按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
civilization。 Progressive people are proud of the freedom and honor
given their women； and our nation honestly believes itself the leader in
this line。 〃American women are the freest in the world！〃 we say； and
boast of it。
Since the agitation for women's rights began； many concessions have been
made to further improve their condition。 Men； seeing the justice of
certain demands； have granted in many states such privileges as
admission to schools； colleges； universities； and special instruction
for professions； followed by admission to the bar； the pulpit； and the
practice of medicine。 Married women； in many states； have now a right
to their own earnings； and in a few； mothers have an equal right in the
guardianship of their children。
We are proud and glad that our women are free to go unveiled； to travel
alone； to choose their own husbands； we are proud and glad of every
extension of justice already granted by men to women。
Now：Have any of these concessions been granted because a majority of
women asked for them？ Was it advanced in opposition to any of them that
〃women did not want it？〃 Have as many women ever asked for these things
as are now asking for the ballot？ If it was desirable to grant these
other rights and privileges without the demand of a majority； why is the
demand of a majority required before this one is granted？
The child widows of India did not unitedly demand the abolition of the
〃suttee。〃
The tortured girl children of China did not rise in overwhelming
majority to demand free feet； yet surely no one would refuse to lift
these burdens because only a minority of progressive women insisted on
justice。
It is a sociological impossibility that a majority of an unorganized
class should unite in concerted demand for a right； a duty； which they
have never known。
The point to be decided is whether political equality is to the
advantage of women and of the statenot whether either； as a body； is
asking for it。
Now for the 〃society〃 theory。 There is a venerable fiction to the
effect that women makeand manage； 〃society。〃 No careful student of
comparative history can hold this belief for a moment。 Whatever the
conditions of the age or place； industrial； financial； religious；
political； educational； these conditions are in the hands of men； and
these conditions dictate the 〃society〃 of that age or place。
〃Society〃 in a constitutional monarchy is one thing； in a primitive
despotism another； among millionaires a third； but women do not make the
despotism； the monarchy； or the millions。 They take social conditions
as provided by men； precisely as they take all other conditions at their
hands。 They do not even modify an existing society to their own
interests； being powerless to do so。 The 〃double standard of morals；〃
ruling everywhere in 〃society；〃 proves this； as does the comparative
helplessness of women to enjoy even social entertainments； without the
constant attendance and invitation of men。
Even in its great function of exhibition leading to marriage； it is the
girls who are trained and exhibited； under closest surveillance； while
the men stroll in and out； to chose at will； under no surveillance
whatever。
That women； otherwise powerful； may use 〃society〃 to further their ends；
is as true as that men do； and in England； where women； through their
titled and landed position； have always had more political power than
here； 〃society〃 is a very useful vehicle for the activities of both
sexes。
But； in the main； the opportunities of 〃society〃 to women； are merely
opportunities to use their 〃feminine influence〃 in extra domestic
linesa very questionable advantage to the home and family； to
motherhood； to women； or to the state。
In religion women have always filled and more than filled the place
allowed them。 Needless to say it was a low one。 The power of the
church； its whole management and emoluments； were always in the hands of
men； save when the Lady Abbess held her partial sway； but the work of
the church has always been helped by womenthe men have preached and
the women practised！
Charity； as a vocation； is directly in line with the mother instinct；
and has always appealed to women。 Since we have learned how injurious
to true social development this mistaken kindness is； it might almost be
classified as a morbid by…product of suppressed femininity！
In passing we may note that charity as a virtue is ranked highest among
those nations and religions where women are held lowest。 With the
Moslems it is a universal lawand in the Moslem Paradise there are no
womensave the Houries！
The playground of a man…fenced 〃society〃； the work…ground of a
man…taught church； and this 〃osmosis〃 of social nutrition； this leakage
and seepage of values which should circulate normally； called charity；
these are not a sufficient field for the activities of women。
As for those limitations of the 〃feminine mind〃 which render her unfit
to consider the victuallage of a nation； or the justice of a tax on
sugar； it hardly seems as if the charge need be taken seriously。 Yet so
able a woman as Mrs。 Humphry Ward has recently advanced it in all
earnestness。
In her view women are capable of handling municipal； but not state
affairs。 Since even this was once denied them； and since； in England；
they have had municipal suffrage for some time； it would seem as if
their abilities grew with use； as most abilities do； which is in truth
the real answer。
Most women spend their whole lives； and have spent their whole lives for
uncounted generations； in the persistent and exclusive contemplation of
their own family affairs。 They are near…sighted； or near…minded；
rather； the trouble is not with the nature of their minds； but with the
use of them。
If men as a class had been exclusively confined to the occupation of
house…service since history began； they would be similarly unlikely to
manifest an acute political intelligence。
We may agree with Tennyson that 〃Woman is not undeveloped man； but
diverse；〃 that is _women_ are not undeveloped _men；_ but the feminine
half of humanity is undeveloped human。 They have exercised their
feminine functions； but not their human…functions； at least not to their
full extent。
Here appears a distinction which needs to be widely appreciated。
We are not merely male and femaleall animals are thatour chief
distinction is that of race； our humanness。
Male characteristics we share with all males； bird and beast； female
characteristics we share with all females； similarly； but human
characteristics belong to _genus homo_ alone； and are possessed by both
sexes。 A female horse is just as much a horse as a male of her species；
a female human being is just as human as the male of her speciesor
ought to be！
In the special functions and relations of sex there is no contest； no
possible rivalry or confusion； but in the general functions of humanity
there is great misunderstanding。
Our trouble is that we have not recognized these human functions as
such； but supposed them to be exclusively masculine； and； acting under
that idea； strove to prevent women from an unnatural imitation of men。
Hence this minor theory of the limitations of the 〃female mind。〃
The mind is pre…eminently human。 That degree of brain development which
distinguishes our species； is a human； not a sex characteristic。
There may be； has been； and still is； a vast difference in our treatment
of the minds of the two sexes。 We have given them a different
education； different exercises； different conditions in all ways。 But
all these differences are external； and their effect disappears with
them。
The 〃female mind〃 has proven its identical capacity with the 〃male
mind；〃 _in so far as it has been given identical conditions。_ It will
take a long time； however； before conditions are so identical； for
successive generations； as to give the 〃female mind〃 a fair chance。
In the meantime； considering its traditional； educational and
associative drawbacks； the 〃female mind〃 has made a remarkably good
showing。
The field of politics is an unfortunate one in which to urge this
alleged limitation； because politics is one of the few fields in which
some women have been reared and exercised under equal conditions with
men。
We have had queens as long as we have had kings； perhaps longer； and
history does not show the male mind； in kings； to have manifested a
numerically proportionate superiority over the female mind； in queens。
There have been more kings than queens； but have there been more good
and great ones； in proportion？
Even one practical and efficient queen is proof enough that being a
woman does not preclude political capacity。 Since England has had such
an able queen for so long； and that within Mrs。 Humphry Ward's personal
memory； her position seems fatuous in the extreme。
It has been advanced that great queens owed their power to the
association and advice of the noble and high…minded men who surrounded
them； and； further； that the poor showing made by many kings； was due to
the association and vice of the base and low…minded women who surrounded
them。
This is a p