The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1915-07-08

defense, race problems, public morality,
monetary plans, tariffs, and taxation.
On such questions men vote according to
Judgments founded on observa ton and
knowledge acquired in the pursuit of
their daily business. Women would in
evltably attempt to decide such matters
empiricallv or emotionaliy.
But, say the suffragists, women as
well as men may equip themselves for
the intelligent use of the ballot. Indi
yldual women may and do, the mass of
women will not and can not, save by
spending their lives in the hard school
where men learn how to vote. If wo-
men are to forsake the home for the
counting room, the law Office, the wheat
fields and the smithy, then indeed, bar
ring temperamental differences that only
the hand of God can efface, they may in
time be able to cast ballot which they
can explain and justify by reasons which
men can understand. Is it worth while?
Let the agitators for woman suffrage
answer that one question. Is it worth
while to subvert the whole order of
human society by putting women to DO
mems work? Is it worth while to take
woman out of the school where she fits
herself for her high natural duties to
put her under tuition against which her
body, mind and soul would be in perpetu-
al revolt? Of course, the most fanatical
advocate of votes for women would never
preach a doctrine so monstrous. Yet
that is the only way. Either women
must work as men work, or they will
never be gu lifted to vote as men vote
Let there be no mistake as to the i'm
port OF this argument. 1t is not in the
remotest manner based upon the as
sumption of the belief that woman is
mans inferior. either Intellectually or in
any other way. 1t rests upon the es-
tablished fact that mans work is differ
ent from woman's work, and that it is
his work and his striving in his own par
ticular field that gives man the qualifying
knowledge essential to intelligent vot-
ing. We are as far as possible from in
sisting that woman is incapable of &C.
curing that knowledge, we dc insist that
she can acquire it only through radical
reorganization of society which would
condemn her to do mems tasks, to bear
mems burdens. But if the women were
to take up mans duties, VINO is to as
sumo the women's duties? Both are
honorable, both bring their rewards, one
is as necessary as the other, for both are
indispensable to society. And women
would be profoundly affected by taking
up mans labors, it would inevitably be
roughening process, women would be
changed, and not for the better. If
there be those who would contend that
women must become less womanly, that
they should become masculine in thought
and feeling and temperament, they will
not admit the force of this argument;
neither will they openly admit that they
would like to see women become more
like men. But without that TRANSFORMED
ton women cannot qualify for the vote
as men qualify, and there is no other
way to acquire the qualification. The
effect upon women is one of the conse-
quences most to be dreaded.
No upright and decent man desires to
withhold from woman any privilege
which will benefit her. The growth of
what is vaguely called the feminist
movement has already had alarming re-
suits. Moral laxities which used to be
regarded with adherence are too fire.
quently extenuated. The hackneyed
cry that "what is right for the man is
also right for the woman" IS heard con-
tlnually. 1t is specious, shameless, I'M
righteous. Nothing was ever right in
mans conduct which was not moral and
consistent with the laws of God and man.
There is no good word to say for loose
living by either sex. 1t is the feeblest
and wickedest argument for an Gin
creased freedom" for women (the phrase
is common property that some men are