In the United States their education, so far as general culture is concerned, outstrips that of men, something like three-fifths of our high school pupils being girls, while even in the higher institutions the study of history, foreign languages and English literature is largely given over to women.
A certain sense of superiority coming from this state of things probably causes the rejection of some honest clerks or craftsmen by girls who can hardly look for a better offer; and it has a tendency toward the cultivation of refinement at the expense of children where marriage does occur.It need hardly be said, however, that aggressive idealism Oil the part of women is in itself no bad thing, and that it does harm only where ill-directed.
Hardly anything, for instance, would be more salutary than the general enforcement by women of a higher moral standard upon the men who wish to marry them.
And certainly nothing in modern civilization is more widely and subtly beneficent than the enlargement of women in social function.It means that a half of human nature is newly enfranchised, instructed and enabled to become a more conscious and effective factor in life.The ideals of home and the care of children, in spite of pessimists, are changing for the better, and the work of women in independent careers is largely in the direction of much-needed social service education and philanthropy in the largest sense of the words.Any one familiar with these movements knows that much of the intellectual and most of the emotional force back of them is that of women' One may say that the maternal instinct has been set free and organized on a vast scale, for the activities in which women most excel are those inspired by sympathy with children and with the weak or suffering classes.
To the continental European, accustomed to a society in which the functions and conventions of men and women are sharply distinguished and defined by tradition, it seems that Americans break down a natural and salutary differentiation, making women masculine and men feminine by a too indiscriminate association and competition.No doubt there is some ground for distinct standards and education, and in the general crumbling of traditions and sway of a somewhat doctrinaire idea of equality some " achieved distinctions " of value may have been lost sight of.Like other social differentiations, however, this is one that can no longer be determined by authority, but must work itself out in a free play of experiment.As Mr.Ellis says, "The hope of our future civilization lies in the development, in equal freedom, of both the masculine and feminine elements in life."
Perhaps, also, the masculine element, as being on the whole more rational and stable, should be the main source of government, keeping in order the emotionality more commonly dominant in women: and it may appear that this controlling function is ill-performed in America.It should be remembered, however, that with us the emancipation of women comes chiefly from male initiative and is a voluntary fostering of das ewig Weibliche out of love and respect for it.And also that most European societies govern womenl by coercive laws or conventions and, in the lower classes, even by blows.Americans have almost wholly foregone these extrinsic aids, aiming at a higher or voluntary discipline, and if American women are, after all, quite as well guided, on the whole, as those of Europe, it is no mean achievement., There are in general two sorts of forces, one personal and one institutional, which hold people together in wedlock.By the personal I mean those which spring more directly from natural impulse, and may be roughly summed up as affection and common interest in children.The institutional are those that come more from the larger organization of society, such as economic interdependence of husband and wife, or the state of public sentiment, tradition and law.
As regards affection, present conditions should apparently be favorable to the strength of the bond.Since personal choice is so little interfered with, and the whole matter conducted with a view to congeniality, it would seem that a high degree of congeniality must, on the whole, be secured.
And, indeed, this is without much doubt the case: nowhere probably, is there so large a proportion of couples li-ving together in love and confidence as in those countries where marriage is most free.Even if serious friction arises, the fact that each has chosen the other without constraint favors a sense of responsibility for the relation, and a determination to make it succeed that might be lacking in an arranged marriage.We know that if we do not marry happily it is our own fault, and the more character and self-respect ~ e has e the more ~ e try to make the best of our venture.There can hardly be a general feeling that marriage is one thing and love another, such as may prevail under the rule of convenance.
Yet it is not inconsistent to say that this aim at love increases divorce.
The theory being that the contracting parties are to be made happy, then, if they are not, it seems to follow that the relation is a failure and should cease: the brighter the ideal the darker the fact by contrast.Where interest and custom rule marriage those who enter into it may not expect congeniality, or, if they do, they feel that it is secondary and do not dream of divorce because it is not achieved.The woman marries because her parents tell her to, because marriage is her career, and because she desires a wedding and to be mistress of a household; the man because he wants a household and children and is not indifferent to the dowry.These tangible aims, of which one can be fairly secure beforehand, give stability where love proves wanting.
