[To THZ EDITOR OF " SPECTATOR.")
SIE,—I venture to suggest that Dr. Macphairs arraignment of the "American woman," although both forcible and timely, is not very discriminating or very just. Dr. Macphail evidently has two or three types of women in mind which he confounds under the one designation. Thus, the forward woman of early New England days was no more the woman he really intends than is our English "suffragette," who, with all her noisy self-assertion in pursuit of a particular object, is not the brilliant do-nothing who ignores her social obligations in order to indulge her love of social distinction and enjoyment, and against whom Dr. Macphail levels his sarcasm and reproach. Nor is there, probab13), such a thing as a poor "American woman." The type belongs to those who can escape their responsibilities in virtue of their wealth and the service it commands. No doubt there are the asexual poor; but the reason for their attitude to the fulfilment of their. responsibilities is different from the motives of the "American woman" as a type, and the two ought not to be confounded. And, besides being indiscriminate, Dr. Macphail is, I think, unfair in his estimation of causes. He speaks of the American man ; but his "American man" is an individual, not a type, and is certainly not the counterpart, as he ought to be drawn, of the "American woman." It is because the "American man" is what he is—a being in whom all the highest attributes of manhood are absorbed and diverted in the selfish pursuit of business, so that no room is left for a quiet, loving home life—that the woman is there to correspond. To reproach her, under the conditions the man provides, for not fulfilling her wifely functions is to insult her and all womanhood. This Dr. Macphail does not see. It is the quiet, loving home life that alone in an educated society can result in an ideal offspring. The millionaire cannot offer this, and it is his retribution that the American woman ceases to prolong his race. It is, indeed, not in the prolongation of such a race that the strength of the nation depends.—I am,
[We should have thought that Dr. Macphail had made it quite clear that he did not mean to arraign any one but the luxurious and idle rich woman, and to arraign her quite as much in Europe as in America, though he used the name "American woman" just, as he explained, we use the name "Canada goose." That the men who tolerate and encourage the type of woman condemned by Dr. Macphail have a heavy responsibility we fully admit.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
