The Forerunner, Volume 1 (1909 1910)

C >> Charlotte Perkins Gilman >> The Forerunner, Volume 1 (1909 1910)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62

Its attitude toward men, however, would be rigidly critical.

Fancy a real Mrs. Grundy (up to date it has been a Mr., his whiskers hid
in capstrings) saying, "No, no, young man. You won't do. You've been
drinking. The habit's growing on you. You'll make a bad husband."

Or still more severely, "Out with you, sir! You've forfeited your right
to marry! Go into retirement for seven years, and when you come back
bring a doctor's certificate with you."

That sounds ridiculous, doesn't it--for "Society" to say? It is
ridiculous, in a man's "society."

The required dress and decoration of "society"; the everlasting eating
and drinking of "society," the preferred amusements of "society," the
absolute requirements and absolute exclusions of "society," are of men,
by men, for men,--to paraphrase a threadbare quotation. And then, upon
all that vast edifice of masculine influence, they turn upon women as
Adam did; and blame _them_ for severity with their fallen sisters!
"Women are so hard upon women!"

They have to be. What man would "allow" his wife, his daughters, to
visit and associate with "the fallen"? His esteem would be forfeited,
they would lose their "social position," the girl's chance of marrying
would be gone.

Men are not so stern. They may visit the unfortunate women, to bring
them help, sympathy, re-establishment--or for other reasons; and it does
not forfeit their social position. Why should it? They make the
regulation.

Women are to-day, far more conspicuously than men, the exponents and
victims of that mysterious power we call "Fashion." As shown in mere
helpless imitation of one another's idea, customs, methods, there is not
much difference; in patient acquiescence with prescribed models of
architecture, furniture, literature, or anything else; there is not much
difference; but in personal decoration there is a most conspicuous
difference. Women do to-day submit to more grotesque ugliness and
absurdity than men; and there are plenty of good reasons for it.
Confining our brief study of fashion to fashion in dress, let us observe
why it is that women wear these fine clothes at all; and why they change
them as they do.

First, and very clearly, the human female carries the weight of sex
decoration, solely because of her economic dependence on the male. She
alone in nature adds to the burdens of maternity, which she was meant
for, this unnatural burden of ornament, which she was not meant for.
Every other female in the world is sufficiently attractive to the male
without trimmings. He carries the trimmings, sparing no expense of
spreading antlers or trailing plumes; no monstrosity of crest and
wattles, to win her favor.

She is only temporarily interested in him. The rest of the time she is
getting her own living, and caring for her own young. But our women get
their bread from their husbands, and every other social need. The woman
depends on the man for her position in life, as well as the necessities
of existence. For herself and for her children she must win and hold
him who is the source of all supplies. Therefore she is forced to add
to her own natural attractions this "dance of the seven veils," of the
seventeen gowns, of the seventy-seven hats of gay delirium.

There are many who think in one syllable, who say, "women don't dress to
please men--they dress to please themselves--and to outshine other
women." To these I would suggest a visit to some summer shore resort
during the week and extending over Saturday night. The women have all
the week to please themselves and outshine one another; but their array
on Saturday seems to indicate the approach of some new force or
attraction.

If all this does not satisfy I would then call their attention to the
well-known fact that the young damsel previous to marriage spends far
more time and ingenuity in decoration than she does afterward. This has
long been observed and deprecated by those who write Advice to Wives, on
the ground that this difference is displeasing to the husband--that she
loses her influence over him; which is true. But since his own
"society," knowing his weakness, has tied him to her by law; why should
she keep up what is after all an unnatural exertion?

That excellent magazine "Good Housekeeping" has been running for some
months a rhymed and illustrated story of "Miss Melissa Clarissa McRae,"
an extremely dainty and well-dressed stenographer, who captured and
married a fastidious young man, her employer, by the force of her
artificial attractions--and then lost his love after marriage by a
sudden unaccountable slovenliness--the same old story.

If this in not enough, let me instance further the attitude toward
"Fashion" of that class of women who live most openly and directly upon
the favor of men. These know their business. To continually attract
the vagrant fancy of the male, nature's born "variant," they must not
only pile on artificial charms, but change them constantly. They do.
From the leaders of this profession comes a steady stream of changing
fashions; the more extreme and bizarre, the more successful--and because
they are successful they are imitated.

If men did not like changes in fashion be assured these professional
men-pleasers would not change them, but since Nature's Variant tires of
any face in favor of a new one, the lady who would hold her sway and
cannot change her face (except in color) must needs change her hat and
gown.

But the Arbiter, the Ruling Cause, he who not only by choice demands,
but as a business manufactures and supplies this amazing stream of
fashions; again like Adam blames the woman--for accepting what he both
demands and supplies.

A further proof, if more were needed, is shown in this; that in exact
proportion as women grow independent, educated, wise and free, do they
become less submissive to men-made fashions. Was this improvement
hailed with sympathy and admiration--crowned with masculine favor?

The attitude of men toward those women who have so far presumed to
"unsex themselves" is known to all. They like women to be foolish,
changeable, always newly attractive; and while women must "attract" for
a living--why they do, that's all.

It is a pity. It is humiliating to any far-seeing woman to have to
recognize this glaring proof of the dependent, degraded position of her
sex; and it ought to be humiliating to men to see the results of their
mastery. These crazily decorated little creatures do not represent
womanhood.

When the artist uses the woman as the type of every highest ideal; as
Justice, Liberty, Charity, Truth--he does not represent her trimmed. In
any part of the world where women are even in part economically
independent there we find less of the absurdities of fashion. Women who
work cannot be utterly absurd.

But the idle woman, the Queen of Society, who must please men within
their prescribed bounds; and those of the half-world, who must please
them at any cost--these are the vehicles of fashion.

ONLY AN HOUR

"One, two, three, four, five, six, seven," said the Second Hand, and
then he lost count. "One, two, three, four, five--" It was no use.

"There is no end to it," said he, under his breath. "Hundreds of times
I do it! Thousands! Millions! A positive eternity--in constant
action. What a thing Life is!"

The Minute Hand was very patient with him. "My dear little Busybody,"
he said. "Look at me and learn some dignity. See, you have to make
those little jumps sixty times before I move! Sixty times!" And the
Minute Hand took a short step. "There--now you begin again, while I
wait. Watch me, take courage! If you can count up to sixty you will
understand Life!" And he took another short step.

The Hour Hand smiled. He was too proud to talk with the Minute
Hand--considering him to have a Limited Intellect. As for the Second
Hand, he did not acknowledge his existence. "I am no microscopist!" he
would say if you pointed out that there was a Second Hand.

No, the Hour Hand did not converse, he Mused. He mused much upon life,
as was natural. "Twelve of them!" he thought to himself--"twelve of
these long long waits, these slow terrible advances. And then twelve
more--before Life is over. I can count. I have an intellect. I am not
afraid. I can think around Life." And he kept on thinking.

*

The man pulled out his watch and looked at it; yawned, took an easier
position on the car seat. "Bah!" he said. "Only an hour gone!--And I
can't get there till the day after to-morrow!"

COMMENT AND REVIEW

The first thing that struck me in reading this novel was the style. Not
often, in a first publication, is this the main impression.

There is a delicate finished personal touch in Mrs. Schoonmaker's work,
that would indicate years of application. Next I slowly gathered
interest in the story; not at once--it grew gradually--but later on,
when the characters were well placed and a grave danger threatened the
lives of several.

The flat, peaceful, limited life of rural Kentucky and its contented
inhabitants is drawn in soft assured touches--the reader feels the
sweetness and peace as well as the deadly dulness.

The picture of life among the studios of Paris hints at more than is
said, much more; indicating a philosophic judgment; yet withholding it.
There is a restraint, an economy of expression throughout; even where
the writer feels most strongly.

As to the heroine--her young life-struggle is part and parcel of that
universal stir and uprising among the women of to-day; so much of it
blind and undirected; so much wasted and lost in reaction; so much in
lines of true long-needed social evolution. This girl's share in it
will be differently judged by different readers. Many of our young
college women will sympathize with it most, I fancy.

THE ETERNAL FIRES
By Nancy Musselman Schoonmaker,
Broadway Pub. Co., N. Y.

*

Dr. Stanton Coit, prominent in ethical and social advance in England, is
a valuable supporter of the woman's movement. His booklet, "Women in
Church and State," is a concise and impressive presentation of her
position in those great social bodies. He treats of the militant
movement in England, its wise period of quiescence, and offers
reasonable suggestions as to further policy.

The attitude of the church toward women, from the miserable past up
through the changing present to the hopeful future, is given succinctly,
and the unfortunate reaction of a servile womanhood upon the church is
shown.

It is a clear presentation of the relation of woman to the state, in
politics, education, marriage and the home.

This booklet is for sale, in England, as one of the Ethical Message
Series, at 6d. net; and may be rebound for American circulation, at 15c.

WOMAN IN CHURCH AND STATE
By Stanton Coit, Ph.D.,
West London Ethical Society,
Queen's Road, Bayswater, England.

*

The ethical movement of the last twenty years is a strong proof of
humanity's natural bent toward the study and practice of that first of
sciences, the science of conduct.

How to behave, and Why, are universal questions; decided first by
conditions, then by instinct, then by custom and tradition, then by
religion, then by reason. We are rapidly reaching the reasoning stage;
hence the popularity of ethics, and of such papers as The Ethical World.

We have ethical publications in this country, good ones, but it is
inspiring to get from other lands the vivid sense of that common
movement which so marks the uniting of the world.

Mere verbal language was necessary to the faintest human development;
written language, in the permanent form of books, established the long
roots of our historic life, with its sense of continuity; today the
multiplication of periodic literature, widely specialized, speaks our
social consciousness. We no longer have to think alone, but the
smallest cult has its exponent, giving to each member the strength of
all.

In the issue of March 15th of this paper, Dr. Stanton Coit has an
article on "The Group Spirit," which treats sympathetically that marvel
of social dynamics, "the interpenetrating Third," appearing where two or
three are gathered together.

I should like to have discussed with Sir James Mackintosh, however, his
contention that moral principles are stationary. They are not, but vary
from age to age in accordance with conditions.

PERSONAL PROBLEMS

A friend and subscriber writes me thus:

"There are one or two questions I want to ask--not because I disagree,
but because I want to be able to meet objections.

"Those who believe in restricting "Woman's Sphere" to its present--no,
its former narrow boundaries may say,--"Yes, man is the only species
which keeps the female--or tries to--in the home and restricts her to
the strictly female functions and duties. But it is just because man is
higher than the other animals, and because the period of infancy is so
much longer for human babies. The animal mother bears her young,
nourishes them a short time, and is no longer needed. The human mother
is something more than an agent of reproduction and a source of
nourishment. By just so much as her motherhood is more and higher than
that of the ewe, it must take more of her time, her strength, her life.
How can a woman who is giving birth to a child every two or three years
for a period of ten years, for example, and "mothering," in the fullest
sense of the word, those children, find time or strength for anything
else?

"Then, too, what you call "Androcentric Culture" has existed by your own
statement practically ever since our historic period began--that is,
since man first advanced from savagery to human intelligence and
civilization. Is it not fair to assume that a condition of affairs
non-existent among lower animals, but co-existent with the development
of the intelligence and civilization of mankind is a higher condition
than that found among the animals?"

Here we have five premises:

1. Man is the only species which segregates the female to maternal
functions and duties.

2. Man is higher than the other animals.

3. The human period of infancy is longer.

4. The human mother has to devote longer time to maternal cares.

5. The Androcentric Culture is coexistent with the period of progress.

On these premises,two questions are based: On the first four:

A. How can the human mother find time or strength for anything else?

On the fifth:

B. Is not the Androcentric Culture evidence and conditions of our
superiority?

To clearly follow and answer this line of reasoning requires close
attention; but it is well worth doing; for this inquirer fairly puts the
general attitude of mind on this matter.

Premise one we may grant. It is true as applied to all higher species.
There are some low ones where the female is a mere egg-layer; but with
those creatures the male is not much either.

Premises two and three we grant freely.

Premises three and four require consideration.

Is the existence of human infancy accompanied by a similar extension of
maternal cares?

Our Children are infants in the eyes of the law till they reach legal
majority; and in the arts, professions, and more complex businesses, a
boy of twenty-one is still an infant.

To bring a young animal up to the age where it can take care of itself
is a simple process and can be accomplished by the mother alone; but to
bring up a young human creature to the age where he or she can fitly
serve society is a complex process and cannot be performed by the mother
alone. Our prolongation of infancy is a result of social progress, and
has to be met by social cares; is so met to some degree already.

The nurse and the teacher are social functionaries, performing the
duties of social motherhood. The female savage can suckle her child and
teach her to prepare food, tan hides, make baskets and clothing, and
decorate them. The male savage can teach his child to hunt and trap
game, to bear pain and privation, to put on warpaint and yell and dance,
to fight and kill.

But the civilized mother and father cannot teach their children all that
society requires of its citizens. When trades went from father to son
they were so taught; and the level of progress in those trades was the
level of personal experience. Our real progress has coincided with our
educational processes, in which suitable persons are selected to teach
children what society requires them to know, quite irrespective of their
parent's individual knowledge. Should the learning of the world, the
discoveries and inventions, be limited to what each man can find out for
himself and teach his son?

No one expects the father's wisdom to be the limit of his son's
instruction; nor the mother's either. She loves her child as much as
ever; and for its own sake is willing to have it learn of
music-teachers, dancing-teachers, and all the allied specialists of
school and college.

In all higher and more special cases, it is clear that the mother is not
required to parallel her attentions to our "period of infancy," but
perhaps it will still be contended that in the simpler and more
universal tasks of earlier years she is indispensable; and that these
years so overlap that she is practically confined to the home during her
whole period of child-bearing.

The answer to this is, first; that the simpler and more universal the
tasks the more there may be found capable of performing it. As a matter
of fact we are so accustomed to take this view that we cheerfully
entrust the most delicate personal services of our babies to hired
persons of the lowest orders; as in our Southern States the proud white
mother gives her baby often to be suckled and always to be tended by a
black woman.

It is idle to talk of the indispensability of the mother's care in the
first years when any mother who can afford it is quite willing to share
or delegate that care to women admittedly inferior. If the human race
has got on as well as it has with the care of its lower class children
solely ignorant mothers, and the care of its higher class children given
mainly by ignorant servants; why should we dread to have the care of all
children given mainly by high-class, skilled, educated, experienced
persons, of equal or superior grade to the parents?

The answer to this usually is the child needs the individual mother's
love and influence. This is quite true. The baby should be nourished
by his own mother--if she is healthy--and nothing can excuse her from
the loving cares of parentage. But just as an ordinary unskilled
working woman loves and cares for her child--and yet does ten hours of
housework, to which no one objects; or just as an ordinary rich woman
loves and cares for her child--and yet does ten or twelve hours of
dancing, dining, riding, golfing, and bridge playing (to which no one
objects!)--so could a skilled working woman spend six or eight hours at
an appropriate trade, and still love and care for her child. A normal
motherhood does not prevent the mother from suitable industry. In other
words: The prolongation of human infancy does not demand an equal
prolongation of maternal services; but does demand specialized social
services. When these services are properly given our children will be
far better cared for than now.

The best answer of all is simply this. Almost all mothers do work, and
work hard, at house service; and are healthier than idle wholly
segregated women; yet there are many kinds of work far more compatible
with motherhood than cooking, scrubbing, sweeping, washing and ironing.

The fifth premise, and its accompanying question also calls for study.
It is true that our Androcentric Culture is co-existent with human
history and modern progress, with these qualifications:

Practically all our savages are decadent, and grossly androcentric.
Their language and customs prove an earlier and higher culture, in which
we may trace the matriarchate. Among the less savage savages--as our
Pueblos--the women are comparatively independent and honored.

Almost all races have a "golden age" myth; faint traditions of a period
when things were better; which seems to coincide with this background of
matriarchal rule. The farther back we go in our civilization the more
traces we find of woman's power and freedom, with goddesses, empresses,
and woman-favoring laws.

Again in our present Age, the most progressive and dominant races are
those whose women have most power and liberty; and in the feeblest and
most backward races we find women most ill-treated and enslaved.

The Teutons and Scandinavian stocks seem never to have had that period
of enslaved womanhood, that polygamous harem culture; their women never
went through that debasement; and their men have succeeded in preserving
the spirit of freedom which is inevitably lost by a race which has
servile women. Thus while it is admitted that roughly speaking the
period of Androcentric Culture corresponds with the period of progress,
these considerations show that the coincidence is not perfect. Even if
it were, there remains this satisfying rejoinder:

The lit space in our long life-story begins but a short time ago
compared with the real existence of human life on earth. On the
conditions preceding history we know little save that they were
matriarchal as to culture and of an industrious, peaceful and friendly
nature. Of the conditions brought about by the androcentric culture we
know much, however.

We have developed some degree of peace and prosperity; marked progress
in intelligence, learning, and specialized skill; immense material and
scientific development and increased wealth.

But we have also developed an array of diseases, follies, vices, and
crimes, which distinguish us from the other animals as markedly as does
our androcentric culture.

Not all of these disadvantages con be clearly traced to its door; but
these three are plainly due to it; prostitution, with all its
devastation of its ensuing diseases; drug habits of all sorts, as
alcohol, tobacco, opium--which are preponderantly masculine; and
warfare; with its loss of life and wealth; its cruelty and waste; its
foolish interference with true social processes.

If the matriarchal period can be shown to have produced worse evils than
these then it was a blessing to lose it. If at all the splendid gains
we have made under man's rule can be traced to his separate influence
then we might say even these world injuries may be borne for the sake of
the benefits not otherwise obtainable. But if it can be shown that real
progress is always paralleled by improvement in the conditions of women;
that the most valuable human qualities are found in women as well as
men; that these three worst evils of our present day are clearly of a
masculine nature and removable by the extension of feminine
influence--then our inquirer's last question is easily answered; the
existence of our androcentric culture during our period of modern
progress distinctly does not prove that it is a necessary condition of
that Progress.

*

A number of most interesting Personal Problems have come in this month,
but the length of the above, postponed from June, prevents due answers
in this issue. This one had to be long, its questions were so general.

The earnest friend who asks as to the right attitude of a mother toward
her children, born and unborn, asks too much. No explicit "answers" can
be given to such life-covering queries. One may reply epigrammatically
(and unsatisfactorily) as this:

The first duty of a mother is to be a mother worth having.

The second duty of a mother is to select a father worth having.

The third duty of a mother is to bring up children worth having--and to
have children worth bringing up!

Motherhood is a personal process, Child-culture is a social process.

A vigorous well-placed wisely working woman should take her
child-bearing naturally, not make too much ado about it. But
child-rearing--that is another matter.

We can advise as to one wanting a gardener, "Get a good one."

If there are none--then it is not time we made some?

[Advertisement]

Books by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Sent postpaid by

THE CHARLTON COMPANY
67 WALL STREET, NEW YORK

"Women and Economics" $1.50

Since John Stuart Mill's essay there has been no book dealing with the
whole position of women to approach it in originality of conception and
brilliancy of exposition.--_London Chronicle._

A remarkable book. A work on economics that has not a dull page--the
work of a woman about women that has not a flippant word.--_Boston
Transcript._

Will be widely read and discussed as the cleverest, fairest, most
forcible presentation of the view of the rapidly increasing group who
look with favor on the extension of industrial employment to
women.--_Political Science Quarterly._

"Concerning Children" $1.25

WANTED:--A philanthropist, to give a copy to every English-speaking
parent.--_The Times,_ New York.

Should be read by every mother in the land.--_The Press,_ New York.