Women and economic evolution: or, The effects of industrial changes upon the status of women

by Theresa Schmid McMahon

FOOTNOTES:

[86] McLennan, Studies in Ancient History, pp. 81-2, 2nd Series.

[87] Westermarck.

[88] Phelps, A Statistical Study of Infant Mortality, p. 268. Quarterly Publication of The American Statistical Association.

[89] Commander, The American Idea, p. 18.

[90] Webb, Physical Degeneracy or Race Suicide. Popular Science Monthly, Dec. 1906, pp. 515-6.

[91] Annual Report for 1906, p. 10. American Journal of Sociology, March, 1909. Doctor Morrow says, “A large proportion of sterile marriages, contrary to the popular view, is from incapacity and not of choice.” p. 626.

[92] Thorndyke, Decrease in the Size of American Families. Popular Science Monthly, May, 1903, p. 69.

[93] Department of Commerce and Labor, Emigration to the U. S. 1904, pp. 105, 112.

[94] Ross, Western Civilisation and the Birth-Rate. Am. Jour. of Soc. XII, 610, March 1907.

CHAPTER IX
Economic Changes and the Divorce-Rate

So long has society been accustomed to accepting as final the laws and customs arising out of earlier social conditions, that changes brought about by new conditions, and contrary to the accepted scheme of things arouse a widespread concern. There is no better illustration of the conflict between the new and the old than the present tendency to divorce, and the steady pressure of our social institutions to combat this tendency.

It did not take primitive man long to see that organization was essential to preservation. Only the best organized tribes could survive in a struggle; and the closer the organization, the greater the advantage when contending with outside or hostile forces. The basis of tribal organization was the family, and the tribes with the best organized families in a growing society proved the most effective in the tribal life.

When the family became a recognized unit of stability—either for methods of warfare or economic reasons—forces arose tending to establish sentiments opposed to divorce. It was of primary importance that these sentiments should be accepted as a code of morality in a loosely organized society. It is when the larger organization, such as the state, is not strong enough to maintain its own stability, that it is of the utmost importance that the units composing it should be compact and self reliant. Only in a highly organized, socialized society, can the family be viewed as a compact with the welfare of its individual members as its sole motive for existence.

In primitive times the unity of the family was of the utmost importance to the men of the tribe as well as to the women. The permanency of the marriage relation was essential to the preservation of society, for the state could not assume the function of protection in contradistinction to the protection afforded by the male head of the family. It is only in peaceable communities where the occupations of the people are principally industrial that a social consciousness arises, making possible a non-militant social compact looking toward the individual’s welfare as part of the community welfare.

It was important, too, that the head of the family should assume the responsibility of caring for the helpless. If this were not so, the care of the offspring would be shifted from the family to the tribe or state. Irrespective of the moral practices within the family, or the form of marriage, it was essential to maintain the family unity for the care and the protection of children.

On the other hand it was important for the women to be attached to some household, and recognized as a permanent part of it. If not, in cases where their rights were entirely overlooked, they would be forced to return to the households of their fathers. Consciously or unconsciously the members of the tribe appreciated the importance of creating moral sentiments fostering family responsibilities on the part of the individual.

Divorce in the past was essentially a masculine institution. The state arose out of the desire to protect property rights of the individual. Women did not possess property to any considerable extent and so were denied the privileges arising therefrom. They were considered by both father and husband as property and all property rights inhering in them as in lands and cattle. That is, the status of women did not necessarily make them property, but the property right possession involved was responsible to a marked measure for their status.

In many primitive tribes women neither fought nor cared for the herds and all their activities resolved themselves into personal services. Hence, more than one wife was a luxury to a husband for she was a real economic burden.

All laws governing property naturally applied to women and aimed alone at protecting the rights of men. Transgression against these matrimonial rights of a man was an offense against property and punished accordingly. It was not an offense against the moral sense of the community, or of the individual, for wife-loaning was looked upon with favor by many while the usurpation of the same privilege was punishable by death. It was a crime against property and not against the woman in question.

Women were often treated with great brutality, but this abuse did not follow necessarily because they were women—the male is naturally more considerate at all times of the female than of his own kind—but because they possessed no rights which were synonymous with economic strength. Their relative economic value did not inhere in them personally but in the economic strength of their fathers and husbands.

The rights of women increased with the increase of their economic importance in the household. During the period of domestic industry, divorce was almost unknown. When it was practiced, it was the exclusive privilege of the leisure class, or of those whose financial well being was secured.

It is true the church took a decided stand against divorce and did much toward counteracting the supposed evil, but a far greater force was the development of the medieval town with its domestic industries.

Agricultural occupations were also a strong unifying force in the family relation. Where people are attached to the soil by virtue of their occupations and property rights, the home is an economic unit just as is true of the diminutive factory carried on within the family group.

When the economic habits of man necessarily attach him to a plot of ground, or to a definite group of industrial workers who make up in part the family group, there exists naturally strong sentiments opposed to the breaking up of the group. Although recognized as fundamentally social, these sentiments arise out of an economic bond.

The unifying of the economic interests of the family brought about an increased sense of family responsibility on the part of men. It was also of the utmost importance to women that the marriage bond should be a permanent one; thus assuring them a protection for themselves and their children against the outside world.

When the home was the center of practically all economic activities, the family was given a measure of stability by virtue of its economic importance. To leave the family circle meant, not only the severing of ties of sentiment, but the cutting loose from economic moorings.

We now come to a period in history when machine industry is revolutionizing the home and rapidly changing its economic significance. Woman’s work is being transferred to the factory, and necessity is forcing her to follow it, or to seek other fields of work that promise her a livelihood. Leaving the home hearth for a wider industrial field, is giving her the same outlook as man, and allowing her to determine her relations to the world outside the home. Her economic independence is secured, and it is no longer necessary for her to be attached to a household in order to secure employment as a means of securing her subsistence. Thus is made possible the breaking of the marriage bond on the part of women and escape from conditions which formerly were tolerated.

The census reports show a constant tendency for the divorce-rate to increase in the United States. Undoubtedly it would be higher than it is at present if more women possessed means of support which would not necessitate the losing of their social status, for there are many women who have had no practical training, nor training of any kind to make their own living. If thrown upon their own resources they would be forced into the ranks of the unskilled workers. As married women they hold enviable positions of social prestige. But the income of the husband is not sufficient to keep both husband and wife on the accustomed plane of living when separated, although such separation may be mutually desirable.

A fair comparison cannot be made of the rate of divorce in different countries or states since there exists such wide discrepancies in the laws themselves, diminishing or increasing the difficulties of obtaining divorces. So marked are the differences in the divorce laws in the various states of the United States, that certain communities have won the title of “divorce colonies” and thereby attracted at least a temporary increase of population. Hence, low divorce rates may merely mean a greater difficulty in obtaining separation.

In some countries the expense of obtaining a divorce makes it a luxury beyond the poor. In England and Wales “the expense and delay involved in procuring a divorce there are so great that only somewhat wealthy persons can go into court, and they do not feel so severely the burden of a financial crisis. This conjectural explanation derives some support from the fact which a French statistician of some eminence claims to have proved, that such periods of distress in Great Britain, while checking marriage among the poor, are attended by an increase of marriage among the rich. This difference between effects of hard times in Europe and in the United States, together with a very rapid increase in divorce among the southern negroes, and the fact that only about one wife in six of these obtaining divorce receives an alimony, are among the indications that divorce has become very frequent and perhaps most frequent among our lower middle classes and has reached for weal or woe a lower stratum than perhaps anywhere in Europe.”[95]

We all know that the divorce rate is higher in the United States than in any European country, and is increasing more rapidly. “In 1870 there were 155 divorces, and in 1880, 303 divorces, to 100,000 married couples. In 1870, 3.5 per cent of the marriages were terminated by divorce; in 1880, 4.8 per cent; and in 1890, 6.2 per cent.”

According to the Census Report of 1906 the divorce-rate is still increasing rapidly. From 1887 to 1891 there was an increase of divorces of 34.1 per cent; from 1892 to 1896 an increase of 23.9 per cent.; from 1897 to 1901 an increase of 33.7 per cent.; and from 1902 to 1906 an increase of 27.6 per cent.[96]

As we have already seen, the decrease of the importance of women’s work in the home has affected the status of women generally, economically and socially. Among the poor it has forced many married women to seek employment outside the home. The inability of the husband and father to meet his economic responsibilities has imposed upon women an added responsibility. And in so far as mothers of families have shouldered economic burdens outside the home there is a tendency for fathers to lose their family pride and sense of economic independence. The man who must remain at home, do the housework and care for the children, while his wife goes out to earn the living, if he cares at all, feels that he has failed dismally. Charity workers agree that the economic independence of women of the most unfortunate classes has the effect of lessening the moral responsibility of the supposed bread-winner and head of the family. Desertion on the part of fathers is so common as to create a social problem.

The causes for desertion are many, and work toward a decreased respect for family ties. “The great amount of travel due to constantly increasing means of communication; the ease with which a man, accustomed to one of the simple processes of modern machinery, can adapt himself to many others without any long training, so making employment more readily obtainable; the fuller knowledge of other communities afforded by the multiplied newspapers, and perhaps the numerous items about other deserters which awaken a dormant impulse, just as cheap novels prompt some boys to start out as Indian fighters, all contribute to the state of mind which makes desertion possible. If a man who had indulged such thoughts, can, without much time or expense, in some cases even by investing a nickel or less, by taking a trolley or a ferry, put himself into a neighboring state, beyond the power of the court to compel him to support his family, where he can spend all he earns for his own gratification, he is in danger of finding some excuse for going.”[97]

When one considers that a large percentage of the people with whom the social workers deal are foreigners and children of foreigners; that religious precepts are comparatively strong; and that they cling to custom and traditions with greater tenacity than the more fortunate classes, it seems justifiable to attribute the large number of separations in this class—although many of these separations are never registered in the divorce courts—to economic causes.

Divorce, like many of our social institutions has been influenced by the rights of property, and is no true criterion for measuring the moral habits of a people. Where property rights are considered most sacred the institution of divorce is almost unknown. This is especially true when the existing forms of wealth are closely allied to land holding. There, industrial development is backward and all the social institutions reflect the conservative influence of the past, rather than the progressive movements of the present. For instance, the southern states, where property rights and institutions arising out of the same reflect the spirit of the patriarchal slavery system, divorce is less common. And yet the morality among the lower social classes there does not compare favorably with other sections of the country where the divorce-rate is high. It is among the better classes that the family represents a compactness and stability wherein divorce has little play.

It is true there are some states which represent an advanced industrial development as is found in the country where divorce is granted only for adultery. But in these states such restriction is felt to be oppressive. This is evident by the number who seek release from conjugal ties in other than their home state. What is true of England is true of certain American states, that is, the low divorce-rate is the result of the difficulty of obtaining legal separations. For example the home life in New York is not any more admirable than the home life in the extreme west where the divorce-rate is the highest.

Unless the industrial development and economic conditions are similiar it is impossible to measure the moral standards of communities by a comparison of their divorce-rates. Legislation dealing directly with family relations ought to take into consideration the industrial habits of the community as well as the moral and social ideals arising out of existing conditions.

It is true, a high divorce-rate has been a symptom of a decadent race, but on the other hand it does not necessarily follow that a deteriorating race is characterized by a high divorce-rate, or that a high divorce-rate signifies a retrogressive people. It may be a symptom of a decline of moral conceptions, but it may also mean a higher conception of morality, and a decline of respect for property rights in women. The frontiersman is not inspired with the same awe of wealth as the man who remained at home in a settled community; and his moral conceptions tend to conform less to tradition and custom and more to his own individual conscience.

Howard says, “Divorce is a remedy and not the disease. It is not a virtue in a divorce law, as it appears to be often assumed, to restrict the application of the remedy at all hazards, regardless of the sufferings of the social body. If it were always the essential purpose of a good law to diminish directly the number of bona fide divorces, the more rational course would be to imitate South Carolina and prohibit divorce entirely. Divorce is not immoral. It is quite probable on the contrary, that drastic, like negligent, legislation is sometimes immoral. It is not necessarily a merit, and it may be a grave social wrong, to reduce the legal causes for a decree to the one ‘scriptural’ ground.”[98]

Divorce is an expression of revolt. It may be an expression of revolt against conditions imposed by one individual upon another, or against a position of inferiority in the family group imposed upon women by tradition. Instead of a wide spread incompatibility of temperaments of two individuals held together by wedlock, the incompatibility may exist in part between the social institution called “the home” and the ideas and ideals of a democratic community.

The entire social atmosphere outside the home—whether in the school or in the club, or in any other social group aims to inspire an individualization and socialization in harmony with high moral precepts. We are living in an age when the individual counts as an important part of the social groups of which he is a member, and some vital matter must be at stake when the individual is required to sacrifice himself against his will for the good of the community.

Women have been considered the property of their husbands for so long that an initiative on their part, disturbing the stability of the conjugal bond is viewed by many as a symptom of rampant anarchy. What it does indicate is a marked growth in the rights of women, and a tendency for these rights, especially economic rights, to approach the plane of the rights of men.

If the present tendency to divorce is a superficial phenomenon only, measures ought to be taken to check it. But if it is vital, and has its roots deep down in our social order, it cannot be checked by mere repression without perpetrating a grave social wrong.

There are no historical facts enabling us to predict the outcome. Divorce in the past was a masculine institution and worked great hardships upon women and children. It was the rich and not the poor, the men and not the women who enjoyed the privilege of breaking the marriage bond. To counteract its evil influences, all social institutions combined in impressing upon man the necessity of accepting his family responsibilities out of justice to his wife, his children and the community. So long has the lesson been impressed that many men consider it a grave moral responsibility to remain as a protector of their families. Such is not the case with women. No matter how great their industrial burdens in the home, the past taught them submission, and not responsibility. All their training—other than industrial—had as its goal accomplishments that in nowise involved responsibilities. Whatever industrial responsibilities the home imposed upon them, the business world of today has largely freed them from. This economic situation is leaving an increasing number of women without the discipline of work or necessity. This lack of responsibility on the part of women may be in part a reason why they more often than men seek a divorce. Many women are showing by their unselfish public spirit an appreciation of the importance of the social forces dealing with the care and the protection of children. In their social capacities they are working out many of the social problems dealing with all humanity, as well as the problems of their sex alone. Many of the serious problems, especially those bearing directly upon the home, the relations of husband and wife, and mother and children, will be solved in time—not by our law makers alone but with the co-operation of women.

It is true many of our cherished traditions and customs are in grave danger of complete annihilation. If this destruction is to be brought about by the baser elements in human nature—the love of sensual ease, dissipation and depravity—our civilization is indeed in danger. But if the motive power is the love of freedom as against the needless sacrifice of the individual—a desire to give expression to creative instincts which are alike in men and women—there exist signs that out of the alarming confusion will arise something better, and more conducive to a progressive civilization.