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

by Theresa Schmid McMahon

FOOTNOTES:

[95] Willcox.

[96] Special Report of the Census Office. Marriage and Divorce, 1867-1906. Part 1, 1909, pp. 68-69.

[97] Brandt and Baldwin, Family Desertion, p. 8.

[98] Howard, A History of Matrimonial Institutions, III, pp. 219-220.

CHAPTER X
The Political Rights of Women and Industrial Changes

In studying the history of primitive societies, we find authority resting upon economic strength of military prowess, the latter nearly always associated with material advantages. Property is synonymous with power whether it consists of implements, herds or lands. Excepting personal belongings, women possessed little property and had little incentive to hold property as exclusively their own.

There is a striking difference between the political powers and property rights of men and women, not only in primitive society, but all through history. To point out some fundamental reasons for this divergence will be the purpose of this chapter.

In modern society, we are accustomed to ascribe this divergence in the political status of men and women, to custom, tradition, and the tyranny of one sex over the other. Customs have their roots in habits of life, and habits more often result from a convenience at an earlier stage of culture. Tyranny of one sex over the other—especially of man over woman—is not likely to occur among a peaceable people who show no aggressive qualities, or among a people the women of which outnumber men and apparently possess an equal degree of physical strength. All existing societies as well as all societies of the past that have left traces of their civilization, show the same tendency to place political power in the hands of men, and not in the hands of women. This practice has been so common among all peoples as to suggest some fundamental reason for a social development—apparently so unjust to half the race—other than an inherent conflict of interests, between the sexes. Certainly such a conflict of interests, as some would have us believe, has never existed in the animal world. The reason therefore must be social and not inherent. The injustices arising out of such a social scheme have little in common with the fundamental causes out of which the existing situation arose.

It is difficult to trace the relation of primitive economic development to the political status of women since our knowledge of the origin of society, and its early development is very limited. But a vivid picture of the reactions of economic changes upon the political status of women in historical times, is possible as well as suggestive.

Morgan says, “The experience of mankind ... has developed but two plans of government, using the world plan in its scientific sense. Both were definite and systematic organizations of society. The first and the most ancient was a social organization, founded upon gentes, phratries and tribes. The second and the latest in time was a political organization, founded upon territory and upon property. Under the first a gentile society was created, in which the government dealt with persons through their relation to the gens and the tribe. These relations were purely personal. Under the second a political society was instituted, in which the government dealt with persons through their relations to territory, e. g.—the township, the county, and the state. These two relations were purely territorial.”[99]

So long as the government dealt with personal relations and property belonged to small groups of people rather than to individuals, women would naturally be conceded a more conspicuous position. We ourselves, not necessarily from any preconceived notion, but because of the nature of things, associate women more closely with family ties than we do men. This does not mean women, that because of their status within the family group or their relation to the family group, have greater authority in the affairs of the community than men, or that the balance of power rests with them, but that their importance in the social consciousness depends upon where the emphasis is placed.

Morgan accounts for the practice of reckoning descent in the female line to the fact that paternity was uncertain. The women and the children formed a nucleus around which gathered a social organization composed of the female descendants. Women, especially old women, had a voice in the affairs of the gens, but when a leader was chosen the choice invariably fell upon some man.

Gentes, tracing the descent in the female line, illustrate the early position of women, and their rights in the beginning of a social organization. But seldom, if ever, do we find women holding so prominent a place as a sex, in the political affairs of the community as men, when political relations were emphasized. This fact is often attributed to the tyranny of man over woman but is it not more reasonable to assume that women found it more convenient, and perhaps more desirable, to leave to the men of their family, whose interests were identical with their own, the exercise of governmental authority?

The transition from the matriarchate to a patriarchate grew out of an appreciation of property. Under the matriarchate property belonged to the gens and was transmitted through the female line. But under the patriarchate property belonged to the family, or to the individual members of the family. “When property began to be created in masses, and the desire for its transmission to children had changed descent from the female line to the male, real foundation for patriarchal power was for the first time established.”[100]

This change resulted from an appreciation of the necessity to keep the property of the family within the tribe, or the community, of which it was a part.

Granting women the same privilege of property as men, under a patriarchal system of government, it would be only a question of time when the property interests of the tribe would lose their unity and compactness, and be scattered broadcast over the land. Such a division of property might have been allowed if individual interests alone were considered and these interests did not interfere with the larger interests of the state.

Daughters marrying into other tribes than their own would carry their property interests with them to the tribe of their husbands and so weaken the economic strength of the former, while increasing that of the latter. To prevent women marrying outside the tribe would have been more difficult than to regulate the transmission of property.

For the preservation of the state, when the state was a small community the members of which were bound together by mutual interests of defense or offense, it was necessary to restrict the property rights of women. The state that did not do so and allowed the intermarriage of members of its tribe with members of other tribes was destined to extermination. “For my part I find it difficult to believe,” says Vinegradoff, “that the exclusion of women from inheriting and holding land can be the product not of primitive conditions and of an undeveloped state of landholding, but of a gradual restriction of women’s rights. The supposed later restrictions would appear in a very archaic guise, and with too remarkable a concordance among nations which could not have any direct influence on each other.”[101]

The early Germans are often quoted as representing a people among whom women enjoyed a position of near equality with that of men. And yet Ross tells us, “Among the Angli and Werini, the right of inheritance was conceded to daughters only when there were no males left in the clan. The clan consisted of the male descendants of five successive generations. When no male was left within this limit, the clan was, properly speaking, extinct. The clan land might then go to the women, if there were any, and then into the clans wherein they were received as wives.”[102]

While the origin of the distinctions between the property rights of men and the property rights of women may have their roots in the preservation of the large interests of the clan, tribe or state, the custom thus established would tend to be followed in later times irrespective of the applicability to existing conditions. As with many other practices, the fact that it had its roots in the distant past would seem sufficient to justify it.

The political power of women has been a negligible factor in the history of political rights. It is true, as we have seen, that political rights were synonymous with property rights, and that very few men exercised political rights since they were propertyless, but nevertheless where property was a family possession the “spear and spindle distinction” was apparent. “Compare the remarkable customs in regard to the division of property in the ancient Germanic laws. The proper inheritance of the woman is her gerade (gerath), the household furniture. Norse law puts women back in regard to land inheritance, and points to ‘loose money,’ losa ore, as a natural outfit for them.”[103]

Women’s attitude toward political power differed from that of men where it did exist. When a class of men possess no political rights, it means that such rights inhere in a superior class which assumes a political and often an economic mastery over them. Such has not been true of women in the past. When women possessed no political rights their relationship to the state was consciously or unconsciously involved in the relationships of their husbands to the state.

History offers us an excellent example of this attitude toward the political rights of women in the old Roman patriarchal system which recognized the family as a complete unit, with one common interest, and that interest represented by a recognized head of the household.

We must remember that in the early development of society, political power has rested in the hands of a few individuals who by virtue of individual power, were able to wrest from the many, an authority carrying with it privileges enjoyed primarily by an exclusive governing class. These governmental privileges tend to increase at the expense of the governed until there is a recognition on the part of the people of the injustices practiced. It is then, and only then, that the ruling class defers to the wishes of the ruled. It is the way to preserve their most cherished rights and privileges. We see this state of affairs with the development of towns, and the decline of warfare as the only occupation through which one was enabled to accumulate wealth. The development of industries created a class of people who very soon controlled sufficient wealth to demand a voice in their government. The nobility was in need of the financial aid of the merchant class, and the latter by virtue of their economic strength were able to wrest political privileges from the ruling class.

In considering the political rights of men, there is a tendency to assume that they exercise their present rights in sheer virtue of their manhood, but history shows these rights have arisen out of a struggle which was economic in its nature. These rights are handed down from one generation to another and are often thought of as natural rights when in reality they are rights fought for and won by an industrial or economic class. Political concessions have been made by one class to the other, not from philanthropic motives, but rather from a recognition of the strength of the claimants. It is only when the battle is virtually won that the opposition grants rights because of their admiration of democratic principles.

The development of industries in the town tended to break up the large landed holdings and to create new forms of wealth. When wealth was no longer associated with a militant career a new adjustment of power had to be made, giving political recognition to the successful industrials who controlled the wealth in the towns. An exchange was effected. The merchants received political privileges, and the noblemen engaged primarily in war, received the financial assistance of the townsmen.

The expansion of the political rights of men shows a gradual increase in the power of the masses. It represents a progressive evolution. It is not so with the political rights of women. Before the era of machine industry, whatever legal recognition women enjoyed, or political rights they exercised, depended not upon their own efforts, but the efforts of the men who desired to protect their property interests, and to prevent these interests from passing outside the family circle.

Although the political rights of women vary in different countries, the evolution of these rights does not show a gradual development of privileges. Rights possessed at one period were lost at another, and at no time do we hear of them making a protest against a diminution of their power, or the narrow limits of their influence. Their part seems to have been a passive one.

No attempt will be made to give a history of the legal and political rights of women, but rather to point out the most striking features of this development, and to emphasize those characteristics in harmony with the general thesis that before the era of machine industry women assumed a passive attitude toward social institutions, and that their status was determined by forces, they made no effort as a class to control.

The voice of women in early historical times played no part in affairs which concerned them as a sex because it was never heard.

“In addition to many other objections which may be urged against the common allegation that the legal disabilities of women are merely part of the tyranny of sex over sex, it is historically and philosophically valueless, as indeed are most propositions concerning classes so large as sexes. What really did exist is the despotism of groups over members composing them.”[104]

In the early history of civilization group life was an advantage over individual struggle, and implied the subordination of the interests of the individual to that of the group.[105]

This was especially applicable to women. Protection was essential to women in prehistoric times, and the protection afforded by the group gave greater security than that of a single individual. Protection of the female and her offspring was necessary for a rapid increase of population, and numbers were no small element in determining the success of a tribe in competing with enemies. Those individuals most adaptable to group life had the best chance of surviving and of leaving offspring to whom they transmitted those qualities of character which made subordination no hardship.

In ancient societies we have instances of women exercising the highest function of the state without affecting the status of women in general. They exercised these functions not as a concession to a sex, but because they represented a group which would lose its prestige unless the right to hold the office in question was granted women. Some of the most conservative nations in respect to the advancement of women, and in which the position of women has been least affected by modern radical tendencies, recognize, or have recognized in the past the right of women to the throne.[106]

Whatever rights women possessed as a class grew out of the rights of property. Just as soon as women held property in their own names we find them possessing powers in at least a degree which were attached to the land. “The German custom, which in general was hostile to women, did not interfere in the matters of property and of heredity. The person having no existence proper in the society of that epoch, and social order being summed up in property alone, the claims of land were always weightier than the claims of person.”[107] And what was true of Germany was true to a considerable extent of all the countries of Europe.

After giving examples of women taking part in the communal assemblies, Ostrogorski asks the question, “Property having in this way become the exclusive basis of the right, and the personality of the owner being henceforth completely disregarded, is not the difference between the sexes an idle distinction?”[108]

Whatever the legal or political rights of an individual or class of individuals may be, the only way to maintain them is to exercise the powers those rights involve. To be indifferent to them, to allow to others the performance of a duty of political or social significance is to invite a deprivation of a right others cherish.

The history of the political and legal rights of women must be traced by taking cognizance of a few individual cases where women exercised rights. This exercise of rights on the part of a few women does not indicate that the practice was universal but rather exceptional. If these rights were based on property, the failure to exercise them on the part of women did not show necessarily a disregard for their property rights, but that their interests were represented by the male members of the family whom they, in all probability, felt confident would guard their interests as well as they themselves could, or, perhaps better, since their knowledge of affairs outside of the household was of broader scope and their judgment based on business-world experience. This cannot be considered a usurpation of rights on the part of men but the recognition of the unity of the family. That it would lead to injustices was not contemplated by those who did not consider final results, but only immediate expediency. Some of the evils arising out of such practice were recognized in special rights extended to widows and spinsters.

“As the official maintainer of right and justice, the mayor of Bristol and Exeter, and probably of some other towns, was the guardian of widows and orphans; in the former city a promise to ‘keep, maintain and defend the widows and orphans of this town safely in their rights,’ was a part of the mayor’s oath of office. And in the latter, the duty was so burdensome that a special office, that of chamberlain, was created in 1555, in order to provide for it.”[109]

Women belonged to the family group, and all their interests were centered in the family. So long as their home relations were congenial there was no apparent reason why they should become familiar with the outside world in order to protect their interests since the interests of both parents were identical. These interests represented more nearly a unity of interests than individual interests.

Here again we find convenience playing a large part in determining the respective fields of activity of the two sexes. Custom, convention, and the precepts of the church, although powerful influences in molding social institutions, would have been of little avail if contrary to the convenience of large industrial classes.

Before the era of machine industry, men and women married early as an economic advantage to both, establishing a family group with a recognized division of labor and a concentration of authority. By the concentration of authority is not meant that women were submissive and docile in the household (although such was the prevailing ideal of women at that time) for such submission depends upon the characteristics of the individuals concerned, but male control of matters establishing the relation of the family to the outside world. The passivity of one parent was essential in a relation considering the family all important and the individual of little consequence.

When the occupations of men were of such a nature as to cause a large death-rate among them, the number of unmarried women must have been necessarily large. These attached themselves to the households of relatives, and were in no sense a burden, for as long as the household was an industrial center their services were acceptable, and their economic relations to the household somewhat similiar to those of the married women.

Those women who did not become part of a household took refuge in religious institutions. In a society where religious feeling is strong, those of the most aesthetic type and susceptible to the incongruities of life would be the first to separate themselves from earthly ties and attempt to live up to their convictions and ideals. Hence many women as well as men, who might have had marked influence in the molding of social institutions devoted themselves to a spiritual and secluded life leaving no offspring to whom they might transmit those characteristics making them superior to the type most adaptable to the prevailing customs of the time.[110] Thus we find religious institutions a check to the propagation of a feminine type which has played an important role in later history.

With the decline of the monastic system, and the breaking up of the domestic system of industry, unmarried women were forced to establish relations to the economic world outside the home similar to those of men. If these women had dedicated themselves to a life of celibacy when they entered the industrial field, as they did when they entered the church, history would show them struggling for legal and political rights in the same manner as men. But the possibility of changing habits of life by marriage, freeing them from a serious economic responsibility prevented the growth of a class conscious spirit which would stimulate them to co-operate in bettering their conditions.

We find the family losing ground as an industrial unit with the development of the factory. Men became more conscious of their social relations outside the home, and came to appreciate the advantage and necessity of social compacts. These changed relations growing out of the new industrial life gave rise to a spirit of democracy which emphasized the importance of the individual and his social relations. It was a large factor in developing the political rights of men and later of women.

The eighteenth century witnessed a crusade for political rights. Practically all the serious thinkers of the day were forced to consider the extension to all men of political rights which had up to this time been based on high property qualifications. The great material prosperity of northern Europe was at the expense of the laboring classes who were forced to resist or to succumb to hopeless slavery. It was a class struggle and fought out on those lines. Women took an active part in it and were emphatic in their claims for their husbands, sons, and brothers but the literature of the time does not show a consciousness on the part of working women of an antagonism between their interests and those of men.

On the eve of the French Revolution Condorcet made a demand for the political emancipation of women. “In 1789, at election time, several pamphlets appeared demanding the admission of women to the States General, and protesting against the holding of a national assembly, from which half of the nation was excluded.”[111]

The plea for the political rights of women was made on the ground of the rights of equality, but the right to vote was not thought of as an instrument for self protection in the economic world. On the other hand the struggle on the part of men had a real economic basis. It was economic pressure that goaded them to political struggle whereas with women it was merely a declaration of rights expressing the spirit of democracy of the times. Among its adherents were men and women of superior intelligence, but the masses showed the indifference they usually show to claims of abstract rights.

In England the municipal reform act of 1869 gave women votes in all municipal elections. The act of 1870 gave them votes for school boards. The act of 1888, made them voters for the county council. The act of 1894, which transformed the whole system of local government and vastly extended the system of local representation, abolished in all its departments the qualification of sex.[112]

In 1856, over two million women of Great Britain were forced to earn their living and many of these belonged to the upper classes. Few indeed were the occupations open to them. This was not entirely due to the opposition of men but partly to the inability of women to realize their relations to the industrial world as wage earners. They, as well as the men, in spite of their employment outside of the home, entertained the idea they were not performing their proper function in life, but had failed—perhaps through no fault of their own—to adjust themselves to their proper sphere. So long as the working women held to the ideals of their ancestors they showed little tendency to demand equality between the sexes in the industrial and political world.

It is true men considered women intruders when they sought employment in the skilled industries and professions, but women as a whole were a little more emphatic than the men in the expression of this opinion.

Time is a forceful element in the crystallization of ideas and in giving stability to activities. Public opinion has accepted many of the radical movements of women of the eighteenth century as a matter of fact, and is becoming ever weaker in its opposition to the extension of the political and industrial rights of women.

The movement for the political enfranchisement of women has taken two aspects—the one industrial and the other social.

Of the industrial movement the most striking example at the present time is that in England. They are asking for the suffrage on the ground that they as industrial workers have a serious need for it.

It may seem at first a minor matter as to whether women should vote for the members of parliament since they have the municipal franchise, but it is really of vital importance to the working women. It is parliament which enacts labor laws and legislates for the people in general. Whatever protection the laboring people get through the enactment of laws depends upon the philanthrophy of the wealthy classes, or upon their own representatives. This state of affairs is one of the factors encouraging them to make every possible effort to increase their representation in parliament.

The working women—especially union workers—appreciate this fact and demand the right to vote for the members of Parliament on the ground of their economic well being. It is an economic question with them, and they are evidently willing to fight for this privilege just as the men were at the time of ‘Chartism.’ Ideas of sex propriety have been cast aside, and the working women are standing as a class, who appreciate their economic relation to society without any regard for the prevalent conception of a ‘woman’s sphere’ which long ago became a myth to them.

It is true that many of their leaders are women of the higher social classes but this same phenomenon has characterized, though not to the same degree, the movements of working men to conquer political rights.

“What in England and America has been the movement of a whole sex, has, in Germany under Social Democracy been merged in the movement of the working class. Women are to have their rights not as a sex, but as workers.”[113]

In France as in Germany the woman’s movement goes hand in-hand with socialism. “There are no distinguished persons to head the movement. It springs from the middle and lower classes and is the outcome of the efforts of a group of enlightened women who, having freed themselves from the prejudices that hedge about their sex, have crowned their emancipation by claiming the vote.”[114]

Europe presents a somewhat different industrial situation from newly settled countries. Class lines are sharply drawn and the element of chance has been largely eliminated in the industrial field. There is little shifting from the lower to the higher classes, so characteristic of newly settled countries. This apparent fixity in social and economic life fosters the development of class consciousness.

In the twentieth century two elements have entered into the struggle for equal suffrage in England. The one is the spirit of democracy claiming equal opportunities for all individuals irrespective of class or sex. The other element is a purely economic one. It is the desire of working women to gain possession of a force that can be used as a weapon of defense and offense in a struggle with the masters of industry.

When women demand the franchise on economic grounds, they meet with strong opposition. The nature of the demand indicates the importance of the issue at stake. This kind of a demand is never made until the plea on behalf of democracy fails, and the plea for a greater democracy always fails when the material interests of the ruling classes are affected. Political rights fought for on economic grounds, when won, are not quickly lost. The battle creates the spirit of resistance to any encroachments upon rights once won.

When the working women of England obtain the right to vote for the members of parliament on an equality with men, they will unite their political forces with the men in supporting measures in behalf of the working people, and distinction in politics will be lost sight of.

The newer settled countries are conspicuous for the rights granted women. This liberty is not due to the strength of the demand made by women but democratic individualism, and freedom from the tyranny of traditions.

The conservative elements of a society are not the ones to venture into a new country. They remain at home and cherish traditions and customs which color all their thinking. The radical elements in society are the ones to venture to the frontiers and to colonize the new sections of a country. Democracy characterizes their government and individualism their financial undertakings. Hence it is not surprising that the five American states offering women the same political privileges as men are the newly settled states where class lines are so lax as to be almost non-existent, and where the struggle between capital and labor shows more nearly an equilibrium of forces than in the older settled states.

In the western states the number of women engaged in industrial employments outside the home is small when compared with the eastern states. The total number of female breadwinners in Idaho, according to the census report of 1900, was but 14.1 per cent of all the women in the state; Colorado 18.8 per cent; Wyoming 20.8 per cent; and Utah 17.7 per cent. These figures present quite a striking contrast when compared with New York where 49.2 per cent of all the women in the state are breadwinners; New Jersey 46.5 per cent; and Pennsylvania 37.4 per cent. These figures indicate that women enjoy political privileges in the West irrespective of their economic conditions.

In many of the western states men outnumber women and most women are married and at the head of households. The domestic system of industry is more prevalent than in the large eastern cities, and in sparsely settled communities; the family tends to be a close economic unit. It is reasonable to suppose that the status of women in the West, political, as well as social, is determined, not so much by economic conditions directly, as by the breaking away from an old regime weighed down by traditions and an economic condition favorable to a few.

The strongest opposition to the enfranchisement of women in the West comes from the women who have no economic interests outside the home, and practically no social ones. They are unconscious of any sexual antagonism—and justly so, for the men are markedly indifferent excepting those who feel women may take too deep an interest in questions affecting certain businesses, such as the liquor interests.

It is not only newly settled countries which show a tendency to grant women political rights, but countries where there is a complete change in the governmental regime, either by the throwing off of the tyranny of another country, or the tyranny of a class rule. At such a time women help to create public sentiment and take active part in the struggle to obtain liberty. Under such circumstances a demand for the extension of the franchise, either for men or women is apt to meet with approval along with other measures equally democratic.

The women of the better classes are mostly home makers and cling with a good deal of pride to the ideals of womanhood of an aristocratic society of the past. They do not wish for the franchise and would probably oppose the extension of their political rights. The exercise of the right of the ballot would not tally with the leisure class ideals of the community and would savor of a democracy almost plebian.

As long as women look upon the extension of their political rights from the point of view of individual gain, a large number of them will impede the movement by their opposition and indifference. The reason may be apparently social but it is primarily economic. Free from any economic responsibilities, and some free from responsibilities of any kind, they see no individual advantage in promoting a measure that would add nothing to their comfort or peace of mind. Their philosophy of life is an individualistic one as well as a selfish one, and their opposition to a progressive movement is not so much a question of confirmed principle as egotistical interests.

Many of them feel absolutely no need for an extension of rights for by virtue of their sex precedence they possess many more rights than any social democracy could afford them.

Many women have been stimulated by a sense of duty to their city and their state to take an active interest in political and civic affairs. On the other hand, there will always be many women just as there are many men who will be indifferent to political issues and who will need the stimulation and suggestion political meetings afford before they take an active part in the political life of the community. It is only then that most people appreciate the significance of a political contest.

The campaign for woman’s suffrage is often an attempt on the part of public-spirited people to utilize the energy and leisure of women on behalf of the common good. They alone have the time to make investigations and to work out problems dealing directly with the physical and moral well being of the community. Most men are interested in politics from an economic point of view, whereas many women are interested from the social point of view since they have no economic interests at stake. They are prepared to devote their time to those civic questions neglected by men, which are of vital importance to the health and intelligence of the citizens.

The evolution of industry out of the home is setting free a vast amount of energy to be expended according to the will of the individual who possesses the leisure. That this surplus energy should not be wasted is of social consequence.

With the development of industry outside the home the productive value of many women’s work is disappearing as well as the spirit of unity of the old-fashioned home. An era of individualism is the consequence.

As fast as people break away from the customs and traditions of the past, either through a broader outlook afforded by the educational world or economic readjustment, they form groups of individuals as a source of strength. Just as the primitive tribe appreciated the advantage of the increased strength of group life, so do modern industrial and social classes form groups as a means of defense. Out of economic groups have developed social groups with a tendency toward a social state. As we work toward a social ideal, the power of the economic forces grow less in the molding of our social institutions. It is only within the last decade that there has been a conscious effort to control economic forces for the good of all. Heretofore, civilizations and their institutions have reflected the economic life, and the predatory character of the latter made possible the survival only of the most fit economically whether state, tribe, class or sex. The survival of the fittest was not necessarily the survival of the best.

We are rapidly approaching a time when “what is best” is thought of rather than what is fittest to survive. “The best” is that which affords the greatest amount of good to the greatest number. This is not a social philosophy as opposed to individualism, but a social philosophy of individualism. Each individual counts in the general scheme of things and in so far as he counts for good, he counts as an important and indispensable social force not to be neglected.

This is the new philosophy of the age: The poor man claims social rights as well as the rich; the woman as well as the man; and the child more than all the others. All are working for each and each for all.

This is the keynote of the demand for the political rights of women when made by the public-spirited for the sake of the community and the child. It has not grown out of sex hatred or class struggle, or an intolerable oppression of the weak by the strong, but the spirit of a social democracy. On the other hand, the demand as made on a purely industrial basis is part of an industrial struggle. In it are involved elements of class struggle and a revolt of the weak against the oppression of the strong, i. e. the elements which were paramount in the men’s struggle for the franchise. And to these elements is added one more. The struggle in the past was fought by the men for their families, but so difficult has become the industrial life that each individual, whether man or woman, must fight for himself. It is not social democracy that is impelling women industrial workers to ask for the franchise, but on the contrary an industrial tyranny.

The two are often confused in measuring the status of women of different countries. We can no more assimilate the movement for the enfranchisement of women in England to the movement for the enfranchisement of women in the western section of the United States than we can liken the economic and social status of the negro of the South before the Civil War with that of the negro of the North. The one was a slave to an economic regime and essential to its welfare; the other was a human being with little economic or social significance.

Thus we see in some places the political rights of women asked for on industrial grounds, and fought for as an industrial expedient. Elsewhere the political rights of women are sought on a social basis alone.