It is twenty-three centuries since Plato gave to the world his
magnificent treatise on the State. The dream of the Greek philosopher of
equal rights for all intelligent citizens, among whom he includes women,
has in large part been realised; but much is yet wanting to bring
society to the standard of the Ideal Republic. In not a few States of
the world the conditions affecting property rights are inequitable; in
all but very few States woman is still barred from the field of politics
and from the legitimate rights of citizenship; and the day seems far
distant when the States possessing a representative government will be
prepared to accept the woman citizen as eligible for administrative
positions.
It will, therefore, be my purpose in this chapter first to consider five
of the most serious objections to the granting of equal suffrage, that
is to say, to the concession to women of full citizens'
rights under the
law. It will be found that these objections are based on a presumed
inferiority of women to men in various respects. I shall give
consideration next in order to the question of the inferiority or
superiority of one sex over the other. In view, furthermore, of the new
ferment in thought in modern society, it will be useful to analyse
certain habits of mind and to indicate the necessity for a readjustment
of old beliefs in the light of recent evolution. I shall conclude my
history with a suggestion for definite reforms which, I believe, must be
brought about, whether equal suffrage is granted or not, before women
can attain their maximum of efficiency.
The opposition to the granting of equal suffrage is, as I have said,
based mainly upon five classes of contentions: I. The theological.
II. The physiological.
III. The social or political.
IV. The intellectual.
V. The moral.
A consideration and an analysis of these five classes of objections will
constitute a summary of the relations of woman to the community, and may
also serve as a guide or suggestion to the possibility of a legitimate
development, in the near future, of her rights as a citizen.
I. The theological argument is based upon the distinctly evil conception
of woman, presented in _Genesis_, as the cause of misery in this world
and upon the subordinate position assigned to her by Paul and Peter.
Christ himself has left us no teachings on the subject.
The Hebrew and
Oriental creed of woman's sphere permeated the West as Christianity
expanded and forced to extinction the Roman principle of equality. Only
within fifty years, has the female sex regained the rights enjoyed by
women under the law of the Empire seventeen centuries ago. The Apostolic
theory of complete subordination gained strength with each succeeding
age. I have already cited instances of ecclesiastical vehemence. As a
final example I may recall that when, early in the nineteenth century,
chloroform was first used to help women in childbirth, a number of
Protestant divines denounced the practice as a sin against the Creator,
who had expressly commanded that woman should bring forth in sorrow and
tribulation. Yet times have so far changed within two decades that the
theological argument is practically obsolete among Protestants, although
it is still influential in the Roman Catholic Church, which holds fast
to the doctrine laid down by the Apostles. We may say, however, that of
all the objections, the theological has, in practice, the least weight
among the bulk of the population. The word _obey_ in the clerical
formula _love, honour, and obey_ provokes a smile.
II. The physiological argument is more powerful. Its supporters assert
that the constitution of woman is too delicate, too finely wrought to
compete with man in his chosen fields. The physiological argument makes
its appearance most persistently in the statement that woman should have
no vote because she could not defend her property or her country in
time of war. In reply to this some partisans of equal suffrage have
thought it necessary to prove that women are physically equal in all
respects to men. But the issues between nations which in the centuries
past it had been believed could be adjusted only by war, by being fought
out (not, of course, to any logical conclusion, but to a result which
showed simply that one party was stronger than the other), are now, in
the great majority of cases, determined by the more reasonable, the more
civilised, method of arbitration.
As a matter of fact, the cause of woman's rights will suffer no harm by
a frank admission that women are not, in general, the peers of men in
brute force. The very nature of the female sex, subjected, as it is, to
functional strains from which the male is free, is sufficient to
invalidate such a claim. A refutation of the physiological objection to
equal suffrage is, however, not hard to find. Even in war, as it is
practised to-day, physical force is of little significance compared with
strategy which is a product of the intellect. In a naval battle for
instance, ships no longer engage at close range, where it is possible
for the crew of one to board the opposing ship and engage in hand to
hand conflict with the enemy; machinery turns the guns and even loads
them; the whole fight is simply a contest between trained gunners, who
must depend for success on cool mathematical computation.
Nevertheless, it is true that under stress or the need of making a
livelihood women in many instances do show physical endurance equal to
that of men. Women who are expert ballet dancers and those who are
skilled acrobats can hardly be termed physiological weaklings. In
Berlin, you may see women staggering along with huge loads on their
backs; in Munich, women are street-cleaners and hod-carriers; on the
island of Capri, the trunk of the tourist is lifted by two men onto the
shoulder of a woman, who carries it up the steep road to the village. In
this country many women are forced to do hard bodily labour ten hours a
day in sweat-shops. In all countries and in all ages there have been
examples of women who, disguised as men, have fought side by side with
the male and with equal efficiency. The case of Joan of Arc will at once
occur to the reader; and those who are curious about this subject may,
by consulting the records of our Civil War, find exciting material in
the story of "Belle Boyd," "Frank Miller," and "Major Cushman."[415]
Doubtless women are stronger physically than they were a half-century
ago, when it was considered unladylike to exercise. If you will read the
novels of that time, you will find that the heroine faints on the
slightest provocation or weeps copiously, like Amelia in _Vanity Fair_,
whenever the situation demands a grain of will-power or of
common-sense. But to-day women seldom faint or weep in literature; they
play tennis or row. When, in 1844, Pauline Wright Davis lectured on
physiology before women in America and displayed the manikin, some of
her auditors dropped their veils, some ran from the room, and some
actually became unconscious, because their sense of delicacy was put to
so sharp a test.
It should be borne in mind, in connection with the contention that the
privileges of a citizen ought to be accorded only to those persons who
are physically capable of helping to defend the community by force, that
no such principle is applied in fixing the existing qualifications for
male citizenship. A large number of the voters of every community are,
on the ground either of advanced years or of invalidism, physically
disqualified for service as soldiers, sailors, or policemen. This group
of citizens includes a very large proportion of the thinking power of
the community. No intelligently directed state would, however, be
prepared to deprive itself of the counsels, of the active political
co-operation, and of the service from time to time in the responsibility
of office, of men of the type of Gladstone (at the age of seventy-five),
of John Stuart Mill (always a physical weakling), of Washington (serving
as President after he was sixty), on the ground that these citizens were
no longer capable of carrying muskets in the ranks.
Any classification of citizens, any privileges extended to voters,
ought, of course, to be arrived at on a consistent and impartial
principle.
Further, under the conditions obtaining in this twentieth century,
governments, whether of nations, of states, or of cities, are carried on
not by force but by opinion. In the earlier history of mankind, each
family was called upon to maintain its existence by physical force. The
families the members of which (female as well as male) were not strong
enough to fight for their existence were crushed out.
Par into the later
centuries, issues between individuals were adjusted by the decision of
arms. Up to within a very recent date, it may be admitted that issues
between nations could be settled only by war. It is, however, at this
time the accepted principle of representative government in all
communities that matters of policy are determined by the expression of
opinion, that is by means of the votes given by the majority of its
citizens. It is by intelligence and not by brute force that the world is
now being ruled, and with the growth of intelligence and a better
understanding of the principles of government, it is in order not only
on the grounds of justice but for the best interests of the state to
widen the foundations of representative government, so as to make
available for voting and for official responsibilities all the
intelligence that is comprised within the community.
This is in my
judgment the most conclusive reply to the objection that the physical
weakness of woman unfits her for citizenship.
III. According to the social or political argument, if woman is given
equal rights with man, the basis of family life, and hence the
foundation of the state itself, is undermined, as a house divided
against itself cannot stand. It is said that (1) there must be some one
authority in a household and that this should be the man; (2) woman will
neglect the home if she is left free to enter politics or a profession;
(3) politics will degrade her; (4) when independent and self-asserting
she will lose her influence over man; and (5) most women do not want to
vote or to enter politics.
It is astonishing with what vehemence men will base arguments on pure
theory and speculation, while they wilfully close their eyes to any
facts which may contradict their assumptions. It is inconceivable to a
certain type of mind that a husband and wife can differ on political
questions and may yet maintain an even harmony, while their love abates
not one whit. In the four States where women vote--
Wyoming, Colorado,
Utah, and Idaho--there is no more divorce than in other States; and any
one who has travelled in these communities can attest that no domestic
unhappiness results from the suffrage. Nor does it in New Zealand.
It is said that there must be some one supreme authority; but this
depends on the view taken of marriage. Under the old Common Law, the
personality of the wife was merged completely in that of her husband;
marriage was an absolute despotism. Under the Canon Law, woman is man's
obedient and unquestioning subject; marriage is a benevolent despotism.
To-day people are more inclined to look upon matrimony as a partnership
of equal duties, rights, and privileges.
Sophocles argued in one of his tragedies that children belong entirely
to the father, that the mother can assert no valid claim for anything.
Lawyers have found this logic excellent; and the records are full of
instances of children being taken from a hard-working mother in order to
be handed over to a drunken father who wants their wages for his
support. It is no longer so in most states. Civilisation has advanced so
far, that the pains of bringing forth and raising children are
acknowledged to give the mother a right almost equal to that of the
father to determine all that concerns the child. There is some reason,
therefore, for believing that she should have a voice also in passing
upon laws which may make or undo for ever the welfare of the boys and
girls for whom she struggles during the years that they are growing to
manhood and womanhood. Men are for the greater part so engrossed in
business that on certain questions they are far less competent to be
"authorities" than women. Against stupid pedagogy, against red-tape,
against the policy that morality must never interfere with business
principles, against civic dirtiness, against brothel and saloon, women
are more active than men, because they see more clearly how vitally the
interests of their children are affected by these evil conditions.
Wherever women vote, these questions are to the fore.
Closely connected with the "one authority" argument is the old
contention, so often resorted to and relied upon, that women, if they
are permitted to vote, will neglect the home, and that, if the
professions are opened to them, they will find these too absorbingly
attractive. Much weight should, however, be given to the great power of
the domestic instinct implanted in the nature of woman.
In the States
where women vote and are eligible for political offices, there are fewer
unmarried women in proportion to the population than in States where
they have no such rights. The great leaders of the woman suffrage
movement from Mrs. Stanton to Mrs. Snowden have in their home circle led
lives as beautiful and have raised families as large and as well
equipped morally and intellectually as those who are content to sit by
the fire and spin.
Thus far I have argued from the orthodox view, that matrimony ought to
be the goal of every woman's ambition. But if a woman wishes to remain
single and devote herself exclusively to the realisation of some ideal,
it is hard to see why she should not. Men who take this course are
eulogised for their noble self-sacrifice in immolating themselves for
the advancement of the cause of civilisation; women who do precisely the
same thing are sometimes unthinkingly spoken of in terms of contempt or
with that complacent pity which is far worse. It is difficult for us to
realise adequately what talented women like Rosa Bonheur had to undergo
because of this curious attitude of humanity.
"The home is woman's sphere." This shibboleth is the logical result of
the attitude mentioned. Doubtless, the home is woman's sphere; but the
home includes all that pertains to it--city, politics and taxes, laws
relating to the protection of minors, municipal rottenness which may
corrupt children, schools and playgrounds and museums which may educate
them. Few doctrines have been productive of more pain than the "woman's
sphere" argument. It is this which has, for a thousand years, made the
unmarried woman, the _Old Maid_, the butt of the contemptible jibes of
Christian society, whereof you will find no parallel in pagan antiquity.
Dramatic writers have held her up to ridicule on the stage on account of
the peculiarities of character which are naturally acquired when a
person is isolated from participation in the activities of life. It is
the doctrine which has made women glad to marry drunkards and rakes, to
bring forth children tainted with the sins of their fathers, and to
suffer hell on earth rather than incur the ridicule of the Christian
gentleman who may, without incurring the protest of society, remain
unmarried and sow an unlimited quantity of wild oats. It is this
doctrine which was indirectly responsible for the hanging and burning of
eccentric old women on the charge that they were witches. As men found a
divine sanction for keeping women in subjection, so in those days of
superstition did they blaspheme their Creator by digging out of the Old
Testament, as a justification for their brutality, the text, "Thou shalt
not suffer a witch to live."
"Politics will degrade women"--this naïve confession that politics are
rotten is a fairly strong argument that some good influence is needed to
make them cleaner. Generally speaking, it is difficult to imagine how
politics could be made any worse. If a woman cannot go to the polls or
hold office without being insulted by rowdies, her vote will be potent
to elect officials who should be able to secure for the community a
standard of reasonable civilisation. There is no case in which more
sentimentality is wasted. Lovely woman is urged not to allow her beauty,
her gentleness, her tender submissiveness to become the butt of the
lounger at the street corner; and in most instances lovely woman, like
the celebrated Maître Corbeau, is cajoled effectively.
Meanwhile the
brothel and the sweat-shop continue on their prosperous way. By a
curious inconsistency, man will permit woman to help him out of a
political dilemma and will then suavely remark that suffrage will
degrade her.
During the Civil War, Anna Dickinson by her remarkable lecture
entitled, "The National Crisis" saved New Hampshire and Connecticut for
the Republicans; Anna Carroll not only gave such a crushing rejoinder to
Breckinridge's secession speech that the government printed and
distributed it, but she also, as is now generally believed, planned the
campaign which led to the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson and opened
the Mississippi to Vicksburg. How many men realise these facts?
The theory that politics degrade women will not find much support in
such States as Colorado and Wyoming. Here, where equal suffrage obtains,
women have been treated with uniform courtesy at the polls; they have
even been elected to legislatures with no diminution of their
womanliness; and the House of Wyoming long ago made a special resolution
of its approval of equal rights and attested the beneficial results that
have followed the extension of the suffrage to women.[416] Judge Lindsey
of Colorado has said that his election, and consequent power to work out
his great reforms in juvenile delinquency, was due to the backing of
women at a time when men, for "business reasons," were averse to extend
their aid. "No one would dare to propose its repeal
[i.e., the repeal of
equal suffrage], and if left to the men of the State any proposition to
revoke the rights bestowed on women would be overwhelmingly defeated."
Experience in Colorado and elsewhere has shown that any important moral
issue will bring out the women voters in great force; but after election
they are content to resume their domestic duties; and they have shown no
great desire for political office.[417]
Before I leave the discussion as to whether politics degrade women, it
will not be out of place to consider the question whether certain women
may not, if they have a vote, degrade politics. Of such women there are
two classes--the immoral and the merely ignorant. As to the former, much
fear has been expressed that they would be the very agents for
unscrupulous politicians to use at the polls. Exact data on this matter
are not available. I shall content myself with quoting a statement by
Mrs. Ida Husted Harper[418]:
"That 'immoral' class," said Mrs. Harper, "is a bogey that has never
materialised in States where women have the suffrage.
Those women don't
vote. Indeed, Denver's experience has been interesting in that respect.
When equal suffrage was first granted, women of that class were
compelled by the police to register. It was a question of doing as the
police said, of course, or being arrested. The women did not want to
vote. They don't go under their real names; they have no fixed
residence, and so on. Anyway, the last thing they wanted was to be
registered voters.
"But the corrupt political element needed their vote, and were after it,
through the police. These women actually appealed to a large woman's
political club to use its influence to keep the police from forcing them
to register. A committee was appointed; it was found that the story was
true; coercion was stopped, and the women's vote turned out the chief of
police who attempted it. There is now no coercion, and this class simply
pays no attention to politics at all."
The doubling of the number of ignorant voters by giving all women alike
the ballot would be a more serious affair. A remedy for that, however,
lies in making an educational test a necessary qualification for all
voters. In this connection the remarks of Mr. G.H.
Putnam are
suggestive[419]: "If I were a citizen of Massachusetts or of any State
which, like Massachusetts, possesses such educational qualification, I
should be an active worker for the cause of equal suffrage. As a citizen
of New York who has during the last fifty years done his share of work
in the attempt to improve municipal conditions, I am forced to the
conclusion that it will be wiser to endure for a further period the
inconsistency, the stupidity, and the injustice of the disfranchisement
of thousands of intelligent women voters rather than to accept the
burden of an increase in the mass of unintelligent voters. The first
step toward 'equal suffrage' will, in my judgment, be a fight for an
educational qualification for all voters."
Those who maintain that when women are independent and self-asserting,
they will lose their influence over men, assume that we view things
to-day as they did a century ago and that the thoughts of men are not
widened with the progress of the suns. The woman who can share the
aspirations, the thoughts, the complete life of a man, who can
understand his work thoroughly and support him with the sympathy born of
perfect comprehension, will exert a far vaster influence over him than
the milk-and-water ideal who was advised "to smile when her husband
smiled, to frown when he frowned, and to be discreetly silent when the
conversation turned on subjects of importance." It is a good thing for
women to be self-asserting and independent. There is and always has been
a class of men who, like Mr. Murdstone, are amenable to justice and
reason only when they know that their proposed victim can at any time
break the chains with which they would bind her.
This brings us to the last of the social or political arguments, viz.,
"Most women do not want to vote."[420] Precisely the same argument has
been used by slave owners from time immemorial--the slaves do not wish
to be free. As Professor Thomas writes[421]: "Certainly the negroes of
Virginia did not greatly desire freedom before the idea was developed by
agitation from the outside, and many of them resented this outside
interference. 'In general, in the whole western Sahara desert, slaves
are as much astonished to be told that their relation to their owners is
wrong and that they ought to break it, as boys amongst us would be to be
told that their relation to their fathers was wrong and ought to be
broken.' And it is reported from eastern Borneo that a white man could
hire no natives for wages. 'They thought it degrading to work for wages,
but if he would bu