The Relations of the Sexes (Duffey)/Chapter 4

LET politicians argue as they will, I believe much of the real tangible progress in this world is accomplished by convulsion and revolution. There must be a sudden breaking off of the old state of things, and as sudden an inauguration of the new. Old nations, like old people and "old dogs, find it very hard to learn new tricks." They are always harping on the traditions of the past, and regarding as the only proper standard of right that which has always been established. Take, for instance, Mohammedan countries: the cry of "no marriage," which has become so frequent now, does not shock all good citizens more than would the doctrine of the elevation of the female sex a believer in the religion ta ight by Mohammed. The former is no more diametrically opposed to our opinions, prejudices and religion, than is the latter to those of the Mohammedan. So it is, after all a great deal in the "bringing up," both with Christians and Mohammedans.

​If we wish to promulgate and carry into practice a new idea, we had best seek a new people, and isolate them as much as possible from the older world. Brigham Young understood the philosophy of this, when he established his polygamous community beyond the barriers of the Rocky Mountains.

We have seen, in the longest settled regions of the globe, how tenaciously the primitive nations have clung to their primitive ideas, in spite of the progress which has carried surrounding peoples far in advance of them. Thus it was, when mankind had passed its infancy, and was fully prepared to lay aside its old ideas and adopt more liberal and juster ones. The only hope of its taking the progressive step, was in the establishment of an isolated community where men, freed from the bondage of traditions and conventionalities, should have full opportunity to bring their laws and customs up to their own standard of advancement. This opportunity was afforded in the Roman nation, which at the time of its establishment occupied a position on the extreme western outskirts of the civilized world. When that nation had become crystalized as it were, and manners, customs, and laws had assumed definite and distinctive shapes, we have an accurate index of the advance which humanity had made since the time when it was cradled in the caves and valleys of the Himalayas. Disregarding all other signs of political advancement, and keeping our attention fixed on woman alone, we find her, at this period of Roman his​tory, occupying a high position in the esteem of men, and the institution of marriage rigidly respected. In this institution woman possessed a great deal of independence, and was recognized, besides, as an influential member of society and the State. The Roman matron was especially honored, and assigned her due position in the household, while she shared the honors of her husband. That both men and women retrograded morally under the empire, and went down together, is greatly due to causes which will be hereinafter referred to.

Again we see, in the semi-barbarous German nations, the same thing repeated. Women were in many respects accorded an equality with their husbands, while, contrary to the Oriental idea, they proved themselves worthy custodians of the rights granted them. History has again and again repeated itself, not only in this particular, but in others. We constantly find within its pages the records of young nations beginning their life with more elevated ideas of justice and equality than the parent from which they sprung. It is our proudest boast that this is true of our own nation. The only hope of change, in a country whose form of government is long estabtablished, is by means of internal convulsions. It was by the means of these almost entirely, that the old feudal system was abolished, in Europe. In our own country, before we had reached our first centennial birthday, even, we found ourselves drawn into a violent intestine struggle, in order to be rid of the blight of slavery, and be ​perfectly true to the spirit of liberty which was recognized as the corner-stone of our government. War and bloodshed have, time and time again, severed the future from the past, and served to lift nations up to the position already reached by individual humanity.

England, with her common law and her unwritten constitution, is proud of her intelligence and her advancement. Still, that common law was first shaped by savages and barbarians; and the reason why it no longer recognizes the rights of the nobility above those of all others, and does not degrade a certain class of men to the position of serfs without any rights at all, is because men were able to fight for their rights, and wrest them from usurping powers. It was, after all, the principle of might making right. The common law of England, thanks to the demands which have been made and yielded to from time to time, is, in all respects, save one, probably the most perfect legal code in the world. That one exception relates to women, and especially to married women. In regard to the latter it stands on a perfect level with the Hindoo and the Mohammedan, only that a man may not in England, have two legally married wives at once. Still, by the curiously-contrived statute laws of England, he may have three wives, provided he marry one in Scotland by Scottish law, a second in Ireland by the Roman Catholic ceremony, and the third in England by Church of England rites. A married woman has no existence, and having no existence, she has, of course, no rights. ​This is not mere bombastic talk. It is a plain, unexaggerated statement of facts as they actually exist. A wife is literally owned by her husband, as much as he owns his horse and his cow. Her children are hers only by the same tenure that the mare and the cow retain their offspring—by the will and pleasure of their owner. She is not supposed to act of her own independent will; she cannot own property, except by taking advantage of special enactments. She is bound to her husband by irrevocable bonds, no matter what may be his treatment, and must follow him wherever he chooses to go. If she leaves him, he can compel her to return; and, according to the common law,—of which, of course, I am speaking—he may chastise her moderately. If a man commit assault and battery upon another man, he is probably sent to prison for six months or more. If the same assault and battery is committed upon his wife, he is usually fined five dollars and costs, and allowed to go free. This statement of affairs can easily be verified by an examination of the records of the English police courts.

That this law does not really represent the actual social status of woman in England, we should be most thankful. The men are better than their laws—so much better, that illogical minds can see no need of modifying them. They have worn the habit so long, and have become so accustomed to it, that they are not conscious how they have outgrown it. Still there are some men, and they are not so few as I wish they were, to whom a legal ​standard of right and wrong is always the highest of which they can conceive. Such men see no injustice in treating women with all the contumely which the law sanctions. Indeed, I think laws have their effect upon most people, more, perhaps, than they are themselves aware, if it is only that their injustice causes them to take special credit to themselves, as if it were a special merit, whenever they rise in either opinions or practices above them.

In our own country the law-makers are remodelling the laws in regard to women as fast as is practicable, and women have already, in some states, little or nothing to complain of. Barring that English common law, of which we, as its inheritors, are so proud, and upon which most of our statutes are based, there is nothing to bias us as a nation in the administration of perfect justice. We have not, like England, a long list of precedents, dating back to the time when our ancestors wore scant clothing, and worshipped according to the druidical form. England stands in the same position as India and China, inasmuch as her government dates back to barbarous or savage times. We are the Roman nation of the Western World, in having no traditions to hinder us in rising to the highest level of our intelligence and sense of justice.

In America, the legal form of marriage is more perfect and equal than in any other country on the globe. Whatever may be the imperfections of the law, its spirit is to make marriage a compact equally binding upon both parties, and with requirements on one side balanced by ​requirements on the other. The law-makers have made some mistakes; but their intent has been undoubtedly for the best and time will probably see all defects remedied Here, marriage is strictly monogamic, nor is any irregularity on either side in sexual relations, tolerated by the law. In this respect, the laws are better than the people, or they would not be nearly dead letters.

In England, the husband receives vows of fidelity from his wife, but virtually makes none in return. In America, though the marriage ceremony is essentially the same the pledges of fidelity are understood to be mutual. By both the common and the statute law of England, a married man cannot commit adultery, except with the wife of another man. His offenses in this respect are considered venial, and not by any interpretation as against his wife. If his partner in guilt is married, then it is her husband who is wronged. The wife of the guilty man is not regarded as having any grievance, nor can she procure a divorce for this cause, even under the revised divorce laws, whose excessive latitude has scandalized many good conservative people in that country. On the other hand, an offense of a married woman is adultery and entitles her husband to sue for and obtain a divorce.

In America, both parties are held by law as equally guilty, however they may be regarded by public opinion; and a wife can bring the charge, of adultery as cause for a divorce as successfully as a husband.

​There is a reason given for this ruling of the English law, which will be entered into more fully in another chapter. Its results are all we need consider now. It is an evidence of a purely masculine spirit in law-making that has worked to woman's disadvantage in many ways. The male jurists assume certain things about women, ignore certain other things, and then proceed to establish law according to their own male ideas. Such one-sided justice, or rather injustice, belittles women as much as it wrongs them. It recognizes the family and the home as only for man's honor, comfort and convenience; and is, in fact, the natural outgrowth of the idea, which assumes wives to be the property of their husbands. It regards them only as the soil in which the seeds of a future humanity are to be planted, while it treats them as though they were as senseless and devoid of feeling as the clods. This view of woman-kind has not only perpetuated the one-sided form of domestic life, but has served its turn in inducing men to shirk the responsibilities of marriage. If a wife is not to be valued for herself, and considered as an equal and honored partner in the marriage contract, then there seems no valid reason why a man should be burdened with the support of one, when his assumed "physical needs" can be met far more cheaply, and he is not in the position or has not the inclination to support a family.

But it is not so much marriage in England, as in America, that we are called upon to consider. In this ​country, women possess an independence with accruing advantages, not to be found in all its length and breadth anywhere else in the world. There is not, perhaps courtly homage paid to them as in some other countries but I cannot help believing that, under a certain off-handedness in the demeanor of American men towards women, there is more real, genuine respect and esteem, than in the mock servility of the gentlemen of the old school. In spite of the want of courtliness with which the men of the present day are so generally charged, I think there is really no lack of genuine respect and consideration for women. Nor would my faith fail me, even though men should cease to feel it incumbent upon them to vacate a seat in a crowded street-car, as soon as a woman entered the car. These are courtesies which set very beautifully upon the stronger sex, and I hold them in high esteem for displaying them. But justice is broader and deeper than these trivialities, and might even require them sometimes to be abolished. I believe that a desire to attain to this sense of justice towards women is inherent in the American character, and is in fact a part of the national education. Where a man falls short of it in his opinions and sentiments, it is usually rather a mistake on his part, than a deliberate wrong.

Marriage, in America, means, as I have already stated an equal partnership, with equal if not like responsibilities. The man may be the head of the house, but the woman is its heart,—the source from which its life flows. She it ​is who makes the home, and the home is recognized as belonging to her even more than to her husband. In England, a woman has literally no home, except such as she stipulates for through the agency of her lawyer or friends, at the time of her marriage. The home is the husband's. She is permitted in it because it seems to be the most convenient place to put her. When the husband dies, the home belongs to another man—her son, if she has one. If she still remains in the home of her wedded life, it is because she is tolerated, not because she has any right upon the premises. All rights ended when her widowhood began. If her friends have been judicious in her behalf, she may possibly possess a dower-house, into which to retire, or may have the means to obtain a home to her liking. But these privileges are secured to her by the drawing up of special contracts—not by the ruling of the common law. By the spirit of the common law, a woman has no special right or requirement to exist, after the death of her husband. His property goes away from her, and his children are placed in the care of other hands. To carry out the law to its legitimate conclusion, the widow should be required, or at least encouraged, to immolate herself upon a funeral pile with the body of her deceased husband.

There is a little of the leaven of this idea even in our own statute laws, but,—let us be thankful, O sister women!—they are not so bad but they might be worse. The law recognizes us as having one-third, and in some ​states, one-half, as much existence as a man, and we can at the will of our husbands, or, at least, if they have expressed no actual adverse desire, become part owners of our children during our widowhood and their minority. If we do not wish to forfeit this right, we have only to refrain from contracting a second marriage.

In America, women are neither bought nor sold—at least not ostensibly so. They are allowed more freedom than in any other nation under the sun in the selection of their life-companions. They are free to come and go when and where they please, and are treated everywhere, with consideration and respect. I think the majority of the sex show their worthiness of this freedom, by their circumspect deportment; while the intelligence of American women, which is second to that of no women of any nationality whatever, attests to the fact that opportunity only has been wanting to turn the sex from frivolity and profligacy to more serious and better things. The orient and the occident do not differ so widely in any other respect as in their representative women. The woman of the east is an idle voluptuary, or an ignorant drudge, seemingly sanctioning all the evil things that are said of her. The representative woman of the west is cultured, refined, and disciplined, and with a sensual nature so little developed, or so cold naturally, that she is a check upon, rather than an inciter to sensual pleasures in man. The two classes of women are not radically different. They are both women, with like ​natures and like capabilities, but the circumstances which have attended their development have been so entirely different that we scarcely recognize the same humanity in each.