Difference between revisions of ".MjI5Mjg.ODM1NjY"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Protected ".MjI5Mjg.ODM1NjY" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 08:16, 11 October 2019

3 are our streets so well filled with irresponsable men and women, many of them barely past childhood, plying a nameless, shameless trade? Why are the bar rooms of our cities so well filled day after day; why are the dens of vice, the brothels and gambling hells, such popular resorts; why are the surgeons knives so busy with operations whose true names are only called behind closed doors? There are many, many homes whose influence, exerted by both father and mother, is good and strong and holy, but look at the myriads of so-called homes in which this is not so. We cannot argue from the specific instances which we know, our own home, perhaps; we must go out and see the homes of the world. I wish that "X" would tell us if "woman's sphere" - which is the term everlastingly blown in our ears - is only the "home"; interpreted to mean a husband and a number of children, why woman's Creator has not seen to it that every woman is given the conditions necessary to staying in her sphere, and why any woman has to go out to work. The majority of "home keeping" women are not the gloriously satisfied people "X" would have us believe; the majority of them are pampered creatures unfit to raise children. Most of the women who are working out in the world are not crying over their condition; they are brave and strong and steadfast, and in the depths of their great natures they realize that the evolution of God's world is fundamentally right and that their position is not anomalous, and with all the strength of their pure, unselfish hearts they are trying to better conditions for their less fortunate sisters: working together with God. Immoral and indecent "X" would make out the women advocating suffrage! Why? Because there has been some rather plain and direct talk in some of the suffrage lectures, and at some of the suffrage meetings. Plain truths have been told and the sword of the truth put into the hands of women; for by that alone can they fight their way out of the depressing ignorance by which they have been held to earth. It is not the knowledge of life - for which the woman movement stands - that is undermining the home; it is the ignorance in which prudish parents keep their children, and the parent's encouragement of the so-called "society spirit" in their sons and daughters. Who are the women who drink and wear immodest clothes and gamble at bridge? Has "X" the statistics to prove the suffragists are in the majority in these things? It is unfortunate that "X" should challenge the suffragists to break their punch bowls, for thereby "X" betrays a lamentable ignorance of the things which go on in the homes of the leaders and the majority of advocates of equal suffrage. Again, the sweeping statement that women and men who are suffragists have tired of and are abandoning the home shows "X" to have ignored the numerous signatures of well known heads of families, husbands and wives, which appear on the petition to the Virginia Legislature of 1912 asking for for the suffrage for women. "X" is not the only anti-suffragist whom woman's so-called crowding of the marts of the world, and intruding upon every vocation of man, seems to have troubled. Do the anti-suffragists really wish us to believe that woman, the weakling, physically, mentally and morally as they have painted her, has literally shouldered "poor mere man" out of his place? Will someone please tell us how many incompetent women are filling men's so-called places? Is it not because economic conditions demand that women go into the world and work, that they are there; and is it not because they are proving themselves competent that they are filling these places? Are there no anti-suffragists or women who are indifferent to the matter who are working in like positions?