[832] _Cf._ STETSON, _op. cit._, 156 ff. "The woman's club movement is one of the most important sociological phenomena of the century--indeed, of all centuries--marking as it does the first timid steps toward social organization of these so long unsocialized members of our race;" for "social life is absolutely conditioned upon organization."--_Ibid._, 164. On woman's clubs see CROLY, _Hist. of the Woman's Club Movement in America_; HENROTIN, _Attitude of Women's Clubs Toward Social Economics_; LIVERMORE, _North Am. Rev._, CL, 115; ANSTRUTHER, _Nineteenth Century_, XLV, 598-611; and a symposium in _Arena_, VI, 362-88. The financial dependence of the wife is discussed by COOKE, "Real Rights of Women," _North Am. Rev._, CXLIX, 353, 354; and by IVES, "Domestic Purse Strings," _Forum_, X, 106-14, showing the hardships and temptations of wives dependent upon the husband for current supplies of money.
We are thus confronted by still another phase of the emancipation movement--the divorce problem. In this problem woman has a peculiar interest. The wife more frequently than the husband is seeking in divorce a release from marital ills; for in her case it often involves an escape from sexual slavery. The divorce movement, therefore, is in part an expression of woman's growing independence. In this instance as in others it does not, of course, follow that the individualistic tendency is vicious. Nowhere in the field of social ethics, perhaps, is there more confusion of thought than in dealing with the divorce question. Divorce is not favored by anyone for its own sake. Probably in every healthy society the ideal of right marriage is a lifelong union. But what if it is not right, if the marriage is a failure? Is there no relief? Here a sharp difference of opinion has arisen. Some persons look upon divorce as an evil in itself; others as a "remedy" for, or a "symptom" of, social disease. The one class regard it as a cause; the other as an effect. To the Roman Catholic, and to those who believe with him, divorce is a sin, the sanction of "successive polygamy,"[833] of "polygamy on the instalment plan."[834] At the other extreme are those who, like Milton and Humboldt,[835] would allow marriage to be dissolved freely by mutual consent, or even at the desire of either spouse. Nay, there are earnest souls, shocked by the intolerable hardships which wives may suffer under the marital yoke, who, pending a reform in the marriage law, would, like the Quakers of earlier days, ignore the present statutory requirements and resort to private contract.[836] According to the prevailing opinion, however, as expressed in modern legislation, divorce should be allowed, with more or less freedom, under careful state regulation. Whatever degree of liberty may be just or expedient in a more advanced state of moral development, it is felt that now a reasonable conservatism is the safer course. Yet divorce is sanctioned by the state as an individual right; and there may be occasions when the exercise of the right becomes a social duty. The right is, of course, capable of serious abuse. Loose divorce laws may even invite crime. Nevertheless, it is fallacious to represent the institution of divorce as in itself a menace to social morality. It is not helpful to allege, as is often done, that with the increase of divorce certain crimes wax more frequent, thus insinuating the effect for the cause. It is just as illogical to assume that the prevalence of divorce in the United States is a proof of moral decadence as compared with other countries in which divorce is prohibited or more restricted. To forbid the use of a remedy does not prove that there is no disease.