{"id":1216,"date":"2017-07-11T03:02:33","date_gmt":"2017-07-11T03:02:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/ushistory2os\/chapter\/primary-source-crystal-eastman-now-we-can-begin-1920\/"},"modified":"2017-07-11T03:02:33","modified_gmt":"2017-07-11T03:02:33","slug":"primary-source-crystal-eastman-now-we-can-begin-1920","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/rangercollege-ushistory2os\/chapter\/primary-source-crystal-eastman-now-we-can-begin-1920\/","title":{"raw":"Primary Source: Crystal Eastman, \u201cNow We Can Begin\u201d (1920)","rendered":"Primary Source: Crystal Eastman, \u201cNow We Can Begin\u201d (1920)"},"content":{"raw":"In the following selection, Crystal Eastman, a socialist and feminist, considered what women should fight for following the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted American women the right to vote.<\/em>\n\nMost women will agree that August 23, the day when the Tennessee legislature finally enacted the Federal suffrage amendment, is a day to begin with, not a day to end with. Men are saying perhaps \u201cThank God, this everlasting woman\u2019s fight is over!\u201d But women, if I know them, are saying, \u201cNow at last we can begin.\u201d In fighting for the right to vote most women have tried to be either non-committal or thoroughly respectable on every other subject. Now they can say what they are really after; and what they are after, in common with all the rest of the struggling world, is freedom.\n\nFreedom is a large word.\n\n\u2026<\/em>\n\nWhat, then, is \u201cthe matter with women\u201d? What is the problem of women\u2019s freedom? It seems to me to be this: how to arrange the world so that women can be human beings, with a chance to exercise their infinitely varied gifts in infinitely varied ways, instead of being destined by the accident of their sex to one field of activity\u2014housework and child-raising. And second, if and when they choose housework and child-raising, to have that occupation recognized by the world as work, requiring a definite economic reward and not merely entitling the performer to be dependent on some man.\n\nThis is not the whole of feminism, of course, but it is enough to begin with. \u201cOh, don\u2019t begin with economics,\u201d my friends often protest, \u201cWoman does not live by bread alone. What she needs first of all is a free soul.\u201d And I can agree that women will never be great until they achieve a certain emotional freedom, a strong healthy egotism, and some un-personal sources of joy \u2014 that in this inner sense we cannot make woman free by changing her economic status. What we can do, however, is to create conditions of outward freedom in which a free woman\u2019s soul can be born and grow. It is these outward conditions with which an organized feminist movement must concern itself.\n\nFreedom of choice in occupation and individual economic independence for women: How shall we approach this next feminist objective? First, by breaking down all remaining barriers, actual as well as legal, which make it difficult for women to enter or succeed in the various professions, to go into and get on in business, to learn trades and practice them, to join trades unions. Chief among these remaining barriers is inequality in pay. Here the ground is already broken. This is the easiest part of our program.\n\nSecond, we must institute a revolution in the early training and education of both boys and girls. It must be womanly as well as manly to earn your own living, to stand on your own feet. And it must be manly as well as womanly to know how to cook and sew and clean and take care of yourself in the ordinary exigencies of life. I need not add that the second part of this revolution will be more passionately resisted than the first. Men will not give up their privilege of helplessness without a struggle. The average man has a carefully cultivated ignorance about household matters \u2014 from what to do with the crumbs to the grocer\u2019s telephone number \u2014 a sort of cheerful inefficiency which protects him better than the reputation for having a violent temper. It was his mother\u2019s fault in the beginning, but even as a boy he was quick to see how a general reputation for being \u201cno good around the house\u201d would serve him throughout life, and half-consciously he began to cultivate that helplessness until today it is the despair of feminist wives.\n\n\u2026\n\nCooperative schemes and electrical devices will simplify the business of homemaking, but they will not get rid of it entirely. As far as we can see ahead people will always want homes, and a happy home cannot be had without a certain amount of rather monotonous work and responsibility. How can we change the nature of man so that he will honorably share that work and responsibility and thus make the homemaking enterprise a song instead of a burden? Most assuredly not by laws or revolutionary decrees. Perhaps we must cultivate or simulate a little of that highly prized helplessness ourselves. But fundamentally it is a problem of education, of early training \u2014 we must bring up feminist sons.\n\nSons? Daughters? They are born of women \u2014 how can women be free to choose their occupation, at all times cherishing their economic independence, unless they stop having children? This is a further question for feminism. If the feminist program goes to pieces on the arrival of the first baby, it is false and useless. For ninety-nine out of every hundred women want children, and seventy-five out of every hundred want to take care of their own children, or at any rate so closely superintend their care as to make any other full-time occupation impossible for at least ten or fifteen years. Is there any such thing then as freedom of choice in occupation for women? And is not the family the inevitable economic unit and woman\u2019s individual economic independence, at least during that period, out of the question?\n\nThe feminist must have an answer to these questions, and she has. The immediate feminist program must include voluntary motherhood. Freedom of any kind for women is hardly worth considering unless it is assumed that they will know how to control the size of their families. \u201cBirth control\u201d is just as elementary an essential in our propaganda as \u201cequal pay.\u201d Women are to have children when they want them, that\u2019s the first thing. That ensures some freedom of occupational choice; those who do not wish to be mothers will not have an undesired occupation thrust upon them by accident, and those who do wish to be mothers may choose in a general way how many years of their lives they will devote to the occupation of childraising.\n\nBut is there any way of insuring a woman\u2019s economic independence while child-raising is her chosen occupation? Or must she sink into that dependent state from which, as we all know, it is so hard to rise again? That brings us to the fourth feature of our program \u2014 motherhood endowment. It seems that the only way we can keep mothers free, at least in a capitalist society, is by the establishment of a principle that the occupation of raising children is peculiarly and directly a service to society, and that the mother upon whom the necessity and privilege of performing this service naturally falls is entitled to an adequate economic reward from the political government. It is idle to talk of real economic independence for women unless this principle is accepted. But with a generous endowment of motherhood provided by legislation, with all laws against voluntary motherhood and education in its methods repealed, with the feminist ideal of education accepted in home and school, and with all special barriers removed in every field of human activity, there is no reason why woman should not become almost a human thing.\n\nIt will be time enough then to consider whether she has a soul.\n\n[Source: Crystal Eastman, \u201cNow We Can Begin,\u201d Liberator <\/em>(December 1920).]","rendered":"

In the following selection, Crystal Eastman, a socialist and feminist, considered what women should fight for following the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted American women the right to vote.<\/em><\/p>\n

Most women will agree that August 23, the day when the Tennessee legislature finally enacted the Federal suffrage amendment, is a day to begin with, not a day to end with. Men are saying perhaps \u201cThank God, this everlasting woman\u2019s fight is over!\u201d But women, if I know them, are saying, \u201cNow at last we can begin.\u201d In fighting for the right to vote most women have tried to be either non-committal or thoroughly respectable on every other subject. Now they can say what they are really after; and what they are after, in common with all the rest of the struggling world, is freedom.<\/p>\n

Freedom is a large word.<\/p>\n

\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

What, then, is \u201cthe matter with women\u201d? What is the problem of women\u2019s freedom? It seems to me to be this: how to arrange the world so that women can be human beings, with a chance to exercise their infinitely varied gifts in infinitely varied ways, instead of being destined by the accident of their sex to one field of activity\u2014housework and child-raising. And second, if and when they choose housework and child-raising, to have that occupation recognized by the world as work, requiring a definite economic reward and not merely entitling the performer to be dependent on some man.<\/p>\n

This is not the whole of feminism, of course, but it is enough to begin with. \u201cOh, don\u2019t begin with economics,\u201d my friends often protest, \u201cWoman does not live by bread alone. What she needs first of all is a free soul.\u201d And I can agree that women will never be great until they achieve a certain emotional freedom, a strong healthy egotism, and some un-personal sources of joy \u2014 that in this inner sense we cannot make woman free by changing her economic status. What we can do, however, is to create conditions of outward freedom in which a free woman\u2019s soul can be born and grow. It is these outward conditions with which an organized feminist movement must concern itself.<\/p>\n

Freedom of choice in occupation and individual economic independence for women: How shall we approach this next feminist objective? First, by breaking down all remaining barriers, actual as well as legal, which make it difficult for women to enter or succeed in the various professions, to go into and get on in business, to learn trades and practice them, to join trades unions. Chief among these remaining barriers is inequality in pay. Here the ground is already broken. This is the easiest part of our program.<\/p>\n

Second, we must institute a revolution in the early training and education of both boys and girls. It must be womanly as well as manly to earn your own living, to stand on your own feet. And it must be manly as well as womanly to know how to cook and sew and clean and take care of yourself in the ordinary exigencies of life. I need not add that the second part of this revolution will be more passionately resisted than the first. Men will not give up their privilege of helplessness without a struggle. The average man has a carefully cultivated ignorance about household matters \u2014 from what to do with the crumbs to the grocer\u2019s telephone number \u2014 a sort of cheerful inefficiency which protects him better than the reputation for having a violent temper. It was his mother\u2019s fault in the beginning, but even as a boy he was quick to see how a general reputation for being \u201cno good around the house\u201d would serve him throughout life, and half-consciously he began to cultivate that helplessness until today it is the despair of feminist wives.<\/p>\n

\u2026<\/p>\n

Cooperative schemes and electrical devices will simplify the business of homemaking, but they will not get rid of it entirely. As far as we can see ahead people will always want homes, and a happy home cannot be had without a certain amount of rather monotonous work and responsibility. How can we change the nature of man so that he will honorably share that work and responsibility and thus make the homemaking enterprise a song instead of a burden? Most assuredly not by laws or revolutionary decrees. Perhaps we must cultivate or simulate a little of that highly prized helplessness ourselves. But fundamentally it is a problem of education, of early training \u2014 we must bring up feminist sons.<\/p>\n

Sons? Daughters? They are born of women \u2014 how can women be free to choose their occupation, at all times cherishing their economic independence, unless they stop having children? This is a further question for feminism. If the feminist program goes to pieces on the arrival of the first baby, it is false and useless. For ninety-nine out of every hundred women want children, and seventy-five out of every hundred want to take care of their own children, or at any rate so closely superintend their care as to make any other full-time occupation impossible for at least ten or fifteen years. Is there any such thing then as freedom of choice in occupation for women? And is not the family the inevitable economic unit and woman\u2019s individual economic independence, at least during that period, out of the question?<\/p>\n

The feminist must have an answer to these questions, and she has. The immediate feminist program must include voluntary motherhood. Freedom of any kind for women is hardly worth considering unless it is assumed that they will know how to control the size of their families. \u201cBirth control\u201d is just as elementary an essential in our propaganda as \u201cequal pay.\u201d Women are to have children when they want them, that\u2019s the first thing. That ensures some freedom of occupational choice; those who do not wish to be mothers will not have an undesired occupation thrust upon them by accident, and those who do wish to be mothers may choose in a general way how many years of their lives they will devote to the occupation of childraising.<\/p>\n

But is there any way of insuring a woman\u2019s economic independence while child-raising is her chosen occupation? Or must she sink into that dependent state from which, as we all know, it is so hard to rise again? That brings us to the fourth feature of our program \u2014 motherhood endowment. It seems that the only way we can keep mothers free, at least in a capitalist society, is by the establishment of a principle that the occupation of raising children is peculiarly and directly a service to society, and that the mother upon whom the necessity and privilege of performing this service naturally falls is entitled to an adequate economic reward from the political government. It is idle to talk of real economic independence for women unless this principle is accepted. But with a generous endowment of motherhood provided by legislation, with all laws against voluntary motherhood and education in its methods repealed, with the feminist ideal of education accepted in home and school, and with all special barriers removed in every field of human activity, there is no reason why woman should not become almost a human thing.<\/p>\n

It will be time enough then to consider whether she has a soul.<\/p>\n

[Source: Crystal Eastman, \u201cNow We Can Begin,\u201d Liberator <\/em>(December 1920).]<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>