IS WOMAN A RESPONSIBLE BEING?
There are nations still in existence where women are denied the
possession of a soul; but these nations are not civilized. Now, Germany
and England are civilized nations, yet I am not sure that some Germans
and Englishmen really admit that women are beings possessed of a mind.
I have constantly heard Englishmen of 'the good old school' say: 'If a
man steals my horse, my dog, my poultry, I have him arrested, and he
gets a few months' imprisonment; if he steals my wife, he remains at
large, unmolested. Yet, is not my wife my most valuable property?' And
that good Englishman is absolutely persuaded that his argument is
unanswerable.
The other day, in a German paper, I read the following exquisitely
delicious remark: 'We have a treaty of extradition with Switzerland. If
the man Giron had stolen the least valuable horse of the Crown Prince of
Saxony, we could have had him arrested in Geneva and returned to us; but
as he only stole the wife of that prince, the mother of his children, we
can do nothing.'
From all this we are bound to conclude that, in the eyes of many
Germans and some Englishmen, a woman is like a horse or any other
animal, a thing, a 'brute of no understanding,' a being without a mind.
In my ignorance I thought that when women left their husbands to follow
other men, they were, rightly or wrongly, using their own minds, acting
on their own responsibility and on their own good or bad judgment.
In other words, I thought that they were thinking beings.
When a man steals a horse, he takes him by the mane or the mouth and
pulls him away with him. He does not say to the animal, 'I like you; I
will treat you better than your master; will you come with me?' He
steals him, as he would an inanimate thing.
When a man asks a woman to elope with him, he says to her: 'I love you,
I know you love me; leave your husband, who makes you unhappy, and come
with me, who will make you happy.' She reflects, and, through feelings
of despair, of love, of passion, she yields, and answers, 'Yes, I will.'
Now, her resolution may be most reprehensible, her conduct immoral; she
may be a fool, anything you like, but she is not carried off by force.
She acts of her own accord and free will, and is, I imagine, prepared to
meet the consequences of her actions.
I have heard an English magistrate say to a man whose wife was accused
of disorderly conduct: 'You should look after your wife better than you
do, and, in future, I will make you responsible for what she does.
To-day I will impose a fine of ten shillings. If you pay it, I will set
her free.'
Now, this argument would be fairly good if the accused had been a dog. I
should understand a magistrate saying to a man: 'Your dog is a nuisance
and a source of danger to your neighbours; if he causes any more damage,
if I hear again that he has killed your neighbour's cat, eaten his
poultry, or bitten his children, I will hold you responsible, and make
you pay the damages, _plus_ some compensation.' But a wife!--inasmuch
that, mind you, when a woman has committed a murder in England, it is
she who is hanged, not her husband.
I believe that women are quite prepared to accept the responsibility of
their actions. The emancipation of woman should be an accomplished fact
by the declaration that she can do evil as well as good. And I am sure
that if she wants credit for whatever good she does, she is also ready
to accept the consequences of the mischief, to herself or to others,
which she may make.