Mexico weekly ledger., 1889-12-12
GYNECOCRACY.

In government science there are
three we'll defined systems, to-wit !:
Monarchy, Aristocracy and Dem
ocracy. All of these forms are well
understood, as they. constitute the
basis of all human rule and from
them has sprung all the civil
jurisprudence of the past. All of
these forms sprung from the
wants and necessities of man and
are the product of men, not of wo-
men /; for there is another form of
government known to scientists as
Gynecocracy which is intended to
meet the demands of woman's
rule. This latter form of govern
ment does not grow out of either of
the other three, but is separate,
distinct and independent. There
have been many Queens and En-
presses in monarchical govern
ments who have held the rule or
sway over subjects, but these were
simply accidents, and arose from
the marital relations. The wife of
the King was by common consent
the Queen and his death gave her
the rule over the people in that
kingdom. In an absolute monarchy
the word of the King, or in the
event of his death, the word of the
Queen, was the supreme law OF that
realm. In a limited monarchy
this rule was defined by the con-
stitution or supreme law, and
hence the King a Kept within
certain specified limits and upon
his death the Queen was equally
limited in her authority. This
was the rule in monarchies. In
the al of aristocracy the govern
ment by woman seems to have
been ignored. So in a democracy
she has been subordinated to the
authority of the Lords of creation.
1t is true that Miss Belva Lock
wood was a candidate for the presi-
dency not long since, but that was
regarded more in the light of bur-
lesque than of reality.
Other strong minded females
have, with equal ardor, sought
for gilded honors in the field of
fame ; but, thus far, only discom-
future has met them at every cor
ner. What gynecocracy may
work out for them in the near or
remote future remains to be ex-
emplifed. Certain it is that thus
far it has no standing as a competi-
tor with man. 1t is strange that
our civilization should have woven
out of the cogitations of the human
brain such a thought as we find
imbedded in gynecocracy. All
history of the past, sacred and
p~rofane, condemns it. Moses,
the soldest of historians, tells us
that Adam was made out OF the
dust of the ground, and that he
was lonesome and needed some
one TO talk with, pick the briers
and thorns out of his feet, comb
his hair, pat him on the face and
kiss him good night when he lay
down to sleep ; and the Creator
administered an opiate, took a rib
from his side and made a woman
out of it which he named Eve.
Adam had more ribs than he need
ed anyway, and the loss Of one was
his social and eternal gain, as he
certainly thought. But it all
proved to be an experiment. Adam
was too %confding. He had but
little experience and no precedents
to go by and, being honest, he
held too slack a rein and soon
found himself in the soup, to use a
modern phrase. 1t is not every
woman that can make good soup,
as we all know, and Adams ex-
perience was most too dear for him
at the time. OLD John Milton, an
Englishman, tried to plaster i,
over with some blank verse, bu,
Adam did not thank him for his
blank cartridges shot at him, if ii
was long range. UNCLE jim.