Chapter V: The Laws for Women—illogical and Inconsistent

How strange it is that Englishwomen, who enjoy a liberty of action their sisters on the continent regard with envy, should yet be governed by a code of laws as inconsistent as they are unjust. From this code were taken the chief planks of the Suffrage platforms.

Though the feministic appeal was made first to unhappy, or dissatisfied women, it was easy to rouse righteous wrath in all by dwelling upon the cruel laws to which women in this land are subjected.

Tell a woman that “by the law you are not the legal parent of your child,” and who could not secure a majority by such an appeal?

When the “master” is good and kind, the position of wife, mother, or daughter may be quite satisfactory. When, however, a woman is thrown into the grip of these cruel laws, then Heaven have mercy on her!

Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, because they might otherwise have been more quickly reformed, Englishwomen have, to protect them, the Englishman’s own self-made code, really of more effect than any law:—simply, “_It isn’t done._” Every British gentleman bows to the great judge, Public Opinion. Alas, however, every Britisher is not a gentleman, and again one asks: “What chance has a woman when left to the mercy of the laws of the realm?” Even the Moslems, who are not supposed to credit women with the possession of a soul at all, have more consistent and just laws than ours, and, what is of the greatest importance, children are always given a legal status.

It is astonishing that the British gentleman, the world-renowned sportsman in the very highest sense, can stand not only for the wrongs that are done to unmarried mothers, but worse still, for the wrongs done to the poor defenceless beings who come into the world unasked, and yet suffer all their lives for what has not been in any way their own fault. Considering the real nature of that very fine being, the British gentleman, and a finer than he does not exist on this earth, in comparison with the men of every other land, one wonders whether, after all, his attention has ever been properly drawn to this injustice.

The laws are so out of harmony with all the “fairplay” for which he stands. First, taking woman as a wife. There are far too few obstacles to prevent her marrying in haste, and far too many, since these hasty marriages are allowed, to prevent her unmarrying. One cannot, perhaps, altogether approve of the Continental arranged marriage, but there is certainly something to be said for the wisdom of a system that demands the parent’s or guardian’s consent up to the age of twenty-five. At least it puts off the “evil day”; and gives the families on both sides time to act. Both family histories, and both family banking accounts are carefully examined; and, in most cases, the State ceremony and service in church combined are calculated to impress upon young people the solemnity of the partnership into which they are about to enter, and the interests of the future generation it will be theirs to safeguard.

Compare these carefully arranged marriages with some of our slipshod, ill-considered unions, based on pure physical attraction which naturally cannot last!

If neither the State, nor the parent, will—or can—do anything to prevent hasty marriage, why should the laws for Divorce be so consistently illogical. They are not only illogical, but disgracefully unfair. In Italy there is no divorce—neither the Church nor the State grants it—so the situation is quite clear; both sexes are treated alike.

In France, the State, not the Church, grants divorce for men and women on equal terms; that, too, is fair.

In England, however, _the divorce laws do not help the right class of men and women_, and release is not granted to women on equal terms with men.

A frivolous-minded couple, who have rushed into matrimony without a thought, and have very quickly had quite enough of one another, can go through the usual “restitution of conjugal rights” comedy—disgraceful legislation, unworthy of our traditions.

It is the wife of a criminal lunatic or a confirmed drunkard who has our pity. For her, or the woman tied to a thoroughly immoral man who tries to lead the sons astray, there should be permanent relief. Judicial separation is not a sufficient protection for the children.

No thinking woman wants easier divorce or anything to loosen family ties and lead to legitimatised “free love.” But even devout Roman Catholics are now prepared to “use scissors” for the protection of children. Handicapped by nature, often the victim of circumstances, the unmarried mother is always to be pitied. Although she has the advantage over the married woman in being the legal parent of her child, yet for her public opinion is merciless. From the father of the child, when she can prove who he is, she gets a mere pittance; and if, driven to distraction and temporary insanity, she puts an end to the little life that began with so much sorrow, she must stand alone in the dock. Without defending the woman—God forbid, a little life is too sacred!—one cannot help asking: “Where is the man?”

In summing up the disadvantages of being a woman, here is one of the greatest. Public opinion and the law defy nature, and by their cowardly unchristian attitude frequently drive poor erring humanity to the crime of infanticide.

Perhaps the German treatment of this problem is the most Christlike. Human nature being what it is, such things will happen; no legislation can stop them. Therefore, these children must be brought up as honest citizens, _not as children of sin_. The German “Mothers’ Home,” where no difference is made between the married and unmarried, is well worth a visit and might be imitated with advantage.

“For every sin there is pardon,” we repeat mechanically; and yet the British Code puts the awful scarlet letter of illegitimacy on defenceless children, and not even the marriage of the parents can wipe it out.

One of the most unjust of laws in this realm is that which allows parents to disinherit their children. On the Continent this cannot be done. Children are entitled to one-third of the parents’ possessions. However worthless, they are the parents’ “creations,” for whom the responsibility cannot be evaded.

It is true that some parents give away all they possess in their life-time in order to deprive the children of their inheritance. This is illegal, however, and punishable by the law.

There is something very mean in the attitude of parents who cut off their children with the proverbial shilling. They are often influenced by mere caprice, a marriage they dislike, or a change of religion. Yet whatever a child has done, is this justifiable? And surely a daughter who acts in defiance of the wishes of her parents, needs them all the more when the predicted day of sorrow arrives. To disinherit a son is bad enough, but to disinherit an unmarried daughter is criminal.

The case of the daughter who does not marry in order to look after her widowed father and suddenly finds herself penniless because the new wife will not let him provide for her, could not happen on the Continent. Over and over again one has met these poor victims. Well over thirty-five, and yet just starting to work. How can parents be so heartless?

On the Continent there is, at least an unwritten law which forces a brother to look after his sister. No one likes to accept charity from a brother, yet Continental public opinion deals harshly with the man who deserts his mother and sisters in their time of need. It is more lenient to those who neglect their wives; children and one’s own flesh and blood, however, seem somehow to have a closer claim.

A good brother is the dearest possible pal. And what a difference his mere existence makes sometimes in the attitude of his sister’s male employer. Yet, as many Englishwomen must admit, their brothers are scarcely aware of their existence. There has been no quarrel, but they do not even correspond; he has married and has new interests. The companion of his childhood is a memory that cannot even be kept alive by a postcard.

Brothers know perfectly well, or if they do not know they ought to be told, that woman’s value as she grows older decreases in the labour market. They have become so used to sisters helping themselves when they are not married, or badly married, that they lose interest: influenced, in some cases, maybe, by a jealous wife. How bitter the heart-ache of many a “Maggie Tulliver” at the indifference of “brother Tom.”

None can deny the injustice of these English laws. It was said that they would never be changed until women obtained the vote. As no thinking worker could uphold such crushing, humiliating, and dangerous laws, they worked whole-heartedly for the Vote, and obtained it. Yet the laws have not yet been changed. It was then maintained that the Vote was not enough, women must sit in the House of Commons.

What have they done in the House of Commons?