Receive of the fruit of her own hands, and her own works shall praise her.
Possibly women have tired a little of letting their own works praise them—and nothing else! But I am taking the letter too seriously.
To go back to The Atlantic, I find Mr. George, who is in full sympathy with the movement of which he writes, classifying the demands of the feminists as follows: Economically, they intend to open every occupation to women; they intend to level the wages of women; in general, they wish to change the attitude of those who regard women’s present inferiority to men (they frankly admit that there is inferiority in many respects) as inherent and insuperable, by demonstrating that it is due merely to long lack of thorough training—(an old friend, apparently, in a new dress!) They wish also gradually to modify and change existing marriage laws so that they will be equally fair to both sexes.
A careful re-reading of Mr. Martin’s article fails to reveal much in the way of counter argument to Mr. George’s forcible appeal. There’s a great deal of courteous agreement and some rather good satire, but against the specific counts of the feminists’ intentions Mr. Martin raises no telling argument. We hear that whereas fathers wish all earthly blessings for their daughters, mothers do not, as women are jealous of women; also that mothers fear the modern woman on account of their sons, for whom they in turn wish all possible good: the modern woman will not make a good wife! Angels and ministers of grace defend us! In a double quality as daughter to a devoted and loving mother, and as a devoted and loving mother to a most precious daughter, I throw down my glove.
I am sure Mr. Martin has never acted in either of these capacities, so precious little he knows about it! Besides, I do want my son to have everything that the world provides in the way of blessings and happiness, so I want him to have as a wife a thoroughly modern woman with an awakened soul and a high ideal, to finish the good work in him which I have at least endeavored to begin.
As I read further, however, the cat begins to poke a cautious head out of the bag. Women, Mr. Martin argues, are not responsible for the blessings the feminist movement is trying to bring them. It is men! That is why he is so particular to tell us of the careful solicitude of a father for his daughters. Men, right along, have procured all happiness for women; or, if not men exactly, at least a sort of Zeit Geist—I believe he calls it “necessity.” And the poor deluded feminists are simply the little boys running along by the side of the procession and hollering. The procession is made up of vague forces, “working nowadays for the enlargement and betterment of life for women”—forces, he quaintly complains, that are “making things go too fast their way already.”
So we must take all credit from Luther and Knox and Calvin and the reformers of all times and give it to the Zeit Geist. They, too, are little boys, I suppose, who ran along and hollered. At least they hollered lustily and well, and the feminists are in good company.
And the peroration—every true woman will appreciate this: “What a husband sees in forty years, maybe, of the good and bad of life for a woman; what a father sees in his daughters and the conditions of modern life as they affect girls—those are the things which count in forming or changing the convictions of men about woman’s errand in this current world.”
Well! However far the Zeit Geist has progressed in other directions, it is plain that it has not made inroads on Mr. Martin’s consciousness of the present state of affairs. Who has given men the power and right to decide about woman’s errand in the world? For lo! these many years we have been letting husbands, fathers, and brothers decide for us just what it were best for us to do; and if the new idea has any significance at all it is just this: that we feel able to decide for ourselves what we most want and need.
M. H. P.