THE CONGRESS OE WOMEN.
27
result from the participation of women, because they claim that it would reduce the general scale of wages paid, and lessen the earning power of men, who require their present incomes to maintain their families. Plausible as these theories are, we can not accept them without pausing to inquire, what then would become of all but the very few women who have independent fortunes or are the happy wives of men able and willing to support them? The interests of probably three-fourths of the women in the world are at stake. Are they to be allowed to starve, or to rush to self- destruction? If not permitted to work, what course is open to them?
Our oriental neighbors have seen the logic of the situation far more clearly than vve and have been consistent enough to meet it, without shrinking from heroic measures when necessary. The question is happily solved in some countries by the practice of polygamy, which allows every man to maintain as many wives as his means permit. In others etiquette requires that a newly made widow be burned on the funeral pyre with her husband’s body, while the Chinese take the precaution to drown surplus female children. It would seem that any of these methods is more logical and less cruel than the system we pursue of permitting the entire female population to live, but making it impossible for those born to poverty to maintain themselves in comfort, because they are hampered by a caste feeling almost as strong as that ruling India, which will not permit them to work on equal terms with men. These unhappy members of an inferior class must be content to remain in penury, living on the crumbs that fall from tables spread for those of another and higher caste. This relative position has been exacted on the one side, accepted on the other. It has been considered by each an inexorable law.
We shrink with horror from the unjust treatment of child widows and other unfortunates on the opposite side of the globe, but our own follies and inconsistencies are too close to our eyes for us to see them in proper perspective. Sentimentalists should have reduced their theories to set terms and applied them. They have had ample time and opportunity to provide means by which helpless women could be cherished, protected and removed from the storm and stress of life. Women could have asked nothing better. We have no respect for a theory which touches only the favored few who do not need its protection and leaves unaided the great mass it has assisted to push into the mire. Talk not of it, therefore, until it can be uttered, not only in polite drawing rooms, but also in factories and workshops without a blush of shame for its weakness and inefficiency.
But the sentimentalist again exclaims: “ Would you have woman step down from her pedestal in order to enter practical life?” Yes! A thousand times, yes! If we can really find, after a careful search, any women mounted upon pedestals, we should willingly ask them to step down—in order that they may meet and help to uplift their sisters. Freedom and justice for all are infinitely more to be desired than pedestals for a few. I beg leave to state that, personally, I am not a believer in the pedestal theory—never having seen an actual example of it, and that I always suspect the motives of anyone advancing it. It does not represent the natural and fine relation between husband and wfife, or between friends. They should stand side by side, the fine qualities of each supplementing and assisting those of the other. Men naturally cherish high ideals of womanhood, as women do of manliness and strength. These ideals will dwell with the human race forever without our striving to preserve and protect them.
If we now look at the question from the economic standpoint and decide for good and logical reasons that women should be kept out of industrial fields in order that they may leave the harvest for men, whose duty it is to maintain women and children, then by all the laws of justice and equity these latter should be provided for by their natural protectors, and if deprived of them should become w'ards of the state, and be maintained in honor and comfort. The acceptance of even this doctrine of tardy justice would not, however, I feel sure, be welcomed by the woman of today who, having had a taste of independence, will never willingly relinquish it. They have no desire to be