religion is more and more passing out of regard, even in the Christian
church. So much is this the case, that the world has good reason to
say that while most creeds and preachers teach it in words, few really
believe it. For "it is actions that speak louder than words," as to
what is believed.
For example, if a company of amiable persons were told that a shipwreck
was close at hand and help needed to save the struggling passengers,
and yet, after a few enquiries, all went on as before, it would justly
be said that these persons do not believe in the messenger and his
message. But suppose another company, on hearing the news, rush out
amid the darkness and danger, to help; this would prove their _faith_
in the messenger and his story.
Now no earthly danger can compare with those revealed by our Lord as
threatening every child born into this life; and He also teaches that
_the number saved depends on the self-denying labors of His followers_.
With small exceptions, all the Christian churches profess to believe
this, and that the first concern of Christian life is to _save as many
as possible_. And yet where is the _practical_ evidence that this is
believed?
If these teachings of Christ were fully and practically believed, would
it not so divide the church from the world that there could be no
mistake as to who are Christians and who are not? And is there any such
marked divisions in most of our churches?
It may be urged that this doctrine has been set forth with such hideous
detail and additions entirely unwarranted by the Bible and so abhorrent
to the best feelings of humanity, that the more men become humane and
Christ-like the more they revolt from it.[178:A]
[178:A] Note C.
Yet if this be so, the fact remains that Jesus Christ, the only
reliable messenger from the invisible world, has in the strongest
language both literal and figurative, set forth these dangers and
enjoined on his followers as their _first_ concern, to save as many as
possible, by training them to a knowledge of God's laws and to habitual
obedience to them. And is there not a want of _belief_ in this—that
is, a want that _practical faith_ in Christ and his message, which it
is the great and chief mission of woman to secure by her ministry in
the family and school? She it is who daily is to train all under her
care to become _righteous_, that is, to _feel and act right_ according
to the rules of right revealed by Jesus Christ. She is to teach that
"repentance" which consists in such sorrow for wrong doing as involves
turning from it, and such love as secures obedience to the Lord and
Savior.
Now the Christian woman in the family and in the school is the most
complete autocrat that is known, as the care of the helpless little
ones, the guidance of their intellect, and the formation of all their
habits, are given to her supreme control. Scarcely less is she mistress
and autocrat over a husband, whose character, comfort, peace, and
prosperity, are all in her power. In this responsible position is she
to teach, by word and example, as did Jesus Christ? Is she to set an
example to children and servants not only of that of a ruler, but also
of obedience as a subordinate? In the civil state her sons will be
subjects to rulers who are weak and wicked, just as she may be subject
to a husband and father every way her inferior in ability and moral
worth. Shall she teach her children and servants by her own example
to be humble, obedient, meek, patient, forgiving, gentle, and loving,
even to the evil and unthankful, or shall she form rebellious parties
and carry her points by contest and discord? God has given man the
physical power, the power of the purse, and the civil power, and woman
must submit with Christian equanimity or contend. What is the answer of
common sense, and what are the teachings of Christ and His Apostles?
Let every woman who is musing on these questions, take a reference
Bible and examine all the New Testament directions on the duties of the
family state, and she will have no difficulty in deciding what was the
view of Christ and His Apostles as to woman's position and duties. She
is a _subordinate_ in the family state, just as her father, husband,
brother, and sons are subordinates in the civil state. And the same
rules that are to guide them are to guide her. She and they are to be
obedient to "the higher powers"—those that can force obedience—except
when their demands are contrary to the higher law of God, and in
such a conflict they are "to obey God rather than man," and take the
consequences whatever they may be. And a woman has no more difficulty
in deciding when to obey God rather than man in the family state
than her husband, father, and sons have, in the civil state. And
obedience in the family to "the higher power" held by man, is no more a
humiliation than is man's obedience to a civil ruler.
If this be so, then the doctrine of woman's subjugation is established
and the opposing doctrine of Stuart Mills and his followers is
in direct opposition to the teachings both of common sense and
Christianity.
There is a moral power given to woman in the family state much more
controlling and abiding than the inferior, physical power conferred
on man. And the more men are trained to refinement, honor, and
benevolence, the more this moral power of woman is increased. This
is painfully illustrated in cases where an amiable and Christian man
is bound for life to an unreasonable, selfish, and obstinate woman.
With such a woman reasoning is useless, and physical force alone can
conquer, and this such a man cannot employ. The only alternatives are
ceaseless conflicts, at the sacrifice of conscience and self-respect,
or hopeless submission to a daily and grinding tyranny.
The general principles to guide both men and women as to the duties of
those in a subordinate station, have been made clear by discussions
relating to civil government. But the corresponding duties of those
invested with power and authority have not been so clearly set
forth, especially those of the family state. While the duties of
subordination, subjection, and obedience, have been abundantly enforced
on woman, the corresponding duties of man as head and ruler of the
family state have not received equal attention either from the pulpit
or the press. And this is not because they are not as difficult, as
important and as clearly taught by the Master and the Apostles of
Christianity.
St. Paul, who, while he dwelt in retirement in Arabia, received the
direct instructions of Jesus Christ, claims to have full authority from
the Master to instruct on this important and fundamental topic, and in
his Epistle to the Ephesians we have his express and full teachings.
In this most interesting passage we find that the family state is the
emblem to represent Jesus Christ and the Church—the Church "which is
the great company of faithful people" in all ages and all lands—those
who are appointed to guide and save the world—the true educators of our
race, who, by self-denying labors are to train men for Heaven. Of this
body the Apostles teaches that Jesus Christ is the head—those whom He
has redeemed by His labor and sacrifice, and who are to train as His
children all whom they can rescue from ignorance and sin, by similar
labor and sacrifice.
It is in this connection that he sets forth the duties of the family
state, Ephesians v: 22 to 33, "Wives submit yourselves unto your own
husbands _as unto the Lord_. For the husband is head of the wife, even
as Christ is head of the Church: Therefore, as the Church is subject to
Christ so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."
"Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the Church and
gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself, a
glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that
it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives
as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man
ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it even as
the Lord the Church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and
of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother
and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."
No wonder these directions close with "this is a great mystery"; for
the most advanced followers of Christ have but just begun to understand
the solemn relations and duties of the family state—man the head,
protector, and provider—woman the chief educator of immortal minds—man
to labor and suffer to train and elevate woman for her high calling,
woman to set an example of meekness, gentleness, obedience, and
self-denying love, as she guides her children and servants heavenward.
It is this comprehensive view of the family state as organized to
train immortal minds for the eternal world that indicates the reason
for the stringency of the teachings of our Lord as to the indissoluble
union of man and wife in marriage.
"And he said unto them, Moses, _because of the hardness of your
hearts_, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the
beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall
marry another committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her
that is put away doth commit adultery."
"Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning
made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a
man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and
they twain shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together let not man put asunder."
This then is "the higher law" which abrogates all contrary human
statutes and forbids to marry more than once, except when death or
adultery breaks the bond. This statute brings all the advocates of
free divorce in direct antagonism with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
And it is a striking fact that the great body of those who advocate
free divorce and free love, deny the authority of Jesus Christ as the
authorized teacher of faith and morals.
In the discussions as to woman's rights and wrongs, it is assumed on
one side that she is not to take a subordinate position either in the
family or the State. And the apparent plausibility of the claim is
owing to a want of logical clearness in the use of words. When it is
said that "all men are created free and equal and equally entitled to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and that women as much as
men are included, it is true in one use of terms and false in another.
It is true in this sense, that woman's happiness and usefulness are
equal in value to man's, and ought to be so treated. But it is not true
that women are and should be treated as the equals of men in _every_
respect. They certainly are not his equals in physical power, which is
the final resort in _government_ of both the family and the State. And
it is owing to this fact that she is placed as a subordinate both in
the family and the State. At the same time it is required of man who
is holding "the higher powers" so to administer that woman shall have
equal advantages with man for usefulness and happiness.
Hitherto the laws relating to women in the civil state have been
formed on the assumption that society is a combination of families, in
each of which the husband and father is the representative head, and
the one who, it is supposed, will secure all that is just and proper
for the protection and well being of wife and daughters. And if the
teachings of Christianity were dominant, and every man loved his wife
as himself, and was ready to sacrifice himself and suffer for her
elevation and improvement, even as Christ suffered to redeem and purify
the Church, there would be no trouble.
But both men and women have been selfish and sinful, neither party
having attained the high ideal of Christianity, and very many have not
even understood it so as to aim at it. But it is woman's mission as the
educator of the race to remedy the evil, not by giving up the ideal but
by striving more and more to conform herself and all under her care
to its blessed outlines. And in past times those families have been
the most peaceful and prosperous where the wife and mother has most
faithfully aimed to obey the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, in
this as in every other direction.
The principle of subordination is the great bond of union and harmony
through the universe. At the head is the loving Father and Lord whom
all are to obey with perfect faith and submission. Then revelations
teaches that in the invisible world are superior and subordinate ranks,
each owing obedience to superiors in station and described as "thrones,
dominions, principalities, and powers." Again, in this world are also
superiors and subordinates, not only in the family state but in all
kinds of business where heads of establishments and master workmen
demand implicit faith and obedience.
This being so, one of the most important responsibilities of a woman
in the family state is to train the young in this duty, not only by
precept but also by example. And a woman who clearly understands the
importance of this, will pride herself on her implicit obedience to
the official head of the family state, as much so as the citizen or
soldier does to his superior officer, or the subordinate operator to
his master-workman.
But at the same time, such a woman will demand and expect a return for
this submission, that the husband and father fulfil his corresponding
and more difficult duties; to love his wife as himself; to honor
her as _physically_ the weaker vessel needing more tender care and
less exposure and labor; to suffer for her in order to increase her
improvement, usefulness, and happiness, even as the Lord suffered to
elevate and purify his followers.
The duty of subordination, though so fundamental and important, is one
to which all minds are naturally averse. For every mind seeks to follow
its own judgment and wishes rather than those of another. Especially
is this the case with persons of great sensibilities and strong will.
It is owing to this that so many women of this class are followers of
Stuart Mills' doctrine that a wife is not a subordinate in the family
state. And it is for want of clear instruction on this subject from the
pulpit and the press that this doctrine spreads so fast and so widely.
The agitation at the present time in regard to woman's right and
wrongs is greatly owing to the fact that, from various causes, large
multitudes of women are without the love and protection secured by
marriage. And yet the laws and customs of society are framed on the
general rule that every man is to be head of a family and every woman
a wife. But war, emigration, vicious indulgencies, and many other
causes have rendered marriage impossible to multitudes of women;
counting by tens of thousands in the older States, and by hundreds
of thousands in our nation. A large portion of these women must earn
their own independence, while those who are provided with a support
are embarrassed by false customs or unjust laws. In regard to the
multitudes of women who flock to our cities and to such direful
temptations it is often said, why "do they not become servants in
families?" Let any woman who has a young daughter ponder this question
as one that may reach her own family. Does not almost every woman feel,
more or less, the bondage of _caste_ and shrink from taking the _lowest
place_ even though the Lord of Glory set the example?
And is it not the chief attraction toward our pitying Saviour that He
loves and tenderly cares for the weak, the wandering and the lost?
And are we not walking in His steps when we try to help the weak and
foolish who will not take care of themselves?
That there is an emergency which demands changes in our customs and
laws, all well informed and benevolent persons will concede. But the
main question is, what should be the nature of these changes and how
shall they be secured?
There are certain customs of society which are based on the assumption
that all women are to marry and be supported by husbands, and that
all men are to provide for the support of a family. It is on this
assumption that, in cases where men and women do the same work and do
it equally well, men receive much larger wages than women.
But as emigration, war, and the vices of unrestrained civilization have
interfered with this normal condition of society, the laws and customs
should be modified to meet the emergency. For there are many wrongs,
both to married and unmarried women, consequent on the present false
and unchristian state of things.
As one example of injustice, it is granted by all who superintend
public schools, that women are as good and often better teachers
than men, and yet they are unjustly denied equal compensation. In
many other directions the same unjust custom prevails. Still more
unjust is the custom which gives superior advantages to men for
the scientific and practical training for a profession by which an
honorable independence may be secured and almost none at all are
provided for women. So also in the distribution of public offices of
trust and emolument which secure an income from the civil state, there
are several in which woman can perform the duties as well or better
then men, especially in the care of schools, hospitals, jails, and all
public institutions of benevolence.
Almost all persons of intelligence will concede that justice and
mercy call for changes and improvement in these particulars. The main
question is, what is the best method for securing such improvement?
The party of men and women who are demanding woman suffrage claim
that this is the only sure and effective remedy for these and all
other wrongs that oppress women both in the family and in the civil
state. The party is organized and led by intelligent, energetic, and
benevolent women; they have well-conducted periodicals to urge their
views and to excite sympathy by details of the various ways in which
women suffer from unjust customs and laws; and they are sustained
by the approval and co-operation of many gentlemen of talents and
benevolence.
But the great majority of intelligent and benevolent men and women
are opposed to this measure, first, on account of the probable evils
involved and next because the good aimed at may be secured by a safer,
more speedy, and more appropriate method.
In enumerating the evils that would result from introducing woman
to the responsibilities and excitements of political life, the most
prominent is her increased withdrawal from the more humble, but
more important offices of the family state. At the present time,
the services of the seamstress and the mantua-maker are imperfectly
supplied, and when obtained it is often from those who are poorly
trained. An economical, trustworthy, and competent cook, is a treasure
growing more and more rare, which often the highest wages cannot
procure. A kind, intelligent, and affectionate woman, to aid a mother
in the cares of the nursery, is still more rare.
If the good mothers and grandmothers, who have trained their own
offspring, would take pity on the young mothers all over the land
who are suffering for want of just such sympathy and help as only
such women can bestow, they would soon find, especially in the poorer
classes, a field of usefulness far more in keeping with the tender
spirit of Christian love and humility than any offices that political
action would provide.
Again, the demand for well trained governesses and family teachers is
unsupplied, while multitudes of children all over the nation have no
teachers and no schools of any kind. To open avenues to political place
and power for all classes of women would cause these humble labors of
the family and school to be still more undervalued and shunned.
Another evil to be apprehended from introducing women into political
life is increasing the temptations to draw them from the humble,
self-sacrificing Christian labor among the ignorant and neglected,
which now is so imperfectly supplied. To be a member of the
Legislature, a member of Congress, a Judge, a Governor, or a President,
are temptations heretofore unknown to women. Who shall say what
would be the result should every woman of _every class in society_ be
stimulated by such temptations?
Another danger to be feared, is the introducing into political strifes
the distinctive power of sex, an element as yet untried in our form of
government. In some short experiments that have been made we have seen
how pure and intelligent women can be deceived and misled by the baser
sort, their very innocence and inexperience making them credulous and
the helpless tools of the guilty and bold.
Another danger from universal woman suffrage would result from
the course that would be taken by many of the most virtuous and
intelligent women. Of those who would regard this measure as an act
of injustice and oppression, forcing duties on their sex unsuited to
their character and circumstances, many would refuse to assume any
such responsibilities. Thus a large number of the most intelligent and
conscientious women would be withdrawn from the polls, increasing the
relative proportion of the ignorant and incompetent voters, a class
that already bring doubt on the success of republican institutions.
On the other hand, another portion would be forced to the polls by
conscientious motives, and there meet the lowest and vilest of their
sex as those who are to appoint their rulers and decide their laws. How
would it be possible for such women to honor the rulers and respect the
laws instituted by such agencies?
The final objection to universal woman suffrage is that there is
another safer, surer, and more speedy method at command which would
secure all the benefits aimed at without any of these dangers.
This method is based on the general principle that in seeking either
favors or rights it is a wise policy to assume the good character and
good intentions of those who have the power to give or withhold. The
law-making power is now in the hands of men, and the advocates of women
suffrage practically are saying, "you men are so selfish and unjust
that you cannot be trusted with the interests of your wives, daughters,
and sisters; therefore give them the law-making power that they may
take care of themselves."
As a mere matter of policy, to say nothing of justice, how much wiser
it would be to assume that men are ready and willing to change unjust
laws and customs whenever the better way is made clear and then to ask
to have all evils that laws can remedy removed. Whenever this course
has been practiced it has always been successful and therefore should
first be tried. For any men who would give up the law-making power to
women in order to remedy existing evils, would surely be those most
ready to enact the needful laws themselves.
The woman suffrage party is so extensively organized, with such
energetic and persistent leaders and such ably conducted papers and
tracts, that those of our sex who are opposed to this measure begin
to feel disturbed and anxious lest it should finally be consummated.
Instead of meeting this danger by ridicule and obloquy I would suggest
that practical methods be instituted in which conservative men and
women can unite, and which the most radical will approve and aid.
There are many ways in which great influence can be exerted without any
regular organization or establishing newspapers or circulating tracts
as is now so vigorously carried on by those favoring woman suffrage.
One method might be enlisting editors of newspapers and magazines
to promote the circulation of this little volume and also to insert
extracts of some of the most effective portions in their columns.
Another might be to present this work to the clergymen and seek their
influence and counsel in promoting its aims.[198:A]
[198:A] A small periodical, published in Baltimore, Md.,
entitled the _True Woman_, ably edited by Mrs. Charlotte E.
McKay, is valuable as a cheap and excellent tract with the same
aim.