Women’s Rights.
“I suppose there has been a change in the position of women since my day?”
“In politics and in business, there is now no distinction on account of
sex. A woman may be president or governor of a state, a senator or judge.
Women are to be found in every department of business, and are fully as
successful as the men. This materially disturbed the organization of
the family, as it was before your time. The man was then the legal and
often the actual head of the family, and both the wife and the children
were supposed to be under his authority within certain limits. But as
the sphere of woman extended and she became better educated, she soon
passed the condition in which she was content to be subordinate to the
man. She insisted upon and of course secured a position of equality
as to legal rights and equal authority in the family. In your day the
principal occupation of women was in domestic life, keeping the house and
rearing the children. As women became interested in wider activities,
many of them began to seek ways of avoiding family cares. Co-operative
house-keeping was tried in many cases, kindergartens taking charge of the
children.
“The state had for a long time asserted an interest in the education
of children, first providing the means of education, then making it
compulsory. Finding that some were kept from school from the inability
of parents to provide books, the state provided books to those who
needed them. Then because the pride of those who accepted this bounty,
was wounded by this advertisement of their poverty, it became necessary
for the state to furnish books to all children, both of the rich and the
poor. Next it was found that want of suitable clothes kept some from
school that ought to attend, and so the state commenced to supply school
clothes to them and by a similar process of evolution finally came to
supply a school uniform to all children. It was also perceived that the
interest of the state in the individual did not end when it had taught
him the three R’s and the two G’s; in fact it had only fairly begun. It
was all important to the state to know whether the child she had educated
was going to employ his talents for good or for ill. It was expected he
would carve his way and make his living, but if he were not given an
opportunity to learn an honest vocation, was it certain that he would not
drift into a dishonest one? It was seen to be the duty of the state to
see that every youth of both sexes were given such opportunity to learn
some trade or occupation. This became the more necessary on account of
the trades unions and combinations amongst working men who naturally were
anxious to prevent their ranks from being crowded and jealously threw
obstacles in the way of apprentices, so the state found it necessary to
care for the individual until he had attained the equipment essential for
his self support.
“At first the state schools of trades were simply free to all; later
they became compulsory, following the experience of the common schools.
Scholars in the common school were educated with reference to the trade
they fancied, and when they entered the trade school they were on trial
for a limited period and were sorted according to their ascertained
aptitudes. It became a necessary branch of the supervision of the state
to ascertain the proper proportion of workmen required for each branch
of business and when this proportion was being seriously disturbed by
unequal selection by the scholars themselves, it was restored by state
selection on examination according to aptitude.
“So much of the care and education of the youth having thus been assumed
by the state, the way was opened for more. It was said that half the
people who had children did not know how to bring them up properly; and
teachers often complained that the example in bad manners, deportment,
language etc., that the children got at home to a great extent
neutralized the good lessons in these things they received at school.
“The kindergartens became by almost insensible degrees enlarged in the
scope of their functions. At first, as in your day, they were merely
stopping places for the children during the day, they going back to
their parents to spend the night. As the mothers came to be more and
more engrossed in affairs away from home, the kindergartens extended
their care over the children, furnishing them their meals, then their
lodging, then medical attendance as well as education and amusement,
finally assuming all the care and expense of maintaining and rearing
them. At first the expense was paid by the parents, but was gradually
assumed by the state by degrees till it finally became responsible for
all. The advantage of these public nurseries was at first of course most
marked in favor of the poorer classes. But as their functions and scope
developed, the care and training of the children became more scientific,
their powers, tastes and aptitudes were more thoroughly brought out.
The wealthier classes at first objected to having their children reared
in association with the plebians. But the children of plebians were no
longer plebian when removed permanently from the influences of their
parent’s homes; and they turned out a larger percentage of successful
men and women than those of more comfortable position. In physical and
mental ability they were superior, and in morality at least equal to the
others. It was seen that these kindergartens were better adapted for the
care of children than even the better equipped homes, and they received
the patronage of a constantly increasing proportion of the people. At
first there was nothing compulsory in this patronage. Parents left their
children when it suited them, and took them away when they chose. But
after a time this was outgrown. It came gradually to be understood that
the state—that is the whole community—was really as much concerned in
the destiny of the growing generation as the parents; and it was said
that it was better that the children should have the constant care and
attention of those intelligently qualified and perfectly equipped, than
that their development should be interrupted when the caprice of parents
craved them only for pets and playthings. So the selfishness of parents
in this respect was gradually outgrown in favor of the more important
welfare of the children. But economy as well as sentiment supported this
evolution. The cost of caring for the children by the state was vastly
less than under the old system, and it no longer fell with such crushing
weight on those least able to bear it; for it was notorious that the poor
were the most prolific. With the better care they received the mortality
amongst the children was greatly reduced and a far greater proportion
reached maturity. Another important consideration in the state nursery
system was the cultivation of the democratic sentiment amongst the
children, and the destruction of exclusiveness and aristocratic ideas and
feelings.”
“From what you say,” said I, “it appears that the state has undertaken to
take care of the race during their age of helplessness, from infancy to
manhood.”
“That is correct,” he answered, “the state takes the child as soon as
it is weaned, sometimes before, and keeps and provides for it every day
till it is prepared to be selfsupporting. Every one is taught a trade or
a profession according to its bent and the demand for services in the
several callings, it being the policy of the state to so regulate these
things that the value of services is about the same in all callings.”
“Then can a mechanic make as much as a doctor?”
“About the same. As soon as any difference is observed, more are
encouraged to enter the calling that tends to the higher pay, and so made
to preserve the uniformity.”
“Well, if the state begins when the child is weaned, to take care of
it, why should it not begin before—a long time before in fact? For
ante-natal influences are often of the most powerful kind; and when they
are mischievous, no amount of subsequent education is able to neutralize
or rectify them. That was all thought out in my day by the more advanced
thinkers.”
“O they have “maternity hospitals” and “Homes for Ladies” and all that
sort of things—of course—but what you mean; not yet. That is still in the
future—but we shall find it by and by in a way that will surprise you.”
“Well it seems to me, to get even where they are they must have met and
solved some rather difficult riddles,” said I. “For example in my day
there was a desperate struggle between Protestants and Catholics in
regard to the religious education of the children. The Catholics hated
the public schools, because they were “godless.” They insisted on having
their children brought up in their own faith. They wanted a share of
the public money so they could have schools of their own and mix their
catechism with the rules of grammar and the rule of three. How did they
ever settle this difficulty—or did they settle it?”
“O yes,” he said, “they settled it, or rather it settled itself. At
first the Catholics and in some places the Lutherans and other sects of
Protestants insisted on maintaining their own schools, kindergartens
etc., but the state institutions were so far superior to what these
sectarians could furnish, that the laity broke away from the control of
their priests in this respect and followed their interests in putting
their children under the care of the state. As however the state
monopolized more and more of the pupils’ time, it was conceded that if
the whole population was not to become “godless,” it would be necessary
to allow religion to be taught in these public institutions in some form.
So they compromised. The different religious bodies were allowed to hold
Sunday schools and classes for religious instruction of the pupils in the
creeds professed by their parents. The children were also taken to church
according to the same rule. This was at first made compulsory if desired
by the parents, but after a time compulsory attendance upon religious
instruction was remitted at the age of 12 and the pupils were allowed
to choose their religion. This arrangement preserved the proportions of
the sects to each other fairly well, but in the meantime there arose
conditions that made this preservation of small moment. These were such
changes in the spirit and feeling of the members of different churches
toward each other, and such a liberalizing of creeds that all were
brought together and became not only tolerant, but even cordial toward
each other. The schools themselves did more than anything else to bring
about this result, for as the older scholars were given their freedom
of choice, it gradually became a fashion or fad amongst the pupils and
finally a part of the regular curriculum to attend each other’s meetings
and interchange ideas and arguments. As the ability grew amongst all,
both the young and old, to reason more justly and logically, all sides
became less tenacious of the dogmas they found themselves unable to
prove. When these were lopped off from the various conflicting creeds
their professors found themselves all standing on practically the same
platform of facts and plain human duties. The things they differed on
were mostly mere hypotheses. They still continued to differ, but no
longer regarded their differences of such vital consequence as formerly.
It came to be generally admitted as absurd that the future post mortem
condition of men should depend on their intellectual convictions
regarding unprovable metaphysical theories.”
“Doubtless the bringing together of the children of all creeds and
educating them in each others notions had much to do with this
liberalizing process; had it not?” I asked.
“It had of course, but the education of the children together, was itself
a result of a liberalized public opinion. The fact is the human mind
was constantly undergoing a process of expansion and growth. It could
no longer be satisfied with the crude and childish notions of former
generations, and was outgrowing them as children outgrow the fables of
the nursery. Until men got capacity, argument and logic were of no avail.
Education in the great facts and discoveries of science and philosophy
gave them capacity.”
“From what you say, I should suppose there has been a great modification
of creeds?”
“There has been. No church remains the same either in theory or practice
that it was in your day. Several of the minor protestant sects have
entirely disappeared.
“In several cases two or three have united to form one. The whole
number of sects is less than one-fourth of what it was. Creeds have
become extremely simplified and in many cases practically ignored. The
government among the protestant sects, is in most cases congregational
and democratic. They no longer engage in missionary work for the
conversion of the heathen, as there are no longer any heathen whose
conversion is desired; and no organized effort is necessary for
charitable work at home, because that is amply provided for by the state.
But the church is useful as a social organization, promoting personal
friendships and associations, providing intellectual and educational
entertainment for its members fostering and fortifying the moral virtues
and elevating and refining the manners. In many of these protestant
congregations, the worship of God by prayer and ceremony is entirely
discontinued, it being held that all worship is unworthy, and based
upon a false notion of the relationship between God and man. Man they
say cannot worship or serve God directly. God is not childish enough to
want it. All man can do is to help his fellow man and himself and that
constitutes his whole duty.”
“These,” said I, “would probably have been called free thinkers or
agnostics in my day. But what of the Catholics?”
“The Catholics,” he replied, “are far more numerous than the Protestants.
Forty years ago there was a great schism in the Catholic church, the
American branch of it separating completely from the European, and
setting up for itself as the “American Catholic Church.” At the same
time important changes were made in the interpretation of the doctrines
of the church and radical innovations in its government. The latter is
now largely republican in form and the laity have representation in
the councils of the church and a preponderating influence both in its
doctrine and its temporal policy. The tendency toward this development
showed itself strongly in the beginning of the twentieth century, and
originated from the general increase of intelligence and feeling of
personal assertion and responsibility among the laity and the example
of the freer people about them. The clergy instinctively resisted this
tendency, and called upon the Pope and the European church to help them
to stop it. The help they afforded only stimulated the movement. The
interference of the Europeans was resented as impertinent; the exercise
of the papal authority was looked on as a display of superannuated
tyranny. The Pope asserted that the American Church by its liberal
practices and tendencies was corrupting the church in other parts of the
world, and declared they were doing it more damage as members, than
they could do as open enemies outside of its pale, and he threatened to
excommunicate the whole American body. The immediate cause of the final
act of separation was first the persistence of the laity in having the
ownership of the church property in their own hands, represented by
trustees of their own selection. Second, their demand to share in the
government of the church, to which end they proposed a representative
legislature composed of two houses, one composed of laymen and the other
of clergy.
“Third they asserted the right of private judgment without prejudice to
their standing as Catholics, on all questions of mere faith, except the
cardinal principle of Christianity, requiring only the observance of the
sacraments and the practice of charitable works and a moral life.
“They repudiated auricular confession. These innovations were not all
consummated at once, but the controversy once begun, found no logical
settlement short of these demands and the rupture of the church.
Liberalized in this way in regard to creed and government, and freed from
the domination of the Italians, but retaining much of the ancient ritual
and the pomp of public worship, the American Church, became very popular,
and soon received large accessions of membership from the protestant
bodies. In fact the more conservative and spiritual protestants found
the new catholic church more congenial to them than the new protestant.
The former church advanced toward them as the latter drifted away into
rationalism.”