The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1920-09-04

astrnngcr' CnIIcd 20 Acconnt.

Editor world: In your very interesting
column entitled barometer OF Public Opin-
Ion" there appeared on August 81 1870, an
article written by one stranger" who appears
To be located In the hamlet OF Duncan, Okla.
In the article there was Incorporated certain
loose language. which. In Justice to my own
pronounced vcws on the subject, / cannot per
init To 20 unchallcngcd The particular lam
guagc to which have reference IL "A single
standard OF morals for men and women might
be all right In theory but not in practice. II
the women better than the man, they
wouldn't have the charm for us that they now
have"
I submit that this language ls not only loose,
as / have designated n supra, but 1t IL ethl-
cnlly unsound. anu. indeed, n carried 20 its ul-
tlmate conclusion, fraught with pernicious pos
sibilitics Man, as far as bis essence Is con-
cerned, is constructed the same as woman, he
differs from woman only as to accident. Man
and womans moral fiber are concomitants OF
their essence, therefore, the code or norms
which prescribe their moral conduct are one
and the same. This sYllogism II not intended
to be the apotheosls Of form, yet in substance
II In sound, and the conclusion follows logi-
cally from the premises. This Is only another
way OF saying hat the single standard OF mo-
rality that is the criterion OF morality are, or
should be, exactly the same for men as for
women.
What foundation is there in logic 'or the
distinction between the moral standard for
man and that prescribed for women II is
with shameful regret that | acknowledge that
the gentleman from Duncan is not alone In tho
maintenance Of this side NJ the propC s,tion
This doctrine is indeed, all too prevalent in
the world today. and the writer Us OF tho opin-
ion that In It's abandonment, will be found the
panacca for many of our so-calcd social ir-
regularitCs. The distinction cannot he sup
ported in logic, has IL any other founda-
tion OF stable character, Rather, indeed. IL
there were to be any distinction in this mat
ter, II any preference were TO be shown Il
should bc In favor OF the women Women,
after ALL are the weaker vessels" They con-
sttutionally have not tho powers of resistance
which men have, hence It may be- urged with
better reasoning that they should be accorded
a greater leuienCy than man.
As To the second part OF the EXCERPT quoted
above. | beg to state briefly, that homely rs
the platitudo Is. Il IL mono the less true that
1T Is "A poor rule which does not work both
ways" Applying this language to the matter
In question, | submit by way OF Interrogation
TO my friend In Duncan, Has 1t ever oc-
noble In man is as much admired by woman,
as IL N admired by man I'm woman, that mo-
ralty In man and good-tellowship, intimate
companionship and the like are not mutually
exclusive. that man can live life in accord
with his conscience and yet not be a molly
coddlo."
In conclusion, l respectfully refer 10 his at
tcntiup that the old maxim "lulikcs attract
and likes ropcl" 81 tar moro true of tho
science or electricity than q Is applied 20 the
affairs of man. l trust that / have said Moth
iuE herein NJ which the gentleman from Dun
can could take umhraEe.
Cordially yours
IN MEDIC STAT VIRTUS"
Tulsa, Aus, 81,