|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 46
In their reactions against old abuses, writers like Mrs. Gilman or Olive
Schreiner try to create a world for women alone, on the political
analogy. Men might be tolerated as fathers; but, to secure political
freedom, these leaders would turn to that nebulous creation of social
reformers, the state; and it should subsidize the mothers in their
periods of need. But there are only two ingredients out of which a
nation can be formed: one is women; the other is men. Shall woman in
her time of need turn to a state made up of other women, or to a state
made up of men? Obviously it must be to both; and if woman is to depend
on men, she might as well depend on man. No, in the political
revolutions we broke up artificial, outworn and unjust combinations; but
in this domestic revolution we are breaking up and must readjust the
fundamental unit of life.
Men and women must live and work together in the domestic unit, and they
cannot do the same things. Nature has specialized their functions and
each must supplement the other. Even in Germany, the _Hausfrau_ is not
going back to an exclusive service of children, cooking and church; nor
in America will man continue to be merely the breadwinner and the father
of children. With the enlightenment that is on the way, we shall see
that husband and wife can have no antagonistic differences. Each profits
in all that really benefits the other; and slowly we shall shape a new
institution based on absolute equality, and at the same time on
complementary service.
In this adjustment, legal forms can help or hinder; but they cannot
prevent nor compel the final action of human beings. Sex instinct is
stronger than any human law. The law can, however, help us in regulating
conditions of marriage, in settling disputes about common property and
children, and in determining how the contract may be set aside when that
becomes necessary.
The right of the church to sanction or regulate the family, rests in a
belief that marriage involves spiritual changes and obligations that
make it a sacrament, in its nature inviolable, and to be administered
only by the church, like the sacrament of baptism. This is a belief
resting not in eugenic considerations, nor in the human needs of the
persons involved, but in theological dogmas with which this chapter
cannot deal. Hence we shall maintain that the church has no more right
to control matters of marriage than it has to interfere in business or
political relations.
The state, on the other hand, meaning by the state the whole community,
must concern itself with the marriage of its individuals. The
commonwealth must have future citizens, and these should be strong and
intelligent; hence it must prevent the breeding of the unfit. If parents
die, or fail in obligations, the community must care for the children.
In case of disagreement between married people, the courts of the
community must settle disputes about children and property; hence the
state must know when a man and woman determine to live together. The
regulation of marriage certainly belongs to the state, that is, to all
of us.
Marriage should therefore always be a matter of definite and open record
in the archives of the community. It should also be advertised, through
the public record, for a considerable time, preferably six months or a
year, before consummation, that the past experiences of contracting
parties may be looked up by interested friends or officials, and the
marriage of the unfit prevented; and so that mere caprice and passion
shall have time to realize their mistake and turn away. The form which
the final ceremony of marriage will take can well be left to the tastes
and traditions of the contracting parties.
The question of rights in children, or in property acquired after
marriage, should be settled by the state; and it is hard to see how it
can ever be settled satisfactorily except on a basis of equal
partnership. No man should be contented with a woman to bear and train
his children, and create a social atmosphere for his home, who is not
worth half of what he makes; and the same holds true of a woman. So with
regard to children, while one parent or the other may, under certain
conditions, be given the direction of the child's life, it is hard to
imagine any circumstances that would justify society in refusing either
father or mother the right frequently to see his child.
Since marriages must be contracted in youth and since inexperienced
people must make mistakes and the wisest must sometimes change, it will
sometimes happen that men and women must face the possibility of
separation. The problem of divorce is very difficult.[54] In less than
twenty years, from 1887 to 1906, 945,625 divorces were granted in the
United States; so that probably to-day there are nearly one million
divorced people in this country. Generally speaking, the divorce rate
increases as one goes westward. In 1900, the State of Washington led the
country with 184 divorces for each 100,000 of population. For the whole
country we averaged 73 per 100,000 of population. Japan alone leads us
with 215, while England and Wales had only 2. England grants divorce
only for infidelity; and on the man's side it must be accompanied by
cruelty; all divorce cases must be tried in London, and the expense,
never less than two hundred dollars, is prohibitive for the poor.
Meantime, England grants many separation orders; and it seems sure that
the Royal Commission, which has been taking evidence for the past three
years, will favor a freer system of divorce.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|