The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-09-25
REGARDING THE 'MAN HATERs.

To the Editor Of the Washington Times;
Last Sundays Tines contains a story
which does serious injustice 10 very
worthy community o. women. I take
for granted that this was unintentionaI
on your part, and that you viii be glad
10 publish a correction.
1t has been my privilege to know most
of the members of the community re-
ferred to in the story as Man Haters''
fairly well. and I have learned to re-
spect and esteem them highly. though
regarding their views in certain i'm
pOrt2nt respects as false and harmful.
Ny knowledge of their views warrants
me in saying that it is slanCerous to
represent them a 5 man haters." They
are haters Of nc one. They have had
several male members in their com
munity. and have never been unwilling
that others should join. They believe,
however, in the celibate life as the
higher life for men as well as women.
and no one at all acquainted with them
viii doubt that. since they formed their
community. they have in this respect. at
least, practiced what they preach
Naturally. holding this belief, they
have felt the necessity of keeping a
strict watch over the younger members.
This they have regarded as their
bounden duty.
Agar it is a part of their religion to
regard idleness as a sin. and all useful
work as honorable. Hence they have
sought to train their younger members
in all those forms of service through
which they earned the moderate fortune
they now possess.
If they We're somewhat exacting in
their demands. il was due 70 mistaken
notions of duty rather than 10 any want
of kindly interest. They never meant
TO be cruel or Unkind
They sought 20 do that which would
most develop strength Of character and
so prove OF lasting benefit There was
doubtless lack Of those outward express
sious of affection which the young. es-
peciaIIy. crave. but which false notions
Of religion have led many 10 believe in
consistent with the higher spiritual life.
Probably the native independence Of
Miss Muller's character, cOnSpscuouSiy
shown in the act which separated her
from the community. was regarded as
fault needing to be met by a more rigid
discipline than was imposed upon the
more submissive. mistaken view,
doubtless bur view almost always
found I'm connection with an ascetic con-
Ception of religion.
Further. it is not true that the mem
bers of the community were permitted
10 attend the Peoples Church because
of the absence of the more usual ro-
iEious forms The more usual forms
are always observed. Many Of them
formerly came quite regularly, because
they liked the teaching. and thought x
cmiaCutly Christian; and because they
were not obliged 20 listen TO dOgma9
they had ceased TO believe.
Like the Friends. they attached no
Importance 70 forms. but they DO not
refuse 10 attend where forms are OBJ
served
FinaIlv the story of the parting con-
vevS an unjust impression. Despite tho
fact that Miss Muller had not asked
their consent. nor cOnhded 70 them her
purpose when she came down 10 take
leave. the head of the community pre-
scented her with a considerable sum OF
money. and was I'm every way kind ana
friendly. l am sorry that the article
was published with Jnese unjust state
ments. but I trust YOU viii do what
YOU cln to make amends by publishing
this correction.
ALEXANDER KENT.
Minister OF the Peoples Church.