When the economic habits of man necessarily attach him to a plot of

ground, or to a definite group of industrial workers who make up in

part the family group, there exists naturally strong sentiments opposed

to the breaking up of the group. Although recognized as fundamentally

social, these sentiments arise out of an economic bond.

The unifying of the economic interests of the family brought about an

increased sense of family responsibility on the part of men. It was

also of the utmost importance to women that the marriage bond should

be a permanent one; thus assuring them a protection for themselves and

their children against the outside world.

When the home was the center of practically all economic activities,

the family was given a measure of stability by virtue of its economic

importance. To leave the family circle meant, not only the severing of

ties of sentiment, but the cutting loose from economic moorings.

We now come to a period in history when machine industry is

revolutionizing the home and rapidly changing its economic

significance. Woman’s work is being transferred to the factory, and

necessity is forcing her to follow it, or to seek other fields of work

that promise her a livelihood. Leaving the home hearth for a wider

industrial field, is giving her the same outlook as man, and allowing

her to determine her relations to the world outside the home. Her

economic independence is secured, and it is no longer necessary for her

to be attached to a household in order to secure employment as a means

of securing her subsistence. Thus is made possible the breaking of the

marriage bond on the part of women and escape from conditions which

formerly were tolerated.

The census reports show a constant tendency for the divorce-rate to

increase in the United States. Undoubtedly it would be higher than it

is at present if more women possessed means of support which would

not necessitate the losing of their social status, for there are many

women who have had no practical training, nor training of any kind to

make their own living. If thrown upon their own resources they would

be forced into the ranks of the unskilled workers. As married women

they hold enviable positions of social prestige. But the income of

the husband is not sufficient to keep both husband and wife on the

accustomed plane of living when separated, although such separation may

be mutually desirable.

A fair comparison cannot be made of the rate of divorce in different

countries or states since there exists such wide discrepancies in

the laws themselves, diminishing or increasing the difficulties of

obtaining divorces. So marked are the differences in the divorce laws

in the various states of the United States, that certain communities

have won the title of “divorce colonies” and thereby attracted at least

a temporary increase of population. Hence, low divorce rates may merely

mean a greater difficulty in obtaining separation.

In some countries the expense of obtaining a divorce makes it a luxury

beyond the poor. In England and Wales “the expense and delay involved

in procuring a divorce there are so great that only somewhat wealthy

persons can go into court, and they do not feel so severely the burden

of a financial crisis. This conjectural explanation derives some

support from the fact which a French statistician of some eminence

claims to have proved, that such periods of distress in Great Britain,

while checking marriage among the poor, are attended by an increase of

marriage among the rich. This difference between effects of hard times

in Europe and in the United States, together with a very rapid increase

in divorce among the southern negroes, and the fact that only about one

wife in six of these obtaining divorce receives an alimony, are among

the indications that divorce has become very frequent and perhaps most

frequent among our lower middle classes and has reached for weal or woe

a lower stratum than perhaps anywhere in Europe.”[95]

We all know that the divorce rate is higher in the United States than

in any European country, and is increasing more rapidly. “In 1870

there were 155 divorces, and in 1880, 303 divorces, to 100,000 married

couples. In 1870, 3.5 per cent of the marriages were terminated by

divorce; in 1880, 4.8 per cent; and in 1890, 6.2 per cent.”

According to the Census Report of 1906 the divorce-rate is still

increasing rapidly. From 1887 to 1891 there was an increase of divorces

of 34.1 per cent; from 1892 to 1896 an increase of 23.9 per cent.; from

1897 to 1901 an increase of 33.7 per cent.; and from 1902 to 1906 an

increase of 27.6 per cent.[96]

As we have already seen, the decrease of the importance of women’s work

in the home has affected the status of women generally, economically

and socially. Among the poor it has forced many married women to seek

employment outside the home. The inability of the husband and father

to meet his economic responsibilities has imposed upon women an added

responsibility. And in so far as mothers of families have shouldered

economic burdens outside the home there is a tendency for fathers to

lose their family pride and sense of economic independence. The man

who must remain at home, do the housework and care for the children,

while his wife goes out to earn the living, if he cares at all, feels

that he has failed dismally. Charity workers agree that the economic

independence of women of the most unfortunate classes has the effect

of lessening the moral responsibility of the supposed bread-winner and

head of the family. Desertion on the part of fathers is so common as to

create a social problem.

The causes for desertion are many, and work toward a decreased respect

for family ties. “The great amount of travel due to constantly

increasing means of communication; the ease with which a man,

accustomed to one of the simple processes of modern machinery, can

adapt himself to many others without any long training, so making

employment more readily obtainable; the fuller knowledge of other

communities afforded by the multiplied newspapers, and perhaps the

numerous items about other deserters which awaken a dormant impulse,

just as cheap novels prompt some boys to start out as Indian fighters,

all contribute to the state of mind which makes desertion possible.

If a man who had indulged such thoughts, can, without much time or

expense, in some cases even by investing a nickel or less, by taking

a trolley or a ferry, put himself into a neighboring state, beyond

the power of the court to compel him to support his family, where he

can spend all he earns for his own gratification, he is in danger of

finding some excuse for going.”[97]

When one considers that a large percentage of the people with whom the

social workers deal are foreigners and children of foreigners; that

religious precepts are comparatively strong; and that they cling to

custom and traditions with greater tenacity than the more fortunate

classes, it seems justifiable to attribute the large number of

separations in this class--although many of these separations are never

registered in the divorce courts--to economic causes.

Divorce, like many of our social institutions has been influenced by

the rights of property, and is no true criterion for measuring the

moral habits of a people. Where property rights are considered most

sacred the institution of divorce is almost unknown. This is especially

true when the existing forms of wealth are closely allied to land

holding. There, industrial development is backward and all the social

institutions reflect the conservative influence of the past, rather

than the progressive movements of the present. For instance, the

southern states, where property rights and institutions arising out of

the same reflect the spirit of the patriarchal slavery system, divorce

is less common. And yet the morality among the lower social classes

there does not compare favorably with other sections of the country

where the divorce-rate is high. It is among the better classes that

the family represents a compactness and stability wherein divorce has

little play.

It is true there are some states which represent an advanced industrial

development as is found in the country where divorce is granted

only for adultery. But in these states such restriction is felt to

be oppressive. This is evident by the number who seek release from

conjugal ties in other than their home state. What is true of England

is true of certain American states, that is, the low divorce-rate

is the result of the difficulty of obtaining legal separations. For

example the home life in New York is not any more admirable than the

home life in the extreme west where the divorce-rate is the highest.

Unless the industrial development and economic conditions are similiar

it is impossible to measure the moral standards of communities by a

comparison of their divorce-rates. Legislation dealing directly with

family relations ought to take into consideration the industrial habits

of the community as well as the moral and social ideals arising out of

existing conditions.

It is true, a high divorce-rate has been a symptom of a decadent

race, but on the other hand it does not necessarily follow that a

deteriorating race is characterized by a high divorce-rate, or that a

high divorce-rate signifies a retrogressive people. It may be a symptom

of a decline of moral conceptions, but it may also mean a higher

conception of morality, and a decline of respect for property rights

in women. The frontiersman is not inspired with the same awe of wealth

as the man who remained at home in a settled community; and his moral

conceptions tend to conform less to tradition and custom and more to

his own individual conscience.

Howard says, “Divorce is a remedy and not the disease. It is not a

virtue in a divorce law, as it appears to be often assumed, to restrict

the application of the remedy at all hazards, regardless of the

sufferings of the social body. If it were always the essential purpose

of a good law to diminish directly the number of _bona fide_ divorces,

the more rational course would be to imitate South Carolina and

prohibit divorce entirely. Divorce is not immoral. It is quite probable

on the contrary, that drastic, like negligent, legislation is sometimes

immoral. It is not necessarily a merit, and it may be a grave social

wrong, to reduce the legal causes for a decree to the one ‘scriptural’

ground.”[98]

Divorce is an expression of revolt. It may be an expression of revolt

against conditions imposed by one individual upon another, or against

a position of inferiority in the family group imposed upon women by

tradition. Instead of a wide spread incompatibility of temperaments of

two individuals held together by wedlock, the incompatibility may exist

in part between the social institution called “the home” and the ideas

and ideals of a democratic community.

The entire social atmosphere outside the home--whether in the

school or in the club, or in any other social group aims to inspire

an individualization and socialization in harmony with high moral

precepts. We are living in an age when the individual counts as an

important part of the social groups of which he is a member, and some

vital matter must be at stake when the individual is required to

sacrifice himself against his will for the good of the community.

Women have been considered the property of their husbands for so long

that an initiative on their part, disturbing the stability of the

conjugal bond is viewed by many as a symptom of rampant anarchy. What

it does indicate is a marked growth in the rights of women, and a

tendency for these rights, especially economic rights, to approach the

plane of the rights of men.

If the present tendency to divorce is a superficial phenomenon only,

measures ought to be taken to check it. But if it is vital, and has

its roots deep down in our social order, it cannot be checked by mere

repression without perpetrating a grave social wrong.

There are no historical facts enabling us to predict the outcome.

Divorce in the past was a masculine institution and worked great

hardships upon women and children. It was the rich and not the poor,

the men and not the women who enjoyed the privilege of breaking

the marriage bond. To counteract its evil influences, all social

institutions combined in impressing upon man the necessity of accepting

his family responsibilities out of justice to his wife, his children

and the community. So long has the lesson been impressed that many men

consider it a grave moral responsibility to remain as a protector of

their families. Such is not the case with women. No matter how great

their industrial burdens in the home, the past taught them submission,

and not responsibility. All their training--other than industrial--had

as its goal accomplishments that in nowise involved responsibilities.

Whatever industrial responsibilities the home imposed upon them, the

business world of today has largely freed them from. This economic

situation is leaving an increasing number of women without the

discipline of work or necessity. This lack of responsibility on the

part of women may be in part a reason why they more often than men seek

a divorce. Many women are showing by their unselfish public spirit

an appreciation of the importance of the social forces dealing with

the care and the protection of children. In their social capacities

they are working out many of the social problems dealing with all

humanity, as well as the problems of their sex alone. Many of the

serious problems, especially those bearing directly upon the home, the

relations of husband and wife, and mother and children, will be solved

in time--not by our law makers alone but with the co-operation of women.

It is true many of our cherished traditions and customs are in grave

danger of complete annihilation. If this destruction is to be brought

about by the baser elements in human nature--the love of sensual ease,

dissipation and depravity--our civilization is indeed in danger. But

if the motive power is the love of freedom as against the needless

sacrifice of the individual--a desire to give expression to creative

instincts which are alike in men and women--there exist signs that

out of the alarming confusion will arise something better, and more

conducive to a progressive civilization.

FOOTNOTES:

[95] Willcox.

[96] Special Report of the Census Office. _Marriage and Divorce_,

1867-1906. Part 1, 1909, pp. 68-69.

[97] Brandt and Baldwin, _Family Desertion_, p. 8.

[98] Howard, _A History of Matrimonial Institutions_, III, pp. 219-220.

CHAPTER X

THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND INDUSTRIAL CHANGES

In studying the history of primitive societies, we find authority

resting upon economic strength of military prowess, the latter nearly

always associated with material advantages. Property is synonymous with

power whether it consists of implements, herds or lands. Excepting

personal belongings, women possessed little property and had little

incentive to hold property as exclusively their own.

There is a striking difference between the political powers and

property rights of men and women, not only in primitive society, but

all through history. To point out some fundamental reasons for this

divergence will be the purpose of this chapter.

In modern society, we are accustomed to ascribe this divergence in

the political status of men and women, to custom, tradition, and the

tyranny of one sex over the other. Customs have their roots in habits

of life, and habits more often result from a convenience at an earlier

stage of culture. Tyranny of one sex over the other--especially of man

over woman--is not likely to occur among a peaceable people who show no

aggressive qualities, or among a people the women of which outnumber

men and apparently possess an equal degree of physical strength. All

existing societies as well as all societies of the past that have left

traces of their civilization, show the same tendency to place political

power in the hands of men, and not in the hands of women. This practice

has been so common among all peoples as to suggest some fundamental

reason for a social development--apparently so unjust to half the

race--other than an inherent conflict of interests, between the sexes.

Certainly such a conflict of interests, as some would have us believe,

has never existed in the animal world. The reason therefore must be

social and not inherent. The injustices arising out of such a social

scheme have little in common with the fundamental causes out of which

the existing situation arose.

It is difficult to trace the relation of primitive economic development

to the political status of women since our knowledge of the origin of

society, and its early development is very limited. But a vivid picture

of the reactions of economic changes upon the political status of women

in historical times, is possible as well as suggestive.

Morgan says, “The experience of mankind ... has developed but two

plans of government, using the world _plan_ in its scientific sense.

Both were definite and systematic organizations of society. The

first and the most ancient was a _social organization_, founded upon

gentes, phratries and tribes. The second and the latest in time was a

_political organization_, founded upon territory and upon property.

Under the first a gentile society was created, in which the government

dealt with persons through their relation to the gens and the tribe.

These relations were purely personal. Under the second a political

society was instituted, in which the government dealt with persons

through their relations to territory, e. g.--the township, the county,

and the state. These two relations were purely territorial.”[99]

So long as the government dealt with personal relations and property

belonged to small groups of people rather than to individuals, women

would naturally be conceded a more conspicuous position. We ourselves,

not necessarily from any preconceived notion, but because of the nature

of things, associate women more closely with family ties than we do

men. This does not mean women, that because of their status within

the family group or their relation to the family group, have greater

authority in the affairs of the community than men, or that the balance

of power rests with them, but that their importance in the social

consciousness depends upon where the emphasis is placed.

Morgan accounts for the practice of reckoning descent in the female

line to the fact that paternity was uncertain. The women and the

children formed a nucleus around which gathered a social organization

composed of the female descendants. Women, especially old women, had

a voice in the affairs of the gens, but when a leader was chosen the

choice invariably fell upon some man.

Gentes, tracing the descent in the female line, illustrate the early

position of women, and their rights in the beginning of a social

organization. But seldom, if ever, do we find women holding so

prominent a place as a sex, in the political affairs of the community

as men, when political relations were emphasized. This fact is often

attributed to the tyranny of man over woman but is it not more

reasonable to assume that women found it more convenient, and perhaps

more desirable, to leave to the men of their family, whose interests

were identical with their own, the exercise of governmental authority?

The transition from the matriarchate to a patriarchate grew out of an

appreciation of property. Under the matriarchate property belonged to

the gens and was transmitted through the female line. But under the

patriarchate property belonged to the family, or to the individual

members of the family. “When property began to be created in masses,

and the desire for its transmission to children had changed descent

from the female line to the male, real foundation for patriarchal power

was for the first time established.”[100]

This change resulted from an appreciation of the necessity to keep the

property of the family within the tribe, or the community, of which it

was a part.

Granting women the same privilege of property as men, under a

patriarchal system of government, it would be only a question of time

when the property interests of the tribe would lose their unity and

compactness, and be scattered broadcast over the land. Such a division

of property might have been allowed if individual interests alone

were considered and these interests did not interfere with the larger

interests of the state.

Daughters marrying into other tribes than their own would carry their

property interests with them to the tribe of their husbands and so

weaken the economic strength of the former, while increasing that of

the latter. To prevent women marrying outside the tribe would have been

more difficult than to regulate the transmission of property.

For the preservation of the state, when the state was a small community

the members of which were bound together by mutual interests of

defense or offense, it was necessary to restrict the property rights

of women. The state that did not do so and allowed the intermarriage

of members of its tribe with members of other tribes was destined

to extermination. “For my part I find it difficult to believe,”

says Vinegradoff, “that the exclusion of women from inheriting and

holding land can be the product not of primitive conditions and of

an undeveloped state of landholding, but of a gradual restriction of

women’s rights. The supposed later restrictions would appear in a very

archaic guise, and with too remarkable a concordance among nations

which could not have any direct influence on each other.”[101]

The early Germans are often quoted as representing a people among whom

women enjoyed a position of near equality with that of men. And yet

Ross tells us, “Among the Angli and Werini, the right of inheritance

was conceded to daughters only when there were no males left in the

clan. The clan consisted of the male descendants of five successive

generations. When no male was left within this limit, the clan was,

properly speaking, extinct. The clan land might then go to the women,

if there were any, and then into the clans wherein they were received

as wives.”[102]

While the origin of the distinctions between the property rights of

men and the property rights of women may have their roots in the

preservation of the large interests of the clan, tribe or state, the

custom thus established would tend to be followed in later times

irrespective of the applicability to existing conditions. As with many

other practices, the fact that it had its roots in the distant past

would seem sufficient to justify it.

The political power of women has been a negligible factor in the

history of political rights. It is true, as we have seen, that

political rights were synonymous with property rights, and that very

few men exercised political rights since they were propertyless, but

nevertheless where property was a family possession the “spear and

spindle distinction” was apparent. “Compare the remarkable customs

in regard to the division of property in the ancient Germanic laws.

The proper inheritance of the woman is her _gerade_ (gerath), the

household furniture. Norse law puts women back in regard to land

inheritance, and points to ‘loose money,’ _losa ore_, as a natural

outfit for them.”[103]

Women’s attitude toward political power differed from that of men where

it did exist. When a class of men possess no political rights, it means

that such rights inhere in a superior class which assumes a political

and often an economic mastery over them. Such has not been true of

women in the past. When women possessed no political rights their

relationship to the state was consciously or unconsciously involved in

the relationships of their husbands to the state.

History offers us an excellent example of this attitude toward the

political rights of women in the old Roman patriarchal system which

recognized the family as a complete unit, with one common interest, and

that interest represented by a recognized head of the household.

We must remember that in the early development of society, political

power has rested in the hands of a few individuals who by virtue of

individual power, were able to wrest from the many, an authority

carrying with it privileges enjoyed primarily by an exclusive governing

class. These governmental privileges tend to increase at the expense of

the governed until there is a recognition on the part of the people of

the injustices practiced. It is then, and only then, that the ruling

class defers to the wishes of the ruled. It is the way to preserve

their most cherished rights and privileges. We see this state of

affairs with the development of towns, and the decline of warfare as

the only occupation through which one was enabled to accumulate wealth.

The development of industries created a class of people who very soon

controlled sufficient wealth to demand a voice in their government.

The nobility was in need of the financial aid of the merchant class,

and the latter by virtue of their economic strength were able to wrest

political privileges from the ruling class.

In considering the political rights of men, there is a tendency to

assume that they exercise their present rights in sheer virtue of their

manhood, but history shows these rights have arisen out of a struggle

which was economic in its nature. These rights are handed down from

one generation to another and are often thought of as natural rights

when in reality they are rights fought for and won by an industrial

or economic class. Political concessions have been made by one class

to the other, not from philanthropic motives, but rather from a

recognition of the strength of the claimants. It is only when the

battle is virtually won that the opposition grants rights because of

their admiration of democratic principles.

The development of industries in the town tended to break up the large

landed holdings and to create new forms of wealth. When wealth was no

longer associated with a militant career a new adjustment of power had

to be made, giving political recognition to the successful industrials

who controlled the wealth in the towns. An exchange was effected. The

merchants received political privileges, and the noblemen engaged

primarily in war, received the financial assistance of the townsmen.

The expansion of the political rights of men shows a gradual increase

in the power of the masses. It represents a progressive evolution. It

is not so with the political rights of women. Before the era of machine

industry, whatever legal recognition women enjoyed, or political rights

they exercised, depended not upon their own efforts, but the efforts of

the men who desired to protect their property interests, and to prevent

these interests from passing outside the family circle.

Although the political rights of women vary in different countries,

the evolution of these rights does not show a gradual development of

privileges. Rights possessed at one period were lost at another, and

at no time do we hear of them making a protest against a diminution of

their power, or the narrow limits of their influence. Their part seems

to have been a passive one.

No attempt will be made to give a history of the legal and political

rights of women, but rather to point out the most striking features of

this development, and to emphasize those characteristics in harmony

with the general thesis that before the era of machine industry women

assumed a passive attitude toward social institutions, and that their

status was determined by forces, they made no effort as a class to

control.

The voice of women in early historical times played no part in affairs

which concerned them as a sex because it was never heard.

“In addition to many other objections which may be urged against the

common allegation that the legal disabilities of women are merely part

of the tyranny of sex over sex, it is historically and philosophically

valueless, as indeed are most propositions concerning classes so large

as sexes. What really did exist is the despotism of groups over members

composing them.”[104]

In the early history of civilization group life was an advantage over

individual struggle, and implied the subordination of the interests of

the individual to that of the group.[105]

This was especially applicable to women. Protection was essential to

women in prehistoric times, and the protection afforded by the group

gave greater security than that of a single individual. Protection

of the female and her offspring was necessary for a rapid increase

of population, and numbers were no small element in determining the

success of a tribe in competing with enemies. Those individuals most

adaptable to group life had the best chance of surviving and of leaving

offspring to whom they transmitted those qualities of character which

made subordination no hardship.

In ancient societies we have instances of women exercising the highest

function of the state without affecting the status of women in general.

They exercised these functions not as a concession to a sex, but

because they represented a group which would lose its prestige unless

the right to hold the office in question was granted women. Some of

the most conservative nations in respect to the advancement of women,

and in which the position of women has been least affected by modern

radical tendencies, recognize, or have recognized in the past the right

of women to the throne.[106]

Whatever rights women possessed as a class grew out of the rights of

property. Just as soon as women held property in their own names we

find them possessing powers in at least a degree which were attached

to the land. “The German custom, which in general was hostile to

women, did not interfere in the matters of property and of heredity.

The person having no existence proper in the society of that epoch, and

social order being summed up in property alone, the claims of land were

always weightier than the claims of person.”[107] And what was true

of Germany was true to a considerable extent of all the countries of

Europe.

After giving examples of women taking part in the communal assemblies,

Ostrogorski asks the question, “Property having in this way become the

exclusive basis of the right, and the personality of the owner being

henceforth completely disregarded, is not the difference between the

sexes an idle distinction?”[108]

Whatever the legal or political rights of an individual or class of

individuals may be, the only way to maintain them is to exercise the

powers those rights involve. To be indifferent to them, to allow to

others the performance of a duty of political or social significance is

to invite a deprivation of a right others cherish.

The history of the political and legal rights of women must be traced

by taking cognizance of a few individual cases where women exercised

rights. This exercise of rights on the part of a few women does not

indicate that the practice was universal but rather exceptional.

If these rights were based on property, the failure to exercise

them on the part of women did not show necessarily a disregard for

their property rights, but that their interests were represented by

the male members of the family whom they, in all probability, felt

confident would guard their interests as well as they themselves

could, or, perhaps better, since their knowledge of affairs outside

of the household was of broader scope and their judgment based on

business-world experience. This cannot be considered a usurpation of

rights on the part of men but the recognition of the unity of the

family. That it would lead to injustices was not contemplated by those

who did not consider final results, but only immediate expediency. Some

of the evils arising out of such practice were recognized in special

rights extended to widows and spinsters.

“As the official maintainer of right and justice, the mayor of Bristol

and Exeter, and probably of some other towns, was the guardian of

widows and orphans; in the former city a promise to ‘keep, maintain and

defend the widows and orphans of this town safely in their rights,’ was

a part of the mayor’s oath of office. And in the latter, the duty was

so burdensome that a special office, that of chamberlain, was created

in 1555, in order to provide for it.”[109]

Women belonged to the family group, and all their interests were

centered in the family. So long as their home relations were congenial

there was no apparent reason why they should become familiar with the

outside world in order to protect their interests since the interests

of both parents were identical. These interests represented more nearly

a unity of interests than individual interests.

Here again we find convenience playing a large part in determining the

respective fields of activity of the two sexes. Custom, convention, and

the precepts of the church, although powerful influences in molding

social institutions, would have been of little avail if contrary to the

convenience of large industrial classes.

Before the era of machine industry, men and women married early as

an economic advantage to both, establishing a family group with a

recognized division of labor and a concentration of authority. By the

concentration of authority is not meant that women were submissive

and docile in the household (although such was the prevailing

ideal of women at that time) for such submission depends upon the

characteristics of the individuals concerned, but male control of

matters establishing the relation of the family to the outside world.

The passivity of one parent was essential in a relation considering the

family all important and the individual of little consequence.

When the occupations of men were of such a nature as to cause a large

death-rate among them, the number of unmarried women must have been

necessarily large. These attached themselves to the households of

relatives, and were in no sense a burden, for as long as the household

was an industrial center their services were acceptable, and their

economic relations to the household somewhat similiar to those of the

married women.

Those women who did not become part of a household took refuge in

religious institutions. In a society where religious feeling is strong,

those of the most aesthetic type and susceptible to the incongruities

of life would be the first to separate themselves from earthly ties and

attempt to live up to their convictions and ideals. Hence many women

as well as men, who might have had marked influence in the molding of

social institutions devoted themselves to a spiritual and secluded life

leaving no offspring to whom they might transmit those characteristics

making them superior to the type most adaptable to the prevailing

customs of the time.[110] Thus we find religious institutions a check

to the propagation of a feminine type which has played an important

role in later history.

With the decline of the monastic system, and the breaking up of the

domestic system of industry, unmarried women were forced to establish

relations to the economic world outside the home similar to those of

men. If these women had dedicated themselves to a life of celibacy

when they entered the industrial field, as they did when they entered

the church, history would show them struggling for legal and political

rights in the same manner as men. But the possibility of changing

habits of life by marriage, freeing them from a serious economic

responsibility prevented the growth of a class conscious spirit which

would stimulate them to co-operate in bettering their conditions.

We find the family losing ground as an industrial unit with the

development of the factory. Men became more conscious of their social

relations outside the home, and came to appreciate the advantage and

necessity of social compacts. These changed relations growing out

of the new industrial life gave rise to a spirit of democracy which

emphasized the importance of the individual and his social relations.

It was a large factor in developing the political rights of men and

later of women.

The eighteenth century witnessed a crusade for political rights.

Practically all the serious thinkers of the day were forced to consider

the extension to all men of political rights which had up to this

time been based on high property qualifications. The great material

prosperity of northern Europe was at the expense of the laboring

classes who were forced to resist or to succumb to hopeless slavery.

It was a class struggle and fought out on those lines. Women took an

active part in it and were emphatic in their claims for their husbands,

sons, and brothers but the literature of the time does not show a

consciousness on the part of working women of an antagonism between

their interests and those of men.

On the eve of the French Revolution Condorcet made a demand for the

political emancipation of women. “In 1789, at election time, several

pamphlets appeared demanding the admission of women to the States

General, and protesting against the holding of a national assembly,

from which half of the nation was excluded.”[111]

The plea for the political rights of women was made on the ground of

the rights of equality, but the right to vote was not thought of as

an instrument for self protection in the economic world. On the other

hand the struggle on the part of men had a real economic basis. It

was economic pressure that goaded them to political struggle whereas

with women it was merely a declaration of rights expressing the spirit

of democracy of the times. Among its adherents were men and women of

superior intelligence, but the masses showed the indifference they

usually show to claims of abstract rights.

In England the municipal reform act of 1869 gave women votes in all

municipal elections. The act of 1870 gave them votes for school boards.

The act of 1888, made them voters for the county council. The act of

1894, which transformed the whole system of local government and vastly

extended the system of local representation, abolished in all its

departments the qualification of sex.[112]

In 1856, over two million women of Great Britain were forced to earn

their living and many of these belonged to the upper classes. Few

indeed were the occupations open to them. This was not entirely due

to the opposition of men but partly to the inability of women to

realize their relations to the industrial world as wage earners. They,

as well as the men, in spite of their employment outside of the home,

entertained the idea they were not performing their proper function in

life, but had failed--perhaps through no fault of their own--to adjust

themselves to their proper sphere. So long as the working women held

to the ideals of their ancestors they showed little tendency to demand

equality between the sexes in the industrial and political world.

It is true men considered women intruders when they sought employment

in the skilled industries and professions, but women as a whole were a

little more emphatic than the men in the expression of this opinion.

Time is a forceful element in the crystallization of ideas and in

giving stability to activities. Public opinion has accepted many of the

radical movements of women of the eighteenth century as a matter of

fact, and is becoming ever weaker in its opposition to the extension of

the political and industrial rights of women.

The movement for the political enfranchisement of women has taken two

aspects--the one industrial and the other social.

Of the industrial movement the most striking example at the present

time is that in England. They are asking for the suffrage on the ground

that they as industrial workers have a serious need for it.

It may seem at first a minor matter as to whether women should vote for

the members of parliament since they have the municipal franchise, but

it is really of vital importance to the working women. It is parliament

which enacts labor laws and legislates for the people in general.

Whatever protection the laboring people get through the enactment of

laws depends upon the philanthrophy of the wealthy classes, or upon

their own representatives. This state of affairs is one of the factors

encouraging them to make every possible effort to increase their

representation in parliament.

The working women--especially union workers--appreciate this fact and

demand the right to vote for the members of Parliament on the ground of

their economic well being. It is an economic question with them, and

they are evidently willing to fight for this privilege just as the men

were at the time of ‘Chartism.’ Ideas of sex propriety have been cast

aside, and the working women are standing as a class, who appreciate

their economic relation to society without any regard for the prevalent

conception of a ‘woman’s sphere’ which long ago became a myth to them.

It is true that many of their leaders are women of the higher social

classes but this same phenomenon has characterized, though not to the

same degree, the movements of working men to conquer political rights.

“What in England and America has been the movement of a whole sex,

has, in Germany under Social Democracy been merged in the movement of

the working class. Women are to have their rights not as a sex, but as

_workers_.”[113]

In France as in Germany the woman’s movement goes hand in-hand with

socialism. “There are no distinguished persons to head the movement.

It springs from the middle and lower classes and is the outcome of the

efforts of a group of enlightened women who, having freed themselves

from the prejudices that hedge about their sex, have crowned their

emancipation by claiming the vote.”[114]

Europe presents a somewhat different industrial situation from newly

settled countries. Class lines are sharply drawn and the element of

chance has been largely eliminated in the industrial field. There is

little shifting from the lower to the higher classes, so characteristic

of newly settled countries. This apparent fixity in social and economic

life fosters the development of class consciousness.

In the twentieth century two elements have entered into the struggle

for equal suffrage in England. The one is the spirit of democracy

claiming equal opportunities for all individuals irrespective of class

or sex. The other element is a purely economic one. It is the desire

of working women to gain possession of a force that can be used as

a weapon of defense and offense in a struggle with the masters of

industry.

When women demand the franchise on economic grounds, they meet with

strong opposition. The nature of the demand indicates the importance

of the issue at stake. This kind of a demand is never made until the

plea on behalf of democracy fails, and the plea for a greater democracy

always fails when the material interests of the ruling classes are

affected. Political rights fought for on economic grounds, when won,

are not quickly lost. The battle creates the spirit of resistance to

any encroachments upon rights once won.

When the working women of England obtain the right to vote for the

members of parliament on an equality with men, they will unite their

political forces with the men in supporting measures in behalf of the

working people, and distinction in politics will be lost sight of.

The newer settled countries are conspicuous for the rights granted

women. This liberty is not due to the strength of the demand made by

women but democratic individualism, and freedom from the tyranny of

traditions.

The conservative elements of a society are not the ones to venture into

a new country. They remain at home and cherish traditions and customs

which color all their thinking. The radical elements in society are the

ones to venture to the frontiers and to colonize the new sections of

a country. Democracy characterizes their government and individualism

their financial undertakings. Hence it is not surprising that the five

American states offering women the same political privileges as men are

the newly settled states where class lines are so lax as to be almost

non-existent, and where the struggle between capital and labor shows

more nearly an equilibrium of forces than in the older settled states.

In the western states the number of women engaged in industrial

employments outside the home is small when compared with the eastern

states. The total number of female breadwinners in Idaho, according to

the census report of 1900, was but 14.1 per cent of all the women in

the state; Colorado 18.8 per cent; Wyoming 20.8 per cent; and Utah 17.7

per cent. These figures present quite a striking contrast when compared

with New York where 49.2 per cent of all the women in the state are

breadwinners; New Jersey 46.5 per cent; and Pennsylvania 37.4 per

cent. These figures indicate that women enjoy political privileges in

the West irrespective of their economic conditions.

In many of the western states men outnumber women and most women are

married and at the head of households. The domestic system of industry

is more prevalent than in the large eastern cities, and in sparsely

settled communities; the family tends to be a close economic unit.

It is reasonable to suppose that the status of women in the West,

political, as well as social, is determined, not so much by economic

conditions directly, as by the breaking away from an old regime weighed

down by traditions and an economic condition favorable to a few.

The strongest opposition to the enfranchisement of women in the West

comes from the women who have no economic interests outside the home,

and practically no social ones. They are unconscious of any sexual

antagonism--and justly so, for the men are markedly indifferent

excepting those who feel women may take too deep an interest in

questions affecting certain businesses, such as the liquor interests.

It is not only newly settled countries which show a tendency to grant

women political rights, but countries where there is a complete change

in the governmental regime, either by the throwing off of the tyranny

of another country, or the tyranny of a class rule. At such a time

women help to create public sentiment and take active part in the

struggle to obtain liberty. Under such circumstances a demand for the

extension of the franchise, either for men or women is apt to meet with

approval along with other measures equally democratic.

The women of the better classes are mostly home makers and cling with

a good deal of pride to the ideals of womanhood of an aristocratic

society of the past. They do not wish for the franchise and would

probably oppose the extension of their political rights. The exercise

of the right of the ballot would not tally with the leisure class

ideals of the community and would savor of a democracy almost plebian.

As long as women look upon the extension of their political rights

from the point of view of individual gain, a large number of them will

impede the movement by their opposition and indifference. The reason

may be apparently social but it is primarily economic. Free from any

economic responsibilities, and some free from responsibilities of any

kind, they see no individual advantage in promoting a measure that

would add nothing to their comfort or peace of mind. Their philosophy

of life is an individualistic one as well as a selfish one, and their

opposition to a progressive movement is not so much a question of

confirmed principle as egotistical interests.

Many of them feel absolutely no need for an extension of rights for by

virtue of their sex precedence they possess many more rights than any

social democracy could afford them.

Many women have been stimulated by a sense of duty to their city and

their state to take an active interest in political and civic affairs.

On the other hand, there will always be many women just as there are

many men who will be indifferent to political issues and who will need

the stimulation and suggestion political meetings afford before they

take an active part in the political life of the community. It is

only then that most people appreciate the significance of a political

contest.

The campaign for woman’s suffrage is often an attempt on the part of

public-spirited people to utilize the energy and leisure of women

on behalf of the common good. They alone have the time to make

investigations and to work out problems dealing directly with the

physical and moral well being of the community. Most men are interested

in politics from an economic point of view, whereas many women are

interested from the social point of view since they have no economic

interests at stake. They are prepared to devote their time to those

civic questions neglected by men, which are of vital importance to the

health and intelligence of the citizens.

The evolution of industry out of the home is setting free a vast amount

of energy to be expended according to the will of the individual who

possesses the leisure. That this surplus energy should not be wasted is

of social consequence.

With the development of industry outside the home the productive value

of many women’s work is disappearing as well as the spirit of unity of

the old-fashioned home. An era of individualism is the consequence.

As fast as people break away from the customs and traditions of the

past, either through a broader outlook afforded by the educational

world or economic readjustment, they form groups of individuals as

a source of strength. Just as the primitive tribe appreciated the

advantage of the increased strength of group life, so do modern

industrial and social classes form groups as a means of defense. Out

of economic groups have developed social groups with a tendency toward

a social state. As we work toward a social ideal, the power of the

economic forces grow less in the molding of our social institutions.

It is only within the last decade that there has been a conscious

effort to control economic forces for the good of all. Heretofore,

civilizations and their institutions have reflected the economic life,

and the predatory character of the latter made possible the survival

only of the most fit economically whether state, tribe, class or sex.

The survival of the fittest was not necessarily the survival of the

best.

We are rapidly approaching a time when “what is best” is thought of

rather than what is fittest to survive. “The best” is that which

affords the greatest amount of good to the greatest number. This is

not a social philosophy as opposed to individualism, but a social

philosophy of individualism. Each individual counts in the general

scheme of things and in so far as he counts for good, he counts as an

important and indispensable social force not to be neglected.

This is the new philosophy of the age: The poor man claims social

rights as well as the rich; the woman as well as the man; and the child

more than all the others. All are working for each and each for all.

This is the keynote of the demand for the political rights of women

when made by the public-spirited for the sake of the community and

the child. It has not grown out of sex hatred or class struggle, or

an intolerable oppression of the weak by the strong, but the spirit

of a social democracy. On the other hand, the demand as made on a

purely industrial basis is part of an industrial struggle. In it are

involved elements of class struggle and a revolt of the weak against

the oppression of the strong, i. e. the elements which were paramount

in the men’s struggle for the franchise. And to these elements is added

one more. The struggle in the past was fought by the men for their

families, but so difficult has become the industrial life that each

individual, whether man or woman, must fight for himself. It is not

social democracy that is impelling women industrial workers to ask for

the franchise, but on the contrary an industrial tyranny.

The two are often confused in measuring the status of women of

different countries. We can no more assimilate the movement for

the enfranchisement of women in England to the movement for the

enfranchisement of women in the western section of the United States

than we can liken the economic and social status of the negro of the

South before the Civil War with that of the negro of the North. The one

was a slave to an economic regime and essential to its welfare; the

other was a human being with little economic or social significance.

Thus we see in some places the political rights of women asked for

on industrial grounds, and fought for as an industrial expedient.

Elsewhere the political rights of women are sought on a social basis

alone.

FOOTNOTES:

[99] Morgan, _Ancient Societies_, p. 62.

[100] Morgan, _Ancient Societies_, p. 470.

[101] Vinegradoff, _The Growth of the Manor_, p. 249.

[102] Ross, _The Early History of Land-Holding Among the Germans_, p.

67.

[103] Vinegradoff, _The Growth of the Manor_, p. 249.

[104] Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, p. 327.

[105] Bagehot, _Physics and Politics_, p. 24.

[106] Ostrogorski, _The Rights of Women_, pp. 8-9.

[107] Ostrogorski, _The Rights of Women_, p. 2.

[108] _Ibid_, p. 90.

[109] Ashley, _Economic History_, 11, p. 42.

[110] Lecky, _History of European Morals_, II, Chap. 5.

[111] Ostrogorski, _The Rights of Women_, p. 26.

[112] Lecky, _Democracy and Liberty_, II, pp. 512-513.

[113] Russel, _German Social Democracy_, Appendix on Social Democracy

and the Woman Question in Germany, p. 175.

[114] _‘Feminisme’ in France_, Nineteenth Century, p. 816, Nov., 1908.

CONCLUSION

Our conception of humanity in early race history is associated with

a struggle for subsistence. The animal instincts in men predominated

and determined their destinies. When these deviated from a safe

course, there was extinction. Danger was not encountered for the love

of combat--if so man differed from other species--but to ward off a

greater danger or to satisfy a hunger which was greater than the fear

of forces. Such was the hunger for food and sex. Impulse and fear were

the two guiding forces of primitive man, not self-control and reason.

The sexual impulse of men was easily aroused while with women it was

most often dormant. Thus the latter escaped one form of combat that

played a conspicuous part in the race history. They lacked the impulse,

and therefore the fear, that helped to make men fighters. The better

fighters men were, the less need was there for women to take part in

the combat. It was sex instinct which prompted men to fight for their

mates, and it was the same instinct that incited them to protect them

after possession had been obtained. Thus by virtue of sex woman gained

protection from a hostile outside world, not only for herself but for

her offspring.

With possession always goes authority. It meant a great deal to the

race for women to be protected during pregnancy and the period of

lactation, but in this early protection of the female lay the roots of

their later subordinate status. They were free in a measure from the

tyranny of the hostile environmental force, but instead subjected to

the tyranny of their masters. The latter was the lesser of two evils.

Primitive man was not necessarily brutal to his mate; there exists in

all animals a natural deference on the part of the male toward the

female--when he showed consideration for his fellow men. It was only

when cruelty was a characteristic of man toward all his fellow men, or

a distinctive quality of the members of the group in question, men and

women alike, that women suffered from brutality.

When prehistoric man showed a tendency to establish a permanent

dwelling place, two factors determined the occupation of women. Their

offspring looked to them for food which the chase did not always

supply; and secondly, they possessed, thanks to the men, leisure and

sense of security which made possible the concentration of attention

on the industrial arts. Necessity stimulated them to effort, but the

security from enemies, at least in a measure, made possible peaceable

pursuits that were significant of the beginning of the home.

Women were not averse to this arrangement of occupations, for to them

it was the most convenient. To take part in war and the chase would

have worked great hardships on the small children who needed much of

the mother’s care. The association of women with the hearth is the

outgrowth of a natural development having its basis in the convenience

of both sexes.

Thus were established habits which in a later day became recognized as

sex distinctions. The primitive mother handed down to her daughters the

precepts she herself had followed--perhaps on her own initiative, and

what was a habit with her became custom and tradition to her children.

In early historical times women occupied a sphere industrially,

legally, and socially distinct from that of man, differing with

different peoples, but sufficiently alike to establish the fact that

woman’s position is invariably inferior. In militant types of society

the contrast between the status of men and women is most marked,

whereas these differences grow less as the occupations of both men and

women incline toward industrialism. Strength or weakness in combat

determined the status of the individual, class or sex when combat was

the chief occupation of men.

Although in general women were physically weaker, and out of their

weakness arose, possibly, sex tyranny, family ties were close, and by

virtue of relationship individual women often exercised authority. This

shows sex alone was not always sufficient to deprive women of all power.

In the early Roman days, their position was recognized by the state

as distinct from any rank applicable to men. Men were graded from the

highest position of respect in the state, to the lowest conceivable;

from absolute authority to abject slavery. Women were destitute of

authority as a sex, but individually the state recognized their rights

as involved in the rights of the family. They received the rank of

their husbands, but in a lesser degree, when they had no claim to the

rank by virtue of any inherent power or ability of their own. While as

a sex they had no voice in the state, the law-makers feared them when

they were closely related to superior officers.

When war declined and agriculture assumed greater importance, the

family became a close social and economic unit with recognition of

a division of work between the sexes. Women, while still working in

the fields tended to leave the out-door work to men, and to confine

themselves more exclusively to in-door work. This might have been

considered a concession to the sex, for only among the poorest people

did women continue to hold their own in the field. Undoubtedly

women thought it was to their advantage to be able to confine their

efforts to work close to the hearth. Here we have another example of

convenience as responsible for the division of labor between men and

women.

From the dawn of the industrial era men made inroads upon the

industrial sphere of women, and while they seemed to assume those

tasks most desirable from a modern point of view, nevertheless those

tasks were the ones most conveniently relinquished by the women. The

change was a mutual advantage and not necessarily a consequence of the

arbitrary exercise of authority. Women’s interests were concentrated on

industrial occupations only in so far as these occupations furthered

the well-being of their families, and just as soon as they were able to

shift the responsibility to others, they did so gladly, for by so doing

they were brought closer to the fireside and their children.

Before the introduction of machine industry, the home of the working

people stood for an economic unit as well as a social one. Women left

the field for indoor work, and as soon as there existed a surplus of

labor out-of-doors, they once again divided their employments with the

men, the latter taking over those tasks allowing for the greatest play

of skill and inventiveness, and most completely divorced from personal

service. These became the textile industries and paved the way for the

industrial revolution, and the substitution of machine work for hand

work. Women drew their work instinctively closer to the hearth; men

away from it.

Hardly the most able men according to the estimate of the time were the

ones to leave the fields for a new line of work. What probably happened

was that those men physically deformed or otherwise handicapped in the

out-of-door work, were relegated to the fireside to assist the women.

It was their specialization and concentration that made them excel

in their art and bring it to a higher state of perfection than women

had. Undoubtedly they were looked down on by men, and their social

position was similiar to that of the tailor only a few generations ago.

Literature affords us many a merry gibe at the expense of the man who

earned his bread with his needle, and only recently has he taken his

place in the trades on an equality with others.

When machine industry replaced hand industry a revolution was started

that has not yet ended. Instead of all social and economic forces

molding the home into a more compact unit, they tend to disintegrate

the home and to force its dependent members from its industrial

shelter.

It was at this time that great suffering was endured. The family

compact had gained industrial strength by virtue of the combination,

but when each individual member of that family was forced to seek a

place in an industrial regime, many of them became victims of a new

order they were powerless to control. Men, women, and children flocked

to the factories for work, and in return for their services received

a mere pittance in comparison with the economic advantages of the old

economic life. Where there existed poverty, before, now dwelt misery

and desolation. Men could not protect their wives and children from

killing toil and although their memories carried them back to better

days, they now became part of the procession of the hopelessly poor.

What happened in the warring communities of primitive times now took

place in industrial communities. The old economic groups had been

broken up and no readjustment taken place. Hence, each individual

was forced to fight his battle and his success depended upon his own

efforts. It was the predatory spirit let loose in an economic guise.

The combat was more brutal in that the vanquished ones were not slain

on the field but left to die in damp cellars.

As in history the status of women depended upon the status of their

husbands. As a sex they asked for nothing but bread for themselves and

their families. Their new economic position in the factory was supposed

to be a temporary make-shift only, and their failure to recognize its

permanency was perhaps one reason why all their demands were demands

for the men--a chance for their husbands to support their families

independent of their wives.

Little change has been effected in their status since the industrial

revolution excepting an increase in their numbers in the factories.

So many of them lack sufficient nourishment or leisure or power to

help themselves--the same applies to the men--that they are seemingly

powerless even at the present time to change their lot. The effort is

coming from another class which has been far more fortunate in its

economic adjustments.

The hopelessly poor are the victims of our industrial regime. Just

ahead in the social scale are the middle class workers. It is in their

homes a favorable readjustment to the new economic conditions can be

found. With the departure of each occupation from the home came an

expansion of wants. A greater variety of food and clothing increased

the kinds of work women performed. They were just as busy as when they

wove and spun. If new economic problems had not arisen out of the

fact that men did not receive adequate compensation for their labor

to warrant a higher plane of living in the home, the women of this

class would not have been compelled to change their habits of life to

any extent. In many families of the middle-class, women’s work in the

household has little money value unless performed in the household of

another. It is when the men of the household are out of work that the

small economic importance of women’s work to the family is manifest. It

most often does not satisfy the primary needs for food and shelter of

those about them. Here lies the essential difference between the work

of the modern housewife and that of the housewife of the era before

machine industry. This difference is constantly increasing and making

the family more dependent for its support upon employment outside the

home. As an institution the home is becoming one of sentiment alone,

and not one of economic expediency.

Women’s work in the home is rapidly becoming a luxury, and less of a

necessity; and unless a different economic regime is brought in, women

will be compelled to add to the incomes of the families or marriage

will become a luxury of the well-to-do alone. Either men of the

middle-class must receive an ever increasing wage or the women engage

in money-gaining occupations.

It is true many women resist the removal of all productive industry

from the home to the factory, but it is like resisting a glacial

movement down a mountain side. The home must adapt itself to the change

to save itself. When the home no longer possesses economic value,

when marriage “means a doubling of expense and the halving of income,

the accountability of one person for the welfare of another, and the

certainty of no resource if the sole wage earner falls by chance into

the abyss of the unemployed,” people will not so readily enter into a

relation which involves so great a responsibility and sacrifice.[115]

The number of marriages is decreasing, but the number of married women

following professional pursuits is also increasing. If men are more

timid than formerly in assuming matrimonial ties, or if women show as

great a timidity in entering into a relation that promises hardships

arising out of their complete economic dependence, the progress married

women are making in the skilled industries and other lines of work

compatible with their conception of their social status, will prove

a large factor in restoring confidence in the mutual helpfulness

made possible by marriage and tend to check the decrease of the

marriage-rate.

The decline of the birth-rate is a more serious problem. A large infant

mortality prevails the world over and no effective means have been

found to prevent this great sacrifice of life. Indeed the decrease of

the birth-rate is comparatively small when compared with the waste

of life by infantile diseases. If only some means were found to

prevent this waste the decrease in the birth-rate would be one more

illustration of the great economy in pain and suffering achieved by

an advanced civilization. The real alarming thing is not a general

decrease in the birth-rate but a decrease applying to the better social

classes alone. The latter are made up of individuals who have enjoyed

the advantages of our social institutions. If their superiority can be

traced to their natural superiority rather than to their opportunities,

made possible by their economic status, there exists genuine reason for

alarm; but if humanity after all is much alike the world over, and the

differences between types are due to opportunity, no better means can

be found to meet the problem than by affording a wider diffusion of

the benefits of a higher civilization. To bring this about cities must

be made sanitary places in which to live and extreme poverty must be

eliminated from the child’s environment.

The decrease of the importance of women’s work in the home is not alone

responsible for the changes in their status but also the modern close

intercommunication of cosmopolitan groups made possible by modern

industrial methods in the business world. The close relations existing

between individuals and groups of individuals who have not always lived

in the same environment, or the same kind of an environment stimulates

many new desires and human faculties which might have remained dormant

were the individual shut off from the close relations with the outside

world.

One of the results of this interaction is a disregard for the social

barriers of the past, and a leveling of educational and social

opportunities so that they are within the reach of a constantly

increasing number of men and women alike.

A desire for invidious distinction is a marked motive in man. He

desires to excel others, at least those in his class, in the pursuits

which give precedence in the eyes of others. If he has not the

financial means at hand to excel with a degree of ease, he will make

every possible sacrifice to maintain at least the standards of the

class with which he is associated.

When the family was a close economic unit, and high class barriers

existed there was little opportunity for mutual stimulation. The

natural characteristic of responsiveness to suggestion was held in

check by the customary standards of one’s class. Such is not true under

the factory regime. The individual has access to any class so far as

his economic resources and leisure permit. Hence a free play of the

imitative faculty, which often takes the form of a blind imitation of

the recognized superior in invidious distinction--the accepting of

standards from the class above irrespective of their merits.

This is especially characteristic of women and is given expression in

expensive dress, furniture, and ability to purchase services. Women

show the imitative faculty to a greater degree than men for they

have more leisure. Leisure above all things is most conducive to the

development of desires suggested by the plane or expenditure of the

class above.

The development of industry has created a vast amount of new wealth,

and women more than men have profited by the great increase of

productivity. Their leisure is being increased rapidly and when their

men-folk are prosperous they can afford to gratify wants without taking

into consideration their ultimate good. Hence women of leisure tend to

form a procession of imitators, each according to her inclinations and

financial standing.

The initiative faculty is a virtue when appealed to by progressive

social ideals, but is a menace when it signifies an insane procession

of clothes, mission furniture or oriental rugs. It is then the stuffy

flat in the heart of the city is preferred to the cottage in the

suburbs. In some, this inclination to follow fashion seems to grow

with the increased means of communication. A childlike faith that good

models will be imitated rather than bad ones is akin to the _laissez

faire_ philosophy that has so ignominiously failed. It is of the utmost

importance that social ideals should be consciously molded.

The effect of economic changes upon the status of women have been many.

They have forced and are still forcing an ever increasing number of

women into the factories to compete with each other in the poorest

paid field of labor. The homes of these women are a disgrace to

civilization. It is seldom that the comforts or the decencies of life

can be found there. These same economic forces are making it possible

for many middle class workers to better their financial and social

condition but they threaten the masses with poverty or the necessity of

the wives entering the industrial field with their husbands. They have

also made possible a widening leisure on the part of many women whose

husbands are successful business men. Never in history were there so

many idle women.

Only the rich and the poor who are adjusted to economic conditions can

afford to marry. The one class has no fear for the future, the other

class has no hope. It is in the large middle class retaining social

ideals and struggling to adapt itself to changing conditions with as

little sacrifice as possible, where one can best measure the effects

of economic changes. It is there parents appreciate the necessity of

giving their children educational advantages superior to their own.

Each generation expects more of the past than the last, and what is

true of individuals is true of institutions. There is a growing demand

for more highly trained men and women. Hence parents appreciate the

necessity of limiting the size of the family in order to meet the

increased demands made upon them.

Each individual adjusts himself as best he can to his economic life,

and his economic life tends to be the center of his social life. When

the former changes, the change is reflected in the latter and the sum

total creates a social consciousness reflected in the existing social

institutions.

It is doubtful if women as a sex will ever reach the same economic and

social status as men. Individual women, especially certain unmarried

ones, will do so but as representative of a class in society rather

than sex.

Unless some radical changes take place in society we now little dream

of, the majority of women will prefer home life to active industrial

careers. This will be made possible in part by the inherent gallantry

of men, and a social conscience which will make fewer economic demands

upon the mothers of the race than upon the fathers.

Whether one half of the race can support the other half will never be

tested, for there will always be a large army of women, married and

single, who will prefer their economic independence to any form of

co-operation in housekeeping.

The question resolves itself ultimately into whether the average man

will in the future be able to support a family without the financial

assistance of his wife; and whether society can afford, either

industrially or morally, to support an increasing number of idle women.

The question will be solved by one of two forces and probably by

both. These are economic necessity and our educational institutions.

To prophesy the effects of these forces upon the status of women

in the future, it would be necessary to assume that these forces

themselves are in no immediate danger of undergoing radical changes.

The assumption would be wrong, for the atmosphere is charged with

discontent with the present economic conditions. When the latter are

sufficiently controlled to assure a measure of contentment among the

people the home will adjust itself like any other adaptable institution.

Many of the responsibilities formerly associated with the home are

now performed by the state municipality. This changed condition is

especially noticeable in the care and education of children. The

functions of the state are no longer confined exclusively to police

powers, but aim through constructive legislation to bring about

industrial and social conditions conducive to the welfare of all its

citizens.

Through its educational policies it is possible for the government to

so regulate and develop the institutions of society as to minimize some

of the evils arising out of modern economic life, and to direct social

ideals which will reflect themselves in the industrial habits of man.

The home and all allied institutions show the influence of economic

habits, and whatever changes take place in the latter--whether

resulting from a conscious social influence or a _laissez-faire_ policy

in industry--will in time make themselves felt in the former. The home

comes nearer being an expression of the industrial development of

mankind than any other institution of society.

FOOTNOTES:

[115] Patten.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Henry. _Historical Essays._ New York, 1891.

Adams, Thomas Sewell, and Summer, Helen L., _Labor Problems_. New

York, London, 1905.

Addams, Jane. _Democracy and Social Ethics._ New York, 1902.

Ashley, William James. _An Introduction to English Economic History

and Theory._ New York. 1888-93 (2 v.).

Bachofen, J. J. _Das Mutterrechts_ eine Untersuchung über die

Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen

Natur. Stuttgart, 1861.

Bagehot, Walter. _Physics and Politics._ London, 1872.

Bailey, William Bacon. _Modern Social Conditions_: a statistical study

of birth, marriage, divorce, death, disease, suicide, immigration,

etc., with special reference to the U. S. New York, 1906.

Bliss, William D. P. (Editor-in-chief) _The New Encyclopedia of Social

Reform._ New York, London, 1908.

Booth, Charles. _Labour and Life of the People._ 3 vols. ed. 3 London,

1891.

Brand, Lillian. _Five Hundred and Seventy-four Deserters and

their Families_; a descriptive study of their characteristics and

circumstances. New York, 1905.

Brinton, Daniel Garrison. _Races and Peoples_: lectures on the science

of ethnography. New York, 1890.

---- ---- _The Basis of Social Relations_: a study in ethnic

psychology. New York, 1902.

Brooks, John Graham. _The Social Unrest_: studies in labor and

socialist movements. New York, 1903.

Bryce. _Marriage and Divorce Under Roman and English Law._ In his

studies in History and Jurisprudence. New York, London, 1901.

Bucher, Karl. _Industrial Evolution_; translated from the 3d. German

ed. by S. M. Wickett. New York, 1901.

Cadbury, Edward. _Women’s Work and Wages_: a phase of life in an

industrial city, by Edward Cadbury, M. Cecile Matheson and George

Shann, London, 1906.

Campbell, Helen. _Prisoners of Poverty_: women wage workers, their

trades and their lives. Boston, 1890.

---- ---- _Women Wage-earners_: their past, their present and their

future. Boston, 1893.

Cheyney, Edward Potts. _An Introduction to the Industrial and Social

History of England._ New York, 1905.

Collet, Clara E. _Educated Working Women_: essays on the economic

position of women workers in the middle classes. London, 1902.

Commander, Lydia Kingsmill. _The American Idea._ Does the national

tendency toward a small family point to race suicide or race

development. New York, 1907.

Creighton, Louise. _Social History of England._ London, 1887.

Crepaz, Adelé. _The Emancipation of Women and its Probable

Consequences._ London, 1893.

Cunningham, William. _The Growth of English Industry and Commerce._

ed. 2, Cambridge, 1890-92. (2 v.)

Dawson, William Harbreth. _Germany and the Germans._ London, 1894. (2

v.)

Debel, Ferdinand August. _Die Frau und der Socialismus._ Stuttgart,

1904.

Demolins, Edmund. _Les Grandes Routes Des Peuples_: essai de

géographie sociale; comment la route crée le type social. v. 1 Paris,

1901.

Denton, Rev. William. _England in the Fifteenth Century._ London, 1888.

Duruy, Victor. _History of Rome, and of the Roman People from its

Origin to the Invasion of the Barbarians_, tr. by M. M. Ripley and W.

F. Clarke. Ed. by Rev. J. P. Mahaffy. Boston, 1883.

Earle, Alice Morse. _Colonial Dames and Good Wives._ Boston, 1895.

---- ---- _Colonial Days In Old New York._ New York, 1896.

---- ---- _Colonial Life In New England._ New York, 1893.

---- ---- _Home Life in Colonial Days._ New York, 1899.

Eckenstein, Lina. _Woman Under Monasticism_: chapters on Saint lore

and convent life between A. D. 500 and A. D. 1500. Camb. 1896.

Ellis, Havelock. _Man and Woman_: a study of human secondary

character. London, 1896.

Ely, Richard T. _Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society._ New

York, 1903.

Fisher, George Park. _The Beginnings of Christianity_; with a view of

the state of the Roman world at the birth of Christ. New York, 1877.

Garnier, Russell M. _Annals of the British Peasantry._ London, 1895.

Gohre, Paul. _Three Months in a Workshop_; a practical study;

translated from the German by A. B. Carr. London, 1895.

Grosse, Ernst. _Die Formen der Familie und Die Formen Der

Wirthschaft._ Freiburg and Leipzig, 1896.

Guizot, François Pierre. _General History of Civilization in Europe,

from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the French Revolution_; 9th Amer.

from the 2nd English ed. with occasional notes by C. S. Henry. New

York, 1869.

Hart, Albert Bushnell. _National Ideals Historically Traced_,

1607-1907. New York, 1907.

Hildebrand, Richard. _Über das Problem einer Allgemeinen

Entwicklungsgeschichte des Rechts und Der Sitte._ Graz, 1849.

Hobhouse, Leonard Trelawney. _Morals in Evolution_: a study in

comparative ethics. New York, 1906. (2 v.)

Hobson, John Atkinson. _The Social Problem: Life and Work._ New York,

1901.

Ichenhauser, Eliza. _Die Politische Gleichberrechtigung der Frau._

Berlin, 1898.

Janssen, Johannes. _History of the German People at the Close of the

Middle Ages_; translated from the German by M. A. Mitchell and A. M.

Christie. London, 1900. (C.)

Jordan, David Starr. _The Voice of the Scholar_, with other addresses

on the problem of higher education. San Francisco, 1903.

Kellogg, Vernon Lyman. _Darwinism Today._ New York, 1907.

Kelly, Florence. _Some Ethical Gains through Legislation._ New York,

London, 1905.

Lang, Andrew. _Early History of the Family._ In his Custom and Myth.

London, 1884.

Lecky, William Edward Hartpole. _Democracy and Liberty._ New York,

1896.

---- ---- _History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne._

New York, 1869. (2 v.)

Letourneau, Charles Jean Marie. _The Evolution of Marriage and the

Family._ London, 1891.

---- ---- _La Condition De la Femme Dans les Diverses Races et

Civilizations._ Paris, 1903.

Lily, Braun. _Die Frauenfrage_: ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung und

wirtschaftliche Seite. Leipzig, 1901.

Lubbock, John. _The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition

of Man, Mental and Social Condition of Savages._ New York, 1874.

Lynch, Hannah. _French Life in Town and Country._ New York, 1901.

McLennan, John Ferguson. _Studies In Ancient History_, comprising a

reprint of Primitive Marriage, an inquiry into the origin of the forms

of capture in marriage ceremonies. New Ed. London, 1886.

Mahaffy, John P. and Gilman, Arthur. _A Survey of Greek Civilization._

New York, 1889.

Maine, Sir Henry. _Ancient Law._ New York, 1878.

---- ---- _Early History of Institutions._ New York, 1875.

Marshall, Alfred. _Principles of Economics._ 5th ed. London, 1907.

Mason, O. T. _Woman’s Share in Primitive Culture._ New York, 1894.

Maspero, Gaston Camille Charles. _The Dawn of Civilization, Egypt and

Chaldaea_ ed. by A. H. Sayce, tr. by M. E. McClure. London, 1894.

Mill, John Stuart. _Socialism_; being a collection of his writings,

with chapters on democracy, and the right of property in land, and the

enfranchisement of women; ed. by W. P. Bliss, New York, 1891.

Mommsen, Christian Mathias Theodor. _The History of Rome._ Tr. by Rev.

Wm. P. Dickson. New York, 1869-71. 4 v.

More, Mrs. Louise Bolard. _Wage Earners’ Budgets_: a study of

standards and cost of living in New York City. New York, 1907.

Morgan, Lewis H. _Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human

Progress from Savagery through Barbarianism to Civilization._ New

York, 1878.

Ostrogorski, M. _The Rights of Women_: a comparative study in history

and legislation; tr. under the author’s supervision. London, 1893.

Patten, Simon Nelson. _The New Basis of Civilization._ New York,

London, 1907.

Paulsen, Friedrich. _German Universities, Character and Historical

Development_; tr. by Frank Thilly and William W. Elwang. New York,

1906.

Pearson, Charles Henry. “_The Decline of the Family._” In his National

Life and Character; A Forecast, Chap. v. London, 1893.

Ploss, Herman Heinrich. _Das Weib in Der Natur-und-völker-kunde_:

anthropologische studien. Lpz. 1905, 2 v.

Riis, Jacob August. _The Peril and the Preservation of the Home._

Philadelphia, 1903.

Rowntree, B. _Poverty_: A study of town life. Ed. 3. London, 1902.

Russell, Bertrand Arthur William. _German Social Democracy_: with an

appendix on social democracy and the woman question in Germany by Alys

Russell. London, 1896.

Salmon, Lucy Maynard. _Domestic Service._ Ed. 2. New York, 1901.

Sayce, A. H. _Social Life Among the Assyrians and the Babylonians._

London, 1893.

Smith, Richard Mayo. _Science of Statistics._ 2 v. New York, 1895-99.

Spahr, Charles B. _An Essay on the Present Distribution of Wealth in

the United States._ New York, 1896.

Starcke, C. N. _The Primitive Family._ New York, 1889.

Starr, Frederick. _Some First Steps in Human Progress._ Meadville

(Penn.), 1895.

Transcriber’s Notes

Errors and omissions in punctuation have been corrected.

Page 16: “militant actvities” changed to “militant activities”

Page 20: “enjoyed ahe” changed to “enjoyed the”

Page 21: “Mommson says,” changed to “Mommsen says,”

Page 24: “similiar occupations” changed to “similar occupations”

Page 32: “some meassure” changed to “some measure” “less disasterous”

changed to “less disastrous”

Page 38: “nor the benificiaries” changed to “nor the beneficiaries”

Page 40: “in no covent” changed to “in no convent”

Page 42: “The wires of the men” changed to “The wives of the men”

Page 46: “a rare occurance” changed to “a rare occurence”

Page 54: “cultural opportunites” changed to “cultural opportunities”

Page 59: “greater the opportunties” changed to “greater the

opportunities”

Page 63: “It it felt” changed to “It is felt”

Page 64: “especial in the smaller” changed to “especially in the

smaller”

Page 73: “it is posible” changed to “it is possible”

Page 80: “Westermark thinks” changed to “Westermarck thinks”

Page 81: “in simply astounding” changed to “is simply astounding”

Page 92: “Great Britian” changed to “Great Britain”

Page 93: “the case with which a man” changed to “the ease with which a

man”

Page 94: “at all hazzards” changed to “at all hazards”

Page 99: “were indentical” changed to “were identical” “to a

patriachate” changed to “to a patriarchate”

Page 104: “considered a ursurpation” changed to “considered a

usurpation” “were recorganized” changed to “were recognized”

Page 110: “spirit of resistence” changed to “spirit of resistance”

Page 116: “the contract between the status” changed to “the contrast

between the status”

In a few spots, quotations from original sources had small

transcription errors, which were corrected where possible according to

the original source.