“I suppose there has been a change in the position of women since my day?” “In politics and in business, there is now no distinction on account of sex. A woman may be president or governor of a state, a senator or judge. Women are to be found in every department of business, and are fully as successful as the men. This materially disturbed the organization of the family, as it was before your time. The man was then the legal and often the actual head of the family, and both the wife and the children were supposed to be under his authority within certain limits. But as the sphere of woman extended and she became better educated, she soon passed the condition in which she was content to be subordinate to the man. She insisted upon and of course secured a position of equality as to legal rights and equal authority in the family. In your day the principal occupation of women was in domestic life, keeping the house and rearing the children. As women became interested in wider activities, many of them began to seek ways of avoiding family cares. Co-operative house-keeping was tried in many cases, kindergartens taking charge of the children.
[114]
“The state had for a long time asserted an interest in the education of children, first providing the means of education, then making it compulsory. Finding that some were kept from school from the inability of parents to provide books, the state provided books to those who needed them. Then because the pride of those who accepted this bounty, was wounded by this advertisement of their poverty, it became necessary for the state to furnish books to all children, both of the rich and the poor. Next it was found that want of suitable clothes kept some from school that ought to attend, and so the state commenced to supply school clothes to them and by a similar process of evolution finally came to supply a school uniform to all children. It was also perceived that the interest of the state in the individual did not end when it had taught him the three R’s and the two G’s; in fact it had only fairly begun. It was all important to the state to know whether the child she had educated was going to employ his talents for good or for ill. It was expected he would carve his way and make his living, but if he were not given an opportunity to learn an honest vocation, was it certain that he would not drift into a dishonest one? It was seen to be the duty of the state to see that every youth of both sexes were given such opportunity to learn some trade or occupation. This became the more necessary on account of the trades unions and combinations amongst working men who naturally were anxious to prevent their ranks from being crowded and jealously threw obstacles in the way of apprentices, so the state found it necessary[115] to care for the individual until he had attained the equipment essential for his self support.
“At first the state schools of trades were simply free to all; later they became compulsory, following the experience of the common schools. Scholars in the common school were educated with reference to the trade they fancied, and when they entered the trade school they were on trial for a limited period and were sorted according to their ascertained aptitudes. It became a necessary branch of the supervision of the state to ascertain the proper proportion of workmen required for each branch of business and when this proportion was being seriously disturbed by unequal selection by the scholars themselves, it was restored by state selection on examination according to aptitude.
“So much of the care and education of the youth having thus been assumed by the state, the way was opened for more. It was said that half the people who had children did not know how to bring them up properly; and teachers often complained that the example in bad manners, deportment, language etc., that the children got at home to a great extent neutralized the good lessons in these things they received at school.
“The kindergartens became by almost insensible degrees enlarged in the scope of their functions. At first, as in your day, they were merely stopping places for the children during the day, they going back to their parents to spend the night. As the mothers came to be more and more engrossed in affairs away from home, the kindergartens extended[116] their care over the children, furnishing them their meals, then their lodging, then medical attendance as well as education and amusement, finally assuming all the care and expense of maintaining and rearing them. At first the expense was paid by the parents, but was gradually assumed by the state by degrees till it finally became responsible for all. The advantage of these public nurseries was at first of course most marked in favor of the poorer classes. But as their functions and scope developed, the care and training of the children became more scientific, their powers, tastes and aptitudes were more thoroughly brought out. The wealthier classes at first objected to having their children reared in association with the plebians. But the children of plebians were no longer plebian when removed permanently from the influences of their parent’s homes; and they turned out a larger percentage of successful men and women than those of more comfortable position. In physical and mental ability they were superior, and in morality at least equal to the others. It was seen that these kindergartens were better adapted for the care of children than even the better equipped homes, and they received the patronage of a constantly increasing proportion of the people. At first there was nothing compulsory in this patronage. Parents left their children when it suited them, and took them away when they chose. But after a time this was outgrown. It came gradually to be understood that the state—that is the whole community—was really as much concerned in the destiny of the growing generation as the[117] parents; and it was said that it was better that the children should have the constant care and attention of those intelligently qualified and perfectly equipped, than that their development should be interrupted when the caprice of parents craved them only for pets and playthings. So the selfishness of parents in this respect was gradually outgrown in favor of the more important welfare of the children. But economy as well as sentiment supported this evolution. The cost of caring for the children by the state was vastly less than under the old system, and it no longer fell with such crushing weight on those least able to bear it; for it was notorious that the poor were the most prolific. With the better care they received the mortality amongst the children was greatly reduced and a far greater proportion reached maturity. Another important consideration in the state nursery system was the cultivation of the democratic sentiment amongst the children, and the destruction of exclusiveness and aristocratic ideas and feelings.”
“From what you say,” said I, “it appears that the state has undertaken to take care of the race during their age of helplessness, from infancy to manhood.”
“That is correct,” he answered, “the state takes the child as soon as it is weaned, sometimes before, and keeps and provides for it every day till it is prepared to be selfsupporting. Every one is taught a trade or a profession according to its bent and the demand for services in the several callings, it being the policy of the state to so regulate[118] these things that the value of services is about the same in all callings.”
“Then can a mechanic make as much as a doctor?”
“About the same. As soon as any difference is observed, more are encouraged to enter the calling that tends to the higher pay, and so made to preserve the uniformity.”
“Well, if the state begins when the child is weaned, to take care of it, why should it not begin before—a long time before in fact? For ante-natal influences are often of the most powerful kind; and when they are mischievous, no amount of subsequent education is able to neutralize or rectify them. That was all thought out in my day by the more advanced thinkers.”
“O they have “maternity hospitals” and “Homes for Ladies” and all that sort of things—of course—but what you mean; not yet. That is still in the future—but we shall find it by and by in a way that will surprise you.”
............