There can be no doubt that the entrance of women into the field of industrial work, in rivalry with men and under somewhat the same conditions as men, raises serious questions of another order.  The general tendency of civilization towards the economic independence and the moral responsibility of women is unquestionable.  But it is by no means absolutely clear that it is best for women, and, therefore, for the community, that women should exercise all the ordinary avocations and professions of men on the same level as men.  Not only have the conditions of the avocations and professions developed in accordance with the special aptitudes of men, but the fact that the sexual processes by which the race is propagated demand an incomparably greater expenditure of time and energy on the part of women than of men, precludes women in the mass from devoting themselves so exclusively as men to industrial work.  For some biologists, indeed, it seems clear that outside the home and the school women should not work at all.  “Any nation that works its women is damned,” says Woods Hutchinson (The Gospel According to Darwin, p. 199).  That view is extreme.  Yet from the economic side, also, Hobson, in summing up this question, regards the tendency of machine-industry to drive women away from the home as “a tendency antagonistic to civilization.”  The neglect of the home, he states, is, “on the whole, the worst injury modern industry has inflicted on our lives, and it is difficult to see how it can be compensated by any increase of material products.  Factory life for women, save in extremely rare cases, saps the physical and moral health of the family.  The exigencies of factory life are inconsistent with the position of a good mother, a good wife, or the maker of a home.  Save in extreme circumstances, no increase of the family wage can balance these losses, whose values stand upon a higher qualitative level” (J.A.  Hobson, Evolution of Modern Capitalism, Ch.  XII; cf. what has been said in Ch.  I of the present volume).  It is now beginning to be recognized that the early pioneers of the “woman’s movement” in working to remove the “subjection of woman” were still dominated by the old ideals of that subjection, according to which the masculine is in all main respects the superior sex.  Whatever was good for man, they thought, must be equally good for woman.  That has been the source of all that was unbalanced and unstable, sometimes both a little pathetic and a little absurd, in the old “woman’s movement.”  There was a failure to perceive that, first of all, women must claim their right to their own womanhood as mothers of the race, and thereby the supreme law-givers in the sphere of sex and the large part of life dependent on sex.  This special position of woman seems likely to require a readjustment of economic conditions to their needs, though it is not likely that such readjustment would be permitted to affect their independence or