FOOTNOTES:
[1] Ward, Pure Sociology, p. 364.
[2] Ward, Pure Sociology, pp. 296-7.
[3] Ward, Pure Sociology, p. 364.
WOMEN AND ECONOMIC EVOLUTION
CHAPTER I
The Status of Women and Primitive Industry
Facts brought to light by ethnologists and anthropologists indicate that our prehistoric ancestors were engaged in a severe struggle for existence. This struggle must have been a keen one when man’s life was filled with fear, when his advantages over other animals were slight, and where climatic conditions were unfavorable to the procuring of subsistence. Undoubtedly his greatest desire was for a sense of security from enemies.
There is a tendency to attribute to primitive man a considerable degree of reasoning power; whereas he acted, no doubt, largely from impulse, and with little concern for the future. Marshall says, “Whatever be their climate and whatever their ancestry, we find savages living under the domain of custom and impulse; scarcely ever striking out new lines for themselves; never forecasting the distant future, and seldom making provision even for the near future; fitful in spite of their servitude to custom, governed by the fancy of the moment; ready at times for the most arduous exertions, but incapable of keeping themselves long to steady work.”[4]
The immediate satisfying of his wants was primitive man’s main thought, and the eliminating of the factors interfering with the gratification of these wants, his chief concern.
He probably would have sacrificed freedom for a greater degree of security, for freedom was something beyond his imagination, and was a mockery to one engaged in so severe a struggle with his environment.
Primitive woman had an advantage over man in that her sexual appetite was not so keen. “All females were alike for the male animal and savage. The only selection that took place down to the close of the protosocial stage was female selection. The females alone were sufficiently free from the violence of passion to compare, deliberate, and discriminate.”[5]
This might have given primitive woman the upper hand had she sought authority. But protection, both during the time of pregnancy when her physical powers were impaired, and during the period of lactation was her greatest concern. Maternity was her paramount interest and beyond the needs of her child there was no desire for power.
Naturally out of the relationship existing between protector and protected, arose a recognition of authority in the former. Hence it seems reasonable to believe that the subordination of women to men in early historical times grew out of conditions working no hardship on either sex but affording mutual advantages.
If stress of circumstances was in any way responsible for the superior intelligence of man over other animals, woman would necessarily be the first to develop the quality of foresight, for it fell to her lot to provide for her offspring. The fulfillment of this responsibility was essential to the preservation of the race.
Primitive man and primitive woman could go through long periods of fasting, but not so their children. The mother’s maternal instinct prompted her to supply their wants before her own, while man satisfied his hunger first, and then relegated the remains of his feast to the women and the children. His first instinct was the satisfying of his wants; hers, the satisfying of her offspring’s. Here lies one of the fundamental differences between the sexes; and out of this contrast in self-thought have arisen the marked differences of character commonly designated as feminine and masculine.
If primitive man’s first concern had been to feed his mate, woman would never have become the “mother of industry.” She might have remained passive in the struggle for subsistence, as she was in the struggle against enemies.
Prehistoric men left the remains of the feast to the women and the children; and when food was scarce the women were forced to seek some means of subsistence other than the hunt afforded. They “climbed up hills for the opossum, delved in the ground with their sticks for yams, native bread, and nutritious roots, groped about the rocks for shellfish, dived beneath the sea for oysters, and fished for the finny tribe.”[6]
Woman was the “mother of industry” and the inventor of most of the early industrial arts. Says Mason, “Women were instructed by the spiders, the nest builders, the storers of food and the workers in clay like the mud wasp and the termites. It is not meant that these creatures set up schools to teach dull women how to work, but that their quick minds were on the alert for hints coming from these sources.... It is in the apotheosis of industrialism that woman has borne her part so persistently and well.”[7]
Students of primitive history have given us vivid pictures of the industrial occupations of women among different tribes; but they depend largely for their material upon examples of these industrial occupations as carried on among tribes existing at present in a state of primitive culture. Nowhere now do we find an illustration of inventive genius on the part of women generally, in a primitive state of culture corresponding to that credited to them in prehistoric times. This may be due to a lack of personal freedom, such as was known to primitive woman, or to the lack of proper incentive stimulating the individual to progress. The latter reason may account for the unprogressiveness or degeneracy of many tribes of the present day.
Following his natural instincts and utilizing his power for their gratification prehistoric man found himself in possession of an authority over woman which he had unconsciously acquired. When once conscious of this power he used it arbitrarily, and perhaps oppressively.
Among peaceable peoples there was little need for the exercise of authority, either defensively or offensively. That personal services were rendered men by the women does not necessarily signify the services were prompted by fear. It is only where militancy prevails that we find an exercise of authority by men over women which suggests the tyranny of the strong over the weak. But even here the tyranny of the strong members of the tribe over the weak is more noticeable than the tyranny of man over woman. Authority determined the status of the individual or of the sex, but it was only one of the factors determining occupation.
Contemporary tribes of low culture differ widely in the position and occupation of women, but there is sufficient resemblance of work among women generally, to make it safe to say that to the women fall the tasks most compatible with stationary habits of life.[8]
As a matter of choice women would naturally engage in those occupations which centered around the fireside. We do find many instances where owing to the employments of men, or to the habits of migration resulting from a search for food, the women are employed far from the hearth. On the whole, however, the occupations commonly pursued by women freed them from carrying children long distances. Westermarck says that the occupations of men are “such as require strength and ability; fighting, hunting, fishing, the construction of implements for the chase and war, and the building of huts.
On the other hand, the principal occupations of women are universally of a domestic kind: She procures wood and water, prepares the food, dresses skins, makes clothes, takes care of the children. She, moreover, supplies the household with vegetable food, gathers roots, berries, acorns, and among agricultural savages, very commonly cultivates the ground. Thus the various occupations of life are divided between the sexes according to definite rules. And though the formation of these rules has undoubtedly been more or less influenced by the egoism of the stronger sex, the essential principle from which they spring lies deeper.”[9]
From necessity women were conservative in their habits since a stationary life was most conducive to the protection and care of offspring. That they should follow those occupations which had to do with the preparation and consumption of food, or with the personal services closely allied to the satisfying of the need for food and clothing, seems natural and reasonable since the children looked to them for those vital services.
It is but a short step from the rendering of personal services to offspring to the rendering of services to a mature man or woman. The performing of services for the father may have been at first voluntary; later it became fixed as a habit and finally established as a custom. This performing of personal services—so conspicuous among peoples of primitive culture, is the basis for concluding the oppression of women. “What is largely due to custom is taken to be sheer tyranny on the part of the stronger sex, and the wife is pronounced an abject slave of her husband, destitute of all rights.”[10]
Our insight into primitive culture shows a state of society in which women held a subordinate position, and where the authority rested primarily with men. The status of women had become fixed by tradition and custom and to depart from it meant ridicule and contempt.
Nevertheless primitive woman seemed content with her lot; and freedom which meant opportunity to struggle against one’s enemies, was not for her a desideration. If she thought at all of her position of subordination—she probably did not—she would have concluded that she was the gainer rather than the loser when she gave up authority in return for protection.
The authority of one sex over the other arose spontaneously and unconsciously by the exercise of the function of protection which in a measure determined choice of occupation. It is true men chose those occupations allowing the greatest versatility and demanding much activity and quickness of motion, and that women were generally barred from them; but hunting and warfare—the two occupations followed by primitive man before the era of pastoral and agricultural life—would have deprived women of the security and protection so essential to the preservation of the race.
When women accepted the protection of men, the women had a chance to survive and reproduce. But the men were forced to fight and only those survived who were able to overcome the enemy.
Before long women outnumbered men; and the motive responsible for the division of occupation was lost sight of. Protection was sought instead of being voluntarily given, and women surrendered more in proportion as their value decreased in the estimation of men.
As long as the number of men and women was approximately equal, the relations between the sexes were more likely to be based upon mutual interests and sympathy. But when one sex far outnumbered the other, degeneracy set in. Wherever we find primitive peoples engaged in almost constant warfare, women outnumber men and the status of the former is low. Women are apparently willing to be oppressed to win favor in the eyes of their lord and master.
There are no historical facts indicating that women as a class resisted the encroachments upon their personal rights by the men. Few individuals are willing to fight for authority when stimulation is lacking; or to struggle for an abstract right not affecting their habits of life. Women followed the line of least resistance. It led to their oppression, but it suited the conservative habit fostered by maternity, and in a measure offered them greater security at a time opportune from the standpoint of the race.
The fate of women seems less hard when judged by the standards of justice and consideration practiced by men and women alike. “When we learn that where torture of enemies is the custom, the women out-do the men—when we read of the cruelties perpetrated by the two female Dyak chiefs described by Rajah Brooks, or of the horrible deeds which Winrod Reade narrates of a blood-thirsty African Queen, we are shown that it is not lack of will but lack of power which prevents primitive women from displaying natures equally brutal with those of primitive men.”[11]
Wherever the militant spirit is absent, there exists greater equality between man and woman, and between man and man. Industrialism in its simple forms is conducive to the spirit of equality; and among those tribes where industry is the chief occupation of the people, and where exploitation of other peoples ceases to be a habit, the position of woman is the best.
A factor not to be overlooked in estimating the status of peoples is the nature of the environment. No matter whether the inclinations of the people foster militancy or industrialism, if the natural environment is unfavorable to the procuring of a steady supply of food, the people is checked in its development by too great odds against it. If the natural environment is so friendly as to supply food without effort on the part of the consumer—as is true of many southern climes—stagnation or degeneracy results from a lack of stimulus to exertion.
What is true of a race or tribe may also be true of women. They show the least physical and mental development where conditions are extremely oppressive; and a moral indifference and indolence where life demands little physical or mental effort for its maintenance.
Irrespective of its immediate cause the oppression of women brings about in time a differentiation of the sexes industrially and especially socially. We have seen among many peoples the assignment of industrial employments to the women and the militant activities to the men; but this division is not a true measure of the degree of subordination of the women. The division of employments is in a measure influenced by the nature of the environment and by the habits and customs having their roots in a natural environment in the distant past. Such a division may originally be based upon woman’s convenience as well as man’s, but probably more often upon that of the latter.
When warfare became a less constant occupation, men entered agriculture, which had been considered women’s own field of work. They did not assume the least skilled part of the work, as does a class of industrial workers when it enters a new field, but chose the occupations most compatible with their inclinations, while women confined their efforts to the more monotonous pursuits. Their work was not necessarily easier than that of the men, nor were they shielded from those tasks requiring great physical strength.
It is true the work pursued by the recognized superior is considered more honorific than the work done by the social inferior, but the work itself generally requires a greater degree of skill and ingenuity. Such honorific work called for greater application and more energy than women were accustomed to bestow upon their occupations for they were always hampered by the demands of their children. During the agricultural stage, therefore, as in the earlier stage, the women always did the work requiring the least initiative. In time the women were largely superseded in the monotonous out-of-door work by the slave, thus gaining time and energy for the ever increasing indoor occupations. Through slavery “it is certain that a means was ... found of maintaining intact the independent household economy with its accustomed division of labor, and at the same time of making progress toward an increase in the number and variety of wants.”[12]
Women’s position in primitive society has often been mistakenly compared to that of slaves destitute of all authority and personal rights. Personal rights are very precious to the individual when no bond of affection exists making the interests of the master and the slave identical. But just here lies the fundamental difference between the position of women and that of slaves. The relation between master and slave was an economic one while that between husband and wife was personal as well as economic. It called for mutual concessions, the woman most often subordinating her interests and wishes to those of the man, who in turn assumed in many instances the entire economic responsibility.
New labor-saving methods were employed in agriculture, making it possible to meet the increased demand for agricultural products. But not so with the in-door work. New wants arose calling for a greater variety in food and clothing. In all probability the men least able physically were superceded in the field by the more robust, and the former were assigned those household tasks least affected by custom, and most easily separated from the immediate jurisdiction of the women. Such employment developed the textile industries.
Never in history have we examples of women excelling men in attaining the ideal of the time, whether militant, social or industrial. And if these ideals represented a progressive development of mankind, women have always been far behind. At the present the industrial ideal predominates. Although we know that in primitive times women excelled men in the industrial arts, it was at a time when the militant ideal was the dominant one. The controlling ideal has always been shaped by men and their occupations and always will be shaped by those in authority.
The spirit of the time has corresponded to masculine achievement and women’s progress has been measured by their success in adaptation. It is of little consequence that women excel in industry in a period of military precedence, or socially in an epoch of industrialism, since the standard of measurement is fixed by masculine performance. The ideal to be attained by either sex is always a masculine one.