The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1911-04-07

and doctoring and preaching; above
all, by her continuous attempts to ex.
cite precocious sentimentality - a
practice as objectionable and possibly
as mischievous az the worst tricks OF
the worse nursemaids.
I'm most healthy families there Is a
revolt against this tendency-the ex-
| changing Of presents on birthdays is
barred by general consent, and the re-
lations of the parties are placed by an
| express treaty on an unsentimental
footing"
But do not imagine for q moment
that the man who can cut more intri-
cate figures on thin ice than any other
fancy skater now before the public
confines himself long to such tame
subjects as the giving of birthday
presents.
Experience shows that women do
not object to polygamy when it is
customary; on the contrary, they are
its most ardent supporters. The
| reason Is obvious. The question, as
it presents itself in practice to a wo-
man, is whether it is better to have,
say, a whole share in a tenth-rate
man, or a tenth share in a frst-rate
man.
Substitute the word Income for
the word Map and You will have the
question as il presents itself econom-
ically to the dependent woman.
"The woman whose instincts are
maternal, who desires superior child
rem more than anything else, never
hesitates. She would take a thou.
sandth share, if necessary. in a hus-
band who was man in a thousand,
rather than have some comparatively
weedy weakling all to herself. 1t is
the comparatively weedy weakling,
left mateless by polygyny, who OBJ
iec:s. Thus, 1t was not the women of
Salt Lake City, nor even of America
who attacked Norman polygyny. 1t
was the men. And very naturally.
On the other hand, women object to
polyandry, because polyandry enables
the best women to monopolle all the
men, just as polygyny enables the
best men to monopollze all the wom-
en-. That is why all our ordinary
men and women are unanimous In
defense of monogamy, the men be-
cause it excludes polygyny, the won.
en- because it excludes polyandry.
IF we are to make polygyny sue
cess we must limit it. If we have two
women 10 every one man We must
allow each man only two wives. That
is simple; but unfortunately our own
actual proportion is, roughly, some
thing like l Ill woman to l man.
Noy You cannot enact that each man
shall be allowed l Ill wives, or that
each woman who cannot get a hus-
band all to herself shall divide her
self between eleven already married
husbands. Thus there is no way out
for us through polygyny.
There is no way at all out of the
present system of condemning the
superhuous women OF barrenness, ex-
cept by legitimizing the children of
women who are not married to the
fathers.
"The right to bear a child, perhaps
the most sacred of all womans rights
is not one that should have any con-
ditions attached to it except in the
interest of race welfare. There are
many women of admirable character.
strong, capable, INDEPENDENT, who dis
like the domestic habits of men; have
superfuous women to barrenness, ex-
co~~.ing them and find the conces-
sion of conjugal rights to any person
under any conditions intolei able by
their self-respect.
"Yet the general sense of the COM
munity recognizes in these very wom-
en- the fittest people to have charge
of children, and trusts them, as
schoolmistress and matrons of insti-
tions, more than women of any other
type when it is possible to procure
them for such work. Why should
the taking OF husband be imposed
on these women as the price Of their
maternity? l am quite unable to ans
wer that question"
The only alternative Mr.. Shaw
secs TO the practical abolition of mar.
riage his suggestion would bring
about is prevented by free, unlimited
divorce.
And here We arrive at the moral of
Getting Married which seems to be
that marriage is a more or less pre-
liminary to divorce.