It is safe to say that no woman, in our own country at least, escapes entirely the unrest which this controversy has brought.  Even the most conservative and “old-fashioned” of women know that their daughters are living in a world already changed from the days of their own young womanhood; and few indeed fail to see that these changes are but forerunners of others yet to come.  They know little, perhaps, of the right or wrong of woman’s industrial position, but “woman in industry” is all about them.  They perhaps have never heard of Ellen Key’s arraignment of existing marriage and sex relations, but they cannot fail to see unhappy marriages in their own circle.  They may care little about the suffrage question, but they can hardly avoid hearing echoes of strife over the subject of “votes for women.”  And however much or little women are personally conscious of the significance of these questions, the questions are nevertheless of vital import to them all.

The “uneasy woman” is undeniably with us.  We may account for her presence in various ways.  We may prophesy the outcome of her uneasiness as the signs seem to us to point.  But in the meantime—­she is here!

Naturally both radical and conservative have panaceas to suggest.  The radicals would have us believe that the question of woman’s status in the world requires an upheaval of society for its settlement.  Says one, the “man’s world” must be transformed into a human world, with no baleful insistence on the femininity of women.  It is the human qualities, shared by both man and woman, which must be emphasized.  The work of the world—­with the single exception of childbearing—­is not man’s work nor woman’s work, but the work of the race.  Woman must be liberated from the overemphasized feminine.  Let women live and work as men live and work, with as little attention as may be to the accident of sex.

Says another, it is the ancient and dishonored institution of marriage which must feel the blow of the iconoclast.  Reform marriage, and the whole woman question will adjust itself.

Says still another, do away with marriage.  “Celibacy is the aristocracy of the future.”  Let the woman be free forever from the drudgery of family life, free from the slavery of the marriage relation, free to “live,” to “work,” to have a “career.”  Men and women were intended to be in all things the same, except for the slight difference of sex.  Let us throw away the cramping folly of the ages and let woman take her place beside man.

Not so, replies the conservative.  In just so far as masculine and feminine types approach each other, we shall see degeneracy.  Men and women were never intended to be alike.

Thus we might go on.  Without the radicals there would of course be no progress.  Without the conservatives our social fabric would scarcely hold.  Between the two extremes, however, in this as in all things, stands the great middle class, believing and urging that not social upheaval, but better understanding of existing conditions, is the world remedy for unrest; that not new careers, but better adjustment of old ones, will bring peace; that not formal political power, even though that be their just due, but the better use of powers that women have long possessed, is most needed for the betterment of mankind.