The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1889-02-02
Should Women Propose.

may choose, the woman refuse, but
she refuses at her peril, as her deci-
sion may condemn her to life of
celibacy, especially in our thIckly
populated New England or Middle
States. where the women outnumber
the men. The man she accepts may
be in no wise the man of her choice;
but it may be marriage of COM
plaisance, of convenience or of neces-
sity under our present system, while
the woman looks calmy on to see an
other fill the place that she has cove
ted, without any intimatiOn in the
male breast of her desire, when a
little more frankness on the part Of
the woman might have added to the
happiness of both. A woman would
be slow to make application for Gi-
vorce from the man who had mar
ried her on her own calm delibera-
ton and request; while the positive
privilege of making another selection
should he refuse-and the man should
have the same right of refusal IA the
woman-wOuld give her confidence
to approach the man whom she
deemed best suited TO her condition
and happiness. Matches would be
more carefully made when consider
ed from both standpoint5, and the
glamour and indefiniteness that usu-
ally hedged around proposal would
be wiped away in the cool cOnsidera.
ton of mutual business contract.
And why should the woman not
have voice and choice in the man
who is to be her life partner-the
father of her children, and who is
most likely to give the tone and color
to all her after life? The majority of
women never rise above the charac-
ter given to them by the man whom
they chance to wed, for chance in the
| past has usually had more to do with
marriage than reason. The Catholics
make marriage canon of the church
and indissOluble, but it is considered
in most of the States as civil con-
tract. 1t should undoubtedly he a
civil contract with the utmost mu.
tuality. with both of the contracting
parties at liberty to propose and to
reject proposals without otiense and
without any violation of any of the
ordinary rules of pr0priety. This
contarct should also be construed to
contain equal property rights for the
man and the woman, and an equal
control oyer the children of the mar.
rage. Why should the woman have
more ditfiIence in selecting the man
who is to wed her than in the selec
| ton of the house she is to live in and
its intricate furnishings, when the
former has infinitely so much more
to do with her happiness and pros
perity:
To propose has always been con-
si6ered the prer0gativl ofqueens. but
in this respect every American wo-
man should consider herself a queen.
1t was not until Queen Victoria had
signifiPd to Prince Albert that a pro-
posal from him would be favorably
received that he ventured to make
advances to that honored lady. Queen
| Elizabeth, years before, had claimed
the right Of proposal as Engiand's
sovereign Queen. The incident re.
cited in Scripture between Ruth and
Boaz, after the day of cleaning il
the field, was virtually proposal by
Ruth.
After the formulating of the Gre
gorian Calendar in 1882, giving to
every fourth year 366 days, it was
accounted proper for women TO pro-
pose every fourth or leap year. but
SO much righteousness and ridicule
has attached to it, that the custom
has been more honored in the breach
than in the observance. AT this
time, when we concede to women
equal educational facilities have
arrived at a proximate equality in
property rights have given to her to
a limited extent the ballot and the
privilege of holding office; when the
trades and the professions are so far
thrown open to her that she may
compete with man in money making
and money-getting. 1 can see no good
reason why she NAV not under suit
able circumstances propose; but the
proposal on her part would always
carry with it the tactic agreement to
perform her part in the domestic
economy of the household. The
right of proposal vouchsafed to wo-
man would undoubtedly have a
moral tendency.
/