The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-09
rRE LNroLERANoE oF woMAN.

ligent woman more than the asinine conf
dence with which inferior men are in the
habit of dogmetizing on the differences be-
tween the sexes, and indicating what they
are pleased to call the appropriate sphere"
of woman. With the quick intuition charao-
teristic of the feminine mind, she sees in
stantly that these gentlemen are talking of
something on which they do not deign to ex-
ercise what little power of thinking they pos
sess that the pompous nothings, SO wisely
nouthed, are not judgments to be discussed,
but insults to be resented. Heaven forbid
that we should enter into a controversy
where the lorgest grasp and the most delicate
discrimination of mind have been SO
often at fault Still, there is one secondary
question, relating to facts rather than to
principles, which we will venture to empha-
size.
Intolerance is the curse of the world Now
men are more or less intolerant but they are
notoriously not so intolerant as women.
Without considering the question whether
this difference has any root in an essential
difference between the intelligence and con-
science of the two sexes, the fact, as society
is now constituted, is too evident to be de-
MED. Men can object to what is objectiona-
BILE in an individual, and still preserve
some goodwill, or respect or even admi-
ration, for the individual considered in the
totality of his character; women vividly see
are generally relentless in identifying it
with the whole personality they condemn.
This antithesis between the sexes is further
complicated by the fact that the moment
affection enters into the matter the women
ignore the particular defect, and excel all
mankind in a liberation which is unreasona-
BILE and sometimes even stupid. The drama
fists and novelists of the world are united in
testifying to this popularity of women-that
they are, from the merely intellectual point
of view, more cruelty unjust than men,
and from the emotional point of view more
ridiculously credulous The imperfect per.
son, not loved, is despised beyond all possi-
bilities of masculine contempt the person
loved is absolved from all the laws which the
most tolerant and comprehensive men inexo-
rably insist on applying. Here is practical
method of judging the two sexes, according
to the circumstances in which they have
heretofore been placed. 1t is not man and
woman that we presume to discuss; we are
only fearful that we may make the smallest
mistake in considering the subtle play of
antipathies and sympathies, which mark
one phase of the practical life of men and
women.
The injustice of women to men is some
thing which we will not consider, though it
might furnish endless topics for subtle dis
quisitions. The intolerance we specially
desire to mark is that which women enter
tain for each other. Every man who has ap-
peared as the champion of ''Woman's Rights"
will tell you, if he is candid, that he finds his
bitterest opponents in women. Those who
do not sympathize with him, in his general
principles, oppose him in way to which
men are accustomed in their controversies
with other men. certain neutral ground of
reason is admitted, by the most prejudieed
men, as necessary to be set apart, if any sub
ject is to be discussed; the prejudiced women
invade the narrowest strip of ground where
opposing minds can meet in fair discussion,
and come into direct contact with their oppo-
nents, substituting the passionate assertion of
their swift perceptions for argument. They
seem to be incompetent, even in matter
affecting the rights of their own sex, to look
at things in their relations. The men who
most profoundly disbelieve in "Womans
Rights" are every where outdone in unreason-
ableness by the feminine antagonists of the
doctrine
Even when women are combined in asso-
Citations for the purpose of asserting their
''rights, they do not succeed in being tole-
rant of each other as individuals. In public
Mary puffs Jane, and Jane puffs Mary; in
private they have as keen perception of
each others faults and shortcomings as
though they were rival bellies, and are apt to
be as sharp and frank in its expression. Man s
inhumanity to man has made countless
thousands mourn" for many ages; but what
shall we say of womans inhumanity to
woman?
The explanation of the intolerance of
women may however, be said to arise, in a
great degree, from the fact that they have
formerly been excluded from the real busi-
ness of life. The conduct of government has
heretofore been limited to men. The occu-
pations, mechanical, commercial, and pro-
fessional, by which a family is supported,
have heretofore been confined to the mascu-
line ''head of the family" But in mingling
as force in the affairs of government and
business, each man comes into collision wi tn
other men, Just as intolerant as himself. He
soon finds that he must, as citizen, wor k
man, merchant, or thinker, compromise with
his opponents. Men quickly learn that they
have no choice between killing each other or
having some liberation for each other. From
this knowledge proceed most of the customs,
usages, and laws which we call civilization.
The caprices of individuality are checked and
limited by the constant collision of indivi-
Qualities. A neutral ground of reason, of
common sense, is accordingly established. All
men feel that unless they submit to the de-
cisions of this common sense, they must fight
it out on some prescribed line forever. Iu
the interests of peace they consent to be r ca
sonable and tolerant.
1t is plain that women have not heretofore
been subjected to that austere education of
facts by which men have been somewhat
emancipated from the caprices of indviduali-
ty. If the minds of women would be en-
larged by giving them the right to vote, anG
the right to contend with men in all the en-.
terprises of industry no inte lligent mar
would oppose their claims. The narrowne 81
and folly of some of the champions of "Wo
mans Rights" are the real obstacles to tn