UNEMPLOYMENT : THE RURALIZATION OF WOMEN [To the Editor of
the SPECTATOR.] have been asked to elaborate my suggestion con-
tained in my letter to the Spectator of September 19th—the Ruralization of Women. I have therefore dispelled my scruples as to the propriety of my intrusion into a situation of such extreme delicacy as is your Unemployment problem. But then what is one with his heart in the right place to do in observing abnormal conditions ? Is he to cross over to the other side and fold his hands in piety ? And this, above all, in relation to a country which is the world's greatest asset—a country which has continuously made other people's plights her own concern ?
With compelling conviction the idea surged up in my mind, that once again woman is at the bottom of it—as I saw men stretched out in Hyde Park listlessly, while I found women employed in tasks unsuited to their nervous structure and temperament. Is this just ? I asked myself. Is it normal ?
Supposing any one of the feminist champions, say, Lady Astor or Mrs. Bertrand Russell (I may be pardoned this personality), were to visit foreign countries with her native intuition not overlaid with latter-day equalitarian concepts and there, upon entering post offices found the employees to be all women, and upon entering office buildings found women operating lifts, what would be her natural reaction ? She would throw up her hands in dismay, and mutter something about those horrid men letting the women come out of their homes and do the withering mechanical work of the community. Or else she would muse within herself that very likely there must be here a shortage of men.
Oh no, ladies ! Your cry for equality is a disoriented cry !
Men and women are not equals ; they are co-equals—equals, that is, in sameness of plane, but not of function. It's all wrong—the whole present social lay-out. But, I must say, blame the men much more for the prevailing social and economic perversions than I blame the women.
I come now to my elaboration of what I proposed. I only wish I could bring to it better preparation than I possess. I am no expert in any of the interlocked fields pertaining to the problem. Besides, I am a pathetic hand at details. Figures daze me ; statistics bore me. And yet I do try to keep :ny ideas always within hailing distance of facts. What, then, do I mean by Ruralization of Women, concretely expressed ? I can only hint at the steps to be taken leading into the realm of practice. I am vain enough to fancy that even this em- bryonic effort should answer the purpose for the moment.
Here goes, then. Let the Government lead off in a •move- ment to inaugurate centres of farming all through Great Britain, at which women would be given preference of employ- ment, especially at the lighter phases of work. Connected with these establishments there should be broadly conceived agri_ cultural schools, where training would be provided in all branches of farming and housekeeping. Apart from actual employment, the experience they would gain would qualify the women to become competent housewives, and would insure for them admission with open arms in the Colonies. That is about all, Sir. Now, turn- this idea over to some of your experts, none superior anywhere, and see what they will make of it. The vista that presents itself in its grand outlines to my inner eye is limitless. Other occupations not strictly agricultural might be included in the scheme. The main thing is to draw women away from the over-crowded cities. How beneficially it tells upon a woman—work within sound and sight and smell of nature 1 Those who have visited the Binding Plant of Doubleday, Page and Company in Garden City, U.S.A., for example, and saw the women there at their work of sewing, stitching, collating, could not fail to be im- pressed with their appearance. Nice, fresh and contented they look. When I visited my friend Cedric Chivers in Bath, England, I met with a similar experience on a smaller scale in his establishment.
I am led to wonder whether the poignant gravity of the Unemployment situation is yet grasped in all its completeness, whether the average English mind with its fine sporting sense allows itself sufficiently to realize that the dole system is in the nature of an incubus, not to be shaken off except by heroic means. Nor can this be accomplished except in an indirect roundabout manner. It is at this point where the woman
comes in. In all relationships of life woman is the instrument of transition. Woman is plastic, man is solid. Woman is the first half of the human being. How true this is eco- nomically ! What woman earns is her own ; what man earns is his only in part. Woman is normally certain to benefit by man's lucrative employment. Man loves to- spend his money on the woman. Does this hold conversely ? Now, does it ? , Neither is this so merely by Convention. It is so through Nature. What a wonderful opportunity for the great women leaders to prove that they are inspired in their efforts to lift up the dignity of their sex by the highest motives of public welfare ! Let them range themselves behind the movement of ruralizing women: Vastly more important is it that women should rightly be adjusted socially, than politically. And it is, in 'consistency, incumbent upon these champions of the woman's cause -that they come forward at this juncture with the same enthusiasm they have shown when their nation was at war. With what fervour they appealed to the patriotism of the men, urging them to lay down' their lives freely: And the men did sacrifice their all to save their country ! Shall women, then, balk, when the country is to be redeemed from the ravages of an organic cancer, at giving up their town-pleasures ? Come, let's be fair.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
