The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1915-02-10

|
ages she mentions, than to destroy 1t.
Consider where these polygamous
husbands would come from. The
husbands of today are about the only
men decent or able TO be husbands
and fathers. There would be plenty
of husbands to go around, could the
bachelor population of this country be
married. They either cannot afford
to maintain homes, OF are unfit ma
terial to put into homes as husbands
and fathers. So the feminist would
| be obliged to go to the men who
are maintaining other homes now.
Could not such one afford two or
three establishments, and be able to
| keep his preJent family, or any of
his families, happy, comfortable and
| educated? / doubt it. His wife
would not be happy. Utah and Mo-
hammedanism tell that tale very
clearly.
Could the feminist, with her babe,
| support herself and properly care
| for her child? It Is not the easiest
task for the woman who has no
other duties but those of the home,
| to care properly for the children
| For three years after the birth of the
child the mothers most watchful
| care is needed. Could the feminist
support herself and care for her child
properly during that time? Could
| the average husband who finds it all
| or more than he can do now, to sup
port his family, have the extra to
give her? If the feminist must leave
| her child to hired help or to govern
| mental care, would she be securing
the pleasure she Graves, would the
child be as well off as he should be?
| Would the country be better to be
stocked with citizens who have been
raised out of homes a la orphans
asylum?
Every married woman knows how
all the moral fibre and ennobling
| virtues of a man are torn down, leav-
| ing him only the husk of brute pas
| sion when he forsakes the narrow
Maths of monogamy. Would the femi-
| mist be proud of a child fathered by
such a type? Would the country
be better to have such citizens?
Would the feminist unrest be les
sened by soothing one million wom-
en- to stir up and actually enrage
fifty million women whose husbands
character had been undermined,
whose homes had been so ravaged?
Indeed, | cannot but think that such
motherhood would be a defilement,
such childhood a torment. Look
at Utah again. The sad, hopeless,
unsatisfied faces of its women, the
too early passions of its children,
the british lusts of its men, are
an answer to that solution of the
feminine unrest
1t reminds one of the old maids
prayer:
Lord, send me man;
eSend good one if you can,
But anyway, Lord, please send
me a man"
which could be changed to:
Lord, send me man;
One of my own. if you can:
But if you can't, some other
woman's man"
That sounds too "clawyp The femi- |
mist doesn't mean that at all. She is
eager to help. She is lonely, and no
one is more sorry for her loneliness
than the married woman, and no one
makes quite so eager and energetic
a matchmaker as the young married |
woman with one or two sweet chill |
dren. She s eager that the husband !
less, childless woman may have a |
happiness equal to her own. But she
knows that sharing her husband with !
a feminist would not make any one .
happy Such an idea is sheer mad
ness. Possibly it is no madder than
the madness of war. 1t is thought by
some that the increase of polygamous
practices in Germany and Austria,
because of their tendency to lower
the moral tone, brought that return
to brute passions that made this. war
possible. We suspect that the close
of the war will find return to those
Christian virtues which have such
strengthening qualities of mind, soul
and body
Turn again, dear feminist, up that
hill, not down it into chaos, and as
you climb, I'll tell you one way to
provide husbands for the next gener-
alton, if not for this You are altru-
istic enough for that. Beginning with
today, work to so mould the charac-
ters of each male child born, that b.