The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-12-02
Accountable
Discrimination

1 The other day two young men, because ap-
pearng on the streets of New York CARRIED
in woman attire of the slit-to-the-knee kind,
were arrested by the police and punished by the
court We rise to inquire: why the ruthless dis
elimination against the rights Of man? This
being free country, woman may wear trousers
If she likes-indeed she does wear trousers OF
the one-legged variety. Is she punished for the
actor In any way molested by the civil au~
thorities? She is not. Yet when man dons the
female garment he Is promptly seized upon by
some blue-coated officer, roughly hauled to jail;
made to stand public trial. is found guilty and
fined. Against the papable outrage involved
lin such odtous favoritism protest cannot be
too vigorously sounded. oh, but 1t will be said
these two young New York males wore slit
skirts Granted. But do not women wear slit
skirts? They do. And do the police interfere?
They do not. Then why should mans dispo-
stion to do the same be regarded as felonious?
Why? We submit that calves are calves; we
care not how you look upon the subject.
1t is further observed with grave and grow
Ing concern that the tendency to discriminate
against the male OF the species Is being ex-
pressed in public policy with respect to
animals Take goats The Richmond Times
Dispatch Of yesterday carries the interesting
news item that Auditor Crenshaw, Of that city
dragged out of the public last year SIS for city
goat licenses. He charges male goats 50 each
and allows female goats to remain In the city
for ST each per year" There you have It
agan--$2 for the male, 81 for the female--bold
discrimination on a 2 to 1 ratio. Is that right
fair? Now friend of goats con-
sdered in the abstract, and long as they
know their place and keep II, will defend
them and their cause But who of the male
class can stand for the infamy involved in max
ing Billy Just because he is Billy. endure twice
the tax burden imposed upon goats of the Mamie
Kind. If there be anything in the doctrine OF
sex equality this is all wrong, and the States
public policy may well be impeached for rank
indefensible discrimination against he goats
or take the rooster Consider his case.
Everybody Is saying hail to the hem clarifying
shart exhalting her to dizzy throne of mis-
tresship and falling down before her in shame
less alteration. But how about the rooster?
We put 1t squarey to the readers conscience Is
anybody worshipping the rooster-is anybody ex-
tolng his merits IS he being even much as
mentioned In the public prints; does he share
other fate than be cursed for Growing in early
morning hours and being made the victim Of
supercillious Condescention on the part of her
royal henship? No, he does not. Yet look at
the noble fellow; mark his majestic, lordly mien,
and placing hand upon your heart, answer us
If he deserves the iEnomlty to which fate is
driving him in these halcyon female suffrage
days? Can he not Of right assert that without
him the hens would find this world dreary
place indeed, n which to i've and lay and hatch;
and that in the realm OF fowldom he is suffici-
entity mportant> to merit at least respectful
treatment and some degree of distinguished
consideration.
/ And so in behalf of the males of creation,
and because Of various wrongs that do press
heavily upon their sex. let plea Of indignant com
plant be entered and recorded.--Lynchburg
News.