[By Lady Cook, nee Tennessee C. Claflin.]
If any of your readers would desire to see what were the old world views of the proper relations and duties of husbands and wives, they should read a letter in the "Star" under the above heading, signed " Homo." It is obviously a joke, but I prefer to treat it seriously. The writer appears to be a fair specimen of the ancient Tory Churchman, and how he found his way into the " Star " Heaven only knows. He dishes up the same stale assertions and arguments that formed a leading part of the intellectual banquet of his predecessors a few generations ago. These have been exploded over and over. But it appears there are some beings still so obtuse that nothing short of a miracle can convince them. Insensible to reason, deaf to argument, and cocksure of their errors, they cling to the fallacies of their great grandfathers with limpet like tenacity. Were it not that a few weak minds might possibly be led astray by them, I should not trouble to reply to their absurdities.
The statement respecting the " New Women" that "they all agree in claiming to do what they like, to say what they like, and to wear what they like," is entirely contrary to the truth. For they claim nothing opposed to sound reason, good sense, and propriety. Theirs are not the claims of wanton wilfulness, but equitable demands based upon intelligent conviction. If there are any so ill-informed as " Homo," I will tell them what we want. We require that the laws should deal with men and women alike, making no distinction between sex and sex ; that marriage should be a civil contract, and that, each partner should have equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities; that under this contract the wife shall be no longer regarded as a "chattel" or matrimonial slave, but a free partner, ruling in her department while the husband rules in his ; that obedience should be equal and reciprocal, each yielding to the authority of the other where his or her special functions are concerned ; that the wife shall have the same liberty as her husband to choose what she shall eat, drink, and wear, but may not imitate him in excesses or in transgressing the limits of propriety or good sense ; that the same purity of conduct which men demand from women should be demanded from the men. These are the most salient points in our programme, and the objections to them are : that husbands protect their wives from all anxieties in the battle of life, and ninety-nine married women out of every hundred have none whatever ; that women vow obedience in marriage ; that "one must rule, and the question is, Which ?" ; that the vast majority of women have less sense than men ; that "if the most gifted women of the world are put in competition with the most gifted men the result is pitiable so far as the weaker sex is concerned." To all this we give an emphatic denial.
Would to God that only one married woman in a hundred had " no anxiety." Would to God that men were the gifted and generous creatures that they are represented to be. In that case we should never have heard of women's rights and wrongs. But it is because men have egregiously failed in their duties that women have risen to a sense of higher responsibilities and demand a freer life. Woman has always been more or less the slave of man, treated first as a chattel, and next as a child ; kept ever in subjection in some form or another ; denied freedom of occupation and liberal education ; refused the common rights of the lowest freeman ; beaten by brutes, and trampled down by her country's laws. But by her abilities and address, and the growing sense of justice, she has begun to emancipate herself from foul restraints. And the day is not far distant when she will disdain to be the mere toy or drudge of man, and will stand with him, shoulder to shoulder, as his intellectual peer and social equal — the worthy helpmeet of the worthiest.
I can fearlessly appeal to your readers as to their personal knowledge of the numerous anxieties which beset every married woman as soon as the honeymoon is over, and frequently before. The anxieties of child-bearing, nursing, and household management belong to rich and poor, and are by no means slight. In the case of the poor, who form the majority, there is added the responsibility of assisting the husband in his scanty earnings by some outside employment. Thousands of indigent wives have to care for a family and work besides, and excessive child-bearing, insufficient nourishment, and hard labor, break down the health of the strongest young mothers. The anxieties of mere household control and family training are far more wearing than the routine of ordinary business.
"The vow of obedience" which occurs in the English Church services is simply part of an old ecclesiastical formula which has outlived its meaning.
The man says " With all my worldly goods I thee endow," but neither of them, unless they are very simple, mean or do anything of the sort. As to the alleged necessity that one of the two should rule, this does not exist where two are of one mind and strive to please each other by every act of love, as in a real marriage. But if it is a case of master and servant, or even of a sold or purchased wife, the disparity between these may excuse marital authority over the wife. St. Paul wrote in regard to such, and to a condition of semi-slavery which existed in his time, but we wholly repudiate the application of his Oriental ideas to the case of a free English woman.
Women, of course, do not understand those subjects which they have not studied as do the men who have. They have been carefully excluded from many avocations which men regard as belonging to themselves, and therefore, on topics relating to these, women are ignorant and may seem foolish. But it is equally the same with men when they discuss women's affairs. Suum cuinque.
Give, however, boys and girls, maidens and youths, women and men, the same opportunities, and the result will not "be pitiable so far as the weaker sex is concerned." The noble individuals who assist in boycotting woman and dwarfing her faculties by forbidding them to be exercised are the first to make invidious comparisons between the sexes. These cowards lash us for the faults of their own system, and for which they alone are responsible. But those of us who have thrown off our shackles and asserted our independence have already proved that women can compete successfully with men in everything when the conditions are equal. The men know this, and shudder to see the " rod of empire" sliding from their grasp. We claim too much, forsooth, because we ask for the rights of citizens, freedom of occupation, freedom of knowledge and equality before the laws. If we were to claim a tithe of what men assume as a matter of course, the audacity of it would astound the strongest minded woman. Theirs is a one-sided arrangement; giving themselves a monopoly of power, privilege and pleasure. If some of them think this can go on for ever, they are mistaken. For, come what may, we women will alter it and equalise matters, and this will be to their advantage as well as ours.
Husbands have no more right to exact obedience from wives than wives from husbands. Each should yield when the laws of love and right demand it, but, as the lawyers say, without prejudice.
Ovens and Murray Advertiser (Beechworth, Vic. : 1855 - 1955), Saturday 12 January 1895
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article201544305
No comments:
Post a Comment