An error analogous to this personification of her own folly as a
pitiless oppressor is that of considering at length and with gravity
the character, fortunes, motives and duties of “woman.” Woman does
not exist—there are women. Of woman nothing that has more than a
suggestive, literary or rhetorical value can be said. Like the word
“fashion,” the word “woman” is convenient, and of legitimate use by
persons of sense who understand that it is not the name of anything on
the earth, in the heavens above the earth, nor in the waters under the
earth—that there is nothing in nature corresponding to it. To others
its use should be interdicted, for like all abstract words, it is a
pitfall to their clumsy feet. If the word is used to signify the whole
body of women it obviously assumes that, with regard to the matters
under consideration, they are all alike—which is untrue, for some are
dead. If it means less than the whole body of women it is obligatory
upon the person using it to say precisely what proportion of the sex
it means. The way to determine woman’s true place in the social scheme
is simple: make an exhaustive inquiry into the character, capacities,
desires, needs and opportunities of every individual woman. When you
have finished the result will be glorious: you will know almost as much
as you knew before.
Concerning woman, I should like to be allowed a brief digression
into the troubled territory of her “rights”—a field of contention in
which her champions manifest an inadequate conception of the really
considerable powers of Omnipotence. A distinguishing feature of this
logomachy is the frequent outcrop of a certain kind of piety that
is unconnected with any respect for, or belief in, the power of
Him evoking it. These linked assumptions of God’s worth and God’s
incompetence are made variously: sometimes by implication, sometimes
with a directness that distresses the agnostic and makes the atheist
blush. One disputant says: “Would a woman be less womanly because
conceited Man had granted her the rights that God intended she should
have?” Now, if man really has the power to baffle the divine will and
make the divine intentions void of effect he may reasonably enough
cherish a fairly good opinion of himself—perhaps any degree of conceit
that is consistent with his scriptural character of poor worm of the
dust.
A noble example of piety undimmed by disrespect is that of a
Presbyterian minister, who began his remarks thus: “Has woman to-day
all the rights she ought to have—all the rights Christ meant her to
have? I fully concede she has not.” This is not very good English,
but I dare say it is good religion, this conception of Christ as
a “well-meaning person,” but without much influence in obtaining
favors for his friends. Anyhow, it is authenticated by the clerical
sign-manual, which sets it at a longer remove from blasphemy than at
first sight it may seem to be, and makes it so holy that I hardly
dared to mention it. I hope it is not irreverent to say so; it is not
said in that spirit, but I can not help thinking that if I were God I
should find some way to carry out my intentions; and that if I were
Christ and had not a sufficient influence to secure for Lively Woman
the rights that I meant her to have I should retire from public life,
sever my connection with the Presbyterian church and go to work.