The Conservative. (M'connelsville, Ohio) 1866-1871, 1869-11-26
A FERN BLAST.
York Editors-Their Success nt
Dodging the Woman Question.

New York Edttors-Their Success at
Dodging the Woman Question.
1 do not know who writes the editorials
on tho "Woman Question" in its various
aspects, in our more prominent New York
papers. I read them from day to day, with
real disappointment at their immaturity,
their h%ippancy, their total lack Of manli-
ness and respect for, OF appreciation Of,
true womnnhood. say this in no spirit
of bitterness, but Of real sorrow, that men
stepping into the responsible position they
hold on those papers, have not better CON
sidered the subject of which they treat.
That the writer's are not known outside the
office, seem 10 me a very unmanly reason
for their misrepresentation, Every morn
ing l ask, over my coffee, have these men
mothers, sisters, wives, who SO persistently
misrepresent the doings Of seli-respscting,
self-suppOrting, intelligent women Does
Congress make no mistakes, that women
should be expected, in their pioneering, TO
have arrived at absolute perfection? IL
there no heat IN debate on is floors; no
uncourteousness of ~language2
Did not one member, a short time since,
call out there to hnve another member
spanked Does the speakers mallet
never call TO order men selected by their
constituents because supposed most intel
ligently to represent tho various local and
other interests OF the country Does the
cut of n mans hair or coat iniuriously or
approximately affect his speech upon the
floor? l ask myself these questions when
l read reports of ''strong minded women's
meetings, !" as they are %sneeringly termed;
which consist mainly in the absence of a
'long train" TO their dresses, or the pres
ence Of Il; on the %straightnoss OF theft hair,
or the frizzing of it; on the lack of orna-
mentation, or the r%edundauce Of it. This
mocking Mephistopheles lodging Of the
real question at issue, behind ilimsy screens,
seems to me not only unworthy OF these
writer's, but most unworthy OF and preju-
dicial to the prominent Journals in which
they appear.
II they think that women make such
grave mistakes-mistakes %preiudicial to the
great interests they seek publicly TO pro-
mote, the great wrongs they seek TO right
would II not be kinder and moro manly,
courteously to point them out, il so be that
they themselves knew "a moro excellent
way2" Among all these women, are there
none who nre intelligent, intellectual, earn-
ast, and modest ioith1l2 Have the editors of
these very papers in which these attacks
appear, never gladly employed just such, to
lend grace, wit, and spirit to their own
NbAbhAhnt hAAN NhNl hNNN 'Aie nAN'An tAA
taunts for tho cause they espouse, and never
a brave, kind, sympathetic recognition of
their ph~ilnnthropic effortY Ia the cause so
utterly Quixotic, espoused by such women,
who make their own homes bright with
good cheer, n~eatness. taste, and wholesome
food, that they cannot CALAMITY extend n
manly hand after it and help them over
those bright thresholds, and ont into a
world full OF pain and misery, to lift the
burden from their less favored sistersP
II they have the misfortune not to know
such women among the 'strong-minded, "
would il not be well to seek them ont, and
better inform themselves on the subiesct
upon which they daily write?
The pioneer women who have bravely
gone forward, and still keep ''maching on
%undaunted in the face of this unmanly and
ungenerous dealing, have, doubtless, count.
ed the cost, and viii not be Kindred by II.
l do not fear that but l do regret that any
editor of a prominent paper in New York
should belittle it and himself, by allowing
any Of his employees to keep up this boyish
pop.gun firing into the air. goo,
FANNY FERN.