the changes in our conception and expression of home life, so rapidly and steadily going on about us, involve many far-reaching effects, all helpful to human advancement. not the least of these is the improvement in our machinery of social intercourse.

this necessity of civilization was unknown in those primitive ages when family intercourse was sufficient for all, and when any further contact between individuals meant war. trade and its travel, the specialization of labor and the distribution of its products, with their ensuing development, have produced a wider, freer, and more frequent movement and interchange among the innumerable individuals whose interaction makes society. only recently, and as yet but partially, have women as individuals come to their share of this fluent social intercourse which is the essential condition of civilization. it is not merely a pleasure or an indulgence: it is the human necessity.

for women as individuals to meet men and other women as individuals, with no regard whatever to the family relation, is a growing demand of our time. as a social necessity, it is perforce being met in some fashion; but 296its right development is greatly impeded by the clinging folds of domestic and social customs derived from the sexuo-economic relation. the demand for a wider and freer social intercourse between the sexes rests, primarily, on the needs of their respective natures, but is developed in modern life to a far subtler and higher range of emotion than existed in the primitive state, where they had but one need and but one way of meeting it; and this demand, too, calls for a better arrangement of our machinery of living.

always in social evolution, as in other evolution, the external form suited to earlier needs is but slowly outgrown; and the period of transition, while the new functions are fumbling through the old organs, and slowly forcing mechanical expression for themselves, is necessarily painful. so far in our development, acting on a deep-seated conviction that the world consisted only of families and the necessary business arrangements involved in providing for those families, we have conscientiously striven to build and plan for family advantage, and either unconsciously or grudgingly have been forced to make transient provision for individuals. whatever did not tend to promote family life, and did tend to provide for the needs of individuals not at the 297time in family relation, we have deprecated in principle, though reluctantly forced to admit it in practice.

to this day articles are written, seriously and humorously, protesting against the increasing luxury and comfort of bachelor apartments for men, as well as against the pecuniary independence of women, on the ground that these conditions militate against marriage and family life. most men, even now, pass through a period of perhaps ten years, when they are individuals, business calling them away from their parental family, and business not allowing them to start new families of their own. women, also, more and more each year, are entering upon a similar period of individual life. and there is a certain permanent percentage of individuals, “odd numbers” and “broken sets,” who fall short of family life or who are left over from it; and these need to live.

the residence hotel, the boarding-house, club, lodging-house, and restaurant are our present provision for this large and constantly increasing class. it is not a travelling class. these are people who want to live somewhere for years at a time, but who are not married or otherwise provided with a family. home life being in our minds inextricably connected 298with married life, a home being held to imply a family, and a family implying a head, these detached persons are unable to achieve any home life, and are thereby subjected to the inconvenience, deprivation, and expense, the often unhygienic, and sometimes immoral influences, of our makeshift substitutes.

what the human race requires is permanent provision for the needs of individuals, disconnected from the sex-relation. our assumption that only married people and their immediate relatives have any right to live in comfort and health is erroneous. every human being needs a home,—bachelor, husband, or widower, girl, wife, or widow, young or old. they need it from the cradle to the grave, and without regard to sex-connections. we should so build and arrange for the shelter and comfort of humanity as not to interfere with marriage, and yet not to make that comfort dependent upon marriage. with the industries of home life managed professionally, with rooms and suites of rooms and houses obtainable by any person or persons desiring them, we could live singly without losing home comfort and general companionship, we could meet bereavement without being robbed of the common conveniences of living as well as of the heart’s love, and we could marry in 299ease and freedom without involving any change in the economic base of either party concerned.

married people will always prefer a home together, and can have it; but groups of women or groups of men can also have a home together if they like, or contiguous rooms. and individuals even could have a house to themselves, without having, also, the business of a home upon their shoulders.

take the kitchens out of the houses, and you leave rooms which are open to any form of arrangement and extension; and the occupancy of them does not mean “housekeeping.” in such living, personal character and taste would flower as never before; the home of each individual would be at last a true personal expression; and the union of individuals in marriage would not compel the jumbling together of all the external machinery of their lives,—a process in which much of the delicacy and freshness of love, to say nothing of the power of mutual rest and refreshment, is constantly lost. the sense of lifelong freedom and self-respect and of the peace and permanence of one’s own home will do much to purify and uplift the personal relations of life, and more to strengthen and extend the social relations. the individual will learn to feel himself an integral part of the social structure, 300in close, direct, permanent connection with the needs and uses of society.

this is especially needed for women, who are generally considered, and who consider themselves, mere fractions of families, and incapable of any wholesome life of their own. the knowledge that peace and comfort may be theirs for life, even if they do not marry,—and may be still theirs for life, even if they do,—will develope a serenity and strength in women most beneficial to them and to the world. it is a glaring proof of the insufficient and irritating character of our existing form of marriage that women must be forced to it by the need of food and clothes, and men by the need of cooks and housekeepers. we are absurdly afraid that, if men or women can meet these needs of life by other means, they will cheerfully renounce the marriage relation. and yet we sing adoringly of the power of love!

in reality, we may hope that the most valuable effect of this change in the basis of living will be the cleansing of love and marriage from this base admixture of pecuniary interest and creature comfort, and that men and women, eternally drawn together by the deepest force in nature, will be able at last to meet on a plane of pure and perfect love. we 301shame our own ideals, our deepest instincts, our highest knowledge, by this gross assumption that the noblest race on earth will not mate, or, at least, not mate monogamously, unless bought and bribed through the common animal necessities of food and shelter, and chained by law and custom.

the depth and purity and permanence of the marriage relation rest on the necessity for the prolonged care of children by both parents,—a law of racial development which we can never escape. when parents are less occupied in getting food and cooking it, in getting furniture and dusting it, they may find time to give new thought and new effort to the care of their children. the necessities of the child are far deeper than for bread and bed: those are his mere racial needs, held in common with all his kind. what he needs far more and receives far less is the companionship, the association, the personal touch, of his father and mother. when the common labors of life are removed from the home, we shall have the time, and perhaps the inclination, to make the personal acquaintance of our children. they will seem to us not so much creatures to be waited on as people to be understood. as the civil and military protection of society has long since superseded the 302tooth-and-claw defence of the fierce parent, without in the least endangering the truth and intensity of the family relation, so the economic provision of society will in time supersede the bringing home of prey by the parent, without evil effects to the love or prosperity of the family. these primitive needs and primitive methods of meeting them are unquestionably at the base of the family relation; but we have long passed them by, and the ties between parent and child are not weakened, but strengthened, by the change.

the more we grow away from these basic conditions, the more fully we realize the deeper and higher forms of relation which are the strength and the delight of human life. full and permanent provision for individual life and comfort will not cut off the forces that draw men and women together or hold children to their parents; but it will purify and intensify these relations to a degree which we can somewhat foretell by observing the effect of such changes as are already accomplished in this direction. and, in freeing the individual, old and young, from enforced association on family lines, and allowing this emergence into free association on social lines, we shall healthfully assist the development of true social intercourse.

303the present economic basis of family life holds our friendly and familiar intercourse in narrow grooves. such visiting and mingling as is possible to us is between families rather than between individuals; and the growing specialization of individuals renders it increasingly unlikely that all the members of a given family shall please a given visitor or he please them. this, on our present basis, either checks the intercourse or painfully strains the family relation. the change of economic relation in families from a sex-basis to a social basis will make possible wide individual intercourse without this accompanying strain on the family ties.

this outgoing impulse among members of families, their growing desire for general and personal social intercourse, has been considered as a mere thirst for amusement, and deprecated by the moralist. he has so far maintained that the highest form of association was association with one’s own family, and that a desire for a wider and more fluent relationship was distinctly unworthy. “he is a good family man,” we say admiringly of him who asks only for his newspaper and slippers in the evening; and for the woman who dares admit that she wishes further society than that of her husband we have but one name. with 304the children, too, our constant effort is to “keep the boys at home,” to “make home attractive,” so that our ancient ideal, the patriarchal ideal, of a world of families and nothing else, may be maintained.

but this is a world of persons as well as of families. we are persons as soon as we are born, though born into families. we are persons when we step out of families, and persons still, even when we step into new families of our own. as persons, we need more and more, in each generation, to associate with other persons. it is most interesting to watch this need making itself felt, and getting itself supplied, by fair means or foul, through all these stupid centuries. in our besotted exaggeration of the sex-relation, we have crudely supposed that a wish for wider human relationship was a wish for wider sex-relationship, and was therefore to be discouraged, as in spain it was held unwise to teach women to write, lest they become better able to communicate with their lovers, and so shake the foundations of society.

but, when our sex-relation is made pure and orderly by the economic independence of women, when sex-attraction is no longer a consuming fever, forever convulsing the social surface, under all its bars and chains, we shall 305not be content to sit down forever with half a dozen blood relations for our whole social arena. we shall need each other more, not less, and shall recognize that social need of one another as the highest faculty of this the highest race on earth.

the force which draws friends together is a higher one than that which draws the sexes together,—higher in the sense of belonging to a later race-development. “passing the love of women” is no unmeaning phrase. children need one another: young people need one another. middle-aged people need one another: old people need one another. we all need one another, much and often. just as every human creature needs a place to be alone in, a sacred, private “home” of his own, so all human creatures need a place to be together in, from the two who can show each other their souls uninterruptedly, to the largest throng that can throb and stir in unison.

humanity means being together, and our unutterably outgrown way of living keeps us apart. how many people, if they dare face the fact, have often hopelessly longed for some better way of seeing their friends, their own true friends, relatives by soul, if not by body!

306acting always under the heated misconceptions of our over-sexed minds, we have pictured mankind as a race of beasts whose only desire to be together was based on one great, overworked passion, and who were only kept from universal orgies of promiscuity by being confined in homes. this is not true. it is not true even now in our over-sexed condition. it will be still less true when we are released from the artificial pressure of the sexuo-economic relation and grow natural again.

men, women, and children need freedom to mingle on a human basis; and that means to mingle in their daily lives and occupations, not to go laboriously to see each other, with no common purpose. we all know the pleasant acquaintance and deep friendship that springs up when people are thrown together naturally, at school, at college, on shipboard, in the cars, in a camping trip, in business. the social need of one another rests at bottom on a common, functional development; and the common, functional service is its natural opportunity.

the reason why friendship means more to men than to women, and why they associate so much more easily and freely, is that they are further developed in race-functions, and that they work together. in the natural association 307of common effort and common relaxation is the true opening for human companionship. just to put a number of human beings in the same room, to relate their bodies as to cubic space, does not relate their souls. our present methods of association, especially for women, are most unsatisfactory. they arise, and go to “call” on one another. they solemnly “return” these calls. they prepare much food, and invite many people to come and eat it; or some dance, music, or entertainment is made the temporary ground of union. but these people do not really meet one another. they pass whole lifetimes in going through the steps of these elaborate games, and never become acquainted. there is a constant thirst among us for fuller and truer social intercourse; but our social machinery provides no means for quenching it.

men have satisfied this desire in large measure; but between women, or between men and women, it is yet far from accomplishment. men meet one another freely in their work, while women work alone. but the difference is sharpest in their play. “girls don’t have any fun!” say boys, scornfully; and they don’t have very much. what they do have must come, like their bread and butter, on lines of sex. some man must give 308them what amusement they have, as he must give them everything else. men have filled the world with games and sports, from the noble contests of the olympic plain to the brain and body training sports of to-day, good, bad, and indifferent. through all the ages the men have played; and the women have looked on, when they were asked. even the amusing occupation of seeing other people do things was denied them, unless they were invited by the real participants. the “queen of the ball-room” is but a wall-flower, unless she is asked to dance by the real king.

even to-day, when athletics are fast opening to women, when tennis and golf and all the rest are possible to them, the two sexes are far from even in chances to play. to want a good time is not the same thing as to want the society of the other sex, and to make a girl’s desire for a good time hang so largely on her power of sex-attraction is another of the grievous strains we put upon that faculty. that people want to see each other is construed by us to mean that “he” wants to see “her,” and “she” wants to see “him.” the fun and pleasure of the world are so interwound with the sex-dependence of women upon men that women are forced to court “attentions,” when not really desirous of anything 309but amusement; and, as we force the association of the sexes on this plane, so we restrict it on a more wholesome one.

even our little children in their play are carefully trained to accentuate sex; and a line of conduct for boys, differing from that for girls, is constantly insisted upon long before either would think of a necessity for such difference. girls and boys, as they associate, are so commented on and teased as to destroy all wholesome friendliness, and induce a premature sex-consciousness. young men and women are allowed to associate more or less freely, but always on a strictly sex-basis, friendship between man and woman being a common laughing-stock. every healthy boy and girl resents this, and tries to hold free, natural relation; but such social pressure is hard to resist. she may have as many “beaux” as she can compass, he may “pay attention” to as many girls as he pleases; but that is their only way to meet.

the general discontinuance of all friendly visiting, upon the engagement of either party, proves the nature of the bond. having chosen the girl he is to marry, why care to call upon any others? having chosen the man she is to marry, why receive attention from any others? these “calls” and “attentions” being all in 310the nature of tentative preliminaries to possible matrimony. and, after marriage, the wife is never supposed to wish to see any other man than her husband, or the husband any other woman than his wife. in some countries, we vary this arrangement by increasing the social freedom of married people; but the custom is accompanied by a commensurate lack of freedom before marriage, which causes questionable results, both in married life and in social life. in the higher classes of society there is always more freedom of social intercourse between the sexes after marriage; but, speaking generally of america, there is very little natural and serious acquaintance between men and women after the period of pre-matrimonial visiting.

even the friendship which may have existed between husband and wife before marriage is often destroyed by that relation and its economic complications. they have not time to talk about things as they used: they are too near together, and too deeply involved in the industrial and financial concern of their new business. this works steadily against the development of higher and purer relations between men and women, and tends to keep them forever to the one primitive bond of sex-union.

311a young man goes to a city to live and work. he needs the society of women as well as of men. formerly he had his mother, his sisters, and his sisters’ friends, his schoolmates. now he must face our constrained social conditions. he may visit two kinds of women,—those whom we call “good,” and those whom we call “bad.” (this classification rests on but one moral quality, and that a sexual one.) he naturally prefers the good. the good are divided, again, into two kinds,—married and single. if he visit a married woman frequently, it is remarked upon: it becomes unpleasant, he does not do it. if he visit an unmarried woman frequently, it is also remarked upon; and he is considered to have “intentions.” his best alternative is to visit a number of unmarried women, and distribute his attentions so cautiously that no one can claim them as personal.

here he enters on the first phase of our sexuo-economic relation: he cannot even visit girls freely without paying for it. simply to see the girl by calling on her in the family circle is hardly what either wants of the other. one does not meet half a dozen people of various ages and of both sexes as one meets a friend alone. to seek to see her alone is an “attention.” to “take her out” costs 312money, and he cheerfully pays it. but he cannot do this too often, or he will become involved in what is naturally considered a “serious” affair; and every step of the acquaintance is watched and commented upon from a sexual point of view.

there is no natural, simple medium of social intercourse between men and women. the young man can but learn that his popularity depends largely on his pocket-book. the money that he might be saving for marriage is wasted on these miscellaneous preliminaries. as he sees what women like and how much it costs to please them, his hope of marriage recedes farther and farther. the period during which he must live as an individual grows longer; and he becomes accustomed to superficial acquaintance with many women, on the shallowest side of life, with no opportunity for genuine association and true friendship. what wonder that the other kind of woman, who also costs money, it is true, but who does not involve permanent obligation, has come to be so steady a factor in our social life? the sexuo-economic relation promotes vice in more ways than one.

the economic independence of woman will change all these conditions as naturally and inevitably as her dependence has introduced 313them. in her specialization in industry, she will develope more personality and less sexuality; and this will lower the pressure on this one relation in both women and men. and, in our social intercourse, the new character and new method of living will allow of broad and beautiful developments in human association. as the private home becomes a private home indeed, and no longer the woman’s social and industrial horizon; as the workshops of the world—woman’s sphere as well as man’s—become homelike and beautiful under her influence; and as men and women move freely together in the exercise of common racial functions,—we shall have new channels for the flow of human life.

we shall not move from the isolated home to the sordid shop and back again, in a world torn and dissevered by the selfish production of one sex and the selfish consumption of the other; but we shall live in a world of men and women humanly related, as well as sexually related, working together, as they were meant to do, for the common good of all. the home will be no longer an economic entity, with its cumbrous industrial machinery huddled vulgarly behind it, but a peaceful and permanent expression of personal life as withdrawn from social contact; and that social 314contact will be provided for by the many common meeting-places necessitated by the organization of domestic industries.

the assembling-room is as deep a need of human life as the retiring-room,—not some ball-room or theatre, to which one must be invited of set purpose, but great common libraries and parlors, baths and gymnasia, work-rooms and play-rooms, to which both sexes have the same access for the same needs, and where they may mingle freely in common human expression. the kind of buildings essential to the carrying out of the organization of home industry will provide such places. there will be the separate rooms for individuals and the separate houses for families; but there will be, also, the common rooms for all. these must include a place for the children, planned and built for the happy occupancy of many children for many years,—a home such as no children have ever had. this, as well as rooms everywhere for young people and old people, in which they can be together as naturally as they can be alone, without effort, question, or remark.

such an environment would allow of free association among us, on lines of common interest; and, in its natural, easy flow, we should develope far higher qualities than are 315brought out by the uneasy struggles of our present “society” to see each other without wanting to. it would make an enormous difference to woman’s power of choosing the right man. cut off from the purchasing power which is now his easiest way to compass his desires, freely seen and known in his daily work and amusements, a woman could know and judge a man as she is wholly unable to do now. her personality developed by a free and useful life, clear-headed and open-eyed,—a woman still, but a personality as well as a woman,—the girl trained to economic independence, and associating freely with young men in their common work and play, would learn a new estimate of what constitutes noble manhood.

the young man, no longer able to cover all his shortcomings with a dress-coat, and to obtain absolution for every offence by the simple penance of paying for it, unable really to do much that was wrong for lack of the old opportunity and the old incentive, constantly helped and inspired by the friendly presence of honest and earnest womanhood, would have all the force of natural law to lift him up instead of pulling him heavily downward, as it does now.

with the pressure of our over-developed 316sex-instinct lifted off the world, born clean and strong, of noble-hearted, noble-minded, noble-bodied mothers, trained in the large wisdom of the new motherhood, and living freely in daily association with the best womanhood, a new kind of man can and will grow on earth. what this will mean to the race in power and peace and happiness no eye can foresee. but this much we can see:—that our once useful sexuo-economic relation is being outgrown, that it now produces many evil phenomena, and that its displacement by the economic freedom of woman will of itself set free new forces, to develope in us, by their natural working, the very virtues for which we have striven and agonized so long.

this change is not a thing to prophesy and plead for. it is a change already instituted, and gaining ground among us these many years with marvellous rapidity. neither men nor women wish the change. neither men nor women have sought it. but the same great force of social evolution which brought us into the old relation—to our great sorrow and pain—is bringing us out, with equal difficulty and distress. the time has come when it is better for the world that women be economically independent, and therefore they are becoming so.

317it is worth while for us to consider the case fully and fairly, that we may see what it is that is happening to us, and welcome with open arms the happiest change in human condition that ever came into the world. to free an entire half of humanity from an artificial position; to release vast natural forces from a strained and clumsy combination, and set them free to work smoothly and easily as they were intended to work; to introduce conditions that will change humanity from within, making for better motherhood and fatherhood, better babyhood and childhood, better food, better homes, better society,—this is to work for human improvement along natural lines. it means enormous racial advance, and that with great swiftness; for this change does not wait to create new forces, but sets free those already potentially strong, so that humanity will fly up like a released spring. and it is already happening. all we need do is to understand and help.