Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-09-24

ties, flowing mainly from motherhood,
women are better than men In those hui
man attributes which rise from associa-
ton on terms OF equality with ones kind,
they are inferior to men because OF the Sc
cluslon and narrowneEs Of their lives in
the past That IL. In purely sex attri-
butte, like devotion 10 offsprlns. mothers
are superior 10 fathers, because nature
makes them so; but in a purely human
attribute, like a sense Of Justice, for in
stance, or fellowship, men are superior
to women. because the training OF inter-
course with their fellows has made
them so.
Women" she says, ARE frankly adj
mitted to be the more moral sex. One Of
the stock arguments OF the advocates OF
equal suffrage 10 that our women form
tho majority Of our church members and
but small percentage Of our criminals,
Even physiology seems TO bear out the
belief for girl babies thrive better than
boys, and the terrible army OF detectives
and degenerates-desf, dumb, blind, Grip
pied, crazy and feeble-minded-is mainly
recruited from men. OF the last two va
rieties insanity, which requires some In
tellect TO begin with, Is more frequent
among women, and sheer idiooy--the en-
tire lack Of inteileot-more frequent among
proving that the mother sex Is the
stronger, but is It, therefore, more virtu-
ous7 Ia It true that, measured by the
moral standards OF a civilized Christian
world, women stand higher than men7
patent superiority In one virtue we
may readily grant them--that of chastity.
This Is genuinely theirs by nature, az
we'll as being carefully fostered artihcially
by man. Man did not invent 1t. He found
IT In a state of nature. Admitting that
they are thus morally superior by nature
there remains a damaging qualification
that 1t Is TO their interest to be So Where
certain virtue is demanded as the one
condition to a decent livelihood and all
higher rewards of love and honor, the
moral quality Of this virtue is somewhat
impaired.
ITO fairly show the moral superiority
of women they should be measured on
equal terms with men; and no student
OF sociology can believe that such meas
urement would result in the same stand
ard now upheld among US. II happy mar
riage and honorable fatherhood were open
only to the vlrtuous men, and all decent
society, advancement and means of liveli-
hood closed to the vicious, an astonish-
ing number of men would find 1t posi-
BILE to be as moral as they wish women
to be.
"All things considered, therefore, we
are safest to fall back on Mother Nature
and claim only that the female sex was
originally more yirtuous, and remains so
TO a large degree. Then comes the sec
ond great virtue commonly allotted to
women-unselfishness. How often we hear
it-women are more unselhsh than mem!
Then they turn on the encroaching other
half and dub him selfish brutev There
are many kinds of animals in the world
and selishness is common to all--includ-
ing the human. AS the human animal
progresses in social development he be-
comes less selfish; he learns to love and
serve his fellows, and we find every shade
of higher feeling from simple neighborli-
ness to the glorious conservation OF life
to the service Of humanity
This sentiment of fellowship, amount
ing at times to heroism, is quite common
among men. Every trade has it's heroes
the more dangerous the work the greater
the mutual devotion of the worker
Sailors and miners and railroad men risk
their lives for each other as quite as COM
mon occurrence not only for friend, but
often for a stranger-sometimes even an
enemy.
Has woman gone so farH Is the average
woman more unselfish in her relations with
other women than men are with men? The
trouble is here that we cannot tell. The
everage woman has no relations with other
women, except as servants or in what is
called society Are women more unselish
in society than are men? Is not the I'M
selhshness we talk about in women two
thirds mere material instinct, and the other
third the subservance expected of a wife?
I'VE have not yet outgrown our long
period OF women slavery. TO serve, TO
toll, to work, to wait, to go without;
these are habits bred to centuries of SER
Witty Only in our higher classes, where
a veneer of gallantry covers the older GUS
toms, are women served and waited on by
men.
But the highest level of unselfshness,
to give ones lifelong work to help man
kind-here the whole field of history bris-
ties thick with noble names. and mostly
names OF men. To deeply love large num-
bers of persons who are total strangers is
far more common among men than among
women.
THE reason for this" says Mrs. Gilman,
Lies in the long seclusion of women-her
eternal setting aside to the narrow inter
ests of the individual home"