« AnteriorContinuar »
anliness," meet with derision and discouragement from fellow workers both men and women, from friends, and from society at large. The young woman who led the Telephone Operators' strike told nie the hardest part of the whole episode was the scorn and opposition she had to bear, not froin the public, but from her own family and worker friends. There are plenty of women workers in California content with long hours, poor conditions of work, and low wages; though happily the worst here is not what those in less favored centers have to face. Thoughtless, lazy or worse, these women are indifferent to, or frankly opposed to, the unions. Against these, as well as for these, the union girl organizes; and she feels and I feel that here is the most direct means of removing from the women workers the reproach so long and so justly attaching to her—the reproach that she underbids men in their wages, works less well than they do, and leaves to them all the responsible tasks. Moving, on the whole, less swiftly to new points of view than men, the conservativism, inertia, and lack of desire for independent action in the average woman leads her to accept that situation in which she finds herself, to assume her burden and say "Kismet” to whatever she finds she must do. Now this state of minda state of mind which, here as everywhere, is behind industrial inefficiency and the abuses of the sweat shop and child labor-is the final great argument in favor of women's trade unions. If it can be shown that the union is awakening woman to the fact that it is her duty to be an efficient worker, to work only under sanitary and normal conditions, and to gain nothing at the expense of her fellow-workers
and I think the facts given above do show this it seems proved that unions mean strength, not only to women workers but to the community. To understand that to work with infinite industry is not a virtue if it be at the expense of others' or one's own health; to know that to accept without protest any task, even if that task be one which takes you into ill-ventilated rooms, involves nerve-destroying speed and gives you a return hardly sufficient for shelter, food, and clothing, much less a little amusement, is a wrong to yourself and to society-to know these things, which women workers more than any other need to know, is to be prepared to work out much that will do away with the worst forms of dependency and that makes for reliable citizenship. If few working women, even in fortunate California, have come to understand these things, it is because the daily task is absorbing
and unmeaning and life has little outside of a narrow domestic standard. If some of these women are getting a wider preception of their place and duty in the world, the trade union is greatlyperhaps chiefly—to be thanked, and it seems to me that it should be a source of congratulation to every Californian who has a thought for more than the immediate present that, perhaps to a greater extent than anywhere else in the world, the women workers of California have entered upon a trade union movement which is waging a persistent and winning fight against that degeneration of motherhood and womanhood inevitably attendant upon work done for long hours and low pay, at high pressure, and in unhygienic surroundings.
It is just possible that this paper may seem a blind panegyric of unionism. This would be far from the intention. The intemperance of much of the fight of the unionists (the women as well as the men), especially in California, is fully recognized. The weakness of judgment and short-sighted delegation of authority, the narrow prejudices and hot-headed action that have gone along with their tactics are not forgotten; but when everything has been said, it still remains true that only by shouldering responsibilities and taking the initiative in the conduct of their own affairs can men and women become fit members of a democracy; and if, in the assumption of this serious task, the unionist has stumbled and often behaved more like an ill-bred and selfish child than a thoughtful and selfconducting man, it does not mean that his duty of self-protection and self-guidance is any the less clear nor any the less socially useful. It only means that those in the movement are young to power, and have to learn a just appreciation of the rights of others as well as this first much-needed lesson that organization is teaching—the lesson of what constitutes the rights and duties of workers, individually and collectively.
Portions of a paper by
Both the forms and the results of student social activities are necessarily much modified by the existence of coeducation. For I take “student social activities" to cover all student life outside of the classroom-all unacademic college interests—all activities which, in their essence, include the relation of one student to another. And it is self-evident that the presence of men must play a considerable part in determining the nature of these relationships. I do not here wish to argue for or against coeducation. Nevertheless, the subject assigned to me for the meeting must necessarily be looked at from two standpoints: one viewing student activities in the woman's college, the other viewing them in the coeducational college.
Take first, the question of athletics. A large part of the fervid interest in athletics which we find among modern undergraduates is not an interest in sport at all. It is rather a pride in the prowess of the college. It is not the wish to play a good game; it is rather the desire to beat one's rival. In a woman's college the responsibility for this prowess falls entirely upon women, and they, though less ardently than men, respond to it; but in a coeducational college their share of the responsibility is very slight and their interest correspondingly slender. Wherever there are men, women's in terests shrink even-perhaps I should say particularly-in the eyes of the women themselves.
When we come to the unorganized social activities—dances, and social functions in general—we find the presence of men, as always, the determining force. The women's interest in their own separated entertainments in the coeducational college is sometimes very keen, but it is of a slightly different order from the interest in the woman's college. The entertainment must partake of the nature of a lark—some of the ordinary bonds must be removed, if it is to evoke any real enthusiasm. The method by which social activities
controlled will vary according to the particular character of the individual
college; but even here, though generalization is dangerous, I think we can see this same modifying influence at work. Self-government among women is more difficult of attainment along with coeducation. They may achieve it after years of struggle; they may, under exceptional circumstances, reach it as soon as their fellow men students; or, in the separate college, they may develop it but feebly. However, I think the general rule holds good: Where there are men, the women are less likely to control social affairs in which they are interested than where there are not men.
And this is not, as might be at first supposed, because the women share so largely in the government of the whole that they have no need for separate government. As a rule, they play a distinctly minor role in the common government. A woman may be a vicepresident; never a president. She may edit a department; never the entire paper. I firmly believe the reason for this tendency is not because the women are absorbed by the common interests, but because, when responsibilities are divided between men and women the men by mutual consent take the larger half; and because less responsibility always means less interest.
Now, what, for the woman student, is the result of undivided responsibility in social activities? What of divided responsibility?
It is a truism-one might almost call it a college bromide—that responsibility develops self-possession, self-confidence; and it is but a corollary to this axiom that it develops self-possession in proportion to, and along the line of, the responsibility. Intellectual responsibility develops intellectual poise; social responsibility develops social poise; physical responsibility, physical poise. By “poise" and "self-possession” I mean the ability to take care of oneself. This in its various forms is the great lesson college education. All the forms of student social tivity-athletics, dramatics, music, society functions in general bring with them, aside from the development in their respective fields, this general ability to take care of oneself in relation to others. Team-work is one of the most valuable disciplines that ever comes to a human being. This is obviously true of any team-work, whether it be that of basketball, of a play, of a glee club, of a committee, or of a marriage. The responsibility which falls on each member of any team should be vital. Just in proportion as the responsibility lessens the social interest slackens, and the chance of the social gain of self-possession diminishes. What we mean by “good
team-work” is exactly this quick control of the individual in obedience to a social need, this readiness of the one to serve the many of which he is himself a vital part.
College is a miniature world—an unreal, perhaps even a "fake" world—but, to the student, an important one. He runs this world. This fact alone is enough to make his imitation republic dear to him, for is there any more human philosophy than "a poor thing, but my own?” All the mechanism of this toy world—the officers, the committees, the teams—is guided, when it is valuable, by the student. Not until he is much, much older will he again have this complete control of his surroundings. Little wonder that under these conditions shy or hesitant natures often grow like yucca palms. In the very rapidity of their growth, in the very completeness and suddenness of the opportunity lies the danger. Too often the power comes before adequate standards are formed and, what is more depressing, too often the college offers no background for the forming of such social standards. Thus, through lack of social criteria, self-possession turns to aggressiveness, poise to "push,” freedom to vulgarity or callousness.
The student play written by students, performed and managed by students, is extremely good training in team-work; but usually it is what is called a “farce,” which too often means a play unhampered by any æsthetic or intellectual standards.
The responsibility of choice rests upon those who have undeveloped standards. And in society functions this is pathetically true. Students under the responsibility of being hosts or hostesses will inevitably acquire a certain degree of self-assurance; but unless this is combined with the world's standards of social conduct, it is distressing rather than pleasing.
The remedy is not to decrease the responsibility, but to increase the opportunity for forming standards. This, it is obvious, can be done only by throwing students in contact with those who have already acquired these standards. Without this, selfpossession will come—it always comes where responsibility is given -but it will come under the unpleasant form of assurance rather than poise, glibness rather than ease.
To my mind, it is unquestionable that in a coeducational college, where the responsibility of social activities, and consequently the interests in these activities, falls in a lesser degree to the women,