OR
CHICAGO
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
CO-OPERATIVE
| WHY WOMEN ARE CONSERVATIVE | 9 |
| YOUTH AND MAID | 30 |
| THE EVOLUTION OF THE FAMILY | 40 |
| THE FUTURE | 54 |
We have often heard discussions of the reason we do not find women, as a[Pg 9]sex, in the vanguard of world affairs; why the great educators, strongfigures in progressive or revolutionary movements, are men rather thanwomen; why these movements, themselves, are made up almost entirely ofmen rather than women. People have asked over and over again why, in thefields of the arts, the sciences, in the world of "practical affairs,"men, rather than women, generally excel.
We believe the answer lies in the fact that women, as a sex, are theowners of a commodity vitally necessary to the health and well-being ofman. Women occupy a more fortunate biologic, and in[Pg 10] many countries, amore fortunate economic position, in the increasingly intensifiedstruggle for existence. And the preferred class, the biologically andeconomically favored class, or sex, has rarely been efficient-to-do, hasnever been revolutionary to attack a social system that accordsadvantage to it.
As a sex, women have rarely been rebels or revolutionists. We do not seehow they can ever be as long as there exists any system of exploitationto revolt against. Revolt comes from the submerged, never from the groupoccupying a favored place. Today the revolutionist is he who has nothingto sell but his labor power.
The skilled trade union group is least revolutionary among the workers.The best paid unions are not the most militant in acts calculated toimprove the conditions of even their own group, and are least aggressivein conduct for improving the[Pg 11] conditions of the whole working class. Solong as they occupy a more favorable position in the industrial world,the trade unions will have something to conserve. They becomeconservative.
We see the small, struggling farmers, who have probably very little tolose in this world save their debts and their mortgages, countingthemselves in a class of possible property owners and small exploiters,and generally throwing their support into movements promising pettyreforms, when nothing but the abolition, or downfall of the system ofprivate ownership in the means of production and distribution, canpossibly help them.
The petty shop-keepers rail more against the "outrageously" high wagesand the short hours of the skilled workers than against the largebusiness organizations, like the packing interests, or the greatmonopolies, that hold them constantly on the edge of failure.