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the Economics, Political Science, and History series was discontinued with the completion of the second volume and has been replaced by the Economics and Political Science series and the History series.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

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.