demanding laws recognizing every -child as legitimate, and determining the responsibilities of unmarried -parents. The abolition of illegitimacy will naturally mean that the -child of unmarried parents will have the same right to the father’s -name, and to support and inheritance, as the child born in wedlock.</p> - -<p>There is a general impression, to which I have adverted, that marriage -is a great protection to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> women. Bachofen and his followers even went -so far as to suppose that she herself originally devised it for that -purpose. This school quite overlooked the fact that in so far as it has -been a protection it has been so only because society has been inimical -to her interests, and has allowed her no other defence against itself. -Marriage has certainly not protected her in the past from hard labour, -cruelty, and mental and spiritual deterioration. In spite of these -well-known facts, the notion persists that it is of inestimable benefit -to her; and those influenced by this superstition are likely to fear -that to abolish illegitimacy, with its humiliating consequences, will -be to encourage “free love” and thus to expose women to victimization -by unscrupulous men. Such a view not only carries an untenable -assumption of feminine inferiority, but it carries an equally untenable -assumption that marriage constitutes a protection against victimization -by unscrupulous men. Not only did our marriage-laws until recently give -a woman into the absolute power of her husband, however unscrupulous he -might be, but they left her no way of escape. On the other hand, they -protected the husband’s sexual monopoly of his wife and his right to be -considered the only legal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> parent of their children. Indeed, the law -has gone further; it has exposed women to victimization by protecting -men from detection in illegitimate parentage. Laws equalizing the -responsibilities of men and women towards illegitimate children, will -reduce temptation to unscrupulous conduct, for men will be aware -that if it result in the birth of a child they will be obliged to -acknowledge their parenthood and assume the attendant responsibilities.</p> - -<p>I might remark here that some communities have tried to deal with -this question in what seems to me a very bungling manner, namely: by -forcing the “seducer” of a woman under the legal age of consent to -choose between marrying her and going to jail. Such laws represent -concessions to traditional prejudices, and have little relation either -to justice or common sense. They take no cognizance of the inclination -of the parties or their fitness for marriage; hence they afford a -stupid way of legitimizing the child. It would be much more sensible to -regard every child as legitimate by the very fact of having arrived in -the world, and to demand of its parents a full discharge of parental -responsibility, without complicating it with the very different -question of marital obligations. Another legal <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span>provision which is as -general as it is humiliating to women is that which permits a father to -recover damages from the seducer of his daughter. This law, which is in -force in several of our States, is supposed to find justification in -the daughter’s status as a servant in her father’s house; but since the -law grants him no similar redress for the seduction of a servant who is -not his daughter, it is evident that its real basis is in a surviving -notion of woman as the natural property of a male owner. These laws do -not lessen the disgrace that attaches to extra-legal birth; rather they -recognize and endorse it.</p> - -<p>The importance of abolishing illegitimacy is not to be underrated, -for it means the removal of the legal sanctions which have enforced a -barbarous custom. But the abolition of illegitimacy can not be expected -entirely to remove the stigma attaching to unmarried motherhood and -birth out of wedlock. That will disappear only when the economic -independence of women shall have resulted in a spiritual independence -which will lead them to examine critically the social dogmas that -have been forced upon them, and to repudiate those which conflict -with justice. In other words, it will involve an <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span>adaptation to more -humane ethical standards; an adaptation which has begun but may be -long in reaching completion, for superstition and taboo are not easily -eradicated.</p> - -<h3>II</h3> - -<p>The assumption that justice to motherhood and childhood will undermine -the institution of marriage implies that marriage as an institution -is based on injustice; which is to assume that it is fundamentally -unsound. That it does, under present economic conditions, involve -serious injustice to both sexes I have shown in the preceding chapter. -But this notion implies something more: it implies that marriage is -acceptable to women only or chiefly because it offers them a position -of privilege—the privilege of exemption from the social and economic -consequences of illegitimate motherhood. There is some show of reason -in this; for the disabilities which marriage puts on women are in -most communities humiliating and onerous, more particularly since the -unmarried woman has so generally succeeded in establishing her right -to be treated as a free agent. The abolition of illegitimacy may<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> -conceivably undermine institutional marriage; yet hardly before women -are economically free. For her need of society’s protection against -itself in the discharge of her maternal function has certainly had -less to do with woman’s long acquiescence in the disabilities which -marriage involves than the fact that marriage offered the only career -which society approved for her or gave her much opportunity to pursue. -She was under enormous economic and social pressure to accept those -disabilities, and she yielded, precisely as thousands of men who have -been under analogous pressure to get their living under humiliating -conditions, have yielded, rather than not get it at all.</p> - -<p>Since we have been discussing unmarried motherhood, we may -appropriately begin our consideration of these disabilities by -examining the status of motherhood in marriage. The married mother, -particularly in modern times, is the object of a sickly pawing and -adulation and enjoys a certain formal respect—not, however, as a -mother, but as a mother of legitimate children. While she continues -to live with her husband, she may exercise considerable supervision -over the rearing of her offspring; indeed in some communities she -is, by force of <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span>custom, supreme in this province. But in case of -separation or the death of her husband, she may find herself without -any legal claim to their guardianship or custody, for until recently -children born in wedlock have been generally held to belong exclusively -to the father. The principle of joint guardianship is coming to be -recognized in modern jurisprudence, but there are communities where -the old laws still hold. In Virginia, for example, the father’s claim -is always preferred to that of the mother. In Maryland and Delaware -it is preferred to such an extent that he may even, by his will, -deprive her of the guardianship and custody of her children after -his death. This provision is a survival from English common law, and -is a logical correlative of woman’s status under that law, which was -that of a minor. Her position with regard to her children was one -of responsibilities with no compensating rights; and although the -discriminations against her have been modified here and there, this -is still pretty generally her position. In this respect the unmarried -mother is better off than the mother of legitimate children, for in -most countries, as the only legal parent of her child, she exercises -the right of guardianship and control and possesses full<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> claim to -their services and earnings. The unmarried mother, in a word, bears her -own children; the married mother bears the children of her husband.</p> - -<p>Usage, as every one knows, is far ahead of the laws governing the -rights of the married mother. In France, where her legal position is -notoriously bad, her relation to her family is nevertheless one of -influence and authority. In this country also her actual position is -generally far better than that allowed her by the law. But this is -merely to say that most husbands are more humane than the law; and the -fact may not be ignored that so long as legal discriminations bar her -from an equal share with her husband in the control and guardianship of -her children, she exercises parental rights only on sufferance. It is -the law which finally fixes her status in this as in other matters; and -as long as she may legally be made to suffer injustice on account of -her sex, she can hardly be called her husband’s equal, no matter what -privileges she may enjoy by virtue of his indulgence.</p> - -<p>So much for the disabilities of the married mother. Her compensations -are the immunity that marriage affords her from society’s displeasure -and consequent persecution; the inestimable advantage<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> of her husband’s -co-operation in making a home for her children, and in rearing and -educating them; and the fact that they have a legal claim upon him for -support and inheritance.</p> - -<p>Her own claim for support does not depend, in law, upon her motherhood, -but upon her wifehood. She is entitled to support whether she has -children or not. On the other hand the law, in most communities, allows -her nothing more than mere support, while at the same time it maintains -certain restrictions upon her economic independence. Although most -States now allow the wife to control her own earnings in industry, her -services in the home are still pretty generally her husband’s property, -and any savings that result from economy in her domestic management -belong to him, and so does any money earned by her in her own house, -as from taking in boarders or lodgers. In short, while she works in -the home her status is that of her husband’s servant<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22">[22]</a>. He may even, -as in Michigan, still prevent her from undertaking employment outside -the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> home, simply by withholding his consent. Nor is this the only -way in which the opportunities of a married woman are restricted. She -is frequently disqualified by her status for engaging in business on -her own account, or for doing so without her husband’s consent. She -may also be disqualified by law or prejudice for engaging in certain -professions, such as teaching, an occupation in which, strangely -enough, a married woman is frequently held to be incapable.</p> - -<p>The claim for alimony which at present constitutes such a fecund source -of injustice to men and corruption among women, implies the assumption -that a woman is economically helpless, that she is a natural dependent -whose support, having been undertaken by her husband, must be continued -even after divorce, until she dies or finds another husband to support -her. It does not take into account the woman’s rightful claim to any -property that she may have helped her husband to accumulate, for -the question whether or not she shall receive alimony is within the -discretion of the court. On the other hand, the awarding of alimony may -give a woman a claim to income from property possessed by her husband -before marriage and therefore not <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span>rightfully to be enjoyed by her; it -may, furthermore, give her an equally unjustifiable lien on his future -earnings. Thus it allows women at once too little and too much. If the -community is to continue to fix the economic obligations which marriage -shall entail, it might be fairer to both sexes if those obligations -were fixed as they have been in certain of our Western States. In -those States, property acquired during marriage is regarded as common -property, and in case of separation must be divided equally. Neither -party may, during the marriage, dispose of such property without -consent of the other; nor may either party dispose of more than half -of it by will. On the other hand, either party has free disposal of -property acquired before marriage, or inherited during marriage. In -case one party dies intestate, the other shares equally with children -in his or her half of the common property, and in other property. Thus -the law raises woman above the status of a dependent and recognizes -marriage as an equal partnership. Such laws, of course, do not fit -all cases, for all marriages are by no means equal partnerships; but -so long as the State insists upon maintaining a blanket-regulation of -the marital relation, some such arrangement would seem to be more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> -nearly just, both to men and women, than the laws now in force in most -communities.</p> - -<p>I have given only a partial list of the economic disabilities enforced -upon a good many millions of married women. Their status in the various -countries of the civilized world ranges all the way from complete -subjection to their husbands to complete equality with them<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23">[23]</a>. The -subjection of women, like all slavery, has been enforced by legally -established economic disadvantages; and upon the married woman these -disadvantages, or some of them, are still binding in most communities. -The law deprived her of the right to her own property and her own -labour, and in return gave her a claim upon her husband for bare -subsistence, which is the claim of a serf. Since woman’s partial -emergence from her subjection, and the consequent modification of the -discriminations against her, laws which were logical and effective when -her status was that of a chattel have been allowed to survive other -laws which made them necessary. The result is a grotesque hodge-podge -of illogical and contradictory provisions which involve injustice to -both sexes, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> should be abolished by the simple expedient of making -men and women equal in all respects before the law, and sweeping away -all legal claims which they now exercise against one another by virtue -of the marriage-bond.</p> - -<p>This would mean, of course, that a woman might no longer legally claim -support from her husband by virtue of her wifehood; nor should she -in fairness be able to do so when all his claims to her property and -services had been abolished. There is no reason why the disabilities -which marriage imposes on women should be done away with and those -which it imposes on men retained. To take such a course would be to -turn the tables and place women in a position of privilege. The fact -that women are still at considerable disadvantage in the industrial -world might appear to justify such a position; but there is a better -way of dealing with their economic handicaps than the way of penalizing -husbands and demoralizing a large number of women by degrading -marriage, for them, to the level of a means of livelihood, gained -sometimes through virtual blackmail. Given complete equality of the -sexes, so that prejudice may no longer avail itself of legal sanction -for excluding women from the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> occupations in which they may elect -to engage, the economic handicaps from which they may still suffer -will be those resulting from the overcrowded condition of the general -labour-market. The ultimate emancipation of woman, then, will depend -not upon the abolition of the restrictions which have subjected her -to man—that is but a step, though a necessary one—but upon <i>the -abolition of all those restrictions of natural human rights that -subject the mass of humanity to a privileged class</i>.</p> - -<p>This phase of woman’s problem is the main thesis of my book; and since -it will come in for detailed consideration in subsequent chapters, I -leave it for the present and proceed to discuss some probable results -of sex-equality and the removal of legal claims which marriage now -gives husband and wife against one another.</p> - -<p>The wife would no longer be humiliated by the assumption that as a -married woman she is the natural inferior of her husband, and entitled -to society’s protection against the extreme results of the disabilities -that her status involves. If she became his housekeeper, she would -do so by free choice, and not because her services were his legal -property; and her resultant claim on his purse would be fixed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> by -mutual arrangement rather than by laws allowing her the claims of a -serf. The marriage, if it became an economic partnership, would be -so by mutual consent and arrangement, and would thus no longer be a -one-sided contract, legally defined, in which all the rights were on -the side of the husband, but compensated in too many cases by unjust -privileges on that of the wife. At the same time, the temptation to -marry for economic security or ease would be lessened. This temptation -besets both men and women, though not in the same degree, because men, -through the economic advantage enjoyed by their sex, are oftener in -a position of ease than women are. It is the temptation, arising out -of man’s natural desire to gratify his needs with the least possible -exertion, to live by the means of others rather than by one’s own -labour. Its gratification through marriage would not be rendered -impossible by the mere abolition of coercive laws governing the -marriage relation; but at least its cruder manifestations, such as the -frequent attempts of unscrupulous or demoralized women to use marriage -for purposes of extortion, would no longer assail the nostrils of the -public. Its reduction to a minimum must await<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> the establishment of an -economic order under which self-support will be easy and certain.</p> - -<p>More general and binding, even, than the economic obligations that -marriage entails are the personal claims that it creates. In so far -as these claims are psychological—those of affection and habit, or -attachment to children—their regulation and abrogation will always -afford a problem which must be solved by the two persons concerned. -There is at present a strong tendency to equalize the incidence of the -laws whereby the State defines these relations and imposes them on -married people. The old assumption of feminine inferiority in sexual -rights is gradually yielding to a single standard for both sexes. So, -also, the requirement that the wife shall in all matters subordinate -her will and judgment to the will and judgment of her husband, tends to -be modified by the new view of woman as a free agent rather than a mere -adjunct to man. Qualifications for marriage and grounds for divorce -tend to become the same for both sexes as the State is forced to -relinquish its right to regard as offences in one sex actions which it -does not recognize as offences in the other. It would appear, indeed, -that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> the time is not far distant when the marriage-law, however -humiliating its provisions may be, will bear equally on men and women.</p> - -<p>But mere equalization of the law’s incidence leaves untouched the -previous question whether any third person—and the State assumes the -rôle of a third person—has a legitimate right to define and regulate -the personal relations of adult and presumably mature people. So -long as the basic assumption goes unchallenged that the State may -grant to man and woman lifelong monopoly-rights in one another, or -monopoly-rights which shall endure, despite the inclination of the -persons concerned, during the State’s pleasure, so long will complaints -of harsh or unjust marriage or divorce laws prove the truth of Mill’s -dictum that “no enslaved class ever asked for complete liberty at once -... those who are under any power of ancient origin, never begin by -complaining of the power itself, but only of its oppressive exercise.” -Marriage under conditions arbitrarily fixed by an external agency is -slavery; and if we allow the right of an external agency—be it State, -family, or community—to place marriage in so degrading a position, we -necessarily deny the freedom of the individual in this most intimate -of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> relationships, and put ourselves in the position of petitioners for -privilege when we sue for an improvement in the rules to which we have -subjected ourselves.</p> - -<p>When this fundamental fact is borne in mind, it becomes at once -apparent that marriage will gain in dignity through the abolition -of all legal sanction upon the personal claims that it involves. In -a community which had renounced all claim to prescribe legally the -nature of the marriage-bond, its duration, and the manner of its -observance, there would be no washing of soiled domestic linen in the -squalid publicity of courtrooms and newspaper-columns; no arbitration -of noisy domestic differences by judges whose only qualification for -the office is that they have had enough political influence to get -themselves elected; none of the demoralizing consequences that the -sense of proprietorship in one another has on the dispositions of -married people. Marriage might still be publicly registered; it would -no longer be publicly regulated. Its regulation would be left to the -people whom it concerned, as it properly should be and safely could -be; for as Mill remarked, “the modern conviction, the fruit of a -thousand years experience, is that things in which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> the individual is -the person directly interested, never go right but as they are left to -his own discretion, and that any regulation of them by authority, save -to protect the rights of others, is sure to be mischievous.” The only -way to protect married people against the bad faith which one may show -toward the other, is to leave the door wide open for either of them -to be quit of the union the minute it ceases to be satisfactory. If -society for any reason sees fit to close the door to freedom, it sets -union by law above the union by affection on which alone true marriage -is based; and in so doing it is responsible for an amount of injustice, -spiritual conflict, and suffering which no attempt at equitable -regulation can ever compensate. Such attempts are in reality mere -efforts to adjust the marriage-relation to the fundamental injustice of -the marriage-law.</p> - -<p>Perhaps the most serious objection to the union by law is that it is -so often an effective barrier against the union by affection; for the -union by law complicates marriage with a great many uses that are not -properly germane to it; such as the custom of taking on one another’s -family and friends, and the setting up of a common menage where this -most intimate and delicate of relationships is maintained in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> a trying -semi-publicity under the critical and unwavering scrutiny of relatives -and friends. The influence of the expected extends to the regulation of -the menage and the division of labour. A lover would hardly, perhaps, -require his mistress to darn his socks; but if she became his wife -he would probably yield to the immemorial expectation that a married -woman shall do her husband’s mending. So, likewise, a woman may refuse -to accept support from her lover so long as he is only her lover, and -accept it as a matter of course when the union has been legalized. All -conventional uses have a purely fortuitous and incidental connexion -with marriage; yet they often fret it into failure. As Jane Littell -remarked not long ago in the <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, “being friends with -someone to whom the law binds one is not so easy as it sounds.” This -is especially true where the law assumes a natural inferiority in one -party to the contract, as it almost universally does.</p> - -<p>I have not forgotten the children. One could hardly do so in an age -when sentimentalism offers them as the final and unanswerable reason -for continuing to tolerate the injustice involved in institutionalized -marriage. But the very fact that it is the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> sentimentalist who thus -defends established abuses is in itself enough to warrant considerable -wariness in dealing with his arguments; for when the defenders of any -cause have recourse to sentimentality, it is likely to be for want -of solid ground under their feet, or in order to obscure a doubtful -ulterior motive. Sentimentalism is a sugar coating on the pill of -things as they are, which makes it easier for many people to swallow -it than to contemplate a dose which is at once more salutary and more -formidable, namely: things as they ought to be. When one hears the -sentimentalist proclaiming the sacredness of marriage, one may agree -with him; but at the same time one must wonder what kind of marriage -he means; whether it is the ceremony performed by a minister or a -magistrate, or the union which two people have made sacred through -mutual respect, confidence and love. Such marriages as this last have -sometimes been without benefit of clergy—Would these be as sacred to -the sentimentalist as the marriage which has been sanctified only in -law? Again, when one listens to the good old saws about the glory of -motherhood, one may be interested to know the conditions under which -it is proposed to call it glorious; and when domesticity is held up -to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> admiration as woman’s natural vocation, one wonders whether the -sponsor of domesticity is willing to put his argument to the test -by leaving her free to choose that vocation or not, as she will, or -whether his praise is a mere preface to the demand that she be forced -into this natural vocation by the method of denying her an alternative. -So, likewise, when one hears the argument that marriage should be -indissoluble for the sake of children, one cannot help wondering -whether the protagonist is really such a firm friend of childhood, -or whether his concern for the welfare of children is merely so much -protective coloration for a constitutional and superstitious fear of -change.</p> - -<p>Children are really as helpless as women have always been held to be; -and in their case the reason is not merely supposition. Woman was -supposed to be undeveloped man. The child <i>is</i> undeveloped man or -woman; and because of its lack of development it needs protection. To -place it in the absolute power of its parents as its natural protectors -and assume that its interests will invariably be well guarded, would -be as cruel as was the assumption that a woman rendered legally and -economically helpless and delivered over to a husband or other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> male -guardian, was sure of humane treatment. No human being, man, woman, or -child, may safely be entrusted to the power of another; for no human -being may safely be trusted with absolute power. It is fair, therefore, -that in the case of those whose physical or mental immaturity renders -them comparatively helpless, there should be a watchful third person -who from the vantage-point of a disinterested neutrality may detect -and stop any infringement of their rights by their guardians, be they -parents or other people. Here then, is a legitimate office for the -community: to arbitrate, in the interest of justice, between children -and their guardians.</p> - -<p>But the community has a more direct and less disinterested concern in -the welfare of children: every child is a potential power for good or -ill; what its children become, that will the community become. It is -knowledge of this that prompts the establishment of public schools -and colleges, and all the manifold associational activities intended -to promote the physical and spiritual welfare of children. It is back -of the mothers’ pension system, which is properly, as the Children’s -Bureau insists, a system of assistance for children. From all this -activity it is only a step to the assumption by the community<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> of -entire responsibility for the upbringing and education of every child. -This idea has some advocates; it is a perfectly logical corollary -of the modern conception of the child’s relation to the community. -Yet it invites a wary and conditional acceptance. It is fair that -the community should assume the burden of the child’s support and -education, particularly so long as the community sanctions an economic -system which makes this burden too heavy for the great majority of -parents, and a political system which may force male children to -sacrifice their lives in war as soon as parents have completed the task -of bringing them up. But the advisibility of accomplishing this purpose -through the substitution of institutionalized care for parental care -is more than a little doubtful; for to institutionalize means in great -degree to mechanize. To establish such a system and make it obligatory, -would be to remove many children from the custody of parents entirely -unfitted to bring them up; but it would likewise involve the removal -of many children from the custody of parents eminently well fitted for -such a responsibility. It would imply an assumption that the people who -might be engaged to substitute for parents would be better qualified<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> -for their task than the parents themselves; and such an assumption -would be dangerous so long as the work of educators continues to be as -little respected and as poorly paid as it now is. Moreover, so long as -society remains organized in the exploiting State, the opportunity to -corrupt young minds and turn out rubber-stamp patriots would be much -greater than that which is now afforded by the public school system, -whose influence intelligent parents are sometimes able to neutralize.</p> - -<p>Perhaps the best argument against such a system is that it would not -work. If experience teaches anything, it is that what the community -undertakes to do is usually done badly. This is due in part to the -temptation to corruption that such enterprises involve, but even -more, perhaps, to the lack of personal interest on the part of those -engaged in them. Those people who advocate bringing up children in -institutions do not take into account the value of parental interest in -the child; nor do they respect the parental affection which would cause -many parents to suffer keenly if they were forced to part with their -children. The family is by no means always the best milieu for young -people; but before we seek to substitute a dubious institutionalism, -it would be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> wise to ascertain whether the change is imperative. In -a matter which touches, as this one does, the most profound human -instincts, there is need to observe Lord Falkland’s dictum that “where -it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” As I -have shown in the preceding chapter, parents are at present under heavy -economic handicaps in discharging their parental duties, handicaps -which not only render those duties a heavy burden, but lengthen -inordinately the period for which they must be undertaken. Until those -handicaps are removed, it will not be fair to say that the family is a -failure; and until they are removed, we may be certain that any other -institution charged with the care of the young will be a failure, for -it will be filled with people who are there less because of their -understanding of children and their peculiar fitness to rear them, than -because such work offers an avenue of escape from starvation.</p> - -<p>These same considerations apply to the argument that the rearing of -children should be institutionalized in order to emancipate women -from the immemorial burden of “woman’s work.” There is a simpler way -of dealing with this problem, a way which eliminates an element that -dooms to failure<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> any scheme of human affairs in which it is involved, -namely: the element of coercion. To contend that all mothers should be -forced to devote themselves exclusively to the rearing of children, -or that they should be forcibly relieved of this responsibility, is -to ignore the right of the individual to free choice in personal -matters. There is no relation more intimately personal than that of -parents to the child they have brought into the world; and there is -therefore no relationship in which the community should be slower to -interfere. This is a principle universally recognized: the community -at present interferes only when the interest of the child, or that of -the community in the child, is obviously suffering. The emancipation -of women by no means necessitates the abandonment of this principle. -It necessitates nothing more than a guarantee to women of free -choice either to undertake themselves the actual work of caring for -their children, or to delegate that work to others. There is nothing -revolutionary about this: well-to-do parents have always exercised -this choice. In mediaeval Europe people of the upper classes regularly -sent their children to be brought up by other people, and took the -children of other people into their own houses. In Renaissance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span> Italy -the wealthy urban dwellers, almost as soon as their children were born, -sent them out of the plague-infested cities to nurse with peasants. In -modern times people who can afford it often place their children in -boarding schools at an early age, and keep them at home only during -vacations—when they do not place them in camps. Under a system of -free economic opportunity all people, instead of a few, would have -this alternative to rearing their children at home, for they would all -be able to afford it. Even under the present economic order it would -be possible if the system of children’s assistance were extended to -include every child, whether the parents were living or not. But under -a system of free opportunity there would be greater certainty that the -child would not suffer through separation from its parents; for the -paid educator would be in his position because it interested him. If -it did not, he would take advantage of the opportunity, freely open to -him, to do something that did.</p> - -<p>So long as responsibility for the care and support of children -continues to be vested in the parents, so long, for the sake of the -child, will it be the duty of society to insist that parents shall not -neglect this responsibility. But when society had renounced<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> all claim -to regulate the affairs of married people, it would content itself -with holding all parents, married or unmarried, jointly liable for -the support and care of their children. If the parents were married, -then the apportioning of this burden between them would be arranged by -mutual agreement, and the community’s only interest in the contract -would be that of arbiter in case of a dispute between the parties, -precisely as in case of other contracts. To assume that the community’s -interest in children justifies its claim to “preserve the home” by -making marriage indissoluble or dissoluble only under humiliating -conditions, is to confuse issues. The practice of perpetuating -marriage merely for the sake of children defeats its own end; for -it is, far from being good for children, likely to be injurious to -them. It condemns them to be brought up in what Mr. Shaw has well -called a little private hell. For the home, as other critics than Mr. -Shaw have pointed out, is a proper place for children only when it -provides harmonious conditions for their development; and harmony is -not characteristic of homes where mutual love and confidence no longer -exist between the parents. The demand that the freedom and happiness -of parents<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span> shall be sacrificed to the so-called interest of the child -is in reality a demand that injustice shall be done one person for -the sake of another; and where this demand is effective it serves no -end but that of frustration and discord, as might be expected. It is -far better, as modern society is coming to realize, for the community -to content itself with insisting upon the discharge of parental -responsibility, without prescribing too minutely the conditions under -which it shall be done.</p> - -<p>It is not, perhaps, so much a concern for the preservation of the home -that makes people afraid of divorce, as it is for other time-honoured -concepts; such, for instance, as the idea that marriage is a sacrament, -that it is made in heaven and is therefore indissoluble in this world. -Curiously enough, this idea of the essential holiness and consequent -indissolubility of the marriage-bond has coexisted in Christian society -with the most cold-blooded practice of marrying for convenience, for -money, for social prestige, for place and power, for everything that -ignores or negates the spiritual element in sexual union. The marriage -arranged for social or mercenary reasons by the families of the -contracting parties, who might not even meet before the wedding-day, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span>was as sacred as if it had been founded upon an intimate acquaintance -and tender passion between them. Thus was utilitarianism invested -with a spurious holiness. Small wonder that a mediaeval court of love -denied the possibility of romantic attachment between husband and -wife. The Church, to be sure, introduced the principle of free consent -of the contracting parties; but so long as the subjection of women -endured, there could be little more than a perfunctory regard for this -principle. There can be no real freedom of consent when the alternative -to an unwelcome marriage is the cloister or lifelong celibacy at the -mercy of relatives whose wishes and interests one has defied, in a -society where to be unmarried is, for a woman, to be nobody. A son, -because of the greater independence that his sex gave him, might -safely exercise some degree of choice in marrying. A daughter might -safely exercise none. As women have become more independent, and their -economic opportunities have increased, consent has become more closely -related to inclination, and in many places, notably the United States, -it is actually dependent upon inclination;<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24">[24]</a> but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> while women remain -at an economic disadvantage it is hardly to be expected that the -motives behind inclination and consent will always be entirely free -from an ignoble self-interest.</p> - -<p>So long as woman’s economic and social welfare was bound up with -marriage, indissoluble marriage undeniably offered her a certain -kind of protection. It did not, as I have remarked, protect her from -cruelty and infidelity on the part of her husband; but it generally -assured her of a living and a respected position in society—that is, -so long as she violated none of the conventional taboos against her -sex. Even now the chivalrous man often feels that he must endure an -unhappy marriage rather than cause his wife to incur the economic and -social consequences of divorce. He generally feels that her chance of -finding another husband to support her would be considerably worse than -his of getting another wife to support; a feeling which, considering -the relative desirability of supporting and being supported, will be -justified so long as it is considered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> tolerable for women to be an -economic dead weight on the shoulders of men.</p> - -<h3>III</h3> - -<p>The sanctions of monogamic marriage have been enforced on women -only. The Christian Church, after some indecision, finally decided -that indissoluble monogamy was the only allowable form of marriage; -and in theory it exacted from man and woman the same faithfulness -to the marriage-vows. Practically, of course, it did no such thing. -Being dominated by men, it eventually came to condone the sexual -irregularities of men, if it did not sanction them; but sexual -irregularity in the subject sex continued to be both theoretically -and practically intolerable. Woman became the repository of morality -in a society which regarded morality as chiefly a matter of sex. But -since she was at the same time the means of satisfying those sexual -needs which Christianity disparaged, she also bore the brunt of -social displeasure at violation of the ascetic creed. Womankind, as -I have already remarked, was divided into two classes: the virtuous -wives and cloistered virgins who embodied Christian morals;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> and -those unfortunate social outcasts who sold their bodies to gratify -un-Christian desires. The prostitute, the “companion” of the Greeks, -who had been in the Greek world the only educated woman, the only woman -who enjoyed comparative freedom, became in the Christian world a social -outcast, reviled and persecuted, a convenient scapegoat for man’s sins -of the flesh, who atoned vicariously by her misery for his failure to -live up to the Christian ideal of sexual purity. Nothing reflects more -discredit upon the dominance of the male under Christianity than the -fact that he took advantage of the economic helplessness which forced -millions of women to sell their sex for a living, and then persecuted -them outrageously because he had outrageously mistreated them. For -prostitution, however much it may reflect upon the morality and, more -especially, upon the taste, of men, has nothing whatever to do with the -morality of women. It is, with women, a question of economics, purely -and simply. The man who buys gratification of his sexual desire has at -least an option in the matter; he will not starve if he abstains; but -the woman who sells her body indiscriminately to any man who will buy, -does so because her need to earn a living for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> herself or her family -forces her to do violence to her natural selective sexual disposition.</p> - -<p>This economic pressure has been strikingly illustrated in Central -Europe since the war, where thousands of women of gentle breeding -have been literally driven to the streets by the compelling scourge -of want. The men upon whom these women in normal times would have -depended for a living had been either killed or incapacitated in the -war, or their power to earn had disappeared in the economic collapse -which followed. When men, in a society so organized as to give them -an economic advantage over women, can no longer earn enough to -maintain their dependents even at the subsistence-level, the chance -of women, for the most part untrained to breadwinning, to do so will -be poor indeed. Under such circumstances the woman thrown on her own -resources may, through some extraordinary stroke of luck, find a way to -self-sufficiency through labour; but more often she is obliged, after -her possessions have been disposed of, to take refuge from starvation -by selling the only marketable commodity that is left her—her sex. -Of course there is the alternative of starvation, which for herself -she may choose; but if this choice would involve starvation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> for her -children or other dependents she is likelier to choose prostitution, -precisely as so many German and Austrian mothers and daughters have -done. Mrs. O’Shaughnessy’s little story of Vienna after the war, -“Viennese Medley,” depicts a situation which is not untypical. A -middle-class Viennese family which had enjoyed a mediocre prosperity -before the war, is suffering, with all that suffering city, from the -nightmare of want that followed a savage peace. In the background, -unspoken of, the only ray of hope across the bleakness of their -extremity, moves the sister who sells her beauty to foreign officials -and native, war-made millionaires. It is she who, when the young -half-brother is struck by the dreaded plague of tuberculosis, sends -him to the mountains and health. It is she who helps the sister-in-law -to establish herself in trade, after the brilliant young surgeon, her -brother, has come back a nervous ruin from the war. It is she who -buries, with decent ceremony, the child of a sister whose husband, once -a distinguished professor, is now able to do little more than starve -with his numerous family. She even saves from want the young nobleman -whom she loves, and his family as well. Not every woman who has sold -herself in stricken <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span>Europe could command so high a price, but there is -no doubt that many of them stood between their suffering families and -death.</p> - -<p>War releases all that is brutal in man, and places woman in a -peculiarly helpless position; therefore it is a prolific immediate -source of prostitution. But the ultimate and permanent source is the -source of war itself, the economic exploitation of man by man. So long -as society is organized to protect the exploiter, so long will peace -be an incessant struggle—for more wealth with the privileged classes; -for existence with the exploited masses—and war will be, as it has -always been, merely a final explosion of the struggling forces. So long -as human beings may starve in the midst of plenty, so long will woman -be under temptation to sell the use of her body. She may prostitute -herself because she has literally no other way to get a living; she -may do so in order to eke out an insufficient wage; she may do so -because prostitution seems to offer a relief from hopeless drudgery; -she may do so because she has made what the world calls a misstep and -is cut off thereby from respectability and the chance to earn a decent -living; or she may prostitute herself legally, in marriage, as women -have been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> forced to do from time immemorial. In every case there is -one motive force, and that motive force is economic pressure, which -bears hardest upon women because of the social, educational, and -economic disadvantages from which they are forced to suffer in a world -dominated by men. No amount of masculine chivalry has ever mitigated -this evil, and no amount ever will; for chivalry is not compulsory, -while prostitution is. No amount of exhortation, no amount of devoted -labour on the part of reformers will touch it; for it is not a question -of morality. No amount of persecution—of arrests, of manhandling, -of night-courts, public insult, fine and imprisonment—will check -it, for the necessity which prompts it is too imperious to be balked -by the uncomprehending guardians of public decency. The peril of -this necessity threatens all womankind; one turn of fortune’s wheel -may bring its stark aspect before the eyes of the most sheltered -of women. It is the sheltered women, indeed, who are peculiarly in -danger; those women whose preparation for the struggle to wrest a -living from economic injustice has consisted in waiting for men to -marry and support them. The parent who, in a world where celibacy and -prostitution are on the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>increase, fails to give a girl child education -or training which will enable her to get her living by her own efforts, -forces her to take a dangerous risk; for the woman who is brought up -in the expectation of getting her living by her sex may ultimately -be driven to accept prostitution if she fails to find a husband, or, -having found one, loses him.</p> - -<p>There is only one remedy for prostitution, and that remedy is economic -freedom—freedom to labour and to enjoy what one produces. When women -have this freedom there will be no more prostitution; for no woman will -get a living by doing violence to her deep-rooted selective instinct -when opportunities are plentiful and a little labour will yield an -ample living. There may still be women who are sexually promiscuous; -but there is a vast gulf between promiscuity and prostitution: the -sexually promiscuous woman may choose her men; the prostitute may not. -It is the abysmal gulf between choice and necessity.</p> - -<h3>IV</h3> - -<p>Marriage, illegitimacy and prostitution are so closely related, -as social problems, that it is impossible to draw firm lines of -demarcation between<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> them. The unlegalized union—which is betrayed by -illegitimate birth—may be a marriage in all but law; the legalized -marriage may be merely a respectable form of prostitution; prostitution -may take the form of a more or less permanent union which may even -assume the dignity of a true marriage. Illegitimacy, marriage, and -prostitution do not exist independently; they exist in relation to one -another and are often confused in people’s minds—as when it is assumed -that all mistresses are essentially harlots. They are the three faces -of mankind’s disastrous attempt to impose arbitrary regulation upon the -unruly and terrifying force of sex; they form a triptych of which the -central panel is institutionalized marriage and the other panels the -two chief aspects of its failure. The title might appropriately be “The -Martyrdom of Woman.”</p> - -<p>Experience has amply proved that as individualism progresses, it -becomes increasingly difficult to impose upon people more than an -appearance of conformity in sexual matters. Society can not really -regulate anything so essentially personal and private in its nature -as the sexual relation: it can only take revenge upon its natural -result—and thereby encourage the prevention of that result by -artificial<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> means. For every unmarried mother who is persecuted -by society, there are ten unmarried women who escape the social -consequences of an unauthorized sexual relation. For every faithful -husband there is another who deceives his wife with other women; -nor are wedded wives by any means always faithful to their marriage -vows. There are people who live together in the sexual uncleanness of -loveless marriages; and there are those who live purely in extra-legal -union. The sexual impulse is too variable and too imperious to be -compressed into a formula.</p> - -<p>Christian society, as I have remarked, early surrendered its -uncompromising asceticism and settled down to an easy acceptance of the -mere appearance of conventional sexual virtue—that is, so far as men -were concerned. Women, as inferior and evil beings, who, incongruously -enough, at the same time embodied Christian morality, must naturally -be under the rigid surveillance of their male tutors, and no deviation -from established rules might be allowed them. Thus worldly motives -in marrying might be united with sacramental monogamy; for the man -might avail himself of extra-marital union as a safety-valve for the -emotional needs to which marriage gave no scope. The needs of the -woman<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> were not considered, save when savage punishment was visited -upon their illicit satisfaction. Thus hypocrisy and deceit were tacitly -encouraged, and the monogamic ideal was degraded; and countless -generations lived a gigantic social lie which distorted and perverted -their spiritual vision as only an accepted lie can distort and pervert -it.</p> - -<p>I do not mean by this that there have not been millions of really -monogamous marriages. To intimate that the greater sexual freedom -allowed men by law and custom has led all men into licence would be -as stupid as to assume that repression and surveillance have kept -all women chaste. But the institution of marriage, in Christian -society, has represented compromise, and the fruit of compromise is -insincerity—such insincerity, for example, as the Government of -South Carolina shows when it forbids divorce, and fixes by law what -proportion of his estate a man may leave to his concubine.</p> - -<p>Any people which wishes to attain dignity and seriousness in its -collective life must resolve to cast aside compromise and insincerity, -and to look at all questions—even the vexed one of sex—squarely and -honestly. The person who would do this has first some prepossessions -to overcome: he must forget<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span> tradition long enough to appraise -institutionalized marriage by its value to the human spirit; he must -resolve for the time to regard men and women as equally human beings, -entitled to be judged by the same standards, and not by different sets -of traditional criteria; and he must put away fear of sex and fear of -autonomy. If he can do these things, he may be able to look clear-eyed -down the long vista of the centuries and realize the havoc that has -been wrought in the souls of men and women by a sexual code and a -system of marriage based on a double standard of spiritual values and -of conduct. He may perceive how constant tutelage degrades the human -spirit, and how much greater would be the sum of human joy if freedom -were substituted for coercion and regulation—if men and women were -without legal power to harass and bedevil one another simply because -the State, through the marriage-bond, allows them humiliating rights -in one another; if virginity and chastity were matters of self-respect -and taste, instead of being matters of worldly self-interest to women -and unconcern to men; if the relations between the sexes were based on -equality and regulated only by affection and the desire to serve and -give happiness. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span></p> - -<p>The modification which institutionalized marriage has been undergoing -since the partial emergence of woman, its chief victim, have been -in the direction of equality and freedom. The relative ease with -which divorce may now be had marks a long step towards recognition -of marriage as a personal rather than a social concern; and so does -the tendency to abolish the legal disabilities resulting from the -marriage-bond. Nothing augurs better for the elevation of marriage to -a higher plane than the growing economic independence of women and the -consequent improvement in the social position of the unmarried woman; -for only when marriage is placed above all considerations of economic -or social advantage will it be in a way to satisfy the highest demands -of the human spirit.</p> - -<p>But the emergence of women has had another significant effect, namely: -an increase in frankness concerning extra-legal sexual relations, if -not in their number. Of late there has been much public discussion of -the wantonness of our modern youth; which, being interpreted, means -the disposition of our girls to take the same liberty of indulgence -in pre-nuptial sexual affairs that has always been countenanced -in boys. This tendency is an entirely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> natural result of woman’s -increased freedom. The conditions of economic and social life have -undergone revolutionary change in the past half-century; and codes of -morals always yield before economic and social exigency, for this is -imperious. It is for this reason, as Dr. A. Maude Royden has acutely -observed, that women of the lower classes have always enjoyed a certain -immunity from the taboos that reduced women of the middle and upper -classes to virtual slavery. “If among the poor,” says Dr. Royden, -“these ‘protections’ have been dispensed with, it has not been because -the poor have thought either better or worse of their women, but merely -because they are too poor to dispense with their labour, and labour -demands some small degree of freedom.” Labour not only demands, it -gives freedom. The woman who is economically independent need no longer -observe rules based on male dominance; hence the new candour in woman’s -attitude towards the awe-inspiring fetich of sex.</p> - -<p>If there is about this attitude an element of bravado, akin to that -of the youth who thinks it clever and smart to carry a hip-pocket -flask, it bears testimony, not to the dangers of freedom, but to the -bankruptcy of conventional morality. The worst<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> effect of tutelage is -that it negates self-discipline, and therefore people suddenly released -from it are almost bound to make fools of themselves. The women who are -emerging from it, if they have not learned to substitute an enlightened -self-interest for the morality of repression, are certainly in danger -of carrying sexual freedom to dishevelling extremes, simply to -demonstrate to themselves their emancipation from unjust conventions. -There is no reason to expect that women, emerging from tutelage, will -be wiser than men. One should expect the contrary. It is necessary to -grow accustomed to freedom before one may walk in it sure-footedly. -“Everything,” says Goethe, “which frees our spirit without increasing -our self-control, is deteriorating.” This so-called wantonness, this -silly bravado, simply shows that the new freedom is a step ahead of the -self-discipline that will eventually take the place of surveillance -and repression. It would not be so, perhaps, if girls and boys had -ever been enlightened concerning the real sins of sex, and their true -consequences. Women, in the past, have been taught to keep virgin or -chaste for the sake of their reputations, of their families, of their -chances in the marriage-market; they have been scared into <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span>chastity in -the name of religion; but they have not been taught to be chaste for -the sake of the spiritual value of chastity to themselves. Men, having -been expected to “sow their wild oats”, have been taught to sow them -with a certain degree of circumspection. Girls have been intimidated -by pictures of the social consequences of a misstep; boys have been -warned of the physical danger involved in promiscuous sexual relations. -This may not have been the invariable preparation of youth for the -experiences of sex; but it has unquestionably been the usual one, and -it is one of utter levity and indecency.</p> - -<p>The real sins of sex are identical for men and women; and they differ -from infractions of the conventional moral code in this respect among -others: that they do not have to be found out in order to be punished. -They carry their punishment in themselves, and that punishment is their -deteriorative effect upon the human spirit. They are infractions of -spiritual law; and there is this significant distinction to be observed -between spiritual laws and the laws of men: that regulation plays no -part in their administration. The law of freedom is the law of God, who -does not attempt to regulate the human soul, but sets instinct there -as a guide and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> leaves man free to choose whether he will follow the -instinct which prompts obedience to spiritual law, or the desire which -urges disregard of it. The extreme sophistication of the conventional -attitude towards sex has dulled the voice of instinct for countless -generations, with the inevitable result of much unnecessary suffering -and irreparable spiritual loss.</p> - -<p>A healthy instinct warns against lightness in sexual relationships; -and with reason, for the impulse of sex is one of the strongest motive -forces in human development and human action. It touches the obscurest -depths of the soul; it affects profoundly the functions of the mind -and the imagination—can not, indeed, be dissociated from them. The -fact that it is also strongly physical leads to misunderstanding and -disregard of its relation to the mind and spirit; a misunderstanding -and disregard which are immensely aggravated in a society where woman, -because of her inferior position, may be used for the gratification -of physical desire, with no consideration of her own desires or her -spiritual claims. Prostitution, for example, has exerted a most -deleterious influence on the attitude of men toward sex and toward -women. But degradation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> of the sex-impulse is inevitably punished. The -sheerly physical indulgence to which it leads produces a coarsening of -spiritual fibre, an incapacity for appreciation of spiritual values. -Moreover, it produces a cleavage between passion and affection which -renders impossible the highest and most beautiful form of the sexual -relation, the relation in which passion and affection are fused in a -love which offers complete understanding and fulfilment. It is to this -fusion (and not to monogamy, which, Spencer thought, developed love) -that we owe “the many and keen pleasures derived from music, poetry, -fiction, the drama, etc., all of them having for their predominant -theme the passion of love.” True monogamy, the product of this -highest love, is not a regulation to be observed; it is an ideal to -be attained, and it will not be attained by the person who fails to -recognize and to respect the spiritual aspects of the sexual relation.</p> - -<p>Nor will it be attained by the person who mistakes excitement for -love, and who flits from one temporary attachment to another, thinking -always to find the beautiful in the new. Such promiscuous philandering -not only precludes depth of affection and thus renders constancy -impossible; it also blunts<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> perception. Its effect was never better -expressed than by Burns, who was one of its unhappy victims.</p> - -<div class="center"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<div>I waive the quantum o’ the sin,</div> -<div>The hazard of concealin’,</div> -<div>But och! it hardens a’ within,</div> -<div>And petrifies the feelin’.</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>This is the penalty of levity in human relations: that it <i>petrifies -feeling</i>. One pays the price in spiritual deterioration. There is -probably no more striking testimony to this than the first part of -Goethe’s “Faust.” Consider what we know of the nature of Goethe’s -relations with women; and then consider the spiritual insensitivity, -the failure to perceive and draw upon the inexhaustible spiritual -treasures that life holds in store, that are implied in his failure -to devise for Faust, brought back from the brink of the grave at cost -of his immortal soul, any more animating employment for his new-found -youth than a low intrigue with an ignorant peasant girl.</p> - -<p>I will pass by the contention that men are by nature polygamous and -women monogamous; for it rests on evidence created by a dual standard -of conduct for the sexes. Certain women of independent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> spirit are at -present rather conspicuously engaged in proving themselves not merely -polygamous but promiscuous; and a great many men have always proved -themselves to be monogamous. Probably human beings vary in respect of -these tendencies as of others. All people, perhaps, can not attain the -highest plane in love, either for want of capacity or of opportunity; -nor can all people conform to a single mode of conduct. But all people -can attain sincerity in sexual relations, and at least a certain degree -of self-knowledge. Sincerity, self-knowledge, respect for oneself and -for other people; these are essential to a genuine ethic of sex; and -they are uncontemplated by the sanctions of conventional morality. Yet -the person who violates this ethic sins against his own spirit, which -is to sin against the Holy Ghost, and on the spiritual plane he will be -punished.</p> - -<p>An increase in extra-legal relationships does not of itself imply -spiritual retrogression. It might imply instead one of two things, or -both, namely: an increase in the economic obstacles to legal marriage; -or a growing disinclination to admit an affair so personal as the -sex-relation to sanction and regulation by people whom it did not -concern. If men<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span> and women were economically equal and independent, -the number of marriages might increase enormously; on the other hand, -institutionalized marriage might be superseded by marriage without -legal sanction, which before the birth of children might not be even -known or recognized as marriage.<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25">[25]</a> Free people would probably want -less of official interference in their personal affairs, rather than -more. But for those who wanted to avoid the terrors of autonomy there -would still be marriage; and for those who wanted to walk in the strait -and ennobling way of freedom, there would be the right to love without -official permission, and to bring forth children unashamed. Those who -wished to sell themselves would be free to do so if they could find -buyers; but no one would be forced to live by violating the law of love -which is the law of life. Freedom implies the right to live badly, but -it also implies the right to live nobly and beautifully; and for one -who has faith in the essential goodness of the human spirit, in the -natural aspiration towards<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> perfection which flowers with touching -beauty even in the bleak soil of that hardship, degradation and crime -to which injustice condemns the mass of humanity—for one who has this -faith in the human spirit, there can be no question what its ultimate -choice would be.</p> - -<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20">[20]</a> Code Napoléon: “<i>La recherche de la paternité est -interdite</i>.” This provision was expunged in 1913. In Massachusetts, -the father’s name may not be given in the record of birth except on -the written request of both father and mother. No similar protection -against publicity is provided for the mother.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21">[21]</a> Lecky, “History of European Morals.” Chapter V.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22">[22]</a> A recent decision in the State of New York declared that -a husband is not required to fulfil his promise to return money loaned -him by his wife, when she has accumulated it through economy in her -housekeeping; because every saving of the kind is the property of the -husband, as are the services of the wife. The wife has no money of her -own.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23">[23]</a> The State of Wisconsin has made men and women equal -before the law.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24">[24]</a> In countries where the custom of dowry persists the -parents are obviously in a position to exact a great degree of regard -for their wishes, more particularly where economic opportunity is no -longer plentiful. In this country, where abundance of free land made -the support of a family comparatively easy and secure, marriage early -became a matter to be arranged by the contracting parties. In modern -France, on the other hand, it is still largely a matter to be arranged -between families.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25">[25]</a> Several feminists have already, indeed, urged public -sanction of extra-legal sexual relations, and C. Gasquoine Hartley, -with a genuinely Teutonic passion for order, has even advocated their -regulation by the State. This is probably impossible, for people who -choose such relationships usually do so to escape regulation.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span></p> - -<h2><span>CHAPTER V</span> <span class="smaller">THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF WOMEN</span></h2> - -<h3>I</h3> - -<p>It is to the industrial revolution more than anything else, perhaps, -that women owe such freedom as they now enjoy; yet if proof were -wanting of the distance they have still to cover in order to attain, -not freedom, but mere equality with men, their position in the -industrial world would amply supply it. Men in industry suffer from -injustices and hardships due to the overcrowding of the labour-market. -Women suffer from these same injustices and hardships; and they have -an additional handicap in their sex. The world of work, embracing -industry, business, the professions, is primarily a man’s world. Women -are admitted, but not yet on an equal footing. Their opportunities -for employment are restricted, sometimes by law, but more often by -lack of training; and their remuneration as wage-earners and salaried -workers is generally less than that of men. They have to contend with -traditional notions of what occupations are fitting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> for their sex; -with the jealousy of male workers; with the prejudices of employers; -and finally with their own inertia and their own addiction to -traditional concepts. All these difficulties are immensely aggravated -by the keenness of the competition for work. If the opportunity to work -were, as it should be, an unimpeded right instead of a privilege doled -out by an employer, these handicaps of women would be easily overridden -by the demand for their labour. I shall discuss this point more fully -later on. It is sufficient here to note that when the war created a -temporary shortage of labour, women were not only employed in, but -were urged in the name of patriotism to enter, occupations in which -until then only men had been employed. The effect of this temporary -shortage on their industrial opportunities affords a hint of what their -position would be if the glutting of the labour-market were permanently -relieved. A shortage of labour means opportunity for the worker, male -or female.</p> - -<p>Women have always been industrial workers. Otis T. Mason even went -so far as to declare that “All the peaceful arts of today were once -woman’s peculiar province. Along the lines of industrialism she was -pioneer, inventor, author, originator.”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> This view is in rather -striking contrast with the contemptuous derogation which has been for -a long time current in European civilization, and has found expression -in such cutting remarks as that of Proudhon, that woman “could not even -invent her own distaff.” It is no doubt a fairer view, although it -is probably somewhat exaggerated. There is certainly no valid reason -to suppose that sex is a barrier to the invention and improvement of -industrial processes. Be this as it may, it is undeniable that women -have always been producers. Among some primitive tribes, indeed, they -are the only industrialists, the men occupying themselves with war and -the chase or, among maritime peoples, with fishing. The modern invasion -of the industrial field by women does not, then, represent an attempt -to do something that women have never done before. It does represent -an attempt to adapt themselves to the new conditions created by the -industrial revolution.</p> - -<p>The range of their opportunities has been considerably restricted by -prejudices arising from the traditional sexual division of labour in -European society. “In the developed barbarism of Europe, only a few -simple household industries were on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> whole left to women.”<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26">[26]</a> It -was natural, then, when women followed industry into the larger field -of machine-production, that it should be assumed that the industries -in which they might fittingly engage would be those most nearly akin -to the occupations which European society has regarded as peculiarly -feminine. Before the World War, according to the Women’s Bureau, -“over seventy-five per cent of all women engaged in manufacture were -concentrated in the textile and garment-making industries”; and we have -the same authority for the statement that “except for certain branches -of food-manufacture—such as flour making ... women constitute from a -third to two-thirds of the working forces in the industries concerned -with the business of clothing and feeding both the fighting and the -civilian population.” The new opportunities opened up by the exigency -of the war-period widened considerably the scope of women’s activity; -they were employed in machine-shops and tool-rooms, in steel- and -rolling-mills, in instrument-factories, in factories manufacturing -sewing machines and typewriters, in utensil-factories, in plants -working in rubber and leather, in wood-working industries. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span></p> - -<p>In some of these industries women continue to be employed. In others -they were discharged to make room for men when the emergency was -over. But even where they continue to be employed their opportunities -for training are not equal to those of men. The Women’s Bureau in -1922 issued a valuable bulletin on “Industrial Opportunities and -Training for Women and Girls.” According to this bulletin, the -war-experience of women in new employments made it apparent that the -most promising future for craftswomen in these fields lies in (a) -machine-shops where light parts are made, (b) wood-product factories -where assembling and finishing are important processes, (c) optical- -and instrument-factories, (d) sheet-metal shops. The survey made by -the Bureau to discover how many of the country’s industrial training -schools were fitting women for these trades disclosed the fact that -in nine States where women, because of industrial conditions, are -most in need of training for machine-shop, sheet-metal, furniture, or -optical work, they are either excluded by public vocational schools -from the courses in such works, or they are not encouraged, as men are, -to enter those courses. In Ohio, for example, women were enrolled in -only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> five of the fifty-three public vocational schools reporting, and -in these five schools they were taught dressmaking, costume-design, -dress-pattern making, embroidery, power-machine sewing, and pottery -making. Men on the other hand, received instruction in the following -courses which women needed: machine-shop practice, tool-making, shop -mathematics, mechanical drafting, blue-print reading, metallurgy, -pattern-making, sheet-metal work, welding, auto-mechanics and repair, -motor-cycle mechanics, gas engineering, cabinet-making and woodworking. -Women were not debarred by rule or law from entering these courses, but -they were not encouraged to do so. The courses, as one superintendent -wrote, were “designed for men.” The situation in Ohio is more or less -the same as that in the other eight States. Women are either not -admitted to vocational courses designed to prepare workers for the -industries cited, or they are not encouraged to enroll. Yet, as the -Bureau points out, these institutions are operated at the expense of -the taxpayers, women as well as men, and their equipment should be -used to serve women as well as men. “It is obvious,” says the Bureau, -“that the public vocational school authorities, with few exceptions,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> -think of trade for women only in terms of dressmaking and millinery, -and are as yet quite oblivious to the fact that these trades, except in -certain clothing centers, are not the big employers of woman labour, -nor are they always the best trades at which to earn a livelihood. It -is the semi-public school that is beginning first to recognize the new -position which woman occupies in industry as a result of the war and -is opening to her its doors and guiding her into courses leading to -efficiency in the new occupations.”</p> - -<p>This blindness of the school authorities to the vocational needs of -women goes to prove how strong is the force of traditional prejudices. -The making of clothing has been largely in the hands of women for so -long that even in cities where the only industries employing women -are mechanical or woodworking, the public schools offer them courses -in sewing and millinery. Prepossession does not yield all at once to -established fact. If women can make a permanent place for themselves -in their new occupations, public officials will eventually come to -associate them with these occupations and follow the lead of the -semi-public schools in fitting girls to engage in them on an equal -footing with boys.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span> But it will take time; and meanwhile women will -continue to be at a disadvantage in entering these occupations. So -will they be at a disadvantage in entering any occupation where they -have not before been employed, or where they are employed only in -insignificant numbers, so long as prejudice or conservatism continues -to debar them, and the necessary training is not as freely available to -them as it is to men.</p> - -<p>Above all, so long as their industrial status continues to be, as the -Women’s Bureau expresses it, “subsidiary to their home status,” they -can never be on a really secure footing in the industrial world. While -employers assume that all male workers have families to support and -that all female workers are in industry rather through choice than -necessity and may, in periods when work is slack, fall back on the -support of male relatives, so long will women be the first workers -to suffer from any slowing down of industry. This was strikingly -illustrated during the period of unemployment which succeeded the -intense industrial activity made necessary by the war, when women were -discharged in great numbers to make room for men, and much resentment -was voiced against their retention in places which might<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span> be filled by -men. “Back to the home,” says the Women’s Bureau, “was a slogan all -too easily and indiscriminately flung at the wage-earning woman by -those who had little conception of the causes which forced her into -wage-earning pursuits.” In periods of industrial depression it appears -to be the regular practice to lay off the married women workers first, -then the single women, and the men last.</p> - -<p>How unjust to the woman worker, and how little justified by actual -facts, is this survival of the idea that woman’s place is the home, -has been shown through investigations undertaken by the Women’s Bureau -and other agencies. The results of these investigations, published -in Bulletin No. 30 of the Women’s Bureau, show that the woman in -industry is not merely working for pin-money, as thoughtless people -assume, but that she is more often not only supporting herself on -her inadequate wage, but contributing materially to the support of -dependents. “Contributing all earnings to the family fund,” says the -Bureau, “is a very general practice among wage-earning women.” This of -course means, as the Bureau remarks, that however much or little her -contribution may mean to the family,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> for the woman herself it means -a surrender of economic independence. The contrast between single men -and single women in this respect is significant. In an investigation -conducted among workers in the shoe-making industry of Manchester, -New Hampshire, the Bureau found that “comparing single men and women, -the women contributed (to the family income) more extensively, both -actually and relatively.” The percentage of earnings contributed by -sons and daughters is particularly interesting. The Bureau found that -“in the families with per capita earnings of less than $500, 49.3 -per cent of the sons and 71.6 per cent of the daughters contributed -all their earnings, while in families with per capita earnings of -$500 or more, 36.8 per cent of the sons and 53.4 per cent of the -daughters contributed all earnings.” When one remembers that the wage -paid to women was so much lower than that paid to men that the Bureau -pronounced them to be scarcely comparable, the fact that “the daughters -contributed a somewhat larger proportion of the family earnings than -did the sons” takes on added significance. The sons contributed almost -as much in actual money as the daughters, but out of their higher wages -they retained <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span>something for themselves, “thus assuring themselves of a -degree of independence and an opportunity to strike out for themselves -which is denied the daughters.”</p> - -<p>It is evident, then, that women, even in the “emancipation” of the -industrial world, are continuing their immemorial self-sacrifice -to the family, and that it is not the married woman alone, but the -single woman as well, who makes this sacrifice. The conditions of the -sacrifice have changed with the changes in industry, but the sacrifice -continues. The productive labour of women appears to be quite as -indispensable to their families as it was in the days when they spun -and wove and sewed and baked at home. This being the case, there is -obviously no other ground than prejudice for the assumption that men, -as the natural providers, should have preference in the labour-market. -According to the census of 1920, thirty-five per cent of the men in the -country are single; therefore it is fair to assume that thirty-five -per cent of the men in industry are single. Two-thirds of the women in -industry are single, but the available figures show that a much larger -percentage of these women than of single men are contributing all or -most of their earnings to their families, while married women workers -are <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span>contributing all of their earnings. In view of these figures, -there is patent injustice in the assumption that all men and no women -have dependents to support.</p> - -<p>So is there injustice in the assumption that women are naturally at -least partly dependent on male workers, and therefore may fairly be -forced to accept a smaller wage than men. This assumption is not only -grossly unfair to the woman worker, but it does not tally with fact. A -fine example of the kind of defence for the practice of sweating women -workers that can be based on this assumption is quoted by the Women’s -Bureau from an unnamed commercial magazine. “Eighty-six per cent of -women workers,” runs this masterpiece of sophistry, “live at home or -with relatives. [So, in all likelihood, do eighty-six per cent of male -workers.] It is immaterial in these cases whether the earnings of each -measure up to the cost of living scheduled for a single woman living -alone, so that the theory of the need of a sufficient wage to support a -single woman living alone does not apply to eighty-six per cent of the -entire population [<i>sic</i>].” This quotation, says the Bureau, is typical -of the attitude of the employer who pays his women employees less than -a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> living wage on the plea that they live at home and therefore have -few expenses. It is equally remarkable in its ruthless disregard of -the just claim of the woman worker to the same share in the product of -her toil that the male worker is allowed; and in its disregard of the -fact that so long as eighty-six per cent of women workers are forced to -accept a starvation-wage because they live at home, the other fourteen -per cent who do not live at home will be forced by the pressure of -competition to accept the same starvation-wage. The question how this -fourteen per cent will eke out a living—whether through overwork, -begging or prostitution—does not of course concern the employer; for -it is one of the striking differences between chattel-slavery and -wage-slavery that the owner of the wage-slave is under no obligation to -keep his workers from starving. That is, presumably, their own lookout.</p> - -<p>If employers are not given to concerning themselves with this question, -however, communities are. Thirteen States have enacted laws fixing a -minimum wage for women, three have fixed minimum wages in specified -occupations, one has fixed a minimum wage which its industrial welfare -commission has power to change, and nine have created boards<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> or -commissions with power to fix minimum wage-rates. It may be noted that -in those States where the rate is fixed by law, it has not responded -to the rising cost of living. In Utah and Arkansas, for example, -the minimum wage for an experienced woman is $7.50 a week. There is -constant effort by interested individuals and organizations to get -similar laws enacted in other States, in spite of the fact that in 1923 -the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional the -minimum wage-law of the District of Columbia. Such efforts, of course, -are in reality efforts to secure class-legislation, as are all attempts -to secure special enactments designed to benefit or protect women.</p> - -<p>Of such enactments there is an ever increasing number. So rapidly -do they increase, indeed, that women may be said to be in a fair -way to exchange the tyranny of men for that of organized uplift. -They are sponsored by those well-meaning individuals who deplore -social injustice enough to yearn to mitigate its evil results, but -do not understand it well enough to attack its causes; by women’s -organizations whose intelligence is hardly commensurate with their zeal -to uplift their sex; and by men’s labour-organizations which are quite -frankly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> in favour of any legislation that will lessen the chances of -women to compete with men in the labour-market.<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27">[27]</a> Given the combined -suasion of these forces, and the inveterate sentimentalism which makes -it hard for legislators to resist any plea on behalf of “the women -and children,” almost anything in the way of rash and ill-considered -legislation is possible, and even probable. There is on the -statute-books of the various States an imposing array of laws designed -to “protect” women workers. There are only four States which do not -in some way limit the hours of work for women; there are eleven which -limit the number of successive days that they may work; fourteen have -fixed the amount of time that shall be allowed them<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> for their midday -meal; twelve have ruled that a woman may work only a given number of -hours without a rest-period. Sixteen States prohibit night-work in -certain industries or occupations; two limit her hours of night-work to -eight. There is also a tendency to extend to women special protection -against the hazards of industry. In seventeen States the employment of -women in mines is prohibited. Two States prohibit their employment in -any industry using abrasives. In four States they are not allowed to -oil moving machinery. Three regulate their employment in core-making; -and four regulate the amount of the weight that they may be required to -lift—the maximum ranging, oddly enough, from fifteen pounds in Ohio -and Pennsylvania to seventy-four pounds in Massachusetts. In addition -to those regulations which prohibit women from working in certain -occupations or under certain conditions, “each State,” says the Women’s -Bureau, “has many laws and rulings which prescribe the conditions -under which women should work, covering such matters as the lifting -of weights, provision of seats, and proper provision for sanitation -and comfort.” In six States, industrial commissions have power to make -regulations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span> for the health and welfare of workers. In three, the -commissions have power to make regulations for women and minors only, -and in one, for women, minors, learners, and apprentices.</p> - -<p>Perhaps the most striking thing about all these multiform regulations -governing the employment of women is the amount of misplaced zeal that -they denote. “In most cases,” says the Women’s Bureau, “the laws which -prohibit their employment have little bearing on the real hazards to -which they are exposed.... Prohibiting the employment of women on -certain dusty processes does not solve the problem of any industrial -disease in a community. Men are also liable to contract pulmonary -diseases from exposure to dusts.... It is very possible that under the -guise of ‘protection’ women may be shut out from occupations which are -really less harmful to them than much of the tedious, heavy work both -in the home and in the factory which has long been considered their -special province. <i>Safe standards of work for women must come to be -safe standards for men also if women are to have an equal chance in -industry.</i>” The italics are mine. It is worth mentioning here that -only two States prohibit the employment of women in the lead-industry, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span>which so far is the only one that has been proved more harmful to -women than to men. The mass of legislation and regulation designed -to protect women from the fatigues and hazards of industry would -seem, then, to have been animated more by chivalry than by scientific -knowledge; and while chivalry may be all very well in its place, it can -hardly be expected to solve the industrial problem of women.</p> - -<p>In connexion with so-called welfare-legislation, it is interesting -to observe that women and children are customarily grouped together -as classes requiring protection; and that various laws affecting -their position in industry have been sanctioned by the courts as -being for the good of the race and therefore not to be regarded -as class-legislation. Such decisions certainly would appear to be -reasonable in so far as they apply to children, who are the rising -generation of men and women, and should be protected during their -immaturity. But they can be held valid as they affect women only if -woman is regarded as primarily a reproductive function. This view, -apparently, is held by most legislators, courts, and uplifters; and -they have an unquestionable right to hold it. Whether, however, -they are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> just in attempting to add to the burdens of the working -woman by imposing it upon her in the form of rules that restrict -her opportunities, is another question. One thing is certain: if -discriminative laws and customs are to continue to restrict the -opportunities of women and hamper them in their undertakings, it makes -little difference for whose benefit those laws and customs are supposed -to operate, whether for the benefit of men, of the home, of the race, -or of women themselves; their effect on the mind of woman and her -opportunities, will be the same. While society discriminates against -her sex, for whatever reason, she can not be free as an individual.</p> - -<p>Should nothing, then, be done to protect women from the disabilities -and hazards to which they are subject in the industrial world? Better -nothing, perhaps, than protection which creates new disabilities. -Laws which fix fewer hours of work for women than for men may -result in shortening men’s hours also in factories where many women -are employed; but they may result in the substitution of men—or -children—for women in factories where but few have been employed. -Laws prohibiting night-work may reduce the chances of women to get<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> -much-needed employment, and may sometimes shut them out of work which -would offer higher returns on their labour than anything they might -get to do during the day—as, for example, night-work in restaurants, -where the generous tips of after-theatre patrons add considerably to -the earnings of waiters. Moreover, it is hard to see on what ground -night-work could be held to be more harmful for women than for men. -Minimum-wage laws may fix a legal limit to the greed of employers, but -they can not prevent the underpayment of women workers, for they are -based on theoretical notions of a living wage, and have no relation to -the actual value of the individual’s labour. Where they are fixed by -law, as I have remarked, a rise in the cost of living may render them -ineffectual. As for those laws which undertake to protect women against -the hazards of industry, they have usually, as the Women’s Bureau has -shown, very little relation to the hazards to which women are actually -exposed; but they constitute a real barrier to industrial opportunity. -On the whole, the vast and unwieldy array of laws and rules designed -either to protect the woman worker, or to safeguard the future of the -race at her expense, are a pretty lame result of a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> great deal of -humanitarian sound and fury. <i>Parturiunt montes.</i></p> - -<p>It is quite natural that the result should be lame; for these -protections and safeguards represent so many attempts to mind some one -else’s business; and the great difficulty about minding some one else’s -business is that however good one’s intentions may be, one can never -really know just where that some one’s real interests lie, or perfectly -understand the circumstances under which he may be most advantageously -placed in the way to advance them, for the circumstances are too -intimately bound up with his peculiar temperament and situation. As -Mill has remarked in a passage which I have already quoted, the world -has learned by long experience that affairs in which the individual -is the person directly interested go right only when they are left to -his own discretion, and that any interference by authority, save to -protect the rights of others, is mischievous. The tendency of modern -welfare-legislation is to make a complete sacrifice of individual -rights not to the rights but to the hypothetical interests of others; -and for every individual who happens to benefit by the sacrifice, there -is another who suffers by it. If it is hard to regulate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span> one human -being for his own good, it is impossible to regulate people <i>en masse</i> -for their own good; for there is no way of making a general rule affect -all individuals in the same way, since no two individuals are to be -found who are of precisely the same temperament and in precisely the -same situation.</p> - -<p>There is in all this bungling effort to ameliorate the ills of working -women and to safeguard through them the future of the race, a tacit -recognition of economic injustice and a strange incuriousness about -its causes. One would naturally expect that the conditions which move -people to seek protective legislation would move them to question the -nature of an economic system which permits such rapacity that any class -of employees requires to be protected from it. Surely the forces of -righteousness must know that there are reasons for the existence of -the conditions which move them to pity and alarm; yet they seem quite -willing to go on indefinitely battling against the conditions, and -winning with great effort legislative victories which are constantly -being rendered ineffectual through lax administration of laws, through -the reluctance of employees to jeopardize their positions by testifying -against employers,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span> or through unforeseen changes in economic -conditions. During all this waste of time and effort, this building -and crumbling and rebuilding of protective walls around the labourer, -the causes of economic injustice continue their incessant operation, -producing continuously a new crop of effects which are like so many -windmills inviting attack by the Don Quixotes of reform.</p> - -<p>Let us consider the effects of economic injustice on women, side by -side with the reformer’s work upon those effects. Women in industry -suffer, as I have shown, the injustice of inequality with men as -regards wages, opportunities, training, and tenure of employment. -The reformer attacks the problem of wages, and secures minimum-wage -laws based on some one’s theory of what constitutes a living wage. -No allowance is made for dependents because women, theoretically, -have none. The amount allowed may from the first be inadequate, even -for one person, or it may be rendered inadequate by a rise in the -cost of living. In either case, it is purely arbitrary, and bears no -relation whatever to the value of the worker’s services. Still, such -legislation might be better than nothing if there were nothing better -to be done. The reformer is less zealous in his <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span>attempt to provide -women with opportunities; his showing in this field is less impressive -than in that of wages. Still, he has done something. If he has not -been entirely responsible for the opening to women of many positions -in government service, he has at least greatly assisted in securing -them these opportunities. Farther than this, it must be admitted, it is -difficult for him to go. He might, indeed, exert himself to see that -women are provided by one means or another with equal opportunities to -get training, but he can do little to affect the policies of private -employers of labour, who can hardly be dictated to concerning whom they -shall hire and whom they shall retain. Nor can he prevent employers -from laying off women workers first when there is a slowing down in -production. In three, then, out of four of the disadvantages which -bear more heavily on women in industry than on men, the reformer, with -all his excellent intentions, is unable to be very helpful; while in -his zeal to safeguard the race, whose future appears to him to depend -entirely on the health of the female sex, he has multiplied their -disadvantages in the manner I have already described, without, however, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span>having made any noteworthy advance toward the accomplishment of his -purpose.</p> - -<p>Now, had he chosen to inquire into the causes of the artificial -disabilities by which women workers are handicapped, he might have -discovered that these and the industrial hazards which cause him -such grave concern may be traced to the same fundamental source; and -that the just and only effective way of removing these disabilities -and hazards is to eradicate the source. Women in industry are the -victims of traditional prejudices: I have shown what those prejudices -are—the idea that woman’s place is the home, that women workers have -no dependents, that they work for pin-money and therefore do not -need a living wage, that upon them alone depends the future health -of the race. But as I remarked at the beginning of this chapter, -these prejudices could not be turned to the disadvantage of the woman -worker if it were not for the overcrowding of the labour-market. So -long as there are more people looking for work than there are jobs to -be had, the advantage in fixing terms and conditions of labour is on -the side of the employer. If men are obliged by their need to put up -with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span> underpayment, women will be forced to accept an even worse rate; -if the tenure of men is uncertain, that of women will be even more -so. If the conditions of industry are hazardous, the alternative of -starvation will force the workers to risk injury or death unless the -employer be required by law to maintain the proper safeguards. Suppose, -however, that labour were scarce, that for every worker looking for -employment there were a dozen employers looking for workers. Under -such circumstances, the employer would be glad enough to hire the -worker who could fill his particular requirements, without regard to -sex, as employers did during the war when labour was scarce; and he -would pay the worker a wage determined not by theory or prejudice, -but by the amount of competition for the worker’s services. If the -employment he offered were hazardous, he would be obliged to maintain -proper safeguards in order to retain his employees, and in addition -would probably be forced to pay them a higher wage than they could earn -in some safer employment. If he did not do these things, his workers -would simply leave him for more satisfactory positions. Nor would he -be able to overwork his employees, for if he attempted to do so, some<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span> -rival employer would outbid him for their services by offering better -hours and easier conditions of labour. Thus the peculiar disabilities -of women workers would disappear with the disabilities of labourers -in general, and not a stroke of legislation would be required to make -industry both safe and profitable for the woman worker.</p> - -<p>This condition is not unnatural or impossible. It is the present -condition of chronic unemployment, of expensive and ineffectual -“welfare” legislation, of wasteful and futile struggles between -organized capital and organized labour—it is this condition that is -entirely unnatural. I have mentioned its cause in Chapter III, and I -shall discuss it further in my next chapter. Upon its removal, and not -upon regulations which hamper the woman worker and reduce her to the -status of a function, the future of the race depends. The ancestors of -coming generations are men as well as women, and posterity will derive -its heritage of health from its ancestors of both sexes. Its prospect -of health will not be improved by legislation calculated to safeguard -the health of women workers, so long as the children they bear continue -to be exposed to an involuntary poverty which breeds ignorance, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span>imbecility, disease and crime. The happiness as well as the health -of future generations will depend in great measure upon the extent to -which both men and women can release themselves from the deteriorating -conditions of economic exploitation.</p> - -<h3>II</h3> - -<p>It is in business and in professional pursuits that the occupational -progress of women, and their emancipation from traditional prejudices, -are most marked. Although in the lower ranks of labour in these -pursuits there is a mass of women who, impelled by necessity, -work for low wages at mechanical tasks which offer no chance of -advancement, there is, nearer the top, a large group of women who -have been more fortunate in worldly position and education, and who -are spurred as much either by interest in their work or a desire to -be self-supporting, as by actual need to earn; who share, in other -words, the attitude that leads young men to strike out for themselves -even though their fathers may be able to support them. It is the woman -animated by these motives who is doing most for the advancement of her -sex; for it is she,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span> and not the woman who works through necessity, -who really challenges the traditional prejudices concerning the proper -place of women. The woman labourer proves the <i>need</i> of women to earn; -the business woman or professional woman who works because she wants to -work, is establishing the <i>right</i> of women to earn. More than this, as -she makes her way into one after another of the occupations that have -been held to belong to men by prescriptive right, she is establishing -her claim, as a human being, to choose her work from the whole wide -field of human activity. It is owing to the attitude towards life -adopted by such women, to their preference of independence and action -over the dependence and passivity in vogue not so many years ago, that -it is coming to be quite the expected thing that young women of the -well-to-do classes shall set out to earn their living, as young men do, -instead of stopping under the parental roof, with a watchful eye out -for men who will marry and support them. Need I remark that nothing is -more likely than this new attitude to bring about the substitution of -the “union by affection” for the union by interest? The woman who is -economically independent is under much less temptation to marry from -economic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span> motives than the woman for whom marriage represents the only -prospect of security.</p> - -<p>There is still a goodly number of prejudices and discriminations to -be overcome before women in business and the professions shall stand -on an equal footing with men as regards opportunity and remuneration. -Except where she is in business for herself, the woman in these -pursuits must generally be content with a lower rate of pay than men; -and if observation may be taken to count for anything, she is expected -to work somewhat harder for what she gets—less loafing on the job is -tolerated in her than in the male employee. She is also more likely -to find herself pocketed; that is to say, in a position from which, -because of her sex, there is no possibility of further advance because -the higher positions are reserved for men. It is so universally the -rule that women must content themselves with reaching the lower rungs -of the occupational ladder, that the instances where they manage to -attain to places of responsibility and authority are still rare enough -to be found worthy of remark in the press. The same thing is true of -political positions; women are not yet represented in politics in -anything like a just proportion to their numbers, nor are they<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span> often -able to get themselves either elected or appointed to responsible -positions. None the less, considering the comparatively short time -since their emergence into the business world and the world of public -affairs, they are already making an excellent showing.</p> - -<p>The world of business and the professions, like the world of industry, -has its occupations which are considered peculiarly suitable for women. -Strictly subordinate positions are thought to suit them very well; -hence there is quite an army of women stenographers, bookkeepers, -clerks and secretaries to be found in the business section of any -modern city. The personnel of the nursing profession is made up almost -exclusively of women; and the work of teaching in our public schools, -especially where it is most conspicuously underpaid, is largely in -their hands. There is, to be sure, an impression current among members -of school boards that marriage disqualifies a woman for the teaching -profession; but the single woman is fairly secure in her position, -possibly because it does not pay well enough to be very attractive -to men. Occupations connected with the arts are also held, in this -country, to be particularly well adapted for women, although it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span> must -be noted that the prejudice of male musicians is effective enough to -exclude them from the personnel of our important orchestras. It is in -the creative arts that their work is most welcomed; more especially -in the field of literature; and this may seem strange, in view of the -fact that so many eminent authorities believe that their sex renders -them incapable of attaining any significance in creative work. It is, -I apprehend, rather to the low opinion in which aesthetic pursuits are -held in this country than to a high opinion of female ability, that -this peculiar condition must be ascribed.</p> - -<p>But if certain occupations are considered peculiarly appropriate for -women, there is none the less a great deal of prejudice against them in -others. The idea that woman’s place is the home has no more disappeared -from the world of business and the professions than it has disappeared -from the world of industry, even though it is the business woman and -the professional woman who are doing most to dislodge it. And here it -may be well to remark a fact that has already been noted, with some -pointed comment, by Ethel Snowden, namely: that woman’s invasion of the -gainful occupations appears to be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span> found unwomanly in proportion to the -importance of the position to which she aspires.</p> - -<p>It is the married woman in business or in professional work, as it is -in industry, who suffers most from the surviving prejudices concerning -her sex. When there are economies to be effected through the discharge -of workers, the idea that the married woman is normally a dependent -comes immediately to the fore, and she is the first employee to be -discharged. For example, <i>Equal Rights</i> of 8 August, 1925, noted in an -editorial that the city of St. Louis had begun a campaign for economy -by discharging twelve married women; that there was a movement on in -Germany to reduce governmental expenses by a wholesale discharge of -women employees; and that, according to rumour, Mr. Coolidge’s campaign -of economy was being made to bear most heavily on married women. The -comment of <i>Equal Rights</i> on the action of the city of St. Louis is -worth quoting:</p> - -<blockquote> - -<p>St. Louis employed twenty-seven married women. It investigated -the economic condition of all these, retained nine, discharged -twelve, and was, at last report, still considering the case of the -other six. St. Louis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span> did not investigate the economic condition -of the men employees, to see whether or not these might continue -to live if they were discharged. St. Louis did not try to find out -whether or not these men had fathers, brothers, mothers, or wives -who might support them while they were looking for other jobs. St. -Louis assumed that men have a right to economic independence and -the increased happiness and opportunity that it brings. St. Louis -assumed that women have no such right.</p></blockquote> - -<p>In other words, St. Louis assumed, as the German and American -Governments apparently assume, and as most private employers assume, -that women are employed on sufferance; especially married women. Of -course it should be remembered that the position of the married woman -in this respect is only worse than that of single women, and that -the position of women is only worse than that of men; for, as I have -already remarked, under a monopolistic economic system the opportunity -to earn a living by one’s labour comes to be regarded as a privilege -instead of a natural right. Women are simply held to be less entitled -to this privilege than men.</p> - -<p>That marriage should so often assume the nature of a disability -for the woman who either wishes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span> or is obliged to earn, whereas it -often operates in favour of the male worker, may be attributed to -the traditional assumption that married women are dependent on, and -subject to, their husbands. I remarked in the preceding chapter that -the married woman who wishes to engage in business finds herself, -in many communities, hampered by legal disabilities arising from -her marital status, whereas her husband is under no corresponding -disabilities. Her position as an industrial and salaried worker is -rendered insecure if not by law, at least by the same psychology that -keeps legal disabilities in force. This psychology may be defined -as the expectation that a woman when she marries shall surrender a -much greater degree of personal freedom than the man she marries. The -man who does not object to his wife’s having a career is considered -generous and long-suffering. His insistence on her abandoning it and -contenting herself with looking out for his domestic comfort is thought -to be quite natural.<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28">[28]</a> On the other hand, the woman<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span> who interferes -in any way with a husband’s career is regarded as an extremely selfish -person; while any sacrifice of herself and her ambitions to her husband -and his, is thought of merely as a matter of wifely duty. How often -does one hear that such and such a woman has given up her position -because “her husband didn’t want her to work.” There is, too, a very -general assumption that every married woman has children and should -stay at home and take care of them. Now, perhaps every married woman -should have children; perhaps in a future state of society men and -women will marry only when they wish to bring up a family. But at -present it is not so; therefore at present the assumption that a -married woman should stay at home and take care of her children leaves -out of account the fact that a large and increasing number of married -women are childless. It may be contended that these women should stay -at home and take care of their husbands; but even if we assume that the -unremitting personal attention of his wife is essential to the comfort -and happiness of a married man, there would still remain the question -of his title to this attention at the cost of her own interests.</p> - -<p>We are dealing here with an attitude which, <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span>general though it be, has -been outmoded by the conditions of modern life. The sexual division -of interests and labour which has been insisted upon so long among -European peoples does not very well fit in with the organization -of industrial and social life in the twentieth century. Our social -ideology, like our political ideology, is of the eighteenth century; -and its especial effectiveness at present is by way of obscuring our -vision of the changed world that has emerged from the great economic -revolution of the last century. A division of interests and labour -which was convenient if not just under the conditions of economic -and social life which preceded the industrial revolution, is neither -convenient nor just under the conditions which prevail today. The care -of young children and the management of a household may result in an -unequal division of labour in families where the husband’s inability -to provide for the needs of his family forces the wife to assume the -burdens of a breadwinner. When one reads through the literature on -the question of hours of labour for women in industry, one is struck -by the persistent stressing of the married woman’s double burden of -breadwinning and housekeeping. These women, it seems, must not only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span> -earn money to contribute to their families’ support, but they must, -before setting out for work and after returning from it, prepare the -family meals, get the children ready for school or the day-nursery, -take them there and call for them, wash, sew, and perform a hundred -other household tasks. This double burden is often made an argument for -establishing shorter hours of work for women in industry, but never for -expecting the husband to share the wife’s traditional burden as she has -been forced to share his. I have no doubt that innumerable husbands are -doing this; but there is no expectation put upon them to do it, and -those who do not are in no wise thought to shirk their duty to their -families, as their wives would be thought to do if they neglected to -perform the labour of the household.</p> - -<p>Quite analogous to this attitude of the advocates of special -legislation for working women is that of the people who concern -themselves with the so-called problem of the educated woman, which -is supposed to be that of reconciling domesticity with intellectual -pursuits. A timely illustration of this attitude is the establishment -by Smith College of an institute for the “co-ordination of women’s -interests.” The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span> purpose of this institute, in the words of President -Neilson, is “to find a solution of the problem which confronts -almost every educated woman today—how to reconcile a normal life -of marriage and motherhood with a life of intellectual activity, -professional or otherwise.” Here again is the tacit assumption that -marriage is the special concern of woman, and one whose claims must -take precedence over her other interests, whatever they may be; that -marriage and motherhood constitute her normal life, and her other -interests something extra-normal which must somehow be made to fit in -if possible. I have heard of no institute intended to find a way to -reconcile the normal life of marriage and fatherhood with a life of -intellectual activity, professional or otherwise; although when one -considers how many educated men of today are obliged to compromise with -their consciences in order to secure themselves in positions which -will enable them to provide for their families, one is persuaded that -some such institute might be at least equally appropriate and equally -helpful with that which Smith College has established.</p> - -<p>Let us forget for a moment the sophisticated traditional attitude -toward this question of marriage and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span> parenthood, and go back, as -it were, to the beginning—to a fact recognized in the animal world -and not entirely overlooked by primitive man, namely: that every -offspring has two parents who are equally responsible for its care and -protection. In the animal kingdom one finds a widely varied division -of the labour connected with the care of the young. For example, the -male of certain species is found to perform functions which our own -usage has led us to regard as maternal. Among the viviparous animals -the heavier share of responsibility rests with the female during -the gestation, birth and extreme youth of the offspring; and among -primitive human beings the actual physical dependence of the offspring -on the mother is likely to be prolonged over a period of several years. -It was, perhaps, this necessity of a close physical association between -mother and child that led to a sexual division of labour under which -the mother undertook the physical care of children while the father -undertook the task of providing food. It must be remarked, however, -that this division of labour by no means excludes productive labour on -the part of the woman. Among most tribes she augments the food-supply -through agriculture, grubbing, or sometimes through<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span> fishing or -hunting; and there are tribes, notably in Africa, where she is the sole -provider for the family. The Vaertings have remarked that the drudgery -connected with the care of children is invariably imposed by the -dominant upon the subject sex; a view which is in perfect consonance -with what we know of the general human willingness to transfer to other -shoulders the burden of uninteresting though necessary labour. Since -women have most often been subject, they have most often been forced to -undertake this drudgery, either in lieu of or in addition to the labour -of providing food and shelter for their families.</p> - -<p>This is to say that their subject position has added considerably to -what newspaper editors and other commentators are fond of calling the -burden of Eve. Since woman is the childbearing sex, it has seemed -natural to a great many peoples to increase the disadvantage at -which her share in reproduction naturally places her, by making her -confinement at home permanent instead of occasional, and by permitting -her few, if any, interests save those connected with reproduction; in -short, by prolonging and enhancing her subjection to the demands of -the race. This is why the term married<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> woman is still taken to imply -the term housekeeper; an implication which, as the <i>Freeman</i> remarked -editorially some years ago, modern civilization must renounce “if -it wants such of its women as are editors and bank-presidents to be -mothers as well.”</p> - -<p>Civilization shortens the period of the child’s physical dependence on -the mother by shortening the period of lactation. On the other hand, it -increases fecundity to such an extent that where religious superstition -or ignorance prevents the use of contraceptives, the burden of -childbearing is greatly increased. This result of civilization is -not, however, commonly found among the educated classes; and even -among those classes where children are most numerous, I have already -shown that women are not restrained by motherhood from engaging in -gainful occupations outside the home. On the contrary, the number of -their offspring is more often their chief incentive to this course. -Among well-to-do families, prepared foods and wet-nursing have for a -long time been rather generally employed to relieve mothers even of -the responsibility of lactation, while the custom of assigning the -physical care of children to hired substitutes has reduced their actual -work to that of bringing the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span> child into the world. That this mode of -caring for children is approved by all classes is evident from their -readiness to adopt it when fortune favours them with an opportunity. -It is occasionally inveighed against by moralists, but on the whole it -is coveted and approved, especially while women devote to frivolous -pursuits the leisure that it leaves them. When a woman adopts this -mode in order to reconcile motherhood with a serious interest outside -the home, it is a different matter, and lays her open to the charge -of neglecting her family, though in fact she may spend no more hours -away from home than the woman who gives her morning to shopping and her -afternoon to playing bridge. Why this should be the case I am at a loss -to know, unless it be that a serious interest outside the home appears -to smack too much of an assertion of her right to live her life for her -own sake rather than for the sake of the race or that of her husband—a -self-assertion not readily to be accepted without such reservations -as find expression in institutes designed to “co-ordinate women’s -interests.”</p> - -<p>It appears, then, that the care of the young is the concern of both -sexes, and is so recognized in the animal world and among human -beings; and that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span> among the latter such differences in usage as -exist touching this matter are differences in the apportioning of -the burden. Even in our own day, when there is observable a tendency -to forget that the child has more than one parent—that parent being -the mother—the father’s claim to his children is still recognized -in law, often to the prejudice of the mother’s; and so, likewise, is -his obligation to provide for them. Indeed, the child may be said to -be regarded as exclusively the mother’s only while it is young; for -it is a general custom among us to speak of Mrs. So-and-So’s baby, -but of Mr. So-and-So’s son or daughter. Let us, then, recognize the -claim and interest of both parents. Let us also remember that the -economic organization has so extensively altered that the traditional -division of labour—this division is always profoundly affected by -consideration of the young—has been outmoded as far as thousands of -families are concerned. Let us also assume that woman has established -her right to be considered as a human being rather than a function or a -chattel. Then it must seem reasonable to assume that the co-ordination -of interests to be brought about concerns both sexes equally; that -the problem to be confronted is that of reconciling<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span> a normal life of -marriage and parenthood not only with the freest possible development -of intellectual interest but with the utmost devotion to any chosen -profession.</p> - -<p>I can not pretend to foretell how this problem will be settled; for its -solution will depend upon the general solution of the labour-problem. -It may be that the necessary collectivism of modern industry will -result in a collectivist system of caring for children. Such a system -would by no means be an innovation; it would simply constitute an -extension and adaptation of means which already exist—of nurseries for -very small children and schools for older ones. Whatever its demerits -might be, such a system would certainly represent an enormous economy -of effort. The average home is adapted less to the needs of children -than to those of adults; hence a mother of young children must spend a -great deal of her time in preventing her young charges from injuring -themselves with dangerous household implements, from falling downstairs -or off of furniture too high for them, and from touching objects which -would not be safe in their hands. In a properly equipped nursery, on -the other hand, the furniture and all the objects are adapted to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span> -size and intelligence of the children. Children have the advantage of -numerous playmates; and one person can supervise the play of a dozen of -them with less fatigue than the mother of one is likely to feel at the -end of a day in the average home.</p> - -<p>The Russians have already taken some steps in this direction by -establishing both nurseries and schools in connexion with certain -factories. From what I can gather of their policy, it would seem that -they regard the care and education of children as being very much -the concern of the whole community. They look upon childbearing as -a service to the community, but they do not appear to take the view -that women should be required to perform this service at the expense -of their independence, for they have instituted a system of subsidies -for pregnant and nursing working mothers, with rest-periods before and -after confinement, and a subsidy during confinement amounting to the -daily subsidy multiplied by fifteen.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29">[29]</a></p> - -<p>I have already indicated in the preceding chapter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span> what it seems to me -would be the course of a free people in this matter of reconciling the -care of children with the greatest possible freedom for both parents. -It seems hardly necessary to call attention to the obvious fact that -the question is simply that of placing the care of the young in the -hands of those who are interested in it and fitted for it, instead -of forcing it willy-nilly upon either sex through a traditional -expectation and a traditional division of labour. In a free society, -those parents who wished to pursue careers incompatible with the actual -care of young children would avail themselves of the services of -substitutes, as the well-to-do classes do at present; and they might -do so with even greater confidence because, as I have remarked, those -engaged in caring for and teaching the young would do so as a matter of -interest primarily and only secondarily as a means of livelihood. There -is another important consideration to be taken into account, and that -is, that in a free society the problem of reconciling the occupations -of the parents with their personal supervision of their children would -be much easier to solve; for their hours of labour would be greatly -decreased. It is only where<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> production must support an enormous amount -of idleness and waste that it is necessary to overwork producers.</p> - -<p>It is possible, of course, that the institution of economic freedom -might check the present tendency of women to engage in gainful -occupations outside the home. It most certainly would if the vast -increase of opportunity which it offered were reserved exclusively -for men; but to bring about this result it would be necessary for -traditional anti-feminist prejudices to survive much more strongly -than they do today. The position of women has too radically changed to -admit of their exclusion from direct participation in the benefits of -economic freedom; therefore if they resigned the increased economic -opportunities that it offered them, and withdrew to the sphere of -domesticity, they would do so as a matter of choice. Why should we -not expect them to choose the exclusive domesticity which might be -rendered possible through the increased earning power of men? They -probably would, where it suited their taste to do so; but one of the -most powerful incentives to do so would no longer exist, namely: the -desire for economic security. Women, to be sure, are not exempt from -the characteristic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span> willingness of humankind to live by the exertions -of others; but I would remark that there is this difference between the -person who does this indirectly, through legalized privilege, and the -person who depends directly on the bounty of another: that the former -is independent and the latter is dependent. Women are not strangers -to the human desire for freedom; and when the fear of want is allayed -they are quite likely to prefer an easy and secure self-support to the -alternative of economic dependence. Moreover, economic freedom would -set domesticity in competition with the interests of women rather than -their needs; for it would set all people free to engage in occupations -that interested them, whereas at present the vast majority do whatever -offers them a living. Under these circumstances it might reasonably be -expected that the number of women who would continue in business and in -industrial and professional pursuits, even after marriage and the birth -of children, would greatly increase.</p> - -<p>Indeed, if we postulate an economic system under which every human -being would be free to choose his occupation in accordance with his -interests, I see no more reason to suppose that women would invariably -choose domesticity than to suppose that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span> all men would choose -blacksmithing. Under such a régime I doubt that even the power of the -expected which affects them so strongly at present, would long continue -in an effectiveness which it has already begun to lose. Women, I think, -might be expected to choose their occupations with the same freedom -as men, and to look for no serious interruption from marriage and the -birth of children. There are a good many women at present who very ably -reconcile motherhood with a chosen career. I think we might expect to -find more of them rather than fewer, in a free society. One thing is -certain, and it is the important thing: they would be free to choose. -If it be woman’s nature, as some people still believe, to wish to live -at second hand, then in a free society they will freely make that -choice, and no one can complain of it—unless it be the men on whom -they elect to depend. However, to assume from past experience that they -do want to live at second hand is to assume that all the social and -legal injustices which have been employed to force them to do so, were -unnecessary; and when have Governments and communities wasted their -power in exercising compulsion where no compulsion was needed?</p> - -<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26">[26]</a> Ellis: Man and Woman. 5th ed. p. 14.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27">[27]</a> Katharine Anthony found the workmen of Germany frankly in -favour of any “protective” legislation that would hamper German working -women (“Feminism in Germany and Scandinavia”); and the Woman’s Party -has met with the same attitude among unions in this country. Among the -resolutions passed at the twenty-fifth convention of the International -Moulders’ Union of North America was the following: “<i>Resolved</i>, that -the decision of this convention be the restriction of the further -employment of child and woman labour in union core rooms and foundries, -and eventually the elimination of such labour in all foundries by -the example set by union foundries in the uplifting of humanity.... -<i>Resolved</i>, that the incoming officers be directed to, either by -themselves or in co-operation with others in the labour movement, give -their best thought and effort in opposing the employment of female and -child labour in jobs recognized as men’s employment.”</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28">[28]</a> There are, of course, exceptions to this rule; as when -a woman has, before her marriage, already made a great reputation. -In such a case the husband would be thought selfish who demanded the -sacrifice of her career. But the husband who demands the sacrifice of a -potential career is generally thought to be well within his rights.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29">[29]</a> From the Laws and Decrees of the Soviet Government on -medical questions, sanitation, etc., published in Moscow, 1922.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span></p> - -<h2><span>CHAPTER VI</span> <span class="smaller">WHAT IS TO BE DONE</span></h2> - -<h3>I</h3> - -<p>In the foregoing chapters I have intimated that every phase of the -question of freedom for women is bound up with the larger question -of human freedom. If it is freedom that women want, they can not be -content to be legally equal with men; but having gained this equality -they must carry on their struggle against the oppressions which -privilege exercises upon humanity at large by virtue of an usurped -economic power. All human beings, presumably, would gain by freedom; -but women particularly stand to gain by it, for as I have shown, they -are victims of special prepossessions which mere legal equality with -men may hardly be expected to affect.</p> - -<p>If, on the other hand, it is dominance that they desire, they might, -indeed, conceivably attain this without freedom; but one can not see -much encouragement for that wish in the present trend of affairs. -Before women could dominate, they would not only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span> have to overcome -the prejudices, superstitions, and legal disabilities which have -contributed to their subjection; but they would also have to get the -upper hand of men economically. They would have to manœuvre themselves -into that advantage in opportunity which men at present enjoy. One -can hardly see how this could be brought about except by some kind of -<i>coup d’état</i>, for the tendency of modern legislation, as I have shown, -far from being calculated to enlarge the scope of women’s economic -activity, is likely rather to narrow it; nor is it entirely probable -that the establishment of mere legal equality would count for much in -the premises, for the courts may always decide that any legislation -designed for the Larger Good is valid even though it may clash with -the principle of equal rights.<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30">[30]</a> Suppose, however, that the momentum -gathered by the woman’s movement should carry society through a period -of sex-equality and bring it out on the other side—the side of female -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span>domination—then men and women would simply have exchanged places, -and the social evils which now afflict mankind would remain, <i>mutatis -mutandis</i>. Women would be more nearly free than men, as men are now -more nearly free than women; but no one would be really free, because -real freedom is not a matter of the shifting of advantage from one -sex to the other or from one class to another. Real freedom means the -disappearance of advantage, and primarily of economic advantage. It -can not be too often repeated that political and social freedom are -unattainable unless and until economic freedom has been attained—but -this is not a concern of either sex or class. In order to live, women, -like men, must eat; to eat, they, like men, must labour; to labour, -they, like men, must have opportunity. Control of men’s and women’s -economic opportunity, therefore, means control of their livelihood, -and control of men’s and women’s livelihood means control of men and -women. Real freedom, therefore, does not come in sight of either men -or women until this control is abated; that is to say, until (speaking -in technical terms) the two active factors in production, capital and -labour, which are <i>pro tanto</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span> sexless, have free access to the passive -factor, natural resources—in other words, until the private monopoly -of natural resources is dissolved.</p> - -<p>If the struggle of women to rid themselves of their peculiar -disabilities were to turn out into an attempt to dominate men as men -have for so long dominated women, one could perfectly understand -the psychology behind such an attempt. With the exception of a few -individuals, humankind has thus far achieved no very high idea of -freedom. The ambition of subject classes has never gone much beyond -the desire to enjoy the privileges usurped by their masters. They -have resented being dominated, but not domination; they have had no -repugnance to the thought of dominating others. Their psychology was -very well summed up by <i>Punch</i>, in the remark of one old market-woman -to another (I quote from memory): “You see, Mrs. ——, when we have a -Labour Government we’ll all be equal, and then I shall have a servant -to do my work for me.” It is because of this myopic view of the nature -of freedom that all revolutions have been mere scrambles for advantage, -and have accomplished nothing more than a shifting of power from one -class to another, or as John Adams said,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span> “a mere change of impostors.” -If the woman’s movement should resolve itself into a similar scramble, -it would be unfortunate but not surprising, for women may hardly be -expected to rise at once above the retaliatory spirit which is one of -the common curses of humanity.</p> - -<p>They would have good <i>ex parte</i> arguments ready to their tongue; many -an argument, indeed, which has been advanced to defend their subjection -might be effectively turned around. Their part in parenthood for -example, has long been held to justify their subjection under the -guise of protection in this function. It would be equally logical to -argue that women, as mothers of the race, should dominate the family -because, as givers of life, they have a deeper personal interest and -a greater natural right in their children than men have. It might be -argued that they should control all public affairs because of the -greater understanding of the value of human life and deeper interest -in the welfare of humanity that motherhood brings. One often hears the -argument—which no amount of female bloodthirst in time of war ever -seems to make effectively ridiculous—that if women were in power there -would be no wars, because they, knowing the cost of giving life,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span> would -not consent to its wilful wholesale destruction. The doctrine that -women are closer to the race than men is really dangerous to those who -now preach it; for it affords the best kind of basis for the contention -that women should dominate in all matters concerning the race—and all -human affairs may be held to concern the race in one way or another.</p> - -<p>Perhaps the best argument for the domination of women is that if -society, like parliamentary government, must for ever contemplate a -mere sterile succession of outs and ins, it is time that women had -their innings. But the analogy with the parliamentary system goes -further. Public faith in the parliamentary principle has waned almost -to the disappearing-point, and the system has suffered wholesale -discredit, because it became slowly but surely evident that what -actually kept them up was “the cohesive power of public plunder.” -If women took what might be called by analogy the political view of -their right to their innings, and let it animate them in a scuffle for -predominance, the general reaction would be similar. In a matter of -this kind, great numbers of people would be found <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span>objective enough to -glance at such an effort and pass it by in disapproval of the waste of -energy involved in bringing about a readjustment that promised nothing -better than a shifting of the incidence of injustice. Women would thus -forfeit a great deal of sympathy, and at the same time probably create -even more antagonism than they have thus far had to face. They would -place themselves in a position similar to that of organized labour, -which is so intent on contending for what it conceives to be its own -interest—a position of advantage in bargaining on wages and conditions -of labour—that by the narrowness of its policy it antagonizes a great -deal of public sentiment which must inevitably be enlisted on its -behalf if it undertook to contend for the general interest, in which -its own is included, and in the service of which its own is bound, in -the long run, to be best served.</p> - -<p>What the nature of this general interest is, I have already intimated. -It is economic, and it can be advanced only through the establishment -of an order of society in which every human being shall enjoy the -natural right to labour and to enjoy all that his labour produces. -It is upon mankind’s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> security in this right that human freedom, -in whatever mode or aspect—social, philosophical, political, -religious—primarily depends.</p> - -<p>The right to labour and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labour means -only the right of free access to the source of subsistence, which is -land.<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31">[31]</a> If access to that source may be arbitrarily denied, the right -to labour is denied, and the opportunity to get one’s living becomes -a privilege which may be withheld or granted as suits the need or -convenience of the person who bestows it, and wholly on his own terms. -If access may be had only on the payment of tribute, the condition -abrogates the right to enjoy the fruit of one’s labour, for the tribute -consumes a share of it.</p> - -<p>While access to land is free, no one need know want; for he may always -get his living by applying his labour to natural resources “on his -own.” He may always, that is, work for himself instead of depending -for his living on the chance to work for an employer. Under such -conditions, moreover, no one need content himself, as the labourer -is forced to content himself at present, with a small<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> share of what -his labour produces, for as Turgot pointed out a century and a half -ago, he can always demand of an employer the full equivalent of what -he could earn by working for himself. It is clear that under such an -economic system, the share of the capitalist in any product would -amount only to a fair competitive return on his actual investment. -Under the present system the capitalist often enjoys both directly and -indirectly the advantage of monopoly, which enables him to appropriate -an unfair proportion of his workers’ labour-product. He is a direct -beneficiary of monopoly when he holds legal title to the source of -his product—cultivable land, mines, forests, water-power—or where -he holds franchises or profits by protective tariffs or embargoes. -He is an indirect beneficiary when he profits by the competition -for work among workers whom monopoly has deprived of free access to -land. The steel-trust, as I have remarked, is a striking example of a -capitalist organization which benefits both directly and indirectly by -monopoly. On the one hand, it monopolizes and holds out of access vast -mining-properties, and monopolizes the home market through a protective -tariff. On the other, it levies tribute on <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span>labour by virtue of the -scarcity of opportunity created by monopoly in general.</p> - -<p>Another excellent instance of this dual advantage is furnished by the -railways of this country. Not only have they received governmental -land-grants worth enough to cover their construction-costs many times -over, but they hold a valuable franchise-monopoly in the exclusive -right to do business over a long continuous strip of land called their -“right of way”; by means of which monopoly they drain the commerce -of a vast area as a river drains its waters. Through the enormous -wealth which these monopolies have enabled them to accumulate, they -have been able to influence governmental policy in ways designed to -enhance their privileges; for example, they have been able to curtail -water-transportation and thus reduce competition. They have profited by -tariffs, as through the emergency-law some years ago, which raised the -tariff on wheat just enough to cover the difference between the cost -of landing a bushel of wheat from the Argentine at one of our Eastern -ports, and the rate for transporting it by railway from our Western -wheat-fields. Through the Interstate Commerce Commission, of which they -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span>captured control almost as soon as it was formed, they are allowed -to levy rates which represent not the cost of transportation but the -amount which can be exacted for it. So much for their direct benefit -from monopoly. Indirectly they benefit in the same way as any other -capitalist, through the opportunity to exploit a labour-surplus created -and maintained by monopoly; and while they are somewhat hindered in -making the most of this opportunity by the effectiveness of defensive -organization among their skilled employees, they have a pretty free -hand with their thousands of unskilled workers, and manage on the whole -to do very well out of them.</p> - -<p>Even where the capitalist is not himself to any significant extent a -monopolist, he derives great benefit from monopoly, for it is thanks to -the monopolist of natural resources that he is able to keep labourers -at, or very near, the margin of subsistence. He is not always, however, -undisturbed in the enjoyment of his advantage; for he may be himself -quite as much at the mercy of monopoly as the workers he exploits. -The tenant-farmer affords an excellent example of this. He is the -capitalist in the farming-industry, who pays to the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span>land-monopolist -tribute in the form of rent, to the railways tribute in exorbitant -freight-rates on his implements and products, to the manufacturers of -his implements tribute in the form of tariffs. He furnishes the capital -necessary for operating the farm, pays the wages of such labour as he -may require, and takes for himself what is left after all these charges -have been met, which in this country is so little that it does not -suffice to pay him both interest on his capital and wages for his own -labour—a condition which explains the steady drift of our population -from the farms to the cities, and which also accounts for the -extraordinary fact that agriculture, which is in volume our greatest -industry is, <i>qua</i> industry, bankrupt. All the money in farming is now, -and for some time has been, in the rise of land-values. It is evident, -then, that save where capital and monopoly are united, capital as well -as labour is victimized by monopoly. This is one of the most important -facts of our system, and almost everyone overlooks it. The whole -producing organization is levied upon by a power which itself performs -no service whatever in return for the wealth that it appropriates; -which is, on the contrary, an incubus on the producing organization. -To put this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span> statement more clearly, the monopolist, whose control of -the sources of production makes his exactions inescapable, is limited -in those exactions only by the amount that the traffic will bear. If a -condition arises which makes a certain kind of production especially -desirable, there will naturally be a pressure of people desiring to -undertake that kind of production, and the monopolist who controls its -source will exact in payment for access to that source an amount fixed -by the number of competitors seeking access. He is thus able to absorb -all the returns of the industry which depends on his monopoly, except -just so much as is necessary to encourage people to keep on with it. -For example, during the war the owners of our Western wheat-lands, who -had been demanding one-third of the crop in rent, raised the amount to -two-fifths, because at the price fixed by the Government wheat-growing -was profitable and there were many would-be producers seeking access to -wheat-lands. The same condition was reflected in the selling price of -land. Farms were sold and resold at advancing prices until land that -had sold before the war for sixty-five dollars an acre was bringing -two hundred. During the period of deflation thousands of acres bought -on mortgages<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span> reverted from one buyer to another until the original -owner had back his land plus whatever profit he had had from its sale. -All this raising of rents and this buying and selling at inflated -prices, did nothing for production, obviously, except to drain off the -lion’s share of its proceeds into the pocket of the monopolist; for all -speculative values must necessarily be paid finally out of production, -since there is no other source for them to come from. The producing -organization thus carries an enormous load of people who draw their -living from it and give neither goods nor services in return; who live, -that is to say, by appropriating the labour-products of others without -compensation—in other words, by legalized theft.</p> - -<p>As monopoly extends and tightens its grip on the sources of production, -it is enabled to exact an increasing share of the proceeds, until -the point is reached where industry can no longer meet its demands -and continue to pay interest and wages. For example, so long as this -country had a frontier, the monopolist was in no position to exact a -very great share of production, for the producer had the alternative -of pushing on to the margin of cultivation where there were as yet -no landlords to support.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span> The monopolist, therefore, could exact no -more than the difference between what a man might earn in a sparsely -settled country, remote from markets, and what he could earn by -carrying on production in a more thickly settled and more nearly -monopolized region. So long as this condition endured, production in -this country was able to pay tribute to monopoly and still pay the -capitalist a fairly good rate of interest and the labourer a fairly -good wage. But since the late nineteenth century, when the frontier -was closed, all the best of the country’s land and natural resources -being legally occupied, monopoly has been able to exact an ever greater -share of production; for while monopoly progresses, the population -grows, and competitive demand for access to the source of production -increases; and these two causes combine to cut down free economic -opportunity to the disappearing point. Thus it seems only a matter of -time until production will break down under the exactions of monopoly -and revolution and readjustment will follow. The breakdown has already -begun in the basic industry, agriculture, for, as I have stated above, -the tenant farmer is no longer able to meet the charges of monopoly -and still earn interest and wages. Therefore our agrarian <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span>population, -literally starved off the land, is steadily drifting to the cities, to -swell the numbers of workers who crowd the industrial labour-market. -This is to say that our civilization is dying at the root; and this -having presently grown too rotten to nourish it or support it, a little -wind of revolution or foreign invasion will one day overturn it, as all -civilizations which have hitherto existed have been overturned by the -same cause. “<i>Latifundia</i>,” said Pliny, “<i>perdiderunt Romam</i>.”</p> - -<p>This same economic system exists in all the great countries of the -world save Russia, where it broke down under the Czarist régime and has -not been re-established. It is farther advanced in the countries of -the old world than it is here, because this country is more recently -settled. This fact constitutes the only difference between the economic -order in the old world and that in the new—a difference in the degree -that exploitation has reached.</p> - -<p>Wherever exploitation exists, whether in the new world or the old, it -exists by means of a governmental organization which its beneficiaries -control and use to protect their privileges against the expropriated -and exploited masses. There is general agreement among scholars that in -government, <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span>exploitation came first, and what we know as law and order -are its incidental by-products; and that however far the development -of these by-products may go, they are never allowed to interfere with -exploitation. “The State,” says Oppenheimer, “grew from the subjugation -of one group of men by another. Its basic justification, its <i>raison -d’être</i>, was and is the economic exploitation of those subjugated.” -Both the origin and the essential nature of the State remain perfectly -clear so long as the conquering class remains distinct from the subject -classes and keeps these in a state of vassalage, without freedom of -movement, and subject to transfer from one owner to another along with -the land on which they dwell. In our own age, they are quite evident -in the dealings of the Western powers with weak peoples, as in India -or the Philippine Islands, or the mandated territories under the -League of Nations, where foreign Governments, through their military -organizations, protect their nationals in an economic exploitation of -the native population, and themselves levy taxes upon the natives to -pay the costs of the process. The nature and purpose of the State are -clear, indeed, in any community where the owning and exploiting class -exercises direct control over the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span> propertyless dependent classes -as more or less chattels. The landed aristocracy of Europe formerly -exercised this direct control, as their titles, now grown meaningless, -indicate.</p> - -<p>But where the form of the State has undergone a change which precludes -this direct control by the owning class, the nature of the State, and -its essential function, are obscured. Under the republicanism which -succeeded the American and French revolutions, the expropriated classes -have gained freedom of movement, a limited freedom of opinion, and a -nominal share in the exercise of government. The peasant is no longer -bound to the soil he tills; he may leave it at will to seek his fortune -elsewhere—on the terms of another landlord. The owning classes no -longer directly exercise government or directly enjoy honours and -titles by virtue of ownership. The peoples of the Western world, -at least where parliamentarism has not broken down, have a nominal -freedom with little of the reality. Nominal freedom of movement is -worth little to the man who faces the alternative of being exploited -where he is, or being exploited elsewhere. Nominal freedom of opinion -is not extremely valuable when expression of opinion may cost one the -opportunity to earn<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span> one’s living; and the right to vote offers little -satisfaction when it means merely a right of choice between rival -parties and candidates representing exactly the same system of economic -exploitation.</p> - -<p>The political revolution which followed the breakdown of feudalism did -the world its greatest service in launching the <i>idea</i> of freedom; it -did nothing—or relatively very little—for its substance. Through its -agency the equal right of all human beings to “life, liberty, and the -pursuit of happiness” has come to be granted in theory though not in -fact; it remained for the Russian Revolution to proclaim the further -idea that the basis of this right is not political but economic. The -political revolution did more; by establishing political democracy, -it put into the hands of the people the power to achieve economic -democracy by peaceful means. But by that very act it obscured the -essential function of the State and the source of its power, which -remained clear as long as those who owned ruled directly by virtue -of ownership; and thus it hindered a clear perception of the causal -relation between privilege and slavery. By abolishing hereditary power, -it effected a redistribution of privilege, and at the same time forced -privilege to exercise its control of <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span>government by indirect means. -Privilege was no longer seated on the throne, but it remained, through -its control of economic opportunity, the power behind the throne;<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32">[32]</a> a -power all the more difficult to dislodge now that it exercised control -without assuming responsibility. Republicanism has proved the futility -of dislodging a privileged class without abolishing privilege; for this -simply prepares the way for the rise of a new privileged class which -will use government to enforce its exploitation of the propertyless -class, in a different way, perhaps, but quite as effectively as its -predecessors.</p> - -<p>The psychological effect of the political equality established under -republicanism is extremely demoralizing. As I have remarked, the -subject classes have never desired freedom so much as a chance at -the privileges that they see other people enjoy. Political equality, -with its breaking-down of class distinctions, creates an impression -of equality of opportunity—and indeed to the extent that government -maintains no disabling legal discriminations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> among members of the -enfranchised class,<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33">[33]</a> it actually establishes equality. No member -of that class is excluded from the benefits of privilege by anything -save his inability to get possession of it; and this fact, especially -in a country where opportunity is comparatively plentiful, is more -likely to confirm people in their loyalty to a system under which -they stand even a dog’s chance to become beneficiaries of privilege, -than it is to stimulate an endeavour to abolish privilege altogether. -In this country the incalculable richness of natural resources and -the enormous wealth to be gained by speculative enterprise under a -government which gives full rein to monopoly, contributed immensely to -the corruption of the citizenry. Speculation became the normal course -of enterprise, the most approved method of money-getting; and the more -ruinously did the monopolist exploit the country’s resources, as Mr. -Veblen has pointed out, the greater the regard in which he was held -by his fellow citizens. Never before in the world’s history had so -many people a chance at the enjoyment of privilege as in the pioneer<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span> -period of American development. The country’s resources were gutted for -profit, not developed for use. The use-value of land was incidental -to its value as real estate. Every farmer became a speculator, and -consequently the margin of cultivation, instead of being pushed out -gradually in response to the natural increase in the country’s needs, -was extended artificially and with extreme rapidity, with the result -that farms were miles apart and unnecessary difficulties in marketing, -and in the maintenance of education and social life, were created. -The country resembled the modern city-addition of the real-estater, -with all the framework of settlement, waiting for the pressure of -population to enhance the selling-price of land. Not only was the -public mind corrupted by the apparently limitless opportunity to enjoy -privilege—not only was speculation confused with production—but -all this opportunity was blindly attributed to the blessings of -republicanism. “The greatest government on earth” came to be regarded -as the guardian of free opportunity for all citizens, in spite of the -very evident fact that no government which protects land-monopoly can -possibly maintain freedom of opportunity, for in the course of monopoly -all available natural resources are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span> shortly pre-empted, and those -people who are born after occupation is complete will find nothing left -to pre-empt. Thus American patriotism took on a religious fervour, and -the corruption of the populace was complete.</p> - -<p>The rise of industrialism has done as much as anything else to -engender misapprehension of the State’s essential nature, its chief -function, and the source of its power. It is significant that the -Physiocrats lived and observed the workings of the State before the -industrial era, in an agricultural country, where the relation between -land-monopoly and government was direct and inescapable; and that -Karl Marx lived and wrote after the rise of the factory-system, in a -highly industrialized country. The Physiocrats, for whom the basic -economic problem was unobscured, therefore attributed involuntary -poverty to its actual cause; while Marx, confusing capital’s fortuitous -advantage from monopoly with monopoly itself, laid the responsibility -at the door of capitalism. To be sure, Marx recognized and stated the -fact that expropriation must precede exploitation; but he did not -draw the obvious conclusion that the way to break capital’s power to -exploit the worker is by simple reimpropriation. At<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span> present there -is a general impression that the factory-system lured the population -into the cities, and thus caused the overcrowding that results in -scarcity of jobs and inadequacy of wage. As a matter of fact, the -factory-system found the cities already overcrowded with exploitable -labour. In England, for example, the Enclosures Acts had deprived the -people of what common land remained to them, and had driven them into -the cities where they lived in inconceivable filth and squalor, eking -out a miserable existence under the old family-system of industry. -The machine-system found all this expropriated and exploitable human -material ready to serve its ends—far more, indeed, than it needed, -as the riots among the workers deprived of their livelihood by its -labour-saving tools, plainly indicated. The industrial revolution, -then, did not produce the overcrowding of the labour-market; but the -capitalist of the revolution profited by an overcrowding that already -existed. He reaped indirectly the fruits of monopoly. He profited -likewise, and profits still, by every labour-saving device, for it -enabled him at once to dispense with some labourers and, because of -the increase of unemployment thus caused, to pay his remaining workers -less. Capital was thus<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span> enabled to appropriate much more than its -rightful share of production, and hence to amass enormous wealth, by -means of which it influenced government on behalf of its own further -enrichment. In this country, it has secured a system of protective -tariffs which amount to a governmental delegation of taxing-power to -the protected industries; it gives them a monopoly of the home-market -and enables them to add to the price of their product the amount of -the tariff which has been set against the competing foreign article. -Capital has found other ways of creating monopolies, such as the -combinations in restraint of trade at which the ineffectual Sherman -law was levelled. As the exactions of monopoly increase, and the -exploitation of labour nears the point of diminishing return, the -capitalist-monopolist embarks, with the protection of government, -on a policy of economic imperialism. He monopolizes the markets of -weak nations at the point of his Government’s bayonets. He invests -in foreign enterprises which offer high returns for himself and risk -of war for the Government which backs him—that is to say, for the -exploited masses at home who must support the Government and furnish -its soldiers. In short, he constitutes himself a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span> menace to peace and -prosperity both at home and abroad; so that it is not to be wondered -at if people observing his sinister activities, take capital to be -the cause of the economic injustice from which it derives its power. -Yet, if natural resources were put freely in competition with industry -for the employment of labour, the inflamed fortunes of the capitalist -class would disappear. Monopoly having been abolished,<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34">[34]</a> the -capitalist-monopolist would no longer exist, and the capitalist would -no longer be in a position to exact from production anything more than -his rightful interest—that is, as I have said, the amount fixed by -free competitive demand for the use of his capital.</p> - -<p>There is yet another cause of confusion in the long-established custom -of regarding land as private property, whereas it is not, rightly -speaking, private property at all, but the source from which property<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span> -is produced by the combined efforts of labour and capital. The right -to property in wealth which has been produced, as, for instance, the -coat on one’s back, may be defended on the ground that it is the -product of one’s own labour, or has been acquired through exchange of -an equivalent amount of one’s own product; but the right to property -in land can not be defended on the same ground, because land is not a -labour-product. The distinction is simply between labour-made property -and law-made property. Under our present system of tenure, to be sure, -the purchase price of land—that is, the investment of capital that the -owner has made in order to get title—may represent human labour—but -this is merely to say that the owner has invested his capital in -privilege, or law-made property; that he has purchased, under -governmental guarantee, a certain delegation of taxing-power, precisely -as the investor in governmental securities purchases a governmental -guarantee that a certain share of future labour-products will be -taken from the producers and turned over to him. The fact that, under -political government, capital may be invested in privilege in no wise -alters the iniquitous nature of privilege, and a sound public policy -would disallow<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span> an investor’s plea of good faith <i>ex post facto</i>.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35">[35]</a> -Under a system which did not permit such investments, those people who -wished to put their capital to gainful use would invest it in the only -legitimate way, which is in productive enterprise.</p> - -<p>It is, perhaps, partly because of the confusion of thought produced by -all these causes, that no revolution has ever abolished the exploiting -State and the privileges that it exists to secure. But it must also be -remembered that all revolutions have risen out of factional disputes -or class-wars, and that in the latter case, the chief interest of the -revolting class has been not to abolish privilege but to redistribute -it. The French Revolution, for instance, expropriated the land-owning -nobility, but its politicians dared not abolish private land-monopoly, -for the bourgeoisie which supported the revolution would not have -tolerated such an interference with their own enjoyment of privilege. -In one important respect the Russian Revolution is an exception to -this rule. It is a class-revolution, but its avowed ultimate purpose<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span> -is to abolish even that State-organization which itself at present -maintains.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36">[36]</a> It is too early for any forecast to be made concerning -the outcome of this attempt; but whether it succeeds or not, the -Russian Revolution has already performed an inestimable service to the -world in proclaiming that the nature of freedom is not political but -economic, and in refusing, as a State-organization, to use its power -for the maintenance of an idle, rent-consuming class, living by the -exploitation of labour at home or in spheres of influence abroad.</p> - -<p>In order to abolish privilege it is not necessary, in a political -democracy, to wait for the economic breakdown which its exactions -inevitably bring about—that is to say, it is not necessary to wait -until the number of wasteful idlers that production must support shall -become so numerous and so wasteful that it can no longer meet their -exactions. The ballot has been a pretty ineffectual weapon in the hands -of the rank and file, but—so much must be said for republicanism—it -could be made effective. First, however, the rank and file would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> -have to learn what it is that this weapon should be used against—it -would have to become aware of the nature of real freedom, and to wish -real freedom to prevail. The power of privilege under republicanism -depends not only on its control of wealth, but much more upon its -control of thought and opinion. That a campaign of education among the -voters can seriously endanger the position of privilege was proved -in England during the great land-values campaign of 1914, which was -cut short by the war. But the task of education is not easy, because -of the conditions I have just been discussing, which obscure the -essential nature of privilege, and of the State. We have had in this -country a great deal of outcry against privilege, and it has aroused -considerable popular sympathy; but the zeal engendered thereby has not -advanced the cause of freedom, because the outcry was directed against -the capitalist and the exploiting power gained by his fortuitous -advantage from privilege, but not against privilege itself. The nature -of privilege was obscured. It is evidently necessary, then, if the -ballot is ever to be successfully employed against privilege, to know -what privilege means and to clear away all confusion about it, so that -the voters may see what is at fault in our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span> economic system, and what -remedial steps are necessary.</p> - -<p>The essential nature of freedom has been already shown. It comes out -in the abolition of monopoly, primarily monopoly of natural resources, -resulting in complete freedom of the individual to apply his productive -labour where he will. It is freedom to produce, and its corollary, -freedom to exchange—the <i>laissez-faire</i>, <i>laissez-passer</i> of the -Physiocrats. How this freedom is to be obtained is not for me to say. -I am not a propagandist, nor do I regard the question as at present -so important as that of establishing a clear understanding of the -nature of freedom. When enough people come to see that the root of all -bondage, economic, political, social—even the bondage of superstition -and taboo—is expropriation, reimpropriation will not be long in -following; and it may be achieved by a method quite different from all -those which theorists have thus far devised. When people know what -they need, they are usually pretty resourceful about finding means to -get it; and so long as they do not know what they need, all the means -of securing it that can be suggested, however excellent, must remain -ineffective from the lack of sufficient will to use them.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span></p> - -<h3>II</h3> - -<p>In the foregoing chapters I have spoken of the effect that freedom -would have upon this or that phase of human relations. There is really -no field of human activity that would not be profoundly affected by -it. A system of free economic opportunity would exert upon the lives -of human beings precisely as great an influence as that exerted by the -present economic system: that is to say, their mode of life, their -education, their quality of spirit, their cast of thought, would all -be determined by their command of wealth, precisely as they now are. -But where the present economic system operates to place the great mass -of wealth at the command of a very small percentage of the population -and thus to keep the majority in an involuntary and oppressive poverty -unfavourably affecting body, mind and spirit in a thousand ways, a -system of free opportunity would place in the hands of every human -being all the wealth that his labour, freely employed, could produce, -and at the same time it would relieve productive labour from the heavy -burden of privilege. Thus that huge share of wealth which now goes -to maintain the privileged classes in luxurious idleness,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span> and that -further huge share which supports vast bureaucracies and keeps up -armies and navies to secure the foreign investments of the privileged -classes, would be diverted to its proper use. The number of workers -would be augmented by all those privilegees and placeholders who -now live without producing;<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37">[37]</a> but opportunity would be increased -in infinitely greater proportion; therefore these newcomers would -find no difficulty in supporting themselves. On the other hand, the -immense reduction in luxury and waste thus brought about would very -much shorten the hours of labour. The worker whose labour, in addition -to maintaining himself and his dependents, is supporting two or -three idlers and paying for a share of governmental waste besides, -must necessarily spend many more hours at work than the worker whose -exertions are required only for the support of himself and his natural -dependents. But while the labour of each producer would decrease, -production would be increased by the opening of new opportunities, by -the increase in number of the producers, and by the enhanced power of -consumption<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span> made possible through their greater command of wealth. -The redistribution which would follow upon the establishment of free -opportunity, and the curtailment of waste, would satisfy a share of -this new demand; but just as production and exchange, in a period of -comparative prosperity at present, are stimulated by the increased -consuming power of the public, so, when artificial restrictions on -production had been removed, the increased power of consumption which -would result would act as a permanent stimulus to production and -exchange.</p> - -<p>I will not speculate about the conditions arising during the period -of adjustment to the new conditions of economic freedom. If bad, -they would be but temporary, and though they are often magnified as -arguments against freedom by those who either can not or do not wish to -see beyond them, they have no proper place in this discussion, which -is concerned only with the permanent effect of free opportunity on the -lives, spirits and minds of human beings. It may be doubted that the -intercalary hardships of the transition would be great; but if they -were to be twice as great as the most timorous would forecast them, -would they not be preferable to those attending the protraction of the -present system to its <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span>inevitable break-up? That is the real question. -Thomas Jefferson said that rather than the French Revolution should -fail, he would see half Europe perish, and “though but an Adam and Eve -were left in every country, and left free, it would be better than it -is now.”</p> - -<p>Who can picture the profound alteration in the attitude of people -toward life and their fellow-beings, if they were but emancipated from -the fear of want which now besets all of humankind? Even the rich and -the well-to-do are not exempt from this fear; for an economic security -based on an unsound economic system is like those walks which are -thrown along the thin crust of earth among the geysers of Yellowstone -Park, where those who walk them are in danger that a misstep may plunge -them through the thin crust to perish in the scalding heat beneath. -While an economic system based upon the legalized robbery of one class -by another remains in force, the abyss of involuntary poverty will -always yawn for those who may lose their command of wealth through -their own incapacity for management, or through circumstances beyond -their control. It seems likely that an instinctive sense of this is at -least partly responsible for the constant effort of <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span>people already -well off to increase their fortunes. It is certainly responsible for a -great deal of effort to get wealth by dishonest means—that is to say, -by those forms of dishonesty which are without legal sanction. The fear -of want produces avarice, chicanery, fraud, servility, envy, suspicion, -distrust. It leads to unlegalized theft, to murder, to prostitution. -It produces a class of people who, in a society which denies free -opportunity and puts a premium on graft, live by their wits, and in -so doing often display an energy and ability which would be useful -to a society that offered it no opportunity save that for honest -and useful employment. Moreover, this fear of want keeps the great -majority of people constantly occupied with the means of existence, -when they should properly be devoting a large share of their time to -the fulfilment of its purpose, which is that enjoyment gained from -developing one’s spiritual capacities and pursuing spiritual interests. -Those thus preoccupied can not employ with either imagination or profit -what leisure they have. Rather, they will merely use their leisure to -overcome their weariness of themselves. Their pleasures will be mere -pastimes, of the kind that subvert thought and dull imagination. Thus -little scope is left for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span> the higher activities of the spirit, and the -quality of life is impoverished.</p> - -<p>The spiritual effects of the fear of want are naturally most clearly -observable in countries where it is most widespread and deep-rooted. -England offers a particularly good field for observation of these -phenomena, for economic exploitation by a conquering class which has -merged into a powerful owning aristocracy, is there advanced to the -point of breakdown; therefore all the results of economic exploitation -are present in overflowing measure. The most striking, perhaps, are -the servility and snobbery which find sanction even in the Church -catechism, in the passage admonishing candidates for confirmation to -order themselves lowly and reverently unto all their betters—that is -to say, those born to a higher place in the social order. The English -novelists, from the days of Richardson and Fielding down to the -present, have faithfully recorded the unlovely characteristics bred -in a people by the ever-present necessity of keeping an eye to the -main chance; by the knowledge that fortune may depend less on merit -and ability than on a servile currying of favour with those powerful -persons who, through the fortuitous circumstance of birth, are in -control of <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span>economic opportunity. Richardson was himself demoralized -by the social system to which the economic system had given rise. His -acceptance of arrogance in the owning class and abjectness in the -exploited, shows how acquiescence in injustice can corrupt even a man -of genius. “Pamela” is a veritable study in servility; an unconscious -and devastating exposition of the basic principle of English society. -Fielding, on the other hand, was too critical to be corrupted by -it, and his books are all the more valuable for the objectivity -with which he presents the demoralization that a predatory economic -system has produced. What an array of characters he parades before -his readers—avaricious, envious, suspicious, self-seeking, arrogant, -venal! Even the hero of his great novel, “Tom Jones,” is not above -prostituting himself to an elderly lady of wealth when he finds himself -in danger of want and with no more honest means of getting a living, -having been brought up as a gentleman, that is to say, an idler. This -greatest of English novelists was well aware of the effect produced on -the collective life of his nation by an arbitrary division of human -kind into “High people and Low people,” and he took occasion to comment -upon it with a penetrating satire. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span></p> - -<blockquote><p>Now the world being divided thus into people of fashion and -people of no fashion, a fierce contention arose between them; nor -would those of one party, to avoid suspicion, be seen publicly -to speak to those of the other, tho’ they often held a very good -correspondence in private ... but we who know them, must have -daily found very high persons know us in one place and not in -another, today and not tomorrow; ... and perhaps if the gods, -according to the opinions of some, made men only to laugh at them, -there is no part of our behavior which answers the end of our -creation better than this.</p></blockquote> - -<p>One might say that the profuseness of unamiable qualities with which -Fielding endows so many of his characters, was due to a peculiar humour -or pessimism in this writer, if one did not find those same qualities -plentifully distributed among the characters of his successors. Dickens -created a whole gallery of highly interesting and unadmirable folk, and -one finds such faithful counterparts in Thackeray, for example, or in -George Eliot, that they are to be explained not as the mere creation of -any author’s imagination, but as a product of the society in which he -lived and observed.</p> - -<p>There is material for an excellent study of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span> relation of the -economic and social system to the literary art, in the important rôle -that money plays in English fiction. That intense preoccupation with -the means of existence which is enforced by the fear of want, has -profoundly affected the plots and characters of English novels. The -number of plots which hinge on someone’s attempt to get someone else’s -money, is astonishing. The number of men and women who either marry -or attempt to marry for money, is legion; and no English novelist has -the hardihood to settle his characters for life without providing them -with a living, generally through inheritance or the generosity of some -wealthy patron. It is significant that if they are going to make their -own fortunes they usually strike out to make them in the new world, -where there is some opportunity. The preoccupation with getting money, -not through industry but through inheritance, cadging, or chicanery, -is reduced to its lowest terms in the stories of W. W. Jacobs about -life along the waterfront of London. These entertaining and racy -stories, with monotonous regularity, present one theme, and that theme -is the attempt of one character to do another—usually his closest -associate—out of some trifling sum of money. It is interesting to note -that one<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span> of the striking differences between English and American -fiction is that where the former deals with money-getting the latter is -likelier to deal with money-making. The one represents a society where -opportunity is pretty thoroughly monopolized; the other a society in -which it is as yet somewhat less so.</p> - -<p>It is not the fear of want alone which demoralizes and corrupts. In -a society where the greatest respect is paid to those who live in -idleness through legalized theft; where men of genius may be treated -like lackeys by those whose only claim to superiority is their command -of wealth; where industry and ability yield smaller returns than -flattery and servility; in such a society there is little to encourage -honesty and independence of spirit. So long as honour is paid to those -who live by other people’s labour, in proportion to their power of -commanding it, so long will praise of honesty, industry, and thrift -savour of hypocrisy, and so long will the mass of people be under small -temptation to cultivate these virtues; and so long, also, will the -moralists who seek to inculcate them be open to the same suspicion of -insincerity as are those bankers who stand to profit substantially by -the thrift they preach<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span> among depositors. There is something grimly -amusing in the complaints so frequently heard from those who live -in ease, about the shiftlessness of the working classes and their -dishonest workmanship; complaints which are well founded, perhaps, but -do not take into account the slight incentive that is furnished by the -knowledge that the profits of industry and honest workmanship will -be diverted into other pockets than those of the workers. If labour -takes every opportunity of giving as little as it can for as much as -it can get, one must remember that it but follows the example set by -the owning classes, an example that has yielded them rich returns both -in wealth and in the esteem of their fellow-men. Under a free economic -system no such demoralizing example would exist. The material rewards -of honesty, industry, and thrift would accrue to those who practised -these virtues; and since there would be no opportunity to gain esteem -through the appropriation of other people’s labour, those who wished -to enjoy it would be forced to depend on more worthy means, such as -ability, integrity, and uprightness in their dealings with other people.</p> - -<p>In a free society, ignorance, vice and crime would tend to disappear. -We should have no people in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span> high places whose large-scale theft -would make them fitter inmates for jails, and no people in jails for -those petty thefts to which need is a perennial incentive. Jails, -indeed, would be very little needed by such a society; for what with -the abolition of the State, with its long list of law-made crimes, -and the disappearance of those social conditions which are largely -responsible for the few infractions of moral law which constitute real -crime, there would be very few offenders to occupy them. I have already -remarked that need is a constant incentive to theft; it is also the -chief cause of ignorance; and ignorance and misery are fecund sources -of vice, as well as of the physical and mental degeneracy which result -in imbecility and idiocy. If need were removed, if every human being -were assured from birth of physical well-being and ample opportunity to -develop mentally to the full extent of his capacity, these distressing -results of involuntary poverty would not long exist to menace the peace -and health of communities and fill reformers and eugenists with alarm. -The cities where human beings are crowded together under conditions -subversive of health and decency would be gradually emptied of their -surplus population. At present they are largely <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span>asylums for the -expropriated, but when land was once more freely available they would -resume their natural character as centres of industry and exchange. -There would be no more centres of want, misery and vice, like centres -of infection, to menace the health and well-being of society. Man, -reclaimed by the land which is his natural home, would appear for -what he really is, a child of the earth, rather than an industrial -machine far removed from his rightful heritage of close, health-giving -connexion with the soil from which his sustenance comes. Life, in -short, having been placed on its natural basis, might be expected -to proceed along natural lines of development. Mankind, assured of -physical health, would progress steadily in health of mind and activity -of spirit; and being freed from its pressing need to take thought of -the morrow, it would have leisure to seek the kingdom of heaven—not -that heaven which the church promises as a future reward for orthodox -communicants, but the kingdom of heaven which “is within you,” the -happiness that comes from the harmonious development of the highest -faculties of body, mind and spirit, and their use in the promotion of a -beautiful individual and collective life. Superstition and intolerance -would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span> disappear with the ignorance that produces them. Thought would -no longer be hampered either by fear or the consciousness of dependence -on an order of things unfit to bear the light of reason; but every -human being would be free to exercise that independence of mind -that only the most courageous or the most securely placed may allow -themselves at present. The long story of martyrdom for opinion would -come to an end when freedom of opinion no longer threatened a vested -interest in the perpetuation of injustice. Thus that “progressive -humanization of man in society” which is civilization in the highest -sense, would be in a way to be promoted as it has never been promoted -in any society of which the world has knowledge.</p> - -<h3>III</h3> - -<p>Theoretically, it might still be possible for free economic opportunity -and its benefits to exist for men only or for women only; but in -order to exclude a whole sex from participation in them, it would be -necessary to reduce its members to the status of chattels. Now, to -reduce half of humanity to slavery is practically unthinkable; it would -necessitate a <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span>reversion to an order of thought that has largely been -outgrown; for all social injustice, in the last analysis, is founded in -an ignorance and prejudice which cause even its victims to acquiesce -in it. Indeed, without this acquiescence, social injustice may be -called impossible. “After the primary necessities of food and raiment, -freedom is the first and strongest want of human nature.” Because of -this instinct for freedom, the subjection of any class in society can -be continued only so long as that class itself fails clearly to realize -the injustice of its position; when it comes into a clear realization -of this injustice it will demand and eventually obtain the removal -of its disabilities. The subjection of women, such as it has been, -lasted only so long as women themselves acquiesced in it.<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38">[38]</a> When they -developed a sense of injury, they began to demand the equality with -men which is their right, and ignorance, prejudice and superstition -are yielding before the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span>demand. There is no reason to suppose that -women, having progressed thus far, would tolerate without a sharp -struggle any reversion to the injustice from which they have escaped. -Ignorance, prejudice, and superstition, moreover, are incompatible -with the enlightenment which will be necessary in order to secure -economic justice even for one-half of humanity; for that enlightenment -postulates not only the desire to enjoy freedom oneself, but the desire -that all people may enjoy it—that is, it postulates repudiation of the -idea of dominance. Thus society not only could not endure half slave, -half free; it would not wish so to endure.</p> - -<p>Women are at present under certain disabilities which legal equality -with men can hardly be expected to remove. Those disabilities are:</p> - -<p>1. Economic: Women are the victims of unjust discriminations in -industry and the professions in regard to training, opportunities, -tenure of employment, and wages. They are also victimized by -ill-considered “welfare” legislation sponsored by benevolent persons, -and by male workers whose purpose is to rid themselves of unwelcome -competition.<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39">[39]</a> </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span></p> - -<p>If legal equality of the sexes were established, women might be able, -under the law, to force public industrial schools to give them equal -opportunities for training; they might also be able to enforce a demand -for equal pay with men for equal work. It is even conceivable that they -might force employers to lay off workers, during periods of depression, -on a proportional basis—men and women together, in proportion to -the number of each sex employed. All this, however, would entail -unremitting vigilance, and great effort in getting legal enactments; -it would also entail a great deal of governmental machinery, with all -the waste and ineffectiveness implied by the term; and it would leave -the general labour-problem precisely where it is at present. As for the -matter of opportunity, so long as industry is in the hands of private -concerns, I see no way by which employers can be forced under an -equal-rights law to employ women where they prefer to employ men. Nor -is there any certainty that legal equality will save working women from -having the race “safeguarded” at their expense. But if land were put -freely in competition with industry for the employment of labour, all -these disabilities would <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span>disappear. Women would enjoy the same freedom -as men to get their living by their labour, and since there would be no -such thing as a labour-surplus, their wage, like that of men, would be -the full product of their labour, and not that share which employers -or governmental boards thought fit to grant them. There would be no -need for reformers or other benevolent persons to secure them fair -hours and conditions of labour, or to get them excluded from hazardous -employments; for there is no way to make a worker accept onerous -conditions of labour from an employer if he have an ever-present -alternative of going out and creating more agreeable conditions by -working for himself. The worker whose independent position makes it -possible to refuse to work an excessive number of hours or under -unhealthful or dangerous or disagreeable conditions, will simply -refuse, and there will be an end of it. Thus employers, instead of -being prevented from exploiting women beyond a certain point, would be -rendered incapable of exploiting anyone in any degree. Nor would male -workers longer have any incentive to avail themselves of “protective” -legislation in order to reduce the competition of women<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span> with men in -the labour-market; for it is only where opportunity is artificially -restricted that there are “not enough jobs to go around.”</p> - -<p>Certain direct consequences of the economic inferiority of women might -be expected to disappear when that inferiority no longer existed. -Foremost among these is the demoralizing temptation to get their -living by their sex. Prostitution would disappear from a society which -offered women ample opportunity to earn their living without doing -violence to their selective sexual disposition. Marriage would no -longer be degraded to the level of a means of livelihood, as it is -today for a great many women; for economic security would no longer -in any wise depend upon it. This being the case, the expectation now -put upon women to undertake marriage as a profession would disappear, -and marriage would come to be regarded in the light of a condition, -freely and voluntarily assumed by both sexes, who would jointly and -equally undertake its responsibilities. Under such circumstances, one -might confidently expect a further modification of institutionalized -marriage which would remove all those privileges and disabilities -now legally enforced on either party by virtue of the contract. The -idea that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span> woman’s place is the home—which implies that marriage, -for her, necessarily involves acquiescence in a traditional sexual -division of labour and a traditional mode of life—with all its -disabling economic and psychological consequences, would disappear -from a society in which she was able freely to choose her occupation -according to her abilities. Thus, from the status of a class regarded -as being divinely ordained to be the world’s housekeepers, women would -emerge into the status of human beings, free to consult their interests -and inclinations in the ordering of their lives, without regard to -traditional expectations which, being no longer enforced by economic or -legal sanctions, would have no longer any power over them.</p> - -<p>2. Psychological: Those prejudices and superstitions which now hamper -women in their development and in the ordering of their lives, might -be expected to disappear from a free society. In so far as they are -the consequences of woman’s subjection, they would yield before her -emergence into the status of a human being, sharing equally with man in -the freedom of opportunity that would result from the establishment of -economic justice, and the increased cultural advantages that freedom -of opportunity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span> would bring. In so far as they are the outgrowth of -primitive ignorance and superstition, they would yield before the -increased intelligence and enlightenment which might be expected to -result from the abundance and leisure afforded to every human being -by economic freedom. Thus those artificial differentiations between -the sexes which have been built up by fear, by superstitions, and by -masculine dominance, would tend to disappear. Women would no longer -be regarded as extra-human beings endowed with superhuman powers for -good or ill; they would no longer be regarded exclusively or chiefly -as a function, being no longer forced to occupy that status; theories -of their mental and spiritual inferiority based on the results of -centuries of subjection would yield before a more humane and scientific -attitude; and as freedom promoted individuation among women, it would -become evident that the traditional notions concerning the feminine -nature were drawn from qualities which, having been bred by their -subjection, should have been regarded as characteristics not of a sex -but of a class.</p> - -<p>3. Social: The superstitious notion that woman’s honour is a matter -of sex would disappear with the masculine dominance from which it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span>resulted. When women need no longer depend on marriage for their -living or their social position, they will no longer be under any -great compulsion to make their sexual relations conform to standards -which have been adapted to suit the interests, desires and tastes of -men. Being economically independent of men, they will be at liberty to -consult their own interests, desires and tastes, in this as in other -matters. They may desire to preserve those habits of virginity before -marriage and chastity after it, which have been imposed upon them under -masculine dominance; but they will be under no external compulsion to -do so. When they have no longer a professional interest in conforming -to the conventional moral code, their sexual relations will cease to be -regarded as falling within the purview of morality at all; rather they -will be, as those of men have been, a question of manners. For when a -moral precept no longer has social or economic sanctions to enforce it, -its observance ceases to be a matter of worldly interest or expediency, -and becomes a matter of personal taste. Then, if it be not sound, it -will be repudiated; if it be sound, the individual who allows himself -to be guided by it will profit spiritually by doing so, because his -obedience will respond<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span> to his own instinct for what is good, rather -than to an external pressure.</p> - -<p>The spiritual gain that will come through the release from bondage to -superstition, discrimination and taboo, is incalculable. Freed from her -slavery to catchwords, woman will be able to discover and appraise for -herself the true spiritual values which catchwords usually obscure. -Having no longer any need to preserve a fearful regard for what other -people may think of her, she will be at liberty to regulate her conduct -by what she wishes to think of herself; and hence she will be able to -cast aside the hypocrisy, duplicity and dissimulation that must be bred -in any class of people whose position in society depends not upon what -they are but upon what they appear to be. Having attained to the full -humanity which this emancipation implies, she will gain sufficient -respect for her sex to tolerate no discriminations against it. Thus we -may expect to see her sexual function of motherhood placed on a basis -of self-respect, and the barbarous injustice of illegitimacy relegated -to the limbo of forgotten abuses. Woman will for the first time undergo -the profound and weighty experience of responsibility to herself, -rather than to social institutions and arrangements<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span> which were made -for her, and whose nature is not such as to command the deference of a -free agent. Free from the tyranny of the expected, from the disabling -consequences of surveillance and repression, women will for the first -time be able to develop to their full stature as human beings, in -accordance with the law of spiritual growth which has so long been -thwarted and perverted by the usages of society.</p> - -<p>I have given only a general idea of what economic freedom would do to -promote human happiness. Its effect upon the lives and characters of -men would be quite as emancipating as upon those of women; but this -I have not space to consider in detail. In passing, however, I might -remark that not the least of the benefits that men would gain by it -would be relief from the worry and humiliation which the support of -women so often involves at present. “I have taken mistreatment from -that conductor,” said a young musician recently, “that I never would -have stood for if I were single. But I have a wife, and that makes -us all cowards.” A free people would outgrow on the one hand the -sheepishness that fear of want begets, and on the other the arrogance -bred by consciousness of power. Men would no longer need endure -humiliation for the sake of <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span>keeping their jobs; and those over them -would be estopped from arrogance by the knowledge that they were -dealing with free men who were under no compulsion to tolerate it.</p> - -<p>If it appear that I envisage utopian results from the institution of -economic freedom, let me assume the possibility that those spiritual -results which I foresee might not come about. If they did not come -about, however, their failure to do so would imply a profound and -inexplicable change for the worse in human nature; for if the world’s -history proves anything, it is that there is in mankind a natural -disposition to aspire toward what is ennobling and beautiful, and -that this disposition is favoured by economic security—especially -where it is not associated with irresponsible power—and thwarted by -involuntary poverty. Why is it that the middle classes are regarded as -the “backbone” of society, if not because they have had enough command -of wealth to enable the maintenance of health and a high standard of -education, without that excess and power which too often breed idleness -and arrogance? Leisure and abundance stimulate independence of spirit, -thought, education, creative activity. Penury leads to demoralization, -ignorance, dulness. This<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span> has been the world’s experience in the past. -“There is in man,” says Goethe, “a creative disposition which comes -into activity as soon as his existence is assured. <i>As soon as he has -nothing to worry about or to fear</i>, this semi-divinity in him, working -effectively in his spiritual peace and assurance, grasps materials -into which to breathe its own spirit.” Why should one assume that this -spirit will pass over the material offered by life itself and the -relations of human beings with one another? It has not done so in the -past. Throughout mankind’s long martyrdom of exploitation, through all -the struggling and hatred engendered thereby, this semi-divinity in -man has been leading him towards a more humane conception of life. The -spiritual peace and assurance resulting from economic justice would -set all human beings free not only to share in this conception but to -realize it—to establish upon earth that ideal life of man which, in -the words of George Sand, “is nothing but his normal life as he shall -one day come to know it.”</p> - -<h3>IV</h3> - -<p>The whole point of the foregoing, for present purposes, is this: It -is impossible for a sex or a class<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span> to have economic freedom until -everybody has it, and until economic freedom is attained for everybody, -there can be no real freedom for anybody. Without economic freedom, -efforts after political and social freedom are nugatory and illusive, -except for what educational value they may have for those concerned -with them. The women of the United States, having now got about all -that is to be had out of these efforts—enough at any rate, to raise -an uneasy suspicion that their ends are lamentably far from final—are -in a peculiarly good position to discern the nature of real freedom, -to see which way it lies, and to feel an ardent interest in what it -can do for them. My purpose, then, is not deliberately to discourage -their prosecution of any enfranchising measures that may lie in their -way to promote, and still less to disparage the successes that they -have already attained. It is rather to invite them thoughtfully to take -stock of what they have really got by these successes, to consider -whether it is all they want, and to settle with themselves whether -their collective experience on the way up from the status of a subject -sex does not point them to a higher ideal of freedom than any they have -hitherto entertained. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the past century, women have gained a great deal in the way of -educational, social and political rights. They have gained a fair -degree of economic independence. They are no longer obliged to “keep -silence in the churches,” as they still were at the beginning of the -nineteenth century; indeed, certain sects have even admitted them -to the ministry. The women who now enjoy this comparative freedom, -and accept it more or less as a matter of course, are indebted to -a long line of women who carried on the struggle—sometimes lonely -and discouraging—against political, legal, social and industrial -discrimination, and to the men, as well, who aided and encouraged them. -Thanks to the efforts of these pioneers, the women of today have a new -tradition to maintain, a nobler tradition than any of those which women -were expected to observe in the past: the tradition of active demand -for the establishment of freedom. They will be none the less under -obligation to continue this demand when the freedom that shall remain -to be secured is of a kind not envisaged by their predecessors. Rather, -in the measure that they proceed beyond those ends that seemed ultimate -to their predecessors, they will prove that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span> these built well; for the -best earnest of advancement is the attainment of an ever new and wider -vision of progress.</p> - -<p>The organized feminist movement in England and America has concerned -itself pretty exclusively with securing political rights for women; -that is to say, its conception of freedom has been based on the -eighteenth century misconception of it as a matter of suffrage. Women -have won the vote, and now they are proceeding to use their new -political power to secure the removal of those legal discriminations -which still remain in force against their sex. This is well enough; -it is important that the State should be forced to renounce its -pretension to discriminate against women in favour of men. But even -if we assume that the establishment of legal equality between the -sexes would result in complete social and economic equality, we are -obliged to face the fact that under such a régime women would enjoy -precisely that degree of freedom which men now enjoy—that is to say, -very little. I have remarked that those who control men’s and women’s -economic opportunity control men and women. The State represents the -organized interest of those who control economic opportunity; and -while the State continues to exist,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span> it may be forced to renounce -all legal discriminations against one sex in favour of the other -without in any wise affecting its fundamental discrimination against -the propertyless, dependent class—<i>which is made up of both men and -women</i>—in favour of the owning and exploiting classes. Until this -fundamental discrimination is challenged, the State may, without danger -to itself, grant, in principle at least, the claims to political and -legal equality of all classes under its power. The emancipation of -negroes within the political State has not notably improved their -condition; for they are still subject to an economic exploitation -which is enhanced by race-prejudice and the humiliating tradition of -slavery. The emancipation of women within the political State will -leave them subject, like the negro, to an exploitation enhanced by -surviving prejudices against them. The most that can be expected of -the removal of discriminations subjecting one class to another within -the exploiting State, is that it will free the subject class from -dual control—control by the favoured class and by the monopolist of -economic opportunity.</p> - -<p>Even this degree of emancipation is worth a good deal; and therefore -one is bound to regret that it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span> has no guarantee of permanence more -secure than legal enactment. Rights that depend on the sufferance of -the State are of uncertain tenure; for they are in constant danger of -abrogation either through the failure of the State to maintain them, -through a gradual modification of the laws on which they depend, or -through a change in the form of the State.<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40">[40]</a> At the present moment -the third of these dangers, which might have seemed remote ten years -ago, may be held to be at least equally pressing with the other two. -It is a misfortune of the woman’s movement that it has succeeded in -securing political rights for women at the very period when political -rights are worth less than they have been at any time since the -eighteenth century. Parliamentary government is breaking down in -Europe, and the guarantees of individual rights which it supported are -disappearing with it. Republicanism in this country has not yet broken -down, but public confidence in it has never been so low, and it seems -certainly on the way to <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span>disaster. No system of government can hope -long to survive the cynical disregard of both law and principle which -government in America regularly exhibits. Under these circumstances, no -legal guarantee of rights is worth the paper it is written on, and the -women who rely upon such guarantees to protect them against prejudice -and discrimination are leaning on a broken reed. They will do well to -bear this in mind as they proceed with their demands for equality, and -to remember that however great may be their immediate returns from the -removal of their legal disabilities, they can hardly hope for security -against prejudice and discrimination until their natural rights, not -as women but as human beings, are finally established. This is to say -that if they wish to be really free they must school themselves in “the -magnificent tradition of economic freedom, the instinct to know that -without economic freedom no other freedom is significant or lasting, -and that if economic freedom be attained, no other freedom can be -withheld.”</p> - -<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30">[30]</a> Still, putting the shoe on the other foot, there is no -denying that discriminative legislation based on the Larger Good might -as well serve to secure to women privileges which would lead toward -female domination, as to create disabilities which would keep them at -a disadvantage compared with men. Even the United States Supreme Court -has been known to reverse itself.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31">[31]</a> Land, that is, in the technical economic sense. It does -not mean the solid part of the earth’s surface—earth as distinguished -from water. It means the sum-total of natural resources.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32">[32]</a> It is hardly necessary to go into the methods by which -this control is exercised. In a country where government is elected, as -in this, privilege controls through its contribution to party-funds, -through bribery, through economic pressure, and all the other means -which its control of economic opportunity puts at its disposal.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33">[33]</a> Women and slaves were discriminated against in this -country; and in the State of California today, no person incapable of -citizenship may hold land—a provision which excludes Japanese and -Chinese.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34">[34]</a> A great deal is said about credit-monopoly, as if it -were something requiring a new and special kind of instrument to break -up. But what is credit? Merely a device for facilitating the exchange -of wealth, and all wealth is produced from land. The break-up of -land-monopoly would therefore at once break up credit-monopoly. Or, -putting it in another way, the one and only imperishable security is -land—all other forms of security finally run back to it. The break-up -of land-monopoly would therefore break up the monopoly of all the -secondary and derived forms of security upon which credit could be -based.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35">[35]</a> There is recent precedent for this in American law. -Under the XVIII Amendment and the Volstead Act, the Federal Government -confiscated <i>ex post facto</i> without a penny of compensation hundreds -of millions invested in the liquor business. All this, too, was -in labour-made property, not in law-made property, which greatly -strengthens the precedent.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36">[36]</a> The Constitution of one of the Soviet Republics—I think -it is Georgia—begins something after this fashion: “It is the purpose -of this Government to abolish government.”</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37">[37]</a> The political placeholder must not be confused with -those workers in business, industry, or the arts who are not manual -labourers, but perform valid services which are exchangeable for wealth -and justify their being accounted productive workers.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38">[38]</a> This is not to be taken as a contradiction of what I -have said in Chapter I concerning the argument that women wanted to -be subjected. No class ever voluntarily accepts subjection; but when -it has been subjected by one means or another, the ignorance that its -subjection breeds may cause it to become passively acquiescent in the -injustice of its position. It is worth noting that so long as the -<i>idea</i> of slavery is tolerated, slaves may accept their position with -a certain fatalism, much as the vanquished force in war accepts its -defeat.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39">[39]</a> It is not to be understood that all male workers, -individually or in union, take this attitude; but that it does exist -among them I have already shown.</p> - -<p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40">[40]</a> This is not to be taken as contradicting the earlier -statement that women would not renounce without a struggle the rights -they have gained. The world can not move toward freedom without -carrying women along; they would not tolerate a dual movement, towards -freedom for men and slavery for themselves. But when the general -movement is away from freedom, as the movement of political government -is at present, the rights of women are endangered along with those of -men.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span></p> - -<h2><span>CHAPTER VII</span> <span class="smaller">SIGNS OF PROMISE</span></h2> - -<p>Superficially it may seem that the present is an inappropriate time -to suggest that either women or men go deliberately out of their way -to undertake a process of self-education in the meaning of freedom. -The dominant spirit among us is not only not hospitable to the idea -of freedom; it is openly inimical to the idea. The United States is -the richest and most powerful country in the world. It is in the midst -of the most interesting experiment ever seen in the simplification -of human life. It is undertaking to prove that human beings can live -a generally satisfactory life without the exercise of the reflective -intellect, without ideas, without ideals, and in a proper use of the -word without emotions, so long as they may see the prospect of a -moderate well-being, and so long as they are kept powerfully under the -spell of a great number of mechanical devices for the enhancement of -comfort, convenience and pleasure. This experiment is so universal and -so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span> preoccupying that while it is going on there would seem to be no -chance to get any consideration for so unrelated a matter as freedom. -Hence the only current notion of freedom is freedom to live and behave -as the majority live and behave and to desire what the majority desire; -and notions which diverge from this have not been under stronger -suspicion and disapproval since the eighteenth century than they are -in this country today. Not that any one, probably, fears any degree of -liberty for himself, but every one has a nervous horror of too much -liberty for others. Most people no doubt feel that they themselves -would know exactly what to do with freedom and therefore might be -safely trusted with any measure of it; it is the possible social effect -of other people’s liberty that they dread. No idea, probably, is more -distrusted and feared among us at the present time than that of freedom -for someone else.</p> - -<p>The dominant spirit at present—the spirit which gives tone to our -society—is diametrically opposed to the spirit of freedom. It is a -spirit of coercion and intolerance. Politically this spirit finds -expression in a pronounced reaction from the “progressivism” which had -gained so much support before the war; in an enormous strengthening of -“the cohesive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span> power of public plunder,” with a consequent reversion -to the regimentation of strict party-government; in outrages committed -by government, with popular approval—or at least indifference—upon -the persons and property of people suspected of economic unorthodoxy; -and in a cynical disregard by both government and populace of those -guarantees of individual liberty which were wrested from government -by more liberty-loving generations than our own. It is evident also -in the development of extra-governmental organizations committed to -a programme of violence actuated by religious bigotry, race-hatred, -or inflamed chauvinism, such as the Hackenkreutzers and Fascists -abroad—for the spirit of intolerance is not confined to the United -States—and the Ku Klux Klan in this country; movements which, -although they imply no menace to the exploiting classes themselves, -do constitute a menace, at present imperfectly perceived, to the -established organization through which those classes exercise -exploitation, and an extremely threatening danger to the lives and -liberties of millions among the governed.</p> - -<p>Economically the spirit of coercion is in evidence in the struggles -for advantage between capital and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span> labour, each trying to force the -other to its own terms; in attempts by employers to break up defensive -organization among their workers; and in such laws as the Criminal -Syndicalism Acts, most of which give criminal character to membership -in an organization professing radical economic doctrine. Socially -it is reflected in such laws as the Eighteenth Amendment and the -Volstead Act, and in puerile and evil-minded attempts at censorship of -individual conduct, of public amusement, and of literature and art. -In religion it is manifest in the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, -in the current controversy between Fundamentalism and Modernism in -the Protestant churches, and in the attempt sponsored by bigoted and -influential church-organizations to stop by edict the progress of -biological and anthropological science, because it threatens the tenure -of established superstitions. It is likewise evident in the concern -of those organizations with such social behaviour of individuals as -must rationally be held indifferent, and their efforts to get their -particular code of conduct enforced through sumptuary law.</p> - -<p>The recrudescence of this spirit is the immediate result of war, which -always brings it about. War embodies in its crudest form the doctrine -of <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span>government by violence; and when war is dominant, therefore, -the ideals of justice and liberty, which are directly opposed to -it, become so unpopular that those who continue to profess them are -liable to persecution by government and by their war-mad compatriots. -Governments, which never grant their citizens more freedom of opinion -and action than is absolutely necessary in order to get themselves -tolerated, take advantage of this war-spirit to revoke, in practice -if not in law, those guarantees of individual rights which it suits -their purpose to dispense with. When the popular orgy of patriotic -bloodthirst and intolerance is over, and the populace begins to get -back to sanity, it finds government more securely fixed upon its back -than ever, and prepared to ride it without that easy rein and that -sparing of the spur which fear compels. Thus it is that the Governments -of the Western world, since the war, have been carrying on their -imperialist activities abroad and persecuting dissenters at home, with -an excess of cynicism which would have been effectively reprehended by -public opinion before the war.</p> - -<p>The chief reason why this policy of force continues to command a large -measure of popular support is because fear of bolshevism has taken the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span> -place of that fear of the enemy which unifies public opinion behind -Governments in war-time. Economic interests immediately consolidated -against the influence of the Russian Revolution precisely as they did -against that of the French Revolution, and in the same way. Governments -have done all in their power to inculcate fear of this influence upon -their peoples; and in this they command the assistance of practically -the whole institutional organization of their respective countries. -There is other and far better reason for this propaganda than the -mere need of a new bogey with which to cow the timorous and keep the -disaffected under control. The idea of freedom which bolshevist Russia -has launched is a distinct menace to political government and its -beneficiaries, the owning classes. If the expropriated and exploited -masses in other countries once get it through their heads that their -primary interest is not political but economic, the days of political -government will be numbered. The propaganda against bolshevism is -therefore inspired by two motives: the wish to frighten peoples into -approving suppression of those suspected of political and economic -heresy, and the wish to divert attention from the idea behind the -Russian Revolution<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span> through the moral effect of real or supposititious -misbehaviour by the Revolutionary Government. It is a curious twist of -human psychology that makes supposed outrages committed by a foreign -Government five thousand miles away appear to justify actual and -equal outrages by one’s own Government in one’s own country; and a -proletarian dictatorship five thousand miles away appear to justify a -dictatorship of the exploiting classes at home. The Soviet Government’s -alleged mistreatment of political dissenters is easily made effective -in ranging popular opinion in this country behind governmental -persecution and deportation of communists and anarchists. Reports of -Red terror in Russia reconcile public opinion—or at least that portion -of it which is articulate—to the reign of a White terror here. It -would appear that the desirability of dictatorship and terrorism is -not in question, but their colour. Civilized persons, perhaps, would -find little to choose between Red terror and White terror, or a Red -dictatorship and a White; they would probably elect to dispense with -terrorism and dictatorship altogether; but civilized persons have -nothing to do with framing the policies of government, and <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span>almost -nothing to do with the formation of majority-opinion.</p> - -<p>Superficially, then, an invitation to contemplate freedom seems -untimely. The cause of freedom is neither popular nor fashionable; -therefore it may seem unduly optimistic to expect that there will soon -be an interest in it deep enough or general enough to move many people -to inquire seriously into its meaning or its desirability. Such a study -would imply a critical reappraisal of institutions to which fear of -change impels the majority to cling with a tenacity out of proportion -to the benefits to be derived from their preservation. In this country -this fear of change is especially strong because, as I have remarked -before, the exactions of monopoly have not yet advanced to the point -of choking industry. Moreover, opportunities to enjoy monopoly are not -as extensively pre-empted here as they are elsewhere; and therefore -the chances of the individual to share in the loot of industry are -much better. This fact tends to keep a great many people loyal to -an economic and political order which offers them a chance, however -remote, to live by the earnings of other people, and to make them -inhospitable to an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span> idea of freedom which threatens that chance. There -is another factor, too, which must be taken into account, as explaining -the hostility of our proletariat towards an experiment in proletarian -government which might be expected to gain their tolerance if not their -sympathetic interest: that factor is the tendency of human beings to -prefer an immediate temporary well-being to an ultimate permanent -well-being conditioned on the acceptance of immediate hardship or -uncertainty. “<i>Après nous le déluge</i>” is a sentiment by no means -peculiar to dissolute and irresponsible monarchs. Humankind has always -shown a perfect willingness to let posterity pay its bills and atone -for its misdeeds. Labour at present is comparatively well off in this -country; and it is significant that just those sections of it that are -most advantageously situated are strongest in their opposition to the -bolshevist experiment, namely: the unions in the American Federation -of Labour. One can not unreservedly condemn their attitude; there is -much to be said for it. In a society organized as ours is, the mere -loss of a job is, as I have remarked elsewhere, terrible enough to keep -one’s thoughts from wandering on burning ground. The labourer stands -to lose through any radical economic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span> readjustment quite as much as -the monopolist, that is, his all. If his all be sufficient to keep him -from want, he will naturally regard with apprehension any proposal to -take it away for the moment, even for the sake of his own possible -future advantage. The poor man, especially if he have a family, is -likely to feel that a present sufficiency is worth much more than -a future surplus. It is only when people have literally nothing to -lose but their chains that they can face without fear the prospect of -revolutionary change. If the existing economic order remains in force, -that time will come in this country as it came in pre-revolutionary -France, and something over a century later in pre-revolutionary -Russia; and when it does, there will be plenty of active interest -in freedom, and of underground movements to bring it about by -revolutionary methods. But at present the “dissidence of Dissent and -the protestantism of the Protestant religion,” the Anti-Saloon League, -the one-hundred-per-centers, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Republican -party, are in unapproachable ascendancy.</p> - -<p>This does not greatly matter. Force and proscription are in the -long run invariably ineffectual against an idea. The idea released -by the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span>American and French revolutions—the idea of the right of -individual self-expression in politics—prevailed over the combined -forces of European feudalism; and the idea released by the Russian -Revolution will prevail over the combined forces of European and -American imperialism. For ideas can be fought neither with armies nor -with persecutions; nor can attention be for ever diverted from them. -The only thing that has effective force against an idea is a better -one. Whether or not the Soviet Government succeeds in getting beyond -dictatorship to the establishment of economic justice in Russia is -not really important. If it should fail, its failure will not halt -the progress of the idea that human freedom is fundamentally a matter -of economics. Not even that acceptance in principle and denial in -practice which is the chief characteristic of Liberal policy, can -permanently defeat it. Sooner or later it will penetrate into human -consciousness; it will become part of that consciousness; and it -will prevail. Whether or not it will prevail during this era of the -world’s history is another question, whose answer will depend upon the -readiness of mankind to assimilate and be actuated by it. If it is not -assimilated in time to prevent the ruin of European <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span>civilization, then -its ultimate victory will take place in a future era, when European -civilization has followed the way of other civilizations to oblivion.</p> - -<p>The process of assimilation is even now at work; with what -effectiveness one may deduce from the strength and determination of -the forces arrayed against it. It was no love for the Czar and the -Russian nobility that caused the Allied Governments to spend millions -of dollars in support of Kolchak, Denikin, and Wrangel, just as it was -no love for Louis XVI and the French nobility that sent the Duke of -Brunswick into France at the head of the Allies’ army. It was fear of -the idea which animates the Bolshevist Government. It was not because -the Allied Governments hated Germany less but because they hated the -Bolsheviki more that they failed to assent to the Soviet Government’s -proposal to surrender Petrograd and Moscow, establish a front in the -Ural mountains, and continue the war against Germany. It was not their -belief in self-determination, but their desire to interpose a buffer -State between the embattled proletariat of Russia and the embattled -imperialists of Western Europe, that caused them to erect Poland into -an independent State. Nor has anything but the most pressing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span> economic -necessity moved any one of the Western Governments to treat with the -cynical realists of Moscow, who have repeatedly embarrassed Allied -politicians by their persistent abstinence from the hypocritical cant -of the diplomat who has predatory designs to justify. Nor was it any -sudden access of friendliness for Germany, or any noble superiority -to sectional jealousies and nationalist ambitions, that moved these -same Governments to sign the agreement of Locarno; it was, rather, a -desire to make common cause against a Government whose avowed purpose -is to destroy the privileged interests by and for which they themselves -exist. Need anyone suppose that they would do all these things if they -believed that the Russian idea could be localized? Not even the desire -of their privilegees to exploit the natural wealth of Russia could -have brought about a Locarno agreement. It was their sense of a common -danger that overcame their mutual jealousies and distrust; the danger -that the proletarians of their own countries may, as their miseries -increase, be moved to emulate the proletarians of Russia, that a sense -of class-solidarity may overcome traditional and national antipathies, -and move them to unite for the purpose of casting off their chains. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span></p> - -<p>There are tendencies in post-war Europe and America which must be -disturbing to the politician who knows how to interpret them, if -there be such a politician; tendencies far more significant of future -developments than the mere existence of organized revolutionary -minorities or the activities of single communists or anarchists, and -much more difficult to cope with. Chief among these is a growing -disrespect for government; the progress of a healthy cynicism -concerning its nature and purpose, and a promising disregard of -those sumptuary laws which do not meet with the convictions or -desires of citizens. This tendency is by no means confined to any -disaffected group or class. The citizen who is most patriotic, and -most wholeheartedly with his Government in its attempts to coerce -other people, may not scruple to evade its attempts to coerce himself. -There is no articulate sentiment in this country, for example, against -the income-tax law; yet there are few citizens who will not evade its -incidence if possible, and feel themselves quite justified in doing so. -Or again, who has not heard people comfortably provided with contraband -liquor remark that they believe prohibition to be an excellent thing -for the country in general? People may support the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span>policies of a -Government who entertain no illusions whatever about the nature of its -personnel—or about the policies themselves for that matter—but who -support them as a matter of self-interest or because they see nothing -better to do. But all this does not augur especially well for the hold -of government upon the loyalty or imagination of the governed. It is -a truism that the Government which tries to enforce one law to which -its citizens do not subscribe, thereby engenders disrespect for all -law, and thus weakens its authority. Again, the citizen who supports -his Government through self-interest or inertia may oppose it through -self-interest or because his inertia has been overcome. If he does not -support it through respect, its hold upon him is tenuous and uncertain.</p> - -<p>As for the growing numbers of the disaffected, they show their loss -of faith in so-called representative government, and their sense of -helplessness, by a practice of non-co-operation which is none the less -real because it is spontaneous and unorganized. The number of qualified -voters who abstain from using the ballot grows with every election; -and this is not surprising, since every voter of any intelligence -knows precisely what interests control government,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> and precisely -what measure of self-determination his apparent choice between rival -candidates involves. Even the old faith in Liberalism, or the belief -that the masses may get some voice in government through “putting good -men in office,” is not what it once was. Liberalism displayed its true -colours during the war, and since the war it has not been able to -fool a great many of the people even part of the time. It is worthy -of note that every war-Government of 1914 was a Liberal Government -except Russia’s. Mr. Wilson was a Liberal if there ever was one; and -Mr. Wilson’s Administration led the American people into a costly war -which was of practical moment to only an infinitesimal minority of -our population, and used the opportunity created by war-hysteria to -perpetrate the most high-handed outrages against dissenters from his -war-policy. Mr. Wilson may have been sincerely insincere, as one clever -critic put it; but whether he was so or not, he gave the American -people a thorough, high-priced lesson in the essential hypocrisy of -Liberalism. Mr. Wilson, and his fellow-Liberals of Europe, showed -the world that the real interests of Liberalism and those of Toryism -are identical, and that when those interests are <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span>endangered it is -impossible to distinguish between Liberal and Tory behaviour.</p> - -<p>It has, indeed, become abundantly clear since the war that a -realignment of forces is inevitable; a realignment which shall -represent not merely two factions differing slightly in regard to -the non-essentials of government but one in the fundamental purpose -of furthering economic exploitation; but a realignment which shall -represent the cleavage which exists already, and will be widened -as time goes on, between those who wish to perpetuate economic -exploitation and those who wish it abolished. The remark which -one frequently hears, that the two great parties in this country -represent the same interests, means that they are both maintained by, -and directly represent, the interest of monopoly which is engaged -in exploiting industry. Their superficial differences, even, are -notoriously insignificant, and fundamentally their interests and -their source of power are identical. The logical cleavage, therefore, -is between members of those two parties with all mere Liberals and -reformers, on the one side, and advocates of economic justice on the -other. It is really too late for compromise; too late for government -to do everything for the exploited masses <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span>except get off their backs, -as the German Imperial Government did so admirably before the war. -Governments have become too corrupt and too ruthless, and the interests -behind them too greedy, to perceive the wisdom of such a course. If -the policy of coercion is in the ascendancy, if the executive arm -of political government is everywhere usurping the function of the -legislative arm, if parliamentarism and republicanism seem about -to merge into dictatorship, it is because the ruling classes are -much more aware of the coming struggle than are those classes whose -interests will range them on the other side; and if many people now -support government whose interests are against it, it is because -they have not yet awakened to a realization of their true position. -The increasing cynicism of the governed concerning the nature and -purposes of government really marks an important advance toward the new -alignment of forces. It is not a long step from the realization that -government does not represent the general interest, to a discovery of -the direction in which that interest lies.</p> - -<p>Along with this cynicism go other signs of a changing attitude. There -is a conspicuous falling off of faith in what might be called the -unofficial<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span> adjuncts of government, namely: the press and the pulpit. -The changing attitude towards organized religion was recognized and -defined in the Pope’s recent Encyclical Letter condemning the progress -of laicism in all the countries of the Christian world, and the -accompanying tendency to discuss Christianity as if it were merely -one of the historical faiths, like Mohammedanism or Buddhism, instead -of the only true, revealed religion. It is recognized also in the -attempts to which I have alluded above, by certain Protestant sects in -this country to secure laws forbidding the teaching of the theory of -evolution. It is true that science and the printing-press have robbed -a secularized church of its main source of influence over the minds of -men, the one by discovering and proclaiming the natural laws behind -those phenomena which ignorance attributed to benign or evil spirits; -and the other by facilitating the general dissemination of knowledge. -The Church can no longer effectively appeal to fear. For a church which -very early became a class-organization, and one of the large-scale -promoters and beneficiaries of economic exploitation, this is a serious -thing. Its promises and its comminations are becoming alike ineffectual -in face of mankind’s growing concern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span> with the spiritual effect of -involuntary poverty and wretchedness upon the human spirit in this -present world. The modern cynicism towards paternalism in government -and industry finds its counterpart in cynicism concerning organized -Christianity. In an age which questions the justice of mankind’s -arbitrary division into classes, such an Encyclical as that of Pope -Leo XIII which enjoined masters to be lenient and the subject masses -to be patient is already an anachronism; and the injunction put by the -Church of England upon candidates for confirmation to order themselves -lowly and reverently unto all their betters is more likely to arouse -antagonism than to win compliance. The churches do not understand the -new psychology with which they have to deal. They are offering dogmatic -creeds to an age which is suspicious of all dogma; they are upholding -traditional moral criteria in an age when the foundations of factitious -morality are being generally scrutinized by the light of reason and -knowledge; they are preaching salvationist doctrine in terms which no -longer edify or recommend themselves to serious attention. All this -is merely to say that organized religion, like political government, -remains static in the midst of flux; and like political<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span> government -it faces a spontaneous and widespread if entirely unorganized popular -movement of non-coöperation.</p> - -<p>As for that large majority of prosperous newspaper-concerns which are -stigmatized in socialist literature as the “kept press,” they have -been so over-eager in the partisanship of their editorial writing and -in the colouring of their news or its manufacture out of whole cloth, -that there is discernible a decided change in the popular attitude -towards them. The power of the printed word is still great out of -all proportion to its weight; but editorial pronouncements, if they -are read at all, are by no means swallowed as the undiluted milk of -the word, as they were in the day when Horace Greeley used daily in -the <i>Tribune</i> to dictate opinion to a large section of the American -public. It is significant that since the advertising department has -come to take precedence over the editorial department, there has been -a decided falling-off in respect for journalism and a marked decrease -in the number of honest and able people who take up journalistic -work. This was to be expected. The modern newspaper is essentially -an advertising medium, and its editorial writing and presentation of -news must conform to its general<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span> character. Under these circumstances -men of intellectual ability and integrity are no longer attracted by -such work, as they are no longer, for an analogous reason, attracted -to governmental office or to the pulpit. The consequent deterioration -in journalistic personnel contributes further to the newspaper’s loss -of prestige—again as in the case of the personnel of government and -of the churches. As all those institutions lose the power to command -respect and allegiance, they progressively lose power to attract able -and honest minds to their service; and as they lose this power of -attraction, their power to command respect progressively dwindles; and -thus by alternate reactions they tend to disintegration. To return to -the press, it is symptomatic of the loss of popular faith in its moral -and intellectual character that people buy this newspaper or that so -largely because of special features—local news, sporting news, this -person’s column or that person’s cartoons. It is no exaggeration to say -that the overwhelming majority of Americans look to their newspapers -not for information but for entertainment or excitement; a fact which -is amply attested by the amount of space devoted to special features, -comic strips and cheap stories, and above all by the extraordinary -success<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span> of a new tabloid type of newspaper devoted almost exclusively -to pictures, accompanied by the most sensational kind of backstairs -gossip. In the parlance of the street, the modern newspaper is “giving -’em what they want”; and while the preference is a sad reflection -on public taste, its gratification is an equally sad reflection on -the quality and standing of American journalism. The newspaper, in -short, as I have said, no longer informs or guides opinion; it purveys -amusement.</p> - -<p>The same deterioration, with concomitant loss of prestige, that is -proceeding in government, the church and the press, is evident in -educational institutions. This is a natural and inevitable development, -since education is so largely under political control. The powers -which control government are in control of education; and those powers -quite naturally will not tolerate any teaching which even implies a -revaluation of the existing economic, political or social organization. -This intolerance is effective even in institutions not under direct -control by the State; for those institutions are largely dependent on -wealthy benefactors, and wealth is almost entirely in control of people -who have a direct interest in the preservation of the established -order.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span> Under these circumstances, the primary purpose of education, -which is to develop the mind and help it to independent progress along -the paths of truth and reason, is rendered impossible of fulfilment; -and our schools have pretty generally substituted for this purpose -another and lower one which is calculated neither to embarrass nor -offend the powers on which they depend. This is the vocational purpose. -Thus they have ceased to be centres of culture, and become centres of -training whose object is to turn out graduates who shall resemble one -another as closely as possible in all things save in special vocational -training. As Professor Jerome Davis recently expressed it, our colleges -are turning out machine-made minds. The deterioration in the personnel -of the teaching profession is consequently quite as marked as that -in government, the churches and the press. Independence of spirit is -not tolerated by school-directors and boards of regents. Teaching, -moreover, being held in little respect by the State, to whose interests -it is obviously inimical if prosecuted intelligently and seriously, is -so poorly paid that people who can possibly do better elsewhere are -naturally unwilling to become teachers. It is needless to dwell upon -the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span>demoralizing and vulgarizing effect of these circumstances on the -schools themselves and those who attend them. It is too obvious and -has been already too often discussed, to require consideration here. -What I do wish to note is the fact that this educational system does -not escape criticism and distrust; and that the most interesting and -promising manifestation of this distrust is evident not among outsiders -or alumni, but among undergraduates. Too much may not be expected of -it, but the “youth-movement” which is afoot among students may not be -disregarded; it is symptomatic of a critical attitude and a spirit of -revolt which may not be wholly without effect.</p> - -<p>These are negative signs of progress, if one will, but none the less -impressive for that. They indicate a growing sense of discomfort in -the environment provided by established institutions, and a loss of -faith in those institutions as they deteriorate under the spread of -their own corruption. On the positive side one may cite the growing -power of economic organization, and its tendency to displace political -organization. The appearance in the American Congress of a group known -as the “farm-bloc” is an interesting instance of this tendency.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span> -Here is a group of political representatives with whom an economic -interest is frankly placed ahead of political affiliation. They are -primarily neither Democrats nor Republicans, neither conservatives -nor progressives; they are primarily representative of a producing -group. As such, they stand for a departure from the theory of -representative political government, which assumes that representation -shall be not industrial but geographic. According to this theory, the -representatives from each arbitrarily fixed geographical unit are -supposed to represent the interests of all the citizens within that -unit. This evidently leaves out of account not only the fact that -economic interests are primarily industrial or occupational and only -secondarily and fortuitously sectional, but also the fact that the -economic interests within a given area may be mutually inimical. In -practice, of course, political representatives have really represented -the dominant economic interest within their allotted territory, the -interest which has exercised the strongest political influence; but -since in theory they must represent all interests, they have not -been able to represent that dominant interest openly, but have had -to resort to subterfuge and dishonesty. Even the members of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span> the -farm-bloc, were they representing districts where agriculture was -not the dominant industry, would no doubt be less open in their -espousal of its interest. None the less they have dared, in disregard -of party-discipline, to form a bloc which stands squarely for the -interest of a producing class; and in doing so they have taken a step -towards the system of industrial representation which has of late -made great strides in European countries, more especially in Russia -and Germany. Although the group which has taken this step may be -unimportant politically, save when a close division chances to throw -the balance of power into its hands, the step it has taken is of the -utmost importance; for if economic representation should proceed until -it eventually superseded geographical representation, the change would -not only involve the destruction of the bipartisan machine which -controls government in this country; it would naturally bring about -an open alignment of the producing interests against the interests of -exploitation, and thus make clear the final and fundamental issue of -which I have spoken—the question whether economic exploitation is to -be perpetuated or abolished.</p> - -<p>A good deal of non-political organization shows<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span> the same trend. The -growth of co-operation, for example, in production, marketing, and -consumption, is evidence of an attempt to evade through group-action -those exactions of government’s beneficiaries against which the single -individual is powerless to protect himself. The growth of offensive -and defensive organization among capitalists on the one side and -workers on the other, not only implies recognition of the primary -importance of economic interests and the value of co-operation among -groups whose economic interests are identical; it implies also an -acknowledgment that neither capital nor labour receives from government -what it will accept as adequate protection of its interests—as, of -course, neither can, since the interest that government exists to -protect—the interest of monopoly—is directly inimical to both. -Moreover, as this organization becomes international in scope it -constitutes a negation of the political differences which bolster up -rival national organizations. That it has not yet become strong enough -to prevent nationalistic wars, is true; but this is because the fact -that war is a clash, not of rival producing interests, but of rival -exploiting interests has not yet become sufficiently clear to overcome -a specious <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span>patriotism and the traditional distrust and prejudice -which governments have assiduously inculcated upon the governed. -The producing classes are really behind the exploiting classes in -discovering that their interests are pretty much the same, whatever -their various nationalities may be. Governments have always co-operated -when any rebellious move by the governed in any country threatened the -established economic and political order; as they co-operated in the -Holy Alliance against France, or in a similar alliance against Russia, -and as they are now co-operating in the League of Nations against -the exploited classes in all countries. When the exploited classes -understand their own position as clearly as the exploiting classes have -understood theirs, organization for defense and offense will no longer -be national and vertical but horizontal and international. The real -issue will be drawn at last. Hence the tendency of capital and labour -toward international organization along the lines of economic interest -is an extremely hopeful sign that the producing classes are beginning -to realize that their major interests are not political but economic, -and that the quarrels of Governments are injurious to those interests; -that they are beginning to outgrow the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span>narrow nationalism which has -facilitated their exploitation in the past, and made it possible to pit -them against one another in the quarrels of rival exploiting classes.</p> - -<h3>II</h3> - -<p>All these signs of disaffection under the old order of things and the -gropings towards a new, do not imply, of course, any growth of the -spirit of freedom, or any new consciousness of its nature. They do -indicate, however, the progress of a temper which, when it shall have -become more pervasive and more deeply rooted, will be hospitable to -the doctrine of freedom. Discontent with the established order must -necessarily precede any serious move toward its displacement by a new -order; and discontent, while it is by no means dominant at present, -is widespread enough to cause Governments a good deal of anxiety. -The very tightening of the grip of government which is evident in -the present tendency to suppress legislative bodies, and in ruthless -persecution of economic dissenters, is, as I have already remarked, a -sure indication of the extent and strength of the dissenting forces. -When those people who now endure the harassment of governmental waste<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span> -and industrial exploitation, shall perceive that relief is to be -gained not through futile political reforms aimed at amelioration of -their lot, but through a radical readjustment of the whole economic -system—when, in other words, they realize “what is to be done”—then -and not before, will come the real test of the tenacity of the old -order and the strength of the forces moving towards the new. On its -side the old order will have governmental organization and armed -forces, and the enormous influence of the superstitious tendency to -regard as right that which is established, supporting the interest of -a compact, wealthy, and highly organized exploiting class. The new -order will have on its side the newly realized need of the majority -without whose acquiescence a highly organized minority can not long -maintain itself in power. The issue will depend, obviously, not only -on the intelligence, ability and determination of the majority’s -leaders, but upon their clear understanding of the issue involved. If -they compromise, as the leaders of the French Revolution compromised, -the cause of justice will be lost, and the most that will be gained -will be a shifting of privilege. The Western world is faced at present -with the alternative of establishing an <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span>enduring civilization on the -sure foundation of economic justice, or of sinking back into barbarism -through a long series of civil and international struggles for -possession of the power to exploit. If it follow the latter course, its -civilization will go the way of the civilization of Egypt, Greece, and -Rome; and its vitality, like theirs, will so decrease under the dual -drain of exploitation and war that it will eventually fall, as they -fell, an easy prey to some strong external force.</p> - -<p>The task before those who wish to avert this fate, whose passionate -desire is to bring about an enduring civilization based on the solid -foundation of economic justice, is the task of educating themselves in -the nature of freedom, of learning to face freedom without fear, and -of communicating to others their understanding and their courage. The -women of today, especially in this country, are in a peculiarly good -position to undertake this task. They enjoy unprecedented advantages -in the way of social and intellectual autonomy, and of educational -opportunity. They have emerged successful from a long struggle for -political equality with men, and they are still engaged in an organized -effort to secure legal equality. Thus they have their hand in, as it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span> -were, with the work of removing the artificial disabilities which -organized society imposes on a subject class in order to keep it -subject; and this work should have engendered in those who have been -active in it a healthy resentment of social injustice and a sense -of the value of freedom to the human spirit. They will still have, -moreover, even after legal equality is won, a considerable number of -discriminations to combat, which should operate against the temptation -to regard their fight as won, and to relax the vigilance which is -always necessary to preserve individual rights against encroachment by -organized society. The organizations through which they have worked -remain intact; it is for them to determine whether those organizations -shall continue as mere agencies for political lobbying or whether they -will carry on the demand for freedom to its logical end.</p> - -<p>The fact that women are in a good position to inquire into the nature -of freedom offers, of course, no earnest that they will do so. In spite -of the reasonableness of such a course, they may content themselves -with trying to effect the ultimate equality of the sexes through -political measures which in their nature can never effect it—provided, -that is,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span> that events do not move too fast for even a serious trial -of such inept methods. A good deal of mirth has already been aroused -in certain quarters by trivial and futile reform-measures which women -politicians have sponsored. If this sort of thing shall prove to be the -sum-total of women’s contribution to social problems, it will merely -prove that they are quite as incapable of an intelligent understanding -of those problems as men have hitherto shown themselves to be. If -women are now in a good position to school themselves in the tradition -of economic freedom, the men of Europe and America have been in an -equally good position to do so since the political revolutions of the -eighteenth century, and as yet they have given no very encouraging -signs of progress. However much one may hope that women will make a -better showing, it would be unfair to expect it of them; for they -are but now emerging from the mental and spiritual condition induced -by centuries of subjection. If, therefore, they fail to grasp their -opportunity to contribute to the process of education which must -precede the establishment of economic justice; if they are content to -fix their minds upon this or that special aspect of social freedom or -of political<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span> freedom, instead of looking steadily towards economic -freedom—economic freedom for men and women alike—the judicious critic -may lament their failure or disparage their tactics, but he can hardly -attribute either to any stupidity or incapacity peculiar to their sex, -since it is through the same failure and the same tactics that men have -brought civilization to the critical state in which it is at present.</p> - -<p>The great point, however, is that if they fail they are sure to pay -for their failure a higher price than men will pay. As they have more -to gain from freedom than men, so they have more to lose than men if -the Western world shall fail to establish its civilization on the -firm basis of economic justice. In the relapse into barbarism which -must attend the ultimate breakdown of economic and social life under -the monopolistic system, physical force will be even more strongly -ascendant than it is at present; and when physical force dominates, -the ideals of justice and liberty are, as I have already remarked, -without effective influence—the only right is might. The well-being -of women depends in very great measure on the prevalence of those -ideals; for when force is dominant, woman’s physical disadvantage as -the child-bearing sex places her in a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span> position to be more readily -subjected and exploited than man. Because of this disadvantage she -was the first victim of exploitation; because of it, she will be the -last to escape; and because of it she will be the greater sufferer -from exploitation so long as exploitation shall be the basis of the -economic and social order. There is potential tragedy in the fact -that the Western world has become civilized enough to perceive the -injustice involved in women’s subjection only when the economic -order which determines its social life has become so corrupt that it -threatens the destruction of civilization, with all such gains in -humanity as civilization has yielded. Women have equality almost within -their grasp; they may lose it if this civilization shall follow the -path of its predecessors to ruin and oblivion. There is one way to -avert this tragedy, and one only—the way of economic justice. If the -women who have been active in the struggle to emancipate their sex -shall enlarge their conception of freedom, and with it the scope of -their demand, they can help mightily to preserve civilization through -the establishment of justice. If they could win their sex away from -the exploded formulas of the eighteenth century and bring them to -understand that political<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span> and social freedom without economic freedom -are utterly illusory, that true freedom proceeds from economic justice, -and that justice and freedom offer the only hope for the salvaging of -this civilization, they would have won half of humanity, and that would -be a contribution of no small value. One thing is certain: the question -of freedom for women can not proceed much farther as an independent -issue. It has reached the point where it must necessarily merge in the -greater question of human freedom. Upon the fate of the greater cause, -that of the lesser will depend. It is for feminists to choose whether -they will merge the feminist in the humanist, or whether they will play -at political and social make-believe while the issue is being decided, -and either suffer in the event the consequences of a failure which they -shall have made no effort to avert, or enjoy the benefits of a success -which they shall have done nothing to attain.</p> - -<div lang='en' xml:lang='en'> -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK <span lang='' xml:lang=''>CONCERNING WOMEN</span> ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/68226-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/68226-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 964b680..0000000 --- a/old/68226-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68226-h/images/front.jpg b/old/68226-h/images/front.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4dd5cc4..0000000 --- a/old/68226-h/images/front.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68226-h/images/logo.jpg b/old/68226-h/images/logo.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 138297f..0000000 --- a/old/68226-h/images/logo.jpg +++ /dev/null |
