However much certain of the assumptions in her program may seem to be against its success, there is much for it.  It gives her a scapegoat—­an outside, personal, attackable cause for the limitations and defeats she suffers.  And there is no greater consolation than fixing blame.  It is half a cure in itself to know or to think you know the cause of your difficulties.  Moreover, it gives her a scapegoat against whom it is easy to make up a case.  She knows him too well, much better than he knows her, much better than she knows herself; at least her knowledge of him is better formulated.  And she has this advantage:  custom makes it cowardly for a man to attempt to demonstrate that woman is a tyrant—­it laughs and applauds woman’s attempt to fix the charge on man.

It gives her a definite program of relief.  To attack life as man does:  to secure the same kind of training, enter a trade or profession where she can support herself, mingle with the crowd as he does, get into politics—­that she assumes to be the practical way of curing the inferiority of position and of powers which she is willing to admit, even willing to demonstrate.  That a man’s life may not be altogether satisfactory, she declines to believe.  The uneasy woman has always taken it for granted that man is happier than woman.  It is an assumption which is at least discussible.

Her program, too, has the immense advantage of including all that the new order of things in this country, instituted by the Revolution, made imperative for women—­the schooling, the liberty of action, the independent pocket book.  Because she has formulated these notions so definitely and has hammered on them so hard, the militant woman frequently claims that they originated with her, that she is the cause of the great development in educational opportunities, in freedom to work and to circulate, in the increasing willingness to face the facts of life and speak the truth.  This claim she should drop.  She is rather the logical result of these notions, their extreme expression.  She has, however, had an enormous influence in keeping them alive in the great slow-moving mass of women, where the fate of new ideas rests and where they are always tried out with extreme caution.  Without her the vision of enlarging and liberalizing their own particular business to meet the needs of the New Democracy which so exalted the women of the Revolution, would not to-day be as nearly realized as it is.  To speak slightingly of her part in the women’s movement is uncomprehending.  She was then, and always has been, a tragic figure, this woman in the front of the woman’s movement—­driven by a great unrest, sacrificing old ideals to attain new, losing herself in a frantic and frequently blind struggle, often putting back her cause by the sad illustration she was of the price that must be paid to attain a result.  Certainly no woman who to-day takes it as a matter of course that she should study what she chooses, go and come as she will, support herself unquestioned by trade, profession, or art, work in public or private, handle her own property, share her children on equal terms with her husband, receive a respectful attention on platform or before legislature, live freely in the world, should think with anything but reverence particularly of the early disturbers of convention and peace, for they were an essential element in the achievement.