PRESSING HIS TROUSERS

It is a great privilege to be civilized. Uncivilized people have too little regard for what their neighbors think; although there is just the possibility that uncivilized neighbors are not disposed to be censorious.

Two people, in civilization, who become enamoured of each other and have the prompting to rear a family, must first consult the neighborhood and secure the sanction of some authority under proper and altogether necessary forms or incantations.

Should they discover that they were mistaken in the strength of the attachment which brought them together, they can again go to the neighborhood with their grievances, and by subjecting their differences to other formula, they may be relieved of the burden of continuing an untenable relation.

Uncivilized people would regard so intimate a relation as concerning only the contracting parties themselves. Their point of view is warranted by their state of uncivilizedness.

The ethics of civilization demand that we be thoroughly unselfish in such matters. If we find that our marriage contracts have involved us in misery, we should bear up under the affliction. It is but little to suffer for the good of civilization. The Tolstoian doctrine of non-resistance should serve well in a divorce court. If I can convince a court that I am dead in love with my husband I can get a decree within an hour. If it becomes known that I am miserably unhappy with my spouse, the court will deny me relief. If you analyze it critically you will see the wisdom of that. Why should people separate merely because they cannot agree? Disagreement is a good reason for them to keep on living together. Uncivilized people would separate when harmony ceases, but the ethics of civilized people is to be unselfish, and the more misery you have the larger the duty implied.

A Chicago man applied for a divorce, and his petition set forth the specification that “tootsie wootsie” failed to perform her wifely functions, and refused to do her bounden duty in not pressing “hubby’s trousers.”

The club women of Chicago have seldom enjoyed a more enticing subject. And I thought that I, too, would take a hand in this discussion, and figure out in my own way whether it be indeed a woman’s duty to press her husband’s trousers. I picked up Webster’s unabridged dictionary to find what duty was, and I saw that he divided it into three classes, natural, social, and legal.

A man’s obligation to nature is called his natural duty; his obligation to society is his moral duty; his compliance with the law is his legal duty.

Angels may well fear to tread upon the sacred ground pre-empted by the definition-makers. I am a fool, and have no fear about rushing into the fray, and declaring that when Webster does not agree with me, then Noah is wrong, and that there is no other duty than legal duty. We look in vain for the germ of duty in nature. It is not the duty of the lightning to flash; it just flashes. It is not the duty of the bird to sing; it sings. It is not the duty of the rose to emit perfume; nor of the dunghill to—but why go into unsavory crannies, though nature lead the way? Nor is there any evidence of moral duty anywhere on the mental horizon. There is only Love that prompts us, and wherever anything is done that is not done by love it is done by hypocrisy. Surely duty is not hypocrisy—or am I foolish in saying this? If one be honest only from a sense of duty, how honest is he?

But legal duty is a “sure-enough” concept. We may obey our parents because we honor them. He is a coward who obeys from fear. Hence obedience yielded from any other sense than that of love is cowardice, not duty. Shall we exalt cowardice? Being a fool I would advise against that course. What say you, O ye wise? Duty means to do something you don’t like to do, while obedience to nature is one of joy, besides giving you health, pleasure, and happiness. Nature will always give you the desire to fulfil the obligation she imposes upon you. Disobey nature and she will punish you with ill health and misery. Society will thank you for complying with its moral obligations. If you are the cause of stopping a runaway horse, thereby preventing an accident; if you save a drowning person, or in any manner become active in averting danger to others, you become a hero. You have the praise of the public. Society will shun and look down upon you if you have not the welfare of others at heart. Rewards for obedience and punishment for disobedience are the methods by which life imposes its obligation on the individual.

Now, our legal duty is to obey the laws. There is no direct reward for obedience to legal behests, but there is punishment for disobedience, if one be not careful. Hence the first duty of the citizen is to beware lest he be caught undutifully attitudinizing toward the law of the land. There are some laws so adjusted that there is a direct reward for conformity. As for instance, those enactments that provide that one-half the penalty be awarded the informer. A fool might wish that the penalty in all such cases were lashes on the bare back, in order that the informer might be justly rewarded. However, it is not for the fool to make laws. Then there are extra rewards for officers of the law to perform so disagreeable a “duty” as to hang or electrocute the condemned. There is here a sort of confession that society is requiring from an officer a service which itself condemns, and soothes the conscience of the functionary with some thirty pieces of silver. It is against the natural feeling of man to kill, maim, or injure his fellows, and therefore he must be paid for his act in some more substantial manner than the mere recognition of duty done. And so, in greater or lesser degree, all these things which are done from a sense of duty are in conflict with the natural and moral perceptions of man. Any other compliance with “good citizenship” does not hinge upon the duty spook at all. A mother nurses her child, not because she has to, but because she loves to. If you dislike to take a fool’s dictum for this, analyze for yourself, and see where it leads you. Hence the whole scheme of society is being sustained by an artificial prop. It is the province of the school and church to keep this prop continually braced. Obedience to the law is the surface cry of these institutions. They teach it, preach it, insist upon it, yet all the cajolery and blandishments employed are not sufficient without the element of force. And with all the force that is exerted to sustain the laws, they are violated continually. There is no one, however much inoculated with the duty spook, who does not violate some law some of the time, though perhaps it cannot be said that any one violates all the law all the time. Yet the more conscious we are of disobedience to existing laws, the more new laws we pile upon our statute books to be broken.

Pressing a husband’s trousers does not appear to be a natural duty. If it be a natural pleasure, then the reward for doing the pressing is the pleasure that follows the operation. The woman in the case cited seemingly derived no pleasure from pressing the trousers of her lord and master. Hence nature had no voice in the case. Nor could such a service be called a moral duty, inasmuch as there is nowhere a moral code whereby one could be adjudged immoral by refraining from applying the pressure of a hot iron to hubby’s “pants.” Indeed, it may be said that the custom is one more honored in the breeches than in the trousers. But that is the comment of a fool, and need not be seriously considered. I am ostracized for being a fool, but I have never yet heard of a woman being ostracized for omitting to press her husband’s trousers, nor, on the other hand, have I ever heard a woman praised for faithful attention to the requirements of her husband’s bifurcated garments. Even at funerals of noble women have I never heard (and generally at that time all the good deeds, big or little, are said in her favor) the funeral orator say, “Here lies a noble woman who never missed a day without pressing her husband’s trousers.”

While there is a question of legal duty, no penalty seems to have been prescribed for non-observance, and no legal reward for compliance. Perhaps if after all it were a legal duty, you would find that the wife of each public functionary would be setting a lofty example by being photographed at the ironing-board and having a daily levee at pressing time. And by not doing it, it is plainly to be seen, that it is not a legal duty. While it is neither natural, moral, nor legal to press husband’s pants, yet if your husband be a tailor, and you an industrious woman, you will press pants, sew buttons, and do anything to help along.