The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-06-23
LESS VENEER, MORE DIVORCES
SOCIAL CHANGES CAUSED nv
WOMAN'S EMANCIPATION.

O ~ $1,000 "pAhhA II INslOlHn
to one Of the most conservative American
families say with conviction:
sThe prevalence Of divorce in this countrv
is the outcome Of the emancipation n
women"
The remark savored OF clubdom and
platform oratory, and yet the lis, erAru
knew that the speaker had never in be,
life attended a woman's club meeting q,
listened to women speechmakers. l. wa,
ELECTED by a story about a Canadian woman
Of title then on q visit to New York, told
by another guest. Said the narrator.
when 1 asked Lady Blank why she
did not stay over for a part Of the New.
por5 season she answered with affected
alarm:
*'Oh, dear me, l couldn't think of such
a thing. I am not at all up on divorce
etiquette, and / understand that Newport
abounds in Divorces
at was nasty Of her, OF course, and I
think she meant TO be nasty. Neverthe.
less l had TO acknowledge the corn
The remark about emancipation and
divorce was followed by silence. Then
the hostess asked the speaker what she
meant.
"In our grandmother's time was thu
reply, what fashionable woman, or let US
say what woman in good society. dreamed
Of going to the theatre or opera or any
other place of amusement at night without
a man to escort her?
Thirty years or 90 ago when a womana
husband refused to take her out Of an
evening she mostly stayed at home. At
that date. as my family legends prove,
married men were quite as prone as they
are now " affect stag parties and TO spend
their evenings away from their own fire.
sides. So far as l can discover the New
York man has not changed his social habits
at all. 1t 10 the woman who has changed
hers, and all because Of emancipation.
Now don't ask me to define the word.
] think my little daughter Of s has the mean
out with her fists at her boy cousin OF the
same age in .self-defenoe Inc when her
governess told her that ladies nSver use
their fists the baoy answered quick as q
fash:
.sIf gentlemen use their fists then ladies
can use them, too
Emancipation means. ! suppose. different
things to different women, but In general
1t means more nearly a tit for tat sort Of,
game than men and women used TO play
and decidedly more independence for the
latter. Said a lear old lady TO me when,
Il AhNI III NO VI n OOShol
l was planning for the summer atmy coun-
S"My dear, had 1 lone anything so con-
spicuous when l was your age l would have
been severely criticised
well, perhaps ! shall be criticised,
told her. But l don't care a button II
sIAh, that is the difference between the
old and the new order Of things she an
swered. In my day a woman was terribly
afraid Of criticism
"But why should emancipation be q
promoter OF ~wickedness?' a very young
married woman asked.
]It's not"
But about divorce2 You said"
Il never said or meant to say that because
have r~etrograded morally. ! am tired, in
fact, Of hearing that view Of the question
aired by persons who don't know
anything at first hand about the subject.
3On the whole / think men and
in fashionable society are no better and no
a little more veneer possibly to cover up
their indiscretions and women use less
veneer than they onoe did. and that is
about all"
'You think fewer divorces thirty years
age ! C,t than ~, now " meant ,e at merely that w HmPf.o
opinion2' said the hostess.
Precisely. In those days people. tried,
whether wisely or not, to keep the family
skeleton locked up.
For a woman Of fashion to appear in
court or to have any. OF her marital e1-
oeriences aired in public was considered
such shockingly bad form that most women
would and did decide to suffer on In silence
'ather than run the risk OF FORGETTING the
good opinion Of Mrs. Grundy. For example,
~progenitor Of mine, one OF the most popu-
ar men Of his day, kept up two establish
nents for many years before his death.
His wife was perfectly ware OF the fact,
Is were his intimate friends.
III ever a woman was entitled to a divorce
hat mans wife was. and probably she
lp that precious husband Of hers In his
rue colors, No, OF course, she did nothing
4 the sort. Divorce was not in fashion
hen. Women hadn't begun to hold meet
ngs and talk equal rights.
'Ask any woman who moved in New
,ork society twenty-five or thirty years
and she will tell you that the men who
eserved rounding UP in q divorce court
'ere just as plentiful then as now.
That may be true of the men, but the
surely
Emancipation again. According TO the
ocial ethics OF those days there was a ire
gap between the codes of morals
lid down for man and for woman. Men
tho were welcomed in drawing rooms
men who were famed for the number
tnelT d1nOurs, WOulQ not Dc Tolerated IN I
ne same houses to-day. No matter how
man carried on outside OF his home
is wife understood that she must be politely |
bliyious and keep quiet. She generally
id keep quiet.
1T was not often that a neglected wife,
on the quiet, solaoed herself with
lie attentions OF other men. II was i'm
ossible 10 do 20 openly without getting
lie cold shoulder OF all her friends, ana
hen one or another more daring than
lie rest risked the cold shoulder the eE.
generally ended In her subse-
tent discontinue.
mo matter how intensely she longed
break the marriage bonds, she was bound
and foot by conventions which do
1t countenance divorce. In short, man
as it a quarter OF a century ago and
oman had to deport herself accordingly
lose social prestige.
Emancipation has brought a decided
Iange. Nowadays to some extent men
I'd women must take the same medicine
r marital unfaithiulness and incom- \
.ttbihty. The penalty is no longer one Y
ded.
IF a nan consistently ~neglects bis wife
is reasonably sure hat before long he
III have 70 get a new wife 20 neglect, and
ce versa, Woman has given up suffering
silence.