reasonable to maintain that the health and vitality of the potential fathers of the oncoming generation are less essential to our national welfare? In arguing that protective laws for women are justified, while protective laws for men represent an unwarranted interference with their liberty, our judges appear to me to have been guided by a somewhat old fashioned attitude toward women rather than by sound reason. Mr. Gompers and those who agree with him that hour laws for adult men not in government employment are undesirable, though hour laws for women are, seem to me to acquiesce too readily with the views of our judges of the old school. Doubtless the proportion of men wage-earners who, through efficient labor organizations, have secured all and more than they could secure through legislation is greater than the proportion of women wage-earners, but there are many women wage-earners who do not need legislative protection, and there are, in my judgement, more men wage-earners who do need it.1

In this passage Professor Seager seems to discard the theory that legislation for women should be used as an entering wedge and to imply another objection to such legislation which is held by many women-an objection which cannot be overlooked in this analysis. This is that special protection, not based upon handicaps that are necessarily peculiar to women, places one more obstacle in the way of woman's emergence from the state of bondage in which society has so long held her. There is little question that many individuals, in advocating these special laws are obeying the dictates of a more deep-seated tradition than that which appears on the surface-a tradition which claims that "woman's place is in the home," long after she has been obliged to leave the home. For example, Dr. Price, direc

1 "American Labor Legislation," by Henry R. Seager, President, American Association for Labor Legislation, American Labor Legislation Review, 1916, pp. 93-94.

166

tor of investigation of the New York Factory Investigating Commission, opened his report in 1913 by explaining that Participation of women in industry, though so general, has never been regarded as an entirely normal condition in society." And more recently, United States Secretary of Labor Davis, after asserting that there is no question as to whether women have a right to earn a living, wrote his summary for publication as follows:

1

At the same time all will agree that women in industry would not exist in an ideal social scheme. Women have a higher duty and a higher sphere in life. Eve was the companion and helpmate of Adam and in every way his social equal, but it was for Adam to protect Eve and provide for their posterity. It is true that later womankind were considered inferior, and became, we might say, slaves of society. All civilized nations are again coming to recognize the equality of women and men and in no country are her rights greater than in America, where her social standing is even higher than man's. With all this, I personally prefer to see a woman guiding the destiny of the nation-in the home."

A step further in this general philosophy of woman's place is taken by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers in England, as quoted by the Women's Freedom League. Plainly these engineers do question the right of women to work although they are certain of their ability. Their statement as quoted is:

Robbed of those deceitful things called percentages which sometimes put a rosy aspect on the worst case, it must be admitted that the enthusiasm for women workers is not very

1 Second Report of the New York Factory Investigating Commission, 1913, vol. ii, p. 439.

"Safeguarding the Mothers of Tomorrow," published as the sixth of a series of articles by United States Secretary of Labor, James L. Davis, in the Gazette of Colorado Springs, November 5, 1922.

pronounced. We are not amongst those who regard with astonishment the fact that women are able to do the work that men and boys do. . . . We think that the question of the ability of women may be left out of the argument; it may be accepted without reserve. But it by no means follows that because women can do men's work therefore they should be allowed to do it. Nor does it follow because women are willing and steady workers that therefore they should be employed in factories . . . the employment of women is only desirable when the supply of men is deficient, and when that state arises the question will settle itself.

Another trade journal with tendencies to philosophize on woman's place, contributed to this controversy by roundly assuring its readers that-" The more advanced the stage of civilization the more the male workers keep their women at home the better to fulfil their domestic duties and thus lift the level of the plane of physical, mental and social life." 1

66

Statements such as these, of course, are echoes of a passing social order. Fortunately or unfortunately, the apparent facts force recognition by the impartial observer that women are in industry to stay." One of the favorite subjects of sociological discussion now-a-days is upon the question, what is progress? Is our society advancing or retrograding? We need not participate in this discussion to conclude that whether or not we are moving forward, there is no doubt that we are moving. Social change is inevitable. The machine age is upon us as a result of the invention of the steam engine and the long line of other mechanical devices which have forced industrial and social

1 The two above quotations appeared in a pamphlet article called "Women's Right to Work," by L. Lind-af-Hageby, published by the Women's Freedom League, 144, High Holborn, W. C. 1, London, England. The date was not given but it was later than 1919.

Cf. Social Change by Professor William F. Ogburn, 1923.

readjustment. Without being dogmatic it is as logical to declare that our economic order must return to that of 1750 as to say that women must take themselves out of industry.

Correlative with the contention that women should not be in industry is the position of men's unions regarding women's special protection, which Florence Kelley has discussed in an interesting way,

Statutes restricting the hours of labor of women and children, while enacted in the interest of health and morality, have often been urged by persons animated by two other motives as well. In many cases, men who saw their own occupations threatened by unwelcome competitors, demanded restrictions upon the hours of work of those competitors for the purpose of rendering women less desirable as employees. In other cases, men who wished reduced hours of work for themselves, which the courts denied them, obtained the desired statutory reduction by the indirect method of restrictions upon the hours of labor of the women and children whose work interlocked with their own.1

From this it seems there are mixed motives underlying the advocacy of special laws for women. One of the fundamental motives is not the protection of women's health but the retention either of a tradition or of a job. This motive appears in the form of a health and morals disguise, to use the psychologist's terminology, which forces a reasoning based upon a false theory of physiology. And what is more, this logic has been employed consciously or unconsciously, by practically all groups of people who have been in favor of general protection of women to the exclusion of men. It is the persistence of custom or a shortsighted sense of selfpreservation among people, whether they are composed of philanthropic groups, of men's labor unions, or of the mass

1 Ethical Gains Through Legislation, by Mrs. Florence Kelley, 1914, p. 133.

of working women themselves, which leads them to accept the performance of hard domestic labor by women as a necessity and as the will of society, while they frown upon the employment of women in foundries, for example, even though their heavy lifting is done by means of balanced machinery. In New York State, it will be remembered, three hundred core makers protested against being deprived of the work for which they were trained, and although the factory commission declared they could not discover that the work was always and absolutely detrimental to their health, their "instincts of chivalry and decency" dictated that "every obstacle should be thrown in the way" of the further employment of women in foundries. The subscription of the molder's union to this program, and, in fact, its long campaign to bring it into being, has also been described-the testimony that foundries are not a " proper place for women" proved to be thin disguise for the real motive of the molders which was to check competition by women.

Again, it is a matter of history that men successfully opposed the retention of women in the transportation service in some if not all localities in which they were employed during the war. In Cleveland, the last resort in order to end a grave situation induced by a three-day strike on the street-car lines by the men's union, was the following agree

ment:

It is hereby agreed by and between the undersigned that on and after this date there will be no more women employed as conductors, that the Cleveland Railway Co. will remove and displace the women that are now in its service as rapidly as possible.

It is further agreed and understood that on and after March I, 1919, no women will be in the employ of the Cleveland Railway Co. as conductors.1

1 Quoted from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dec. 6, 1918 in an article in the Monthly Labor Review of the United States Department of Labor for January, 1919, pp. 224-230.