The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1917-03-24

A manifestation of the feminist
movement that terrifies many good
people almost to death is the entrance
of women into the commercial arena.
Yet in asking the right to make an
honest living women only assert a nat
ura1 human right.
Men have always had the privilege
of following gainful pursuits and maxi
ing as much money as their ABILITY
and industry were equal to acquiring.
Nobody has ever expected a man to
sit up and twiddle his thumbs and
weep and lament because he yearned
for independence or for luxury. If
he desired these good things. he was
free to go out and hustle for them
and get them.
But when women claimed this same
and human right to go forth into the
world and seek their fortunes, a howl
went up that could be heard from Dan
to Beersheba. 1t was held to be an
iniquitous thing for a woman to go
into a store or an Office and honestly
earn her daily bread, and outrageous
for her to aspire to eat cake of her
own making.
In the lopsided morality that has
prevailed, it has actually been thought
that it was far more decent and mod
est for a woman to sell herself in
marriage for a home than it was for
her to actually support herself by
her own labor Also, that because
she was a woman she had no right to
rebel at the humiliation of being de-
pendent on the grudging charity of
people who didn't want any appliqued
edging of poor relations on their fam
lily circle.
Even to this day there are those
who oppose women assuming the or
binary rights of a human being to
make money. They assert that wonl-
rn1o he hot 6a,-
she's got any home or not, or any
thing to eat in it. They deny her
the right to use the talents God gave
her and condemn her to work in the
home whether she has gift for do
mesticity or lacks ii. Which is about
as sensible as if you forced every man
to be a blacksmith no matter if the
| Lord intended him to be a lawyer, or
a doctor, or a preacher, or a mer-
chant.
Then you remember the terrible
toedo there was when a few bold
women first suggested that a woman
mad right to her own property. OF
course, everybody has always recog-
n1zed that man has right to what
ever money he may have inherited or
made, and that no matter how gem
erous he was or how how much he
loved another person, he wanted to
| cling to his own title deeds to have
| his houses and stocks and bonds in his
own name, and the privilege of man.
| agalng his own. That's only natural.
There's something in the feel of your
own pocketbook that gives you an in
ward glow of independence that is
about the most soul satisfying motion
on earth, and there is more moral
support in the knowledge that you've
got your own money in the bank than
there is in the firmest moral prin-
ciples. But women were supposed to
be immune to this human chara. err
lstic 1t was held that a wife enioyed
turning over every cent of her in
lheritance to her husband on her we'd
ding day, and becoming thereafter
dependent upon his bounty, instead of
possessing her own money to do with
as she pleased
of course this theory didn't have
any leg to stand on. Women desire
financial independence just as ardent
lIy as men do. It is just as necessary
! for their self-respect that they have q
las it is for men, and yet it has taken
wears and years to get laws passed
THAT give to a woman even some of
1.-The property that belongs to her.
The long drawn out bate for suf-
lfrage is nothing but woman's Eight to
be treated as human beings in govern
ment Women form half the popula-