THE SORE THOUGHT
The toad beneath the harrow knows
Everywhere the tooth mark goes;
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to the toad.
Women have had to do a lot of waiting--long, weary waiting. The
well-brought-up young lady diligently prepares for marriage; makes
doilies, and hemstitches linen; gets her blue trunk ready and--waits.
She must not appear anxious or concerned--not at all; she must
just--wait. When a young man comes along and shows her any attention,
she may accept it, but if after two or three years of it he suddenly
leaves her, and devotes himself to some other girl, she must not feel
hurt or grieved but must go back and sit down beside the blue trunk
again and--wait! He has merely exercised the man's right of choosing,
and when he decides that he does not want her, she has no grounds for
complaint. She must consider herself declined, "not from any lack of
merit, but simply because she is unavailable." If her heart breaks, it
must break quietly, and in secret.
She may see a young man to whom she feels attracted, but she must not
show it by even so much as the flicker of an eyelash. Hers is the
waiting part, and although marriage and homemaking are her highest
destiny, or at least so she has been told often enough--she must not
raise a hand to help the cause along. No more crushing criticism can
be made of a woman, than that she is anxious to get married. It is all
right for her to be passively willing, but she must not be anxious.
At dances she must _wait_ until someone asks her to dance; _wait_ until
someone asks her to go to supper. She must not ever make the move--she
must not ever try to start something. Her place is to wait!
At last her waiting is rewarded and a young man comes by who declares
he would like to marry her, but is not in a position to marry just yet.
Then begins another period of waiting. She must not hurry him--that is
very indelicate--she must wait. Sometimes, in this long period of
waiting, the young man changes his mind, but she must not complain. A
man cannot help it if he grows tired. It must have been her fault--she
did not make herself sufficiently attractive--that's all! She waits
again.
At last perhaps she gets married. But her periods of waiting are not
over. Her husband wanders free while she stays at home. We know the
picture of the waiting wife listening for footsteps while the clock
ticks loudly in the silent house. The world has decreed that the woman
and home must stay together, while the man goes about his business or
his pleasures--the tied-up woman and the foot-loose man.
Her boys grow up, and when war breaks out, they are called away from
her, and again the woman waits. Every telegraph boy who comes up the
street may bring the dreaded message; every time the door bell rings
her heart stops beating. But she cannot do anything but wait! wait!
wait!
Did you ever visit an old folks' home and notice the different spirit
shown by the men and women there? The old men are restless and
irritable; impatient of their inaction; rebellious against fate. The
old women patiently wait, looking out with their dimmed eyes like
marooned sailors waiting for a breeze. Poor old patient waiters! you
learned the art of waiting in a long hard school, and now you have come
to the last lap of the journey.
So they wait--and by and by their waiting will be over, for the kindly
tide will rise and bear them safely out on its strong bosom to some
place--where they will find not more rest but blessed activity! We
know there is another world, because we need it so badly to set this
one right!
Women have not always been "waiters." There was a day long past, when
women chose their mates, when men fought for the hand of the woman they
loved, and the women chose. The female bird selects her mate today,
goes out and makes her choice, and, it is not considered unbirdly
either.
Why should not women have the same privilege as men to choose their
mate? Marriage means more to a woman than to a man; she brings in a
larger contribution than he; often it happens that she gives all--he
gives nothing. The care and upbringing of the children depend upon her
faithfulness, not on his. Why should she not have the privilege of
choosing?
Too long has the whole process of love-making and marriage been wrapped
in mystery. "Part of it has been considered too holy to be spoken of
and part of it too unholy," says Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Innocence
has been esteemed a young girl's greatest charm, but what good has her
innocence done her? No good at all! It is not calculated to do her
good--her good is not the prime consideration. It makes her more
charming in the eyes of men; but it may bring her great unhappiness.
Lady Evelyn's trusting heart has usually been broken. When the story
begins about the farmer's pretty daughter with limpid blue eyes, sweet
as bluebells washed in dew, all innocent of the world ways, the
experienced reader knows at once what is coming. Innocence is hard on
the woman, however charming it may be to men. The women who go a step
beyond innocence and are so trusting as to be described as
simple-minded, no matter how gentle, patient, and sweet they are, are
absolutely unsafe in this world of man's chivalry and protection. If
you want to know what fate overtakes them, ask the matron of the Refuge
for Unfortunate Women, ask any person who has worked among this class
of women, and they will tell you how much good innocence and the
trusting heart does any woman. This is a sore thought!
It would be perfectly delightful if our daughters might remain
innocent. They should have that privilege. Innocence belongs to
childhood and girlhood, but under present conditions, it is as
dangerous and foolish as level and unguarded railway crossings, or open
and unguarded trap doors. It is no pleasant task to have to tell a
joyous, sunny-hearted girl of fourteen or fifteen about the evils that
are in the world, but if you love her, you will do it! I would like to
see this work done by trained motherly and tactful women, in the
department of social welfare, paid by the school board. I know the
mothers should do it, but many mothers are ignorant, foolish, lax, and
certainly untrained. The mother's kindly counsel is the best, I know,
but you cannot always rely upon its being there. This is coming, too,
for public sentiment is being awakened to the evils of innocence.
I remember, twenty years ago, when Dr. Amelia Yeomans, of sainted
memory, published at her own expense, a little leaflet called "Warning
to Girls" and circulated it among girls who were working in public
places, what a storm of abuse arose. I have a copy of the little
tract, and it could be safely read in any mixed gathering today.
Ministers raged against it in the pulpit. I remember one brother who
was very emphatic in his denunciations who afterwards was put out of
the church for indecent conduct. Of course he wanted girls to remain
innocent--it suited his purpose.
If any person doubts that the society of the present day has been made
by men, and for men's advantage, let them look for a minute at the laws
which govern society. Society allows a man all privilege, all license,
all liberty, where women are concerned. He may lie to women, deceive
them--"all's fair in love and war"--he may break many a heart, and
blast many a fair name; that merely throws a glamour around him. "He's
a devil with women," they say, and it is no disadvantage in the
business or political world--where man dominates. But if a man is
dishonest in business or neglects to pay his gambling bills, he is down
and out. These are crimes against men--and therefore serious. This is
also a sore thought!
Then when men speak of these things, they throw the blame on women
themselves, showing thereby that the Garden of Eden story of Adam and
Eve and the apple, whether it be historically true or not, is true to
life. Quite Adam-like, they throw the blame on women, and say: "Women
like the man with a past. Women like to be lied to. Women do not
expect any man to be absolutely faithful to them, if he is pleasant.
The man who has the reputation of having been wild has a better chance
with women than the less attractive but absolutely moral man." What a
glorious thing it will be when men cease to speak for us, and cease to
tell us what we think, and let us speak for ourselves!
Since women's sphere of manual labor has so narrowed by economic
conditions and has not widened correspondingly in other directions,
many women have become parasites on the earnings of their male
relatives. Marriage has become a straight "clothes and board"
proposition to the detriment of marriage and the race. Her economic
dependence has so influenced the attitude of some women toward men,
that it is the old man with the money who can support her in idleness
who appeals to her far more than the handsome, clean-limbed young man
who is poor, and with whom she would have to work. The softening,
paralyzing effects of ease and comfort are showing themselves on our
women. You cannot expect the woman who has had her meals always bought
for her, and her clothes always paid for by some man, to retain a sense
of independence. "What did I marry you for?" cried a woman
indignantly, when her husband grumbled about the size of her millinery
bill. No wonder men have come to regard marriage as an expensive
adventure.
The time will come, we hope, when women will be economically free, and
mentally and spiritually independent enough to refuse to have their
food paid for by men; when women will receive equal pay for equal work,
and have all avenues of activity open to them; and will be free to
choose their own mates, without shame, or indelicacy; when men will not
be afraid of marriage because of the financial burden, but free men and
free women will marry for love, and together work for the sustenance of
their families. It is not too ideal a thought. It is coming, and the
new movement among women who are crying out for a larger humanity, is
going to bring it about.
But there are many good men who view this with alarm. They are afraid
that if women were economically independent they would never marry.
But they would. Deeply rooted in almost every woman's heart is the
love of home and children; but independence is sweet and when marriage
means the loss of independence, there are women brave enough and strong
enough to turn away from it. "I will not marry for a living," many a
brave woman has said.
The world has taunted women into marrying. So odious has the term "old
maid" been in the past that many a woman has married rather than have
to bear it. That the term "old maid" has lost its odium is due to the
fact that unmarried women have made a place for themselves in the world
of business. They have become real people apart from their sex. The
"old maid" of the past was a sad, anemic creature, without any means of
support except the bounty of some relative. She had not married, so
she had failed utterly, and the world did not fail to rub it in. The
unmarried woman of today is the head saleslady in some big house,
drawing as big a salary as most men, and the world kowtows to her. The
world is beginning to see that a woman may achieve success in other
departments of life as well as marriage.
It speaks well for women that, even before this era, when "old maids"
were open to all kinds of insult, there were women brave enough to
refuse to barter their souls for the animal comforts of food and
shelter. Speaking about "old maids," by which term we mean now a prim,
fussy person, it is well to remember that there are male "old maids" as
well as female who remain so all through life; also that many "old
maids" marry, and are still old maids.
When women are free to marry or not as they will, and the financial
burden of making a home is equally shared by husband and wife, the
world will enter upon an era of happiness undreamed of now. As it is
now, the whole matter of marrying and homemaking is left to chance.
Every department of life, every profession in which men and women
engage, has certain qualifications which must be complied with, except
the profession of homemaking. A young man and a young woman say: "I
believe we'll get married" and forthwith they do. The state sanctions
it, and the church blesses it. They may be consumptive, epileptic,
shiftless, immoral, or with a tendency to insanity. No matter. They
may go on and reproduce their kind. They are perfectly free to bring
children into the world, who are a burden and a menace to society.
Society has to bear it--that is all! "Be fruitful and multiply!"
declares the church, as it deplores the evils of race suicide. Many
male moralists have cried out for large families. "Let us have better
and healthier babies if we can," cried out one of England's bishops,
not long ago, "but let us have more babies!"
Heroic and noble sentiment and so perfectly safe! It reminds one of
the dentist's advertisement: "Teeth extracted without pain"--and his
subsequent explanation: "It does not hurt me a bit!"
Martin Luther is said to have stood by the death-bed of a woman, who
had given birth to sixteen children in seventeen years, and piously
exclaimed: "She could not have died better!"
"By all means let us have more babies," says the Bishop. Even if they
are anemic and rickety, ill-nourished and deformed, and even if the
mothers, already overburdened and underfed, die in giving them birth?
To the average thinking woman, this wail for large families, coming as
it always does from men, is rather nauseating.
When the cry has been so persistently raised for more children, the
women naturally wonder why more care is not exerted for the protection
of the children who are already here. The reason is often given for
not allowing women to have the free grants of land in Canada on the
same conditions as men, that it would make them too independent of
marriage, and, as one commissioner of emigration phrased it: "It is not
independent women we want; it is population."
Granting that population is very desirable, would it not be well to
save what we have? Six or seven thousand of our population in Canada
drop out of the race every year as a direct result of the liquor
traffic, and a higher percentage than this perish from the same cause
in some other countries. Would it not be well to save them? Thousands
of babies die every year from preventable causes. Free milk
depositories and district nurses and free dispensaries would save many
of them. In the Far West, on the border of civilization, where women
are beyond the reach of nurses and doctors, many mothers and babies die
every year. How would it be to try to save them? Delegations of
public-spirited women have waited upon august bodies of men, and
pleaded the cause of these brave women who are paying the toll of
colonization, and have asked that Government nurses be sent to them in
their hour of need. But up to date not one dollar of Government money
has been spent on them notwithstanding the fact that when a duke or a
prince comes to visit our country, we can pour out money like water!
It does not seem to the thoughtful observer that we need more children
nearly so much as we need better children, and a higher value set upon
all human life. In this day of war, when men are counted of less value
than cattle, it is a doubtful favor to the child to bring it into life
under any circumstances, but to bring children into the world,
suffering from the handicaps caused by the ignorance, poverty, or
criminality of the parents, is an appalling crime against the innocent
and helpless, and yet one about which practically nothing is said.
Marriage, homemaking, and the rearing of children are left entirely to
chance, and so it is no wonder that humanity produces so many specimens
who, if they were silk stockings or boots, would be marked "Seconds."
The Bishop's cry has found many an echo: "Let us have more."
Women in several of the states have instituted campaigns for "Better
Babies," and by offering prizes and disseminating information, they
have given a better chance to many a little traveler on life's highway.
But all who have endeavored in any way to secure legislation or
government grants for the protection of children, have found that
legislators are more willing to pass laws for the protection of cattle
than for the protection of children, for cattle have a real value and
children have only a sentimental value.
If children die--what of it? "The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken
away." Let us have more. This is the sore thought with women. It is
not that the bringing of children into the world is attended with pain
and worry and weariness--it is not that: it is that they are held of
such small value in the eyes of this man-made world. This is the
sorest thought of all!
Even as I write these words, I hear the bugle calling, and down the
street our brave boys in khaki are marching. Today I passed on the
street a mother and her only son, who is now a soldier and going away
with the next contingent. The lad was trying to cheer her as they
walked along. She held him by the hand:--he was just a little boy to
her.
"It was not for this that I raised him," she said to me bitterly. "It
was not for this! The whole thing is wrong, and it is just as hard on
the German women as on us!"
Even in her sorrow she had the universal outlook--the very thing that
so many philosophers declare that women have not got!
I could not help but think that if there had been women in the German
Reichstag, women with authority behind them, when the Kaiser began to
lay his plans for the war, the results might have been very different.
I do not believe women with boys of their own would ever sit down and
wilfully plan slaughter, and if there had been women there when the
Kaiser and his brutal war-lords discussed the way in which they would
plunge all Europe into bloodshed, I believe one of those deep-bosomed,
motherly, blue-eyed German women would have stood upon her feet and
said: "William--forget it!" But the German women were not there--they
were at home, raising children! So the preparations for war went on
unchecked, and the resolutions passed without a dissenting voice. In
German rule, we have a glorious example of male statecraft,
uncontaminated by any feminine foolishness.
No doubt, it is because all our statecraft has been one-sided, that we
find that human welfare has lagged far behind material welfare. We
have made wonderful strides in convenience and comfort, but have not
yet solved the problems of poverty, crime or insanity. Perhaps they,
too, will yield to treatment when they are better understood, and men
and women are both on the job. As it is now, criminals have only man's
treatment, which is the hurry-up method--"hang him, and be done with
him," or "chuck him into jail, and be quick about it, and let me forget
him." Mothers would have more patience, more understanding, for they
have been dealing with bad little boys all their lives.
The little family jars which arise in every home, are settled nine out
of ten times by the mother, unless she is the sort of spineless, anemic
woman, who lies down on the job, and says, "I'll tell your father,"
which acts as a threat, and sometimes is effective, though it solves no
difficulty.
To hang the man who commits a crime is a cheap way to get out of a
difficulty; a real masculine way. It is so much quicker and easier
than trying to reform him, and what is one man less after all? Human
life is cheap--to men--and of course there is always the Bishop crying:
"Let us have more."
The conditions which prevail at the present time are atrocious and help
to make criminals. The worst crimes have not even a name yet, much
less a punishment. What about the crime of working little children and
cheating them out of an education and a happy childhood? There is no
name for it! What about misrepresenting land values and selling lots
to people who have never seen them and who simply rely upon the owner's
word; taking the hard-earned money from guileless people and giving
them swamp land, miles out of the city limits, in return! They tell a
story about a real-estate man who sold Edmonton lots to some people in
the East, assuring them that the lots were "close in," but when the
owner of the lots went to register them, he found they could not be
registered in Alberta--they belonged in British Columbia, the next
province!
This sort of thing is considered good business, if you can "get away
with it." According to our masculine code of morals--it's "rather
clever"--they say. "You cannot help but admire his nerve!" But not
long since a hungry man stole a banana from a fruit stand and was sent
to jail for it, for the dignity of the law has to be upheld, and the
small thief is the easiest one to deal with and make an example of.
Similarly Chinamen are always severely dealt with. Give it to him! He
has no friends!
What about the crime of holding up the market, so that the price of
bread goes up, causing poor men's children to go hungry? There is no
name for it!
What about allowing speculators to hold great tracts of land
uncultivated, waiting for higher prices, while unemployed men walk the
streets, hungry and discouraged, cursing the day they were born: big
strong fellows many of them, willing to work, craving work, but with
work denied them. Yesterday one of them jumped from the High Level
Bridge into the icy waters of the Saskatchewan, leaving a note behind
him saying simply he was tired of it all, and could stand no more--he
"would take a chance on another world." The idle land is calling to
the idle man, and the world is calling for food; and yet these great
tracts of wheat lands lie just outside our cities, untouched by plow or
harrow, and hungry men walk our streets. The crime which the state
commits in allowing such a condition to prevail is as yet unnamed.
Women have carried many a sore thought in their hearts, feeling that
they have been harshly dealt with by their men folk, and have laid the
blame on the individual man, when in reality the individual has not
been to blame. The whole race is suffering from masculinity; and men
and women are alike to blame for tolerating it.
The baby girl in her cradle gets the first cold blast of it. "A girl?"
says the kind neighbor, "Oh, too bad--I am sure it was quite a
disappointment!"
Then there is the old-country reverence for men, of which many a mother
has been guilty, which exalts the boys of the family far above the
girls, and brings home to the latter, in many, many ways, the grave
mistake of having been born a woman. Many little girls have carried
the sore thought in their hearts from their earliest recollection.
They find out, later, that women's work is taken for granted. A farmer
will allow his daughter to work many weary unpaid years, and when she
gets married he will give her "a feather bed and a cow," and feel that
her claim upon him has been handsomely met. The gift of a feather bed
is rather interesting, too, when you consider that it is the daughter
who has raised the geese, plucked them, and made the bed-tick. But
"father" gives it to her just the same. The son, for a corresponding
term of service, gets a farm.
There was a rich farmer once, who died possessed of three very fine
farms of three hundred and twenty acres each. He left a farm to each
of his three sons. To his daughter Martha, a woman of forty years of
age, the eldest of the family, who had always stayed at home, and
worked for the whole family--he left a cow and one hundred dollars.
The wording of the will ran: "To my dear daughter, Martha, I leave the
sum of one hundred dollars, and one cow named 'Bella.'"
How would you like to be left at forty years of age, with no training
and very little education, facing the world with one hundred dollars
and one cow, even if she were named "Bella"?
To the poor old mother, sixty-five years of age, who had worked far
harder than her husband, who had made butter, and baked bread, and
sewed carpet rags, and was now bent and broken, and with impaired
sight, he left: "her keep" with one of the boys!
How would you like to be left with "your keep" even with one of your
own children? Keep! It is exactly what the humane master leaves to an
old horse. When the old lady heard the will read which so generously
provided for her "keep," she slipped away without a word. People
thought it was her great grief at losing such a kind husband which made
her pine and droop. But it wasn't. It was the loss of her
independence. Her son and his family thought it strange that "Grandma"
did not care to go to church any more. Of course her son never thought
of giving her collection or money to give to the funds of the church,
and Grandma did not ask. She sat in her corner, and knit stockings for
her son's children; another pitiful little broken bit of human wreckage
cast up by the waves of the world. In two months Grandma had gone to
the house of many mansions, where she was no longer beholden to anyone
for "keep"--for God is more merciful than man!
The man who made his will this way was not a bad man, but he was the
victim of wrong thinking; he did not realize that his wife had any
independence of soul; he thought that all "mother" cared about was a
chance to serve; she had been a quiet, unassertive woman, who worked
along patiently, and made no complaint. What could she need of money?
The "boys" would never see her want.
A man who heard this story said in comment: "Well, I don't see what the
old lady felt so badly about, for what does a woman of sixty-five need
of money anyway?"
He was not a cruel man, either, and so his remark is illuminative, for
it shows a certain attitude of mind, and it shows women where they have
made their mistake. They have been too patient and unassertive--they
have not set a high enough value on themselves, and it is pathetically
true that the world values you at the value you place on yourself. And
so the poor old lady, who worked all her life for her family, looking
for no recompense, nor recognition, was taken at the value she set upon
herself, which was nothing at all.
That does not relieve the state of its responsibility in letting such a
thing happen. It is a hard matter, I know, to protect people from
themselves; and there can be no law made to prevent women from making
slaves of themselves to their husbands and families. That would be
interfering with the sanctity of the home! But the law can step in, as
it has in some provinces, and prevent a man from leaving his wife with
only "her keep." The law is a reflection of public sentiment, and when
people begin to realize that women are human and have human needs and
ambitions and desires, the law will protect a woman's interest. Too
long we have had this condition of affairs: "Ma" has been willing to
work without any recompense, and "Pa and the boys" have been willing to
let her.
Of course, I know, sentimental people will cry out, that very few men
would leave their wives in poverty--I know that; men are infinitely
better than the law, but we must remember that laws are not made to
govern the conduct of good men. Good men will do what is right, if
there were never a law; but, unfortunately, there are some men who are
not good, and many more who are thoughtless and unintentionally cruel.
The law is a schoolmaster to such.
There are some places, where a law can protect the weak, but there are
many situations which require more than a law. Take the case of a man
who habitually abuses and frightens his family, and makes their lives a
periodic hell of fear. The law cannot touch him unless he actually
kills some of them, and it seems a great pity that there cannot be some
corrective measure. In the states of Kansas and Washington (where
women vote) the people have enacted what is known as the "Lazy
Husband's Act," which provides for such cases as this. If a man is
abusive or disagreeable, or fails to provide for his family, he is
taken away for a time, and put to work in a state institution, and his
money is sent home to his family. He is treated kindly, and good
influences thrown around him. When he shows signs of repentance--he is
allowed to go home. Home, very often, looks better to him, and he
behaves himself quite decently.
Women outlined this legislation and it is in the states where women
vote that it is in operation. There will be more such legislation,
too, when women are given a chance to speak out!
A New Zealander once wrote home to a friend in England advising him to
fight hard against woman suffrage. "Don't ever let the wimmin vote,
Bill," he wrote. "They are good servants, but bad masters. Over there
you can knock your wife about for five shillings, but here we does jail
for it!"
The man who "knocks his wife about" or feels that he might some day
want to knock her about, is opposed to further liberties for women, of
course.
But that is the class of man from whom we never expected anything. He
has his prototype, too, in every walk of life. Don't make the mistake
of thinking that only ignorant members of the great unwashed masses
talk and feel this way. Silk-hatted "noblemen" have answered women's
appeals for common justice by hiring the Whitechapel toughs to "bash
their heads," and this is another sore thought that women will carry
with them for many a day after the suffrage has been granted. I wish
we could forget the way our English sisters have been treated in that
sweet land of liberty!
The problems of discovery have been solved; the problems of
colonization are being solved, and when the war is over the problem of
world government will be solved; and then the problem will be just the
problem of living together. That problem cannot be solved without the
help of women. The world has suffered long from too much masculinity
and not enough humanity, but when the war is over, and the beautiful
things have been destroyed, and the lands laid desolate, and all the
blood has been shed, the poor old bruised and broken heart of the world
will cry out for its mother and nurse, who will dry her own eyes, and
bind up its wounds and nurse it back to life once more. Perhaps the
old earth will be a bit kinder than it has ever been to women, who
knows? Men have been known to grow very fond of their nurse, and
bleeding has been known to cure mental disorders!