Looking Backward: 2000-1887 Read online

  CHAPTER XXV.

  The personality of Edith Leete had naturally impressed me stronglyever since I had come, in so strange a manner, to be an inmate of herfather's house, and it was to be expected that after what had happenedthe night previous, I should be more than ever preoccupied withthoughts of her. From the first I had been struck with the air ofserene frankness and ingenuous directness, more like that of a nobleand innocent boy than any girl I had ever known, which characterizedher. I was curious to know how far this charming quality might bepeculiar to herself, and how far possibly a result of alterations inthe social position of women which might have taken place since mytime. Finding an opportunity that day, when alone with Dr. Leete, Iturned the conversation in that direction.

  "I suppose," I said, "that women nowadays, having been relieved of theburden of housework, have no employment but the cultivation of theircharms and graces."

  "So far as we men are concerned," replied Dr. Leete, "we shouldconsider that they amply paid their way, to use one of your forms ofexpression, if they confined themselves to that occupation, but youmay be very sure that they have quite too much spirit to consent to bemere beneficiaries of society, even as a return for ornamenting it.They did, indeed, welcome their riddance from housework, because thatwas not only exceptionally wearing in itself, but also wasteful, inthe extreme, of energy, as compared with the cooperative plan; butthey accepted relief from that sort of work only that they mightcontribute in other and more effectual, as well as more agreeable,ways to the common weal. Our women, as well as our men, are members ofthe industrial army, and leave it only when maternal duties claimthem. The result is that most women, at one time or another of theirlives, serve industrially some five or ten or fifteen years, whilethose who have no children fill out the full term."

  "A woman does not, then, necessarily leave the industrial service onmarriage?" I queried.

  "No more than a man," replied the doctor. "Why on earth should she?Married women have no housekeeping responsibilities now, you know, anda husband is not a baby that he should be cared for."

  "It was thought one of the most grievous features of our civilizationthat we required so much toil from women," I said; "but it seems to meyou get more out of them than we did."

  Dr. Leete laughed. "Indeed we do, just as we do out of our men. Yetthe women of this age are very happy, and those of the nineteenthcentury, unless contemporary references greatly mislead us, were verymiserable. The reason that women nowadays are so much more efficientco-laborers with the men, and at the same time are so happy, is that,in regard to their work as well as men's, we follow the principle ofproviding every one the kind of occupation he or she is best adaptedto. Women being inferior in strength to men, and further disqualifiedindustrially in special ways, the kinds of occupation reserved forthem, and the conditions under which they pursue them, have referenceto these facts. The heavier sorts of work are everywhere reserved formen, the lighter occupations for women. Under no circumstances is awoman permitted to follow any employment not perfectly adapted, bothas to kind and degree of labor, to her sex. Moreover, the hours ofwomen's work are considerably shorter than those of men's, morefrequent vacations are granted, and the most careful provision is madefor rest when needed. The men of this day so well appreciate that theyowe to the beauty and grace of women the chief zest of their lives andtheir main incentive to effort, that they permit them to work at allonly because it is fully understood that a certain regular requirementof labor, of a sort adapted to their powers, is well for body andmind, during the period of maximum physical vigor. We believe thatthe magnificent health which distinguishes our women from those ofyour day, who seem to have been so generally sickly, is owing largelyto the fact that all alike are furnished with healthful andinspiriting occupation."

  "I understood you," I said, "that the women-workers belong to the armyof industry, but how can they be under the same system of ranking anddiscipline with the men, when the conditions of their labor are sodifferent."

  "They are under an entirely different discipline," replied Dr. Leete,"and constitute rather an allied force than an integral part of thearmy of the men. They have a woman general-in-chief and are underexclusively feminine regime. This general, as also the higherofficers, is chosen by the body of women who have passed the time ofservice, in correspondence with the manner in which the chiefs of themasculine army and the President of the nation are elected. Thegeneral of the women's army sits in the cabinet of the President andhas a veto on measures respecting women's work, pending appeals toCongress. I should have said, in speaking of the judiciary, that wehave women on the bench, appointed by the general of the women, aswell as men. Causes in which both parties are women are determined bywomen judges, and where a man and a woman are parties to a case, ajudge of either sex must consent to the verdict."

  "Womanhood seems to be organized as a sort of _imperium in imperio_ inyour system," I said.

  "To some extent," Dr. Leete replied; "but the inner _imperium_ is onefrom which you will admit there is not likely to be much danger to thenation. The lack of some such recognition of the distinctindividuality of the sexes was one of the innumerable defects of yoursociety. The passional attraction between men and women has too oftenprevented a perception of the profound differences which make themembers of each sex in many things strange to the other, and capableof sympathy only with their own. It is in giving full play to thedifferences of sex rather than in seeking to obliterate them, as wasapparently the effort of some reformers in your day, that theenjoyment of each by itself and the piquancy which each has for theother, are alike enhanced. In your day there was no career for womenexcept in an unnatural rivalry with men. We have given them a world oftheir own, with its emulations, ambitions, and careers, and I assureyou they are very happy in it. It seems to us that women were morethan any other class the victims of your civilization. There issomething which, even at this distance of time, penetrates one withpathos in the spectacle of their ennuied, undeveloped lives, stuntedat marriage, their narrow horizon, bounded so often, physically, bythe four walls of home, and morally by a petty circle of personalinterests. I speak now, not of the poorer classes, who were generallyworked to death, but also of the well-to-do and rich. From the greatsorrows, as well as the petty frets of life, they had no refuge in thebreezy outdoor world of human affairs, nor any interests save those ofthe family. Such an existence would have softened men's brains ordriven them mad. All that is changed to-day. No woman is heardnowadays wishing she were a man, nor parents desiring boy rather thangirl children. Our girls are as full of ambition for their careers asour boys. Marriage, when it comes, does not mean incarceration forthem, nor does it separate them in any way from the larger interestsof society, the bustling life of the world. Only when maternity fillsa woman's mind with new interests does she withdraw from the world fora time. Afterwards, and at any time, she may return to her place amongher comrades, nor need she ever lose touch with them. Women are a veryhappy race nowadays, as compared with what they ever were before inthe world's history, and their power of giving happiness to men hasbeen of course increased in proportion."

  "I should imagine it possible," I said, "that the interest which girlstake in their careers as members of the industrial army and candidatesfor its distinctions might have an effect to deter them frommarriage."

  Dr. Leete smiled. "Have no anxiety on that score, Mr. West," hereplied. "The Creator took very good care that whatever othermodifications the dispositions of men and women might with time takeon, their attraction for each other should remain constant. The merefact that in an age like yours, when the struggle for existence musthave left people little time for other thoughts, and the future was souncertain that to assume parental responsibilities must have oftenseemed like a criminal risk, there was even then marrying and givingin marriage, should be conclusive on this point. As for love nowadays,one of our authors says that the vacuum left in the minds of men andwomen by the absence of care for one's livelihood has been entir
elytaken up by the tender passion. That, however, I beg you to believe,is something of an exaggeration. For the rest, so far is marriage frombeing an interference with a woman's career, that the higher positionsin the feminine army of industry are intrusted only to women who havebeen both wives and mothers, as they alone fully represent their sex."

  "Are credit cards issued to the women just as to the men?"

  "Certainly."

  "The credits of the women, I suppose, are for smaller sums, owing tothe frequent suspension of their labor on account of familyresponsibilities."

  "Smaller!" exclaimed Dr. Leete, "oh, no! The maintenance of all ourpeople is the same. There are no exceptions to that rule, but if anydifference were made on account of the interruptions you speak of, itwould be by making the woman's credit larger, not smaller. Can youthink of any service constituting a stronger claim on the nation'sgratitude than bearing and nursing the nation's children? According toour view, none deserve so well of the world as good parents. There isno task so unselfish, so necessarily without return, though the heartis well rewarded, as the nurture of the children who are to make theworld for one another when we are gone."

  "It would seem to follow, from what you have said, that wives are inno way dependent on their husbands for maintenance."

  "Of course they are not," replied Dr. Leete, "nor children on theirparents either, that is, for means of support, though of course theyare for the offices of affection. The child's labor, when he grows up,will go to increase the common stock, not his parents', who will bedead, and therefore he is properly nurtured out of the common stock.The account of every person, man, woman, and child, you mustunderstand, is always with the nation directly, and never through anyintermediary, except, of course, that parents, to a certain extent,act for children as their guardians. You see that it is by virtue ofthe relation of individuals to the nation, of their membership in it,that they are entitled to support; and this title is in no wayconnected with or affected by their relations to other individuals whoare fellow members of the nation with them. That any person should bedependent for the means of support upon another would be shocking tothe moral sense as well as indefensible on any rational social theory.What would become of personal liberty and dignity under such anarrangement? I am aware that you called yourselves free in thenineteenth century. The meaning of the word could not then, however,have been at all what it is at present, or you certainly would nothave applied it to a society of which nearly every member was in aposition of galling personal dependence upon others as to the verymeans of life, the poor upon the rich, or employed upon employer,women upon men, children upon parents. Instead of distributing theproduct of the nation directly to its members, which would seem themost natural and obvious method, it would actually appear that you hadgiven your minds to devising a plan of hand to hand distribution,involving the maximum of personal humiliation to all classes ofrecipients.

  "As regards the dependence of women upon men for support, which thenwas usual, of course, natural attraction in case of marriages of lovemust often have made it endurable, though for spirited women I shouldfancy it must always have remained humiliating. What, then, must ithave been in the innumerable cases where women, with or without theform of marriage, had to sell themselves to men to get their living?Even your contemporaries, callous as they were to most of therevolting aspects of their society, seem to have had an idea that thiswas not quite as it should be; but, it was still only for pity's sakethat they deplored the lot of the women. It did not occur to them thatit was robbery as well as cruelty when men seized for themselves thewhole product of the world and left women to beg and wheedle for theirshare. Why--but bless me, Mr. West, I am really running on at aremarkable rate, just as if the robbery, the sorrow, and the shamewhich those poor women endured were not over a century since, or as ifyou were responsible for what you no doubt deplored as much as I do."

  "I must bear my share of responsibility for the world as it then was,"I replied. "All I can say in extenuation is that until the nation wasripe for the present system of organized production and distribution,no radical improvement in the position of woman was possible. The rootof her disability, as you say, was her personal dependence upon manfor her livelihood, and I can imagine no other mode of socialorganization than that you have adopted, which would have set womanfree of man at the same time that it set men free of one another. Isuppose, by the way, that so entire a change in the position of womencannot have taken place without affecting in marked ways the socialrelations of the sexes. That will be a very interesting study for me."

  "The change you will observe," said Dr. Leete, "will chiefly be, Ithink, the entire frankness and unconstraint which now characterizesthose relations, as compared with the artificiality which seems tohave marked them in your time. The sexes now meet with the ease ofperfect equals, suitors to each other for nothing but love. In yourtime the fact that women were dependent for support on men made thewoman in reality the one chiefly benefited by marriage. This fact, sofar as we can judge from contemporary records, appears to have beencoarsely enough recognized among the lower classes, while among themore polished it was glossed over by a system of elaborateconventionalities which aimed to carry the precisely opposite meaning,namely, that the man was the party chiefly benefited. To keep up thisconvention it was essential that he should always seem the suitor.Nothing was therefore considered more shocking to the proprieties thanthat a woman should betray a fondness for a man before he hadindicated a desire to marry her. Why, we actually have in ourlibraries books, by authors of your day, written for no other purposethan to discuss the question whether, under any conceivablecircumstances, a woman might, without discredit to her sex, reveal anunsolicited love. All this seems exquisitely absurd to us, and yet weknow that, given your circumstances, the problem might have a seriousside. When for a woman to proffer her love to a man was in effect toinvite him to assume the burden of her support, it is easy to see thatpride and delicacy might well have checked the promptings of theheart. When you go out into our society, Mr. West, you must beprepared to be often cross-questioned on this point by our youngpeople, who are naturally much interested in this aspect ofold-fashioned manners".[5]

  "And so the girls of the twentieth century tell their love."

  "If they choose," replied Dr. Leete. "There is no more pretense of aconcealment of feeling on their part than on the part of their lovers.Coquetry would be as much despised in a girl as in a man. Affectedcoldness, which in your day rarely deceived a lover, would deceive himwholly now, for no one thinks of practicing it."

  "One result which must follow from the independence of women I can seefor myself," I said. "There can be no marriages now except those ofinclination."

  "That is a matter of course," replied Dr. Leete.

  "Think of a world in which there are nothing but matches of pure love!Ah me, Dr. Leete, how far you are from being able to understand whatan astonishing phenomenon such a world seems to a man of thenineteenth century!"

  "I can, however, to some extent, imagine it," replied the doctor. "Butthe fact you celebrate, that there are nothing but love matches, meanseven more, perhaps, than you probably at first realize. It means thatfor the first time in human history the principle of sexual selection,with its tendency to preserve and transmit the better types of therace, and let the inferior types drop out, has unhindered operation.The necessities of poverty, the need of having a home, no longer temptwomen to accept as the fathers of their children men whom they neithercan love nor respect. Wealth and rank no longer divert attention frompersonal qualities. Gold no longer 'gilds the straitened forehead ofthe fool.' The gifts of person, mind, and disposition; beauty, wit,eloquence, kindness, generosity, geniality, courage, are sure oftransmission to posterity. Every generation is sifted through a littlefiner mesh than the last. The attributes that human nature admires arepreserved, those that repel it are left behind. There are, of course,a great many women who with love must mingle admiration, and seek towed greatly, but thes
e not the less obey the same law, for to wedgreatly now is not to marry men of fortune or title, but those whohave risen above their fellows by the solidity or brilliance of theirservices to humanity. These form nowadays the only aristocracy withwhich alliance is distinction.

  "You were speaking, a day or two ago, of the physical superiority ofour people to your contemporaries. Perhaps more important than any ofthe causes I mentioned then as tending to race purification has beenthe effect of untrammeled sexual selection upon the quality of two orthree successive generations. I believe that when you have made afuller study of our people you will find in them not only a physical,but a mental and moral improvement. It would be strange if it were notso, for not only is one of the great laws of nature now freely workingout the salvation of the race, but a profound moral sentiment has cometo its support. Individualism, which in your day was the animatingidea of society, not only was fatal to any vital sentiment ofbrotherhood and common interest among living men, but equally to anyrealization of the responsibility of the living for the generation tofollow. To-day this sense of responsibility, practically unrecognizedin all previous ages, has become one of the great ethical ideas of therace, reinforcing, with an intense conviction of duty, the naturalimpulse to seek in marriage the best and noblest of the other sex. Theresult is, that not all the encouragements and incentives of everysort which we have provided to develop industry, talent, genius,excellence of whatever kind, are comparable in their effect on ouryoung men with the fact that our women sit aloft as judges of therace and reserve themselves to reward the winners. Of all the whips,and spurs, and baits, and prizes, there is none like the thought ofthe radiant faces which the laggards will find averted.

  "Celibates nowadays are almost invariably men who have failed toacquit themselves creditably in the work of life. The woman must be acourageous one, with a very evil sort of courage, too, whom pity forone of these unfortunates should lead to defy the opinion of hergeneration--for otherwise she is free--so far as to accept him for ahusband. I should add that, more exacting and difficult to resist thanany other element in that opinion, she would find the sentiment of herown sex. Our women have risen to the full height of theirresponsibility as the wardens of the world to come, to whose keepingthe keys of the future are confided. Their feeling of duty in thisrespect amounts to a sense of religious consecration. It is a cult inwhich they educate their daughters from childhood."

  After going to my room that night, I sat up late to read a romance ofBerrian, handed me by Dr. Leete, the plot of which turned on asituation suggested by his last words, concerning the modern view ofparental responsibility. A similar situation would almost certainlyhave been treated by a nineteenth century romancist so as to excitethe morbid sympathy of the reader with the sentimental selfishness ofthe lovers, and his resentment toward the unwritten law which theyoutraged. I need not describe--for who has not read "Ruth Elton?"--howdifferent is the course which Berrian takes, and with what tremendouseffect he enforces the principle which he states: "Over the unborn ourpower is that of God, and our responsibility like His toward us. As weacquit ourselves toward them, so let Him deal with us."

  [Footnote 5: I may say that Dr. Leete's warning has been fullyjustified by my experience. The amount and intensity of amusementwhich the young people of this day, and the young women especially,are able to extract from what they are pleased to call the oddities ofcourtship in the nineteenth century, appear unlimited.]