WOMAN AND LABOUR.
I To THE EDITOR OE THE " SPECTATOR:Pi do not read the Spectator, because I cannot accept its premises, and fail to follow its logic ; but I have always looked upon it as a journal which honestly tried to understand the position of a writer as a first step to criticising him. I fear I must give up that view as a delusion. In a notice just shown me of my paper in this month's Fortnightly (Spectator, May 5th), you assert that I look forward to "a period of free- love with State care of consequent children." This, in your opinion, is based upon the "national insurance against mother- hood." Now, my article contains the following words :—
"It is perhaps unnecessary to point out that this insurance has nothing to do with parental responsibility to provide for the maintenance of children."
Now, Sir, will you explain how "parental responsibility for the maintenance of children" is possible ? (1), if there be free-love and if parentage be consequently unknown on the father's side ? (2), if the State is to take care of the conse- quent children ? Clearly, no one who had read my article— however obscure he might find it—would put your interpre- tation upon it. After all. " obscurity " may lie as much in the reader as the read. Women are entering in every field of labour into competition with men ; they are handicapped by their maternal activity ; to equalise the contest and prevent its having anti-social effects on future generations, men will have to be handicapped by a special provision for women, particularly of the industrial classes, during disablement. Such provision between man and man is the basis of all sick and friendly societies ; it is the peculiar feature on a larger scale of all national insurance for labour. The point has already been mooted in women's friendly societies. You can- not check by any power on earth the increasing activity of woman in all spheres of work, but you may lessen the evil to future generations of a more and more severe struggle for employment between man and woman.
As a matter of fact, it seems to me that "free-love," at any rate polyandry and polygamy, exist to-day in our society alongside of monogamy. I believe that out of them that form of sex-relationship will survive which is best suited to maintain a stable society. I do not think there is much doubt as to which form that will be. I am not indignant with the free-lover ; I simply leave him to his fate in the struggle of types for existence, and in the struggle of one social organisa- tion against another.
But what has this problem to do with insurance against maternity ? You say, Sir, that "if marriage "—I presume you mean monogamy—" is to continue, the dependence on the individual will continue too." Why ? Look beyond the decadent middle-classes, with their ridiculous notions as to woman, and you will find in the peasant and hand-working classes of Europe, woman already as much a bread-winner as man, and occasionally more so. The " dependence " is one of social tradition, rather than of economic fairness. In great numbers of cases it practically only begins with disablement owing to maternity, and then, as I have endeavoured to show in my paper, the " dependence " is often on society, and not
on the husband.—I am, Sir, &c., KARL PEARSON.
[We took the greatest care to say that we might mis- interpret Mr. Pearson as to free-love. We must continue to believe that monogamy implies the dependence of the woman, if only because she wishes for it. Women no more like cora- pulsory toil than men do.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
