BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

  NO. 496

  ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE SERIES VOL. 7, NO. 2, PP. 103-234


  WOMEN AND ECONOMIC EVOLUTION

  OR

  THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON THE
  STATUS OF WOMEN


  By

  THERESA SCHMID MCMAHON, PH. D.
  _Sometime Fellow in Sociology_
  _The University of Wisconsin_
  _Instructor in Political and Social Science, University of Washington_


  A THESIS PRESENTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
  THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN


  MADISON, WISCONSIN
  1912
  Price, 25 Cents




BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN


Entered as second-class matter June 10, 1898, at the post office at
Madison, Wisconsin under the Act of July 16, 1894


COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION

  WALTER M. SMITH, _Chairman_
  WILLARD G. BLEYER, _Secretary_
  O. CLARKE GILLETT, _Editor_

  R. E. NEIL DODGE, _Philology and Literature Series_
  WILLIAM H. LIGHTY, _University Extension Series_
  WILLIAM S. MARSHALL, _Science Series_
  DANIEL W. MEAD, _Engineering Series_
  WINFRED T. ROOT, _History Series_
  THOMAS K. URDAHL, _Economics and Political Science Series_


The Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin is published bimonthly at
Madison. For postal purposes, all issues in all series of the Bulletin
are included in one consecutive numbering as published, a numbering
which has no relation whatever to the arrangement in series and volumes.

The Economics and Political Science series, the History series, the
Philology and Literature series, the Science series, the Engineering
series, and the University extension series contain original papers by
persons connected with the University. The series formerly issued as
the Economics, Political Science, and History series was discontinued
with the completion of the second volume and has been replaced by the
Economics and Political Science series and the History series.

Persons who reside in the state of Wisconsin may obtain copies of the
Bulletin free by applying to the Secretary of the Regents and paying
the cost of transportation. No. 1 of Vol. 1 of the Economics, Political
Science, and History series, Nos. 1 and 3 of Vol. 2 of the Philology
and Literature series, No. 2 of Vol. 2 of the Science series, and Nos.
1-5 of Vol. 1 and No. 4 of Vol. 2 of the Engineering series are now out
of print and can no longer be furnished. Bulletins issued since May 1,
1898, are entered as second-class mail matter and no charge is required
by the University to cover cost of postage. The postage required for
such of the earlier numbers as can now be furnished is as follows:
Econ. ser., Vol. 1, No. 2, 8c; No. 3, 13c; Vol. 3, No. 1, 4c; Phil.
ser., Vol. 1, No. 1, 5c; Sci. ser., Vol. 1, No. 1, 2c; No. 2, 2c; No.
3, 3c; No. 4, 3c; No. 5, 10c; Vol. 2, No. 1, 2c; Eng. ser., Vol. 1, No.
6, 2c; No. 7, 3c; No. 8, 2c; No. 9, 4c; No. 10, 3c; Vol. 2, No. 1, 4c;
No. 2, 2c.

Any number of the Bulletin now in print will be sent postpaid to
persons not residents of Wisconsin from the office of the Secretary
of the Regents on receipt of the price. Title pages and tables of
contents to completed volumes of all series, have been issued and will
be furnished without cost on application to the University Librarian.
Communications having reference to an exchange of publications should
be addressed to the Librarian of The University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wis.




  BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

  NO. 496

  ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE SERIES VOL. 7, NO. 2, PP. 103-234


  WOMEN AND ECONOMIC EVOLUTION

  OR

  THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON THE
  STATUS OF WOMEN


  BY

  THERESA SCHMID MCMAHON, PH. D.
  _Sometime Fellow in Sociology_
  _The University of Wisconsin_
  _Instructor in Political and Social Science, University of Washington_


  A THESIS PRESENTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
  THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
  1908


  MADISON, WISCONSIN
  1912




CONTENTS


                                                                   PAGES

  INTRODUCTION                                                      5-10

  CHAPTER I. THE STATUS OF WOMEN AND PRIMITIVE INDUSTRY            10-19

  CHAPTER II. THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN EARLY HISTORICAL TIMES        19-28

  CHAPTER III. THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON THE
  HOMES OF THE WORKING-POOR                                        28-37

  CHAPTER IV. THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON THE
  HOMES OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS                                        37-49

  CHAPTER V. WOMEN OF LEISURE                                      49-57

  CHAPTER VI. STATUS OF WOMEN AND HOME INDUSTRY AMONG
  PROFESSIONAL CLASSES                                             57-69

  CHAPTER VII. THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON MARRIAGE     69-80

  CHAPTER VIII. ECONOMIC FORCES AND THE BIRTH-RATE                 80-88

  CHAPTER IX. ECONOMIC CHANGES AND THE DIVORCE-RATE                88-97

  CHAPTER X. THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND INDUSTRIAL CHANGES 97-114

  CHAPTER XI. CONCLUSION                                         114-124




INTRODUCTION


In dealing with the evolution of home industry and its effects upon the
status of women, it will be necessary to note briefly the status of the
sexes before marked differentiation took place.

As a matter of fact, we know very little about mankind before the
beginning of recorded history. It is true we have various examples of
primitive culture existing at the present time, and to a considerable
degree they illustrate the different stages of culture through which
civilization has passed; but there is no proof that different types
of social development have not existed in the earlier periods. These
different types may have been out of harmony with the existing
environment, and hence were eliminated by the struggle for existence.
It does not follow that the eliminated types were inferior to the
surviving one, but that they proved less fit in a conflict of certain
forces. For instance, a peaceable race has often been at a disadvantage
when contending with a warlike and aggressive one, and its institutions
have been overthrown in the struggle.

What has been true in the conflict of races may be equally true in
a conflict for authority between the sexes, if such a conflict ever
existed. In a period of history when severe struggles between peoples
were common, feminine rule was not compatible with such struggle.

The commonly accepted theory is that men hold their position of
recognized superiority over women by virtue of an inherent superiority;
that sexual differences as measured by world achievements are
characteristic of all races. This is the androcentric theory which is
described by Ward as “the view that the male sex is primary and the
female sex secondary in the organic scheme, that all things center,
as it were, about the male, and that the female, though necessary to
carrying out the scheme, is only the means of continuing the life of
the globe, but it is otherwise an unimportant accessory, and incidental
factor in the general result.”[1]

This theory has been accepted as a fact for ages; it has been
sanctioned by all religions and by custom. In the minds of many people
it had been established as one of the certainties removed from the
province of doubt. Indeed, so many facts have been brought forth in
proof of this theory that in the past to question it simply invited
ridicule.

According to the androcentric theory man alone is responsible for
the development of our social institutions, and woman’s progressive
evolution has been one of constant adaptation; never one of innovation.
“Woman is the lesser man” and her achievements have always been
measured by masculine standards.

A new theory has been advanced by Ward which merits careful
consideration. He calls it the gynaecocentric theory. It is the “view
that the female sex is primary and the male secondary in the organic
scheme, that originally and normally all things center, as it were,
about the female, and that the male, though not necessary to carrying
out the scheme, was developed under the operation of the principle of
advantage to secure organic progress through the crossing of strains.
The theory further claims that the apparent male superiority in the
human race and in certain of the higher animals and birds is the result
of specialization in extra-normal directions due to adventitious causes
which have nothing to do with the general scheme, but which can be
explained on biological principles; that it only applies to certain
characters, and to a relatively small number of genera and families.
It accounts for the prevalence of the androcentric theory by the
superficial character of human knowledge of such subjects, chiefly
influenced by the illusion of the near, but largely, in the case of man
at least, by tradition, convention, and prejudice.”[2]

Students of primitive history are not agreed as to whether there has
ever existed a people among whom women held sway. The tendency is to
discredit the evidence offered for the theory of female rule. If
such peoples existed, none have survived to play an important part in
history. This fact seems to indicate that, other things being equal,
female rule was not compatible with the evolution of our present
civilization, if by female rule we mean the recognized superiority of
the female sex at a time when authority rested solely in the hands of
the successful fighters on behalf of the tribe.

Political power implied the exercise of protection. Hence if women held
the balance of power in a primitive community constantly engaged in
warfare--success in warfare being the only measure of one’s worth--the
insecurity of their lives, and the constant depletion of their numbers
would materially affect the increase of numbers within the tribe, and
in time weaken the tribe in contending with enemies. Elimination or
absorption by other tribes would be inevitable.

Without discussing the theory that woman is by nature conservative
while man is variable, it is evident that only the women who clung
most tenaciously to custom left offspring. The women who varied
from the established order by their radical or individualistic
characteristics devoted their lives to a cause, usually of a religious
nature, and left no offspring. On the other hand, the most aggressive
men were most successful in winning wives and were able to transmit
their variable qualities, while less aggressive natures tended to
leave no descendants. Therefore, much that is attributed to sexual
differentiation may be due in part to an environment favorable to
a type; to social institutions more favorable to the survival of
conservative females and variable males; to the elimination of those
females in whom inherited variable tendencies did not remain dormant.

It is reasonable to believe that in the primitive horde there existed
a degree of equality between the sexes, but “at the beginning of the
historical period woman was under the complete subjection of man. She
had so long been a mere slave and drudge that she had lost all the
higher attributes she originally possessed.”[3]

Many forces have played an important part in the evolution of the
social status of women. The mother instinct which prompted women to
prefer the interests of their children to their own prevented them from
concentrating their attention on activities not directly concerned with
the care of the children and made it possible to subject a whole sex to
an inferior position, irrespective of their numbers, and to make them
apparently contented with their lot.

The beginning of the race was associated with a keen struggle for
subsistence. If promiscuity was the earliest form of mating, the
greatest burden of support would naturally devolve upon woman and
would handicap her when it came to meeting or evading enemies. But if
the father of her children remained as a protector, at least while
the child was helpless, this handicap would be removed. Whether she
was actually provided with subsistence or protected from enemies in
the beginning, we know she did receive protection by virtue of her
sex before the race advanced very far in its social development. This
protection largely exempted her from warlike struggle, but it also
deprived her almost entirely of the communal authority that had its
basis in such a struggle. What was a gain to the individual woman was a
loss to her sex in social position.

The supremacy that one sex, class or race gains over another, does not
necessarily arise out of far sighted action, having in view a definite
goal. In the early struggle of our race, the loss of power by woman and
the gain by man was incidental and not the result of a struggle for
authority between the sexes.

The same general principle applied to economic life. Whatever woman
gained in the early industrial activities of the race which gave her
the right to claim precedence in this field, she lost as industry
departed from the hearth.

History does not show women struggling for authority before the
domination of machine industry, or struggling to maintain a position
which would give them prestige in the tribe or state. It is true
women have taken part in some of the great movements and revolutions
of society, such as the Crusades, or the French revolution but only
when the country in question was thrown into an emotional state, and
when all other considerations were pushed into the background by the
predominant passion. They have taken part in these struggles, and
often shown greater frenzy than men in their efforts to attain their
desired goal. They had not yet learned the lesson of self control
forced upon men by their economic struggles. Economic struggles have
always brought men into other relationships with their fellow men than
the purely social. Such has not been the lot of women.

Industrial changes have played a large part in determining the social,
political and economic status of women. It is only since the advent
of machine industry that women as a sex have been recognized as a
distinct economic factor in our industrial life. Consequently it has
been difficult to procure material illustrating the industrial status
of women in certain periods of history.

When history mentions women, it is invariably as individuals in their
social, religious or political capacities, and not as a class of
industrial workers. The reason for this lack of data is that women
as a class assumed a passive attitude in the economic and industrial
life; and, excepting when forced by necessity, took no aggressive part
in the great industrial changes of the time. Invariably they adapted
themselves to existing conditions.

If little emphasis is placed in the following pages on the influence
of the great moral forces which have played such a large part in
the history of our civilization, it is not because these forces are
overlooked but because they are not a part of the general theme dealing
primarily with the economic.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Ward, _Pure Sociology_, p. 364.

[2] Ward, _Pure Sociology_, pp. 296-7.

[3] Ward, _Pure Sociology_, p. 364.




WOMEN AND ECONOMIC EVOLUTION




CHAPTER I

THE STATUS OF WOMEN AND PRIMITIVE INDUSTRY


Facts brought to light by ethnologists and anthropologists indicate
that our prehistoric ancestors were engaged in a severe struggle for
existence. This struggle must have been a keen one when man’s life
was filled with fear, when his advantages over other animals were
slight, and where climatic conditions were unfavorable to the procuring
of subsistence. Undoubtedly his greatest desire was for a sense of
security from enemies.

There is a tendency to attribute to primitive man a considerable degree
of reasoning power; whereas he acted, no doubt, largely from impulse,
and with little concern for the future. Marshall says, “Whatever be
their climate and whatever their ancestry, we find savages living under
the domain of custom and impulse; scarcely ever striking out new lines
for themselves; never forecasting the distant future, and seldom making
provision even for the near future; fitful in spite of their servitude
to custom, governed by the fancy of the moment; ready at times for the
most arduous exertions, but incapable of keeping themselves long to
steady work.”[4]

The immediate satisfying of his wants was primitive man’s main thought,
and the eliminating of the factors interfering with the gratification
of these wants, his chief concern.

He probably would have sacrificed freedom for a greater degree of
security, for freedom was something beyond his imagination, and was a
mockery to one engaged in so severe a struggle with his environment.

Primitive woman had an advantage over man in that her sexual appetite
was not so keen. “All females were alike for the male animal and
savage. The only selection that took place down to the close of
the protosocial stage was female selection. The females alone were
sufficiently free from the violence of passion to compare, deliberate,
and discriminate.”[5]

This might have given primitive woman the upper hand had she sought
authority. But protection, both during the time of pregnancy when her
physical powers were impaired, and during the period of lactation was
her greatest concern. Maternity was her paramount interest and beyond
the needs of her child there was no desire for power.

Naturally out of the relationship existing between protector and
protected, arose a recognition of authority in the former. Hence it
seems reasonable to believe that the subordination of women to men in
early historical times grew out of conditions working no hardship on
either sex but affording mutual advantages.

If stress of circumstances was in any way responsible for the superior
intelligence of man over other animals, woman would necessarily be the
first to develop the quality of foresight, for it fell to her lot to
provide for her offspring. The fulfillment of this responsibility was
essential to the preservation of the race.

Primitive man and primitive woman could go through long periods of
fasting, but not so their children. The mother’s maternal instinct
prompted her to supply their wants before her own, while man satisfied
his hunger first, and then relegated the remains of his feast to the
women and the children. His first instinct was the satisfying of his
wants; hers, the satisfying of her offspring’s. Here lies one of the
fundamental differences between the sexes; and out of this contrast in
self-thought have arisen the marked differences of character commonly
designated as feminine and masculine.

If primitive man’s first concern had been to feed his mate, woman would
never have become the “mother of industry.” She might have remained
passive in the struggle for subsistence, as she was in the struggle
against enemies.

Prehistoric men left the remains of the feast to the women and the
children; and when food was scarce the women were forced to seek some
means of subsistence other than the hunt afforded. They “climbed up
hills for the opossum, delved in the ground with their sticks for
yams, native bread, and nutritious roots, groped about the rocks for
shellfish, dived beneath the sea for oysters, and fished for the finny
tribe.”[6]

Woman was the “mother of industry” and the inventor of most of the
early industrial arts. Says Mason, “Women were instructed by the
spiders, the nest builders, the storers of food and the workers in
clay like the mud wasp and the termites. It is not meant that these
creatures set up schools to teach dull women how to work, but that
their quick minds were on the alert for hints coming from these
sources.... It is in the apotheosis of industrialism that woman has
borne her part so persistently and well.”[7]

Students of primitive history have given us vivid pictures of the
industrial occupations of women among different tribes; but they
depend largely for their material upon examples of these industrial
occupations as carried on among tribes existing at present in a
state of primitive culture. Nowhere now do we find an illustration
of inventive genius on the part of women generally, in a primitive
state of culture corresponding to that credited to them in prehistoric
times. This may be due to a lack of personal freedom, such as was known
to primitive woman, or to the lack of proper incentive stimulating
the individual to progress. The latter reason may account for the
unprogressiveness or degeneracy of many tribes of the present day.

Following his natural instincts and utilizing his power for their
gratification prehistoric man found himself in possession of an
authority over woman which he had unconsciously acquired. When
once conscious of this power he used it arbitrarily, and perhaps
oppressively.

Among peaceable peoples there was little need for the exercise of
authority, either defensively or offensively. That personal services
were rendered men by the women does not necessarily signify the
services were prompted by fear. It is only where militancy prevails
that we find an exercise of authority by men over women which suggests
the tyranny of the strong over the weak. But even here the tyranny
of the strong members of the tribe over the weak is more noticeable
than the tyranny of man over woman. Authority determined the status
of the individual or of the sex, but it was only one of the factors
determining occupation.

Contemporary tribes of low culture differ widely in the position and
occupation of women, but there is sufficient resemblance of work among
women generally, to make it safe to say that to the women fall the
tasks most compatible with stationary habits of life.[8]

As a matter of choice women would naturally engage in those occupations
which centered around the fireside. We do find many instances where
owing to the employments of men, or to the habits of migration
resulting from a search for food, the women are employed far from the
hearth. On the whole, however, the occupations commonly pursued by
women freed them from carrying children long distances. Westermarck
says that the occupations of men are “such as require strength and
ability; fighting, hunting, fishing, the construction of implements for
the chase and war, and the building of huts.

On the other hand, the principal occupations of women are universally
of a domestic kind: She procures wood and water, prepares the food,
dresses skins, makes clothes, takes care of the children. She,
moreover, supplies the household with vegetable food, gathers roots,
berries, acorns, and among agricultural savages, very commonly
cultivates the ground. Thus the various occupations of life are divided
between the sexes according to definite rules. And though the formation
of these rules has undoubtedly been more or less influenced by the
egoism of the stronger sex, the essential principle from which they
spring lies deeper.”[9]

From necessity women were conservative in their habits since a
stationary life was most conducive to the protection and care of
offspring. That they should follow those occupations which had to do
with the preparation and consumption of food, or with the personal
services closely allied to the satisfying of the need for food and
clothing, seems natural and reasonable since the children looked to
them for those vital services.

It is but a short step from the rendering of personal services to
offspring to the rendering of services to a mature man or woman. The
performing of services for the father may have been at first voluntary;
later it became fixed as a habit and finally established as a custom.
This performing of personal services--so conspicuous among peoples of
primitive culture, is the basis for concluding the oppression of women.
“What is largely due to custom is taken to be sheer tyranny on the part
of the stronger sex, and the wife is pronounced an abject slave of her
husband, destitute of all rights.”[10]

Our insight into primitive culture shows a state of society in which
women held a subordinate position, and where the authority rested
primarily with men. The status of women had become fixed by tradition
and custom and to depart from it meant ridicule and contempt.

Nevertheless primitive woman seemed content with her lot; and freedom
which meant opportunity to struggle against one’s enemies, was not
for her a desideration. If she thought at all of her position of
subordination--she probably did not--she would have concluded that she
was the gainer rather than the loser when she gave up authority in
return for protection.

The authority of one sex over the other arose spontaneously and
unconsciously by the exercise of the function of protection which in
a measure determined choice of occupation. It is true men chose those
occupations allowing the greatest versatility and demanding much
activity and quickness of motion, and that women were generally barred
from them; but hunting and warfare--the two occupations followed by
primitive man before the era of pastoral and agricultural life--would
have deprived women of the security and protection so essential to the
preservation of the race.

When women accepted the protection of men, the women had a chance to
survive and reproduce. But the men were forced to fight and only those
survived who were able to overcome the enemy.

Before long women outnumbered men; and the motive responsible for the
division of occupation was lost sight of. Protection was sought instead
of being voluntarily given, and women surrendered more in proportion as
their value decreased in the estimation of men.

As long as the number of men and women was approximately equal, the
relations between the sexes were more likely to be based upon mutual
interests and sympathy. But when one sex far outnumbered the other,
degeneracy set in. Wherever we find primitive peoples engaged in almost
constant warfare, women outnumber men and the status of the former is
low. Women are apparently willing to be oppressed to win favor in the
eyes of their lord and master.

There are no historical facts indicating that women as a class
resisted the encroachments upon their personal rights by the men.
Few individuals are willing to fight for authority when stimulation
is lacking; or to struggle for an abstract right not affecting their
habits of life. Women followed the line of least resistance. It led
to their oppression, but it suited the conservative habit fostered by
maternity, and in a measure offered them greater security at a time
opportune from the standpoint of the race.

The fate of women seems less hard when judged by the standards of
justice and consideration practiced by men and women alike. “When we
learn that where torture of enemies is the custom, the women out-do
the men--when we read of the cruelties perpetrated by the two female
Dyak chiefs described by Rajah Brooks, or of the horrible deeds which
Winrod Reade narrates of a blood-thirsty African Queen, we are shown
that it is not lack of will but lack of power which prevents primitive
women from displaying natures equally brutal with those of primitive
men.”[11]

Wherever the militant spirit is absent, there exists greater equality
between man and woman, and between man and man. Industrialism in its
simple forms is conducive to the spirit of equality; and among those
tribes where industry is the chief occupation of the people, and where
exploitation of other peoples ceases to be a habit, the position of
woman is the best.

A factor not to be overlooked in estimating the status of peoples is
the nature of the environment. No matter whether the inclinations
of the people foster militancy or industrialism, if the natural
environment is unfavorable to the procuring of a steady supply of food,
the people is checked in its development by too great odds against it.
If the natural environment is so friendly as to supply food without
effort on the part of the consumer--as is true of many southern
climes--stagnation or degeneracy results from a lack of stimulus to
exertion.

What is true of a race or tribe may also be true of women. They
show the least physical and mental development where conditions are
extremely oppressive; and a moral indifference and indolence where life
demands little physical or mental effort for its maintenance.

Irrespective of its immediate cause the oppression of women brings
about in time a differentiation of the sexes industrially and
especially socially. We have seen among many peoples the assignment
of industrial employments to the women and the militant activities
to the men; but this division is not a true measure of the degree
of subordination of the women. The division of employments is in a
measure influenced by the nature of the environment and by the habits
and customs having their roots in a natural environment in the distant
past. Such a division may originally be based upon woman’s convenience
as well as man’s, but probably more often upon that of the latter.

When warfare became a less constant occupation, men entered
agriculture, which had been considered women’s own field of work.
They did not assume the least skilled part of the work, as does a
class of industrial workers when it enters a new field, but chose
the occupations most compatible with their inclinations, while women
confined their efforts to the more monotonous pursuits. Their work was
not necessarily easier than that of the men, nor were they shielded
from those tasks requiring great physical strength.

It is true the work pursued by the recognized superior is considered
more honorific than the work done by the social inferior, but the work
itself generally requires a greater degree of skill and ingenuity.
Such honorific work called for greater application and more energy
than women were accustomed to bestow upon their occupations for they
were always hampered by the demands of their children. During the
agricultural stage, therefore, as in the earlier stage, the women
always did the work requiring the least initiative. In time the women
were largely superseded in the monotonous out-of-door work by the
slave, thus gaining time and energy for the ever increasing indoor
occupations. Through slavery “it is certain that a means was ... found
of maintaining intact the independent household economy with its
accustomed division of labor, and at the same time of making progress
toward an increase in the number and variety of wants.”[12]

Women’s position in primitive society has often been mistakenly
compared to that of slaves destitute of all authority and personal
rights. Personal rights are very precious to the individual when no
bond of affection exists making the interests of the master and the
slave identical. But just here lies the fundamental difference between
the position of women and that of slaves. The relation between master
and slave was an economic one while that between husband and wife was
personal as well as economic. It called for mutual concessions, the
woman most often subordinating her interests and wishes to those of
the man, who in turn assumed in many instances the entire economic
responsibility.

New labor-saving methods were employed in agriculture, making it
possible to meet the increased demand for agricultural products. But
not so with the in-door work. New wants arose calling for a greater
variety in food and clothing. In all probability the men least able
physically were superceded in the field by the more robust, and the
former were assigned those household tasks least affected by custom,
and most easily separated from the immediate jurisdiction of the
women. Such employment developed the textile industries.

Never in history have we examples of women excelling men in attaining
the ideal of the time, whether militant, social or industrial. And if
these ideals represented a progressive development of mankind, women
have always been far behind. At the present the industrial ideal
predominates. Although we know that in primitive times women excelled
men in the industrial arts, it was at a time when the militant ideal
was the dominant one. The controlling ideal has always been shaped
by men and their occupations and always will be shaped by those in
authority.

The spirit of the time has corresponded to masculine achievement and
women’s progress has been measured by their success in adaptation. It
is of little consequence that women excel in industry in a period of
military precedence, or socially in an epoch of industrialism, since
the standard of measurement is fixed by masculine performance. The
ideal to be attained by either sex is always a masculine one.


FOOTNOTES:

[4] Marshall, _Principles of Economics_, I, pp. 10-11. Ed. 4.

[5] Ward, _Pure Sociology_, p. 360.

[6] Quoted by Thomas, _Sex and Society_, p. 125.

[7] Mason, _Woman’s Share in Primitive Culture_, pp. 2-3.

[8] Thomas, _Sex and Society_, p. 134.

[9] Westermarck, _The Position of Women in Early Civilization_, _The
American Journal of Sociology_, Nov., 1904, p. 410.

[10] Westermarck, _The Position of Women in Early Civilization_, The
American Journal of Sociology, Nov., 1904, p. 411.

[11] Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, I, p. 747.

[12] Bücher, _Industrial Evolution_, p. 96.




CHAPTER II

THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN EARLY HISTORICAL TIMES


The world furnishes many examples of the rise and decline of
civilizations before our era. Their art and literature often show
social institutions comparing favorably with those of modern times.
Almost without exception their decline can be traced to the invasion
of people of less culture but greater warlike propensities. The
institutions of these warlike peoples are the ones which survived, and
upon which rest our modern institutions.

As we have seen the primitive society, militancy favors a greater
differentiation of sex status and of work than industrialism. In the
primarily industrial nations, men’s and women’s work often overlap, and
although we can recognize a sex division of work, the line constantly
shifts to the economic advantage of women. In a militant society, the
women of the higher classes are often shown a deference unknown in the
lower classes, but this deference is not shown them as a sex alone,
but because of their relation to those who stand highest in the state.
Where the women of the higher classes enjoy rights and privileges
other than those reserved to them by the state, they are bestowed
upon the individual alone, and not upon the sex in general. They have
their basis in family ties making the family a unit in its economic
interests, as well as in its social and political interests. No matter
how conservative men may be in their attitude toward the political,
social, and industrial equality of men and women, their prejudices do
not weigh against family interests, or apply to the females of their
own families.

Militant types of society have not recognized the political rights
of women as women. But for all that their women have often played
important roles in history by virtue of the power coming to them
through some male relative who was more anxious to delegate his power
to them than to see it pass to strangers, or to men of remoter blood
relationship.

In the early, less militant societies we see that certain rights of
women were recognized. In Egypt “the husband appears to have entered
the house of his wives rather than the wives to have entered his, and
this appearance of inferiority was so marked that the Greeks were
deceived by it. They affirmed that the women were supreme in Egypt; the
man at the time of marriage promised obedience to her, and entered into
a contract not to raise any objection to her commands.”[13]

Hobhouse says, “It is very possible that the preservation of relics
of mother-right was among the forces tending to the better condition
of women in Egypt. These were augmented toward the close of the
independent history of Egypt by the rise of free contract and the
important part taken by women in the industrial and commercial life. In
these relations and in social intercourse generally it is allowed on
all hands that their position was remarkably free.”[14]

In Babylonia there were times when women held a position of
independence and authority. “The wife could act apart from her husband,
could enter into partnership, could trade with her money and conduct
lawsuits in her own name.”

Sayce says further, “Women, as well as men, enjoyed the advantages of
education. This evidence from the Babylonian contract-tablets, in which
we find women appearing, as well as men, as plaintiffs or defendants
in suits, as partners in commercial transactions, and as signing, when
need arose, their names. There was none of that jealous exclusion of
women in ancient Babylonia which characterizes the East of today, and
it is probable that boys and girls pursued their studies at the same
school.”[15]

Among the Greeks of the Homeric age, women held a position of respect
and dignity but in the age of Pericles “little pains were taken with
their education. Before their marriage, they managed their households
and seldom left their dwellings.”[16]

In spite of paternal authority so firmly established by custom all
through early history we find individual women conspicuous by virtue of
their cleverness, intelligence or charm giving them power in affairs of
state. When Rome was at its height, there were men solicitors acting in
behalf of women in litigation and in the management of their property.
In fact, “the mass of capital which was collected in the hands of women
appeared to the statesmen of the time so dangerous, that they resorted
to the extravagant expedient of prohibiting by law the testamentary
nomination of women as heirs, and even sought by highly arbitrary
practice to deprive women for the most part of those collateral
inheritances which fell to them without testament.”[17]

The Roman family was absolutely controlled by the father. His
jurisdiction extended not only to the women and children of his
household but to his grown sons after they had established a household
of their own.[18]

The attitude of the law toward a class of men is a fair criterion of
their status; but this is not true of the women. Since they do not
constitute a distinct class or industrial stratum, law is more apt to
reflect their status as determined by tradition and custom, than to
determine their status.

Mommsen below says, “Wife and child did not exist merely for the
house-father’s sake in the sense in which property exists only for the
proprietor, or in which the subjects of an absolute state exist only
for the king; they were the objects indeed of a legal right, on his
part, but they had at the same time capacities of right of their own;
they were not things but persons. Their rights were dormant in respect
of exercise, simply because the unity of the household demanded that it
should be governed by a single representative.”[19]

Long before legislation took a more enlightened attitude toward the
legal and political rights of women, the old laws relating to women had
become antiquated. “Even in public matters women already began to have
a will of their own and occasionally, as Cato thought, ‘to rule the
rulers of the world.’”[20]

Irrespective of the legal and social status of women, early history
shows practically the same division of work between the sexes as in
primitive times. If there is any apparent difference, it is in a
greater diversity of household tasks for women, and the narrowing of
the limits of their out-of-door tasks. Men continue to make inroads
upon the increasing industrial work of women without changing the
nature of it in any of its essentials.

In Rome within the house “woman was not servant but mistress.” Exempted
from the tasks of corn-grinding and cooking which according to Roman
ideas belonged to the menials, the Roman housewife devoted herself
in the main to the superintendence of her maid servants, and to the
accompanying labours of the distaff, which was to woman what the plow
was to man.[21]

The characteristic work of the Roman women of the well-to-do
classes was practically that of the well-to-do classes of all early
civilizations. The work, however, of the wives of the poor was in
marked contrast. The Ligurian women “laboured, like the men, at
the hardest work, and hired themselves out for the harvest in the
neighboring countries.”[22]

History throws little light upon the conditions of the laboring
people in early civilization. Although they were the foundation on
which society rested, they were considered of no consequence in the
development of the state excepting in their capacity as warriors.
Hence, our knowledge of the manners and customs of the people must be
gleaned from data regarding the well-to-do classes.

Under feudalism, status was well defined and the individual counted
for little in the social regime. The position of the lord was based
upon military prowess, and he took little or no direct part in the
industrial occupations of the people. The laborer was his property,
and the lord in return agreed to protect him. Guizot says, “There was
nothing morally common between the holder of the fief and his serfs.
They formed part of his estate; they were his property; and under this
word property are comprised, not only all the rights which we delegate
to the public magistrate to exercise in the name of the state, but
likewise all those which we possess over private property; the right
of making laws, of levying taxes, of inflicting punishment, as well as
that of disposing of them or selling them.”[23]

The serf was in no wise a part of the feudal lord’s family nor did the
women of his class experience any of the male chivalry which we are
accustomed to associate with this period.

The status of the women of the serfs was little better than that of
slaves. The difference between the status of men and women of this
class was probably no greater than that between the lord and his wife,
but the difference was emphasized in that there was a greater range of
abuse on the part of the social superior toward the social inferior
where women were concerned.

In the house of the lord “the chief, however violent, and brutal his
outdoor exercises, must habitually return into the bosom of his family.
He there finds his wife and children, and scarcely any but them; they
alone are his constant companions; they alone are interested in all
that concerns him. It could not but happen in such circumstances, that
domestic life must have acquired a vast influence, nor is there any
lack of proofs that it did so.”[24]

The predominance which domestic life acquired among the upper classes
during feudal times did much toward elevating the women of these
classes to social equality with men.

Although during this period there exists among the people a great
difference in the kind of work performed by men and the work performed
by women in the higher classes, nevertheless the position of the wife
was one of respect, and often one of authority. When the lord was away
from home on warlike expeditions the wife assumed at times her lord’s
duties.[25]

“Women exercised to the full the powers that were attached to the land
either by proxy, by bailiffs, or in person. They levied troops, held
courts of justice, coined money, and took part in the assembly of peers
that met at the court of the lord.”[26]

Parallel with the decline of the feudal system is the rapid growth
of towns. Women did not take a conspicuous part in the work carried
on in the towns, but that they were not excluded from the industries
is apparent when we find them in the trade guilds as early as the
fifteenth century. “Labor disputes arose over the questions of wages
and piece-work, of holidays, of the employment of women and cheap
workers.”[27]

Before the great pestilence of 1348, women were employed as
agricultural laborers. Their wages were invariably lower than the wages
of men. This difference in wages can be partially accounted for on the
ground that there existed a marked difference in the nature of their
work. Women as farm hands were employed in “dibbling beans, in weeding
corn, in making hay, in assisting the sheep-shearers and washing the
sheep, in filling the muck carts with manure, and in spreading it
upon the lands, in shearing corn, but especially in reaping stubble
after the ears of corn had been cut off by the shearers, in binding
and stacking sheaves, in thatching ricks and houses, in watching in
the fields to prevent cattle straying into the corn, or armed with a
sling, in scaring birds from the seed of ripening corn, and in similar
occupations. When these failed, there were the winding and spinning
of wool ‘to stop a gap.’ These were the employments not only of the
laborers’ wives; the wife and daughters of the farmer took their part
in all farm works with other women, and worked side by side with their
husbands and fathers. After the ‘black death’, women shared for a time
in the general rise of wages, and were seldom paid less than two-pence
for a day’s work, a sum not unfrequently paid a woman for her daily
work in the fields before the time of the great pestilence. This amount
of wages, however, was diminished by one of the statutes of labourers,
which required that every woman not having a craft, nor possessing
property of her own, should work on a farm equally with a man, and
be subjected to the same regulations as to wages as her husband and
brothers, and like them should not leave the manor or district in which
she usually lived to seek work elsewhere.”[28]

In the early stages of industry “wool and silk were woven and spun
in scattered villages by families who eked out their subsistence by
agriculture.”[29]

Often in the sixteenth century the wealthy graziers were clothiers and
employed the men and women of the neighborhood to make into cloth the
wool raised upon their own lands. “In many districts the farmers and
labourers used few things which were not the work of their own hands,
or which had not been manufactured a few miles from their homes. The
poet Wordsworth’s account of the farmers’ families in Westmorland, who
grew on their own land the corn with which they were fed, spun in their
own home the wool with which they were clothed, and supplied the rest
of their wants by the sale of yarn in the neighboring market town was
not so far inapplicable to other parts of England as we might at first
imagine.”[30]

With the introduction of machinery the paternal attitude of the master
toward the employee disappeared. Since the workman at this time had no
political rights the decline of the spirit of paternalism exposed him
to easy industrial exploitation.

Under the domestic system of industry the entire family was engaged
under one roof in the spinning or weaving of cloth. The spinning
was done by the women and children, and the weaving by the men.
Often it took as many as six spinners to keep one weaver busy, thus
necessitating the employment of the women in the neighborhood when
there were not sufficient spinners in the household.[31]

This system of industry was revolutionized by the invention of the
spinning-jenny, the water-frame, and the self-acting mule, and the
application of the steam engine to cotton manufacture. With the
introduction of these inventions into the cotton industry the modern
factory system arose. Those employers who could not compete with the
new methods were forced to give up their small domestic factories and
seek employment in the towns. In 1811 the agricultural population of
England was 35 per cent of the whole, and within twenty years it had
declined to 28 per cent.[32]

Before the introduction of machinery, industrial occupations kept
pace with increasing wants, but so little progress was made from
one generation to the other as to give the impression of a static
condition. Class lines were sharply drawn, and all authority rested
with those whose property holdings were sufficient to place them
with the privileged classes. Their political power increased with
their material prosperity but neither political power nor material
prosperity fell to the laboring classes. “Except as a member of a mob,
the labourer had not a shred of political influence. The power of
making laws was concentrated in the hands of the land owners, the great
merchant princes, and a small knot of capitalists, manufacturers who
wielded that power?--was it not natural in the interests of their class,
rather than for the good of the people.”[33]

From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century little change was
effected in the home life of the people. Many of the houses had “but
a single great fireplace.” At the beginning of the nineteenth century
came many improvements in household affairs. “The common use of the
friction matches after 1830 saved an infinitude of pains to the cook,
the workman, and the smoker; instead of the iron pots and Dutch ovens
came the air-tight cook stove, an unspeakable good friend to the
housewife; for the open fire was substituted the wood-stove, and then
the coal-stove, which leaked gas but saved toil and trouble; for the
labor of the needle which has kept feminine fingers employed from the
time of Penelope, came the sewing-machine, rude enough at first, which
revolutionized the making of clothing.”[34]

History shows from the earliest times the employment of women of the
higher social classes within doors. Although the women of the laboring
classes are employed extensively in the fields there is always an
apparent tendency for them to center their activities about the hearth.
The performance of out-door tasks among women is determined as much by
their class status as sex status. The outdoor work of women resulted
less from the tyranny of one sex over another than from the tyranny of
one class over another. Whatever the lot of the women field laborers,
the lot of their husbands and brothers was little better.

The difference between the status of men and women is estimated by
the nature of their work when engaged in the same general occupation
as agriculture. Women seem to be deprived of the element of choice in
their work since they perform the most monotonous and uninteresting
tasks, and the men perform the work allowing for the greatest play
of individuality and skill. How much this division of work is due
to differences of authority, and how much to the difference in the
assumption of responsibility, is difficult to say. It is certainly more
convenient for women not to assume responsibilities for out-door work
when they have to care for small children; and what may be attributed
to an exercise of authority of men over women, may be due to custom
having its basis in convenience. It is interesting to note that in
practically all civilized societies women are the first to profit by
any change doing away with the necessity of all the members of the
family being employed in the field. This fact alone would indicate
a common recognition of the necessity of protecting women from the
severest work for the good of the race. It may have its basis, too, in
the inherent chivalry of man toward woman.


FOOTNOTES:

[13] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 53.

[14] Hobhouse, _Evolution of Morals_, I, p. 189.

[15] Sayce, _Babylonians and Assyrians_.

[16] Fisher, _The Beginnings of Christianity_, p. 199.

[17] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, II, p. 484.

[18] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, I, p. 91.

“The grown up son might establish a separate household or, as the
Romans expressed it, maintain his own cattle (perculium) assigned to
him by his father; but in law all that the son acquired, whether by
his own labour or by gift from a stranger, whether in his father’s
household or in his own, remained the father’s property.”

[19] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, I, p. 93.

[20] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, II, p. 484-5.

[21] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, I, p. 89.

[22] Durny, _History of Rome_, I. Sec. 1, pp. 54-55.

[23] Guizot, _History of Civilization_, I, pp. 92-93.

[24] Guizot, _History of Civilization_, VI, p. 91.

[25] Green, _Town Life in the Fifteenth Century_, p. 264-5.

[26] Ostrogorski, _The Right of Women_, p. 2.

[27] Green, _Town Life in the Fifteenth Century_, II, p. 88.

[28] Denton, _England in the Fifteenth Century_, pp. 219-220.

[29] Toynbee, _The Industrial Revolution_, p. 15.

[30] Toynbee, _The Industrial Revolution_, p. 181.

[31] Cheyney, _Industrial and Social History of England_, p. 206.

[32] Toynbee, _The Industrial Revolution_, p. 88.

[33] Toynbee, _The Industrial Revolution_, p. 186.

[34] Hart, _National Ideals Historically Traced_, pp. 188-189.




CHAPTER III

THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON THE HOMES OF THE WORKING POOR


Under the domestic system of industry the lord or the master assumed a
moral responsibility for the welfare of his working people. It was his
recognized duty to care for them when in distress. Although this system
of industry centered great power in the hands of a few, and admitted
of great abuse, it relieved the workman of a sense of responsibility
for the future. With the introduction of machinery, this protection
afforded by the master ceased along with the servitude of the worker.
A prop was removed from the working people as well as a weight. The
immediate result was almost disastrous.

Under the old domestic system there was little encouragement of
individual initiative, and the routine of life was subject to few,
if any, disturbances that thrust great responsibilities upon the
individual. Initiative was a characteristic of the master but the poor
worker was taught obedience from the cradle. He was never stimulated
nor encouraged to start out on a new line for himself. In other
words, he and his family were protected from the uncertainties and
responsibilities imposed upon the modern workman. His standard of
living was necessarily low. Hunger was not unknown, but it was apt to
be a hunger common to all in his class, and so seemingly inevitable,
rather than a hunger endured by his family because of his failure in
the every day industrial struggle.

The cheapened cost of production of machine industry played havoc
with the small domestic manufacturer. His employees were forced into
the cities to compete for work at the machine a new experience which
was markedly reflected in the homes of the workers. The industrial
conditions of the domestic workers in England when forced to compete
with machine industry, were similar to those pictured by Dawson when he
says of Germany, “the condition of the house workers in most country
districts is lamentable, and in towns it is not much better. It would,
indeed, be difficult to exaggerate the misery which has for years been
the lot of this class of workers. There, as in Silesia, a hand-weaver
is glad to earn 5s. or 6s. for work which occupies nine days of from
sixteen to eighteen hours (less than a halfpenny per hour), while his
wife toils six hours a day for three weeks to complete a web which will
bring her an equal sum, the problem how to make ends meet suggests to
the social economist many reflections.”[35]

The bringing together of laborers into industrial centers deprived
them of the use of land for agricultural purposes. This increased the
laborer’s dependence upon industrial conditions, and upon his employer.
His employer was now an individual tending to be indifferent to his
employe’s well-being and considering him only as so much labor power to
be utilized for his advantage.

The laborer found his relations to his new master purely economic, and
he himself responsible for his personal welfare and the welfare of his
family. His sickness and misfortune, though of social importance, was
no longer of economic importance to his employer since the supply of
labor equalled or exceeded the demand for it.

A few individuals profited by the breaking down of class barriers,
and asserted an individuality in harmony with economic conditions.
But the bulk of the people, either from sheer inefficiency or lack of
opportunity failed to get a foot-hold and constituted a class easily
exploited by the more successful.

The literature of the period of transition pictures vividly the
sufferings endured by the families of the workers. The poverty and
misery of thousands resulting from the adjustment to machine industry
appealed to all classes of society, and while the essayists and
novelists made a pathetic appeal to the general public, the economists
attempted in vain to suggest some alleviation for the existing distress.

The poorest class of workers was composed largely of persons who
were highly skilled in the handicraft stage, but were now forced into
occupations requiring little training, and open to labor formerly
considered inefficient. Not only was the number of persons needed to
turn out the finished product much smaller than formerly, but the work
formerly done by men could be done by women and children.

The labor of women was in greater demand than that of men. “In 1839,
of 31,632 employees in the worsted mills, 18,416, or considerably more
than half, were under eighteen years of age, and of the 13,216 adults,
10,192 were women, leaving only 3,024 adult men among more than 30,000
laborers.”[36]

Although cheap labor lowered the cost of production, it did not
benefit the laborer who helped to bring it about, for his standard of
consumption was below that which his production represented. His work
supplied a higher demand than that of his class, and what was his loss
was another’s gain. The greatest benefit of cheapened production fell
to those classes not depending for their living upon their manual work,
or, who received good wages by virtue of the demand for their skill.

Nowhere are the degenerating possibilities that lurk in industrial
changes more plainly seen than in the homes of the unskilled workers in
England early in the nineteenth century. With the introduction of the
factory system the home in many cases became merely a place to sleep
and eat. Miss Orne pictures the home life of poor families where man
and wife are employed.

In the chain, nail and bolt making industries man and wife stood
over the same forge, doing practically the same work for they often
exchanged work to break the monotony of their toil. But the wife “took
care of the home in addition to factory work.”

The married women appear to be as numerous as the unmarried. There is
a general custom in the district for boys and girls of 17 or so to
marry, and for each to continue at work, living in the homes of their
respective parents. Older married women are generally found in the
small workshop of the husband or some near relation.[37]

With few exceptions the “homes belonging to women who work either
in factories or home work shops are very nearly desolate. The meals
consist of bread and butter and tea, with a little cold bacon for
dinner. The tea is made from a kettle heated at the forge, and thus
the cares of the housekeeping are reduced to a minimum. There is no
knowledge of cooking, and therefore no variety of diet. The children
troup into the workshop as they come from school, and in fact, there is
no home life at all.”[38]

Such homes are typical of workers where the husband and wife are
compelled to enter the factory in order to feed and clothe themselves
and their children. Many of them are ignorant--possess little authority
and are indifferent to the exercises of the authority they do possess.
Their work does not allow them sufficient energy nor do the financial
returns afford them the needed nourishment for a healthy body and mind.

What is true of England is true of all countries where modern methods
of industry are practiced, and where the state has not taken steps to
check the evils arising out of the system.

Gohre, who has made a careful study of a large manufacturing
establishment in industrial Saxony says, “Think for a moment of the
incomes and the homes of the working men as I have described them;
under such conditions it becomes almost impossible for the average man
to realize the beautiful old Christian ideal of the family, about which
we hear so much from the pulpit, let him try as he may * * * Think how
the daily struggle for existence often compels the daily absence of
both parents from the home, as well as the presence of strangers in
the household, sometimes coarse and lawless people, and how this must
interfere with any sort of regular training of the children.”[39]

Keeping boarders and lodgers--especially lodgers--is a common method of
increasing the income of the family. High rent imposes upon them the
necessity of resorting to some measure to increase the income of the
family above that which represents the remuneration of the father for
his daily toil. The burden of keeping boarders and lodgers falls upon
the wife, but this source of income is seldom added when estimating the
amount contributed by the wife to the family income.

Many of the evil effects of mothers being employed in factories is
apparent to all, but the crowding of the home with strangers is no
less disastrous to family life. The economic goal is the only possible
one and the family loses its ethical purpose. The Pittsburgh Survey
emphasized the effect of overcrowding the home. “As half of the family
use the kitchen for sleeping, there is a close mingling of the lodgers
with the family which endangers the children’s morals. In only four
instances were there girls over fourteen found in the families taking
lodgers, but even the younger children learn evil quickly from the free
spoken men. One man in a position to know the situation intimately,
spoke of the appalling familiarity with vice among children in these
families.”[40]

In the city of York, England, the wages paid for unskilled work are
often insufficient to provide food, shelter, and clothing for a family
of moderate size, “in a state of bare physical efficiency.” Of the
income of those families receiving less than 18s weekly the women
contribute 50 per cent and the men 8 per cent. The small proportion
contributed by the men of the household is due to a large number of
families in which the father is either dead or sick. Where the income
is 18s and under 21s per week and the family of a moderate size the
male heads of the family contribute 76 per cent and the female head of
the household 13.3 per cent. With the increase of the weekly earnings
of the men, women contribute less and less.[41]

The investigation of Mr. Rowntree shows conclusively that married women
of the poorest classes do not engage in industry outside the home for
the sake of pin money. They work because circumstances compel them to
do so, and just as soon as the economic pressure is somewhat relieved
married women remain in their homes.

The statement is made in Women’s Work and Wages, that “Nearly all the
home makers who answered the question as to why they worked gave one
of three reasons. The most frequent was that the husband’s wages were
either too small or too irregular to keep the home. Fifty-two per cent
gave their answer in many varying forms, of which a frequent one was,
‘It is all very well at first, but what are you to do when you have
three or four children like little steps around you?’”

“Others had worked all their lives; if the husband is a labourer
earning at best 18s. per week and liable to many weeks without work, no
other course seems possible.”[42]

Miss Collet says, “I have never yet come across a married woman in the
working classes with such eagerness for pocket-money that she would
work for it at the rate of 1/2d or 1d an hour. Whenever I found women
who said they worked at very low rates they have been working for their
living and for that of their children; their husbands have always been
men disabled or out of work.”[43]

Frequently the wife of the unskilled worker does not go to the factory;
her work is brought to her in her home. This is a great convenience
to her for it enables her to remain with her children who are often
too small to be left alone and it is impossible to take them to the
factory. “The women who take work home from ware-houses, factories, or
sub-contracting agents are, with comparatively few exceptions, married
or widowed, if we exclude from consideration that large class described
as dressmakers or seamstresses. The home workers are to be found in
every grade of society among the wage-earning class; in the home of
the middle-class clerk and in the room of the dock laborer; rarely, I
think, in the tradesmen class, where wives can add to the family income
more effectually by assisting in the management of the shop.”[44]

The taking of work into the home is to the advantage of the employer
as well as to the immediate advantage of the employee. It saves the
employer rent and tools and procures him cheaper labor. Women can
afford to work for less under their own roof when it is a question
of working for less or not at all. These women do not often compete
with men, for their work is the poorest paid and the least skilled.
Few men compete with women in the lower grades of work unless they
are physically unable to compete with men for the better kinds of
employments. On the other hand women usually perform some branch of
work which is wholly abandoned to them by the men and they refrain,
whether willingly or not, from engaging in the branches monopolized by
their male rivals.[45]

The advantages of cheap production do not often fall to this class of
laboring women. Says Mrs. Campbell, “The emancipation of women is well
under way, when all underwear can be bought more cheaply than it is
possible to make it up at home, and simple suits of very good material
make it hardly more difficult for women to clothe herself without
thought or worry, than it has long been for men. This is the word heard
at a woman’s club not long ago, and reinforced within a week by two
well-known journals edited in the interests of women at large.”

The emancipation on the one side has meant no corresponding
emancipation for the other; and as one woman selects, well pleased,
garment after garment, daintily tucked and trimmed and finished beyond
any capacity of home sewing, marveling a little that a few dollars can
give such lavish return, there arises, from narrow attic and dark, foul
basement, and crowded factory, the cry of the women whose life blood is
on these garments. Through burning scorching days of summer; through
marrow-piercing cold of winter, in hunger and rags with white faced
children at their knees, crying for more bread, or, silent from long
weakness, looking with blank eyes at the flying needle, these women
toil on, twelve, fourteen, sixteen hours even, before the fixed task is
done.[46]

After a careful study of one of the thickly populated working
districts in New York, Mrs. More says, “As the children grow older
and require less of her care at home, the mother takes in sewing or
goes out washing, secures a janitor’s place, cleans offices, and
does whatever she can to increase the weekly income. She feels this
to be her duty, and often it is necessary, but frequently it has a
disastrous effect on the ambition of the husband. As soon as he sees
that the wife can help support the family, his interest and sense
of responsibility are likely to lessen, and he works irregularly or
spends more on himself. There are, of course, many families in which
this united income is needed, when the man’s illness or incapacity
makes it imperative for the wife to help. Sometimes it is due to
thrift and ambition to save money for the future, or for some definite
purpose. Charitable societies generally deplore the prevalence of this
custom because of its economic and moral results on the head of the
family.”[47]

The British Board of Trade, in its report on French towns, says: “With
regard to the wives’ earnings it may be observed that their importance
is not limited to the towns in which textile industries predominate.
In 51 per cent of all the families from which budgets were obtained
the wives were contributors; the proportion was highest at Rome (a
town largely dependent on the cotton trade,) where it was no less than
82 per cent.” Of Germany the report says, “A large proportion of the
home workers are married women, who in this way seek to supplement the
earnings of the chief bread-winner, and are only able to devote odd
hours to the work. How largely the custom of home working is a result
of poverty may be concluded from a statement made in a memorial lately
addressed to the Berlin Tramway Company by its employees. The tramway
employee is unfortunately unable to dispense with the earnings of his
wife, even in normal domestic conditions, if he would maintain his
family properly. The wife has really no choice in the matter. So, too,
of 2,051 municipal employees interrogated on the subject in 1905. 416
or 20.2 per cent replied that their wives worked for money, 170 at
charring, 161 as home workers, and 17 in factories, and 68 in other
ways.”[48]

In spite of their economic independence the status of the women among
the working poor is lower than the status of the women of any other
social class. They suffer more from oppression, and their position is
little higher than that of the women of the Australia aborigines among
whom man has the power of life and death over his wife and children.
It is true, the state restricts the power of the husband over the wife
and secures for her certain personal rights the Australian savages
are ignorant of, but she has a new master in modern industry which
virtually exercises over her a power of life and death untempered by
sympathy and mutual interest. Degeneracy and elimination such as was
never known in primitive society would result if the more fortunately
situated economic classes did not interfere.


FOOTNOTES:

[35] Dawson, _German Life in Town and Country_, p. 50.

[36] Cheyney, _Industrial and Social History of England_, p. 287.

[37] Orne, Eliza, _Conditions of Women in the Nail, Chain and Bolt
Making Industries_.

[38] _Ibid_, p. 574.

[39] Gohre, _Three Months in a Workshop_, p. 190.

[40] _Charities and Commons_, Feb. 6, 1909, p. 916.

[41] Rowntree, _Poverty, A Study of Town Life_, pp. 39, 54.

[42] Cadbury, Edward; Matheson, M. Cecile; Shann, George. _Women’s Work
and Wages._

[43] Booth, _Life and Labor of The People_, IV, p. 801.

[44] Booth, _Labour and Life of the People_, IV, p. 295.

[45] Webb, _Problems In Modern Industry_, p. 75.

[46] Campbell, _Prisoners of Poverty_, pp. 30-1.

[47] More, _Wage Earners’ Budgets_, pp. 83, 87.

[48] _Cost of Living in French Towns_, 1909, p. XVI; _Cost of Living in
German Towns_, 1908, p. 11.




CHAPTER IV

THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON THE HOMES OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS
WORKERS


The middle class worker is a worker whose remuneration is sufficient to
allow him to maintain a plane of living commonly considered adequate
for his physical well being.

His employment is not necessarily in the skilled trades, for many of
the skilled workers are kept on a margin of bare subsistence, while
many unskilled workers are able to enjoy a considerable degree of
comfort. So much depends upon the economic conditions of a country or
section, and the demand for and supply of labor that a classification
according to occupation or remuneration would not be feasible.

In congested cities where the cost of living is high, employment
uncertain, and labor plentiful, the unskilled worker frequently finds
it impossible to live and enjoy the simple comforts and decencies of
life. On the other hand, in newly settled communities, where labor
is scarce and opportunities many, the unskilled worker is often able
to accumulate property and to give his children advantages usually
confined to the prosperous business class in a large city.

Hence, in discussing the middle class worker, he will be considered as
a man having sufficient pay, irrespective of his occupation, or the
occupation of his family to enjoy a plane of living generally accepted
as necessary to a normal and healthful life.

Peoples that make any progress constantly press toward an ideal.
This ideal is the standard--so to speak--accepted by all classes to
a certain extent, reflected in the schools, churches and all other
social institutions. It is a part of the spirit of the age. To judge
a class by any other standard, to expect its members to embrace the
ideals held by their ancestors because we think it more in keeping
with their financial circumstances, is as unfair as it is illogical.
It is expecting of others what we feel no one has a right to expect of
us. To share in the benefits of our social institutions and the advance
they make from year to year is a right claimed by all irrespective
of class, that a woman no longer “contented with bare floors and tin
dishes,” or even ingrain carpets and porcelain, or a blue calico gown
and white apron for an afternoon social function, does not signify she
is losing her sense of the fitness of things but that she no longer
lives in an age of bare floors and tin dishes and that she too has
through imitation shared in the rise of material standards. When a
class departs from a seemingly sensible course, it is more often a
joining of the procession of imitators and if the example is not worthy
of imitation, the fault is further up the line.

The middle class worker has as his goal the social class just ahead of
him. He is following a standard he did not establish, but he must go
with the current or drift back. One cannot long stand still.

In the last chapter was discussed a class of workers who have little,
if any, freedom in the choice of a plane of living. Their poverty is so
great that outside of the civilizing forces afforded by the community,
gratis to all, they merely exist. We now come to a class of workers
who possess those qualities of character which determine the type of
civilization of a country and from whom have come the progressive
movements tending toward the general uplift of humanity. They are the
real fighters. They stand on a side hill and fight both ways--fight
to keep from being shoved down the hill and to gain an inch on the
upgrade. They are neither exclusively the victims nor the beneficiaries
of the economic regime.

The home of the middle-class worker contains all the elements of
change characteristic of the age, and the success or failure of the
breadwinner in the economic struggle determines the degree to which
these elements are developed. To apply a test to their respective
values would be unfair unless the same test were applied to the
families of the higher social classes. What will be attempted will
be to trace the influence of economic changes upon the home and the
resulting change in the status of the wife.

Whatever struggle the workingman engages in involves the destiny of
those dependent upon him for subsistence. His success determines
their plane of living, and their interests are identical with his. In
no other class do we see the home so complete an economic unit. The
individual is often completely lost sight of in deference to the family
interests. There is a recognized division of work between the husband
and wife. The common object is the economic well-being of the family,
and although there may not be sufficient economic liberty to enable
them to choose the work most congenial, they gain by the increased
strength brought about by their close co-operation.

The husband offers his services for money; the wife remains at home
administering to the needs of the family. Her work is of a productive
nature satisfying the primary needs of those about her. She prepares
the food for consumption, makes the clothing for the family and engages
in numberless pursuits--all of which have real economic value to
the family. This is the prevailing ideal of the middle class family
of today, but like many other social ideals is found only under the
most favorable conditions. We find it in many rural communities, or
communities half urban and half rural. Much depends upon the extent to
which manufacturing is carried on in the vicinity, the facilities for
transportation and the price of the commodities brought into the home
as substitutes for the wife’s handiwork.

In countries where labor is cheaper than the use of machinery, the
home has retained its function as a center of production. Under such
circumstances life is simple and wants necessarily few. In some
communities women still do all the spinning and weaving, the making
of the clothing, and the preparation of all foods for consumption.
This type of family especially when it owns the ground it occupies,
represents a self-sufficing economic unit, such as was characteristic
of the period of domestic industry before the era of machinery.

In the early colonial days of the United States many homes represented
the best of European civilization in their culture and ideals.
But economically they represented an earlier industrial stage.
Specialization and co-operation were not practiced, and all the
hardships were felt that characterized a domestic system of industry. A
farmer said in 1787 “At this time my farm gave me and my whole family
a good living on the produce of it, and left me one year with another
one hundred and fifty silver dollars, for I never spent more than ten
dollars a year which was for salt, nails, and the like. Nothing to eat
or wear was bought, as my farm provided all.”[49]

Undoubtedly the duties of the farmer’s wife differed little from those
of the German woman in the 18th century whose husband lauded her in
the following words. “Our cheese and butter, apples, pears, and plums,
fresh or dry, were all of her own preparation.... Her pickles (fruit
preserved in vinegar) excelled anything I ever ate, and I do not know
how she could make the vinegar so incomparable. Every year she made
bitter drops for the stomach. She prepared her elderberry wine herself,
and better peppermint than hers was found in no convent. During all
our married life no one brought a penny-worth of medicine from the
apothecary”....[50]

The introduction of the factory product into the home was a slow
process, and was stubbornly resisted. If it were left to choice we
would still be clinging to the home-made article with a tenacity
more creditable to our conservatism than our judgment. Fortunately,
necessity forces men to change their habits. At present many of the
occupations followed by our grandmothers have left the home for all
time, and we have become reconciled to the change.

Whatever changes have taken place in the home are reflections of
changes taking place outside the home. When war ceased to be the
occupation of all men a large amount of productive energy was released
and woman’s sphere of activities became more limited. She was probably
just as busy as when the field work fell to her lot, and her work was
equally productive. What really took place was the gratification of a
wider circle of wants. When the field had its quota of workers, there
was a surplus of male labor to be applied to the indoor work. As we
have seen in an earlier chapter, men again invaded woman’s field of
work and assumed industrial occupations formerly associated with the
fireside. It was not long before there was a marked change in the
industrial unit, but in spite of the fact that men performed a great
deal of indoor work when the home was a diminutive factory, the family
group lost none of its compactness. Practically all the needs of the
family were supplied by its own individual workers.

Soon man learned the advantage of the division of labor. He gave
certain portions of his work to be done by his neighbor, and this
portion tended to constantly increase. It was not long before he had
but one occupation and it alone did not produce a finished product. It
still had to be passed on to another worker before it was ready for
consumption. This division of labor necessitated a medium of exchange.
He received money for the large supply of goods he produced over and
above his family needs, and with this money he purchased those articles
which he and his family formerly produced on their own plot of ground
and under their own roof.

How about woman’s work? Instead of producing more of a kind, as the men
did, she produced the same amount, and the leisure falling to her lot
by virtue of certain industries being taken out of the home was applied
to new forms of production. She was just as busy as ever. There arose a
greater variety of wants and it was for her to satisfy them.

The process might have gone on from generation to generation with no
marked change except a progressive one. The wife might continue to work
in the home, and as her productive employments departed to the factory
she might substitute others. Wants of a higher nature would demand her
constantly increasing time. But what did happen was that the factory
constantly made inroads upon the work of the home while the money
income of the family remained unaffected.

The income of the family did not tend to increase in the same
proportion as the cost of maintaining the accustomed plane of
living. This forced men into combination for self protection, these
combinations taking the form of trade-unions.

The women who followed their work into the factory were the least
fortunate. It was only where the men had lost their footing in the
economic struggle that the women offered their services outside of
the home for a wage. They were the least efficient workers, and least
able to protect themselves from a ruthless exploitation. The women
who remained at home were the more fortunate in their matrimonial
relations, for their husbands were still able to provide for their
families, and the family social group was not disturbed. The women
continued to can their fruit and to make their garments. The home was
not less a home than under the old domestic system of industry but
more a home, for the number and variety of wants had increased and the
standard of living had been raised.

Thus we see that the industrial evolution has had one of two effects
upon the homes of the working class. It has forced thousands of women
and children into the factories, many of whom make up the ranks of the
“submerged tenth” or the population in a “slum” district. They were
economically the weakest, hence were easy victims of a _laissez faire_
economic regime. Their homes spelled retrogression in the evolution of
the race, for they constituted the most unfit type in the industrial
evolution.

Those who were not victims of the economic regime benefited, at least
in some measure, by the decreased cost of production. The wives of the
men who were able, either alone or through trade association, to hold
their own in the economic struggle gradually ceased to be drudges.
Every time the factory invaded the home to deprive it of one more
of its industries, the wife either was forced to follow her work,
or gained an increased amount of leisure to be applied in her home
as she saw fit. Upon each encroachment of the factory upon the home
there followed a weeding-out process and a few more women became wage
earners. This process has gone on from decade to decade, and excepting
in a few individual cases, women have been helpless in determining
their fate. Excepting where they went to the factory they did not
affect the economic situation of the time. They adapted themselves
to circumstances as best they could, and had no other conception of
the economic situation than that the money income of the family had
increased or decreased. At only one period in their lives did they and
their parents realize they had a voice in their economic destiny, and
that was when they chose their life companions. They appreciated the
importance of a competent bread-winner. For this reason man’s economic
status has always been important in winning a bride. Indeed many sins
of his past have been forgiven because he was able “to make her a good
living.”

In the countries of Europe where the evolution of industry has run
its full painful course from the beginning, the middle class workers
are losing ground. Their numbers have relatively decreased, and as a
class they are protesting loudly through their organizations against
conditions that make the old ideal of the family well nigh impossible.
Many of the single men emigrate to countries offering greater
opportunities to working men, thus leaving the young women to win for
themselves a footing in the industrial life outside the home. Neither
men nor women wish to lose their social status by virtue of failure in
the economic struggle, and so they meet the problem separately and on
different continents.

Those countries not yet fully exploited profit by the courage and
individualism of the north European immigrant. The high price of
labor in consequence of its scarcity made possible a plane of living
beyond the dreams of the home folks, and with this higher standard of
consumption has gone invariably a degree of culture, self improvement,
and self confidence which stood them in good stead at a later day. When
the community became thickly settled and the old industrial problems
arose women did not show the same inclination to go to the factory,
or to lower their plane of consumption to meet the decreased income
of the family, but sought the professions as avenues for industrial
employment. They did not lose social caste and there was a real
economic gain. The United States census report of 1900 says “women as
a class are engaging more generally in those occupations which are
supposed to represent a higher grade in the social scale.” Undoubtedly
the next census report will make this still more apparent.[51]

The women of the United States have greater educational opportunities
than the women of any other country, and when these opportunities are
taken advantage of, they show a like inclination with men to desert
those employments which call for the least skill, and pay the smallest
wage. They assert an independence characteristic of the better classes,
and assume they have a right to a social status a little higher than
their income permits.

This is especially true of the married women. If they enjoy an option
between remaining at home or entering the industrial field, they tend
to be more independent as to hours of labor, and the wages they will
accept. Free, in a large measure, from pressing economic necessity,
they are in a better position to dictate terms than the unmarried women
or the men of their class.

And yet these same married women are considered by their employers
as desirable workers. They tend to be steadier than their unmarried
sisters, and show greater concentration in their work. The secretary
of one of the large glove maker’s union said of the factory in which
she was employed. “When a good worker marries, her place is kept open
for her for several weeks so that she can return within a reasonable
time if she so desires. And she nearly always comes.” Not hunger drives
her back into the factory, but a preference for the industry in which
she has acquired a degree of skill over an industry like housework of
which she knows little, and for which she cares less. From a financial
point of view, it is cheaper for her to hire some one to perform the
distasteful household tasks while she takes her place at her husband’s
side in the factory. There is much to be said for the social advantages
of her work. Once in the home she loses her old associations and finds
herself in an environment which offers little entertainment outside of
her romantic dreams. When these vanish she longs for her old companions
and reënters the factory which, to her, spells industrial freedom, and
a fuller life.

Many wives of the middle class workers are still engaged in work
also carried on in factories. The latter have not yet attained that
cheapness of production which makes it a waste of time for the
housewife to compete with them. But the attractive rates offered
by laundries for “plain pieces,” and the bargain counters in the
basements of large department stores produce a sigh of relief and the
remark “women have it easier now days than they used to.” Few see the
relation between this cheapened cost of production and wages, for the
breadwinner in all probability belongs to the skilled trades, and the
small wage brought home by the daughter is considered pure gain.

While the home of the poorest paid worker gives no evidence of luxury
and the wife’s time is employed in satisfying the wants which have
to do with the preparation of food and clothing in their elementary
stages, much of the energy of the home maker of the better paid worker
is applied to maintaining a higher standard of living.

Wants a century ago were comparatively limited, but under the influence
of modern democratic conditions they have increased many fold. They
most often take the form of a greater variety of food and clothing, or
the satisfying of the spiritual, intellectual and artistic desires.
The newspapers, the magazines, the entire business world seem to have
entered into a conspiracy to separate the working man from his small
savings. Business depends largely upon its success in stimulating the
desires of its patrons. Even our educational system makes every effort
to stimulate higher cultural desires, which inevitably call for a
greater expenditure of money.

These wants spread among the masses with great rapidity, and their
gratification depends upon economic resources. The demands are
generally felt first in the home. Many women attempt to satisfy them by
their labor so that there is little danger of idleness on the part of
the homeworker of this class as long as wants of this nature increase
more rapidly than the desire for leisure. If their labor has a money
value in the labor market it becomes a luxury when performed for their
families, which could not afford to pay for these services at a very
low cost. Only where the financial means of the families are sufficient
to do without the help of the women in providing the necessities of
life, can this new standard of life be maintained.

Hand in hand with the expansion of wants must go an increase of
the money income of the family unless the cost of production has
correspondingly cheapened. If not, the family is living beyond its
means. The income of the family must be increased either by increasing
the wages of men or by the wives and mothers entering the industrial
field. Since to lower one’s standard of consumption is to lose one’s
social status, it is considered far better to engage in some reputable
employment outside the home, even though it entails continuous toil
from morning until night.

The difficulty is not always met in the same way. In one community it
may be perfectly proper for a married woman to continue her stenography
after marriage while in another it would entail social ostracism. Often
small economies are practiced in the home where no one is the wiser.

In France “the sitting-room is apt to be shut up all the week in the
interest of the furniture, and only opened on the single afternoon
the lady of the house is supposed to be at home to her friends. Then
in winter, just before the hour of reception, the meagre wood-fire is
set ablaze, and sometimes tea is prepared, along with biscuits far
from fresh. You may be thankful--if tea is to be offered you, a rare
occurence--should the tea be no staler than the biscuits.”[52]

We need not go to France for illustrations, for even in democratic
America expensive table service does not necessarily imply an abundance
of food. Where men’s incomes do not compensate for the decreased
economic value of women’s work in the home, the problem is as pathetic
as the one faced by the aristocracy of Cranford.

“The present relation of incomes to wants may be seen more clearly in
the case of single men and women than in that of families. In the life
of both sexes there is a lengthening period between the beginning of
the working years and the marriage age, where the standards of the
individuals are directly made by their income. Whatever they are they
are carried into marriage; if the first epoch is one of advance, the
second is likely to be also.”[53]

Of Fall River it is said that “the impulse which makes a married woman
continue to work in the mill may be far less urgent in the economic
sense and simultaneously far more urgent in the social sense.” And
further on they tell us, “These Fall River women are women of a fine
kind. They are highly skilled for women. They are well paid for women.
They are intelligent, attractive, ambitious.”[54]

The woman who still “finds plenty to do at home,” and the woman who has
become part of the industrial world represent two types of homes common
in the middle class. There is still a third. It is the woman who lives
in a modern apartment and can take full advantage of all the industrial
changes that minimize her work. Probably Patten has her in mind when he
says “Once the household industries gave to the staying-home woman a
fair share of the labor, but today they are few, and the ‘home-maker’
suffers under enforced idleness, ungratified longing, and no productive
time-killing.... Heredity has not been making idleness good for women
while it has been making work good for men. Valuable qualities are
developed by toil, and women improve as do men under the discipline of
rewards.”[55]

Thus we have the three types of women in the middle class and there is
a marked difference in the social attitude toward them. The woman who
is busy in her home is looked upon as a vanishing type. The idle woman
is viewed doubtfully. She is thought of as enjoying a leisure which
she, as a member of the middle class is not entitled to. Her idleness
weighs more on the social conscience than the idleness of the woman
of wealth. And justly so; for her past stands for many of the better
things of our civilization which we cherish as ideals, and to see her
become an idler is to witness a growing waste of energy which was
previously utilized to the great advantage of society. She is already
beginning to ask “What can I do?” lest public sentiment should condemn
her for her social parasitism.

It is the middle class woman who goes to work--whether married or
single--who is arousing her sex from lethargy that threatens race
degeneracy. She is taking her place with the men in trying to solve
industrial and social problems. Her home life tends to represent a
newer ideal. She often is not only the companion of her husband in the
home but in the business world as well; a source of economic strength
instead of weakness. What becomes of the children of these families?
This question brings up the subject of “race-suicide” which will be
discussed in another chapter.


FOOTNOTES:

[49] Earle, Alice More, _Home Life in Colonial Days_, p. 158.

[50] Dawson, _Germany and the Germans_, Vol. I, p. 96.

[51] _United States Census Report_, 1900, p. CCXXIII.

[52] Lynch, _French Life in Town and Country_, p. 188.

[53] Patten, _New Basis of Civilization_, p. 193.

[54] William Hard; Rheta Childe Dorr, _The Woman’s Invasion_,
Everybody’s Magazine, Nov., 1908.

[55] Patten, _New Basis of Civilization_, pp. 193-4.




CHAPTER V

WOMEN OF LEISURE


Many laboring women are benefited by the transition of work from the
home to the factory, or the introduction of new industries which were
never allied to the home but represent an entirely new venture into
the business world. But distinct from these, there is a class of women
who reap the benefits of present industrial conditions in a greater or
less degree by virtue of their parasitic relations to some man. These
are the women “to whom leisure has come unsought, a free gift of the
new industrial order.... Never before in the history of civilization
have women enjoyed leisure comparable to that which falls to the lot of
those in comfortable circumstances in America.”[56]

The new era of industrialism has brought into prominence a large class
of successful or partially successful business men whose financial
remuneration is sufficient to allow their homes to be adapted to all
the industrial changes which lighten household tasks. The husband’s
economic importance is often marked, and there is no necessity for the
wife to add to the income of the family. She profits by the development
of new industries in the business world which supersede those carried
on in the home and her demand for the output of the new industry is
no small item in determining its success. She is not deterred from
trying the new because of the financial outlay it involves. She
welcomes the era of canned meats and vegetables; the new uses of gas
and electricity, and the application of compressed air for cleaning
purposes. She is the household innovator in a conservative society.

She knows that whatever advantage her husband wins in the industrial
field, increases the possibility of her leisure rather than his own.
For whatever time the business man may gain for himself, it is most
often utilized to increase the volume of his business. By virtue of
his success his wife can afford to take advantage of home industry
performed by people outside her home. The results are evident. It is no
longer necessary to hire a large number of servants in the household
to carry on the productive industries. The word _servant_ is rapidly
becoming synonymous with menial, for personal services, as household
tasks, are being divorced from production.

The compensation for the absence of the servants in the home is the
ability to purchase the finished article outside the home.

In the earlier stages of production, few women were idle, for if
they themselves were not actually engaged in production within the
home, they were called upon to supervise the tasks performed by their
underlings. But modern industry has not only freed many women from
productive work within the home, but released others from the necessity
of managing large households. Responsibility has been shifted from
the home to the business world. This shifting of responsibility so
apparent in production can be also perceived in those activities which
are closely allied to consumption. The business world is no respecter
of tradition. Wherever financial opportunity presents itself, business
takes hold.

We are accustomed to close our eyes and not admit the possibility of
change until it is upon us. Our immediate past presents to us the
pleasing spectacle of a domestic wife, her head encircled with a halo.
More often this vision is that of _mother_, the memory of whom is
associated with some form of domestic activity. But time makes changes
and now the successful business man is expected to shield his wife
from all irksome employments; and no matter how much he or his wife
cherishes the occupations of the last generation, tradition does not
prevent the courting of comfort and leisure when possible. Hence all
employments dealing with consumption are willingly transferred to the
business world, and the lady of the house becomes indeed a lady of
leisure.

Of course there are exceptions. There are families of wealth that
persist in clinging to occupations closely allied to the home in the
immediate past. The preservation and preparation of foods, the making
of all articles of clothing, including hosiery, are still the work of
a few households, and it is clung to with an affection and a loyalty
indicating the close mental association of these occupations with the
idea of home.

Nevertheless, time continues to bring about an adjustment of family
life to economic life. The better-to-do classes tend to flock to family
hotels and apartment houses and the new generation laughs at the fears
and prophecies of the old. The possibility of a higher plane of comfort
at less cost is too much for even the conservative man. He cherishes
his ideal of family life, and would gladly enforce it upon society in
general, but often he thinks circumstances justify the discrepancy
between this theory and his practice. He frequently gives up his
separate dwelling, and takes advantage of modern business methods
of extensive co-operation. Thus specialization and co-operation are
freeing many women from household responsibilities and are bringing
about for some the possibility of idleness.

The theory that women have suffered and are still suffering from the
tyranny of men does not seem sound when one considers that the women
of the well-to-do classes are always the first to benefit by a surplus
of leisure. Many men work eight or more hours a day while their wives
are not obliged to perform any kind of work. The women’s time is
their own and their husbands resent neither their leisure nor their
idleness. This indifference on the part of men to the complete economic
dependence of women has its basis in sex, out of which arose a feeling
of responsibility for the protection of the family, at first from
enemies and later from economic cares.

The employments of the women of the leisure class are tersely stated
by Veblen when he says of the well-to-do household: “Under a mandatory
code of decency, the time and effort of the members of such a household
are required to be ostensibly all spent in a performance of conspicuous
leisure, in the way of calls, drives, clubs, sewing-circles, sports,
charity organizations, and other like social functions. Those persons
whose time and energy are employed in these matters privately avow that
all these observances, as well as the incidental attention to dress
and other conspicuous consumption, are very irksome but altogether
unavoidable. Under the requirement of conspicuous consumption of
goods, the apparatus of living has grown so elaborate and cumbrous,
in the way of dwellings, furniture, bric-a-brac, wardrobe, and meals,
that the consumers of these things cannot make way with them in the
required manner without help. Personal contact with the hired persons
whose aid is called in to fulfill the routine of decencies is commonly
distasteful to the occupants of the house, but their presence is
endured and paid for, in order to delegate to them a share in this
generous consumption of household goods. The presence of domestic
servants, and of the special class of body servants in an eminent
degree, is a concession of physical comfort to the moral need of
pecuniary decency.”[57]

The status of the women of leisure is social rather than economic. It
has its basis in the economic strength of the husband but the social
status of the wife is far superior to that of the man of the family.

Although men depend upon their economic strength to give them a social
status, they depend upon their wives to maintain it, and willingly
surrender to them the reins of authority. Authority in the home among
the higher social classes in the more democratic countries rests in
the hands of women rather than in the hands of men. This is one of the
results of a divorce of the economic life from family life, and the
substitution of a social unit for an economic one. The change in itself
need not be condemned if the new social unit promotes a higher ethical
development of its members than is possible under the old economic
regime. But in the leisure class the family as a social unit rarely has
as its goal the ethical advancement of its members. Its desire is for
prestige in a circle conspicuous for display of material wealth.

Social prestige is closely connected with economic prosperity and only
in so far as the social goal has attained an importance greater than
the economic, is the authority of women conspicuous. The economic idea
is fundamental until a degree of security is attained eliminating the
possibility of want. This changed relation so apparent in the United
States causes no little amusement to the foreigners who have not yet
accepted feminine rule.

Although the leisure-class women are not conspicuous in demanding
political equality, it is no new phenomenon to see them play a
significant part in the political affairs of the day. Their influence
and support has been sought and is still sought by political aspirants.
But upon the whole their ambitions are purely social. They do not
challenge the admiration of the saner element of the population but
they represent an extreme social type just as many of their fortunes
represent an abnormal and unhealthy financial condition. Their
principal function is that of conspicuous consumption and dissipation.

With no serious purpose in life degeneracy is bound to be the ultimate
result. If it were not for the dormant abilities and capacities for
good which exist among the women of the leisure class, and which
generate in high society an undercurrent toward better things, their
self elimination would be only a question of time. Patten says: “At
the present time, excessive consumption of wealth, dissipation, and
the vices are destroying successive aristocracies by self-induced
exhaustion, and the suicidal group quickly disappears without
establishing a line of descent. They continually reform on the old
basis and bequeath to society, not sons, but a body of traditions. The
present leisure class of America, for instance, is governed by concepts
handed down by the continental nobility of an era that recognized no
industrial or business man’s ideas.”[58]

Earnest social workers are making a strong effort to utilize this
excessive leisure on the part of women, and are attempting to direct
it to channels useful to the city, the commonwealth, and society in
general.

Any one who has associated intimately with women whose entire time is
their own to employ as they see fit, or with women who have a few hours
of leisure daily and who represent a large proportion of our prosperous
middle class, must be impressed with the fact that there is a great
waste of talent, ability, and culture.

“The wives of tens of thousands of business men and well-paid
employees enjoy unquestioningly, and as a matter of course, a degree of
leisure such as formed the exclusive privilege of a small aristocracy
in earlier centuries. The beneficent social and philanthropic
activities of public spirited women and the baneful epidemic of
gambling at cards which has run riot for several years and shows no
tendency to diminish, are twin offspring of this unearned leisure.”[59]

Although less practical than men because of the almost complete divorce
of their mental activities from the duties of life, these women often
represent a plane of culture superior to that of the men of their
class, and possible only when advantage can be taken of intellectual
opportunists, associated with leisure. The women are the ones who are
able to attend public lectures and places of amusement during the
day; and often they alone have sufficient energy to profit by the
intellectual benefits which are offered for the public’s enlightenment.
In every college community where free lecture courses are given for the
benefit of the public, the audience is characteristically feminine.

A safe measure of the increase of leisure of women of all ages and of
the more prosperous classes is our institutions of higher learning.
The proportion of young women graduating from the high schools in the
United States is greater than that of young men; and if this tendency
continues the same will eventually apply to our institutions of higher
learning. This has been anticipated by a few of the universities
limiting the number of girls who might attend. What might seem to
be sex prejudice may be in reality a resistance to an effeminacy,
arising out of leisure class standards, which is fondly designated as
_culture_, in contrast to the practical application of knowledge.

The general tendency of young women to seek education for self
improvement rather than for practical usefulness indicates that they
benefit by the financial surplus of the family. On the other hand,
their brothers are expected to prepare themselves at an early age for
the industrial field or the world of business. This is giving to the
women of the family greater cultural opportunities than to the men.
This is most evident where girls consider their brother’s associates
their inferiors in the point of social prestige.

The women whose husbands are successfully employed in the business
world have a large range of social influence, and are so well
established in their pecuniary standing that they have no fear of
losing caste. By virtue of this pecuniary standing they are allowed a
greater degree of freedom than the women of the professional classes.
They can afford to make their own barriers and to some extent can, with
impunity, break down those imposed upon them by tradition. They can
afford to be, and often are cosmopolitan in their habits of life. This
is in a measure due to the constant shifting of the business interests
of the men of the family, and the often close relation of these
interests to all classes of society. While the women may be exclusive
from inclination, they cannot help but be affected by the democracy of
the business world to which their husbands belong.

Hence, society should appreciate the importance of utilizing the
leisure of the business man’s wife for the benefit of the community.
Her social consciousness has been awakened and she is ready, nay,
anxious to give her services. She knows idleness is not conducive to
happiness, and purely social pleasures are fast palling upon her. She
is a product of a society of business prosperity, highly trained and
stimulated by many social forces to a desire for a life of usefulness.
She does not want to work for wages--she is not yet willing to violate
her leisure-class ideals which forbid her to work for financial
remuneration--but she does want to exercise her trained faculties.

It is well to talk about the sacredness of the home, but there can be
little sacredness where there is so much idleness and discontent. When
women have been deprived of all useful occupations in the home it is
necessary for the welfare of the community that they find occupation
outside the home. Work is necessary to any normal person if degeneracy
is to be avoided. “A life of ease means lack of stimuli, and hence the
full development of but few powers. Power and efficiency come only
through vigorous exercise, and strength through struggle.”[60]

The women working in our large factories present grave problems but
society is alive to them, and there is some hope of their ultimate
solution; but the degenerating influence of excessive leisure has not
yet aroused the social conscience.

Nearly every effort to utilize this leisure has come from within the
class itself and takes the form of organized effort supported by
women’s clubs. This movement, comparatively new, often meets with the
restrictions of a conservative society, which thus makes it doubly hard
to attain the degree of efficiency needed for the performance of useful
services to the community.

Women of leisure are influenced by archaic aristocratic ideals which
before the era of industrialism were held by only a small number. With
the great increase of wealth and new methods of production the number
of women who assume a more or less parasitic relation to society grows
with alarming rapidity. The question now is, what is to be done with
this increasing number of idlers freed from economic responsibilities
formerly imposed by the home? Can they as social factors be neglected
without becoming a menace? Can society afford to support an
ever-increasing number of women in idleness and allow them to propagate
their leisure-class standard of consumption?


FOOTNOTES:

[56] Kelly, _Some Ethical Gains through Legislation_, p. 112.

[57] Veblen, _The Theory of the Leisure Class_, pp. 65-6.

[58] Patten, _New Basis of Civilization_, p. 62.

[59] Kelly, _Some Ethical Gains through Legislation_, pp. 112-3.

[60] Tyler, _Man in the Light of Evolution_, p. 109.




CHAPTER VI

STATUS OF WOMEN AND HOME INDUSTRY AMONG PROFESSIONAL CLASSES


The effect of industrial changes upon the status of women is most
marked in two conspicuous social classes--the class primarily engaged
in the task of procuring a bare subsistence where the lack of leisure
and insufficient economic returns allows little play for other than
the economic forces,--and the class which by virtue of new industrial
methods is the recipient of a constantly increasing degree of leisure.
Between these two extremes we find the professional classes the prey of
a conflict between the newer ideals of democracy and the leisure class
ideals wrought out before the era of modern industrialism.

No other class shows so marked a conflict between the older
conservatism and the innovations brought about by modern industrial
conditions, as the professional classes. The radical tendencies
appear in those professions most dependent upon and closely allied
to industrial life, and the conservative tendencies claim as their
stronghold those fields of activity closely allied to wealth and
leisure.

The spirit of innovation is one of the results of an adaptation to
changing industrial conditions; and this adaptation is always necessary
when a class depends directly for its remuneration upon the individuals
for whom the services were rendered. On the other hand, conservatism
had its basis in customs arising out of the institutions of the past;
can flourish only in a class independent of the general public for its
maintenance.

Before the spread of democratic ideals, the field of higher learning
was monopolized by the leisure class. Therefore, a high standard of
living characterized it, and was essential in maintaining the status of
its representatives.

Before the development of industry, the leisure class was synonymous
with the nobility or the priesthood. To belong to the nobility it
was necessary to possess the predatory instinct to a marked degree,
in order to gain material advantage, especially in an age when wealth
was more limited than at present and carried with it almost unlimited
power. Sometimes when an individual accumulated much material wealth he
was admitted into the noble class, and often into the priesthood.

Although the priesthood loaned its power to the nobility to fortify
its temporal authority, it taught equality in the spiritual realm.
The greater ease with which the priesthood could be entered opened a
larger field for the ambitious youth whose mind craved stimulation.
His economic condition had to be such as to free him from the
responsibility of providing for others, as well as sufficient to afford
him an education. When he had once attained his goal, and belonged to
the priestly class, he reached a status in life exclusive by virtue of
its prestige, and in no wise divorced from material wealth.

Learning in the past depended upon the individual’s ability to live
without productive employment, and a willingness to devote himself
to the learned arts which had no economic significance. Here we find
a combination of democratic and aristocratic ideals. When marked
intellectual ability was manifest, it was not uncommon for one of
humble origin to attain a position of distinction in the church. Once
in the church he belonged to an exclusive class surrounding itself with
rituals and ceremonials.

The nobility of the land received a rude shock from the development
of industry, but the church always allied itself to those who were
most able to give, and did not hesitate to sacrifice the temporal
aristocracy in order to maintain the spiritual one. Although learning
“set out with being in some sense a by-product of the priestly
vicarious class” it has had to submit to democratic influences which
grew out of industrial changes. These influences are most significant
in the spread of the rudiments of learning among the common people,
and the greater the opportunities for a common school education, the
greater the possibility for the individual to enter the field of higher
learning when the opportunity presents itself. But to enter this field
is to depart from the practical affairs of life and to devote oneself,
if breadwinning were essential, to imparting this knowledge to others.
This applies to the practice of acquiring knowledge for the sake of
learning and not for its practical application, as for instance in
medicine.

No matter how few the impediments placed in the way of the ambitious
youth entering the field of higher learning, the lack of economic
resources naturally deterred all but the most determined from the
undertaking. Hence we find the field of higher learning, which is
purely cultural, becoming the privilege of the leisure class, free
from economic pressure, and able to maintain the ritual and ceremonial
observances. “The universities of Paris and Oxford and Cambridge were
founded to educate the lord and the priest. And to these schools and
their successors, as time went on, fell the duty of training the
gentlemen and the clergy.”[61]

The early universities of Germany showed the same spirit. They “did
not grow up gradually, like the earlier ones in France and Italy, but
were established after a scheme already extant and in operation. The
spiritual and temporal power contributed to their foundation. The Pope,
by a bull, founded the institution as a teaching establishment, and
endowed it with the privilege of bestowing degrees, whereby it became
a _studium generale_ or _privilegiatum_, for according to mediaeval
conceptions teaching had its proper source and origin in the church
alone.”[62]

While it is extremely difficult to change fossilized habits of thought,
newer civilizations send forth fresh shoots adapted to new conditions.
Thanks to the development of industry demanding trained minds of a
useful bent, we find the newer institutions of learning becoming more
practical, and developing the useful arts and sciences.

“Through the movement toward the democracy of studies and constructive
individualism, a new ideal is being reached in American universities,
that of personal effectiveness. The ideal in England has always been
that of personal culture: that of France, the achieving, through
competitive examinations, of ready made careers, the satisfaction of
what Villari calls ‘Impiegomania,’ the craze for an appointment; that
of Germany, thoroughness of knowledge; that of America, the power to
deal with men and conditions.”[63]

The new types of schools, characteristically American, have influenced
the older type, until we see on all sides a struggle between the
leisure class ideals and the practical ideals of democracy; the outcome
of this struggle depending in each case upon the degree of control
exercised by the financial contributors--the leisure class or the
masses.

The degree of democracy in our higher institutions of learning
determines the degree of “ritualistic paraphernalia” in vogue. The use
of “ritualistic paraphernalia” is an example of the social ideals of
a naturally conservative class and is slow to respond to democratic
ideals brought about by industrial changes.

The spread of democracy has brought into our schools a new class of
savants. They possess all the qualifications of the older savants save
their financial independence. Their poverty is not a great calamity
to those who remain celibates, but to the head of a family it means a
struggle to maintain a standard of living too high for his income.

The home is the last to free itself from the influence of leisure class
ideals which permeate higher learning; and the struggle to reconcile
the newer ideals with the older ones is almost tragic. The heaviest
strain falls upon the wife who struggles to maintain her social status
upon which depends the status of the family. A display of clothes is
not as essential to the maintenance of this status as an appearance
of leisure, and the conveyance of the impression to the outsider that
a high standard of comfort and luxury is realized. That the comfort
actually exist is not necessary so long as the outsiders are deceived.

Often a great deal of ingenuity is displayed by the housewife in
conveying on a very moderate income the impression that the family is
living on a high plane. Economy is practiced “in the obscurer elements
of consumption that go to physical comfort and maintenance.”

This class of society illustrates most pathetically the ideals of
propriety of a non-industrial group. Its reluctance in giving up
its exclusiveness, and its persistence in clinging to leisure-class
standards is most apparent in the home. Here the life of the housewife
is often one of drudgery “especially where the competition for
reputability is close and strenuous.”

The duties of the wife of the college professor are manifold. The work
of ministering to the fundamental needs of the family is left to a
servant, or if it is impossible to keep hired help, it is done with as
much secrecy as possible, in order to avoid the stigma of commonness.
Where she assumes all the household tasks, the strain upon her is a
severe one. The mechanical conveniences are not applied to her work
with the same degree of speed with which newer patterns in rugs and
other furniture make their appearance in the household. The list of
articles essential to the maintenance of an appropriate standard of
living is a long one, and many of them have no other charm than the
expensiveness which proclaims pecuniary strength.

It must not be inferred that the position of the housewife is a
subordinate one. Her authority is paramount in the home which her
ingenuity has planned and so skillfully manipulates. Her social
prestige is as far above her financial means as the standard of living
she attempts to maintain is above her husband’s salary. This social
prestige rests upon a deference paid to the higher learning her
husband is accredited with by virtue of his position. Her intellectual
attainments may be very mediocre but that is a matter of indifference
as long as she possesses a knowledge of the arts of polite society.
Indeed, the superficial acquirements of a ladies’ seminary are of a
greater assistance to her in performing her social functions than a
mastery of the sciences.

The difficulty encountered in attempting to maintain the old
aristocratic ideals is having two effects: There is a greater tendency
for college men not to marry, or to marry late in life--after securing
an economic foothold; and secondly, to add to incomes by directing a
part of their energy along lines offering greater economic returns,
such as the writing of books to satisfy a popular demand not of a
purely scholastic nature, or of having interests belonging entirely to
the business world. Veblen says, “Those heads of institutions are best
accepted who combine the sacerdotal office with a degree of pecuniary
efficiency. There is a similar but less pronounced tendency to intrust
the work of instruction in the higher learning to men of some pecuniary
qualification.”[64]

The business ventures of college men afford a pecuniary return
compatible with scholastic scale of living. The increase of income
relieves wives of the strain which great economy necessarily involves,
and gives them a greater amount of leisure to perform their social
duties, and to render the little personal services so essential to the
comfort of their families.

In no other class do we see a greater divergence between the rating
of the women and that of the men. On the one hand, we see the men
graded by a standard of an intellectual nature; on the other hand
their womenfolk are rated according to a standard purely social and
pecuniary, with no regard to utility. Both are conservative and tend to
be archaic depending in a large measure upon the institution where the
teaching is done.

The conservatism shown in clinging to ancient ideals of womanhood
is illustrated by the attitude of these learned men toward the
admission of women into their ranks on an equality with themselves.
“There has prevailed a strong sense that the admission of women to
the privileges of the higher learning (as the Eleusinian mysteries)
would be derogatory to the dignity of the learned craft. It is,
therefore, only recently, and almost solely in the industrially most
advanced communities, that the higher grades of schools have been
freely opened to women. And even under the urgent circumstances
prevailing in the modern industrial communities, the highest and
most reputable universities show an extreme reluctance to making the
move. The sense of class worthiness, that is to say of status, of an
honorific differentiation of the sexes according to a distinction
between superior and inferior intellectual dignity, survives in a
vigorous form in these corporations of the aristocracy of learning.
It is felt that women should, in all propriety, acquire only such
knowledge as may be classed under one or the other of two heads: (1)
such knowledge as conduces immediately to a better performance of
domestic service--the domestic sphere; (2) such accomplishments and
dexterity, quasi-scholarly and quasi-artistic, as plainly come in
under the head of the performance of vicarious leisure. Knowledge is
felt to be unfeminine if it is knowledge which expresses the unfolding
of the learner’s own life, the acquisition of which proceeds on the
learner’s own cognitive interest, without prompting from the canons of
propriety.”[65]

Where women enter the higher fields of learning, they show a
tendency--although not so marked as in the past--to select those lines
of work and thought which have no practical bearing on every day
life. In other words, they follow those lines of study which are most
similar to those pursued by the students of the Middle Ages who sought
knowledge without any thought of its utility. This tendency of women is
evident in co-educational institutions where their selection of studies
shows their object in the main to be the acquisition of knowledge of a
cultural rather than a practical nature. This choice is most suitable
to their object in life assuming that object to be matrimony. The other
activity followed mostly by college bred women--school teaching, makes
little demand outside of the lines of work pursued by most women.

Men long ago learned that there is a demand for highly trained minds
in fields other than that of teaching. They have adapted themselves to
this demand until we see men deserting studies of a purely cultural
value, and pursuing those more applicable to every day life. Women are
showing the same tendencies in communities where there is a demand for
their services in fields other than teaching, and where matrimony has
become more of an uncertainty and economic independence a fact.

When women pursue their college work with a definite practical purpose
in view, they too will desert those lines of work, largely, if not
wholly, valued for their culture side alone.

In the schools directly controlled by the people we find a greater
appreciation of democracy than in the colleges. The public has great
reverence for custom and tradition so long as these conservative
forces do not interfere too much with practical utility. This sense of
practical utility is closely allied to the commercial principle of
getting the best to be had for money laid out. This principle appeals
to all save when it is a violent contradiction to the accepted moral
code. The policy conferring the greatest benefit to the greatest
number at the least cost is adopted if it does not conflict with more
powerful interests. As a result of this policy women are admitted into
professional work, especially school teaching, because they will not
only work for less wages than will the men, but will do a better grade
of work for less money.

Superintendents and principals are agreed that for the same salary a
higher grade teacher can be procured among women than among men, and
hence, despite their conservatism and prejudice, they feel obliged to
follow the policy that best utilizes the means at hand. As a result
women have crowded men out of the common schools and have become so
well established in this field of work as to have gathered sufficient
strength to demand the same remuneration as men for the same kind of
work.[66]

Married women are still excluded from many of the common schools in
deference to the old idea that married women should remain in the home
and follow no remunerative occupation. Even if there existed no good
reason for debarring married women from the work of school teaching,
the conservatism of the community would deter those in authority from
overruling conventional ideas. Not until there is a dearth of teachers,
brought about by the extension of the fields of activity open to
educated women, will married women receive general recognition in the
profession on the same footing with the unmarried.

Although in academic work the instructor is supposed to maintain
as high a plane of living as a full professor--especially in the
smaller colleges where the faculty is able to maintain its class
exclusiveness--the poorly paid minister is not so conscious of the
discrepancy between his standard of living and his income. He has,
indeed, the same financial problem to face as the college instructor,
for he, too, is guided largely by the leisure class standards of the
past, but it is smaller and hence less tragic. He is not expected to
keep up the same plane of expenditure as the better paid ministers.
He tends to imitate the well-to-do among his parishioners, or the
intellectual _elite_ of the community rather than his professional
brethren.

The stronger the hold the minister has over his congregation the more
closely does his remuneration correspond to the standard of living he
is expected to maintain. It is true his services are often undervalued
when measured by money, and that he belongs to a profession that stands
in a measure for sacrifice, but his social prestige in itself makes
certain demands upon the congregation that cannot be overlooked. To
maintain this prestige by a high plane of living on a meagre salary
is one of the problems of the minister and his family. George Eliot
presents the difficulty in a small conservative community in the
following words: “Given a man with a wife and six children; let him be
obliged always to exhibit himself when outside his own door in a suit
of black broadcloth, such as will not undermine the foundations of the
establishment by a paltry plebeian glossiness or an unseemly whiteness
at the edges; in a snowy cravat, which is a serious investment of
labour in the hemming, starching, and ironing departments; and in
a hat which shows no symptom of taking in the hideous doctrine of
expediency, and shaping itself according to circumstances; let him have
a parish large enough to create an external necessity for abundant
beef and mutton as well as poor enough to require frequent priestly
consolation in the shape of shillings and six-pences; and, lastly, let
him be compelled, by his own pride and other peoples’, to dress his
wife and children with gentility from bonnet-strings. By what process
of division can the sum of eighty pounds per annum be made to yield a
quotient which will cover that man’s weekly expenses?”

The problem is still essentially the same in a poor parish, for the
minister must maintain a standard of consumption above the average of
the community.

The problem tends to assume a different aspect in an industrial
community where democratic ideas are as evident as financial
prosperity. The individual’s concern for his well-being in another
world gives way to his concern for the present. He insists upon
spiritual guidance, but also expects assistance in bringing about
better relations between himself and his fellow men. He often insists
upon his minister being a higher intellectual product than is demanded
by the more conservative communities. He regards him as a teacher
who ought to be versed in the affairs of every-day-life and not one
confining himself exclusively to the implications of a future state.

Like the school men, ministers are appreciating the necessity of a
greater and broader democracy within their class, but unlike the
former, their habits of life are more democratic than their teachings.

Those professions depending upon the direct patronage of the public
for support are nowadays distinguished by a tendency to depart from
the conservatism characteristic of them in their earlier stages. A
physician often completes a college course in science and letters
before receiving the three or four years training fitting him for his
life work. In mental training he rivals the best college professors and
yet his social status savors of the common people. He is inclined to be
democratic in his tastes, in his habits of life, and in the selection
of his companions. He is one of the people rather than of an exclusive
social class.

While officialism and ceremonial rituals characterized the medical
profession when its services were rendered almost exclusively to
the people of rank and distinction, or when it was closely allied
to priestly functions, the nature of the work now demands close
association with those upon whom the profession depends for financial
support. The necessity of associating with people of all ranks fosters
the spirit of democracy, and a common-sense philosophy of life.

The physician maintains a standard of living in harmony with the
ideals of the community of which he is a part, and in accordance with
his income. He cannot maintain a standard of living which erects a
social barrier between himself and his patients, either by its extreme
simplicity, or by its conspicuous waste.

The wife of the average physician enjoys a freedom from social
restraint not seen in many of the professional classes. Financially she
does not feel the necessity of entering into economic employments to
keep up her standard of living, for the income of the family, though
varying, tends to adjust itself to the demands her social position
calls for.

The practice of medicine requires not only considerable skill but
great mental concentration, keen judgment and intuition. For women to
gain admission into medical schools is to acquire the privilege of the
fullest mental development. The concession of this privilege is an
acknowledgment of the possession of an inherent ability essential to
successfully follow this line of work. When one considers that success
in medicine calls for special talent it is evident the number of women
seeking to follow this line of work will be small compared with the
number desiring to enter the academic field.

Although women make strenuous efforts to overcome all barriers raised
against their admission to the different fields of activity, they
cling with great tenacity to ancient sex privileges inconsistent with
a man’s conception of “solid comfort.” For instance, the objects of
medical associations are social as well as scientific. The scientific
program would undoubtedly meet with the approval of both sexes
in the profession but the social functions are a real stumbling
block,--the women leaning toward formalities and conventionalities,
and the men toward what is termed “a good social time.” This is in
itself sufficient to prompt most men to oppose admitting women into
intellectual and social clubs.

The industrial evolution plays a large part in shaping the institutions
of society. While economic relations may not be considered the most
essential in life, they determine in great measure, the nature of our
relations to social institutions themselves.

Where the economic influence is not direct we see preserved with the
least change the institutions of the past. What is true of institutions
is also true of the occupations of men. Their conservatism varies
in the degree to which they are affected by economic and industrial
conditions.

Those professions least dependent upon immediate industrial changes are
the most conservative in their work and ideas, and most closely reflect
the ideals of the past. On the other hand, those professions which
depend for their support upon the services rendered to the community
remunerated according to the recipients’ estimation of these services,
have discarded almost all the traditions of the past, although their
origin can be traced to the most conservative institutions of society.

The influence of industrial changes upon social institutions is
apparent in the home. Although the homes of the industrial classes must
adapt themselves to industrial changes even though these changes lower
the plane of family comfort, the professional classes enjoy a margin
above subsistence sufficient to enable them to combat changes with a
conservatism characteristic of all classes having a greater respect for
custom and leisure-class standards than for beneficial innovations.
Hence we find the homes reflecting ideals of the past which clash with
the democratic ideals of the present, and illustrate in their various
phases the struggle between the old and the new.

While the home makers of some of the professional classes are more
conservative than the men, this is not true of those women who are
actively engaged in professional work themselves. They are more
radical than men of the same class, and are leaders not only in
movements for bettering the condition of women, but in progressive
movements affecting society as a whole. As a rule they are a superior
intellectual type, and not representative of the average woman any more
than our intellectual _elite_ among the men represent the average man,
for the average person is characterized by adaptability rather than by
the spirit of innovations.

The professional classes here discussed are those which have developed
out of a class of savants who were originally and primarily engaged
with knowledge of an occult nature. It is true that out of these
classes engaged in the transmission of knowledge have developed a class
of scientists whose field of activity is industrial, the engineer
groups--and whose standard of living tends to correspond to the money
income of the family. It is often considerably larger than the income
of the professional man employed in college work. For that reason the
wife of the professional man is not confronted with the same problems
as the wife of the teacher.

The social status of the professional people whose activities are
confined to the industrial field is measured by their financial status.
This makes it unnecessary for them to maintain a plane of consumption
at variance with their income.


FOOTNOTES:

[61] Jordan, _The Voice of the Scholar_, pp. 173-4.

[62] Paulsen, _German Universities, Character and Historical
Development_, pp. 21-22.

[63] Jordan, _The Voice of the Scholar_, pp. 115-6.

[64] Veblen, _The Theory of the Leisure Class_, p. 375.

[65] Veblen, _The Theory of the Leisure Class_, pp. 375-6.

[66] _Outlook_, Vol. 88, pp. 481, 515.




CHAPTER VII

THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON MARRIAGE


The effect of industrial changes upon marriage among primitive peoples
has been discussed at some length by students of primitive conditions.
So closely do the industrial habits of mankind affect the social that
one is forced to concede an important place to the economic in the
evolution of the race. The preëminence of the struggle for subsistence
in the history of civilization shows how reckless it is to make
historical interpretations while neglecting the industrial side of
society.

The industrial habits of primitive peoples were intimately related to
the physical environment. There had to be game before man could live by
hunting; a body of water to fish in before there could be fishermen;
grass to feed the herds before herding could be the chief occupation of
a people; and tillable soil before there could arise an agricultural
stage in the history of the race. Favorable conditions had to exist
before men could establish even a temporary dwelling place, not to
mention a permanent one. Conditions determined the occupations of men,
and in turn these occupations made possible a type of social life
compatible with the environment. The social life was not a preconceived
scheme so much as a development spontaneously arising out of existing
conditions. The type of the family was no exception to this rule.

Herman Grosse has a unique place as an exponent of the theory that
economic occupations have always been the determining influence in
the establishment of the form of marriage and the status of women.
“Restricting his examination to the conditions which lie within actual
historical or ‘ethnological experience’ he seeks to demonstrate that
the ‘various forms of the family correspond to the various forms of
economy (Wirthschaft)’; that ‘in its essential features the character
of each particular form of the family may be explained by the form of
economy in which it is rooted.’”[67]

Grosse’s point of view is recognized by many writers who have given
thought to the subject. Howard says, “It seems certain that the whole
truth regarding the problem of kinship, as well as regarding the rise
and sequence of the forms of the family, can be reached only through
historical investigation of the industrial habits of mankind.”[68]

Ward gives expression to the same idea when he says, “marriage is from
the beginning an association dictated by economic needs.”[69]

No evidence existed bearing out the theory of the early prevalence of
promiscuity in sexual relations other than a recognized looseness of
sexual relations outside the marriage bond; or a marriage of such short
duration as to warrant the appellation of temporary pairing. Where the
latter custom prevails, it is the outcome of certain social conditions
existing in a tribe, and not representative of a certain stage of
culture.

Even in our advanced western civilization there exist small communities
of peoples who stand for certain moral principles developed to such
extreme forms as to shock people generally. These principles often
have their basis in sexual relations and are conspicuous by virtue
of their contrast to general practices. They in nowise warrant the
importance given them, representing as they do a mental excrescence
and not a healthy social development. The same may apply equally to
primitive societies. Only where certain causes have repeatedly brought
about certain results are we justified in the conclusion that certain
practices were common in a stage of which we have no direct knowledge.

Speaking of promiscuity, Morgan thinks it “was limited to the period
when mankind were frugivorous and within their primitive habitat,
since its continuance would have been improbable after they had become
fishermen and commenced their spread over the earth in dependence
upon food artificially acquired. Consanguine groups would then form,
with intermarriage within the group as a necessity, resulting in the
formation of the consanguine family. At all events, the oldest form of
society which meets us in the past through deductions from systems of
consanguinity is this family. It would be in the nature of a compact
on the part of several males for the joint subsistence of the group,
and for the defence of their common wives against the violence of
society.”[70]

Hobhouse says, “Sheer promiscuity is probably to be regarded rather
as the extreme of looseness in the sexual relation than as a positive
institution supported by social sanction.”[71]

Grosse finds in the different stages of industrial occupations which he
designates as “lower” and “higher hunters” “pastoral peoples” “lower
and higher cultivators of the soil,” prevalent forms of marriage
corresponding to the occupations pursued by the men.

The Bushmen and the Esquimaux of the present time are the best
representatives of the lower hunters among whom monogamy is the form of
marriage. Whether the Bushmen or the Esquimaux represent a primitive
type of the culture arising out of a lower stage of culture, or a
degeneration from a higher type, the author does not know. But he tells
us hunger plays a large part in their lives; and the lack of foresight
or sense of accumulation accounts for the little advantage the few have
over the many.[72]

Hobhouse says, “the strict monogamy and well-united family life of
the Veddahs is partly explained by the fact that they live in great
measure in isolation. In the dry season they pass their time on their
hunting ground; in the wet season small groups of families will resort
to some hillock which is the center of two or three hunting grounds and
sometimes two or three families will reside together for a time in one
cave.”[73]

Among the higher hunters, according to Grosse, monogamy is the
prevalent form of marriage but polygamy is sanctioned, and practiced by
the wealthy.[74]

The conditions of the herders are better known than that of the
hunters. The individual family may rest upon monogamy or polygamy
depending upon the wealth of the nomad. In Central Asia the price of
the wife is often very high, and the father considers his daughters as
a means of increasing his wealth. The price a well-to-do Kalmuck asks
for his daughter is fifteen horses, fifteen cows, three camel, and
twenty sheep. He gives in return as a dowry, one camel, one horse, four
sewed garments, eight unmade garments, and tools depending upon his
wealth.[75]

The great family (sippe) whether on the father’s or mother’s side
developed a social organization having its basis in agriculture. Starke
says, “An agricultural community lays much more claim to the capacity
of each individual for labour than is the case with a community which
is wholly or chiefly occupied with the rearing of cattle. In the former
case the diminution of the number of the household is a loss which is
difficult to supply, and they are chiefly concerned in keeping up their
numbers, that is, in retaining their hold on the individual. But in a
cattle-breeding community men make it their first object to increase
the number of stock. In the former community the head of the family
opposes the departure of his daughter, and seeks to induce her wooer to
become one of the household; but in the latter he sells her early, and
for as high a price as possible.”[76]

While Grosse emphasizes the fact that the different forms of economy
influence the prevalent form of marriage, it is apparent that polygamy
exists in a marked degree where women are not valued for their
labor, and where there has developed a stage of economy admitting of
inequalities in wealth. It is when woman’s work has real economic
value that she obtains rights of her own. Agriculture as a means of
subsistence is pursued to a marked degree only where there is a measure
of security against enemies: where there is strength by virtue of
numbers. Under these circumstances warfare is not so common, and there
is a tendency for the numbers of the sexes to remain comparatively
equal.

“The circumstances attending marriage by service, especially when we
compare it with marriage by purchase or capture, have shown us how much
the relations of husband and wife are determined by what in the modern
world is called the economic factor. The savage woman’s price--if we
mean by price the difficulty of approaching her--may be high or low.
Where it is always possible to organize a raid and carry her off it is
decidedly low, and she becomes the captor’s property. When this is not
countenanced, it is possible to buy her from her guardian, and then
presumably her price like that of other things, is a matter of supply
and demand.”[77]

In all civilizations inequalities of wealth arise, and make possible
social privileges differing from the common practices of the general
population. Under such circumstances we always find social types at
variance with established conceptions of right, and human nature
showing itself in many cases unspeakably repulsive when free from any
economic restraint. This is perhaps, the effect of a freedom from
restraint which is made possible by great wealth. The only restraint
then is public opinion or religious precepts; the former is easily
swayed by the powerful and wealthy, and the latter often admits of a
tolerance not shown to the masses of the people.

In industrial communities where no great inequalities of wealth exist,
the marriage relation tends toward monogamy. Even where western
civilization has made little impression on social institutions,
great and conscious inequalities do not often exist between the
sexes, and woman’s position is not a degraded one. All the important
factors entering into economic life, tending to create serious
distinctions--social, political and industrial--between men and men,
between the rich and the poor, tend to differentiate status between men
and women. Women are most degraded in the marriage relations where they
are economically the weakest; where they personally control the least
wealth. The few who are more fortunately situated are not sufficiently
numerous to make any impressive protest even if they desired to do so.

In a society where the few dictate to the many because of their
financial strength, in a society marked by inequalities originating
in predatory exploitation, we find in a greater or less degree moral
discrepancies with the prevailing conception of right and wrong. Normal
industrial life tends to promote a normal moral life, and to develop
ideals most conducive to a steady progress.

When the family represented an exclusive economic unit with little
dependence upon the outside world, it was of economic importance to
both men and women to marry, and thus lay the foundation for household
prosperity. Wife and children were never a luxury to the poor man,
but of real economic value. This fact is apparent in new countries
where the form of industry must be necessarily domestic. Women have
been shipped in large numbers to new colonies to marry the settlers.
In practically all cases the women went voluntarily for they too
appreciated the importance of obtaining for themselves a place in homes
where so much of the social and economic life of the time centered.
These unions, primarily economic resulted often in family groups
containing much of the ideal.

In the early colonial days of America “every farmer and his sons raised
wool and flax; his wife and daughters spun them into thread and yarn,
knit these into stockings and mittens, or wove them into linen and
cloth, and then made them into clothing. Even in large cities nearly
all women spun yarn and thread, all could knit, and many had hand-looms
to weave cloth at home.... All persons who were not employed in other
ways, as single women, girls, and boys, were required to spin. Each
family must contain one spinner.... There were no drones in this hive.
Neither the wealth nor high station of parents excused children from
this work. Thus all were leveled to one kind of labor, and by this
leveling all were elevated to independence.”[78]

In all rural communities of modern Europe much of women’s work is of
considerable importance from an economic point of view, and there is
little incentive for a man to remain single from economic prudence.
Instead of an economic burden the wife is more often a helpmeet who
even offers her services for pay outside the home. She works in the
fields like a man and is an important factor when estimating the value
of labor on the farm.

Letourneau says, “At Paris, where the struggle for existence is
more severe, and where the care for money is more predominant, late
marriages abound, and it is only above the age of forty for men and
thirty-five for women that the marriage rate equals and even exceeds,
that of the whole of France.”[79]

The constant drifting of country population into large cities where
employment can be found is affecting markedly the life of the rural
community, and tending to postpone the formation of family ties until
an economic foothold is secured.[80]

There has been a slight diminution of the marriage rate since the
middle of the nineteenth century, but so many forces have come into
play that one is hardly justified in the conclusion that this decrease
is due entirely to economic causes.

_Number of Marriages Per 1000 Population._[81]

  ---------------+----------+----------+----------
                 | 1876-80. | 1881-85. | 1886-90.
  ---------------+----------+----------+----------
  Hungary        |    9.6   |   10.3   |    8.9
  Prussia        |    8.0   |   8.0    |    8.1
  Germany        |    7.8   |   7.7    |    7.9
  Austria        |    7.8   |   7.9    |    7.7
  Italy          |    7.5   |   8.0    |    7.8
  France         |    7.6   |   7.5    |    7.2
  Belgium        |    6.9   |   6.8    |    7.1
  Great Britain  |    7.1   |   7.1    |    6.9
  Switzerland    |    7.4   |   6.8    |    7.0
  Denmark        |    7.8   |   7.7    |    7.0
  Norway         |    7.2   |   6.6    |    6.3
  Sweden         |    6.6   |   6.5    |    6.1
  ---------------+----------+----------+----------


Some statisticians see co-relation between the price of food and the
marriage rate.[82]

Food, clothing, and shelter are the essential needs of man. When the
price of food, shelter, and clothing increases and wages remain the
same, the money income of the family is relatively less. If the price
of food remains the same and wages are lowered because of an oversupply
of labor to meet the demand, or for other causes, the effect is
practically the same. When marriage means an increase of the financial
burden, and foresight comes into play there will naturally follow a
postponement of marriage. Letourneau says, the “principal causes which
influence matrimony are the greater or less existence, and the extreme
importance attached to money. As a general rule, life and death tend to
balance each other, and the populations whose mortality is great have,
as compensation, a rich birth-rate. We invariably see the number of
marriages and births increasing after a series of prosperous years, and
_vice versa_. General causes have naturally a greater influence on the
population living from hand to mouth. The well-to-do classes escape
this, and we find that the chances of marriage for the rich increase
during years of high prices.”[83]

Economic conditions will not prevent people from marrying when it is
understood the wife will continue her work in the factory as is true in
many manufacturing towns, especially in Europe. Under such conditions
marriage does not signify an immediate increase of the financial burden
of the husband. In fact, if marriage meant that the entire burden of
support was to fall upon the man alone, it would be a serious matter
when under the existing conditions husband and wife together can
scarcely make a living.[84]

European countries are cited as admirable examples of advanced
legislation for the protection of the home. Farsightedness and a love
of domesticity are not so much responsible for the protection of women
in industry as the fact that they have become a well established factor
in industrial life, such as they have not yet reached in the United
States.

When legislation provides women with a longer noon hour than men,
it is an acknowledgment of the fact that many women, so many as
to make legislation in their behalf a crying need, are employed
outside of the home and at the same time carrying the burden of
maintaining a household after working hours. The extra half hour at
noon allowed married women is time in which to prepare the noonday
meal for the members of the family. Beneficent as legislation is in
behalf of married women looking toward the welfare of the race, it is
significant of the fact that women are being forced out of the home
into the industrial field and compelled to assume heavier burdens
than the men. To restrict fecundity under such circumstances, or to
refuse to be mothers at all, is hardly a reproach to the women who are
thus forced to toil, but rather a reproach to civilization imposing
home-making, motherhood, and breadwinning upon the supposed weaker sex.

In communities where women take their places with their husbands in the
factory or work-shop, industrial changes do not affect the marriage
rate. It is where women are not expected to contribute to the family
income, and where men’s wages are at first by no means adequate to meet
the expenses of a household, that the marriage rate is affected.

Nevertheless even under these circumstances, where there is no outlook
but one of poverty for the future, marriages are often formed.

The decrease of the marriage rate among people who live close to
the margin of subsistence is not as apparent as among people whose
income warrants a scale of living which gratifies the higher social
wants. What is often attributed to the selfishness of men is a growing
consciousness of the responsibility which marriage involves as well
as an increase in the responsibility itself. There is a greater need
of money outlay than ever before, and with the decreasing importance
of women’s labor in the home, the financial strain is so great as to
prompt men to postpone marriage until they are able to support a family
in comfort, comfort meaning not merely sufficient food and clothing for
physical well being but a scale of expenditure characteristic of one’s
class.

The increasing independence of women is an _effect_ of the postponement
of marriage on the part of men rather than a _cause_. When men no
longer assume family responsibilities as soon as they become voters, or
shortly thereafter, women are forced into avenues of employment for a
livelihood. The lengthening period which a man dedicates to preparing
himself for his life work makes it just that much more difficult for
the women of his class to marry early.

When once established in the industrial field and confirmed in certain
habits of life associated with a higher plane of consumption than they
can hope for in a home of their own, women are not so eager to give
up the luxuries and opportunities for personal expression which their
work may afford, for matrimony. This is especially true at an age when
marriage has lost much of the romance youth endows it with. When life
is comparatively easy, and the romantic period of youth is passed, the
economic factor assumes greater importance in matrimonial alliances.
To lower one’s economic and social status, even when prompted to do
so by high ideals and motives, receives little commendation from an
enlightened community and its “How could she?” savors more of contempt
than admiration.

Among the higher social classes--although the same tendency is showing
itself in all classes--there is a growing consciousness of the
individual’s importance as a social unit, rather than his importance
as a part of the family unit. His ties to society are growing at
the expense of family ties. This changed attitude does not arise
from selfishness for never in history have men shown greater ability
and willingness to sacrifice personal interests to the interests of
society. There is a rapidly growing sentiment on the part of each that
he is indeed his brother’s keeper, and he is responsible for evil
industrial and social conditions. The time favors, not the family as
opposed to the community, but the family as a part of the community.

Says Howard, “More threatening to the solidarity of the family is
believed to be the individualistic tendencies arising in existing urban
and economic life. With the rise of corporate and associated industry
comes a weakening of the intimacy of home ties. Through the division
of labor the ‘family hearth-stone’ is fast becoming a mere temporary
meeting-place of individual wage-earners.”[85]

Thus we are rapidly approaching the time when men can no longer
consider marriage an economy. A wife tends to become a luxury to the
average man in so far as she adds nothing to the income of the family
and increases its expenses.

It is true many married women among the professional classes work
outside the home, but the practice is not sufficiently widespread to
meet with the general approval of a conservative society. When this
practice becomes common, provided there is no corresponding decrease
in the salaries of men and the increase of the income of the family is
marked, marriage will become more attractive to men.

Women, too, consider the economic side of marriage. They are just as
unwilling to lower their plane of living as the men. To the average
woman to marry a poor man means drudgery, for although her economic
importance as a bread winner has decreased, her domestic duties have
not grown correspondingly less.

Women’s class status shifts more easily than that of men. With
the latter it is personal success while with the former it is the
matrimonial relation that determines one’s social sphere. For this
reason women consciously or unconsciously are guided in their choice
of a husband by economic considerations. With the decrease of their
productive capacity in the home there is a greater need on their part
to consider the pecuniary side.

The marriage-rate among the rich and the very poor is little affected
by economic changes. The one feels no need to curtail expenses to meet
the needs of a family; the other is so hopelessly poor, especially in
many of the European countries, so starved in mind and body as to be
irresponsive to any but the primary animal instincts. It is the large
middle classes that reflect social and economic changes and determine
the type of future social institutions.


FOOTNOTES:

[67] Howard, _A History of Matrimonial Institutions_, I, pp. 60-61.

[68] _Ibid_, I, p. 115.

[69] Ward, _Pure Sociology_, p. 358.

[70] Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 501.

[71] Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, p. 140.

[72] Grosse, _Familie und Wirthschaft_, p.

[73] Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, I, p. 43.

[74] Grosse, _Familie und Wirthschaft_, pp. 73-4.

[75] Grosse, _Ibid_, pp. 104-5.

[76] Starke, _The Primitive Family_, pp. 99, 100.

[77] Hobhouse, _Morals and Evolution_, I, p. 176.

[78] Earle, _Home Life in Colonial Days_, pp. 166-7.

[79] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage_, p. 352.

[80] E. Vandervelde, _L’Exode Rural_.

[81] Bailey, _Modern Social Conditions_, p. 139.

[82] Mayo-Smith, _Statistics and Sociology_, p. 100.

[83] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 351-2.

[84] See page 51.

[85] Howard, _A History of Matrimonial Institutions_, III, 227-8.




CHAPTER VIII

ECONOMIC FORCES AND THE BIRTH-RATE


In primitive times infanticide was often resorted to as a means of
freeing the tribe from the care and responsibility of unwelcome
children. McLennan says, “The moment infanticide was thought of as an
expedient for keeping down numbers, a step was taken, perhaps the most
important that was ever taken in the history of mankind.”[86]

Westermarck thinks McLennan places too much emphasis upon the extent
of the practice of infanticide. “A minute investigation of the
extent to which female infanticide is practiced has convinced me
that McLennan has much exaggerated the importance of the custom. It
certainly prevails in many parts of the world; and it is true that,
as a rule, female children are killed rather than male. But there is
nothing to indicate that infanticide has ever been so universal or had
anywhere been practiced, on so large a scale, as McLennan’s hypothesis
presupposes.”[87]

Among primitive peoples when starvation threatened a tribe, it is
reasonable to believe a sacrifice of life was considered necessary
to lessen immediate as well as prospective suffering and where the
new-born infants were the selected victims, the female children would
be sacrificed before the male. The services of women were of less
importance to a warring community than of men, and under ordinary
circumstances there would be a tendency for women to out number men
since they were not exposed to the risks and hardships warfare imposed
upon the men.

That infanticide was widely practiced where there was no danger
from starvation does not seem likely. The maternal instinct is very
pronounced among all animals, and the mother shows greater willingness
to sacrifice herself than her offspring. It must have been necessary to
overcome the mother feeling by force of reasoning, or by an exercise of
tyrannical authority to win her consent.

There existed many natural checks to the increase of population among
primitive peoples. Droughts and the ravages of diseases played no
small part in keeping down numbers. These same natural forces in
perhaps fewer forms are still effective in all countries of the world,
producing an infant mortality of an alarming proportion.

Unsanitary conditions, bad housing, impure milk and water, and the
heat of summer are among the checks to the more rapid increase of
population. Mr. Phelps says in his statistical study of infant
mortality, “In view of the many material changes in the living habits
and industrial conditions of the world’s population in the last
generation, the great advance in medical knowledge and the marked
decrease in the general death-rate, the practical uniformity of the
infantile death-rate the world around is simply astounding.”[88]

The problem of how to decrease infant mortality has received
considerable attention from municipal and philanthropic associations.
The results obtained are far from satisfactory, so great and far
reaching are its causes.

The fall of the birth-rate is generally attributed to psychological
rather than to physiological causes. Statistical reports do not show
the same decline in the birth-rate among the inhabitants of poor
districts of a city as among the well-to-do. A large number of the
unskilled workers are foreigners, or people ignorant in respect to
medical and physiological knowledge, and likewise unconscious of the
prevalence of the practice of the restriction of the birth-rate. But
the rapid diffusion of knowledge of all kinds in a democratic country
will soon change this state of affairs. Mrs. Commander’s study of the
birth-rate led her to believe that the birth-rate among immigrants who
come to the United States of America “falls decidedly below European
standards, and that the majority of immigrants when only a short time
in this country imbibe the idea of limiting family. The small family
appears to be an American ideal which immigrants accept as they do
other American ideals.”[89]

The investigation of the Fabian Society of London brought to light
the fact that “the decline in the birth-rate appears to be especially
marked in places inhabited by the servant keeping class. The birth-rate
of Bethnal Green--the district in London in which there are fewest
non-Londoners and in which fewest of the inhabitants keep domestic
servants fell off between 1881 and 1901 by twelve per cent and that of
Hampstead, where most domestic servants are kept, fell off by no less
than 36 per cent. The birth-rate for 1901 of five separate groups of
metropolitan boroughs arranged in grades of average poverty gave the
following interesting result. The small group of three ‘rich’ boroughs
have, for 100,000 population 2,004 legitimate births; the four groups
comprising 19 intermediate boroughs have almost identical legitimate
birth-rate between 2,362 to 2,490 for 100,000 whilst the poorest group
of 7 boroughs has a legitimate birth-rate of no less than 3,078, or 50
per cent more than that in the ‘rich’ quarters.”[90]

The pathological reason for the decline in the birth-rate is presented
by The National League for the Protection of the Family. “Since the
discovery of the germ of what was formerly considered the milder and
less harmful of the two chief sexual diseases, and more especially
since the numerous ramifications and effects of this milder form,
hitherto little suspected to exist, have been found and studied, there
has been a strong tendency towards agreement among medical authorities
that this disease is the real cause of a large part of the decline in
the birth-rate everywhere. While the difficulty of getting accurate
statistics on the subject is fully recognized by the authorities upon
it, they seem to agree that nearly or quite one-half of the cases of
sterility among the married are due to this milder of the two diseases,
and some would put it much higher. The more recent investigations also
go to show, so the medical authorities say, that a large number of what
they call ‘one-child marriages’ must be accounted for by the effects of
this milder of the two diseases.”[91]

Thorndyke suggests that the opinion that the decline in the birth-rate
is psychological rather than physiological may be “as wide of the
mark as the common belief that unwillingness is the main cause of the
failure of the women of the better classes to nurse their children”.
As a contradiction of natural selection, he says, “I may suggest that
the existence, amount and result of the elimination of types by their
failure to produce of their kind is after all a problem which only
statistical inquiries can settle and that if the doctrine is to be used
as an excuse for reading certain obvious facts in human history it is
perhaps time that it should be questioned.”[92]

Undoubtedly various causes are responsible for the decline in the
birth-rate, some of which have existed for ages. When the dominant
cause is psychological the remedy, if desirable, must be looked for
in the education of a community. Conditions must be brought about
making children desirable in the home, and a sufficient number of them
for the race to hold its own. But if the cause is beyond individual
selfishness--is other than psychological, and is a symptom of race
degeneracy in its reproductive capacities, it is as Thorndyke suggests
“time that it should be questioned.”

A statistical study of 524 families in the city of Chicago made in the
summer of 1909 suggests the possibilities of race degeneracy brought
about by economic causes. The mothers of these 524 families had been
married at least ten years and were born in foreign countries. The
nationalities represented were Italians, Germans, Irish, Bohemians,
Polish, Swedish and Norwegian, English and Scotch. They were people
who lived in the congested districts of the city and whose families
represented from one to thirteen children. 588 children died before
they reached the age of three years and 303 more were prematurely born
or died at birth, making the total loss under three years of age of 891.

Of the 588 deaths practically all would be attributed to social causes
such as unsanitary conditions existing in large cities or the ignorance
of mothers in the care and feeding of their children. Of the 303 babies
who died at birth or were prematurely born a large percentage would
be attributed to psychological causes resulting in foetiside. But
when one considers that only 20 per cent of the mothers embraced the
Protestant religion, a little less than 15 per cent were Jews and 65
per cent Catholics--the Catholic mother believes the unbaptized child
is destined to eternal punishment--the suspicion seems unwarranted.

It is true the above cases are all abnormal. They do not even represent
the average family of the congested parts of Chicago but rather the
most unfortunate of the unfortunate. They are the mothers who were sent
by the charity associations to the summer camps for a few weeks’ rest.
Nearly all were miserably poor, and had large families which in all
probability were important factors bringing about their poverty.

Undoubtedly the men of the families were the most inefficient workers
and the women possessed the least vitality when compared with the women
of the more fortunate classes. They might have been the least fit to
be parents, and their children--those who did survive the first three
years of life--help to swell the number of defective children in our
schools.

The fact, as Phelps notes, that so little difference exists in the
infant mortality-rate in the various countries of the world in spite of
increased medical knowledge may be indicative of a social evil common
to all countries, namely poverty.

The people who come from Europe and make up the tenement districts are
the poorest class at home, and many of them have never been properly
nourished. A United States Emigration report says, “The Poles are a
most prolific race, of strong and good physique, but rather anaemic in
appearance, owing to insufficient diet;” of the Bohemians, “the people
are industrious and economical. Their homes are primitive and barren
of everything except necessities.” One of the reasons the Italian
comes to this country is “the fact that the needs of the people have
outstripped the means of satisfying them.”[93]

It is most often real hunger that drives the emigrant to a new country
in the hopes of bettering his condition. And perhaps it is generations
of hunger, of malnutrition, on the part of the mother that is
responsible for the inability of the new-born child to resist infantile
diseases, or that prevents its natural birth. Thus the economic sins
of one generation are visited upon the next. There is indeed danger of
race degeneracy if the mothers and fathers of the future generations
are to be the underfed and the underpaid of the present time.

When necessity forced men to invade women’s field of work they did
not assume the heavier tasks because of their inconsistency with
motherhood, but because they were those tasks most in harmony with
their habits of life. Primitive women’s work was severe, but it was
work consistent with a stationary life which was desirable in the
bearing and rearing of children. Convenience helped to determine habits
of life and they in turn developed into customs. These customs were
responsible for many of the sex barriers, and class barriers of later
historical times.

The individual belonged to a class and his status was apparently fixed.
There was complete subordination within the class and competition
became class competition rather than individual competition. Thus
occupations were fixed and the plane of living showed little variation
from one generation to the other. There was no incentive to leave one’s
class, and little possibility of doing so. The individual’s future
was secure. At least it was not a game of chance, and children had an
equal chance at prosperity or starvation with their parents. The son
followed the occupation of his father which was in all probability the
occupation of his grandfather as well. The daughter was content with
the status of her mother, for she knew nothing different. She accepted
things as they were, just as her brother did, and whether her lot was
hard or comparatively easy, it was not for her to question it.

Wherever this social regime exists, the birth-rate is high. But
wherever class barriers are let down, and there is a possibility of the
individual shifting from one class to the other, competition between
individuals grows keen and individualization progresses by leaps. The
tyranny of custom and tradition ceases, and the lower classes can
with impunity imitate the higher classes. This creates an insatiable
desire for invidious distinction. The means to attain the desired end
are purely economic. The mother often engages in gainful occupations
to raise the plane of living and gain social prestige. An increasing
family becomes of vital concern to both parents because it would entail
a foregoing of luxuries which have to them become necessities.

This same overwhelming power of new wants is in a large measure
responsible for the increasing number of women in the professional
fields of work. To them it is an economic necessity. When measured
by the mental torture involved it is as essential to maintain the
standards of one’s class as bread is to the poor Russian peasant. A
girl will stand behind the counter from morning until night displaying
goods to exacting customers in order to maintain her standard of dress.
If she fails, she suffers probably as much as if her supply of food
were insufficient to satisfy her hunger.

The decrease of the birth-rate among the middle classes is thought to
be psychological. The Royal Commission on the decline of the birth-rate
in New South Wales after a careful investigation came to the conclusion
that the reasons for limiting the birth-rate “have one element in
common, namely selfishness.” Other investigators call this force
egoism, individualization, or the result of a struggle to maintain the
standard of life common to a class, all of which means an increased
consciousness of self. Ross says, “In the face of the hobby-riders I
maintain that the cause of the shrinkage in fecundity lies in the human
will as influenced by certain factors which have their roots deep in
the civilization of our times.”[94]

With the decrease of the importance of women’s work in the home, and
the increase of the necessity for them to enter the industrial field,
the birth-rate will continue to fall. Women’s invasion of the fields
of work outside the home will eventually result in a marked decline in
fecundity. So long as individual competition prevails in the business
world, the successful women will be those without the handicap of small
children. Mothers of small children cannot compete successfully in
the industrial world with the women who have no ties making demands
on their time or energy. Here lies the real danger arising out of the
necessity of women seeking employment outside the home. Under the
present industrial regime motherhood is not compatible with business
careers.

As long as the home was an industrial sphere and demanded the entire
time and energy of women there was little chance on their part for
individual development. But with the transition of work from the home
to the factory, women’s interests ceased to be necessarily centered
about the hearth, and many of them developed an individuality formerly
characteristic of men only. Freed from the cares of maternity women are
quite as radical as men. It is maternity that is largely responsible
for the conservatism of women and their indifference toward affairs
outside the home.

The high birth-rate of former times will not return nor is it
desirable, for the decreased death-rate among infants will tend to
maintain numbers. But while in the past children were accepted without
question, and parents never thought of the possibility of limiting
the size of their families, in the future the human will will play an
ever increasing part. Whether the guiding motive in restricting the
birth-rate will be a worthy one, or one to be deprecated will depend
upon those social institutions which are responsible for the production
of individuals’ ideals.


FOOTNOTES:

[86] McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_, pp. 81-2, 2nd Series.

[87] Westermarck.

[88] Phelps, _A Statistical Study of Infant Mortality_, p. 268.
Quarterly Publication of The American Statistical Association.

[89] Commander, _The American Idea_, p. 18.

[90] Webb, _Physical Degeneracy or Race Suicide_. Popular Science
Monthly, Dec. 1906, pp. 515-6.

[91] _Annual Report for 1906_, p. 10. _American Journal of Sociology_,
March, 1909. Doctor Morrow says, “A large proportion of sterile
marriages, contrary to the popular view, is from incapacity and not of
choice.” p. 626.

[92] Thorndyke, _Decrease in the Size of American Families_. Popular
Science Monthly, May, 1903, p. 69.

[93] Department of Commerce and Labor, _Emigration to the U. S._ 1904,
pp. 105, 112.

[94] Ross, _Western Civilisation and the Birth-Rate_. Am. Jour. of Soc.
XII, 610, March 1907.




CHAPTER IX

ECONOMIC CHANGES AND THE DIVORCE-RATE


So long has society been accustomed to accepting as final the laws and
customs arising out of earlier social conditions, that changes brought
about by new conditions, and contrary to the accepted scheme of things
arouse a widespread concern. There is no better illustration of the
conflict between the new and the old than the present tendency to
divorce, and the steady pressure of our social institutions to combat
this tendency.

It did not take primitive man long to see that organization was
essential to preservation. Only the best organized tribes could survive
in a struggle; and the closer the organization, the greater the
advantage when contending with outside or hostile forces. The basis
of tribal organization was the family, and the tribes with the best
organized families in a growing society proved the most effective in
the tribal life.

When the family became a recognized unit of stability--either for
methods of warfare or economic reasons--forces arose tending to
establish sentiments opposed to divorce. It was of primary importance
that these sentiments should be accepted as a code of morality in a
loosely organized society. It is when the larger organization, such as
the state, is not strong enough to maintain its own stability, that
it is of the utmost importance that the units composing it should
be compact and self reliant. Only in a highly organized, socialized
society, can the family be viewed as a compact with the welfare of its
individual members as its sole motive for existence.

In primitive times the unity of the family was of the utmost importance
to the men of the tribe as well as to the women. The permanency of the
marriage relation was essential to the preservation of society, for the
state could not assume the function of protection in contradistinction
to the protection afforded by the male head of the family. It is only
in peaceable communities where the occupations of the people are
principally industrial that a social consciousness arises, making
possible a non-militant social compact looking toward the individual’s
welfare as part of the community welfare.

It was important, too, that the head of the family should assume the
responsibility of caring for the helpless. If this were not so, the
care of the offspring would be shifted from the family to the tribe or
state. Irrespective of the moral practices within the family, or the
form of marriage, it was essential to maintain the family unity for the
care and the protection of children.

On the other hand it was important for the women to be attached to some
household, and recognized as a permanent part of it. If not, in cases
where their rights were entirely overlooked, they would be forced to
return to the households of their fathers. Consciously or unconsciously
the members of the tribe appreciated the importance of creating moral
sentiments fostering family responsibilities on the part of the
individual.

Divorce in the past was essentially a masculine institution. The state
arose out of the desire to protect property rights of the individual.
Women did not possess property to any considerable extent and so were
denied the privileges arising therefrom. They were considered by both
father and husband as property and all property rights inhering in
them as in lands and cattle. That is, the status of women did not
necessarily make them property, but the property right possession
involved was responsible to a marked measure for their status.

In many primitive tribes women neither fought nor cared for the herds
and all their activities resolved themselves into personal services.
Hence, more than one wife was a luxury to a husband for she was a real
economic burden.

All laws governing property naturally applied to women and aimed
alone at protecting the rights of men. Transgression against these
matrimonial rights of a man was an offense against property and
punished accordingly. It was not an offense against the moral sense
of the community, or of the individual, for wife-loaning was looked
upon with favor by many while the usurpation of the same privilege was
punishable by death. It was a crime against property and not against
the woman in question.

Women were often treated with great brutality, but this abuse did not
follow necessarily because they were women--the male is naturally
more considerate at all times of the female than of his own kind--but
because they possessed no rights which were synonymous with economic
strength. Their relative economic value did not inhere in them
personally but in the economic strength of their fathers and husbands.

The rights of women increased with the increase of their economic
importance in the household. During the period of domestic industry,
divorce was almost unknown. When it was practiced, it was the exclusive
privilege of the leisure class, or of those whose financial well being
was secured.

It is true the church took a decided stand against divorce and did much
toward counteracting the supposed evil, but a far greater force was the
development of the medieval town with its domestic industries.

Agricultural occupations were also a strong unifying force in the
family relation. Where people are attached to the soil by virtue of
their occupations and property rights, the home is an economic unit
just as is true of the diminutive factory carried on within the family
group.

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.