One cannot believe that it is
necessary to rebut that accusation. It is necessary, however, to examine
somewhat the words "economic dependence" and "economic independence"
which are employed with such naive antithesis in this controversy.
When we examine Mrs. Gilman's proposal for the salvation of woman, we
find it to mean that in future mothers are to do double work. The
glorious consummation is to be that woman is no longer "parasitic on the
male," which is Mrs. Gilman's way of expressing the great truth that the
mother for whom the father works, represents the future supported by the
present.
But the future is always supported by the present. Woman, we began by
saying, is Nature's supreme organ of the future, and the present must
live for her and die for her. When we say the future, we mean childhood.
If childhood is to appear and to survive, womanhood must be dedicated to
it, and manhood, which stands for the present, must supply its own link
in the chain. The following paragraph from an unsigned article which
appeared some years ago in the _Morning Post_ states the case in a form
which may convince the reader. It was headed "Repairs and Renewals of
the People," and ran as follows:--
"It is, indeed, seldom sufficiently realized how much a nation, so
to speak, lives always in and for the future. Broadly speaking, of
every ten persons living in the United Kingdom now, four are less
than twenty years of age, while three of the rest are women (two of
them married women)--that is to say, people also mainly concerned,
through the care of children, with the future rather than with the
present.
Pages:
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362