Women and Economics (1898)

By Christian Perring, Ph.D.

I
This is a sophisticated analysis of women's economic role in western society at the end of the nineteenth century. In the extract we have in Social and Political Theory, Gilman argues that women are totally economically dependent on their male relatives, such as their husbands or fathers. That is to say, their economic position is more like that of children or even animals, rather than being equal with men. First, she defines what she means by "economic dependence."  It is the opposite of being economically independent.  Now, economic independence does not mean being able to survive without any interaction with others: people in society do rely on each other's skills; Gilman gives the examples of using shoemakers and house builders.  As she says, "all social life is economically interdependent." (396).  Economic independence, according to Gilman, means that "the individual pays for what he gets, works for what he gets, gives to the other an equivalent for what the other gives him."

Part of her argument is to deny the claim that women have a "separate but equal" role in society; for example, as partners in a marriage (396). The fact that a woman helps her husband be happy does not mean that she is his partner, any more than his housekeeper is his business partner. To be a business partner, one needs to contribute money and relevant skill and work to the business. But women do not play such a role. (397)

The next possibility that Gilman argues against is that although women are not business partners, they earn their share of wealth through their housework.  Gilman agrees that women do indeed have an economic influence on society, but she points that that this does not in itself mean that women have economic independence from men.  For examples, horses are also "economic factors" in society, but clearly they are not economically independent.  She says that women are not employed by their husbands; rather, they do their work as part of their "functional duty."  As further evidence for this view, she points out that the reward that women get for their work is not proportional to how much work they do--indeed, it is the other way around: poor women do much more work than rich women.  If it were true that women are paid for their housework, it would mean that they should have the low economic status of a house keeper (398).

Gilman moves on to rule out another suggestion, that women get paid for their work as mothers.  She says this can't be true, because if it were, then women who are not mothers would not get any financial reward at all.  But in fact childless wives are just as wealthy as other women, often financially better off because their husbands' money is not being spent on children.  When we consider the suggestion, we see it is revolting to suggest that women are paid to bear and nurture their children.

At this stage in the argument, Gilman takes it that she has proven that women are financially dependent on men, in much the same way that children and farm animals are.  The next idea she considers (and rejects) is that, as for children and farm animals, it is right and proper that women should be supported by men, because their role as mothers is incompatible with being economically independent (399).  Gilman pours scorn on this idea. She points out that in fact generally mothers work harder than anyone else, often laboring for their whole families and even their churches.

In spite of her supposed segregation to maternal duties, the human female, the world over, works at extra-maternal duties for hours enough to provide her with an independent living, and then is denied independence on the ground that motherhood prevents her working!

XI
Here Gilman explains why the current arrangement of society is such a waste, and makes some proposals for how it could be improved.  She takes the example of cooking, and points out that although women do most of the cooking, they do it badly.  Women remain amateur cooks, and even spread disease through their lack of knowledge.  "The development of any human labor requires specialization, and specialization is forbidden to our cook-by-nature system."   In this system, there are "endless generations of isolated women, each beginning again where her mother began before her." (400).  The people who have become experts at cooking are professional men cooks and chemists.

Gilman sets out a vision for the future which she believes will soon come about:

If there should be built and opened in any one of our large cities to-day a commodious and well-served apartment house for professional women with families, it would be filled at once.  The apartments would be without kitchens; but there would be a kitchen belonging to the house from which meals could be served to the families in their rooms or in a common diningroom, as preferred.  It would be a home where the cleaning was done by efficient workers, not hired separately by the families, but engaged by the manager of the establishment; and a roof-garden, day nursery, and kindergarten, under well-trained professional nurses and teachers, would be insure proper care of the children. (401)

Gilman's vision of the future is set out in much greater detail in her novel Herland.

The questions you will be asked to answer on Gilman will be drawn from the following: (you should be able to write at least a page--250 words--for each answer)

• Explain in your own words what Gilman means when she writes. "The female of the genus homo is economically dependent on the male."  (Do not give her argument for this claim, just explain what her claim is exactly.")
• What does Gilman reply to those who say that wives are economically independent because they are their husbands' business partners?
• What does Gilman reply to those who say that women are economically independent because they earn their keep through the housework that they do?
• What does Gilman reply to those who say that women are economically independent because they earn their keep though being mothers?
• What does Gilman reply to those who say that women have to be economically dependent on men because, as mothers, they are not capable of being economically independent?
• Gilman writes in "Women and Economics" Chapter XI,

The art and science of cooking involve a large and thorough knowledge of nutritive value and of the laws of physiology and hygiene.  As a science, it verges on preventative medicine.  As an art, it is capable of noble expression within its natural bounds.  As it stands among us to-day, it is so far from being a science and akin to preventative medicine, that it is the lowest of amateur handicrafts and a prolific source of disease; and as an art, it has developed as a sex-function into a voluptuous profusion as false as it is evil.  Our innocent proverb, "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach," is a painfully plain comment on the way in which we have come to deprave our bodies and degrade our souls at the table.

1. Why does Gilman think that women remain so amateur in their cooking skills?
2. What is Gilman's solution to the social problem she describes here?