The woman of to-morrow

by Helen M. Winslow

II
ON INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY

But we must not let our sense of individual responsibility for the general welfare become too keen. When we consider the multiplication of societies almost daily for the amelioration of every possible wrong and the furtherance of nearly every possible good, we seem in some danger of such a result. Not only the average woman, but the exceptional one, is infected by the universal desire to improve the world in general and mankind in particular; and, figuratively, she seems to be going forth morning, noon and night seeking for new evils to conquer. Mrs. Jellaby and her Society for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Orphans of Borrioboolah Gah was but a caricatured prototype of the passion for organized work among women at the close of the century in which Dickens lived and wrote. We are all in danger of overlooking the best and sweetest in life, as well as its real meaning and essence, in our mad rush after what? Is it the passion for humanity? or is it a sort of contagious fever, the germs of which, having obtained an insidious foothold in our mental and moral systems, work an unconscious change in us from earnest, sincere and reasonably contented women to restless, ambitious and discontented ones?

True, Saint Paul did say that woman was created for the man, and there will always be men—and women, too—who, though they deny the inspiration of every other part of the Scriptures, stake their faith on the infallibility of this alleged prophecy of woman’s perpetual subjection. But the copyright on his oracular utterances expired centuries ago. Some of the new beliefs are not so good as some of the old ones, and these will pass away. Some are better, and these will remain. But the whole truth is that it is fair neither to Saint Paul nor to woman to quote him in fragments. He adds, a very little way further on, “for as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman.” And this almost inextricably mixes up the relations of man and woman; but there does not seem to be any escaping the conclusion that woman’s responsibilities began about at the beginning.

Saint Paul’s opinion as to the attitude and behavior of women in public assemblies is hardly apropos now, and if he were alive to-day he would be the first to admit it. Thucydides antedated the apostle by four centuries, and his remarks to the effect that “Happiest is that woman whose name is least in the mouths of men” are, of course, equally beneath the serious consideration of the woman of to-day, even though they are echoed by so recent and popular a writer as the author of “The Bread Winners.” “A woman’s name should never be in the newspapers more than twice: when she marries and when she dies.” Yet it was but a little while ago that I heard a prominent woman say:

“I wish you and I were living in a little country town somewhere where we could be content to knit and crochet and wash dishes and feed the cat. I know we would all be much happier if we were freed from this ‘divine discontent’ which leads us to fret our souls for that which is naught when we get it.” There might, however, be some trouble in finding the country town where the modern longing to be a factor in the life of to-day has not penetrated. It is not altogether confined to cities, this passion for the general welfare. It is shared by the woman of limited opportunities and crops out in the least suspected places.

Without it where would be the progress made by our sex in the last half of the nineteenth century? What would be the position of woman, for instance, had not Lucy Stone been born with the sense of individual responsibility which made of her a saint and an apostle for the uplifting of the modern woman, to whom all femininity, whether suffragist or remonstrant, owes its recognition and its place to-day? She and her immediate followers were, perhaps, the first to develop this divine discontent which is the inspiration and source of much of the modern sense of individuality for the general welfare. And in view of all the good work that is being inspired and carried out by women, who shall be so blind as to deny that it is a part of the great plan of evolution concerned in the problems that beset the opening of a new century?

The banding together of hundreds of thousands of women for various purposes directly dealing with the world’s advancement along the lines of education, temperance, philanthropy, political affairs and good government emphasizes a new phase of this old world’s history. And the fact that the very existence of this state of affairs is owing to the impossibility of the modern woman’s sitting quietly at home and ignoring her part in the general scheme of humanity compels us to own that this sense of responsibility is not to be regretted, but rather to be taken as an awakening of the real woman to a knowledge of what the “eternal feminine” may be made to mean to the world at large.

It is not, therefore, to be deplored, but to be controlled. There is little danger of its becoming abnormally strong in the aggregate; but alas! for her who lets her own sense of what she as an individual owes to society at large, cease to be a purpose in life and become her master. She it is who joins every club within reach and rushes madly from section to class in search of diversion and from club to club in what she flatters herself is the pursuance of culture. She it is who forgets that an hour spent in the silence of her own room or by her own fireside with some book that is really worth while is more profitable than two afternoons listening to mosaics carefully inlaid from bits of the encyclopædia. She it is who leaves her sick and lonely child to the care of hired nurses while she goes gaily from club pillar to D. A. R. post or neglects the great home truth that a smiling, restful wife across the dinner table is the easiest way to convert the ordinary man to belief in women’s organizations.

It cannot be denied, however, that the modern tendency to organize has greatly stimulated this sense of responsibility for the whole human race that is at once a bane and an inspiration to the up-to-date woman. Women are gregarious and imitative. Let us once realize that our friends are active factors in the arena of life and we are immediately fired with a determination to become factors, too. We want to go with the rest of our kind, whether it be in the manner of reforms or bonnets. We will no more be considered behind the times in organization than in sleeves. Therefore, if other women belong to dozens of such societies, why not we?

It is a great compliment to women that they are being so cordially recognized by organizations of men. Their educational associations are inviting our co-operation in the consideration of questions of how best to work out the problems with which they are confronted. From time immemorial men have not asked the help of women in vain. Since Eve’s day we have been making up for her thoughtlessness in allowing temptation to come before Adam (she not having lived long enough to realize that men are to be guarded from, not exposed to, temptation), and in all ages whenever women could be of use to mankind in general they have done their work nobly and well. Our Pilgrim foremothers are not exploited in histories as they would have been had they fought Indians and defied kings. But nobody pretends to deny that they acted fully as important a part as did their worthy husbands and sires. Our grandmothers of the Revolutionary War were no small factors in the establishment of a new republic. The religious history of the world, since the day of Mary, the carpenter’s mother, shows that the sense of individual responsibility is no new development of the modern woman. It has been behind the greatest achievements of the ages.