Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-11-04

cradle attention. The subject was WON
en- In journalism" Part Of the address
is tho following:
Women In Journalism today in no way
differ from men in journalism. Sex is mel
Their a disqualification nor a recommends
ton. Much discussion OF women in any
particular line Of usefulness in these free
and equal days, when they can hem rutiles
or engineer locomotives equally without
comment, Is too much ikediscussing them
as u species instead Of a sex. There Is no
sex IA brains, all difference Ia weight Of the
brains Of the sexes TO the contrary notwith-
standing, and brains and Journalism are
Synonymous terms Neither is there royal
road especially prepared or made smooth
for either sex. a fur field and no favor
must suffice for women In journalism.
There Is no claim to be set forward on the
basis OF sex. Women who have succeeded
in journalism have succeeded as Journal
lists aud not As women, and this along the
same lines on which men have succeeded
We learn early In the work TO expect
nothing byvrtue Of the accident Of our per
sonnllty. Because we are women we must
not imagine wetherefore have a right TO an
engagement simply for the asking. Espe-
cially would this deprive US Of niche In
Journalism. We must not presume upon
IN editors ohivalry and courtesy to judge
our work more lgniently than he would
were II the work Of q man. | regret to say
these aro weaknesses often charged TO be
ginners, but which all who get ON Ia jour
nalism sooner or later outgrow, We must
be proud that our work is received upon its
merits alone, since any other plan would
lower the standard OF our efficiency, impair
our earning capacity and spoil us both as
women aud as journalists. Women who
come into journalism expecting TO be ex-
cused any fault hy reason Of their sex lower
by extent Of that excuse the reputation and
worth Of women In the profession, We
learn 20 trample under foot that most dis
honoring conception Of our work as mere
woman's work and to know that such
kindness on the part Of editors ns the in
diligence Of these weaknesses would IN the
end prove most uukiud.
However, u there ever was a time when
women in journalism were so favored TO
their unduing, that day has gone by. Ed
itorH may be compared to builders They
build daily and their contract with the
public l. to build only Of the best material.
They care not so much which rex furnishes
the timber, so 10 Ia OF the best. II women
supply material as good and suitable as
that furnished by men, they stand the same
chance OF making a sale ms men do and
will receive the same price for II. journal
ism IL NJ least the profession where the
sexes receive the same remuneration for the
same work equally well done. Surely the
whole duty to our sex has been discharged
when this IS true. We cannot expect ed
itors, out Of chiyalry or because their moth
ers were women and we are women, to
build their papers out Of inferior timber
simply because we furnish 10, II we are so
immature as to expect such indulgence, we
are doomed to disappointment.
IL is tho common experience OF women In
journalism that there is less sentiment
about n newspaper Office than anywhere
else Of which they have personal kuowl.
edge, II IL not putting IL too strongly to
say that though q contributor or reporter
were upon the verge OF starvation such con
fessiOn would hinder rather than help her
tUspece or assignment The editor would
at once suspect money TO he her inspiration
aud Of her having nothing to say that
would either entertain or benefit tho read
ing public, Writing only for the money
thotu is in IL Is one Of the objectionable
sins In journalism.
Apropos Of editorial announcement,
once heard Kate Field say that next to
shutting women out Of occupations and en-
joymuuts for which nature has so man.
iltstly lifted them simply because they are
women, Worst thing men can do Is to
pat them on the head for their success sim
ply because they are women Miss Kate
declares that the only sensible course is to
treat them exactly as II they were mon;
that their second rate work should not be
81 a..
| should be treated coutcmpWously-the
which l may add is not the least likely to
occur
have hcurd women in Journalism refer
TO the stern reprimsnds, often unjust, with
much the same pride mon sometimes refer
To iacketings received during apprentice
days, and, like the men, attribute their al
innate success to such stern discipline, on
the assumption that sparinR tho metaphor
zeal rod would have the same effect upon
the woman ms upon the child
But once u woman always a woman, and
II Is matter OF doubt whether any OF us
ever overcome the natural weakness, II
weakness IL be, Of love OF the approving
pat l can even see how mistaken kind
ness and undue consideration might On.
courage the timid woman 20 do her best.
when being treated exactly like a man.
which would be license to swear ut her
might friRhten her out Of the wits she
would stand most in need o.
1t may be that the sharp edge OF the en-
ploycrs reproof does keep the apprentice
up to the work, but there are reproofs and
roproofs, and while an editor need not over,
praise or give space To w0man's work sim
| ply because it is the work Of woman
neither need he condemn Il with words
that cause her to have a good cry over
the brutality Of men in general and her
editor in particular Tears areuot factor
IN journalism. While We may believe Il
possible 70 cry and cry aud be a journalist
still, yet let us rejoice that tears have so
nearly gone out Of fashion, Il Is noticeable
that even horoines in novels do not cry as
much MS they used to, aud perhaps the rea
son for this may be found in the fact That
the heroine in present DAY fiction, like the
heroine in real life, is so commonly bread
winner
A alinister's Rebuke.