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

What hardship, to them, is involved in this?

Die they must, some time, and by worse methods. In a wild state or a
tame they must either be killed by something or die slowly of old age
and incapacity.

Even if we nursed the toothless ox, and fed him with a spoon, he would
not enjoy it.

We have to admit that in this whole round world all creatures die, and
that in most cases, their lives are taken by others.

Looked at from a strictly scientific point of view, this is evidently
the order of nature, her universal law. Looked at from a religious
point of view, it is as evidently the will of God, His universal law.

Some postulate a sinless Eden past, before this killing habit began; and
foresee a sinless Millennium to come, when we shall have outgrown it.
These do not use their imaginations enough. Even if Edenic or
Millennial tigers could digest grass and apples, are they therefore
immortal? Is a species to live on forever in one representative, or one
Platonic pair?

Because if we have life, as we know it, we have also reproduction, the
direction for which precedes the picture of Eden; each pair being told
"to increase and multiply and replenish the earth." Now for the
imagination, to forecast results.

If the creatures fulfill this command, (and they do, diligently) the
earth presently becomes replenished to a degree apparently unforeseen;
unless, indeed, this law of mutual destruction be specially provided to
meet that difficulty.

Life is multiple and interchangeable. Life continues on earth not in
permanent radiating lines, but in flowing union; the forms combining,
separating, growing, in and through one another.

Perhaps our error lies in fixing our minds in the eaten instead of the
eater; dwelling on the loss of the killed, instead of the gain of the
killer.

We say "all creatures eat one another," and it grieves us. Why not say
"all creatures feed one another?" There is something beautiful in that.

Life, to each creature, is all time--all that he has any knowledge
of--and living is a pleasure lasting all that time. Death, on the other
hand, is but a moment, and even so is a pleasure to the wolf who eats,
if not to the sheep who is eaten.

We, with our larger range of thought, and with our strange religions
theories, have complicated and warped the thought of death by associate
ideas. We place conscious fear before it, and load that fear with
threats of eternal punishment.

We try to measure the wholesome facts of life by arbitrary schemes of
later devising, and life seems dreary by contrast.

When we look at the facts themselves, however; see the grass green and
thick for all its cropping; fish swimming in great schools, "as good as
ever were caught"; the oysters peacefully casting forth their millions
of eggs to make up for all that are eaten; this whole blooming, fruiting
world of life and love; we find these to be the main things, the real
prominent features of the performance; and death but a "lightning change
artist," a quick transformation, in which one living form turns into
another, while life goes on.

Meanwhile, in our human affairs it would be a good thing if we would
develop as keen a sense of the responsibility of giving life as we have
in taking it. We hold three powers in the life-process--a degree of
choice and judgment as to who comes on the stage, some power to decide
who shall go off, and when, and, most important of all, the ability to
modify life while we have it.

Is it not singular that there should be so much sentiment about taking
life and so little about giving it? We give life almost as
thoughtlessly as the beasts below us. We are variously minded about
taking it, killing many good men in war, and not killing many bad ones
in peace, except an ill-selected few; but as yet we have no deep feeling
about the struggles and sufferings of people while they live.

If we become religiously careful about the kind of people that are born,
and about the treatment they get after they are born, it will make more
difference to human happiness, and human progress, than would the
establishment of a purely vegetable diet, the abolition of capital
punishment, or even the end of war.

THE WORLD AND THE THREE ARTISTS

Three Artists found a World on their hands. It was their World and they
were its Artists.

It was a Dull World, and needed Amusement.

It was a Hungry World, and needed Food.

It was a Tired World, and needed Inspiration.

It was an Ugly World, and needed Beauty.

Now the Artists were very powerful, having all these things in their
gift.

The first was an Artist Pure and Simple, so he arose and gave the Dull
World what he himself found amusing,--but the World was not amused.

"Stupid Beast!" said the Artist. "When I am dead it will find my work
amusing!"

Then he gave the Hungry World what he thought good to eat,--but the
World would not eat it.

"Ungrateful Wretch!" said the Artist. "When I am dead it will find this
good food."

Then he gave the Tired World what he thought was Inspiration,--but the
World was not Inspired.

"Dense Dolt!" said the Artist. "When I am dead it will recognize my
Inspiration."

Then he gave the Ugly World what he thought was Beauty,--but the World
did not find it Beautiful.

"Blind Brute!" said the Artist. "How terrible it is to be
unappreciated! This Fool Incarnate can never realize what it is
ignoring! And it will give me no reward! When I am dead it will see my
Beauty!"

Now the World had its feelings, and did not enjoy the attitude of the
Artist; so verily it gave him no reward. And he died. Nevertheless
what he foretold was by no means fulfilled, for his work was for himself
alone, and perished with him.

Then arose the second Artist, and he was not only an Artist, but a
Merchant.

And he said, "I perceive that this my brother has died because he did
not please the World, and it would give him no reward. I shall be
wiser."

Then he studied the tastes of the World; Dull, Hungry, Tired and Ugly; a
Neglected Child.

And he carefully catered to its ignorance, its prejudices and its
childish tastes; he tickled with cheap pleasures, he gave it what its
lower nature liked, and the Dull World found his Amusement amusing, and
paid for it; and the Hungry World found his food palatable, and paid for
it; and the Tired World received his Inspiration as if it were genuine,
and paid for it; and the Ugly World eagerly grasped his poor prettiness
as if it were Beauty, and paid for it; so the second Artist did not
die--until he died; and then he was dead; and his work with him.

But the third Artist, who was also a Citizen, thought long of his task.

"I am an Artist," he said, "and this is my World. Of what avail is my
Beauty if the World does not see it? How do I know that Worlds to Come
will see it?--even if it lives? _This_ World needs Beauty, _now!_ If I
work to express myself alone, I die, lean and angry; and my work dies
with me. If I basely cater to this Neglected Child, I die, though
fatter; and my work dies with me. How shall I feed the World?"

But he was an Artist, and very powerful, so he essayed his task.

He earnestly studied the needs of the World. "Shall I feed a lamb on
beef?" said he, "or a cat on pie?"

By the exercise of his intelligence he learned the needs of the World,
which were many and conspicuous; by the exercise of his Art he met them.

He gave it Amusement which was within reach of the tastes of that
Neglected Child, yet which was in truth Amusing; and the World was
Amused, and loved him.

He gave it food both palatable and nourishing; and the World was fed,
and loved him.

He gave it Inspiration which struck to the heart, yet was drawn from
Eternal Truth; and the World was Inspired, and loved him.

And he poured forth his very soul in Beauty; Beauty as simple as the
common flowers the whole world loves, and as true as the stars in
heaven, Beauty that ravished the soul of the Neglected Child, opened its
eyes to Radiant Joy, and lifted it along the ages. And the World bathed
in Beauty, and loved him. Also its taste improved continually under the
influence of his Art. And the Artist was happy, for he fulfilled his
mighty task.

"My glorious World!" he said; "What happiness! To be allowed to serve
the World!"

And he watched it grow; well-nourished now, full of sweet merriment,
strong in steady inspiration, rich in unfolding beauty.

For the World lived, and the Artist lived, and his work lived
forever,--in the world.

IN HOW LITTLE TIME

In how little time, were we so minded,
We could be wise and free--not held and blinded!
We could be hale and strong--not weak and sickly!
Could do away with wrong--and do it quickly!

Riches of earth, enough for all our keeping;
Love in the heart, awake, no longer sleeping;
Power in the hand and brain for what needs making;
Joy in the gift of power, joy in the taking!

In how little time could grow around us
A people clean and fair as life first found us!
One with the under-earth, in peaceful growing,
One with the over-soul, in doing, knowing.

Labor a joy and pride, in ease and beauty;
Art that should fill at last its human duty;
This we could make and have, were we not blinded!
In how little time--were we so minded!

WOMAN AND THE STATE

[A Discussion of Political Equality of Men and Women. To be read in
connection with chapter 12 of Our Androcentric Culture, in this issue.]

Here are two vital factors in human life; one a prime essential to our
existence; the other a prime essential to our progress.

Both of them we idealize in certain lines, and exploit in others. Both
of them are misinterpreted, balked of their full usefulness, and
humanity thus injured.

The human race does not get the benefit of the full powers of women, nor
of the full powers of the state.

In all civilized races to-day there is a wide and growing sense of
discontent among women; a criticism of their assigned limitations, and a
demand for larger freedom and opportunity. Under different conditions
the demand varies; it is here for higher education, there for justice
before the law; here for economic independence, and there for political
equality.

This last is at present the most prominent Issue of "the woman question"
in England and America, as the activity of the "militant suffragists"
has forced it upon the attention of the world.

Thoughtful people in general are now studying this point more seriously
than ever before, genuinely anxious to adopt the right side, and there
is an alarmed uprising of sincere objection to the political equality of
women.

Wasting no time on ignorance, prejudice, or the resistance of special
interests, let us fairly face the honest opposition, and do it justice.

The conservative position is this:

Men and women have different spheres in life. To men belong the
creation and management of the state, and the financial maintenance of
the home and family:

"To women belong the physical burden of maternity, and the industrial
management of the home and family; these duties require all their time
and strength:

"The prosperity of the state may be sufficiently conserved by men alone;
the prosperity of the family requires the personal presence and services
of the mother in the home: if women assume the cares of the state, the
home and family will suffer:

Some go even farther than this, and claim an essential limitation in
"the female mind" which prevents it from grasping large political
interests; holding, therefore, that if women took part in state affairs
it would be to the detriment of the community:

Others advance a theory that "society," in the special sense, is the
true sphere of larger service for women, and that those of them not
exclusively confined to "home duties" may find full occupation in
"social duties," including the time honored fields of "religion" and
"charity":

Others again place their main reliance on the statement that, as to the
suffrage, "women do not want it."

Let us consider these points in inverse order, beginning with the last
one.

We will admit that at present the majority of women are not consciously
desirous of any extension of their political rights and privileges, but
deny that this indifference is any evidence against the desirability of
such extension.

It has long been accepted that the position of women is an index of
civilization. Progressive people are proud of the freedom and honor
given their women, and our nation honestly believes itself the leader in
this line. "American women are the freest in the world!" we say; and
boast of it.

Since the agitation for women's rights began, many concessions have been
made to further improve their condition. Men, seeing the justice of
certain demands, have granted in many states such privileges as
admission to schools, colleges, universities, and special instruction
for professions; followed by admission to the bar, the pulpit, and the
practice of medicine. Married women, in many states, have now a right
to their own earnings; and in a few, mothers have an equal right in the
guardianship of their children.

We are proud and glad that our women are free to go unveiled, to travel
alone, to choose their own husbands; we are proud and glad of every
extension of justice already granted by men to women.

Now:--Have any of these concessions been granted because a majority of
women asked for them? Was it advanced in opposition to any of them that
"women did not want it?" Have as many women ever asked for these things
as are now asking for the ballot? If it was desirable to grant these
other rights and privileges without the demand of a majority, why is the
demand of a majority required before this one is granted?

The child widows of India did not unitedly demand the abolition of the
"suttee."

The tortured girl children of China did not rise in overwhelming
majority to demand free feet; yet surely no one would refuse to lift
these burdens because only a minority of progressive women insisted on
justice.

It is a sociological impossibility that a majority of an unorganized
class should unite in concerted demand for a right, a duty, which they
have never known.

The point to be decided is whether political equality is to the
advantage of women and of the state--not whether either, as a body, is
asking for it.

Now for the "society" theory. There is a venerable fiction to the
effect that women make--and manage, "society." No careful student of
comparative history can hold this belief for a moment. Whatever the
conditions of the age or place; industrial, financial, religious,
political, educational; these conditions are in the hands of men; and
these conditions dictate the "society" of that age or place.

"Society" in a constitutional monarchy is one thing; in a primitive
despotism another; among millionaires a third; but women do not make the
despotism, the monarchy, or the millions. They take social conditions
as provided by men, precisely as they take all other conditions at their
hands. They do not even modify an existing society to their own
interests, being powerless to do so. The "double standard of morals,"
ruling everywhere in "society," proves this; as does the comparative
helplessness of women to enjoy even social entertainments, without the
constant attendance and invitation of men.

Even in its great function of exhibition leading to marriage, it is the
girls who are trained and exhibited, under closest surveillance; while
the men stroll in and out, to chose at will, under no surveillance
whatever.

That women, otherwise powerful, may use "society" to further their ends,
is as true as that men do; and in England, where women, through their
titled and landed position, have always had more political power than
here, "society" is a very useful vehicle for the activities of both
sexes.

But, in the main, the opportunities of "society" to women, are merely
opportunities to use their "feminine influence" in extra domestic
lines--a very questionable advantage to the home and family, to
motherhood, to women, or to the state.

In religion women have always filled and more than filled the place
allowed them. Needless to say it was a low one. The power of the
church, its whole management and emoluments, were always in the hands of
men, save when the Lady Abbess held her partial sway; but the work of
the church has always been helped by women--the men have preached and
the women practised!

Charity, as a vocation, is directly in line with the mother instinct,
and has always appealed to women. Since we have learned how injurious
to true social development this mistaken kindness is, it might almost be
classified as a morbid by-product of suppressed femininity!

In passing we may note that charity as a virtue is ranked highest among
those nations and religions where women are held lowest. With the
Moslems it is a universal law--and in the Moslem Paradise there are no
women--save the Houries!

The playground of a man-fenced "society"; the work-ground of a
man-taught church; and this "osmosis" of social nutrition, this leakage
and seepage of values which should circulate normally, called charity;
these are not a sufficient field for the activities of women.

As for those limitations of the "feminine mind" which render her unfit
to consider the victuallage of a nation, or the justice of a tax on
sugar; it hardly seems as if the charge need be taken seriously. Yet so
able a woman as Mrs. Humphry Ward has recently advanced it in all
earnestness.

In her view women are capable of handling municipal, but not state
affairs. Since even this was once denied them; and since, in England,
they have had municipal suffrage for some time; it would seem as if
their abilities grew with use, as most abilities do; which is in truth
the real answer.

Most women spend their whole lives, and have spent their whole lives for
uncounted generations, in the persistent and exclusive contemplation of
their own family affairs. They are near-sighted, or near-minded,
rather; the trouble is not with the nature of their minds, but with the
use of them.

If men as a class had been exclusively confined to the occupation of
house-service since history began, they would be similarly unlikely to
manifest an acute political intelligence.

We may agree with Tennyson that "Woman is not undeveloped man, but
diverse;" that is _women_ are not undeveloped _men;_ but the feminine
half of humanity is undeveloped human. They have exercised their
feminine functions, but not their human-functions; at least not to their
full extent.

Here appears a distinction which needs to be widely appreciated.

We are not merely male and female--all animals are that--our chief
distinction is that of race, our humanness.

Male characteristics we share with all males, bird and beast; female
characteristics we share with all females, similarly; but human
characteristics belong to _genus homo_ alone; and are possessed by both
sexes. A female horse is just as much a horse as a male of her species;
a female human being is just as human as the male of her species--or
ought to be!

In the special functions and relations of sex there is no contest, no
possible rivalry or confusion; but in the general functions of humanity
there is great misunderstanding.

Our trouble is that we have not recognized these human functions as
such; but supposed them to be exclusively masculine; and, acting under
that idea, strove to prevent women from an unnatural imitation of men.

Hence this minor theory of the limitations of the "female mind."

The mind is pre-eminently human. That degree of brain development which
distinguishes our species, is a human, not a sex characteristic.

There may be, has been, and still is, a vast difference in our treatment
of the minds of the two sexes. We have given them a different
education, different exercises, different conditions in all ways. But
all these differences are external, and their effect disappears with
them.

The "female mind" has proven its identical capacity with the "male
mind," _in so far as it has been given identical conditions._ It will
take a long time, however, before conditions are so identical, for
successive generations, as to give the "female mind" a fair chance.

In the meantime, considering its traditional, educational and
associative drawbacks, the "female mind" has made a remarkably good
showing.

The field of politics is an unfortunate one in which to urge this
alleged limitation; because politics is one of the few fields in which
some women have been reared and exercised under equal conditions with
men.

We have had queens as long as we have had kings, perhaps longer; and
history does not show the male mind, in kings, to have manifested a
numerically proportionate superiority over the female mind, in queens.
There have been more kings than queens, but have there been more good
and great ones, in proportion?

Even one practical and efficient queen is proof enough that being a
woman does not preclude political capacity. Since England has had such
an able queen for so long, and that within Mrs. Humphry Ward's personal
memory, her position seems fatuous in the extreme.

It has been advanced that great queens owed their power to the
association and advice of the noble and high-minded men who surrounded
them; and, further, that the poor showing made by many kings, was due to
the association and vice of the base and low-minded women who surrounded
them.

This is a particularly pusillanimous claim in the first place; is not
provable in the second place; and, if it were true, opens up a very
pretty field of study in the third place. It would seem to prove, if it
proves anything, that men are not fit to be trusted with political power
on account of an alarming affinity for the worst of women; and,
conversely, that women, as commanding the assistance of the best of men,
are visibly the right rulers! Also it opens a pleasant sidelight on
that oft-recommended tool--"feminine influence."

We now come to our opening objection; that society and state, home, and
family, are best served by the present division of interests: and its
corollary, that if women enlarge that field of interest it would reduce
their usefulness in their present sphere.

The corollary is easily removed. We are now on the broad ground of
established facts; of history, recent, but still achieved.

Women have had equal political rights with men in several places, for
considerable periods of time. In Wyoming, to come near home, they have
enjoyed this status for more than a generation. Neither here nor in any
other state or country where women vote, is there the faintest proof of
injury to the home or family relation. In Wyoming, indeed, divorce has
decreased, while gaining so fast in other places.

Political knowledge, political interest, does not take up more time and
strength than any other form of mental activity; nor does it preclude a
keen efficiency in other lines; and as for the actual time required to
perform the average duties of citizenship--it is a contemptible bit of
trickery in argument, if not mere ignorance and confusion of idea, to
urge the occasional attendance on political meetings, or the annual or
bi-annual dropping of a ballot, as any interference with the management
of a house.

It is proven, by years on years of established experience, that women
can enjoy full political equality and use their power, without in the
least ceasing to be contented and efficient wives and mothers, cooks and
housekeepers.

What really horrifies the popular mind at the thought of women in
politics, is the picture of woman as a "practical politician;" giving
her time to it as a business, and making money by it, in questionable,
or unquestionable, ways; and, further, as a politician in office, as
sheriff, alderman, senator, judge.

The popular mind becomes suffused with horror at the first idea, and
scarcely less so at the second. It pictures blushing girlhood on the
Bench; tender motherhood in the Senate; the housewife turned
"ward-heeler;" and becomes quite sick in contemplation of these
abominations.

No educated mind, practical mind, no mind able and willing to use its
faculties, need be misled for a moment by these sophistries.

There is absolutely no evidence that women as a class will rush into
"practical politics." Where they have voted longest they do not
manifest this dread result. Neither is there any proof that they will
all desire to hold office; or that any considerable portion of them
will; or that, if they did, they would get it.

We seem unconsciously to assume that when women begin to vote, men will
stop; or that the women will outnumber the men; also that, outnumbering
them, they will be completely united in their vote; and, still further,
that so outnumbering and uniting, they will solidly vote for a ticket
composed wholly of women candidates.

Does anyone seriously imagine this to be likely?

This may be stated with assurance; if ever we do see a clever,
designing, flirtatious, man-twisting woman; or a pretty, charming,
irresistable young girl, elected to office--it will not be by the votes
of women!