Women’s Disabilities.

White Ribbon, Volume 8, Issue 96, 1 May 1903, Page 1

Women’s Disabilities.

Read by Mrs K. W. Sheppard at the

Dunedin Convention, in March

Freedom is a possession desired by every healthy, living thing in the vegetable and animal kingdom. I do not know whsther there exists a state of absolute, individual freedom, but we

know that it cannot exist in groups of plants, animals, or human Deings For the freedom of each individual is perforce limited t v the desires, wants, and necessities of it* *- lows. Yet the si.. gle for frtedom goos ceaselessly on, and these who abandon the struggle are degenerates, and must still more degenerate. The amount of freedom enjoyed by any individual member of a group of unreasoning beings depends entirely upon the relative amount of

vitality, energy, force, and exerted by that member. Might, in short, is the sole measure of individual freedom in a primitive and unreasoning community. When, however, the advantages of living in communities became fully apparent, and reason was brought into operation, it became obvious that some other standard than individual might must be set up to define the limits

of individual liberty. It was seen that the community could not cohere and successfully resist attacks from without unless the disintegrating forces of greed, selfishness, and cruelty were restrained within the group The freedom of the community became of more importance than the liberty of the individua 1 right began to take first plaoe, and the force

of might was turned against the forces outside. The whole power of the community was r.ted to redress the wrongs of one of its members, and as civilization progressed, even the slaves of the community came to have recognised lights. Slowly, but surely, the idea of freedom broadened out, the slaves were set at liberty, and the rights of the common people were

more and more recognised. And to-day we

guage the civilisations of the past and present by the equity of their laws, and by the free don and security given to the weakest of their people. We cow recognise that the essential of true civilisation is to render justice and fair play, and an equality of opportunity to every member of the community. Ft is, in

fact, the application of the Goldea Rule to the a flairs of our civic life. The non-recogni-tion of this Rule causes disintegration, it leads to injustice and dissension. it erects barriers where none should exist, it allows might to iule instead of right, and inflicts hardships on large sections of the community. In other words, it brings about a reversion to primitive and barbaric conditions. When we examine the political and legal conditions of this colony, we find

a curious mingling of advanced civilisation and semibarbarism. Cowley says, “ The liberty of a people consists in being governed by laws which they have made themselves.” Accepting this definition, we find that only half—the male half—of the people of this colony enjoy the sweets of liberty. The other half—the women—are hampered and restrained by laws admittedly unjust, which they had no voice in making.

It is true that some amelioration* in the lot of woram have h»*en mat*, but they have been male fitfully, grudgingly. and partially. None of our legislators have been bold enough to pay fearlessly, “ Womeu are ss valuable to the State as are men, they have equal intelligence, equal pr>bity, aud should therefore have equal rights and privileges with men.” Nearly ten years ago, after years of agitation and stru/gle, the franchise was given to our New Zealand women It was given to them, after years of hard fighting, by a majority of two. Hut, in order that the measure might not be wrecked, it was expressly stated that women were not t > be treated equally with male electors, but were to be debarred from entering Parliament. Here is a curious instance of a reversion to the primitive and barbaric idea of the subjection of women. Any thoughtful person will see that the freedom to sit a* a representative of the people is & logical sequence the extension of the franchise to women. And equally obvious is the fact that the question of electing or rejecting women candidates could safely be left to the electors. We do not know of any women who are desirous of serving their country in Parliament. And, as a matter of fact, in South Australia, where the legislators were more logical and just thau their brethren in New Zealand, and where the matter has been left to the judgment of the electors, not only has no woman been elected, but we have not heard of one even offering her services. The truth is that so strong is the force of sex-prejudice that a woman would have to be very cour ,geous to become a candidate, and would have to display most exceptional fitness to have the remotest chance of being elected. By barring women from Parliament in defiance of their logical rights as electors, our legislators are either most fantastically chivalrous, or most barbaiically tyrannous. In either case they are out of tune with the spirit of civilisation and Christianity. Do they fear that the modesty of women may be injured by taking part in the proceedings of Parliament ? If so, would it not be better to improve the character of their sittings ? and would not the presence of women help them to do this ? We used to hear of the danger to the modesty of w men if they were allowed to vote. Yet we now know' that that fear was a baseless one. Are our legislators afiaid that the strength of women would be unequal to the strain of a Parliamentary session ? If we may judge by the physique of some of our members of Parliament, the task of legislating does not demand any Special Muscular Development.

Are they in doubt as to whether the mental calibre of woman would be equal to the gigantic wrestling with mighty problems which our representatives indulge in ? Let us look at this question of mental capacity, for it is on this point that some men like to speak so superiorly. They forget to acknowledge that the average woman is so confined to her home duties that she has not the opportunity of frequent interchange with other minds Nor is she able to sit down regularly every evening and read magazines or instructive books. And

if, in course of time, that leisure and opportu-

nity is afforded her she has by then often lost the taste for that kind cf improvement. The men who speak thus slightingly forget what increasing demands are made on a woman’s intelligence by the care of a family. An

average intelligent wife and mother has to acquire an elementary knowledge of physiology, of hygiene, of dressmaking of tailoring ; she learns the duties of a children’s nurse, of a sick nurse, of a housemaid, of a plain cook, and financial problems of a complexity that would puzzle a colonial treasurer, have to be grappled with and solved

This statement of the case will not, perhaps, convince our superior man of the capacity of a woman’s brain. Let us therefore take cases in which the circumstances are alike and in which comparison can be accurately made. It will be admitted that the average boy has more spare time than the average girl Yet the average school-girl takes the same subjects, and passes the same standards in our primary schools as does the average boy. This does not look like inferior intellect. “ Oh, but,” it may r>e said, “ there is a differentiation later on between the male and female brain.” Let us, therefore, take a later period for comparison. We find that in the Collegiate courses young women take the same work as young men, and have to show the fame mental capacity liefore they gain their degrees of B. A. or M. A. Yet they take their degrees. In law and medicine the same qualifi cations are exacted before they are allowed to practise. If they become school teachers, their school work is judged by the same standards as that of men who are teachers, and no allowance is made for inferiority of intellect. In teaching, almost the only practical difference that is made between the sexes is that while a woman may do the same work as a man, she will be paid only about half the salary he receives. V\e think that enough has been said to show that there is no sound reason why women should be debarred from entering Parliament. The question next arises, “ Do women suffer because they are not allowed to have representatives of their own sex to watch and take part in legislation ? ” We think that they do, and that not women alone, but the whole community is seriously affected by our mono-sexual system of representation. By excluding women from Paliament, the electors are Divided into Two Classes, from one of which alone wiy representatives be chosen. One half of the electors is therefore excluded from direct representation, and our legislation is therefore as lopsided as is our system of election. If the brain of mankind is oi-sexual, it is a logical inference that one half cinnot satisfactori perform the duties of the whole And, as t matter of fact, there are few, if any, subjects considered by our legislature which do not affejt both sexes. We have heard it seriously stated by a gentleman, and we off«*r it in all seriousness that no Parliament can adequately represent the whole of the people which is not composed of representatives of both sexes in equal numbers. The effects of the exclusion of women from their political rights is plainly to he seen in the legislation of the past Can any one believe tbat if women had been sitting in Parliament, the shameful C. D. Acts would have been passed P Does anyone think that if women were in Parliament to-day these Acts would be allowed to remain an insult to women, and a disgrace to our Statute Books P If we had women as our representatives would the unfair system by which the State pays its women school teachers half the salary which it pays to men for loing the same work be tolerated f And the evil of unfair payment does

not end here. For the example set by the State is followed by the Boards that govern High school*, and by other local boards, and by private employers. Why should not women receive tie same remuneration as men if they do work equal in amount and equal in quality ? Why should the Masters aud Apprentices Act and the Factory Acts decree that girls shall be paid less than boys P Tbe answer iB, of course, that, woman is unrepresented in Parliament. And the same spirit of unfairness runs through numbers of our laws. Women are deliberately assigned a position of inferiority. Some little time ago we asked that women should be appointed to visit our gaols, with ths powers and position of visiting justices. A visiting justice, we understind, may hear the complaints of prisoners, aod listen to charges made agiinst them, and inflict punishments. There are, unfortunately a nutnb-r of women in our gaols, and it seemed only reasonable and decent that complaints and charges would be more fitly made to a member of their own Bex. In reply tjoir application we were informed that no provision is made by the law for the appointment of women to the office of visiting justice. These unfortunate women were arrested by men, prosecuted by men lawyers for breaches of laws made solely by men, the jurors who decided upon their guilt were all men, the judges who sentenced them were men, their very gaolers are men, and the solitary crumb of comfort in the shtpe of a woman justice is denied them.

Will not future generations wonder what kind of barbarians we were P

Trial by jury is supposed to be the palladium of our rights and liberties. It was

Expbehslt Provided in Mauna Charta that all persons accused of crime should be judged by their peers in order that they might be protected from oppression. The exclusion of women from the jut/ list is a deliberate infringement of this admirable provision. It appears to me that there are many cases where women and children are concerned, where it is absolutely necessary tbat women should be on the jury in order that justice may be done. No doubt we shall be told that women would not like to serve on the jury, and that it would often happen that womeu would be unable to serve their country in this way. In answer to the first statement we may admit its truth. But we may point out that men also dislike the position of jurymen an 1 will avoid it if possible. Yet they accept the inevitable, and few of them would seriously adv< oate that trial by jury should be abolished. With regard to the second objection, if the health at a woman rendered her unfit to perform the duty for which she was summoned, a private explanatory note to the Registrar from her medical man, or even her husband, would be sufficient ground for the court to grant her leave of absence. Let me now draw attention to tbe question of the economic partnership of husband and wife. Ia this matter the law and the Church take opposite sides, and both are equally unfair. The Church forces the man to solemnly endow his wife with all his worldly goods. The law takes no notice of this oath, but gives the man an absolutely tight grip not only on what he possesses at the time of marriage, but whatever may be gained in the future by the joint exertions of himself and his wife. We all know of many cases where a

competence has been earned mainly through the thrift and energy of the wife. Yet from the day she marries until the day of her death, the woman never has a penny but what husband may dole out to her. She has worked as hard as he, she may have tbown far more versatility, and resource, than her husband, but all that she is entitle 1 to, by law, is the most meagre of food, and the scantiest of clothing. If she dies before her husband, she cannot will a shilling of the property that she has helped to gain to hei children. Hy law it is All Her Husband’s,

and he may dispose of it quite regardless of her wishes. Surely a rational marriage law, a law framed by men and women acting together, would provide that when a man and woman love each other sufficiently to »nter into a life-long partnership, their property and income should he held in common, and their partnership should be economic as well as connubial.

There are other aspects in which the economic position of the wife ie unfairly laid down by the law. A wife may not enter into partnership, even with another woman, without the consent of her husband, no matter how worthless he may be. Jn the guardianship of children all power is centred in the husband, mainly through the sole control of the family income which the law gives him. It may be said, “ but a wife has power to pledge the cr. dit of her husband.” That is true, so far as bare necessities of life are con cerned, and it is also true that he has the power to advertise that he will not be responsible for nor delts, although she maybe earning hev own living. We freely admit that there are many men who live above the law, and treat their rvives fairly, and even generously. Hut there are many who 3o not, who cause their wives bitter humiliation, and these latter receive the sanction of the law. We are quite aware of laws which have been passed of recent years for the amelioration of the condition of women, but much still remains to be done.

In the matter of illegitimacy we see the onesidedness of laws made by men alone. The woman risks her life, she bears a life-long brand of shame, the child is called by her name, and her efforts to earn a living are hampered by the little life that has come unsought. Hut the man walks with head erect, and, save for the payment of a quite inadequate lumpsum, or a tritiing weekly contribution for a few years, goes scot free. Even the recent Factory Acts, good in intention, show how difficult it is for one sex to legislate fairly for the other. The tiling of the weekly working hours for women at a less number than for men, and making it imperative to obtain a permit for women to work overtime, was no doubt chivalrously meant by the framer of the Acts. Hut the effect has been to assign to women, perforce of law, a distinctly

Inferior Economic PosmoN. Men may be free, but women may not be free to work aa their strength and inclination m-.y dictate. And the result is that employers who are inclined te accord to women workers an equality of opportunity, find th*mselves so hampered by legal penalties that they refuse to employ women excepting far inferior work. The few instances here giv *n should be sufficient to show that the disabilities of women are not a mere figment of the imagination.

They illustrate the truth of the axiom that one class cannot be trusted to legislate for another They show that there is ne d for a radical change in the conception of the s here of woman.

We dv not suppose that the passing of any one Hill will at once remove all the inequalities and inequities of the law concerning the sexes.

Hut the passing of a Hill which contains a pronouncement in general terms of the light of woinoa to civil and political freedom, and places in the hands of women power to he’p themselves, would be a great advance towards a truer civilisation. It has been said that ” Mankind can never have a comprehensive view of any subject, until the mind of woman has been brought to bear upon it equally with that of man. The two sexes have sepante points of view ; different thoughts, feelings, and modes of judgment, and no theory of life or any purt of it can be cornpMe till the distinct views of each have been fo med on it and mutually compared. There is no subject whiih man has conceived, or shall conceive, or pursue, which woman should not also conceive and pursue according to her powers. Until she shall do this, neither she nor man wdl have a full or rational conception of the whole.” We heartily concur in these remarks, and we have great hope for the future. Many of the best and most thoughtful men are on our side. Let us resolve to educate and to agitate for a truer recognition of the mutual interests of men and women.