ON THE ENNOBLING OF THE WOMAN'S BUSINESS
That the varied, delicate, and difficult problems which crowd the
attention of the woman in her social laboratory should ever be
considered unworthy of first-class brains and training is but proof of
the difficulty the human mind has in distinguishing values when in the
throes of social change. We rightly believe to-day that the world is
not nearly so well run as it would be if we could--or would--apply
unselfishly what we already know. Each of us advocates his own pet
theory of betterment, often to the exclusion of everybody else's
theory.
One of the most disconcerting characteristics of advocates,
conservative and radical, is their conscienceless treatment of facts.
Rarely do they allow full value to that which qualifies or contradicts
their theories. The ardent and single-minded reformer is not
infrequently the worst sinner in this respect. To stir indignation
against conditions, he paints them without a background and with utter
disregard of proportion.
He wins, but he loses, by this method. He makes converts of those of
his own kind, those who like him have rare powers for indignation and
sacrifice, but little capacity or liking for the exact truth or for
self-restraint. He turns from him many who are as zealous as he to
change conditions, but who demand that they be painted as they are and
that justice be rendered both to those who have fought against them in
the past and to those who are in different ways doing so to-day.
The movement for a fuller life for American women has always suffered
from the disregard of some of its noblest followers, both for things
as they are and for things as they have been. The persistent
belittling for campaign purposes of the Business of Being a Woman I
have repeatedly referred to in this little series of essays; indeed,
it has been founded on the proposition that the Uneasy Woman of to-day
is to a large degree the result of the belittlement of her natural
task and that her chief need is to dignify, make scientific,
professionalize, that task.
I doubt if there is to-day a more disintegrating influence at
work--one more fatal to sound social development--than that which
belittles the home and the position of the woman in it. As a social
institution nothing so far devised by man approaches the home in its
opportunity, nor equals it in its successes.
The woman's position at its head is hard. The result of her pains and
struggles are rarely what she hopes, either for herself or for any one
connected with her, but this is true of all human achievement. There
is nothing done that does not mean self-denial, routine,
disillusionment, and half realization. Even the superman goes the same
road, coming out at the same halfway-up house! It is the meaning of
the effort, not the half result, that counts.
The pain and struggle of an enterprise are not what takes the heart
out of a soldier; it is telling him his cause is mean, his fight in
vain. Show him a reason, and he dies exultant. The woman is the
world's one permanent soldier. After all war ceases she must go daily
to her fight with death. To tell her this giving of her life for life
is merely a "female function," not a human part, is to talk nonsense
and sacrilege. It is the clear conviction of even the most thoughtless
girl that this way lies meaning and fulfillment of life, that gives
her courage to go to her battle as a man-in-line to his, and like him
she comes out with a new understanding. The endless details of her
life, its routine and its restraints, have a reason now, as routine
and discipline have for a soldier. She sees as he does that they are
the only means of securing the victory bought so dearly--of winning
others.
From this high conviction the great mass of women never have and never
can be turned. What does happen constantly, however, is loss of joy
and courage in their undertaking. When these go, the vision goes. The
woman feels only her burdens, not the big meaning in them. She
remembers her daily grind, not the possibilities of her position. She
falls an easy victim now to that underestimation of her business which
is so popular. If she is of gentle nature, she becomes apologetic, she
has "never done anything." If she is aggressive, she becomes a
militant. In either case, she charges her dissatisfaction to the
nature of her business. What has come to her is a common human
experience, the discovery that nothing is quite what you expected it
to be, that if hope is to be even halfway realized, it will be by
courage and persistency. It is not the woman's business that is at
fault; it is the faulty handling of it and the human difficulty in
keeping heart when things grow hard. What she needs is a strengthening
of her wavering faith in her natural place in the world, to see her
business as a profession, its problems formulated and its relations
to the work of society, as a whole, clearly stated.
Quite as great an injustice to her as the belittling of her business
has been the practice, also for campaigning purposes, of denying her a
part in the upbuilding of civilization. There was a time "back of
history," says one of the popular leaders in the Woman's movement,
"when men and women were friends and comrades--but from that time to
this she (woman) has held a subsidiary and exclusively feminine
position. The world has been wholly in the hands of men, and they have
believed that men alone had the ability, felt the necessity, for
developing civilization, the business, education, and religion of the
world."
Women's present aim she declares to be the "reassumption of their
share in human life." This is, of course, a modern putting of the
List of Grievances with which the militant campaign started in this
country in the 40's, reënforced by the important point that women
"back of history" enjoyed the privileges which the earlier militants
declared that man, "having in direct object the establishment of an
absolute tyranny over her," had always usurped.
Just how the lady knows that "back of history" women and men were more
perfect comrades than to-day, I do not know. Her proofs would be
interesting. If this is true, it reverses the laws which have governed
all other human relations. Certainly, since history began, the only
period where I can pretend to judge what has happened, the records
show that comradeship between men and women has risen and fallen with
the rise and fall of cultivation and of virtue. The general level is
probably higher to-day than ever before.
Moreover, from these same records one might support as plausibly--and
as falsely--the theory of a Woman-made World as the popular one of a
Man-made World. There has been many a teacher and philosopher who has
sustained some form of this former thesis, disclaiming against the
excessive power of women in shaping human affairs. The teachings of
the Christian Church in regard to women, the charge that she keep
silent, that she obey, that she be meek and lowly--all grew out of the
fear of the power she exercised at the period these teachings were
given--a power which the saints believed prejudicial to good order and
good morals. There is more than one profound thinker of our own period
who has arraigned her influence--Strindberg and Nietzsche among them.
You cannot turn a page of history that the woman is not on it or
behind it. She is the most subtle and binding thread in the pattern
of Human Life!
For the American Woman of to-day to allow woman's part in the making
of this nation to be belittled is particularly unjust and cowardly.
The American nation in its good and evil is what it is, as much
because of its women as because of its men. The truth of the matter
is, there has never been any country, at any time, whatever may have
been their social limitations or political disbarments, that women
have not ranked with the men in actual capacity and achievement; that
is, men and women have risen and fallen together, whatever the
apparent conditions. The failure to recognize this is due either to
ignorance of facts or to a willful disregard of them; usually it is
the former. For instance, one constantly hears to-day the exultant cry
that women finally are beginning to take an interest and a part in
political and radical discussions. But there has never been a time in
this country's history when they were not active factors in such
discussion. The women of the American Revolutionary Period certainly
challenge sharply the women of to-day, both by their intelligent
understanding of political issues and by their sympathetic coöperation
in the struggle. It was the letters of women which led to that most
important factor in centralizing and instructing pre-revolutionary
opinion in New England, the Committee of Correspondence. There were
few more powerful political pamphleteers in that period than Mercy
Warren. We might very well learn a lesson which we need very much to
learn from the way women aided the Revolutionary cause through their
power as consumers. As for sacrifice and devotion, that of the woman
loses nothing in nobility when contrasted with that of the man.
If we jump fifty years in the nation's history to the beginning of the
agitation against slavery, we find women among the first and most
daring of the protestants against the institution. It was for the sake
of shattering slavery that they broke the silence in public which by
order of the Christian Church they had so long kept--an order made,
not for the sake of belittling women, but for the sake of establishing
order in churches and better insuring the new Christian code of
morality. The courage and the radicalism of women of the 30's, 40's,
and 50's in this country compare favorably with that of the men and
women in any revolutionary period in any country that we may select.
The American woman has played an honorable part in the making of our
country, and for this part she should have full credit. If she had
been as poor a stick, as downtrodden and ineffective as sometimes
painted, she would not be a fit mate for the man beside whom she has
struggled, and she would be as utterly unfit for the larger life she
desires as the most bigoted misogynist pictures her to be.
Moreover, all things considered, she has been no greater sufferer from
injustice than man. I do not mean in saying this that she has not had
grave and unjust handicaps, legal and social; I mean that when you
come to study the comparative situations of men and women as a mass at
any time and in any country you will find them more nearly equal than
unequal, all things considered. Women have suffered injustice, but
parallel have been the injustices men were enduring. It was not the
fact that she was a woman that put her at a disadvantage so much as
the fact that might made right, and the physically weaker everywhere
bore the burden of the day. Go back no further than the beginnings of
this Republic and admit all that can be said of the wrong in the laws
which prevented a woman controlling the property she had inherited or
accumulated by her own efforts, which took from her a proper share in
the control of her child,--we must admit, too, the equal enormity of
the laws which permitted man to exploit labor in the outrageous way he
has. It was not because he was a man that the labor was exploited--it
was because he was the weaker in the prevailing system. Woman's case
was parallel--she was the weaker in the system. It had always been the
case with men and women in the world that he who could took and the
devil got the hindermost. The way the laborer's cause has gone hand
in hand in this country the last hundred years with the woman's cause
is a proof of the point. In the 30's of the nineteenth century, for
illustration, the country was torn by a workingman's party which
carried on a fierce agitation against banks and monopolies. Many of
its leaders were equally ardent in their support of Women's Rights as
they were then understood. The slavery agitation was coupled from the
start with the question of Women's Rights. It was injustice that was
being challenged--the right of the stronger to put the weaker at a
disadvantage for any reason--because he was poor, not rich; black, not
white; female, not male,--that is, there has been nothing special to
women in the injustice she has suffered except its particular form.
Moreover, it was not man alone who was responsible for this injustice.
Stronger women have often imposed upon the weak--men and women--as
strong men have done. In its essence, it is a human, not a sex,
question--this of injustice.
The hesitation of this country in the earlier part of the nineteenth
century to accord to women the same educational facilities as to men
is often cited as a proof of a deliberate effort to disparage women.
But it should not be forgotten that the wisdom of universal male
education was hotly in debate. One of the ideals of radical reformers
for centuries had been to give to all the illumination of knowledge.
But to teach those who did the labor of the world, its peasants and
its serfs, was regarded by both Church and State as a folly and a
menace. It was the establishment of a pure democracy that forced the
experiment of universal free instruction in this country. It has met
with opposition at every stage, and there is to-day a Mr. Worldly
Wiseman at every corner bewailing the evils it has wrought. He must,
too, be a hopeless Candide who can look on our experiment, wonderful
and inspiring as it is, and say its results have been the best
possible.
It was entirely logical, things beings as they were, that there should
have been strong opposition to giving girls the same training in
schools as boys. That objection holds good to-day in many reflective
minds. He again must be a hopeless optimist who believes that we have
worked out the best possible system of education for women. But that
there was opposition to giving women the same educational facilities
as men was not saying that there was or ever had been a conspiracy on
foot to keep her in intellectual limbo because she was a woman. The
history of learning shows clearly enough that women have always
shared in its rise. In the great revival of the sixteenth century
they took an honorable part. "I see the robbers, hangmen, adventurers,
hostlers of to-day more learned than the doctors and preacher of my
youth," wrote Rabelais, and he added, "why, women and girls have
aspired to the heavenly manna of good learning." Whenever aspiration
has been in the air, women have responded to it as men have, and have
found, as men have found, a way to satisfy their thirst.
To come down to the period which concerns us chiefly, that of our own
Republic, it is an utter misrepresentation of the women of the
Revolution to claim that they were uneducated. All things considered,
they were quite as well educated as the men. The actual achievements
of the eminent women produced by the system of training then in vogue
is proof enough of the statement. Far and away the best letters by a
woman, which have found their way into print in this country, are
those of Mrs. John Adams, written late in the eighteenth century and
early in the nineteenth. They deserve the permanent place in our
literature which they have. But it was a period of good letter writing
by women--if weak spelling and feminine spelling was, on the whole,
quite as strong as masculine!
Out of that early system of education came the woman who was to write
the book which did more to stir the country against slavery than all
that ever had been written, Harriet Beecher Stowe. That system
produced the scientist, who still represents American women in the
mind of the world, Maria Mitchell, the only American woman whose name
appears among the names of the world's great scholars inscribed on the
Boston Public Library. It produced Dorothea Dix, who for twenty years
before the Civil War carried on perhaps the most remarkable
investigation of conditions that has ever been made in this country by
man or woman,--the one which required the most courage, endurance, and
persistency,--her investigation of the then barbaric system for
caring--or not caring--for the insane. State after state enacted new
laws and instituted new methods solely on the showing of this one
woman. If there were no other case to offer to the frequent cry that
women have never had an influence on legislation, this would be
enough. Moreover, this is but the most brilliant example of the kind
of work women had been doing from the beginning of the Republic.
To my mind there is no phase of their activities which reveals better
the genuineness of their training than the initiative they took in
founding schools of advanced grades for girls, and in organizing
primary and secondary schools on something like a national scale. Mary
Lyon's work for Mt. Holyoke College and Catherine Beecher's for the
American Woman's Education Association are the most substantial
individual achievements, though they are but types of what many women
were doing and what women in general were backing up. It was work of
the highest constructive type--original in its conception, full of
imagination and idealism, rich in its capacity for growth--a work to
fit the aspiration of its day and so full of the future!
Now, when conditions are such that a few rise to great eminence from
the ordinary ranks of life, it means a good general average. The
multitude of women of rare achievements, distinguishing the
Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary periods of American history are
the best evidences of the seriousness, idealism, and intelligence of
the women in general. Their services in the war are part of the
traditions of every family whose line runs back to those days. Loyal,
spirited, ingenious, and uncomplaining, they are one of the finest
proofs in history of the capacity of the women of the mass to respond
whole-heartedly to noble ideals,--one of the finest illustrations,
too, of the type of service needed from women in great crises. But the
rank and file which conducted itself so honorably in the Revolution
was not a whit more noble and intelligent than the rank and file of
the succeeding period. It would have been impossible ever to have
established as promptly as was done the higher and the general schools
for girls if women had not given them the support they did, had not
been willing, as one great educator of the early part of the
nineteenth century has recorded--"to rise up early, to sit up late, to
eat the bread of the most rigid economy, that their daughters might be
favored with means of improvement superior to what they themselves
possessed." And back of this self-denial was what? A desire that life
be made easier for the daughter? Not at all--a desire that the
daughter be better equipped to "form the character of the future
citizen of the Republic."
It is not alone that justice is wounded by denying women a part in the
making of the civilized world--a more immediate wrong is the way the
movement for a fuller, freer life for all human beings is hampered. A
woman with a masculine chip on her shoulder gives a divided attention
to the cause she serves. She complicates her human fight with a sex
fight. However good tactics this may have been in the past, and I am
far from denying that there were periods it may have been good
politics, however poor morals, surely in this country to-day there is
no sound reason for introducing such complications into our struggles.
The American woman's life is the fullest in its opportunity, all
things considered, that any human beings harnessed into a complicated
society have ever enjoyed. To keep up the fight against man as the
chief hindrance to the realization of her aspiration is merely to
perpetuate in the intellectual world that instinct of the female
animal to be ever on guard against the male, save in those periods
when she is in pursuit of him!
But complicating her problem is not the only injury she does her cause
by this ignoring or belittling of woman's part in civilization. She
strips herself of suggestion and inspiration--a loss that cannot be
reckoned. The past is a wise teacher. There is none that can stir the
heart more deeply or give to human affairs such dignity and
significance. The meaning of woman's natural business in the
world--the part it has played in civilizing humanity--in forcing good
morals and good manners, in giving a reason and so a desire for
peaceful arts and industries, the place it has had in persuading men
and women that only self-restraint, courage, good cheer, and reverence
produce the highest types of manhood and womanhood,--this is written
on every page of history.
Women need the ennobling influence of the past. They need to
understand their integral part in human progress. To slur this over,
ignore, or deny it, cripples their powers. It sets them at the foolish
effort of enlarging their lives by doing the things man does--not
because they are certain that as human beings with a definite task
they need--or society needs--these particular services or operations
from them, but because they conceive that this alone will prove them
equal. The efforts of woman to prove herself equal to man is a work of
supererogation. There is nothing he has ever done that she has not
proved herself able to do equally well. But rarely is society well
served by her undertaking his activities. Moreover, if man is to
remain a civilized being, he must be held to his business of producer
and protector. She cannot overlook her obligation to keep him up to
his part in the partnership, and she cannot wisely interfere too much
with that part. The fate of the meddler is common knowledge!
A few women in every country have always and probably always will find
work and usefulness and happiness in exceptional tasks. They are
sometimes women who are born with what we call "bachelor's souls"--an
interesting and sometimes even charming, though always an incomplete,
possession! More often they are women who by the bungling machinery of
society have been cast aside. There is no reason why these women
should be idle, miserable, selfish, or antisocial. There are rich
lives for them to work out and endless needs for them to meet. But
they are not the women upon whom society depends; they are not the
ones who build the nation. The women who count are those who outnumber
them a hundred to one--the women who are at the great business of
founding and filling those natural social centers which we call homes.
Humanity will rise or fall as that center is strong or weak. It is the
human core.