, 1873-09-18
OWNERSHIP IN WOMEN.
F1jEKlnNon Replies TO Holland, and
Demands Hecyolvcrx for IkOth Sidcss

Demands Iecyoircrx for Ik0th Sides.
From The u'omans JuarnaE.
Dr.. Hollands astclo in Scrione,s Non0sly
would acom at first to bo simple eenBsortion Of
tho old, blind, brutal, Oriental doctrine OF
woman's Bubjoction. but tho truth is TINT
mother DR.. Holland NOR anybody elsa in this
ago--not eyon Sir: Fitzjames Stephon-holds
truly and consistently to this eihR.tol-theory, Of
Scridncr article runs q confusion Of ideas. Ho
trios honestly to vindicato chattel-ownerBhip,
but, it seems, whom it comes to details, that
what ho calls ownership is moroy exclusive poB-
would agrco with him in claiming this US tho
hnsbaul's right. They would only dftror from
him in asserting It as tho wifs's right also.
Thoy would mako it reciprocal, Thoy would
not s sef 1 as he hs bst tho w had aa
and pnrsnits, irrespective Of "tho saerod
duties Of niothorhood;" and that "the
man who should expect auch sacrifice at tho
hands Of the wife" (as to do those duties faith
Mover yot, in all my knowledge Of this move-
ment--n,,d it certainly includes, like all new
movements, some erratic peoplo-did hear any
Of ita advocates say anything 30 monstrous.
What tho Woman's journal ut least has always
woman lad her special and inevitable duties,
distinct from mans, in life, she should be her
own judge within hor own sphere, as nsan in
his; aud that in oil the yast roalm which they
That, indeed, tho ownership OF woman by man
should not be oue-Hlded but mutual and re-
ciprocal, ownership; not us the brain owns and
controls the body, but al brain and heart own
and control each other. This was the flue SYM
Dol adopted by Swodenborg. Who WIS, if may
venture to Say 30, q profounder thinker than DR..
Holland. =
A There is no true, pure woman living who.
whom she gives herself away, docs not rejoice in
the ownership which makes her forever the prop
nrty of NM Tflnu.h Tlua Dr. Holland. hltk thu
reader looks in vain down the page to SEQ what
vow tho man takes. Docs he enter into no or
elusive bonds7 Does he not Sign his loyo-lot-
tern, aB she hers, Yours forever" or Yours
nance or orthography in tho parties Dooa not
oven tho Churcl. though 1t pledges her to obey
(tho moro's the PITY, also pledge hlm, forsahing
all others, to cleayo to her alone? And this il
ownership, mutual, reciprocal ownorHhip. Once
grant tho perfect reciprocity, aud few advocates
OF woman suffrage will ask FOR moro.
The defoct of DR.. Hollands argument, thon, is
TINT his good heart and good sonae arc bettor
than his crood; aud that though he trioB to be q
despot in his theory, he turns out in his arEu-
nluuta to be meroly q good husband, with a
proper prejudice in favor Of monogamy, There
ia no objection to most OF what he says, but only
to his forgetfulncss Of the other hnlf, which Ac
should havo Haid. This is truo even Whom lie
fire-armH. He should hnVe remembered that
"the Identification OF life and destiny" which
ho proclain,s, should equally entltlo tho wife to
the satno protection: The Womaa's Journal. at
any rate, il bound to See tair play. "shoot
away, i" it nay Justly say to DR.. Hollands imag-
mary couple, $50 long rs each side has q ra-
volvor." This stipulation, ut least it has a
right to mako. For my own part, though no
special friend Of diyorco, think ovon that prof
orable, aa a remedy, to manslaughtor. But ab =
friond Of equality, can ut least clnim that both
modes Of cure should be fairly open to both
parties.