“Woman's Century Calendar.”

White Ribbon, Volume 5, Issue 56, 1 February 1900, Page 10

“Woman's Century Calendar.”

1 lie above is the title of a skilfully edited and tastefully-printed booklet of 80 pages, published quarterly by the National American Womar Suffrage Association, 107 World Building, New York, at 25 cents per single copy, and 1 dollar 45 cents per annum. The September number which we have received, contains portraits of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Julia Ward Howe, Frances Willard, Mary A. Livermore, Clara Barton, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Lucretia Mott, and Mrs Belle Mansfield. On the cover is the picture of a “ Sweet Girl Graduate ” in cap and gown, and encircling the picture is the motto, “ Not new women, but new conditions ” Ihe date 1800 in the left corner is enclosed by the words “ Ignorance ” and “ Repression,” and in the right corner the date 1900 is enclosed by the more inspiring words, “ Liberty ” and “Equality.” At the foot of the cover is the motto, “The world does move.” The introductory series of paragraphs gives a very fair account of the legal and social position of women in the year 1800, and we cannot do better than republish them. They are entitled, Landmarks in Woman's Century. Married women were not permitted in any country to control their property, nor to will it away at death ; to all intents and purposes they did not own it. The Common Law in operation in England and the United States held husband and wife to be onr y and that one the husband. The legal existence of the wife was so merged in that of her husband, she was said to be “ dead in law.” Not only did he control her property, collect and use her wages, select the food and clothing for herself and children, decide upon the education and religion of their children, but to a very large extent he controlle 1 her “ freedom of thought, speech and action.” With the exception of the Married Women’s Property Act the economic position of women has not much improved. Given economic disability, and most of the other disabilities follow'.— Ed. If she disagreed with him, or in any way offended him, he possessed the legal right, upheld by public opinion, to punish h r ; the Courts only interfering when the chastisement exceeded the popular idea in severity. At this time it was held by Courts in England and the United States that a man on

Whipping his Wife should be restricted to a stick no thicker than his thumb. Humane, affectionate husbands, always better than the law, treated their wives as loved companions, but upon the wives of fickle, untrue, ignorant and brutal husbands, always numerous, the oppression of the law fell with crushing force, and the wife had no redress. All possessions passed into the hands of the husband at marriage. If a married woman worked for wages, she could not legally collect them, as they belonged to her husband. She could not make a will; sue or be sued. Widows or unmarried women who might possess a bank account did not go to a bank to transact their business, but employed a male friend as an agent. They rarely managed their own affairs; the opinion prevailed so commonly that women could not possess business intelligence, they had neither confidence in themselves nor public encouragement to attempt any ventures of independence. I'ew occupations w r ere open to women and these were monopolised by the poor. It was accounted a disgrace for women of the upper or middle classes to earn money. The unmarried women of such classes, dubbed “ old maid,” forbidden by popular opinion to support herself, became a dependent in the home of her nearest male relative. Pitied because she Never “ Had a Chance,” regarded with contempt as dependents always will be, she was condemned to a life of involuntary service, No college in the world admitted women. Men had so long done the thinking for the average woman, it was uivversally believed that no woman was capable of mastering the highest branches of learning ; the few women of genius who had appeared from time to time were pronounced the “ Exception which proves the rule.” The convents and lxwrding-schools, wherein girls of wealth were educated, taught nothing but the rudiments, while the daughters of the poor received no education at all. Good manners, polite address, music and dancing were considered the only accomplishments necessary. Public schools were in many places closed to girls, and when admitted they were dissuaded from attempting the study of all branches except reeding, w riting "and elementary arithmetic. In Churches women were seated on one side and men on the other; as it

was held that men “ Could not commend themselves to God unless relieved of the Contaminating Influence of women.” Women were forbidden to pray or speak in the churches, and, in many of them, even to sing in the choir. They were forbidden any part in the business management of the ( hurches, and occupied much the same relationship to the Church as did child members. !In this year, 1900, women are graciously allowed to collect money or provide for the Churches’ support, but otherwise they have little more share in the “ business management ” than they had in 1800.]- Ed. It was consideied highly immodest for a woman to appear upon a business street without a male escort, and any woman seen upon the street after dark was regarded with suspicion. More than one hundred years before, Anne Hutchison, a Godly woman, had been cruelly persecuted for daring to “ preach the Gospel to men.” So universally was this movement against her approved that the voices of women were silenced everywhere. Not a woman would have dared to speak in public, and few w'ould have given approval if she had. The recital of the legal and social disabilities of women at the beginning of the century is pitiful enough, but it can only partially convey a full understanding of the timid, self-distrustful, untrained character of the average woman of the day. Taught that it w f as Unwomanly to hold Opinions on serious subjects—that men most admired clinging weakness in women, and that the one worthy ambition was to secure their admiration—it is no wonder they made little effort to think. The familiar simile of the oak and tne vine was not inappropriate at the time. A few protests against these conditions had been made—the premonitions of the coming revolt. Mary Wollstonecraft, in her “ Vindication of the Rights of \\ omen, had pleaded eloquently for the larger opportunities for women, and especially for education, saying, “ Women cannot be injured by the experiment, for it is not in the power of men to render them more insignificant than they are at present.” The public had received her appeal in the hostile spirit unfortunately customary when a w holly new idea is presented, and Henry Walpole doubtless reflected public opinion when he called her a “ Hyena in Petticoats.”

Condorscet had made a plea for ful liberty for women, including enfran chisement, at the close of the French Revolution, and was supported by a. considerable following of representative men and women. Mistress Margaret Brent, the owner of a vast estate in Maryland, had demanded a voice in colonial affairs: and Abigail Adams had pleaded for a larger liberty for women at the close of the American Revolution ; but these were the voices of seers rather than the expression of common opinion. Womfn were satisfied with their lot, and men believed they were fulfilling the highest possibilities of woman-kind. It was upon such conditions the curiain of the nineteenth century rose, the century which the prophetic voice of Victor Hugo his proclaimed to be the “ Century of Woman.”