From Transcribe Wiki
Revision as of 08:08, 11 October 2019 by Mjulienne (Talk | contribs) (Protected ".MjI5Mjg.ODM1NjU" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. 2

which are for the protection of the home, will someone kindly state why women - so many of whom live in the home and are largely responsible for the bringing up of the children therein - should not have the ballot which alone holds the law making body responsible to the people? I am sorry to say that very few men take any interest in the formulation or passage and execution of the laws for the bettering of moral conditions. The evidence of this is in such laws as are now on our statute books relative to such matters, and the almost total disregard of some of the most vital of them by both authorities and the people. All the home training in the world, without law and the execution of law, to further and support it is going to fail sooner or later. It is impossible for us much longer to convince children of our honesty, for they are learning that there is one "law for the street" and one "law for the home." There are more vital issues concerned in in the matter of suffrage than those of voting for men to make appropriation bills, tariff laws, army and navy regulations, laws for the governing of corporations, or the electing of bodies for granting electric light and street railway franchises. The admitted necessity of this other legislation implies the necessity of the direct participation in the election of legislative and executive officers by those whose work these laws most vitally concern. Now as to men's attitude towards these matters: the majority of men have one set of ideas which they exhibit before their mothers, their sisters and their wives, and another which they exhibit when they are with other men, which accounts for much of the ineffective legislation which we have. [one sentence crossed out] Now for some of the things "X" says. As long as women persist in the attitude of "superiority" suggested by "X" they are utterly powerless to help in bettering conditions, social and political; and as long as they persist in assuming that it is only necessary for them to say to the men of their family "do this, or have this done" to get it done, they display an appalling ignorance of human nature. Those people whose end in life is the protection of themselves and their immediate families are exceedingly selfish - I care not how pure, how personally honorable they may be - and selfishness is vicious for it indicates that one does not care what happens to others. And the selfish people are always well punished here and now by the actions of those whom their selfishness has prevented from having better opportunities and protection. We must not forget, and not only not forget but very actively remember that the presence of a few protected homes in a community does not argue the safety of all; and observation shows that the majority of people - women particularly - have no protection other than the laws of the land which are made and executed by men who owe them no political responsibility and who seem in large measure, from the legislation enacted by them, to have overlooked their moral responsibility to this part of the population. If people would only read seriously some of the writing of Jane Addams (Called in yesterday's Times-Dispatch by an anti-suffragist "a simple thing") and the report of the vice commission of Chicago, Rheta Childe Dorr's What Eight Million Women Want, or better still if these people would go out into the world and look about for themselves, I think there would be some changes of heart. As to the talk about "home influence" past and present. Let me ask why (if this "home influence" is all that it is said to be)