Nothing, perhaps, is more fashionable than idleness. We all agree, in
theory, at least, that the meaning of life is found in that little
word--use; that the happiness of life is found in--work; that to be
idle is to be miserable.
Here, however, we must make a distinction. This law is supposed to
apply only to men. Men must have an occupation. If a man is without
one, we at once begin to suspect he must have some evil designs upon
society. The law adds to the punishment, if the culprit has "no
visible means of support." That alone is a strong fact against him.
Not only the law, but public sentiment demands that every man shall
do something.
"He is an idler," disgraces a man almost beyond any other statement.
Now let us turn to the other side of the house. In America we have a
million young women without the slightest pretence of occupation.
They spend a portion of their time in visiting. Miss Blanche goes to
New York, in the winter, to spend three months with her very dear
friend, Miss Nellie, who, in turn, comes to spend three months with
Miss Blanche in the summer. This sort of exchange has become an
immense system. Blanche and Nellie, with this arrangement, work off
six months of the year, and, adding one or two other little affairs
of a similar kind, they fill up the residue of the time with the
dressmaker, piano practice, the theatre, working sickly-looking pink
dogs in worsted, lying late in the morning, dressing three times a
day, and reading a few novels. A million young women of the better
(?) classes, in America, are training themselves for the future by
these methods.
A single year of such life would half ruin a young man. His mind
would become unsteady, his will weak and vacillating, his body soft
and delicate. Add a "glove-fitting corset" to his wardrobe, and in a
few years he would be utterly unfit for husband, father or citizen.
Can any one give us a physiological or metaphysical reason why girls
should not suffer the same deterioration? Would you like direct
proof that they do? Listen to the conversation of young women,--
educated young ladies!--Beaux, bows, engagements, lovely, Charley,
bonnets, Gus, parties, splendid fellow, ribbons, trails, engaged,
etc., etc., till midnight.
Watch them as they walk past this window. Does that look like the
earnest pursuit of any object in life? If so, they certainly won't
catch it. Look at their bare arms,--candle-dips, No. 8.
No "right" of women is so precious, so vital to their welfare,
present and future, as the right to work.
Even if a girl had no other object in life than to get a husband, no
investment would pay like an occupation. It would give her
independence and dignity. Margaret Fuller says:--
"That the hand may be given with dignity, she must be able to stand
alone."
Nothing disgusts young men like the undisguised eagerness with which
their advances are met. Is a young man a "catch?" send him to
Saratoga and watch a few days. The girls do not get down on their
knees at his feet, and implore him to take pity on them and marry
them, but they do everything else that can be conceived of.
In order that women may marry generally, and without sacrificing
themselves, that their hearts may determine their choice; to the end
that marriage may be true marriage, and not a contract for board,
women must not be compelled to choose between marriage and
starvation.
Of course you will say that men despise working-women, that they
pass them by on the other side, and seek ladies; by which you mean
such girls as have no regular occupation. For a consideration of
this point, the reader is referred to the article, "A Short Sermon
about Matrimony."