Nor is this the only aspect of political evolution that exhibits the
cant phrase about woman's place as a medieval survival. So long as
political life was mainly concerned with issues, like trade or war,
that fell in the men's sphere of work, the primitive division of
political responsibility remained more or less plausible. It is no
longer even plausible. National defence is, and must be, a primary
concern of politics; but in England at least this concerns women
just as much as men. The vast majority of our men do not share in
the work. A select body undertakes it, and the other men have just
as much, and no more, interest in controlling them than women have.
Trade, commerce, and industry are still main objects of political
concern; but women are included in vast numbers in the industrial
world. And the new and broader conception of the task of an
administration has completed the annihilation of the old ideal.
Social reform--questions of housing, temperance, pensions,
etc.--obviously concern women as much as men, and are in no sense
whatever masculine issues; while the recent extension of legislation
to the home and the child has made it quite futile to talk of the
woman's home as her sphere, in the sense that she must have no
interest in the public life beyond it. Once she really was mistress
in the home; now, happily, the law has invaded every corner of it.
It controls the birth of her children, controls their infancy in a
score of ways, controls their beds and fires and food, controls
their punishment, their recreation, their education, and their early
employment. This is a colossal change in the objective of political
life, and it necessarily involves a surrender of the older idea of
enfranchisement.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account