WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN THEORY
_Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, but I suffer
not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to
be in silence._ (I Timothy, ii; 13, 14.)
There be those to whom the words of the great apostle to the Gentiles
speak with power and authority; who believe that Holy Writ will be read
and heard with reverent faith long after the claptrap of to-day has been
replaced by a later folly and is utterly forgotten; and there be those
also who disdain St. Paul as one far inferior in deep sagacity to
themselves. The precept of the ancient text will no doubt be valued by
each reader as belikes him. The beauty of the landscape is in the eye of
the human spectator; there is reason to believe that neither the grazing
donkey nor any of his fellow quadrupeds has yet felt its fascination.
Woman suffrage has been steadily gaining ground in the United States for
the last ten years, and the leading politicians have recently taken it
up. It is a corollary and a sequence of manhood suffrage, its most fatal
and noxious derivative. It is distinctly Bolshevik in its tendencies; it
represents an absolute negation of the rights of property and the claims
of capacity in government, and it threatens the severest blow which
democracy has ever yet sustained. It implies the past failure of
democracy as a governing power and is destined if accepted, to confirm
and complete that failure in the future. Its adoption by a number of
states of the Union is a disgrace and a dishonour, because it implies
that the men of the nation are unfit to govern it. The implication is
necessary and conclusive, but the charge does not rest on mere
implication; the suffragettes have repeatedly made it on the platform
and in their literature. Yes, to such depth of shame after three
generations of its odious operations, has manhood suffrage brought our
people, that our women are able openly to accuse our men of incapacity
to govern the country. And by adopting woman suffrage in sixteen states
the men have admitted the charge; for if they were competent to govern,
if they were even as competent as the women, there was no excuse for
calling in the latter to interfere. They have been called in, and the
male electorate thereby stands a self-confessed failure. And yet the
charge of incapacity made against our men is false; they are competent
to manage the state and to manage it well, but the politicians who have
been permitted to grasp the helm of state are not competent; and so
after one hundred and forty years of independence and male government we
are told by a parcel of fools and fanatics that the manhood of the
country is not and never has been fit and able to conduct its affairs.
Disguise it as you will, that is what woman suffrage means. It is not
merely an open affront to American manhood, but it is also an aspersion
at once upon its training and its intelligence; for it is a declaration
that after over a century of actual participation in business, in war,
in politics and in government, our men are so incapable, that their
women who have none of this experience, are more competent than they to
counsel and direct in all these important matters. In vain will the
nincompoops and sentimentalists who gave us women suffrage attempt to
avoid this plain conclusion by references to a few superior and
exceptional women, such as their favorite wonder, Mme. Curie. The
invitation to vote was not confined to the exceptional; we have called
in the whole adult female population, black and white, from the most
intelligent and refined lady in the land down to the vilest negress from
the slums. The obvious effect was and is to offset every man’s vote by a
woman’s vote; and thus practically to disfranchise the men of the
country. The votes of the banker, the lawyer, the physician, the
business man, the farmer, the manufacturer, the architect, each of whom
has spent most of his days in learning lessons in the actual struggles
of life, are to be negatived by the votes of their wives and daughters,
who have passed their existence in sheltered homes, and who are so
ignorant of the business of life and politics, that they do not even
know its terms or its language. In every family, in every occupation, in
every quality and grade of life, the same absurd and degrading
performance is to be repeated year by year, as long as men will subject
themselves to the futile humiliation of appearing at the polls. All the
way up and down the scale our women are notoriously inferior to our men
in business and political knowledge and judgment; and all the way down
and all the way up, all the votes of such of the wise and experienced
males as may hereafter trouble themselves to vote are to be negatived
and nullified by those of the ignorant and inexperienced females. To say
that no such result is intended is to say that the promoters of woman
suffrage acted without reason or logic, which is probably true. They did
not realize the meaning or effect of a great deal of what they said and
proposed; but yet, whether or not they are capable of understanding it,
woman suffrage must, if it does anything, modify or lessen man’s
authority. Some of the suffragette leaders saw this, and the literature
of the movement is well peppered with sharp aspersions on the capacity
of men to rule the country. Indeed, if male government was satisfactory,
why was a change proposed? The entire argument of the movement was that
masculine rule is not satisfactory, and that therefore it was proposed
to supersede and supplant it by a mixed government of men and women, now
and forever. This change in management is inexcusable, unless it is
intended to produce practical results in legislation and administration;
and each of these practical results cannot be or mean less than an
overruling of the male power by the female power, and a public and
formal assertion of superior female capacity in government.
To say that none of this is to happen, that after all this hullabaloo
about woman’s wrongs and rights, the women are going to vote in
obedience to the directions or wishes of the men of their respective
families, and that man’s government control and management will
therefore remain unaffected by the triumph of their cause, is to make
the whole movement futile and ridiculous. Not only that; but such a
nullification of the women’s vote would add to the mischief of the
affront already put upon the men by putting a separate affront upon the
women. Far better for them to stay at home, and make no pretence of
political action, than to go out to the polls, and pretend to do the
part of freewomen, while really acting the part of puppets. If therefore
a practise of proxy voting is to be the real effect of woman suffrage,
and there is good reason to suspect that it is so in many instances, let
it be done openly and straightforwardly. There is already too much fraud
and humbug in politics; let the law be amended so that for instance,
when a manufacturer with a wife and four other women in his family puts
in six votes for a protective tariff it can be done openly; let him cast
the six votes himself, without resorting to the troublesome expedient of
having these five women, much against their will, trained and required
to take a mean part in a sham transaction; first carefully instructed to
vote the straight ticket and then taken to the polls and compelled to go
through the tiresome form required by the man-made election law. Indeed,
if men were permitted to vote by proxy for their women, the probability
is that female attendance at the polls would before long become
unfashionable and shrink almost to nothing. If, however, the female
voters, inspired by the suffragette dreams, change their natures so far
as to want to use their new powers in complete independence of the men,
then will be seen the interesting picture of our women, publicly
exercising their ignorance, and in defiance of all claims of loyalty and
gratitude, trampling under foot family ties, assuming hostile attitudes
towards the men, and negativing the votes of fathers, brothers and
husbands whose bread they eat, who protect and care for them and whose
business and political experience and wisdom is ten times their own.
Imagine the theory of woman suffrage plainly and fully in effect, and
see what it would mean. Picture, if you will, the assembled men of a
hamlet or village voting “yea” on any proposition; say to build a school
house or a sewer; to pass an ordinance, to favor war or peace, or to
select a public official; and imagine the women in like separate
assembly overruling the word of their men and voting “nay.” Would not
this be to affront and dishonour the men of the community; and is there
any doubt as to which body would be in the right in whatever decision
had been made? Yet that or nothing, is the effect of this measure. Of
the woman who favors woman suffrage it can therefore be said that she
wishes to see the dearest opinions of her experienced father, her
brother and her husband overruled not only by herself but by every
gossiping wench in the neighborhood. Truly a noble movement! For the men
who have acceded to it the most charitable excuse is indifference. The
long continued operation of rotten politics has eaten into the civic
fibre of our manhood; we have for generations seen elections turned into
farces, public offices bargained and sold, and a vulgar oligarchy of
rogues native and imported ruling this land, till our best men have
almost ceased to care who votes or who is elected. If the male
“suffragist” doubts this to be his real mental attitude, let him imagine
the women of his family overruling him in a business transaction, or one
of personal friendship, or any other matter in which he is really
concerned, and wherein he is better informed than they; and he will
realize, that his willingness to submit to having the exercise of his
citizenship nullified at the polls, by the vote of an uninstructed woman
is due to his contempt for politics, his indifference to political
results, and his realization that the suffrage has been already degraded
so that it is practically worthless.
Not only is woman suffrage a dishonor and a disgrace, but it is a
danger, for it threatens the existence of the state; it is a weakening
of the foundations at a time when we are menaced with attacks by every
band of the rapidly organizing enemies to property and to the social
order. Is it fit when the day of stress comes that the power of this
country should be in the hands of women and woman-led politicians? If we
will not take counsel of common sense, let us be warned of our fears, to
step backward while there is time, for the precipice is directly in our
path.
The progress of the cause of woman suffrage, like to that of manhood
suffrage a century ago, is due to the apathy of half the population and
the failure of the other half to understand the question. And just as
manhood suffrage was adopted without serious discussion or any real
study of its tendencies, so woman suffrage is rapidly making its way in
a careless, stupid and bewildered electorate, of which a large portion
and that the most intelligent has long ago abandoned politics as
hopeless and disgusting. No doubt, the adoption of the manhood suffrage
theory prepared the way for this result, first by promulgating the false
doctrine of a natural right to vote, and second by weakening the
electorate. When the principle of a qualified electorate was abandoned,
we lost the only sane and safe basis on which a democratic government
can possibly exist; once reject the rule of fitness, and there is no
valid reason why all the deficient and worthless should not have their
say in government, and the way is laid open for rule by ignorant and
incapable numbers instead of by knowledge and capacity. The admission of
women to the voting booths is merely a new and wider application of the
former doctrine of the right of the ignorant and unfit to govern. Let it
be conceded that no voter can be excluded from the polls for incapacity
shown by failure in life, and it becomes difficult to exclude for
similar incapacity resulting from sex. The abolition of all
qualifications for male voters, and the admission of a horde of male
incompetents to the ballot box, has prepared the way for the granting of
the privileges of the ballot to a sex almost universally incompetent for
the exercise of the franchise.
And further, manhood suffrage not only smoothed the path for woman
suffrage by weakening and degrading the electorate who were to pass on
the question, but incidentally by driving out in disgust great numbers
of the wise and worthy from active participation in politics; with the
result that the body politic has hardly, if at all, power or virtue
sufficient to save itself from the assaults of that clamorous band of
female fanatics and triflers who seek diversion in public affairs. The
adoption of woman suffrage at the command of this noxious horde is the
most degraded performance of and the most mischievous transgression by
the manhood suffrage system since its establishment.
The ruling politicians of both parties, who were at first afraid of
woman suffrage, and next doubtful or lukewarm, have now generally come
to favor it, and are quite ready to welcome an influx of new voters
still more ignorant and emotional than those they had already learned to
master. They might, of course, have defeated the movement; but they had
no motive to exclude from the polls masses of women, mostly ignorant and
gullible, and often sordid, who with a little change in methods, may be
purchased, deceived and controlled, even more easily than the
nondescript men who have heretofore constituted the sure following of
the bosses. Besides, the politicians cannot safely or consistently
advocate or countenance the establishment of any qualification whatever
for the exercise of political functions; the leaders and their
instruments being notoriously unfit for the offices and their followers
for the voting booths.
That the great state of New York should be one of those to grant full
suffrage to women strikingly illustrates and proves the incapacity of
the manhood suffrage electorate. The state’s vote in that behalf could
only have been given by a constituency grossly stupid, or so neglectful
of its duties as to be indifferent to the grotesque scandals already
produced in New York by the operation of manhood suffrage. And now, its
voting mass, which already was far inferior in intelligence and
efficiency to what it should be, has by its own decree provided that
hereafter it will be still more ignorant and inefficient. The fact is,
that the whole American electorate, especially in states containing
great and absolutely machine ruled cities, has become demoralized by
manhood suffrage to the extent that it has ceased to study the
philosophy of government and finds itself totally unprepared to discuss
the suffrage question intelligently. A few cheap catch words such as the
“majority must rule” and “every citizen should vote” constitute nowadays
the political creed and sum up the political knowledge of the ordinary
American. The women suffragists utter mere claptrap; but claptrap
perfectly suits the popular ear, and is all that any one has needed to
utter on political platforms ever since manhood suffrage was adopted;
they press upon the voters their superficial argument that as no
qualification was required from a man, none should be required of a
woman; they contrast the good respectable women who are refused the
suffrage with the miserable male sots, loafers and ignorant boors to
whom it has been granted; and they urge that nothing can be worse than
our present political condition. In this, by the way, they will find
their mistake as time goes on; for Uncle Sam, like the man who is made
shaky on his legs by two glasses of whiskey, will not be steadied by
doubling the dose that disabled him. However, in these and similar
arguments, there appears to the superficial mind so much plausibility
that on the strength of them, millions of women have been put on the
voting lists; most of them absolutely ignorant of business life and of
the practical workings of political institutions built up by men year by
year in the centuries gone by; most of them besides almost totally
devoid of any realization of the tragedy of the situation, of the
tremendous interests involved, or of the dangers to which a nation is
subject, which goes drifting along without firm, strict and competent
masculine governmental management and control.
Let it be clearly understood before proceeding further, that it is not
within the scope or plan of this book to discuss what is called
“feminism,” or even to go into the whole case against woman suffrage,
but merely to apply to the female suffrage problem, the reasoning herein
applied to the manhood suffrage institution. The inquiry here is merely
whether or not women may be expected by their votes to contribute to the
public welfare. It will be well, however, just to mention the principal
points made by those opposed to giving the franchise to woman, which are
additional to those included in the argument herein presented, so as to
make it clear that the failure of the writer to urge them in detail must
not be taken to indicate any disregard of their value; they are not
dwelt upon only because outside of the scheme of the work. These
miscellaneous points made by the anti-female suffragists are as follows:
That the ultimate sanction for every political decree is force; modern
force is expressed in naval and military terms; women are incapable of
military or naval service, they cannot back their votes by force. To say
that because they can nurse the wounded they are therefore combatants is
like saying that the man who blows the organ is a musician. We have also
the objections founded on mental or moral deficiency; that government
needs creative energy, and that women are not as creative as men, no
supreme work of genius for instance having ever been created by a woman;
that woman is inferior to man in strength of intellect, in power of
concentration and moral perception; that she has no larger view than man
on any subject, but on many subjects a much narrower view; that women
are more subject than men to passion and prejudice; that they have less
public or civic virtue, and that in order to overcome their inferiority
in these particulars they would have to pass through all the developing
experience of men in all the past centuries. Another: that women are
usually dependents, whereas no voter should be a dependent. Also, that
the State does not need women except to raise children; all other
services, such as agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, military
and naval duties, construction, shipping, engineering, finance,
literature, science, invention, etc., being better performed by men.
There are also biological considerations of great force operating
generally against the feminist theory of the natural equality of the
sexes; and which though not sufficient to forbid woman’s casting a vote,
are effective reasons against her going into political strifes and
contests. There are, for instance, the physical weaknesses incidental to
their sex, the importance of maternity and of all the functions
appertaining thereto; the need in the interests of humanity of guarding
the mothers of the race present and future from all undue physical
strain and burden; the danger as a result of feminism of the evolution
of a type of woman expressing masculine characteristics, and incapable
of arousing the passion of love, thus depriving men of the beauty and
charm of women, imperiling the comeliness of the race, abolishing the
lady and ladyhood, and drying up the source of poetry; then there is the
argument that the biological development and evolution of woman, and of
the race, is destined to come by means of the growth of greater and
greater differences between the sexes, and not by women copying men;
that feminism in all its aspects is hostile to marriage; that the years
necessary to feminist training would bring women to an age too advanced
for the best marriages; that women and men are not equals, there being
no equality in nature; and that women need the maintenance and
protection of the male for their best advantage and that of their
children, whereas the tendency of the woman suffrage movement and of all
feminism is clearly towards separation of the sexes and female economic
independence.
Having thus merely mentioned these points which have been often
presented and discussed by other writers, we may proceed to apply to the
question of woman suffrage the same test already applied to manhood
suffrage, by propounding the query whether it is for the benefit of the
state? And here we find that every objection already urged in this
volume to giving the vote to unpropertied men, applies with increased
force to giving it to women of all classes. As there is no natural right
in man to the vote, so there can be none in woman; and in the light of
reason, woman suffrage stands condemned on every ground urged in this
book for the condemnation of manhood suffrage. In whatever respects
manhood suffrage has in this book been condemned as injurious, woman
suffrage is more injurious. In short, the theory upon which woman
suffrage is advocated by its supporters is entirely incompatible with
the theory of suffrage advanced by the writer, and indeed with any
theory on which a property qualification can be imposed upon voters. In
dealing with this subject therefore, instead of treading again ground
already gone over, the writer prefers to call attention briefly to the
doctrines of the woman suffrage creed already dealt with and confuted by
him in his discussion of manhood suffrage, as follows:
Woman suffragists adopt the manhood suffrage theory of a natural right
to vote, and seek to widen its application; the writer and those who
agree with him condemn that theory, and seek to narrow its operation.
They insist that political voting is a natural right; we, that it is a
public function. They regard the vote as cast for the benefit of the
voter; we insist that it be given solely for the benefit of the state.
They affirm that the present suffrage is not wide enough; we say that it
is too wide. They seek a remedy for misgovernment by going further in
our present course; we propose to retrace our steps. They demand that
all adults be invited to participate in government; we insist that all
but the well qualified should be excluded. They say that the adult
population in the mass is competent to pass upon candidates and
policies; we say it is not; that a much more competent and honest body
for the purpose is furnished by the successful men of business, evolved
by the process of natural selection. They seek political counsel of
everyone; including the weak, the inexperienced and unreliable; we
reject all but that of the strong, experienced and trustworthy. They
consider the polling booth as a preparatory school for triflers, fools
and the ignorant; we regard it as a seat of judgment from which those
three classes should be strictly excluded. They speak of “liberty” and
“self government” as ideal products of universal suffrage; we say in
the first place that “liberty” and “self government” are impossible in a
civilized country; and second, that instead of “self government” manhood
suffrage has produced and can only produce machine and ring government;
and that the votes of women given under universal suffrage will and must
strengthen these rings and machines.
Summarized in the fewest possible words, the gist of the previous
chapters, as far as they affect both sexes, women as well as men, is,
that voting is not a natural right but a public function, to be
exercised solely for the benefit of the state; and that the suffrage
should be entrusted only to those who have shown themselves to be duly
qualified, and never to the weak, inexperienced or dependent. These
simple propositions, accepted or considered established, the question of
granting or refusing the vote to women is much simplified, being
narrowed to one of political expediency, dependent upon their proven
capacity to function as voters.
It is manifestly not a question of the capacity of some, but of all
women, for unless the quality of the entire female electorate is
politically superior to that of the entire male electorate the former
should not be introduced into our political system. Nor is it a matter
of comparison of any other than civic or political quality; it is
immaterial whether women are morally superior to men, or better church
goers or more sentimental; the question is whether they are politically
as capable; that is whether they are as capable of selecting the
directors of the state, or of directing her themselves, and of shaping
her policies as the men are. But of the answer to this there can be no
possible uncertainty; no one doubts male superiority in these
capacities; to deny it in the face of the well-known characteristics of
the human male, as well as the notorious advantages that men have over
women in point of business and political training and experience, is to
defy common sense. Government is an institution established for a kind
of work which is essentially masculine. It is designed not only for the
prosecution of great business enterprises in peace, but of foreign wars
great and small, for national defense, and for that diplomacy which is
armed and threatening. Political capacity requires mental power,
courage, firmness of character, determination, physical strength,
military capability, business training and experience and ability to
rule. These are essentially masculine qualities; and while few men have
them all highly developed, yet those attributes or some of them are
moderately present in most men and to a considerable extent in some men
in every community; whereas most women are almost or quite destitute of
all of them. Sensible women fully recognize their difference from men in
respect to those qualities, and for that reason they especially value
them, and seek for them in selecting their husbands, lovers, lawyers and
physicians. It is apparently conceded even by the female suffragists,
that most public offices should be filled by men rather than by women,
on account of this masculine superiority in political efficiency. Now,
it cannot surely be expected that women who are notoriously lacking in
firmness, courage, determination and good judgment, will as voters be as
expert as men in weighing these qualities, in appreciating their extent,
or in discovering their presence or absence in the various male
candidates for office presented for a choice.
Not only are the majority of women destitute of capacity to take a
personal part in government themselves, but they have no taste for
politics, nor desire to become proficient therein; they usually dislike
to read or to seriously discuss political matters of any kind. One would
like to be able to say, that none of them care to take part in the vile
intrigues or acts of violence, which are the unfortunate incidents of
certain low political work, but this cannot truthfully be said, in view
of the ballot box stuffing in Colorado, the picketing of the White
House, the insults to and assaults upon high officials here and in
England and the numerous petty crimes committed there by militant
suffragettes or their hirelings. But for high or abstract politics, the
study of political questions, statesmanship, political history and
political economy, women have very little taste, if any. It is the
general opinion that the great majority, probably three-fourths of the
women of the United States do not desire the vote at all, never have
desired it, and have no idea what to do with it. The suffragette leaders
are not politicians nor political students, but agitators; being
impelled to that vocation not by a taste for politics but by a love of
money and notoriety. The only recorded case of a census of women’s
opinion on female suffrage which has come to the writer’s attention was
in or about 1908, when a Mr. Bray, a member of the legislature from some
city of Wisconsin, took a ballot of the women in his district, about
eight thousand in number, for his private instruction upon this subject;
with the result that not a single ward, city or village returned a
majority for suffrage. In a certain working people’s ward, the vote was
from three to seven against the franchise to one in its favor. Most
teachers, older scholars, librarians, nurses and dressmakers voted
“Yes.” A large majority of bookkeepers, stenographers, clerks, factory
girls and hotel employees voted “No.” Of the whole eight thousand women,
fully two-thirds voted “No” on the question. That is to say, two-thirds
of the women agreed that not only they themselves but also the other
one-third were unfit to be voters. The fact that the other third
considered themselves competent is of little consequence; probably they
excel the others in nothing more than self-conceit, and that supremest
ignorance which is unaware of its own want of knowledge; but even if
this third were eager to vote and would make a good use of the
franchise, that fact would not justify the admission to the electorate
of the other two thirds, who by their own admission are certain to
misuse it. A sensible man will not eat an entire apple of which two
thirds is rotten or unripe, and whoever does so is likely to pay the
penalty.
In the United States or the communities of the United States where women
at present vote, it is presumable and the best evidence obtainable shows
that most of those who really expect advantage from the suffrage are
political adventuresses, socialists and female cranks; the remainder
exercise the vote without any real understanding of what they are doing;
some because they are paid or coerced, others reluctantly and only from
a mistaken sense of duty, or upon the advice or direction of some
husband, father, brother, lover, clergyman or friend; or in
gratification of some spite, passion, fad or caprice which has possessed
them for the time being. Most of them, even those who pretend to
intelligence, are less fit to vote than the grimy day laborer, whose
daily talk in the beer saloon is largely of the practical politics of
the district.
Some suffragettes, while acknowledging the existence of this notorious
political indifference and ignorance of women, say that it is but
temporary, and will disappear with time; that with the incentive of the
vote women will by degrees acquire a taste for politics. This is the
same hollow “harper” argument herein already punctured, that was used to
justify the giving the ballot to the Southern freedmen in 1866 with
disastrous results. It offers a very poor outlook for the state;
presenting at best a dim hope that the quality of the female vote may
aspire some centuries later to equal that which we have already obtained
in the male vote. Meantime the country must suffer while the women
practise and learn; and after all the result will only be to bring us up
to our present standard and that some generations hence.
But in fact there is no such hope; the women will never learn politics
because they will never study it; the incentives offered do not appeal
to women with sufficient force to induce them in the mass to enter into
politics; their indifference thereto is incurable; it amounts in many
cases to positive aversion, and proceeds from causes which are likely to
continue to operate for an indefinite period, and which are sufficiently
permanent in their nature to justify a strong apprehension that if woman
suffrage prevails the national fabric may sometime be endangered
thereby. Foremost among these causes is the compelling power of Nature
herself, who gave the woman an organism, instincts, and ambitions of
her very own; who ordained that she should be something better and more
precious than a cheap echo and imitation of man, and that she should
have her own pleasures, her own tastes, her own loves and hates, her own
life, and a capacity for higher existence than grovelling in the muck of
universal suffrage politics. One of these natural instincts requires,
and always will require, healthy minded women to make it their first
object to please men. Now, the female politician is odious to most men,
and the display of masculine qualities by a woman is apt to provoke them
to something like disgust. This, the female suffragette leaders fail to
realize; they themselves are rather peculiar than typical; some of them
are eccentrics who imagine themselves superior when they are merely odd,
and are or pretend to be devoid of that instinctive desire for male
admiration and to be charming, which is the inspiration of the best in
woman. But they will never be followed by the mass of loving and
practical women into the dreary abode where they pass their cold and
shrill existences. Already the women voters in States where woman
suffrage is established are deserting these female agitators; they are
being deposed from leadership, and male politicians are rapidly taking
command, and replacing them by their own lieutenants, usually women who
avoided the suffrage agitation; often the wives and sisters of these
politicians. So that it is already coming to pass that female politics,
instead of representing woman’s political independence, will strengthen
male bossism; thus affording one more instance of the operation of
Nature’s fiat that certain jobs are exclusively for men, and that one of
them is the job of governing the world and every part thereof.
Not only is it true that women as a class have no natural liking for
politics, but they will never become acquainted with it for want of
proper opportunity. Such opportunity is in the nature of things confined
to the men of the nation, and comes from mixing with other men, and with
the transactions and business of other men day after day. A slight
acquaintance with it may be acquired by reading, or instruction, but
not nearly as much as by the constant, never-ending intercourse of men
of affairs with each other, on the mart, and in the business places of
the city and country. Our standards of life are such, that women, even
if their natural tastes did not disincline them to it, are necessarily
excluded from that intercommunion with business men; therefore, the
information and experience thus obtained by men are not within the reach
of women, even of those employed by men in stores and offices, most of
whom are further debarred therefrom by their being in subordinate
employments. Nor are women, even so-called business women, as a class,
engaged in the acquisition of property; even when employed in business
or a profession, their proficiency being inferior to that of men, they
do not often earn sufficient to enable them to make substantial
accumulations; and they seldom make a life career of any employment in
which they are engaged. Of the comparatively small number of women
employed in mercantile pursuits or in the business part of
manufacturing, the practical knowledge possessed by most of them, of the
effects of legislation in government administration, of the tariff for
instance, taxation, corporate law, banking law, etc., is so small as to
be negligible.
Passing, because it speaks for itself, the case of the millions of
negresses to whom it is proposed to give the ballot, and considering
that of the white women only, we find that to the vast majority of
farmer’s wives, female servants, factory girls, dressmakers, sewing
women, waitresses, shop girls and the like, the very word “politics”
conveys no exact or correct meaning; by far the most of them are not
only lacking in acquaintance with the subjects of political economy,
finance, constitutional law, foreign trade relations and treaties with
foreign nations, but they are unable even to correctly define the names
of those subjects. Then coming to a better read class of women, such as
teachers, stenographers, bookkeepers, cashiers, typewriters, etc., while
many of them would be able to give the definitions alluded to, their
knowledge would scarcely go farther. Very few of them ever read the
newspaper political articles; still fewer have ever read or heard
discussed a work of any sort on politics or political questions. Why,
indeed, should they read works which deal exclusively with matters
belonging to masculine life? In fact most women belonging to the classes
above mentioned, except such factory girls as are socialists, have
refrained from taking part in the suffrage agitation and from any demand
for the ballot. Most good women who believe in woman suffrage, hope to
become instructed in politics through reading books, newspapers and
magazines; and it is noticeable that the female suffragists constantly
talk and write as though intelligence enough to read were sufficient
qualification for a voter; they assume that one can learn how to vote by
merely reading the newspapers; completely ignoring the qualities and
training which will enable the voter to properly understand and weigh
the newspaper statements, and to discard newspaper lies. Mere general
intelligence is not a sufficient endowment for a voter; otherwise an
entire stranger in the community could cast a wise vote at its
elections; he needs as well that good judgment and firmness, that
knowledge of actual life, of business needs and conditions, of local
circumstances, and of the motives and reputation of public men, which
women can never hope to acquire in the same degree as men. No subject
can be mastered merely by reading, and politics least of all; and it is
of all branches of knowledge the one which women are least fitted to
acquire. For politics is concerned with the doings of men in their
pursuit of money and fame; and in modern times especially with their
business doings. The pursuit of money and fame are essentially masculine
vocations; it is impossible for women even to attempt to compete with
men in those undertakings, nor to understand their conditions, nor with
rare exceptions do women ever really wish to do so. As a branch of
knowledge politics includes such subjects as history, finance,
economics, foreign trade relations, war, legal principles,
constitutional law, naval affairs, the study of men and of their
prejudices and capabilities. Few men have time or inclination to study
these matters in the abstract sufficiently to enable them to properly
estimate important political measures. But this defect in men’s
education is corrected to a very considerable extent, by daily practical
experience. Business men are experts in innumerable activities of which
their women are absolutely ignorant, and they are thus made capable of
understanding the language of many of those subjects. They have besides,
the inestimable advantage of actual contact with men and groups of men,
in their daily business life, who are more or less interested in these
matters; of hearing their opinions directly or at second hand; with the
further advantage of experience direct or indirect in the results or
effects of political action. All this is part of the atmosphere and
circumstance of a man’s business life. An appreciable portion of this
information is constantly being spread and distributed by business men,
and find its way from them into the minds of the farmers, mechanics and
other men similarly interested. The result is, and has been, to set up
among active and thrifty men a current of practical information
concerning public matters, and to create a taste for politics, and for
the subjects cognate to politics, which is practically universal among
men, and is almost utterly lacking in women, who not only do not possess
it, but do not realize its existence. Many a village boy of fifteen has
more curiosity about politics, and more real knowledge thereof than any
women in the community.
Having thus it is hoped without too much prolixity, presented our
argument against female suffrage, let us take up one by one and reply to
the principal points made by its friends in its favor in their
publications and other public utterances.
A. _The “Nagging” or “Henpeck” scheme._ This is a theory or explanation
of the intended operation of woman suffrage, offered by many
suffragists, who apparently realize some of the manifest dangers and
absurdities likely to attend upon female legislation and administration.
They deprecate any idea of abolishing man’s supremacy in government, or
of subverting his time-honored institutions; they insist that female
suffrage does not mean the introduction into politics of a new
political power, nor even a modification of the present masculine
régime; it is no more than a convenient method of placing at the
disposal of the governing males a source of female wisdom of which they
have heretofore been deprived. The female politicians are merely to
recommend and urge such measures, mostly in family and sociological
matters, as the governing males may happen to overlook; it being
assumed, no one knows why, that woman’s knowledge of these subjects is
intuitive, inborn, at any rate superior to man’s. Under this plan, the
men are of course to be free to reject the advice of the new women;
otherwise they would be in the position of an East Indian rajah to whom
the British government has assigned an “adviser,” and who if he should
refuse to profit by his “advice” would be quickly brought to book by the
British military power. The theory then is, that the male officials are
not to be exactly subject to the female bosses or leaders who may become
their monitors; but it is understood, of course, that they are likely to
listen respectfully to counselors, who though they may roar, look you,
as gently as a sucking dove, will be backed by an earnest and somewhat
excitable and vociferous petticoated constituency. No doubt in order to
get what they want, these ladies will soon find means of persuasion, of
which the least urgent will consist of the process known to some
unfortunate husbands as “nagging,” and to the derisive neighbors as
“henpecking.” So, though the general superiority of the male
governmental faculty is conceded, the male governing officials are not
to be allowed to go on quite as they have been doing; the women will be
there to “advise.” In plain words the proposition is to henpeck the
public officials and other politicians into giving offices to the female
bosslets, and into the adoption of their ladylike fads and frills. The
picture in “Pinafore” of a high political dignitary on his official
rounds with a squawking company of women at his heels, is to become
actually embodied in American political life.
This suggestion of pressure upon government by harmless nagging and
henpecking is certainly shallow and unpractical, and is probably
insincere. If this is all that was intended, it was worse than folly to
force the general suffrage upon millions of reluctant women. Those women
who wished to nag and agitate were always at perfect liberty to do so.
They were always free to talk; and if they wanted to be clad with formal
authority to represent these few matters in which they claim a special
interest, that too could have been provided for; representative women
could have been elected or appointed to advisory boards or committees,
commissioned to present their views to the public officials in an
authoritative manner; leaving the latter to act in their discretion. But
no; the suffragettes demanded, and are demanding, nothing less than a
full and equal share with men in actual government, with equal
responsibility for the results. The talk about women merely acting as
advisers or proposers is sham and nonsense. Under the new régime, the
female spirit is to take possession equally with the male, of every part
of the body politic, with the obvious result of dislodging half of the
masculine element in our governmental system. A vote cast by a woman is
not a mere suggestion; it is an act of government; once deposited in the
urn, it counts equal to and effective with a man’s vote. And each
woman’s vote must either cancel or confirm the vote of some man. There
is no logical or practical escape from this situation. Woman suffrage
can have no actual effect except such as involves a defeat of masculine
government; a nullification to some extent of what men are doing or have
done. If it is to operate in mere confirmation of the rules or decrees
of man, it is unnecessary, and will be ineffectual; its only possible
effect must be in contravention of man’s political control. It is either
this or nothing. As for womanly counsel, whatever of that was effective
under a male suffrage polity, will with woman suffrage established,
necessarily be replaced by female political coercion and intrigue. When
men are in supreme power, a deputation of benevolent ladies urging some
remedial measure or charitable modification, is sure to receive
consideration from public officials; but what politician will be
foolish enough to give ear to non-political ladies offering mere womanly
counsel on any subject, when his female constituents are thundering at
his door with contrary demands, which they have the power to enforce by
political methods? The effect of woman suffrage is thus to completely
destroy the political influence of all ladies who are not political
workers, and to replace it by the domination, meddling and intrigue of
female politicians, who will speedily learn from the men to invent
reforms with jobs attached, to swap political support for graft, and to
market moral issues.
Consider the unescapable facts, and note the silliness and fraud of the
pretence that the women in politics will be no more than gentle advisers
to the men in certain matters. In the woman suffrage states women vote
with the men, and at the same elections, for president and
vice-president of the United States; members of Congress, senators and
representatives; governors and other state officers; members of state
legislatures; mayors of cities; city and county officers, etc. etc. In
every election contest there are usually two principal candidates for
each of the above offices; say a better fitted or superior candidate A
and an inferior candidate B, the interest of the public being to select
A. Now if the majority of each sex favors A he is elected, but to no
more purpose than he would have been without the woman vote. How then in
that first case, have the women aided or counselled the men? But if as
will certainly happen in most elections one of the candidates A or B is
defeated by the woman vote, what difference is there between the effect
of each woman’s vote and that of each man’s? Can anyone say that the
women merely counselled with the men, that they did not overrule them?
If a candidate is defeated by aid of the female vote who would not
otherwise have been defeated, are not the men overruled? The question is
absurd; as well say that the men merely advise the women, as that the
women merely advise the men. The same reasoning applies to votes on
legislative proposals; the woman’s vote will in every case either
overrule the majority male vote, or it will be totally ineffective.
There is absolutely no escape from the logic of the case.
The pretence that certain women have some secret and mysterious
knowledge to impart to lawmakers and law administrators is preposterous.
It is the offspring of the conceited minds of some well-to-do idle
female faddists, who want to get into public notice. Some of them
pretend that this private knowledge concerns factory girls, whose cause
they pretend to espouse, but who in fact hate and despise them and their
officious meddling. When working women have anything to say to public
officials, they can say so directly or hire a lawyer to do it for them,
as the men do. Some of those busy bodies pretend that they have the
secret of the proper treatment of fallen women; but legislation will
never help these people; it has not needed the vote to enable most women
to be cruel to them in the past, nor is the franchise needed to-day to
qualify good women to be charitable to them or to any other human beings
in the future. Truth is, that in the entire domain of sociology the
female suffragists have nothing whatever to propose except what they
have borrowed from the socialists; and that we had already, and knew to
be worse than worthless. Their talk about superior ability to care for
the children is more prattle; one of the best feminist writers, Mrs.
Gilman, has called attention in strong and plain language to the record
of notorious incapacity on the part of women in the care of children
(_Women and Economics_). The best that a woman can do for her child when
ill is to take advice from the best available male physician. The
administration of foundling asylums, children’s hospitals and homes is
safer in the hands of men than in those of women. Most real reforms and
improvements in medicine, surgery, ventilation, diet, architecture,
drainage, plumbing, and other branches of hygiene and sanitation have
come and will come from the male intellect and will be and are best
enforced by masculine administration.
Under the régime of universal suffrage it is safe to predict that the
“Naggers” will have little influence in government. They will interest
themselves as the “Watch Dogs” do, and sometimes they will collide with
the “Watch Dogs,” whose ideal is to save public money, while that of the
“Naggers” will be to spend it. Their sympathies will probably tend
towards the cranks, or “Yellow Dogs” of politics. They will very much
enjoy meddling in all sorts of things of which they know nothing; and
now and then they will get something through, over which they will crow
and chuckle. But the female masses will make but little response to
independent appeals of “Naggers,” “Watch Dogs” or other similar bands of
insurgents. They will be quite under the control of the machines of the
respective parties; their votes will be cast for the machine candidates;
and so political ignorance and corruption doubly supported will flourish
more and more.
To conclude with the “henpeck” project; this notion of sending the weak
and incompetent to hinder or modify the counsels of the strong and
capable on pretence of giving them advice, is one of the most foolish of
many foolish products of the untrained intellect. It is a childish
subterfuge of those who are ashamed to say outright that their fathers,
husbands and brothers are inferior in political capacity to their
mothers and sisters. But that assertion is just what is implied in
female suffrage, which by reducing by one half the value and force of
the ballot of each male voter, will have the actual effect of a moiety
disfranchisement of the men of the country.
B. _Man-made law._ One of the silliest claims of the female suffrage
agitators, is that they want political power, in order to repeal what
they flippantly call “man-made law.” As well sneer at man-made geology,
man-made mathematics or man-made astronomy; man-made they are indeed,
and so are all the arts and sciences, industries and philosophies. Of
the fact that law is a great science with its roots deep in the history
of the past ages; of the immensity of the great body of the law, with
its scores of divisions and branches, and hundreds of subdivisions,
these chatterers seem to have no suspicion. When they undertake to
specify the defects in the great juristic achievements of our law givers
past and present, they point with scorn to two or three instances of
ancient British legislation affecting the family relation, which like
all really useful and practical law represented the customs and ideals
of the time. Those ideals have since been modified, and the law has been
changed accordingly; in one case for instance by a statute passed about
1850 by which married women are permitted freely to dispose of their
separate property. But this measure, of which the suffragists always
speak as if they had put it through, was adopted upon the suggestion of
men long before women had any political power, and entirely without
their aid. The results of that act have not been altogether happy; it is
nothing to boast of specially; it was not a tribute to higher ideals,
but a concession to human weakness, and has enabled many a rascal to
cheat his creditors by putting his property in his wife’s name. The old
common law ideal was much the higher one; it conceived of the family as
a unit; and placed all its property in one common fund in the name of
and under the guardianship of the husband, as the head and
representative of the house. Its motto was like that of the Three
Musketeers, “One for all and all for one,” which is a much more noble
and lofty conception, and much more likely to promote family happiness
and family success, than any represented by the Woman’s Separate
Property Act, or by all that has been so far offered to the world by all
the women suffrage associations put together. Under the old common law,
a knave could not, as now, shelter himself from his creditors behind his
wife’s skirts, and keep her and his family in base luxury while his
trusting creditors suffered.
C. The legend “_No taxation without representation_” is one of the
suffragist catchwords. Just what is meant by this nobody knows; but if
it be offered as a political maxim derived from our ancestors, the
answer is that they never understood or interpreted this saying as
justifying woman suffrage, or any other right to vote than that of the
propertied classes. By taxation, they meant direct taxation on tangible
property; and as to representation, they considered that the women and
children as a class were politically represented by their men. If,
however, by this saying, “No taxation without representation,” the
suffragists mean that every taxpayer has a right to vote, that
proposition has already been answered herein by the true doctrine that
suffrage is not a right at all, but a function of government, to be
performed by those classes whom the state may select as duly qualified.
Nor does taxation ever confer a right to vote; taxation is justified not
by the franchise, but by the protection given by government to the taxed
property; property owners pay the tax as a return for that protection;
and therefore not only women but non-residents, resident aliens, and
children owning property in the community are justly taxed, though not
allowed to vote.
D. _The maternity claim._ Some emotional women have actually made claim
to the franchise based upon the merits and dangers of maternity. This is
mere nonsense. If women are not competent to vote on public affairs,
their votes will be injurious to the republic; and they cannot be
permitted to do themselves and others an injury merely because they have
borne children. It is not enough to mean well; the female turkey means
well by her chickens but she will often clumsily trample them to death
if not prevented. To bear children is natural to women and is its own
great reward; it is dangerous, but no more so than going to sea, and it
is not proposed to give the vote to sailors to recompense them for their
risk. The suffrage is not a reward; it is a function and a trust.
E. _That women have interests separate from that of men._ This is an
absurd proposition. The social and family ties and obligations of the
sexes and their interests in public matters are identical. The very
existence of a woman implies the care and devotion of a father, and also
the ties of family interest, family life and family love, all of which
are male as well as female. The sex difference is not as other
differences are, a separating influence; it is a unifying impulse; it
not only unites but fuses the subjects of its action. In almost all
instances the prizes achieved by the individual man, riches, ambitions,
and all the rest are shared to the utmost with his women. On the other
hand women never think of sharing their lives or their incomes with
strangers of their sex, but always with those of their own family and
blood, males as well as females, the preference if any being to the
males. But though under the present system the interests of men and
women are made as far as possible identical, the tendency of feminism is
to separate them, with a prospect of very ill results for women.
F. _Man’s alleged unfairness to women._ To those who have not suffered
the annoyance of having to read suffragist literature, it will seem
almost incredible that even the most unscrupulous of its purveyors would
accuse men of general unfairness to women. Nevertheless, they have done
so repeatedly and the charge must therefore be noticed. Indeed it is
well that it should be given prominence, so that people may realize the
offensive character of some of the incidents of the suffrage movement.
Women should always realize that they owe all they are and have to the
generosity, love, foresight and ability of men. Most of the harridans
and termagants, who in the suffrage agitation have displayed themselves
as slanderers and insulters of men, were born and raised in houses built
by men, fed and clad with material furnished by men, educated by books
written by men, attended schools and colleges founded and maintained by
men, or with money earned by men, are cared for by male physicians, and
are now either living on the income of money amassed by men, or are
employed by men, from whom they receive the salaries and instructions
necessary to enable them to earn a living.
G. _That women’s wages in factories and stores are too low and should be
higher._ No voting or legislation can permanently augment the income or
comforts of any class of people, or increase women’s wages with any good
effect. All wages seem low to the recipient and high to the employer.
Increased wages usually produce higher rent and higher cost of living;
the increased cost of living makes marriage and home life more
difficult, and from this women as well as men ultimately suffer. If
women generally really believe that their incomes can be increased by
voting and legislation, that of itself proves their total unfitness to
meddle in government. But suppose that it were possible by legislation
to materially increase the wages of factory women and store girls, what
would be the ultimate result to the community? A large increase in the
number of women taken out of households and put into stores and factory
life. No intelligent person believes that this change would really be to
the advantage of women as a class, nor doubts that it would be the
result of artificially advancing wages of such women above their natural
level.
H. _That women should be consulted on new legislation affecting marital
relations._ No such legislation is needed. The marriage status of a
couple is not to be regulated by law; it is controlled by social usage,
by religion and by sentiment. The only really important legal provision
is one dictated by nature and by custom, namely that the husband must
support the family. This requirement necessarily involves the right of
the husband to seek and select his own vocation, and to choose the style
and place of family residence. None of these arrangements can be
materially modified without breaking up the family and the state. That
to destroy the family and the state is the tendency of the feminist
movement no thinking man can doubt.
Some of the suffragist agitators, pretending to be moved by a
sentimental tenderness for the feelings of mothers, demand that the law
be changed so as to give the guardianship of children to the mother in
case of separation of parents. The law as it stands rightly provides
that the interests of the child in each particular case, and not the
whims or desires of the parents, are to be considered as paramount in
settling that matter. This is man-made law, and is much more humane and
just than anything the suffragists have ever suggested.
J. _That women have special capacity for municipal government because it
resembles housekeeping._ This argument is an unfortunate one for the
suffragists, for if there is one art in which most of them are
notoriously inefficient it is in housekeeping. But municipal government
is a matter of administrative detail; of business methods combined with
highly developed specialized, practical science, and not at all like
housekeeping. As President Lowell says, “The City Government is
essentially an administrative, not a legislative concern.” It is not,
therefore, a fit subject for political twaddle and sentimental vaporings
such as the suffragists revel in. Nor should city officials be elected
by the people under any system of suffrage. They should be appointive
and not elective officials; carefully chosen experts; competent to deal
with matters of public health, protection against fire, liquor
regulation, water supply, disposal of sewage, cleaning and maintenance
of streets and bridges, wires and pipes in streets, public lighting,
ferries, rapid transit, erection and maintenance of public buildings,
wharves and docks, public education, treatment of disease, pauperism and
crime, besides the levying assessment and collection of taxes and the
financing of thousands and even millions of dollars yearly. Yet
suffragists talk of “housekeeping” in cities as if it were a matter of
dusting the parlor furniture and laying the table for dinner. How many
of them are capable of planning for the water supply, and the disposal
of the sewage of a great city, for instance? Here are matters which
require to be dealt with by men of practical knowledge and force of
character, and who have the wisdom derived from actual experience in
finance, engineering, sanitation, medicine, surgery, pedagogics and law.
To say that women as a class are equal or any way near equal to men in
knowledge of these subjects or capacity to deal with them is absurd.
K. _That many women have property of their own._ The point of this
argument lies in the question, why not a property qualification for
women as well as for men? The answer is, that as already stated in this
volume, the vote is not given to the property but to the property plus
the human owner, with his added endowment of experience acquired in its
acquisition and care. It is proposed to limit the franchise to this
class of men, as on the whole best fitted to exercise it for the benefit
of the state. In the case of women, the mere possession of property does
not, as in the case of men, carry with it a general presumption of
business experience and ability. The class of women who own property
are, no doubt, better voting material than the propertyless women; but,
as a class, they have had far less business and political training than
the propertied men. The great majority of propertied women are so merely
by inheritance; and are but little more informed in business matters
than their servants. Their tastes and predilections do not as a rule
extend beyond dress, society, music and household matters. Not having
themselves accumulated property, they do not understand property or
business rights, and their temperaments and circumstances forbid that
they shall ever understand them. Women passengers at sea have property
and precious lives to be protected, yet they are never allowed even in
danger to interfere in the management of the ship. Nor do individual or
exceptional cases matter. Legislation must be made to fit classes, not
individuals, and therefore references to George Eliot and Mme. Curie are
unconvincing. Alexander Hamilton at eighteen was probably better
qualified to vote than many actual voters, but that was no reason for
changing the law so as to allow youths to vote. A whole class of
incompetents must not be let in merely to get a few intelligent votes.
The mere fact that so many women are willing that this should be done,
proclaims a condition of egotistic stupidity and a lack of patriotism
which is appalling. Propertied women should be content to let the
propertied men vote for them for a reason similar to that which requires
any one of them to give way to a physician’s orders in the case of a
sick child.