Appendix E: A Changing Society
By the fin de siècle, England was already experiencing changes in wealth, gender equity, marriage, and English law. This appendix shows how each of these categories began to overlap and develop with one another. “Money and Society” gathers contemporary materials demonstrating how intrinsically money and society were intertwined and its articles cast a light on the effects money had on the development and progression of society. Concerns with money continue to dominate discussions in “Women and the Late-Nineteenth Century”; women’s freedoms began to alter in the late-Victorian era because their ability to own property freed them to take on new roles. This portion of “A Changing Society” looks at women’s changing social positions and the increasing willingness of people to openly discuss women’s rights in the law, in society, and in the home.
1. Money and Society
David Kinley, Money: A Study of the Theory of the Medium of Exchange, Macmillan, 1904. HaithiTrust.
From Chapter 1, “The Social Importance of Money,” pp. 1-2:
We are so accustomed to the conveniences of the modern system of exchange that we seldom reflect on its historical significance or its present importance. Yet that system is, in a way, an epitome of the history of civilization. There is no phase of life which the system of exchange, or the monetary system, has not affected; there is no byway of the life of the individual, or of society, into which its influence does not reach.
Some writers minimize the importance of the monetary system of exchange as a factor in progress and prosperity. Some, ethically inclined, and influenced by the evils which spring from the bad use of money and credit, insist that these means of exchange are not necessary to industry, and think to purify society by abolishing them. Others, with Mill,[1] look at money as a third wheel, and tell us that “there cannot . . . be intrinsically a more insignificant thing, in the economy of society.” It is a little difficult to get the point of view from which a writer of Mill' s logical sense could make a remark so wide of the truth. Far from playing an unimportant role, money is now, more than ever before, a social necessity; as necessary to the easy exchange of material goods as is writing or printing to the interchange of ideas. So interwoven with all phases of the life of society is the modern system of exchange that were it suddenly destroyed, much that is best in civilized life would be swept away; many of its noblest influences, which are commonly thought of as far removed from contact with thoughts of money, would vanish; much of the breadth of view and the toleration of spirit that comes from contact, even indirect and remote, with other peoples, workers in other fields, would be lost.
The monetary system of a country reflects its economic progress. The system of exchange is at once a cause and a consequence of the stage of economic development. With every change in the form of industrial life has come a change in the system of exchange. “Corresponding to the changes in productive methods under mechanical machinery we should find the rapid growth of a complex monetary system reflecting in its international and national character, in its elaborate structure of credit, the leading characteristics which we find in modern productive and distributive industry. The whole industrial movement might be regarded from the financial or monetary point of view.
George Gunton, Wealth and Progress: A Critical Examination of the Wages Question [1887], 7th edition, D. Appleton, 1897. HaithiTrust.
From Part III, Chapter 1, “Popular Remedies for Social Evils,” pp. 205-29.
The reason the greatest intellects in art, science, poetry, politics, and literature through the ages have for the most part been the slaves of royalty, the nobility, or the commercial aristocracy, is because the poverty of the former made the patronage of the latter indispensable to their life and labors. There is no power on earth that can give freedom to the poor. Poverty and freedom are incompatible with each other.
Whatever may be, theoretically, the form of government, the political freedom—real power and influence—of the masses is always proportionate to their industrial prosperity and progress. Thus, the political influence of the masses is far greater under the present European monarchies than it was under the ancient republics. And the political influence of the masses is greatest to-day in those countries where the industrial conditions—real wages—are the highest. The laboring classes possess more political influence and freedom in England under a monarchy with higher wages, than they do in France under a republic with lower wages; and there is still more real democracy with higher wages under a republic in America than with lower wages under a monarchy in England.
We repeat, therefore, that the popular idea that pervades the literature and forms the basis of the statesmanship of the period, which ascribes our superior civilization to our democratic institutions, and which has just been emphasized by an international monument in New York harbor, representing liberty as enlightening the world, is radically and fundamentally false. It is not true that our superior civilization is due to our democratic institutions; it is not and never was true that liberty enlightens the world. On the contrary, our democratic institutions are the natural consequence of our industrial prosperity and superior civilization; and liberty, like morality, instead of enlightening the world, is the golden result of the world's being enlightened by the material and social progress of society. Were this otherwise, the industrial depressions which afflict the Old World would be unknown here. The notorious fact is that the frequency and severity of industrial depressions are as great under the democracies of France and America as under the monarchies of England, Germany, and Belgium.
When the advocates of woman suffrage demand the ballot for her on the ground that it will enable her to become the industrial or economic equal of man, they are logically and historically putting the cart before the horse. There is no logical reason why woman should not be permitted to vote on the same conditions as man. The mistake is not in claiming for her the right to vote on the same conditions that it is conceded to man, but in assuming that the industrial condition of either man or woman would necessarily be improved by their having that right. Woman is not industrially and socially inferior to man because she does not vote, but she does not vote because of her industrial and social inferiority; in a word, it is because she is poorer, and, consequently, less independent than man.
Her wages and general industrial conditions are governed by the same economic laws as those of man. Her condition, therefore, can only be improved by the same methods that will improve his. Woman is materially more dependent than man, for the simple reason that she has had less opportunity for social development than he has. Her material condition, like his, is the result of her industrial and social environment, and it can be changed only through changing her relations with that environment. In other words, the economic condition of woman, like that of man, can only be elevated by increasing her opportunity for more frequent and varied contact with new and more complex social influences.
“The Married Women's Property Act, 1882.” The Englishwoman's Review, vol. 13, 15 Nov.,1882, pp. 508-10. HathiTrust.
The Englishwoman’s Review was a women’s journal dedicated to relating the ongoing changes in women’s position from 1866-1910, ranging from reviews of books and laws to discussions of women’s education and entrepreneurship. The Married Women’s Property Act of 1882 amended the original Act of 1870 to provide married women with the legal right to property ownership and legal responsibility independent of her husband.
The Common Law designation of a married woman is "feme covert"—a woman completely hidden and extinguished, and merged in the personality of the man she has married. It is a significant fact that this term is not once used in the new Act, although the antithetical "feme sole," or single woman, is spoken of. The purport of the Act is, indeed, that a married woman is not in future to be a "feme covert," so far as property is concerned. The first clause of the Act contains the gist of the whole. It declares that "A married woman shall be capable of acquiring, holding, and disposing by will or otherwise, of any real and personal property as her separate property, in the same manner as if she were a ' feme sole,' without the intervention of any trustee." In other words, a married woman is legally able to hold and use any sort of property which she may become possessed of in any manner, with no more reference to her husband than to her brother or any other person. It is her property, not the husband's, and his authority in her disposal of it is simply that which she may choose to allow him as her nearest friend and her co-partner in the affairs of existence. This is a revolution in the arrangements of domestic life, so far as that life is controlled by law, of the utmost import; and it is best to place the fact in plain language, so that it may be fully understood by all whom it may concern. The remain- ing twenty-six clauses of the Act in no way modify or diminish the power of the clause above cited. Some of the further provisions, indeed, remove other obstacles in the way of the independence of women during marriage he second clause provides that a wife shall have a right to bring an action of any sort in her own name, and may have an action brought against her, without her husband becoming in any way concerned in the matter; if she wins, the money is hers—if she loses, he is not responsible for her costs or damages. A married woman thus becomes capable of making a contract. If her employers break faith with her, she can recover damages, and, conversely, they can obtain damages from her if she break faith with them. A married woman, as a necessary consequence, may be made a bankrupt independently of her husband, if she carries on a separate business. She also becomes capable, under another section, of acting as an execu- trix, or as a trustee, either alone or jointly with other persons, without the co-operation or permission of her husband being required; and he, on the other hand, is freed from all responsibility for her doings in such capacities, unless he have "intermeddled" in her actions in the affair. The complete legal independence of married women is thus secured. Other sections provide for various possibilities. Neither husband nor wife can criminally prosecute the other for theft while they live together; but either can bring a civil action for the recovery of property applied without permission to the uses of the one it did not belong to, and when they are living separately criminal action can be taken by either against the other for the removal of any property. So, too, if a husband about to desert his wife, or vice versa, take away any of the separate property, that act can be prosecuted as theft. On the other hand, a wife may not put her husband's money— the housekeeping money, for instance—away in the savings bank; the husband is entitled to reclaim his own. Any dispute between husband and wife as to the ownership of property is to be decided in the County Court, or, if the applicant prefers, in the High Court of Justice. A wife becomes equally liable with her husband for the support of their children; and the wife is liable for the maintenance of her husband, so far as is requisite to keep him off the parish rates, which is also the extent of the liability that the husband is under for the wife's support. A wife will be able to bank her money and to transfer her stocks without her husband's consent. The Act comes into operation on the 1st of January, 1883. It applies to women married before its passing, but only as regards property which they may acquire after the date just given.
2. Women in the Late-Nineteenth Century
Mona Caird, “Does Marriage Hinder a Woman’s Self-development?” Lady’s Realm, vol. 5, 1898, pp. 161-5. HathiTrust.
Perhaps it might throw some light on the question whether marriage interferes with a woman’s self-development and career, if we were to ask ourselves honestly how a man would fare in the position, say, of his own wife.
We will take a mild case, so as to avoid all risk of exaggeration.
Our hero’s wife is very kind to him. Many of his friends have far sadder tales to tell. Mrs. Brown is fond of her home and family. She pats the children on the head when they come down to dessert, and plies them with chocolate creams, much to the detriment of their health; but it amuses Mrs. Brown. Mr. Brown superintends the bilious attacks, which the lady attributes to other causes. As she never finds fault with the children, and generally remonstrates with their father, in a good-natured way, when he does so, they are devoted to the indulgent parent, and are inclined to regard the other as second-rate.
Meal-times are often trying in this household, for Sophia is very particular about her food; sometimes she sends it out with a rude message to the cook. Not that John objects to this. He wishes she would do it oftener, for the cook gets used to Mr. Brown’s second-hand version of his wife’s language. He simply cannot bring himself to hint at Mrs. Brown’s robust objurgations. She can express herself when it comes to a question of her creature comforts!
John’s faded cheeks, the hollow lines under the eyes, and hair out of curl, speak of the struggle for existence as it penetrates to the fireside. If Sophia but knew what it meant to keep going the multitudinous details and departments of a household! Her idea of adding housemaids and pageboys whenever there is a jolt in the machinery has landed them in expensive disasters, time out of mind. And then, it hopelessly cuts off all margin of income for every other purpose. It is all rather discouraging for the hero of this petty, yet gigantic tussle, for he works, so to speak, in a hostile camp, with no sympathy from his entirely unconscious spouse, whom popular sentiment nevertheless regards as the gallant protector of his manly weakness.
If incessant vigilance, tact, firmness, foresight, initiative, courage and judgment—in short, all the qualities required for governing a kingdom, and more—have made things go smoothly, the wife takes it as a matter of course; if they go wrong, she naturally lays the blame on the husband. In the same way, if the children are a credit to their parents, that is only as it should be. But if they are naughty, and fretful, and stupid, and untidy, is it not clear that there must be some serious flaw in the system which could produce such results in the offspring of Mrs. Brown? What word in the English language is too severe to describe the man who neglects to watch with sufficient vigilance over his children’s health and moral training, who fails to see that his little boys’ sailor-suits and knickerbockers are in good repair, that their boot lace ends do not fly out from their ankles at every step, that their hair is not like a hearth-brush, that they do not come down to dinner every day with dirty hands?
To every true man, the cares of fatherhood and home are sacred and all-sufficing. He realises, as he looks around at his little ones, that they are his crown and recompense.
John often finds that his crown-and-recompense gives him a racking headache by war-whoops and stampedes of infinite variety, and there are moments when he wonders in dismay if he is really a true man! He has had the privilege of rearing and training five small crowns and recompenses, and he feels that he could face the future if further privilege, of this sort, were denied him. Not but that he is devoted to his family. Nobody who understands the sacrifices he has made for them could doubt that. Only, he feels that those parts of his nature which are said to distinguish the human from the animal kingdom, are getting rather effaced.
He remembers the days before his marriage, when he was so bold, in his ignorant youth, as to cherish a passion for scientific research. He even went so far as to make a chemical laboratory of the family box-room, till attention was drawn to the circumstance by a series of terrific explosions, which shaved off his eyebrows, blackened his scientific countenance, and caused him to be turned out, neck and crop, with his crucibles, and a sermon on the duty that lay nearest him,—which resolved itself into that of paying innumerable afternoon calls with his father and brothers, on acquaintances selected—as he declared in his haste—for their phenomenal stupidity. His father pointed out how selfish it was for a young fellow to indulge his own little fads and fancies, when he might make himself useful in a nice manly way, at home.
When, a year later, the scapegrace Josephine, who had caused infinite trouble and expense to all belonging to her, showed a languid interest in chemistry, a spare room was at once fitted up for her, and an extraordinary wealth of crucibles provided by her delighted parents; and when explosions and smells pervaded the house, her father, with a proud smile, would exclaim: “What genius and enthusiasm that dear girl does display!” Josephine afterwards became a distinguished professor, with an awestruck family, and a husband who made it his chief duty and privilege to save her from all worry and interruption in her valuable work.
John, who knows in his heart of hearts that he could have walked round Josephine, in the old days, now speaks with manly pride of his sister, the Professor. His own bent, however, has always been so painfully strong that he even yet tries to snatch spare moments for his researches; but the strain in so many directions has broken down his health. People always told him that a man’s constitution was not fitted for severe brain-work. He supposes it is true.
During those odd moments, he made a discovery that seemed to him of value, and he told Sophia about it, in a mood of scientific enthusiasm. But she burst out laughing, and said he would really be setting the Thames on fire if he didn’t take care.
“Perhaps you will excuse my remarking, my dear, that I think you might be more usefully, not to say becomingly employed, in attending to your children and your household duties, than in dealing with explosive substances in the back dining-room.”
And Sophia tossed off her glass of port in such an unanswerable manner, that John felt as if a defensive reply would be almost of the nature of a sacrilege. So he remained silent, feeling vaguely guilty. And as Johnny took measles just then, and it ran through the house, there was no chance of completing his work, or of making it of public value.
Curiously enough, a little later, Josephine made the very same discovery—only rather less perfect—and every one said, with acclamation, that science had been revolutionised by a discovery before which that of gravitation paled.
John still hoped, after twenty years of experience, that presently, by some different arrangement, some better management on his part, he would achieve leisure and mental repose to do the work that his heart was in; but that time never came.
No doubt John was not infallible, and made mistakes in dealing with his various problems: do the best of us achieve consummate wisdom? No doubt, if he had followed the advice that we could all have supplied him with, in such large quantities, he might have done rather more than he did. But the question is: Did his marriage interfere with his self-development and career, and would many other Johns, in his circumstances, have succeeded much better?
“Women's Inventions,” Englishwoman's Review, vol. 12, 1881, pp. 358-60. HathiTrust.
At the Sanitary Exhibition last month, in London, only one lady was an exhibitor. She invented the article she exhibited, a pretty, graceful thing, the "Floral Art Ventilator," giving sweetness, light and air to any room. It is a pity that women do not more frequently, in England, turn their attention towards the invention of articles of domestic comfort and utility. In former times, we were told, it was owing to some deficiency in the female brain that there were so few inventors among women, but the American women have disproved this assertion. Some one, who has taken the trouble to count the patents issued in America to women, finds that the number for the year ending July, 1880, was seventy, or ten more than the average. Most of the inventions of women have to do with household appliance. Among the past year's are a jar-lifter, a bag holder, a pillow-sham-holder, dress-protector, two dust-pans, a washing- machine, a fluting-iron, a dress-chart, a fish-boner, a sleeve-adjuster, a lap-table, a sewing-machine-treadle, a wash-basin, an iron-heater, sad-irons, a garment-stiffener, a folding chair, a wardrobe bed, a weather strip, a churn, an invalid's bed, a strainer, a milk-cooler, a sofa- bed, a dipper, a paper-dish, and a plating-device. Another invention, by an American lady, Mrs. Stearns, is what is described as a "Diagram and System for Cutting Ladies and Children's Garments." She issued her first invention in 1864, and in 1867 an "Improved Folding Diagram." In 1868 the Massachusetts Mechanics' Association awarded her a silver medal. At the Centennial Exhibition, in 1876, she again received the highest award. It is described as being simple and accurate, easily learned, and cutting out most economically.
…
We have instanced more particularly these articles of domestic importance, because this is the branch of work to which women have had their attention exclusively turned for so many generations, and in which we may fairly expect them to use their ingenuity. Many more years of free access to colleges, and thorough and scientific training must pass away before we could fairly expect any woman to equal men in scientific discovery. We have no reason to suppose that women are naturally cleverer on the other side of the Atlantic than here, though at present they are apparently more original law of patents is easier, and more encouraging to inventors. But there must be many an ingenious contrivance for facilitating household industry, or beautifying home life, thought out by the quick wits, or wrought by the deft fingers of Englishwomen, and a little more determination to make their invention generally useful, and business knowledge to bring it to account, are all that are needful to place a larger percentage of women on the roll call of inventors.
Lady Mary Jeune, “The Revolt of the Daughters,” The Fortnightly Review, vol. 55 n.s., 1894, pp. 267-76. HathiTrust.
When the question of the higher education of women in England was taken up in England, it was opposed by many, not from any rooted antipathy to improve the position of women, but from an instinctive conviction that when once they could claim anything like an intellectual equality with men, they would not rest content with the subordinate position they had formerly occupied, and would soon claim equal rights. And their instincts have proved correct, for with women's intellectual development has also come their entry into the arena of men's work, and their successful struggle with men in many of its branches. The recognition by law that a woman's earnings were her own, and to be protected from her husband, was the crowning act of her emancipation; and though there are privileges still withheld from her, every year brings her nearer to the full realisation of her desires. Were we prepared to go into the question of how women have borne the responsibilities they have won, it would not be difficult to show that they have felt their power, and have conducted themselves with patience and dignity, disposing of the world-accepted dictum that the monopoly of wisdom and self-control is that of the stronger sex. But our aim lies in another direction, and deals solely with the effect which better education, more freedom, and an earlier knowledge of life are likely to exercise over a class of women who have hitherto been overlooked. We shall endeavour to point out that, though it must undoubtedly influence and later their lives, the difference it will make is neither so serious nor so sbuversive of the traditions of the past as we are told.
Let us admit that there are certain households where mothers and daughters do not “hit it off," and that there are girls who from constitutional causes are hysterical, and find their home-life uncongenial. . . .
. . .
[T]he girl of to-day is a different creature to that of forty years ago, The scheme of her education, her entourage, are absolutely changes, and she lives in an atmosphere which is liberal in thought as well as in conversation; and no girl now is as ignorant of life as her mother was the same age; but the fact that the sphere of her life and knowledge is broader does not, we maintain, make her impatient of the restraint that is both necessary and desirable. There are not many girls who sigh for the forbidden fruits of amusement, or consider themselves ill-used because music halls, plays which deal with equivocal subjects, and books which treat of the relation of the sexes are withheld from them. Nor do we see where the grievances arise, if there are any, of which girls complain. It is very difficult to picture a happier life or one of greater freedom that they now enjoy, or one more replete with varied interests and pursuits. If a girl is intellectually inclined, a university career is open to her, where she can distance her male competitors. If athletic, she can take her part in all the sports and pastimes formerly the sole monopoly of her brothers. If sentimental or of a humanitarian disposition, she can find ample scope for her powers in work among the poor and in nursing. If frivolous, there never was an age when society was pleasanter or more delightful for girls, or when there were fewer restrictions on their enjoyment, and those only of such a nature as to prevent them going ‘too far ahead’ until they have acquired some moral ballast. Some girls, more emancipated than others, sigh for latchkeys and wish to be allowed to pursue their occupations and amusements without any chaperone—in short for the freedom which marriage alone should give a woman. The forbidden liberties constitute, no doubt, a formidable list, but to the calm maternal mind they appear not only obvious but most necessary, and contrasting our own youth with that of our daughters, we find it difficult to imagine anything more antipodean than the relative positions. The freedom which girls are permitted now, even in the strictest households, is as much as is good or wholesome for them during the early years of life, and were the restraints relaxed the ultimate results would be indeed disastrous. . . .
…
We will go still further, and declare that if the opinion of men is to be of much importance in framing the characters and making the lives of girls in England what they have been, we are glad of it, and pray for the continuance of such an influence. To deny that marriage is the object of woman's existence is nonsense; long ago it was the only aim a woman had, and her training, education, and life, were framed on that supposition. The fact that there were many women who did not and could not marry, and led very miserable lives, does not disprove it; but that woman was created for the purpose of being wife and mother no one can deny. . . .
Sir Philip Gibbs, “The New Man and The New Woman,” The New Man: a Portrait Study of the Latest Type, Pitman & Sons, 1913, pp. 67-87. HathiTrust.
IN the old days—that is to say, when our fathers and grandfathers were young men—the relations between the sexes were subject to a simple code. Romance had not been eliminated from affairs of the heart, and the marriage service was still regarded as a solemn and irrevocable compact in which the duties of husband and wife were clearly and rigidly defined. A young man, after some preliminary adventures which were classed under the phrase of “sowing his wild oats,” encountered a young woman of his own state of life and began his courtship in a formal manner according to well-known conventions. He passed through a period of romantic emotion, read a great deal of poetry, and wrote a large number of bad verses, and idealised the lady of his choice to the full extent of his imagination. . . . The man knew in his heart that in spite of his protestations of unworthiness, in spite of calling himself the slave and servant of this exquisite young lady, in spite of exalting all womanhood above all manhood, he and his fellows were in reality the stronger and nobler and wiser sex, and that in due course he would be the master of this woman and exact her obedience to his commands and wishes. It would be her bounden duty to love, honour and obey him, whatever might be the amount of wild oats he had sown in his adventurous days and whatever the harvest gathered from them. The girl knew that although in her maiden days she might assume little tyrannical ways with her lover, and withhold her favours from him with the petulance and arrogance of a queen, she would, as a wife, be utterly dependent upon this man, and the bondswoman of his house. In those days—they seem remote— men were the masters of their women. In the social scheme of things they were the top dogs. According to the economic conditions of the time women were dependent upon men for their bread and butter, for the roof over their heads, for all that was necessary to their station in life. Marriage was almost essential to the happiness of women, for the married state was the one career open to them, and the one way of escape from the still greater subjection of the elderly unmarried daughter in her father's home.
…
The change began with the first phase of woman's demand for liberty and with her first advance towards economic independence. The pioneers of the New Women altered with extraordinary rapidity the whole code which had formerly governed the relations between the sexes. It is difficult to trace back this movement to its beginning. It was due partly to intellectual progress, partly to the sheer pressure of economic forces. To take the last cause first, it is obvious that during the middle period of the Victorian era the wave of material prosperity that passed over Europe owing to the development of mechanical inventions and the increase in industrial activity, opened up new fields of work for women at the very time when the tremendous increase in the female population forced them to seek a means of livelihood outside the home.
…
But while this economic movement was taking place, deeper and more powerful forces were at work in the intellectual state of womanhood. For more than a century women's education had been of the most simple and elementary kind. Their intelligence had been starved and cramped. But in the mid-Victorian period there was a great intellectual awakening, and middle-class women were given opportunities of obtaining the same gifts of knowledge as men. High schools were established all over the country, picked women went to Girton and Newnham. English women read the masterpieces of foreign literature, and came into touch with feminine thought throughout the world. Whereas formerly they had given their attention to fancy needlework and water-colour painting, and drawing with coloured chalks, and the old-fashioned classics of French literature, as harmless and out of date as the plays of Racine and Corneille, they began to study dangerous books dealing with the vital problems of life. They read Voltaire and Rousseau.
…
The old code of romance which formerly governed the relations between men and women no longer avails. Women decline to be put upon a pedestal or to be worshipped as ethereal beings. They explain quite frankly that they are of the same clay as men, with the same desires, the same passions, the same weaknesses. They do not abolish the word love from their new and revised dictionary, but they regard it as an emotional episode in life which is not of enormous importance. They are not going to cry their eyes out because some good-looking fellow goes off with another girl. They are not going to wither away in despair because a clean-shaven young man flirts with them and then goes his way. They are not going to take to religion, a canary and a black cat, because they are still unmarried at thirty. They are quite happy in their career, thank you very much. They have got a little studio in Chelsea, or a typewriting office in town, or a secret bomb factory in West Kensington.
…
If they marry at all, it must be on the clear understanding that the word “obey” is omitted from the service, or at least from the private compact, and that their relations shall be those of comradeship and equality.
The New Man does not object. He is a feminist by conviction. He is so much of a feminist that he shrinks from asking a woman to live with him in poverty, to suffer the pain and bear the burden of motherhood, to do all that domestic drudgery which falls to the share of a wife, whose husband is a struggling professional man. He is so much of a feminist that he no longer demands the same standards of morality from women which were formerly expected when she was placed on a high pedestal. After all, woman should be just as free to lead her own life in her own way, as man himself. She may have her little adventures and be none the worse for them. She is not that frail, delicate, ethereal thing which existed in the imagination of romantic novelists, but a strong, capable, cheery girl, quite able to look after herself. Man himself has to be more careful in his dealings with woman. She demands from him no more, but on the other hand, no less than she gives to him, in loyalty and good living. She is not going to be faithful to him while he indulges in infidelities. She is not going to shrug her shoulders at “peccadilloes,” as he calls them, when if she were to do the same things, he would cry down the vengeance of heaven upon her. She demands from him a higher standard than the old standard because she will have him upon a level with herself, neither higher nor lower.
Notes
[1] John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, economist, and an avid proponent of Utilitarianism.
