Part 2

The University of Columbia, U.S.A., has now a Chair for “Journalism,” which shows the value of training in this profession. Paris has a Conservatoire where all their artists are trained, free of charge, after admission by open competition. The preliminary work thus entailed, however, does not in the least diminish the keen competition that we must expect in professions which hold the chance of such big possibilities. Yet once more, for both, good health is absolutely indispensable. The harassing strain of uncertainty plays havoc with the finest constitution, and the public, out for amusement and interest, has no time for waning or fallen stars.

The fact is that women are only fitted constitutionally for certain kinds of journalism. The office night-work is too exhausting, and the path of the War Correspondent is one no woman should seek to tread. There are insurmountable difficulties all the way, and, speaking from personal experience, I am convinced that she can only pull through at all by throwing herself on the chivalry of men. In the French army, officers were seriously punished for uselessly exposing men’s lives; yet in order to furnish the sensational head-line of “A Woman in the Trenches,” fathers of families had to risk their lives to protect her, to my certain knowledge, over and over again. It ought not to be allowed.

In the early Victorian era, teaching and nursing used to be the two professions for women. They were both badly paid, and if the school teacher had little or no prestige, the governess had none at all. Nursing was and is still done in hospitals for a pittance; private work is better paid, but the women who do it tell me they dislike the profession.

Both teaching and nursing are, however, vocations, and girls who only take them for want of something better, do not, of course, give their best. Yet no work requires women of more solid character. They have at their mercy, to make or to mar, the young and the sick, yet candidates for these professions cannot be chosen. Neither nursing nor teaching, taken seriously, is a sinecure, and again robust health is required for both.

In the arts, _i.e._, music, painting and literature, training is not enough, and since men have not only to be put on their feet but “seen through,” women must also be “seen through.” Genius, generally speaking, will find its public, but the arts too frequently mean that lessons are given for bread and butter. From both the artistic and financial aspect, however, one wonders whether such poor results are really worth while. Things have naturally been much worse since the War.

The hand-to-mouth, Quartier Latin or Chelsea Studio existence is all very well as a stop-gap, for a change or even a picnic; but what of the future? When is the woman paid enough at this work to save for her old age. It simply cannot be done. There is Florence Barclay, it is true, who made more than enough for a life-time with one book—and there are other exceptions. But these are rare enough to be called miraculous.

In the Middle Ages, teaching and nursing were done by nuns. They gave their lives to the community; and the community cared for them—in sickness, unto death. Nowadays, if women still give their lives to the community, a lay community, the community (or the State) must see that they never want.

Considering the strain of teaching, the terrible risks of nursing, and the uncertainty of women being strong enough to pursue their work after middle age, they ought not to be left dependent upon any profession that does not carry with it the security of a pension; unless, indeed, they are well insured, and, for greater safety, insured by the State.

A profession cannot be abandoned and then picked up again for rainy days. A woman will come back, as men have, to find herself out of date, out of the running. She is not wanted; her place is taken by younger women.

In every profession—the Bar, Medicine, Teaching, Nursing, or Journalism, woman is hindered by her physique. It is idle to contend with the statistics which prove how many women between forty and fifty break down seriously, and never get fit again. Even in partnership with men, where all the risks are obviously diminished, they must be sure of provision in case of sickness. Most professions are good ladders but bad crutches. Under the present conditions of destructive competition, they too often prove no more than an expensive hobby.

IV

THE FRENCH BUSINESS WOMAN

From long residence on the Continent I have been able to study at first hand that admirable person the Frenchwoman in business. What a power is hers! What would France be without her!

There is certainly no need nor any intention to undervalue Frenchmen; but in France one sees woman in her right place, holding the balance of power that follows most closely Nature’s obvious design. There, on the one side, is man performing the hard physical labour which he alone is wise to attempt; on the other, his partner, woman, with her clear business judgment, advising, supervising, suggesting, persuading: never allowing herself to be carried away by sentiment, but always looking facts in the face. A very tiger over her own offspring, she would sell her own soul—or anyone else’s—to save her children; and for that reason must be met with extreme caution by the foreigner. Her personal judgments nevertheless are always based on clear-headed common-sense.

Wherefore, despite her large army of mateless women, France will never be faced with the “women’s question,” as we know it. Women in France are, to a large extent, independent of public opinion: they do not fear facts.

Any ideal of “single-blessedness” would not appeal to them. “It is neither practical nor natural; why therefore should we pretend otherwise?” We question indeed if English women are quite sincere in this matter. “It is better,” they say, “to be alone than with the wrong man.” “A strange ideal,” answers Madame, “how do you know that he _is_ wrong until you have tried?”

As the French believe, whatever work a woman may undertake, she must be man’s associate and partner; neither his subordinate nor his rival. Wherefore she gives her daughter a professional, or business training; _and_ above all, money. A shopkeeper’s daughter generally marries her father’s most promising assistant. The business becomes a sort of double partnership, and most of these marriages prove quite satisfactory. So if a girl’s father is in the army she generally marries an officer; if a banker she will choose a man in a bank. It is a practical family arrangement seldom leading women out of their own class. The disastrous sort of “The Earl and the Girl” affair, so familiar to us, could scarcely ever take place in France.

It is true that France has now a large army of mateless women, but the greater number are widows. As widows they are either carrying on the family business, working in government posts, or living with their parents. Few, of their own choice, would set up alone for themselves.

In their eyes the English woman seems always struggling with “so much work for such small results:” driven to occupations for which she is not properly equipped. They would never expect or permit their own daughters to face the material insecurity which few of our women workers can avoid. Here they may swim, more often they sink. The Frenchwoman says, “swim by all means if you can, but first make sure that you never sink.” A profession or a business is not enough. The girl must have a home _or_ money. Mothers who cannot provide all three will at least insist on one.

Even a short residence on the Continent will suffice to show us what sacrifices all Frenchwomen are prepared to make in order that the “daughter” may never find herself in the humiliating position of having no money behind her, whether she marries or not. I knew, for instance, a doctor who was killed in the war before his daughter’s dowry had been saved up. The widow at once let her furnished house, and took the position as housekeeper in a school. She is living on her husband’s pension; the rest is put by for the girl. This of course is only one example out of a thousand. The woman thinks no work beneath her, or too heavy to undertake for her daughter’s future. Public opinion accepts her sacrifice as a mere matter of course. It is her duty.

As a matter of fact, however, our snobbish attitude towards shop-keepers is unknown in France. The woman who sees that she can do better at business than in a profession, goes into business. As a rule she succeeds in both, because she will sink her personality and take up the position in which she is needed most, whatever her qualifications for better work. An expert at embroidery, bodice-making, or hair-dressing will devote her life to keeping the books of the family business for the good of the firm. The woman doctor may be sighing to make her name as a surgeon or oculist; but for the good of the practice she will readily give her mind to research work, or, if her husband is also a doctor, to writing his lectures. Her whole career may have its course changed, but she remains content.

Moreover, the Frenchwoman never forgets, or ignores, her real object—_permanent security_. They are a race of cautious investors, who will invest almost everything they possess to put a child on his feet. They will not make him a clerk, always subject to dismissal; a secretary, always looking for better posts. They put capital, however small, into his business to _establish_ him there.

It is for this reason that, at the boot-makers, dress-makers, milliners, and elsewhere, you so continually meet the familiar faces. The assistants, whether married or not, keep their jobs until they can face the world with a fixed income. A few English, and more Americans, make larger fortunes, it is true; but how many of us would have the patience to “heap up” franc by franc, the security which is the great aim of every Frenchwoman.

Comparisons are odious, but we certainly have much to learn from the French business woman.

V

THE LAWS FOR WOMEN—ILLOGICAL AND INCONSISTENT

How strange it is that Englishwomen, who enjoy a liberty of action their sisters on the continent regard with envy, should yet be governed by a code of laws as inconsistent as they are unjust. From this code were taken the chief planks of the Suffrage platforms.

Though the feministic appeal was made first to unhappy, or dissatisfied women, it was easy to rouse righteous wrath in all by dwelling upon the cruel laws to which women in this land are subjected.

Tell a woman that “by the law you are not the legal parent of your child,” and who could not secure a majority by such an appeal?

When the “master” is good and kind, the position of wife, mother, or daughter may be quite satisfactory. When, however, a woman is thrown into the grip of these cruel laws, then Heaven have mercy on her!

Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, because they might otherwise have been more quickly reformed, Englishwomen have, to protect them, the Englishman’s own self-made code, really of more effect than any law:—simply, “_It isn’t done._” Every British gentleman bows to the great judge, Public Opinion. Alas, however, every Britisher is not a gentleman, and again one asks: “What chance has a woman when left to the mercy of the laws of the realm?” Even the Moslems, who are not supposed to credit women with the possession of a soul at all, have more consistent and just laws than ours, and, what is of the greatest importance, children are always given a legal status.

It is astonishing that the British gentleman, the world-renowned sportsman in the very highest sense, can stand not only for the wrongs that are done to unmarried mothers, but worse still, for the wrongs done to the poor defenceless beings who come into the world unasked, and yet suffer all their lives for what has not been in any way their own fault. Considering the real nature of that very fine being, the British gentleman, and a finer than he does not exist on this earth, in comparison with the men of every other land, one wonders whether, after all, his attention has ever been properly drawn to this injustice.

The laws are so out of harmony with all the “fairplay” for which he stands. First, taking woman as a wife. There are far too few obstacles to prevent her marrying in haste, and far too many, since these hasty marriages are allowed, to prevent her unmarrying. One cannot, perhaps, altogether approve of the Continental arranged marriage, but there is certainly something to be said for the wisdom of a system that demands the parent’s or guardian’s consent up to the age of twenty-five. At least it puts off the “evil day”; and gives the families on both sides time to act. Both family histories, and both family banking accounts are carefully examined; and, in most cases, the State ceremony and service in church combined are calculated to impress upon young people the solemnity of the partnership into which they are about to enter, and the interests of the future generation it will be theirs to safeguard.

Compare these carefully arranged marriages with some of our slipshod, ill-considered unions, based on pure physical attraction which naturally cannot last!

If neither the State, nor the parent, will—or can—do anything to prevent hasty marriage, why should the laws for Divorce be so consistently illogical. They are not only illogical, but disgracefully unfair. In Italy there is no divorce—neither the Church nor the State grants it—so the situation is quite clear; both sexes are treated alike.

In France, the State, not the Church, grants divorce for men and women on equal terms; that, too, is fair.

In England, however, _the divorce laws do not help the right class of men and women_, and release is not granted to women on equal terms with men.

A frivolous-minded couple, who have rushed into matrimony without a thought, and have very quickly had quite enough of one another, can go through the usual “restitution of conjugal rights” comedy—disgraceful legislation, unworthy of our traditions.

It is the wife of a criminal lunatic or a confirmed drunkard who has our pity. For her, or the woman tied to a thoroughly immoral man who tries to lead the sons astray, there should be permanent relief. Judicial separation is not a sufficient protection for the children.

No thinking woman wants easier divorce or anything to loosen family ties and lead to legitimatised “free love.” But even devout Roman Catholics are now prepared to “use scissors” for the protection of children. Handicapped by nature, often the victim of circumstances, the unmarried mother is always to be pitied. Although she has the advantage over the married woman in being the legal parent of her child, yet for her public opinion is merciless. From the father of the child, when she can prove who he is, she gets a mere pittance; and if, driven to distraction and temporary insanity, she puts an end to the little life that began with so much sorrow, she must stand alone in the dock. Without defending the woman—God forbid, a little life is too sacred!—one cannot help asking: “Where is the man?”

In summing up the disadvantages of being a woman, here is one of the greatest. Public opinion and the law defy nature, and by their cowardly unchristian attitude frequently drive poor erring humanity to the crime of infanticide.

Perhaps the German treatment of this problem is the most Christlike. Human nature being what it is, such things will happen; no legislation can stop them. Therefore, these children must be brought up as honest citizens, _not as children of sin_. The German “Mothers’ Home,” where no difference is made between the married and unmarried, is well worth a visit and might be imitated with advantage.

“For every sin there is pardon,” we repeat mechanically; and yet the British Code puts the awful scarlet letter of illegitimacy on defenceless children, and not even the marriage of the parents can wipe it out.

One of the most unjust of laws in this realm is that which allows parents to disinherit their children. On the Continent this cannot be done. Children are entitled to one-third of the parents’ possessions. However worthless, they are the parents’ “creations,” for whom the responsibility cannot be evaded.

It is true that some parents give away all they possess in their life-time in order to deprive the children of their inheritance. This is illegal, however, and punishable by the law.

There is something very mean in the attitude of parents who cut off their children with the proverbial shilling. They are often influenced by mere caprice, a marriage they dislike, or a change of religion. Yet whatever a child has done, is this justifiable? And surely a daughter who acts in defiance of the wishes of her parents, needs them all the more when the predicted day of sorrow arrives. To disinherit a son is bad enough, but to disinherit an unmarried daughter is criminal.

The case of the daughter who does not marry in order to look after her widowed father and suddenly finds herself penniless because the new wife will not let him provide for her, could not happen on the Continent. Over and over again one has met these poor victims. Well over thirty-five, and yet just starting to work. How can parents be so heartless?

On the Continent there is, at least an unwritten law which forces a brother to look after his sister. No one likes to accept charity from a brother, yet Continental public opinion deals harshly with the man who deserts his mother and sisters in their time of need. It is more lenient to those who neglect their wives; children and one’s own flesh and blood, however, seem somehow to have a closer claim.

A good brother is the dearest possible pal. And what a difference his mere existence makes sometimes in the attitude of his sister’s male employer. Yet, as many Englishwomen must admit, their brothers are scarcely aware of their existence. There has been no quarrel, but they do not even correspond; he has married and has new interests. The companion of his childhood is a memory that cannot even be kept alive by a postcard.

Brothers know perfectly well, or if they do not know they ought to be told, that woman’s value as she grows older decreases in the labour market. They have become so used to sisters helping themselves when they are not married, or badly married, that they lose interest: influenced, in some cases, maybe, by a jealous wife. How bitter the heart-ache of many a “Maggie Tulliver” at the indifference of “brother Tom.”

None can deny the injustice of these English laws. It was said that they would never be changed until women obtained the vote. As no thinking worker could uphold such crushing, humiliating, and dangerous laws, they worked whole-heartedly for the Vote, and obtained it. Yet the laws have not yet been changed. It was then maintained that the Vote was not enough, women must sit in the House of Commons.

What have they done in the House of Commons?

VI

CAN WOMEN SUCCEED IN POLITICS?

Can women succeed in politics? It is, perhaps, too early to say. Suddenly some giant personality may give the lie to all that could be said against woman as a politician.

Meantime, who but Lady Astor could have been the first woman M.P.? Who but a woman of her social position, wealth, and personality could have secured the reception accorded her by the House of Commons? And who but a woman—trained in America and as a Christian Scientist—would have had the courage to take up a work for which she was not educated; braving the criticism of the whole civilised world. But she has done it, and in spite of serious blunders at the beginning, she has done it remarkably well. When one remembers her demoralising wealth, that she had no business training at all, that she has to rely on her quick wit for speeches, one wonders what she might not have accomplished had she been through the professional mill.

But will she really help women at Westminster? Has she really their cause at heart? Can she understand them? Certainly she belongs to that fine school of American idealists who want to make great reforms. Only, to do these great things, you must understand them, and can she understand women’s needs, who has not herself been in need? She has a chance to help women, such as no one else has ever had, or may have again. Will she take it?

The cause of the working woman will always be well championed. Besides, the poor can beg; professional women cannot. On their way to independence some women have found sorrow and humiliation and suffering at every corner, but to whom will they ever confess?

Lady Astor was certainly not very successful in her attitude towards divorce. Had she studied the question sufficiently? Possibly not, and that was the reason. She supposed the thinking women of England were trying for _easier divorce_, not _reformed divorce_, and who could blame her for wishing to keep out of England the “easy divorce” laws of the U.S.A.

As a professional working woman, Mrs. Wintringham ought to be able to give the professional woman’s point of view with much more understanding than Lady Astor. Her speeches are commendably brief and to the point, but the public usually prefers personality and social standing to the highest, technical qualifications. It is, indeed, another very great point in Lady Astor’s favour that she has no axe to grind. The constituents who elected her because she is Lady Astor, will elect her again; whereas, with other woman candidates we have yet to find out whether they will put their own personal interests before their cause.

There was a time when one supposed women would clear up politics as they cleared up a dirty house. But are they more to be trusted in politics than men? A woman comes out of Labour ranks; as she gets on, she becomes socially ambitious, then she throws her party aside. Men have done it over and over again; they call it “evolution,” and women no doubt will say the same.

The few women who are likely to sit in the House of Commons can make _very little difference to the constitution_, and it might be wiser for women to use their vote for forcing men on to their side, and so making sure that their wishes are carried out with regard to Bills with which they are particularly concerned. Women and children’s laws need reform so badly; is it safe to rely on future women M.P.’s? It is true that we have not yet had any bills framed by women for women; they may be master-pieces of statesmanship. Let it be said meanwhile that at least they could not be worse than the existing man-made laws.

The danger of trusting women in politics, comes from their lack of _esprit de corps_, yet the very _raison d’être_ of their being in Parliament is to protect and help other women; to uphold other women’s interests. But see how they run their clubs! No men’s clubs are conducted on such lines. The best of them cannot choke that Mothers’ Meeting spirit, which shows itself at the most unfortunate moments. And the meetings are often conducted in the most unsportsmanlike manner. Over and over again a woman in the Chair will close the meeting if the feeling is going against her party, or her speaker cannot answer questions.

Individual women are magnificent; but to trust them collectively is futile as yet. Either from ignorance or from something in woman’s nature, somehow or other she so often seems to let other women down. We have said that Lady Astor, if she really cares to understand the professional woman’s point of view, could be of the greatest service to the women’s cause.