The Emancipation of Women.

Fair Play, Volume I, Issue 24, 1 August 1894, Page 22

The Emancipation of Women.

[By Fabian Black.]

What does it mean ? There are thousands of persons of both sexes who.prate glibly on the subject, and go into raptures when the cablegrams announce that one of the fair sex has succeeded in wresting high University honours from male competitors (by cramming her brain with a mass of abstruse and useless learning; or who point with pride to the political power lately bestowed, and grow jubilant over the prospect of women legislators), who are as utterly ignorant of the true and full meaning of the expression as they are of the stupendous social changes involved before the freedom of woman can be truly attained. Many of these people have narrowed the question down to a contention for sex supremacy, and by making comparisons and insinuations of a most injudicious character, have succeeded in raising a faint but unfortunate feeling of antagonism among a small section of each sex. According to them, women have but one common enemy—man —who malignantly wishes to keep them in subjection and domestic slavery. This is manifestly absurd. It is of course impossible to deny that from the' earliest periods of civilization women have suffered injustice in respect to sex privileges; and through both State-made and social laws being framed by men mainly for the purpose of protecting ' property!—(hats off"! gentlemen)—they have always unduly favoured the men The contemplation of these wrongs has often blinded the advocates of “ women’s rights” to the fact that the causes which operate most strongly in depressing and degrading the sex, also afflict the great majority of men. As women have suffered through being the weaker sex, so have men suffered through being unable to resist the tyranny of the powerful. But whenever men, either collectively or, individually, have risen to greater prosperity or higher social conditions, women’s position has been bettered, and they have participated in the accruing enjoyments. Hardly any man wishes to tyrranise over his .womankind, be they wife, mother, sister, or daughter. They aro the objects of his care,, his pride, his joy. Woman, as a wife—why 1 good heavens—is she not the one object which' a man reverences more than any living thing. He will work, beg, cheat, or steal to keep her in happiness and comfort. Th 6 man who either by neglect or intention seeks to injure his womankind is destroying his own happiness. Woman is the natural complement of man. No man can live a fully developed human life without a woman partakes in his joys and sorrows. Any cause which sets the sexes at variance, or induces competition between them, is an offence against nature. Apart from the consideration of the divorce laws and other legal enactments which have closed the avenues of various professional careers to women, there is no doubt social laws and conventional ideas enslave women very considerably. Legislation can effect nothing here. Freedom can only be obtained as society becomes educated in respect to human rights, and develops broader and higher ideals of sex lhorality. It is'common to point to the sewing girl, the poorly paid governess, the over-worked domestic servant, the factory girl, and the social evil, and then howl about vvomen’s rights. Men—as a sex—especially the men of the present day, are not accountable for the unfortunate conditions of these women. Their case is parallel to the male drudge, be he bov clerk, shopman, worker, or tramp. Both are the outcome of fundamental errors in the basis of our social system. Competition produces both. More competition between the

sexes will only intensify the evil. The abnormal increase of single women seeking employment is caused by the increased disability of men to marry. Even if women succeed in displac- ; ing men in many, of the lighter employments, they will not be free ; and what liberty they do gain will be at the cost of a suppression of their natural instincts, and a decadence of those virtues and qualities which constitute their greatest charm. Gronlund, in “ The Co-operative Commonwealth,” in criticising J. S. Mill’s advocacy of woman’s rights, says:—Now, we say that'the worst that can befall both sexes is for woman to compete with man in man’s work. We contend, with Mill, for equality; but against Mill that woman should not become a second-rate man. That is say, we urge the vital distinction, which is constantly overlooked, between being equal and being alike. In other-words, instead of free competition between the sexes we contend for special vocations for the sexes.” Freedom ' is far more unequally divided between classes than between sexes. The woman of means enjoys quite as much freedom, and more respect, than the man of means. No woman, or man either for that matter, can be considered free, until certainty of employment is secured by all. When that is gained woman will then be freed from the humiliating position of deeming- almost any marriage better than having to fight the struggle of life alone. She will not then be compelled to legally prostitute her- ' self for the purpose of having ahome. Love, and love alone, will then influence her in accepting her life’s partner, and the fact of being able to maintain herself by her own exertions, at will, will considerably strengthen her independence. • After all, what is it which to thousands of women now makes life almost intolerable, and fairly grinds the soul out of them ? Is it not the dull - monotonous round of domestic drudgery ? The continual scrubbing, cleaning, nursing, cooking, and worrying about small family troubles ? The under-paid milliner or factory girl is not nearly so enslaved as the working, or middle-class, mother of a family. Her work is never done. No Trade'Union protects her wages, or Factory Acts regulate her hours of work. She sold herself into slavery for love, and, perhaps, has, alas! long been disillusioned. Belief can only come to her through the betterment of her husband’s position,. and perhaps not much then. Slowly but surely her intellect has been deadened, and her vital energies sapped, till she takes but little interest in aught than mere domestic details. The limits of her activities and the .facilities for the development of her character are all contained between four walls, and are. but too often represented by the wash-tub,: the sewing-machine, and the cooking stove. Literature and • art are but dead letters, to her; even the beauties and joys of, nature are, becoming obscured as she hardly ever goes out, and finally she sinks into a comparatively early grave, a victim to chronic nervous debility, without having realised what a fully developed human . life should be. How are these—our sisters—to be emancipated ? What will scholarships, University degrees, doctorships, professional chairs, and the franchise do for them ? They may be able to vote away a few licenses, and perhaps close lewd- . houses, but how long will it be ere they perceive the underlying causes which produce these evils ?_ Something must be done, and quickly. Already teachers and preachers are showing the way ; on -the one hand, thundering forth that it is the State’s duty to see that no willing man or woman shall be condemned to idleness, and on the other showing how woman’s toil may be lightened by domestic economies and the simplication of life. Both husband and wife must be raised together. There is no influence so powerful for refining and-improving human nature. as steadily-increasing prosperity, and no power for evil so swiftly degrading as hopeless, helpless poverty Therefore, we must not think of the emancipation.of women as a mere question of sex privilege, and pit one sex against the othei;; but fight steadily for the elevation of both,.knowing that woman’s highest > qualities and most priceless virtues can only.be developed when], .harmonious co-operation exists between the sexes; "