THE " AMERICAN WOMAN."
[To THE EDITOR OF THY "SPECTATOR.1 Sra,—The " vivid " communication you published last week is, as you rightly say, so " suggestive" that I hope you will be good enough to publish some of the thoughts which it has suggested to an Englishwoman. You guard yourself in your editorial note from appearing to countenance an attack on the women of a friendly nation. But what you findt" no small pleasure" in giving prominence to is really a. thinly veiled attack -on women as " found throughout the modern world." It may be timely in these pleasure-loving days to mark one's detestation of the idle, self-indulgent, hard pleasure-seeker,- man or woman. It is true that civilisation has made it possible for many men and a still larger number of women to live in absolute idleness if they like. And if such a book as " The Metropolis " presents a true picture of American social life, Dr. Macphail may well write severely of its women,—one wonders that he should let off the men scot-free. But the characters in -" The Metropolis," and the women of Dr. Macphail's " vivid " picture are the horrid "freaks" of civilisation, and not its " normal product. Sometimes he seems Conscious that he is • speaking of the exceptional cases-; but then comes such a startling statement as the following : "There is money and idleness for the women of the well-to-do: idleness alone for the women of the poor." (The italics are mine.) This statement vitiates the whole article. He is so angry because some women Can be and are idle that he is blind to the fact that the majority Of women are compelled by nature and circumstances to work harder than most men. The poor woman of to-day is took and nurse and dressmaker and laundress and wife and mother and part bread-winner all in one. In masses of homes the wife must add earnings to the husband's to keep body and 'soul together. If lurid pictures are to be drawn of the evil ways of one sex at one end of society, let a counterbalancing 'picture be shown of the lurid facts too frequently found at the other end, where the husband is often content to let his wife do all the bread-winning, while preserving to himself the manly prerogatives of the vote and the leather belt. I hope that everybody who reads Dr. Macphail's letter will also read
• the short sketch of "The Mother " in Mr. Galsworthy's recently published " Commentaries."
According to Dr. Macphail, the well-to-do woman of to-day delegates all her duties; and he would not mind it so much if they were not delegated to men instead of to other women. Does he really think that in ordinary society we all enjoy the superior dainties supplied by the man cook ? Do most of us have all our clothes from Worth ? Does lie accept uncon- sciously the mass of domestic services that even the rich do not get men to do for them ? The invaluable nurse is recognised by him as being a woman, and so she is called a hireling. The vast army of women teachers who are educating all the little children, and most of the big ones, in these modern days are outside Dr. Macphail's line of vision. They do not fit in with his argument that since the woman no longer has to prepare the skin and cook the flesh of the animal shot by her husband, civilisation has turned her into an idle being. It would be as true to say that since the man no longer has to slay his food, he too is an idler ; but the folly of the latter assertion of 'course requires no demonstration. In real truth, however, according to Dr. Macphail's own showing, the well-to-do woman often needs in these days to find and make work for herself. And because she is doing it in all seriousness, and devoting herself to philanthropic and social and political interests with an increasing sense of responsibility or a 'groiving desire to try actively to better the conditions of 'things about her, she is treated to the bitterest gibe of all. But there is-no pleasing Dr. Macphail, whether you give your leisure for others and want a vote, or are content with a simple 'outdoor game, although you cannot bit a ball as hard as a Man can. Should a woman go for a walk, I wonder, seeing that the average woman cannot walk as far or as fast as the average man P But to conclude. You, Sir, might take some comfort from the fact that it is not the idle, the self-indulgent, or the
frivolous woman who wants a vote. They all think it a most unwomanly desire. It is only the real worker among and for other women who is asking for it in the hope that even the frivolous and the idle may be stirred to a deeper sense of the responsibilities of their sex.—I am, Sir, &o.,
EDITH BETHUNE-BARES.
23 Creamer Road, Cambridge.
[We admit that there is a great deal of truth in Mrs. Bethune-Baker's criticism of the details of Dr. Macpbaire letter,—a letter which, we were careful to point out, repre- sented the writer's views, and by no means in all pointy the views of the Spectator. We expressed our dissent from the passage about the nurse even more strongly than Mrs. Baker. At the same time, we are convinced that, in spite of occasional exaggerations and injustices, Dr. Macphail is doing good service in condemning the particular type of woman he describes. His concluding letter, which deals with the un- willingness of the " American woman" to perform the main function of woman in the world, is now and then much too strongly expressed, but in the main it follows the lines of President Roosevelt's arraignment of a certain selfish section. Though we cannot, for obvious reasons, open our columns to a discussion of "race suicide," we must express our general agreement with the President on this matter.— ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
