The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-05-09
A woman's TRADE Against Women

Tho we4&known English novelist who
writes uHd& the pscudonyme OF "Ouida"
Is not a believer in what are called woman's
rights. She thinks that women already
have all the rights they need. and that it
would behoovo them to make the most of
these rather than to encroach on the fields
OF activity hitherto reserved TO men. We
must say. however, that the article In the
North American Rcriep. which sets forth
her IDEAS. Is far from being an example Of
sober and convincing argument. Her
promises are often faulty. and. even whom
they are sound. they By no means justify
the sweeping conclusions drawn from them.
1t is strange that n womans fundamental
assumption should impCte intellectual aud
moral inferiorty to her own sex. That Is
what "Oulda" docs. for she says. Woman
IN public lifo would exaggerats the fnilngs
OF men. and would not have even their few
excclencies." This. at it stands. is merely
q vague assertion which would not deserve
attention. But now Tor the specifications:
"Their [women'sl legislation would be the
offspring OF panic OF prejudice" This
charge Is Invested OF all weight by the
novelist's admission that mems legislation
is "too often" open to the same criticism,
In the absence Of experiment there is no
evidence that the one sex is inherently
more httcI for lawmaklng than the other;
10 the regulation OF the household, which
requires both Legislative and administrative
powers. woman Is lndisputably skilful. But
woman. according to "Oulda." would not
"put on the drag Of common sense. as man
frequently does ia public assemblies" We
can only judge OF what woman would do
In public life by what we see her do In pri-
vate life. She is VIGOROUSLY the equal OF
man in the power OF adapting outgo to in
come in other words. Of making both ends
meet; and this obviously requires an in
csssant exercise Of common sense.
" Ouida" goes on to perpetrate an I'M
questionable illel on her sex by declaring
that there would be little to hope for from
woman's humanity. nothing from her lib
erality." This extraordinary averment runs
directly ra'lnter TO the convictions of all
the distinguished soclologists. with Mr..
HERBERT SPENCER at their head. They all
agree in nscTibng the increasing altruls-
tic Tendencies of enlightened nations TO the
growing influence Of women. Indeed, one
of tho chief reasons why Mr. SPENCER is
opposed to the concession OF political rights
10 women is that he fears legislation, II
materially influenced by them. would be too
humane and too liberal What is "Ouida's"
ground for differing with the sociologists
Woman. she says. when she is frightened.
Is more ferociOus than man. and when she
has power. more merciless." Now. waiy-
Ing the LamarckiaH assumption. contra
dicted by WEIssMAN. that the timidlty
superindueed in women by age-long exelu-
zion from war and self-defenee can be inner
tied. we must admit that the training OF
the individual woman in our generation
makes her timid. and that some men en-
courage this trait by pretending to think it
charming. 1t is not true. however. that
timid women are more ferocious than men;
the fish-wives Of revolutionary Paris were
the least timid OF their sex.
The complaint. until recently well-iound-
ed, that women were cut of from the means
OF thorough self-developmeEt offered to
men, was never. according 10 "Ouida."
supported by facts. Wkyi Because GER
tain prlncesses. like MARGUERITE DE VA
LOIS. Lady JANE GREY. and Queen ELIZA
BETH were taught the classical languages;
and because such women as GEORGE SAND.
GEORGE ELIOT. Mrs. BROWNING. and Mrs.
SonERVILLE managed 10 educate them
selves. These instances. the novelist seems
70 think. refute the unfortunate idea that
there Is no good education without a col
lsgs curriculum" Well. nobody pFetends