If "society" is made by women, for women, surely a misstep by a helplessly "innocent" girl, will not injure her standing!
But it does. She is no longer "innocent." She knows now. She has lost her market value and is thrown out of the shop. Why not? It is his shop--not hers. What women may and may not be, what they must and must not do, all is measured from the masculine standard.
A really feminine "society" based on the needs and pleasures of women, both as females and as human beings, would in the first place accord them freedom and knowledge; the knowledge which is power. It would not show us "the queen of the ballroom" in the position of a wall-flower unless favored by masculine invitation; unable to eat unless he brings her something; unable to cross the floor without his arm. Of all blind stultified "royal sluggards" she is the archetype. No, a feminine society would grant _at least_ equality to women in this, their so-called special field.
Its att.i.tude toward men, however, would be rigidly critical.
Fancy a real Mrs. Grundy (up to date it has been a Mr., his whiskers hid in capstrings) saying, "No, no, young man. You won"t do. You"ve been drinking. The habit"s growing on you. You"ll make a bad husband."
Or still more severely, "Out with you, sir! You"ve forfeited your right to marry! Go into retirement for seven years, and when you come back bring a doctor"s certificate with you."
That sounds ridiculous, doesn"t it--for "Society" to say? It is ridiculous, in a man"s "society."
The required dress and decoration of "society"; the everlasting eating and drinking of "society," the preferred amus.e.m.e.nts of "society," the absolute requirements and absolute exclusions of "society," are of men, by men, for men,--to paraphrase a threadbare quotation. And then, upon all that vast edifice of masculine influence, they turn upon women as Adam did; and blame _them_ for severity with their fallen sisters!
"Women are so hard upon women!"
They have to be. What man would "allow" his wife, his daughters, to visit and a.s.sociate with "the fallen"? His esteem would be forfeited, they would lose their "social position," the girl"s chance of marrying would be gone.
Men are not so stern. They may visit the unfortunate women, to bring them help, sympathy, re-establishment--or for other reasons; and it does not forfeit their social position. Why should it? They make the regulation.
Women are to-day, far more conspicuously than men, the exponents and victims of that mysterious power we call "Fashion." As shown in mere helpless imitation of one another"s idea, customs, methods, there is not much difference; in patient acquiescence with prescribed models of architecture, furniture, literature, or anything else; there is not much difference; but in personal decoration there is a most conspicuous difference. Women do to-day submit to more grotesque ugliness and absurdity than men; and there are plenty of good reasons for it.
Confining our brief study of fashion to fashion in dress, let us observe why it is that women wear these fine clothes at all; and why they change them as they do.
First, and very clearly, the human female carries the weight of s.e.x decoration, solely because of her economic dependence on the male. She alone in nature adds to the burdens of maternity, which she was meant for, this unnatural burden of ornament, which she was not meant for.
Every other female in the world is sufficiently attractive to the male without tr.i.m.m.i.n.gs. He carries the tr.i.m.m.i.n.gs, sparing no expense of spreading antlers or trailing plumes; no monstrosity of crest and wattles, to win her favor.
She is only temporarily interested in him. The rest of the time she is getting her own living, and caring for her own young. But our women get their bread from their husbands, and every other social need. The woman depends on the man for her position in life, as well as the necessities of existence. For herself and for her children she must win and hold him who is the source of all supplies. Therefore she is forced to add to her own natural attractions this "dance of the seven veils," of the seventeen gowns, of the seventy-seven hats of gay delirium.
There are many who think in one syllable, who say, "women don"t dress to please men--they dress to please themselves--and to outshine other women." To these I would suggest a visit to some summer sh.o.r.e resort during the week and extending over Sat.u.r.day night. The women have all the week to please themselves and outshine one another; but their array on Sat.u.r.day seems to indicate the approach of some new force or attraction.
If all this does not satisfy I would then call their attention to the well-known fact that the young damsel previous to marriage spends far more time and ingenuity in decoration than she does afterward. This has long been observed and deprecated by those who write Advice to Wives, on the ground that this difference is displeasing to the husband--that she loses her influence over him; which is true. But since his own "society," knowing his weakness, has tied him to her by law; why should she keep up what is after all an unnatural exertion?
That excellent magazine "Good Housekeeping" has been running for some months a rhymed and ill.u.s.trated story of "Miss Melissa Clarissa McRae,"
an extremely dainty and well-dressed stenographer, who captured and married a fastidious young man, her employer, by the force of her artificial attractions--and then lost his love after marriage by a sudden unaccountable slovenliness--the same old story.
If this in not enough, let me instance further the att.i.tude toward "Fashion" of that cla.s.s of women who live most openly and directly upon the favor of men. These know their business. To continually attract the vagrant fancy of the male, nature"s born "variant," they must not only pile on artificial charms, but change them constantly. They do.
From the leaders of this profession comes a steady stream of changing fashions; the more extreme and bizarre, the more successful--and because they are successful they are imitated.
If men did not like changes in fashion be a.s.sured these professional men-pleasers would not change them, but since Nature"s Variant tires of any face in favor of a new one, the lady who would hold her sway and cannot change her face (except in color) must needs change her hat and gown.
But the Arbiter, the Ruling Cause, he who not only by choice demands, but as a business manufactures and supplies this amazing stream of fashions; again like Adam blames the woman--for accepting what he both demands and supplies.
A further proof, if more were needed, is shown in this; that in exact proportion as women grow independent, educated, wise and free, do they become less submissive to men-made fashions. Was this improvement hailed with sympathy and admiration--crowned with masculine favor?
The att.i.tude of men toward those women who have so far presumed to "uns.e.x themselves" is known to all. They like women to be foolish, changeable, always newly attractive; and while women must "attract" for a living--why they do, that"s all.
It is a pity. It is humiliating to any far-seeing woman to have to recognize this glaring proof of the dependent, degraded position of her s.e.x; and it ought to be humiliating to men to see the results of their mastery. These crazily decorated little creatures do not represent womanhood.
When the artist uses the woman as the type of every highest ideal; as Justice, Liberty, Charity, Truth--he does not represent her trimmed. In any part of the world where women are even in part economically independent there we find less of the absurdities of fashion. Women who work cannot be utterly absurd.
But the idle woman, the Queen of Society, who must please men within their prescribed bounds; and those of the half-world, who must please them at any cost--these are the vehicles of fashion.
ONLY AN HOUR
"One, two, three, four, five, six, seven," said the Second Hand, and then he lost count. "One, two, three, four, five--" It was no use.
"There is no end to it," said he, under his breath. "Hundreds of times I do it! Thousands! Millions! A positive eternity--in constant action. What a thing Life is!"
The Minute Hand was very patient with him. "My dear little Busybody,"
he said. "Look at me and learn some dignity. See, you have to make those little jumps sixty times before I move! Sixty times!" And the Minute Hand took a short step. "There--now you begin again, while I wait. Watch me, take courage! If you can count up to sixty you will understand Life!" And he took another short step.
The Hour Hand smiled. He was too proud to talk with the Minute Hand--considering him to have a Limited Intellect. As for the Second Hand, he did not acknowledge his existence. "I am no microscopist!" he would say if you pointed out that there was a Second Hand.
No, the Hour Hand did not converse, he Mused. He mused much upon life, as was natural. "Twelve of them!" he thought to himself--"twelve of these long long waits, these slow terrible advances. And then twelve more--before Life is over. I can count. I have an intellect. I am not afraid. I can think around Life." And he kept on thinking.
The man pulled out his watch and looked at it; yawned, took an easier position on the car seat. "Bah!" he said. "Only an hour gone!--And I can"t get there till the day after to-morrow!"
COMMENT AND REVIEW
The first thing that struck me in reading this novel was the style. Not often, in a first publication, is this the main impression.
There is a delicate finished personal touch in Mrs. Schoonmaker"s work, that would indicate years of application. Next I slowly gathered interest in the story; not at once--it grew gradually--but later on, when the characters were well placed and a grave danger threatened the lives of several.
The flat, peaceful, limited life of rural Kentucky and its contented inhabitants is drawn in soft a.s.sured touches--the reader feels the sweetness and peace as well as the deadly dulness.
The picture of life among the studios of Paris hints at more than is said, much more; indicating a philosophic judgment; yet withholding it.
There is a restraint, an economy of expression throughout; even where the writer feels most strongly.
As to the heroine--her young life-struggle is part and parcel of that universal stir and uprising among the women of to-day; so much of it blind and undirected; so much wasted and lost in reaction; so much in lines of true long-needed social evolution. This girl"s share in it will be differently judged by different readers. Many of our young college women will sympathize with it most, I fancy.
THE ETERNAL FIRES By Nancy Musselman Schoonmaker, Broadway Pub. Co., N. Y.
Dr. Stanton Coit, prominent in ethical and social advance in England, is a valuable supporter of the woman"s movement. His booklet, "Women in Church and State," is a concise and impressive presentation of her position in those great social bodies. He treats of the militant movement in England, its wise period of quiescence, and offers reasonable suggestions as to further policy.
The att.i.tude of the church toward women, from the miserable past up through the changing present to the hopeful future, is given succinctly, and the unfortunate reaction of a servile womanhood upon the church is shown.
It is a clear presentation of the relation of woman to the state, in politics, education, marriage and the home.