\iI \
i~
4
4
4
>N{^








ECCE FEMINA:
AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE
THE WOMAN QUESTION.
BEING
AN EXAMINATION OF ARGUEMENTS IN FAVOR OF FEMALE
SUFFRAGE BY JOHN STUART MILL AND OTHERS, AND
A PRESENTATION OF ARGUMENTS AGAINST
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF SOCIETY.
BY CARLOS WHITE.
HANOVER, N.H.:
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.
BOSTON: LEE & SHEPARD.
1870.




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year i869, by
CARLOS WHITE,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
BOSTON:
Stereotyped and Printed by Rand, Avery, & Frye.




WE of the "softer" sex, though not by any means really so
soft as we are complimented and coaxed into appearing,
have no call, and mostly no desire, to force ourselves into
the province of men. We feel that we are not fitted for it.
Female doctors (though all honor be to those heroic, selfsacrificing women who are capable of undertaking such a
profession), female missionaries, travellers, and life-long devotees to science, art, or philanthropy, are, and always will
be, rare and peculiar cases, not to be judged by ordinary rules.
The average number of us are content to leave to men their
own proper place; but none the less resolutely ought we to
keep our own, one of the first "rights" of which is, the
supreme rule of all domestic concerns. -Miss Muloch.
Equally blasphemous, and perhaps even more harmful, is
the outcry about "the equality of the sexes," - the frantic
attempt to force women, many of whom are either ignorant
of, or unequal for, their own duties, into the position and
duties of men.- The same.
The difference between man's vocation and woman's seems
naturally to be this, - one is abroad, the other at home; one
external, the other internal; one active, the other passive.
He Has to go and seek out his path; hers usually lies close
under her feet. Yet each is as distinct, as honorable, as
difficult; and, whatever custom may urge to the contrary, if the
life is meant to be a worthy or a happy one, each must resolutely and unshrinkingly be trod. - The same.
3




4
As for the evil you complain of, impute it to that imperfect
education which at once cultivates and enslaves the intellect,
and loads the memory while it fetters the judgment.
Women, however well read in history, never generalize in
politics, never argue on any broad or general principle;
never reason, from a consideration of past events, their causes
and consequences. But they are always political through
their affections, their prejudices, their personal liaisons, their
hopes, their fears..... Hence it is that we make
such blind partizans, such violent party-women, and such
wretched politicians. I never heard a woman talk politics, as
it is termed, that I could not discern at once the motive, the
affection, the secret bias, which swayed her opinions and inspired her arguments. If it appeared to the Grecian sage
so "difficult for a man not to love himself, nor the things
that belong to him, but justice only," how much more for a
woman!- Mrs. Jameson.
It is an unfortunate feature of some, who, with the best of
motives, are laboring to relieve the burdens of their sex,
that they assume that the fault rests with men, as if they
were in antagonism with woman's interests and rights. But,
in all Christian countries, men are trained to a tender care of
wives, mothers, and sisters; and a chivalrous impulse
to protect and provide for helpless womanhood is often
stronger in men that in most women who have had no such
training.... It is certain that all just and benevolent men feel the wrongs and disabilities of womanhood as
much as most women do, and have been as much perplexed
in seeking the most effective remedy. - Catherine E, Beecher.




CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.              PAGE.
INTRODUCTION......7 ~ 
CHAPTER I.
THE SEXES COMPARED......... 80
CHAPTER III.
THE FAMILY........... 85
CHAPTER IV.
THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN POPULAR SUFFRAGE.. 120
CHAPTER V.
SHOULD WOMEN VOTE, AND HOLD OFFICE... 133
CHAPTER VI.
THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.... 177
5




6                CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.           PAGE.
WOMAN'S SPHERE..........195
CHAPTER VIII.
MISCELLANEOUS...... 243




ECCE FEMINA.
CHAPTER I.
IN TRODUCTIO N.
HE world moves.     No one can
doubt it, who lives in the United
States. But it is neither strange
nor wonderful that a nation which
came into existence in defiance of the customs
and regulations which have ruled the rest of
the world, should be teeming with new ideas of
government, and agitated by theories that have
never been thought of before. Yet England,
though staid and sober, has been obliged to
yield to the demands for innovation; and her
hereditary aristocracy seem to fear lest the very
foundations of society may. be destroyed.
France, the nursery of enthusiasm, burst the
bonds which had held her for centuries, but
lost a great part of the truth she contended for,
7




8             ECCE FEMINA.
because she coupled it with error and falsehood.
The French people rashly thought that liberty
meant the destruction of all that had previously
existed. They imagined that the laws of God
were to be repealed, and supposed that every
man might do what seemed desirable in his own
eyes.  But the French are again aroused.
They will not quietly submit to absolute monarchy. The Prussian government has recognized the rights of the people. Even Austria
has felt the influence of the age. Russia has
accomplished wonders in the way of reform,
although there is much left undone.  China
feels the influence of the great changes in the
rest of the world. Italy, Spain, and, in fact,
nearly all the nations of the globe, have undergone some remarkable political or intellectual
change during the nineteenth century. The
spread of Christianity, through the efforts of
missionaries, and the consequent advancement
of knowledge and civilization among the barbarous nations and tribes, are most important
features of the times. Wars have been frequent; and, in short, the changes throughout
the known worlds within the last hundred years,
have been greater than those of any other century since the flood. Old institutions have been
swept away, and no custom is likely to be spared,




INTRODUCTION.             9
unless it has a better plea for existence than
that of age.
We Americans are anxious to keep in advance of the rest of mankind, and watch with
jealous eye any European innovation.  This
may be a laudable ambition; but there is need
of caution, lest we destroy good and bad together, and have no more discrimination in
adopting what is new. Formerly the fact that
a law or custom had been long established was
a presumption in its favor.  At the present
time, there are many well-meaning persons who
seem to think such a fact an evidence that the
law or custom should be abolished.  When
justice, truth, reason, and common sense are
united in demanding the destruction of a longestablished usage, every one should cry out,
"Destroy! " but if they unite in sustaining
the usage, the man who lays hands upon it
must meet the retribution of a just God. The
decrees of the Great Lawgiver have existed
from  eternity.  When we   overturn  some
stronghold of iniquity, and establish justice by
law, we are only restoring what has been displaced in defiance of that Ruler who is the
source of all law.  We may introduce new
customs; but if they are not in accordance with
his precepts, he will supplant them. The one




10            ECCE FEMINA.
who is eager to adopt what is new is sometimes
as unreasonable as the conservative who clings
blindly to the past. Neither should be considered worthy of attention, unless he can support his cause by good and sufficient reasons.
Public opinion is like the pendulum: at one
time it swings toward conservatism, then to the
other extreme. There is danger at the present
time, that noble, honest, and philanthropic men
and women may be deceived. Many are thus
deceived already. Our country is in just such
a condition that it can easily be influenced to
adopt new measures of real or imaginary
reform, without sufficiently  considering the
reasons for so doing. The so-called Woman's
Rights advocates have been engaged in presenting their views to the country since 1840;
but they made but little progress, comparatively,
until after the close of the war. At first they
were received with scorn and ridicule; but at
the present time nearly all are willing to listen
to their arguments with candor, even though
they do not expect to become converts. It is
certainly a subject worthy of consideration; and
we should not accept or reject the conclusions
of those who lead this movement, without fully
comprehending the reasons why. For years
the antislavery reformers struggled manfully




ITIRODUCTION.             11
for the abolition of slavery, without much
apparent success. When the war broke out, a
large majority of the people of the North were
willing to let the slave remain where he was.
But that institution, with its evils, was suddenly
swept away. Since then a large number of
men and women have turned their energies to
tle advancement of the cause of female suffrage.  Some have been converted, because
they did not wish to resist this as they did the
antislavery movement. They are eager to be
in the van of this army of reformers, and imagine they will be rewarded with success at no
distant day. Others are opposed to it, but
dare not resist for fear they will be laughed at,
as those were, who, at the close of the war,
still sympathized with the South.  Some are
supporters of the innovation, because they think
it will be a success, although they hardly know
why it should succeed.   Those who have
labored for years without much hope are now
enthusiastic. There is but one serious drawback; the majority of the women themselves
seem to be very indifferent to the movement.
It was admitted by "The Independent," a few
months ago, that this was one of the greatest
obstacles which they had to contend with. If all
the women had as keen a sense of the wrong




12              ECCE FEMINA.
done them, in being deprived of the ballot, as
have the leaders of this reform, doubtless the
cause would succeed within two years.
But we will give the Innovators * the credit
of having advanced some very plausible reasons
why women should have the ballot, - probably
as good as can be produced.    To Americans,
many of their arguments are very convincing,
especially to those who are eager to be foremost
in the next great reform. We will admit that
some of the objections raised against this movement have been very weak; but this is not true
of all that has been said. Very good and reasonable arguments have been produced by those
who do not believe it best for either sex that the
right of suffrage should be extended to women.
However, it may be true that the Innovators
have the best of the argument thus far. This
may be accounted for by the following facts.
In the first place, many of the laws and customs that have prevailed to the present time
have been unjust to women, hence they could
fairly be denounced; and, on this account, able
* In the remainder of this book, those who advocate female
suffrage will be called the Innovators, on account of the convenience of using one word. It is not intended as a term of reproach, but simply to express the fact that they are a class of
persons who wish to introduce something new.




INTRODUCTION.             13
and honest men have hesitated in opposing
female suffrage, lest they should also seem to
support the laws and customs that have really
wronged the opposite sex. Besides, they have
generally been willing to listen candidly to the
arguments of the Innovators, and are now but
just beginning to make systematic replies to
them. Some of the best orators and writers
in this country and in England have been for
some time presenting their views in favor of
this movement, and have so thoroughly exhausted the subject, that, since the publication
of Mill's " Subjection of Women," there probably remains but little more that can be said on
that side of the question.
The men generally have been waiting to
hear what the other sex say on the subject;
yet some of them have made such progress (?)
that they are in favor of female suffrage, while
their wives are not. We think that a majority
of the women in our country will sustain us
when we assert that the greater portion of the
men would be willing to grant them the right
of voting if they generally desired it, even
though the men were not fully convinced that
it was best. Notwithstanding what Mill and
others have said, it is true in the United States,
we think, that four men out of every five, and




14            ECCE FEMINA.
perhaps nine out of every ten, yield to their
wives as often as their wives yield to them.
When a wife scolds the patience out of her husband, or a husband abuses his wife, it attracts
attention; but people take no notice of the
more numerous class that live in harmony.
The opposition is as yet but imperfectly developed, and the success of the so-called reform may
not be as certain as some imagine. Some who
oppose the movement may be rash and unreasonable, as are some who favor it; but it is a
mistake to think that all of the opponents' are
conservatives who are blindly wedded to the
past, and are thoughtlessly resisting the measure
because it is new. Probably a majority of the
Innovators are thoughtful, intelligent, highminded men and women, who deserve to be
listened to with respect, and answered by arguments founded on truth and reason. If the
author is not able to do this, it will be the fault
of the head rather than the heart.
I trust that the reader will pardon me for a
little egotism at this point, as my own experience may be similar to that of some who read
this book. As I had been a Garrisonian abolitionist, after slavery was abolished I felt a natural inclination to follow the same men in the
Woman's Rights movement.    I read what I




INTRODUCTION.             15
could find on both sides. There seemed to be
more arguments in favor of it than I could
refute; yet there was a lurking feeling that
there was a fallacy in the reasoning of the
Innovators, though I could not discover any.
Was this a prejudice still lingering in my mind,
or was it a feeling that had its foundation in
some truth that I could not discover? I satisfied myself that my sympathies were all with
such noble-minded men as Garrison, Phillips,
Theodore Tilton, and others, who were numbered among the leaders. What an honor to
be numbered among the first that supported the
next great movement of reform!    What a
disgrace to resist and be crushed beneath the
wheels of progress! When a man is sure that
he is on the road to a real reformation, let him
spur his mind to enthusiasm by such considerations as these; but it is never safe to allow his
reasoning powers to be influenced by them in
forming a correct judgment of what is and
what is not a genuine measure of reform.
Having satisfied myself that the feeling
which I have mentioned was not what is commonly called prejudice, I was still unable to
answer the arguments which were advanced in
favor of female suffrage. I took for granted
that there was no mental difference in the sexes




16            ECCE FEMINA.
worthy of consideration; that society and'all
just government were founded on the individuals, not the families; and that, of those persons who had come to years of discretion and
were of sound mind, one had just as good a
right to the ballot as another. I could understand why a woman should not be required to
(do military duty, because there was a physical
incapacity,; but there was no marked mental
inferiority on account of which she could be
declared incapable of voting intelligibly.  If
the premises given above be granted, I could
not then, nor can I now, see how logically to
avoid coming to the conclusion that women
are in duty bound to go to the ballot-box and
vote, the same as men.
When I say that I took the premises just
mentioned for granted, I do not mean to assert
that I then analyzed the workings of my mind
and found I was taking them for granted in all
my reasonings; in fact, I was doing this unconsciously, when I found myself in a dilemma,
and in order to extricate myself, I was obliged
to go back and examine every thing, and see if
it was possible to reach a solid foundation anywhere. It has taken me a long time to do it,
but I have, at last, reached a solution which has
satisfied my own mind; whether it will appear




INTRODUCTION.            17
reasonable to the mind of any other person or
not, the future must decide. If I had the ability, age, and experience of John Stuart Mill,
my opponent, I might hope to be more successful in presenting my arguments than I dare
now presume to expect.
We think that the Innovators will admit that
they take the premises, which have been given,
for granted, and rest all their reasoning upon
them  for a foundation.  Perhaps they have
never analyzed them in this way; but we do not
see how they can raise any serious objection to
the statement of them as given above. Now, if
these premises can be proved false, of course the
arguments of the Innovators will fall to the
ground. The task is a difficult one. Arguments
that will be considered conclusive by the author,
may be declared worthless by an opponent.
But no harm can come from a fair discussion,
and good may result.   If we use fallacious
arguments, or in any way lead the reader to a
wrong conclusion, we hope that some one will
be loyal to truth, and refute them. We shall
endeavor to make this book in all respects an
ally of truth, although we feel conscious that
we cannot do this unless directed by wisdom
higher than that which comes from earth.
The popular mind is often more readily influ2




18            ECCE FEMINA.
enced by that which seems to be the echo of
some generally-received principle, than by sound
logical reasoning. It takes but little perversion
or explanation to make the Declaration of Independence support almost any idea that is advanced. If a public speaker talks an hour on
any political subject, and closes by repeating,' We hold these truths to be self-evident," &c.,
some of his hearers get the idea that there is a
logical connection between what he has said of
his own and what he has quoted, although they
may really be opposed to each other. We once
heard a political speaker talk for two hours, and
during this time he hardly advocated a principle
that was not in letter and spirit directly opposed
to the truths of Christianity; but he closed by
giving the audience as glowing a description of
the truth and value of the Bible as any Christian
minister could have given. Doubtless some qf
the people went away thinking that all he said
was founded on Scripture. There is a story
related of an Indian who told a white man that
if he would go over a hill he would find a lake,
near the lake a large rock, and by the rock a
bag of gold. The white man went and searched,
but came back cursing the Indian.
" Why," said the red man, " did you not find
the lake?"




INTRODUCTION.             19
"Yes," was the reply.
"And did you not find the rock?"
" Yes."
"Well! you need not complain then; two
truths for one lie is very well for an Indian."
Those who advocate female suffrage are, not
guilty of falsehood, like the Indian, but some of
them take a very absurd way to influence
people to believe their doctrines.  They tell
us two truths in regard to women, and then
denounce us as enemies to the sex if we do not
conclude that women have a right to vote, when
the facts stated have no logical relation to the
question. For instance, the speaker will tell a
pathetic story in regard to the sufferings of a
poor girl in some city; then he may state some
historical fact showing the abuse to which
women have been subjected; and, finally, he will
close his speech by assuring his audience that if
the ballot is once in the hands of the women,
these abuses and horrors will no longer exist.
If this is reasoning, then John Stuart Mill's
System of Logic" is good for nothing."
The book recently written by Dr. Bushnell
contains many excellencies, but the truth is not
presented in such a manner as to satisfy the
mind of the reader. He indulges too much in
random thoughts, that are good in themselves,




20            ECCE FEMiINA.
but do not form an exhaustive argument. The
author evidently has the truth in his own mind,
but he has not been accustomed to that style of
writing which is characteristic of the logical
debater. If he had been in the habit of writing
such works as Mill has written, he would have
given us a book that might be considered equal
to the one just presented to the public by that
illustrious Englishman. We do not think that
the Innovators have given him credit for what
he has done. Perhaps they consider it for
their interest to make the book appear of little
value. The benefit which we have derived
from the perusal of his work has assisted us in
preparing some parts of this. The man who
first writes a book on any subject labors under
disadvantages that are unknown to those who
come after him.
" The Subjection of Women," by Mill, has
been the most powerful stimulant which we
have found in forming the plan of this book.
It is the strongest argument that has been produced on that side of the question; but is brought
out in such a way that the weak points of the
Innovators may be easily discovered, although
he uses much tact in covering them up. If Mill
is a great thinker, his writings show that his mind
sometimes becomes enamoured with the beauty




INTRODUCTION.              21
of the ideal, causing him to wander too far from
the practical. This "aberration " is admirably
described by himself. " The principal and most
characteristic aberration of speculative minds, as
such, consists precisely in the deficiency of this
lively perception and ever-present sense of
objective fact. For want of this, they often
not only overlook the contradiction which outward facts oppose to their theories, but lose
sight of the legitimate purpose of speculation
altogether, and let their speculative faculties go
astray into regions not peopled with real beings,
animate or inanimate, even idealized, but with
personified shadows created by the illusions of
metaphysics or by the mere entanglement of
words, and think these shadows the proper
objects of the highest, the most transcendent,
philosophy."  (p. 108.*)
Notwithstanding the fact that the book is for
the most part pervaded with the spirit of a philosopher, there are some portions where the
intense feeling of the author does violence to
his judgment. For instance, he says, "The law
of servitude in marriage is a monstrous contradiction to all the principles of the modern world,
and to all the experience through which those
* The references are to Appleton's Edition of Mill's Subjection
of Women.




22            ECCE FEMINA.
principles have been slowly and painfully worked
out. It is the sole case, now that negro slavery
has been abolished, in which a human being in
the plenitude of every faculty is delivered up to
the tender mercies of another human being, in
the hope forsooth that this other will use the
power solely for the good of the person subjected to it. Marriage is the only actual bondage known to our law. There remain no legal
slaves, except the mistress of every house."
(p. 147.) The common law of England is, in
many respects, unjust to the wife; but the
passage quoted is a gross exaggeration. This
sweeping assertion was either made when the
author was under the influence of a stimulated
imagination, or, at best, goes to show that Mill
was correct in his " System of Logic," when he
wrote, " that even the most cultivated portion
of our species have not yet learned to abstain
from drawing conclusions for which the evidence
is insufficient."
There are some other passages of a similar
character in "The Subjection of Women."
These would seem more pardonable in a public
speaker, who might wish, on account of the
apathy of his audience, to say something startling; yet in such a case there is a re-action
afterward, when the mind of the hearer exam



INTRODUCTION.             23
ines carefully the statements of the speaker.
The plain truth has more effect in the end than
any exaggeration. Men were moved when they
listened to the touching appeals of the abolitionists, as they revealed the horrors of slavery,
because their representations were genuine and
truthful. Some of the Innovators have endeavored to arouse public opinion by portraying the
wrongs of women in glowing colors; but they
have failed to accomplish as much by this as
they anticipated, because every one knows, from
observation, that their representations are exaggerated. The Innovators are right in contending for some changes. They have done some
good already, and we do not wish to write any
thing that will tend to hinder them from accomplishing what will really benefit woman. This
book is written mainly to oppose female suffrage;
but there are some kindred projects that demand
opposition. When we think that the Innovators mistake evil for good, we shall try to give
good reasons for supporting our theory in preference to theirs. When we think that they
are striving for any good result, we may suggest a method of accomplishing it without the
tedious and hazardous process of overthrowing the foundations of society and building
anew.




24             ECCE FEMINA.
In making comparisons, and especially in
reasoning from analogy, an author is frequently
misunderstood. It should be remembered that,
in analogy, and generally, when any thing is
introduced for illustration, only one point of
resemblance is considered; the comparison or
analogy will be good for nothing in all other
points. It is sometimes desirable to use illustrations, as they enable the reader to grasp the
idea of the author more readily; but they
should not be construed to mean more or less
than the writer intends.
When governments in all of their complicated workings are able to form the very best
laws, they will be found to fall far short of that
perfection which is apparent in the laws of
God as found in nature and Revelation. Legislators show the greatest wisdom when they
form their laws, as nearly as possible, according
to the patterns which the great Lawgiver has
placed within their reach.  We learn from
nature that general laws are beneficial only
under certain conditions; and if these conditions
are disregarded, they become a curse instead of
a blessing. For instance, the law of gravitation
preserves order and assists in carrying on all of
the movements in the world; yet it sometimes
brings great enterprises to destruction, and takes




INTRODUCTION.             25
away human life. The light and heat of the
sun are necessary for the growth of vegetation;
yet they become the agents of destruction
unless there is an abundance of soil and moisture. If there is a drought, the sun withers and
scorches the green fields until they become a
desolate waste. Who would not laugh at the
man, that, in such a case, should wish to have
the sun blotted out of existence, for the sake of
preserving vegetation!  There are political
reformers (?) who are enthusiastic over measures that they think would be beneficial to a
minority; but they do not take into consideration the fact that these same measures would be
detrimental to the masses.  They behold a
little patch of grass withering, and shout,
"Away with the sun!" without intending any
harm to the world at large. They mean well,
but are short-sighted. If society is composed
of families, it is evident that the laws should be
based upon an entirely different principle from
that which would be just and consistent were
there no such institution as the marriage relation.
Erroneous conclusions are often drawn from
facts, but not all of the facts. One reason
why some are eager to destroy old customs and
laws, and adopt new, is, that they live in some




26             ECCE FEMINA.
city or section where the condition of those
around them is unlike that of the greater portion of the people of the whole country: hence
they think of some measure which would benefit thousands of those around them, but overlook the fact that it might injure millions in
other parts of the country. It has been urged
in favor of female suffrage, that, in the State of
Massachusetts, woman's vote would insure such
a stringent liquor-law, that drunkenness would
be almost impossible. Perhaps it is true; yet
in some other parts of the country it would
increase the chances of corruption, and the
aggregate gain to morality might be a loss.
However, suppose that it would be a gain to
the cause of justice for a few years, there is no
certainty that this would last. For instance,
take the case of prohibitory laws, where we
would least expect to find woman wrong. At
the present it would seem almost impossible to
make as many women use intoxicating drinks
as men; but influences might be brought to
bear that would little by little diminish the
horror which women feel at the sight of a
drunken man.    Moderate drinking is very
respectable in the sight of many women now.
Thle number who use intoxicating drinks is
larger than some suppose.  At present, men




INTRODUCTIOV.             27
generally try to conceal their intemperate habits
from their female fiiends; but, as soon as
woman becomes a voter, means will be used to
make her as corrupt as her male associates.
And, improbable as it now seems, the gentler
sex, in the course of a generation, might be in
a condition to vote no better on prohibitory
laws than men do now; beside, having become
debased themselves, the cause of morality would
lose, instead of gain. The reason why women
are now better than men, is because they are
under better influences, and less subjected to
temptation. We have only to go to some portions of our cities, to learn how depraved and
hideous woman can become. We do not now
say that such evil results would be brought
about, but we say that they might.  "Evil
communications corrupt good manners."  If
only a few more women were lowered morally
by the use of strong drink, the amount of
immorality would be greater than it is now.
In the midst of the disturbances and commotions of this world, it is the misfortune of the
few to be placed in circumstances unlike those
which surround the mass of mankind. As society is organized for and by the majority, customs and laws which are really as good as they




28            ECCE FEMINA.
can be operate to the disadvantage of the
minority. To do justice to those few cases in
which injustice would prevail according to general laws, courts of equity have been established
with certain discretionary powers. As a general rule, it is not safe for law to make exceptions; and, when special provisions are Tnade
for the few, there is need of great caution to
prevent causing evils greater than those removed. A generous, warm-hearted man would
naturally think that there could be no danger
of making too ample provision for the poor;
but political economists have proved that there
is. There are many men who would not make
an effort to support themselves, if they could
have a new suit of clothes furnished them as
often as the old ones became ragged.
" We legislate, we arrange society, for the
masses, not the exceptions," says Wendell
Phillips. The reasoning in some portions of
"Mill's Subjection of Women" is fallacious,
as he draws his conclusions from the exceptions.
Laws or customs founded upon such philosophy must necessarily be unjust to the majority;
yet the public is more easily deceived in this
way than in any other, as it is generally supposed to be sufficient for a man to state facts,




INTRODUCTION.              29
and then derive his conclusions logically from
those facts. By disregarding important truths,
and mixing together general and partial truth,
it is very easy to obtain false conclusions.




30            ECCE FEMINA.
CHAPTER II.
THE SEXES COMPARED.
HERE    has been considerable discussion in regard to the equality of
the sexes, within the past few years:
some asserting that men and women
are mentally equal, some that they are not; and
others, that it makes no difference whether they
are or not, as far as the question of suffrage is
concerned. None of these statements are exactly correct.  There is much truth in the
remark of Dr. Bushnell, that we cannot predicate equality of things that are unlike. Perhaps
it is not necessary- to know whether, on the
whole, one sex is superior to the other; but it is
not possible to determine the proper relation of
the sexes, without knowing, to a certain extent,
their natures, and whether they are alike or
unlike. Does not the structure of the fish prove
it was made to live in the water? We can tell
the nature of the food which an animal requires,
although we may have never seen one of the




THE SEXES COMPARED.          31
kind before. According to Mill's theory, we
would be obliged to try every kind of food in
the world before we should know that we had
obtained the right sort. When we observe a
lawyer objecting to a question asked a witness,
we do not always conclude that he is trying to
keep out matters which are foreign to the case,
as it often becomes apparent that he is only
employing strategy, for the sake of excluding
testimony which he foresees will be against him.
We do not hesitate to assert, that the reason why
the Innovators try to evade all discussion on the
nature and relation of the sexes, is because they
know that it would injure their cause. If they
can prevent their opponents obtaining a foothold, they think that they are safe. They
raise the cry that it is a subject that can be discussed and investigated without ever reaching
any limit, as though the fact that we cannot
tell exactly what the difference is between man
and woman should keep us from making use
of what knowledge we have. This subject is
no more indefinite than many others in social
and political life which we are constantly investigating. The knowledge of masculine or feminine nature can not be reduced to an exact
science; yet there is no difficulty in deducing
some general truths, - all that are needed to de



32            ECCE FEMINA.
cide the question of female suffrage. All human
knowledge is incomplete; but enough can be
known to enable man to solve all of the problems that are involved in the formation and
administration of government.
It cannot be denied that in all countries and
in all ages there has been a belief in a radical
difference between the sexes; that man is
naturally fitted to perform certain duties, and
not adapted to perform certain other duties; that
woman can perform some things better than
man, and others not as well. Adventitious circumstances may account for the fact that the
weaker sex has often been wronged, and an arbitrary division of the duties and privileges of the
sexes established; but something more is necessary to account for the universal belief in some
kind of a division of responsibilities. During the
earlier periods of the world's history, woman was
generally considered the inferior of man. In
the age of chivalry, the world went to the other
extreme, and made her the superior of man, and
she was almost deified. At the present time, in
civilized countries, she is generally regarded as
the equal of man: the proof of this will be
given elsewhere. During these three stages of
opinion, there has been no doubt in regard to
the difference between the sexes. This belief




TIE SEXES COMPARED.          33
has been as general as the idea of a god of some
kind. Although but few have had a correct
notion of the true God, yet the belief in a superior being of some kind is universal. Perhaps
we do not get our idea of a particular sphere for
each of the sexes metaphysically by the same
method, as the one is probably intuitive and the
other learned by observation. If this could be
accounted for on the theory that men rule
women byforce, the age of chivalry would have
destroyed such a system of usurpation.
Those who have been in favor of female
suffrage have not met this question fairly, but
have endeavored to brow-beat the public, and
have hooted and ridiculed the idea of a particular "' sphere " for woman, declaring- it nothing
but a groundless prejudice. There have been
so much scorn and derision brought against this
notion, that many who believe in it dare- not
mention the subject now. Perhaps the author
of this book will be ridiculed for reviving a dead
subject. When the Innovators carry this point
by fair argument, we will yield; but we cannot
see the necessity of abandoning a position because it has been assailed by sneers. Perhaps
the idea as used by the ignorant was a proper
subject for derision, as it was used for a cloak to
cover some abuses which every candid person
3




34             ECCE FEMINA.
admits should be removed. The nature of the
sexes is the same, or the nature of woman differs
from that of man. The Innovators ought to be
candid enough to take one side or the other, and
cease to evade a fair discussion by vague general assertions. We consider it a self-evident
truth, that God never made two classes of
creatures radically unlike if he intended them
for the same splere of action.  The general
sentiment of mankind must stand until proof is
furnished that it is contrary to reason and nature.
The assertion that this idea is nothing but a
groundless prejudice does not make it so. Neither
slavery nor any other evil can claim to have
been regarded as just and natural by all classes
and in all ages.
Before deciding the question of female suffrage, it is necessary to examine some facts which
corroborate tle universal belief in a distinction
of sex, and ascertain, as nearly as we can, in
what respects the sexes differ.  But John Stuart Mill meets us here with the lawyer's tactics.
He says, in the first place, that our witnesses do
not and can not know any thing about woman.
As his reasoning on this point is the most ingenious piece of fallacy that has recently been
produced, we quote at length from " The Subjection of Women."




THE S#XES COMPARED.         35
"Neither does it avail any thing to say that
the nature of the two sexes adapts them to their
present functions and position, and renders these
appropriate to them. Standing on the ground
of common sense and the constitution of the
human mind, I deny that any one knows, or can
know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as
they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. If men had ever been
found in society without women, or women
without men, or if there had been a society of
men and women in which the women were not
under the control of the men, something might
have been positively known about the mental
and moral differences which may be inherent in
the nature of each. What is now called the
nature of women is an eminently artificial thing,
- the result of forced repression in some directions, unnatural stimulation in others."
"  ence, in regard to that most difficult question, What are the natural differences between
the two sexes,- a subject on which it is impossible in the present state of society to obtain
complete and correct knowledge, - while almost
everybody dogmatizes upon it, almost all neglect and make light of the only means by which
any partial insight can be obtained into it.




36            ECCE FEMIliNA.
This is an analytical study of the most important department of psychology,- the laws of the
influence of circumstances on character.  For,
however great and apparently ineradicable the
moral and intellectual differences between men
and women might be, the evidence of there
being natural differences could only be negative.
Those only could be inferred to be natural
which could not possibly be artificial,-the
residuum, after deducting every characteristic of
either sex which can admit of being explained
from education or external circumstances. The
profoundest knowledge of the laws of the formation of character is indispensable to entitle
any one to affirm even that there is any difference, much more what the difference is, between
the two sexes considered as moral and rational
beings; and since no one, as yet, has that
knowledge (for there is hardly any subject
which, in proportion to its importance, has been
so little studied), no one is thus far entitled to
any positive opinion on the subject. Conjectures
are all that can at present be made, — conjectures
more or less probable, according as more or less
authorized by such knowledge as we yet have
of the laws of psychology, as applied to the
formation of character.
" Even the preliminary knowledge, what the




THE SEXES COMPARED.          37
differences between the sexes now are, apart from
all question as to how they are made what they
are, is still in the crudest and most incomplete
state. Medical practitioners and physiologists
have ascertained, to some extent, the differences
in bodily constitution; and this is an important
element to the psychologist; but hardly any
medical practitioner is a psychologist. Respecting the mental characteristics of women, their
observations are of no more worth than those of
common men. It is a subject on which nothing
final can be known, so long as those who alone
can really know it, women themselves, have
given but little testimony, and that little mostly
suborned. It is easy to know stupid women.
Stupidity is much the same all the world over.
A stupid person's notions and feelings may confidently be inferred from those which prevail
in the circle by which the person is surrounded.
Not so with those whose opinions and feelings
are an emanation from their own nature and
faculties. It is only a man here and there who
has any tolerable knowledge of the character
even of the women of his own family. I do
wot mean of their capabilities, these nobody
knows,- not even themselves,-because most of
them have never been called out. I mean their
actually existing thoughts and feelings." He




38            ECCE FEMINA.
then enumerates a dozen difficulties in the way
of a man's understanding his own wife perfectly,
and says that to have his knowledge good
for any thing, she must be a woman "worth
knowing, and the man not only a competent
judge, but of a character so sympathetic in itself,
and so well adapted to hers, that he can either
read her mind by sympathetic intuition, or has
nothing in himself which makes her shy of disclosing it. Hardly any thing, 1 believe, can be
more rare than this conjunction."  We can see at
once that Mill is following his fancy; for government is based, not upon a knowledge of these
" rare " cases, but upon the knowledge we have
of the masses, —  stupid" men and women, as
well as the wise and learned. IIe then adds,
" All these difficulties stand in the way of a man's
obtaining any thorough knowledge even of the
one woman whom alone, in general, he has
sufficient opportunity of studying. When we
further consider that to understand one woman
is not necessarily to understand any other
woman; that even if he could study many
women of one rank, or of one country, he would
not thereby understand women of other ranks
or countries; and even if he did, they are still
only the women of a single period of history:
we may safely assert that the knowledge which




THE SEXES COMPARED.          39
men can acquire of women, even as they have
been and are, without reference to what they
might be, is wretchedly iinperfect and superficial,
and always will be so, until women themselves
have told all that they have to tell.
"The greater part of what women write
about women is mere sycophancy to men. In
the case of unmarried women, much of it seems
only intended to increase their chance of a husband. Many, both married and unmarried,
overstep the mark, and inculcate a servility
beyond what is desired or relished by any man,
except the vulgarest. But this is not so often
the case as, even at a quite late date, it still was.
Literary women are becoming more free-spoken,
and more willing to express their real sentiments.
Unfortunately, in this country especially, they
are themselves such artificial products, that their
sentiments are compounded of a small element
of individual observation and consciousness, and
a very large one of acquired associations. This
will be less and less the case, but it will remain
true to a great extent, as long as social institutions do not admit the same free development
of originality in women which is possible to men.
When that time comes, and not before, we shall
see, and not merely hear, as much as it is necessary to know of the nature of women, and the
adaptation of other things to it.




40             ECCE FEMINTA.
"I have dwelt so much on the difficulties
which at present obstruct any real knowledge by
men of the true nature of women, because in
this as in so many other things,' opinio copiae
inter maximas causas inopiae est;'. and there is
little chance of reasonable thinking on the matter, while people flatter themselves that they
perfectly understand a subject of which most
men know absolutely nothing, and of which it
is at present impossible that any man, or all men
taken together, should have any knowledge
which can qualify them to lay down the law to
women as to what is, or is not, their vocation."
pp. 38-48. Hence, if there are no fallacies in
the foregoing, he has shown that the known, in
regard to woman, is infinitesimally small, while
the unknown is infinitely large. He proves not
only enough, but too much for his own cause.
If we believe Mill, we must conclude that at
present we have no means of telling whether
women are inferior, equal, or superior to men;
and, further, we must also conclude that the
knowledge which Mr. Mill has of the subject on
which he has written a book " is wretchedly imperfect and superficial."  Mill admits that the
presumption should be in favor of the existing
order of society. He comes before the world
and says substantially this: " I find from history




ITE SEXES COMPARED.          41
that men have thus far ruled the world, while
there is a race of beings called women who have
been otherwise engaged. I can not ascertain
much about the character of women; in fact, the
truth in regard to their character is so utterly
unknown, that' no one is thus far entitled to any
positive opinion on the subject.' I find, however,
that they will lie and equivocate * for the sake
of pleasing the men, and are, as a general rule,
a race of sycophants.t Notwithstanding these
obstacles,' there are no means of finding what
either one person or many can do, but by trying;'
as' conjectures are all that can at present be
made:' hence, I conjecture that it would be one
of the grandest reformations of modern times
to tear down the system by which the world
has been governed, and make these unknown
beings called women rulers as well as men; and
I feel confident that we have no means of computing the good that will result from the
change." If he had made this the whole of his
message to the world, his inconsistencies would
have been fewer than they now are, and easily
detected by the public.
Mill was determined to annihilate his opponents by this one grand stroke of reasoning.
Let us compare him to a captain of a ship. He
* See p. 37, line 13.  t See p. 39, lines 5 and 6.




42            ECCE FEMVIA.
wishes to give the enemy a broadside; so every
gun is charged to the muzzle: at the word
"fire," there is such a mighty shock that the
very waves shudder. There is a smile of triumph on the face of Mill as he beholds the ship
of his antagonist sinking. At first he does not
notice that the concussion has been so powerful
that his own ship has been shattered and is
already sinking; but he is soon aroused by cries
of " help." Not in the least disconcerted, he proceeds to construct a raft, on which he hopes to
escape.  Here is the identical structure on
which he rides and claims a victory: " Happily,
no such knowledge is necessary for any practical
purpose connected with the position of women
in relation to society and life. For, according
to all the principles involved in modern society,
the question rests with women themselves, - to
be decided by their own experience, and by the
use of their own faculties. There are no means
of finding what either one person or many can
do but by trying, and no means by which
any one else can discover for them what it is
for their happiness to do or leave undone." If
he had not built this frail contrivance, he certainly could have had no excuse for writing the
remainder of his book. Let us examine it.
He appeals " to all the principles involved in




THE SEXES COMPARED.          43
modern society," which is composed of many
"suborned," "stupid," " sycophantic" women,
and a very few sensible ones, and men who are
denounced as tyrants and usurpers! There is
a wonderful inconsistency in his appealing to a
tribunal composed of such persons; besides, his
book is written to show that the " principles
involved in modern society" are wrong. Then
he adds, " the question rests with women themselves;" but here he seems to remember that he
has already called them a stupid set of sycophants, and he knows, too, that, if the question
were left to woman now, they would decide
against him: so lie puts in a dash, and leaves
the matter to " experience " instead of woman;
but he forgets to tell us how we are to get the
" suborned " sex to make the trial. When lie
says that there are "no means " of deciding
any question of this kind, except by trial, he
states what he does not believe himself. We
would not undervalue experience; but we have
means of arriving at a good degree of probability on most subjects before a trial has been made.
We know certainly that it would be injurious to
the public good to allow children six years of
age to vote; and there are many other things
that we know without trying. Reasoning from
what knowledge we lhave, we can decide most




44             ECCE FEMINA.
political questions beforehand with a good degree
of certainty. If we were to try female suffrage
for two hundred years, and there should then be
a philosopher as ingenious as Mill, he would
prove conclusively (?) that we had no means of
telling whether the experiment has been a success or not.  He would show that all of our
knowledge on the subject was "wretchedly
imperfect and superficial."
Mill so completely destroys himself, that it is
hardly necessary for us to examine each point
separately; yet we will briefly notice some of
them. When he says that we could know
something about the inherent nature of the
sexes, if there had ever been a society where
the women were not under the control of the
men, he assumes tlat such a case has never
happened; which is false, as it is well known
that in the age of chivalry the men were completely under the control of women, or as much
so as we could well conceive of; besides, lie has
no right to assume that they are under the
control of men at present, as all of his opponents claim that women have now essentially
as much power as men. We have as good
right to assume this as he has the contrary.
As the great majority of women are now
opposed to female suffrage, Mill strives hard to




THE SEXES COMPARED.          45
impeach these opposing witnesses, and rule out
their testimony; but it is nonsense to assume
that those who are opposed to female suffrage
are any less sincere'than those who favor it.
It is true he does not say directly that they are;
but, if he does not mean this, there is no meaning in his remarks about the opinion and testimony of women.     The greater part of the
unfairness of Mill's book consists in the sly,
easy, and misleading manner in which he gets
over those points which would be likely to
provoke opposition. He did not dare to say,
"I consider the testimony of those women,
who do not believe as I do, worthless; while
that given by my female friends is very valuable."
Perhaps it is hardly fair to say that Mill
intends to mislead, as it is possible that his
ingenuity leads his own mind astray. If we
follow him step by step, we seem to think it
necessary to get the positive kind of evidence
which he shows cannot be obtained; but a
monment's reflection will convince his readers
that certainty is not to be reached, in a great
many political problems: yet we can acquire
such a degree of probability, that it amounts to
the same thing. We do not need to know psychologically all the characteristics of a man to




46            ECCE FEMINA.
decide whether he can be a good mechanic or
not. We need to know     only a few of the
mental qualities of women to decide the question of suffrage and office-holding, and these
need to be but partially known. Nearly all
great and political and social questions turn on
one or two important principles. There are
two sides to these questions; and we wish to
obtain all the truth we can on both sides, and
then decide in favor of that which has the
most.  It is no matter that we cannot approximate to accuracy in deciding just how
great the amount of reliable facts is, if we can
only know that the mass of truth on one side
is greater than that on the other. Accuracy
is desirable when it can be obtained; yet, where
it cannot, there must be a decision one way or
the other. To show that the difficulties are
not as great as Mill has represented, we appeal
from John Stuart Mill the partisan, to Joln
Stuart Mill the philosopher.  When he wrote
"The   Subjection  of  Women,"   he had a
special theory to prove; and, when facts or
general principles came in his way, he trampled
them under foot. When he wrote his " System
of Logic," or at least the portion of it to which
we refer, we have every reason to believe that
he wrote as a philosophical thinker. We do




THE SEXES COMPARED.           47
not suppose that he then had any temptation to
distort the truth.
"' There is a case in which approximate propositions,.even without our taking note of the
conditions under which they are not true of
individual cases, are yet, for the purposes of
science, universal ones; namely, in the scientific inquiries which relate to the properties, not
of individuals, but of multitudes. The principal of these is the science of politics, or of
human society.   This science is principally
concerned with the actions, not of solitary individuals, but of masses; with the fortunes, not of
single persons but of communities.  For the
statesman, therefore, it is generally enough to
know that most act or are acted upon in a particular way, since his speculations and his practical arrangements refer almost exclusively to
cases in which the whole community, or some
large portion of it, is acted upon at once, and
in which, therefore, what is done or felt by
most persons determines the result produced by
or upon the body at large. He can get on
well enough with approximate generalizations
on human nature, since what is true approximately of all individuals is true absolutely of
all masses. And even when the operations of
individual men have a part to play in his de



48            ECCE FEMINA.
duetions, as when he is reasoning of lkings, or
other single rulers, still, as he is providing for
indefinite duration, involving an indefinite succession of such individuals, he must, in general,
both reason and act as if what is true of most
persons were true of all.
" The two kinds of considerations above
adduced are a sufficient refutation of the popular error, that speculations on society and government, as resting upon merely probable evidence, must be inferior in certainty and scientific accuracy to the conclusions of what are
called the exact sciences, and less to be relied
upon in practice." (Book. III. Chap. 23,
Sec. 7.)
In the chapter on a science of human nature,
we find the following: " But further, even in
any given combination of present circumstances, no assertion, which is both precise and universally true, can be made respecting the manner in which human beings will think, feel, or
act.  This is not, however, because every
person's modes of thinking, feeling, and acting,
do not depend upon causes; nor can we doubt
that if, in the case of any individual, our date
could be complete, we even now know enough
of the ultimate laws by which mental phenomena are determined, to enable us to predict




THE SEXES COMPARED.          49
with tolerable certainty, if not with perfect precision, what, under any given set of circumstances, his conduct or sentiments would be.
But the impressions and actions of human
beings are not solely the result of their present
circumstances, but the joint result of those circumstances and the characters of individuals;
and the agencies which determine human character are so numerous and diversified (nothing
which has happened to the person throughout
life being without its portion of influence), that
in the aggregate they are never in any two
cases exactly  similar.  Hence, even if our
science of human nature were theoretically perfect, that is, if we could calculate any character as we can calculate the orbit of any planet,
from given data, still, as the data are never all
given, nor ever precisely alike in different
cases, we could neither make infallible predictions, nor lay down universal propositions.
"Inasmuch, however, as many of those
effects which it is of most importance to render
amenable to human foresight and control are
determined, like the tides, in an incomparably
greater degree by general causes, than by all
partial causes taken together; depending in the
main on those circumstances and those qualities
which are common to all mankind, or common at
4




50             ECCE FEMINA.
least to large bodies of them, and only in a small
degree on the idiosyncrasies of organization or
the peculiar history of individuals; is evidently
possible, with regard to all such effects, to make
predictions which will almost always be verified,
and general propositions which are almost always
true. And whenever it is sufficient to know
how the great majority of the human race, or
of some nation or class of persons, will think,
feel, and act, these propositions are equivalent
to universal ones. For the purposes of political
and social science this is sufficient. As we formerly remarked, an approximate generalization
is practically, in social inquiries, equivalent to
an exact one; that which is only probable when
asserted of human beings taken individually,
being certain when affirmed of the character
and collective conduct of masses."  (Book VI.
Chap. 3, Sec. 2.)
Could any one ask for a more complete refutation of Mill's position than he himself has
given?   We shall show in another place, as
well as we can, that the question of suffrage
must depend upon the mass of women, not
individuals. According to the above, this would
make the difficulty very small, comparatively.
As boys and girls are born of the same parents,
all that is said in regard to the influences which




THE SEXES COMPARED.          51
have controlled women for ages is good for nothing, as they would leave their impression on the
male as well as female children. The disturbing causes are only the peculiarities of present
circumstances, that is, the circumstances of each
age, which mould the then existing women.
As women have been placed in a great variety
of circumstances, it is not difficult to decide what
peculiarities are natural: hence it is safe to say
that the question of suffrage must be determined'' in an incomparably greater degree by general
causes, than by all partial causes taken together."
We are ready to grant that woman's character would be, to a certain extent, changed by
engaging in political life. She would probably
become developed by those duties, as man is, and
she would be much more like man. If Mill
and his coadjutors can prove that such a change
is desirable, then they have so much in favor of
the innovation: if we can prove that it is not,
then we have so much against it. It is rather
strange that those who wish to have women
engage in all the duties that men do, in order
that they may have the same chance of mental
development, deny that they would become
masculine.  They contradict themselves: for
their plea is, that the placing of the other sex in
the same circumstances would bring about the




52            ECCE FEMINA.
same mental development. If that would not
make woman like man, or, in other words, masculine, what would?  If we suppose, on the
other hand, that woman will not become masculine under any circumstances, it follows that
she cannot receive the same mental development that man can, and we must conclude that
the sexes are unlike,- the mind of one expanding in one direction, and that of the other in
another. This does not make one inferior to
the other, by any means. The Innovators seem
to have an idea that by some miraculous process
woman is to retain all of her own characteristics,
and then acquire the good qualities of the other
sex without any of the bad ones. Neither philosophy nor common sense can justify such
hopes. The question to be decided, then, is simply this: Is it desirable to have woman become
masculine, instead of retaining the characteristics of her own sex?
When we can prove that certain duties are
natural to one sex, while they are not to the
other, we have reached an ultimate principle,
and no further reason can be given or required.
However, by an examination of the peculiar
characteristics of each sex, we can show that
the dissimilarity in the mental structure of the
sexes is reasonable, and consistent with the good



THE SEXES COMPARED.           53
ness and wisdom of the Creator; while a similarity would not be. We propose now to notice
some of the most important physical and mental
distinctive characteristics of the sexes.  The
proof of the truthfulness of the following assertions is found in the history of the past and
present. We rely upon the reader's observation
to sustain our positions. We do not expect to
convince cavillers in this part of our arguments,
but hope to pursuade the honest inquirer.
We believe that in some respects men are
naturally superior to women; we also believe
that in others women are superior to men. In
those respects in which one sex is inferior,
the other is superior. The assertion that the
sexes are equal is probably true, if rightly understood; but, in theway that the word equal is
often used, it does not convey the exact truth,
but leads to confusion.  When we say that five
dollars in gold is equal to five dollars in silver, we
do not mean that there is equality of quantity or
weight, but of value. Let us suppose that the
statement that Napoleon was equal to Milton is
true. An examination of the two persons would
show a difference of mental organization, so that
in some respects one would be found inferior to
the other, and at the same time superior in other
points; but the value of the mental endowments




54             ECCE FEMINA.
of one would be equal to that of the other.
The only kind of equality that can be said to
exist between the sexes, is that which exists
between objects that are unlike. In this sense
it is safe to say that the sexes are equal, although
we have no means of knowing the exact truth.
The functions of the heart are unlike those of
the brain, but both organs are equally indispensable. The interests of the two sexes are so
completely interwoven, that either has a right to
inquire into the nature and duties of the other.
Woman has a perfect right to understand tile
natural characteristics of man, as she can justly
claim the performance of those duties which
nature has evidently designed man for. The
male portion of the community has an equal
right to study the character of the other sex: in
fact, it is the duty of both sexes to learn as much
as possible about themselves, in order that they
may the better act the part which God. las
given them. Man's physical system is larger
and stronger than woman's; consequently he is
able to endure greater hardship, and is fitted to
perform the heavier kinds of labor: hence we
have a right to conclude that God intended that
man should be responsible for the performance of
all those tasks for which he is naturally adapted.
He is bound to protect the other sex against all




THE SEXES COMPARED.          55
violence; and if moderate measures are not sufficient, he must engage in active warfare. On
the other hand, there is a lack of delicacy and
fineness in the masculine structure. Strength
and delicacy do not seem to be compatible.
Perhaps God could have combined them; but it
is enough for us to know that lie has not, except
in a small degree. Superiority in both is not
found in the same object. It would be a useless
expense to rig a ship with ropes of silk.  So
Nature abhors extravagance.
If woman had been made as strong as man
and no more delicate, there would have been
more of one kind of laborers than needed, and a
total lack in some departments. By practice, a
person can learn to perform almost any duty in
a certain manner, hut superiority is only attained
by natural capabilities; or, in other words, God
can prepare his agents for the work he has laid
out for them better than man can. No combination of circumstances could enable man to fill
the place of woman, yet he could by practice
perform the physical duties of woman better
than the mental. To make the world complete,
there was heed of one sex adapted to the performance of a great variety of light but delicate
tasks: great strength was not needed, but great
agility and delicacy.  It seems at the first




56            ECOE FEMINA.
thought rather strange that the sex which bears
the children should be weaker than the other;
but a quiet life and protection are more necessary for this purpose than any thing else; and,
other things being equal, the pain of childbearing is greater with those women who have
a strong, muscular system, than with those who
are more delicate.
Among some barbarous and half-civilized
nations, woman has been made physically masculine as much as circumstances could make her
such. Experience has proved that equality of
sex in this way is by no means desirable. Chinamen can perform all kinds of female labor: they
preserve the distinction of sex, however, by
forcing woman into an unnatural position. If
we take China as an illustration, few would
think it desirable to make men effeminate. The
progress of civilization has been greatest where
the natural peculiarities of the sexes have been
allowed full play, and have not been moulded by
artificial means; yet the distinction of sex has
been marked and unmistakable. Where man
has forced woman to perform the hard labor, he
has robbed her of the ability to execute those
tender offices which make home so charming in
civilized society.
It is not easy to tell the exact relation which




THE SEXES COMPARED.         57
the mind bears to the body, yet there is no doubt
that they correspond to a certain extent. Some
claim that the texture of the mind can be known
by that of the hair. For our purposes, we do
not care to know just how much truth there is
in the various theories in regard to mind and
body. This much is certain, as a general rule,
they do not contradict, but confirm each other.
Out of a hundred men with delicate physical
systems, it is a safe estimate to say that the
minds of ninety of them exhibit a corresponding
tendency. When we find a woman with a
coarse, masculine mind, we generally discover
the same tendency in her physique. No candid
man can deny that, as a general rule, the mental characteristics of the sexes correspond to the
physical. Circumstances have never been found
powerful enough to reduce men and women to
the same physical standard. The same is true
in regard to the mind; and, considering the
importance of these two facts, are we not justified in concluding that circumstances never can
make the minds of men and women alike?
For scientific purposes, the most unfavorable
case is that when the observed object can be examined at only one period of development. The
difficulties are comparatively few where there
can be an examination at any stage, as is the




58             ECCCE FEMINA.
case with the human mind. But the workings
of the mind are not easily noted, as they are
known only by their effects. In the comparison
of the sexes, however, there is much less difficulty than in the investigation of individual
minds, as we are only called upon to note differences. There has not been any scientific investigation of this subject, but there is a good
chance to make one; yet there are enough facts
known to the public by general observation to
justify what we have to say.
In early childhood the face gives no intelligible indication of sex; while at the age of ten
the countenance of a boy can generally be distinguished from that of a girl. Even when there
has been no difference of outside influence, there
is then discernible a difference in the minds of
the two sexes. The mental movements of the
girl are quicker than those of the boy, who is
more inclined to acquire knowledge by slow and
steady movements. This subject could be best
studied in the case of twins, who would exhibit
little but sexual difference. Those who reject
the popular belief in regard to the minds of the
sexes, might try the experiment by keeping one
hundred pairs of twins under the same influence
until they reach the age of twenty. We are
confident that the sex of mind would be found




TIE SEXES COMPARED.          59
more marked than that of the physique. From
the age of ten to twenty, the outward appearance and the minds of the sexes show a constant
progress in the diverging process.  We do
not feel called upon to prove that the mental
distinction of sex cannot be eradicated by education, since there has never been any attempt
in the shape of proof to overthrow the existing
opinion. We are only offering some considerations to substantiate tile general belief. It
does no good to point out exceptional cases, as
the principles on which woman enters political
life, if she does, must be founded upon what is
true of the majority. There are some women
who have greater physical strength than the
average of men, but we can not generalize from
such facts.
The minds of men and women correspond
with their bodies.  Those of the former are
strong, coarse, and slow; those of the latter,
while they have less strength, have superiority
in quality and rapidity. Hence we find equal
values in different forms. Woman's mind is
not made to grapple with hard, tough problems;
but she can perform those mental tasks that
come within her sphere with celerity, accuracy,
ease, and grace. A great share of the studies
that come within a college course are as well




60             ECCE FEMINA.
adapted to one sex as the other, yet there are
some that belong more properly to one. For
the sake of mental discipline, however, there
need be no distinction, as the minds of both
sexes should be made as broad and comprehensive as possible. In real life, it would be an
expensive waste of strength to employ any person or class of persons in the performance of
duties that do not harmonize with the mind of
the laborer when there are others that do. The
best guide in this matter is probably the inclinations of the individuals.
In the acquisition of knowledge, the flexibility
and celerity of the female mind enables woman
to surpass man in some branches; while in others,
which require a slow and strong movement of
the mind, the male has the advantage. As the
clumsy fingers of men are sometimes obliged to
grant the precedence to those that are more
nimble and delicate, so the keen, delicate mind
of woman perceives and seizes many things that
escape the notice of the other sex. It is an
admitted principle in philosophy, that what is
gained in power is lost in time. Out of the
same material we can make a short, strong rope
or a long, slender one. The carriage-horse
moves his light load along with great speed;
while another makes but slow progress, as he has




THE SEXES COMPARED.          61
a heavy load to drag. A horse that is good for
one purpose is of little service for another,
although the value of the horse may be the
same as that of anotller kind. The Creator
did not bestow all his blessings upon one sex,
and leave the other destitute. If, in addition to
what woman can now do, she could compete
successfilly with man where he now has the
pre-eminence, she would not be his equal,
but his superior. There is no danger of this,
as God has provided a regular system bof compensation; so that, when one person covets what
lie has not, with the idea that it is better than
that already possessed, he loses the old in acquiring the new. Every person has a certain amount
of vital power, and any portion of it that is
expended for one purpose cannot be used for
another.  If this force is applied to many
objects, there can be but little at any one point:
if to a few, it will be great. The doctrine of
the conservation and correlation of forces is
one of the greatest truths of modern philosophy, and should be studied and understood by
all who use their bodies or their minds. When
a man buys ten bushels of oats, and feeds out
nine, he knows that he has but one left; yet
we have educated men and women who consume or use up nine-tenths of their mental pow



62            ECCE FEMINA.
ers for one purpose, and then think that they
have as much left that can be used for other
objects. They do not know that what is unseen
is governed by the same laws as matter that can
be measured by the senses.
Women ought not to think themselves slandered if they are told that they are inferior to
men in some mental characteristics; for this very
statement carries with it the admission that they
are superior to men in gifts of another nature.
It is much better to seek for a philosophical
explanation of facts than it is to deny them.
It is easy enough to make an egg stand on end
after we know how. For the discovery of great
philosophical truths, the slow, steady strength of
the masculine mind is necessary. The performance of such duties cannot be well accomplished by the mind of woman. Her superiority is in another direction. On this subject we
find the following admission by Mill: "' Let us
take, then, the only marked case which observation affords of apparent inferiority of women to
men, if we except the merely physical one of
bodily strength. No production in philosophy,
science, or art, entitled to the first rank, has
been tle work of woman. Is there any mode
of accounting for this, without supposing that
women are naturally incapable of producing
them?




THE SEXES COMPARED.           63
"If we consider the works of women in
modern times, and contrast them with those of
men, either in the literary or the artistic department, such inferiority as may be observed
resolves itself essentially into one thing: but
that is a most material one,- deficiency of
originality, not total deficiency; for every production of mind which is of any substantial
value has an originality of its own, - is a conception of the mind itself, not a copy of something else. Thoughts original, in the sense of
being unborrowed, - of being derived from the
thinker's own observations or intellectual processes, - are abundant in the writings of women.
But they have not yet produced any of those
great and luminous new ideas which form an
era in thought, nor those fundamentally new conceptions in art, which open a vista of possible
effects not before thought of, and found a new
school. Their compositions are mostly grounded
on the existing fund of thought, and their creations do not deviate widely from existing types.
This is the sort of inferiority which their works
manifest; for, in point of execution, in the detailed application of thought, and the perfection
of style, there is no inferiority.  Our best novelists, in point of composition and of the man



64            ECCE FEMINA.
agement of detail, have mostly been women;
and there is not in all modern literature a more
eloquent vehicle of thought than the style of
Madame de Stael, nor, as a specimen of purely
artistic excellence, any thing superior to the
prose of Madame Sand, whose style acts upon
the nervous system like a symphony of Hadyn or
Mozart. High originality of conception is, as
I have said, what is chiefly wanting. And now
to examine if there.is any manner in which this
deficiency can be accounted for." (pp. 126-129.)
In trying to explain facts according to his
theory, Mill has really done woman injustice.
After the success which women have achieved
in the literary world, it cannot truthfully be
said that they are less original than men. It
is a fact that their writings are generally unlike
those of men: hence they must have an originality of their own. If Mill would admit the
dissimilarity between the minds of the two sexes,
there would be no difficulty in explaining the
facts which he mentions. Mill endeavors to
explain the fact that woman has not been a discoverer in philosophy and science, by saying
that she has not had a chance, except within
the past three generations. If we grant this,
it is evident that his explanation is worthless,
from the fact that woman has been engaged




THE SEXES COMPARED.          65
in the literary world long enough to attain eminence in other departments.   Women have
studied philosophy and science as well as men;
but not as much, for the simple reason that their
taste has led them in a different direction. A
person's inclination usually leads the individual
where the mind is most fully developed. In tile
discovery of philosophical truth, the slow, steady
strength of the masculine is necessary; while
" in point of execution, in the detailed application of thought, and the perfection of style,"
woman is not merely what Mill claims, - equal
to man, - but superior. What man ever wrote
like Madame de Stel? The originality of
woman is of one kind, that of man of another.
Man is the best judge of the true; woman, of the
beautiful.  Truth and beauty are not the same,
but they always harmonize.  The rough materialism of the age makes the latter seem subordinate to the former, while Nature teaches that
they are of equal importance. It is a fact that
man was made before woman; it is also a fact
that the rough frame of the house is constructed
before it is painted, decorated, and furnished with
that which renders it pleasing, attractive, and
beautiful. If we were to be deprived of every
thing that has any degree of beauty, and something equally useful were to be substituted in
5




66            ECCE FEMINA.
place, we would soon learn how much we had lost.
There is scarcely any thing without a degree of
beauty. Those dreary dungeons and desolate
places, which are so much dreaded by all, are
such not from any positive attributes, but simply
from the absence of beauty. Man is the pioneer,
and must necessarily play the most important
part in a new country. When young America
is older, there will be less noise about railroads
and other improvements, that are all-important
and necessary now; and there will not be so
much temptation for women to engage in masculine duties. Matters that are on the mind of
everybody now will be of little consequence one
or two hundred years hence. We may need a
man's rights society by that time.
In works of the imagination, the masculine is
readily distinguished from the feminine mind.
The strength and boldness of man, as exhibited
in a masterpiece of fiction, is quite unlike that
of woman in the same department. No woman
could have conceived " Paradise Lost." In "The
Toilers of the Sea," Victor Hugo portrays the
rough strength and giant-like efforts of his hero,
as he struggles to overcome the powers of nature,
as none but a strong, intellectual man could. If
the author's name is not known, the reading of
a novel generally discloses the sex of the writer.




THE SEXES COMPARED.           67
Of course, there are some works of fiction which
come so near the line, that the masculine or
feminine mind is not prominent; but such is not
generally the case with works of merit. In fiction, female writers can paint the tender and
delicate feelings of the human heart better than
men can. A woman's power of intense feelings
also enables her to portray faithfully that of
others, and she is able to engage our sympathies
in matters that would escape the notice of a
male writer.  No man could have written
" Uncle Tom's Cabin," or " Jane Eyre."  The
distinctive characteristics of the sexes in works
of the imagination is so well known, and so
generally admitted, that it does not seem to be
necessary to examine the subject at length. In
poetry and novel writing, the imagination, is
prominent, althought other faculties are required.
In poetry especially, we would expect the sexes
to coincide, if in any department of literature.
There are separate pieces that exhibit no signs
of the sex of the writer; yet, when the works of
one writer are examined together, this is not the
case generally.
The reasoning powers of man are superior to
those of woman; or, more properly, where there
is a combination of circumstances, and several
matters are to be weighed and compared, the




68            ECCE FEMINTA.
masculine mind is most reliable. Where there
is no complication, and a decision must be rendered at once, and almost by instinct, the mind
of woman is superior to that of man.  It is
necessary for the statesman to go through the
most tedious methods of investigation, compare
results, and be able to sustain his own position
and refute that of his adversary. In financial
matters, there is the greatest complication, and
consequent difficulty, in arranging every thing
harmoniously, even when there is no dispute in
regard to the end to be attained. In politics,
there is a great amount of drudgery and hard
labor, and little romance. But very few women
would take delight or interest in performing the
duties of a congressman. If women are as well
adapted to politics as men, then they would succeed as well alone as men. We ask any candid
woman how she thinks that a congress, composed entirely of women, would succeed, even
if we were to give them the same chance of preparation that men now have. How would they
manage the finances?  Would it not be rather
hard for those to deliberate who naturally wish
to decide at once? The duties of legislators are
greater than their privileges.  Statesmanship
requires something besides the ability to deliver
popular lyceum lectures.




THE SEXES COMPARED.          69
But the most marked distinction in the sexes
is in regard to the feelings. In man they are
subordinate, in woman supreme. The warm,
sympathetic heart of a woman exerts a powerful
influence over her whole being, and inspires
those around her. Man is cool and calculating,
and generally compels his sympathies to yield
to his judgment. The virtues and failings of
one sex are unlike those of the other, and on
this account they are admirably adapted to correct each other. In spite of the sneers of the
Innovators, who can deny that the wisdom and
goodness of the Creator is seen in the adaptation of the sexes to their present relations?
The prompt method of deciding, and the magnetic, tender nature of woman, render her the
charm and' queen of home. No other qualities
could serve her so well, and enable her to
promptly and tenderly perform her duties. Yet
these virtues render her unfit to face and contend
with the outside world. She cannot make an
impartial judge in the complicated affairs of the
public, because her sympathies are so strong
that one or two unimportant facts which coincide
with her feelings are sufficient to outweigh more
important considerations. She would not always
make mistakes, to be sure; yet she would be
much more liable to do so than man. If she




70            ECCE FEMINA.
had the same physical strength that man has,
she could not well perform the duties of an
officer, and arrest a criminal, perhaps to tear him
from his family and put him in prison. Any
duty of this kind would be a violent abuse of
her tender, sensitive nature. So, in conducting
the greater part of masculine affairs, there is a
certain degree of rigor required which is incompatible with female character. The stern nature
of man enables him to move undisturbed through
the varied scenes which surround him. Unless
he is restrained by the good and salutary influence of a wife, he is liable to become heartless,
and allow his schemes to eradicate every tender
feeling of his heart. On the other hand, woman
sometimes allows her affections to do violence to
her intellect. Her likes and dislikes are very
strong.  The delicate, sensitive nature of
woman needs to be protected and kept from
contact with all that is rough and harsh. Nature
teaches that delicacy involves the danger of
being easily injured, unless provided with means
of protection. A particle of dust would injure
the eye or the lungs, while it would not be felt
by the hand. There would be as much sense
in disregarding the nature of the several parts
of the human body as there is in disregarding
the nature of the elements of which human
society is composed.




THE SEXES COMPARED.          71
It is a great mistake to suppose that women
are naturally better and more moral than men.
The preponderance of the feelings renders
woman a strong sympathetic chord in society;
and, when she is placed in favorable circumstances, she is able to overpower sterner man
with her attractions. If she has been nurtured
and developed by good influences, she will make
man better and nobler; if the contrary is true,
her power to lead him to ruin is indeed great.
She is large-hearted, hence more susceptible of
outward impressions than man, and can be more
easily influenced to good or evil. The same
power which will inspire her with the truest,
noblest, and purest purposes, will scarcely move
the heart of man. But it is impossible that a
person or sex should be so constituted as to be
easily led in one direction without a corresponding danger of being led in the other. We have
become accustomed to think that women are
naturally better than men, because they are so
as we generally find them. We also find that
they have been under better influences, and less
subject to temptation. Whenever they have
been placed within the reach of the powers of
evil, they have not become moderately bad, but
have rushed at once to lowest depths of wickedness and degradation. The facts of history are




72             ECCE FEHMIVA.
sufficient proof that there is no difference in the
natural depravity of the sexes, except that their
vices are of different kinds. If women remain
in their present position, they will continue to
exert a great influence for good over men; but,
if they are placed where they are subject to the
same temptations as the other sex, they'are so
quick to learn, that they will exert as strong an
influence in another direction. Women, as they
are found in the dens of infamy in our cities,
give evidence that they are capable of the most
revolting forms of wickedness.   The surest
method of increasing crime and misery is to
mingle the sexes indiscriminately in politics.
Notwithstanding what John Stuart Mill says,
we consider women good witnesses; hence, in
regard to the characteristics of the sexes, we
quote Mrs. Jameson: "We hear it asserted,
not seldom by way of compliment to us women,
that intellect is of no sex. If this mean that the
same faculties of mind are common to men and
women, it is true: in any other signification it appears to me false, and the reverse of a compliment.
The intellect of woman bears the same relation
to that of man as her physical organization: it
is inferior in power, and different in kind. That
certain women have surpassed certain men in
bodily strength or intellectual energy does not




THE SEXES COMPARED.           73
contradict the general principle founded in
nature. The essential and invariable distinction appears to me this: in men, the intellectual faculties exist more self-poised and selfdirected, more independent of the rest of the
character, than we ever find them in women,
with whom talent, however predominant, is in a
much greater degree modified by the sympathies
and moral qualities." (Essay on Portia.)
The position which we have taken in regard
to the relative characteristics of the sexes is
either true or false.  If any one admits that
women are in some respects superior to men, it
is necessary to grant that men are superior in
others; otherwise it will follow that women are,
on the whole, superior to men. Perhaps some
believe this, but they have not yet made it a
paPf of the creed of the Innovators. If Mill
really proves all that he attempts, it would be
necessary to conclude that women are superior;
for he claims that they are in certain qualities,
while he endeavors to explain away any apparent superiority on the part of men. There has
been enough of generalities. If women are
adapted to political life as well as men, what
are the particular characteristics which fit her for
that life, and wherein is the foregoing incorrect?
We do not believe that there is a candid person




74            ECCE FEMINA.
living who really thinks, that, in all respects,
the minds of the sexes are naturally precisely
alike. It their minds are unlike, and at the
same time equal, there must be inferiority in
some qualities combined with superiority in
others; hence a natural unfitness for some
duties, while there is an adaptation to others.
In other words, man is adapted to one sphere of
action, woman to another. There should be no
squeamishness on this point; the Innovators
should maintain that the minds of the sexes are
exactly alike, or they cannot logically avoid
concluding that there is a separate sphere for
each sex. At the present time, they claim that
woman should occupy any position that man
may, not excepting the pulpit.
The Innovators have made a great noise
about the " prejudice" of their opponents. If
a man, for instance, is charged with prejudice
against color, he tries to defend himself by asserting that his notions are founded on a law of
nature. Now, another man may be called upon
to defend a genuine principle of truth, and all
that lie can fairly be expected to do is to show
that it rests upon a law of nature. The former
is prejudiced, because his belief is founded on
something that does not exist; the latter is
not, because he has rational grounds for his




TiHE SEXES COMPAIRED.         75
convictions. In regard to the sexes, the Innovators are the ones who are really prejudiced, as
they blindly disregard and ridicule a principle
that is founded on a law of the Creator.
It cannot be denied that the sentiment is
universal, that some qualities are appropriate and
becoming when found in one sex, while they are
not when found in the other. All justly dislike
a masculine woman, and hold in contempt an
effeminate man. It cannot be said that this
originated from any disrespect to the female sex,
as the principle is applied unsparingly to botl
sexes. If the characteristics were ignoble in
themselves, they would be odious if found in
either sex. If it can be truthfully said that
man has a moral nature, and instinctively regards some actions as just and others as uiljust,
it can be asserted with equal truth that lie has
an innate idea of the " fitness of things."
Incongruity is as displeasing to.our minds as discord is to the sense of hearing. If we could not
know at once, with a tolerable degree of accuracy, how to adapt means to an end, we should
be obliged to waste our strength in countless
experiments. We do not care how much of
this is intuitive, and how much acquired. We
have the principle in our minds, at all events.
No reform can succeed which overlooks these
primary truths.




76            ECCE FEMIIA
John Stuart Mill begs the question on the
very title-page of his book, for he assumes the
subjection of women. How is he to convince
his opponents when he assumes in the first part
of his argument that the present system " entirely
subordinates the weaker sex to the stronger"?
The italics are ours. At another time we will
mention some facts which show that this is not
true. Whether true or false, Mill had no right
to assume that point without adducing facts to
support his theory: this was especially needed in
this case, since his assertion is contrary to general opinion. Of course this flaw vitiates all his
arguments which are founded on this assumption.
" I consent that established custom, and general feeling, should be deemed conclusive against
me, unless that custom and feeling from age to
age can be shown to have owed their existence
to other causes tthan their soundness, and to
have derived their power from the worse rather
than the better parts of human nature." To
counterbalance this presumption, we are informed
that men and women have never exchanged
places, so that we could decide the question from
a comparison of different methods. We grant
this; but the question is whether we have not
discovered the truth without this process. A




TIE SEXES COMPARED.          77
greater part of the good laws and customs
which prevail at the present day have come
down to us in the same way. Some principles
are so evident that no one ever dared to dispute
them. The fact that we have received some
wrong customs and laws from our ancestors
affords no presumption that any particular one is,
even if the opposite theory has never been tried.
Mill asserts that "it arose.simply from the fact,
that, from the very earliest twilight of human
society, every woman (owing to the value
attached to her by men, combined with her
inferiority in muscular strength) was found in
a state of bondage to some man. Laws, and
systems of polity, always begin by recognizing
the relations they find already existing between
individuals" (p. 8). Is it not a little curious that
Mill dares to make such positive statements in
regard to the dim past, while he claims that no
one has a right to do more than to conjecture
about what we see and hear?   We have no
reason to think that woman was in a " state of
bondage " as he asserts, although it is probable
that her relation to man was something like
what it is now. It is probable, that, "in the
very earliest twilight of' human society," woman
occupied the position which God intended she
ahould, as the race had not then gone far from




78             ECCE FEMINA.
the course which was marked out for it after tihe
curse.
We are informed that brute force has been a
very important element in the history of the
world; and, as men have more physical strength
than women, this is said to be the reason why
women are in their present position. This is
certainly a lame argument, unless there is proof
that this force has been used against the female
sex. If men were ten times as strong as women,
it would make no difference, unless that strength
was used to crush them.  The fact that some
barbarous tribes have kept women in subjection
by brute force is not sufficient to account for
the customs of all nations in every age. The
truth is, tlat, since the age of chivalry, the weakness of woman has been her very best protection, and she may now abuse a man with impunity. It is true that we Americans circulate
the story that Englishmen beat their wives; but
this is probably intended for a take-off on the
gravity of John Bull.  Perhaps some Englishmen do; but we are not now dealing with exceptions. There is not the least ground to claim
that the superior pil1ysical strength of men has
any thing to do with the present relation of the
sexes.
Mill then gives several reasons why the bond



THE SEXES COMPARED.          79
age of women would last longer than other
forms of slavery. These reasons are very good,
but really show that there is no subjection about
it; as his statements are so many proofs that the
relation of the sexes is natural, and that the
bonds which unite them are inseparable.  It
seems absurd for him to speak of the facilities
which men have for suppressing an insurrection
of women, since they have never manifested a
disposition to occupy any other position than
that which they now have. This is only one of
the blunders which he makes from assuming
that women are in a state of subjection to men.
After speaking of the power of oppressors, and
the difficulty of conquering them, he adds,
"' Some will object, that a comparison cannot
fairly be made between the government of the
male sex and the forms of unjust power which I
have adduced in illustration of it, since these
are arbitrary, and the effect of mere usurpation,
while it, on the contrary, is natural. But was
there ever any domination which did not appear
natural to those who possessed it? There was
a time when the division of mankind into two
classes - a small one of masters and a numerous one of slaves - appeared, even to the most
cultivated minds, to be a natural, and the only
natural, condition of the human race " (p. 20).




80            ECCE FEMINA.
The fault of this comparison is, that women
themselves regard their condition as natural;
and that never was true of a race of slaves.
If only the men considered the present relation
of the sexes natural, his illustration might be
worth something.
Mill speaks in commendation of the select
few women who have sense enough to stand
up for their rights, and then adds, "How many
more women there are who silently cherish similar aspirations, no one can possibly know; but
there are abundant tokens how many would
cherish them, were they not so strenuously
taught to repress them as contrary to the proprieties of their sex. It must be remembered,
also, that no enslaved class ever asked for complete liberty at once " (p. 25). If any one
should read this two hundred years hence, he
would conclude that the women of our age
were in as bad a condition as those of Turkey.
He would think that they were not allowed to
learn enough to be able to read the Bible, but
were placed under the charge of men whose
duty it was to teach them the respect due tomen, and the homage they must pay them at
all times; and that the only freedom of thought
was that which " silently" passed through
their minds. The truth is this: the women are




TIHE SEXES COMPARED.         81
the teachers of men; and, as a general rule, all
boys and girls receive their most lasting impressions from their mothers and female teachers,
who have it in their power to revolutionize the
opinions of the world in the course of a single
generation; and they could do it so quietly that
men would hardly know how it had been
effected.
We have examined the leading points in
Mill's argument to the 29th page, where he concludes that "the preceding considerations are
amply sufficient to show that custom, however
universal it may be, affords in this case no presumption, and ought not to create any prejudice, in favor of the arrangements which place
women in social and political subjection to men.
For what is the peculiar character of the modern world - the difference
which chiefly distinguishes modern institutions,
modern social ideas, modern life itself, from
those of times long past? It is, that human
beings are no longer born to their place in life,
and chained down by an inexorable bond to
the place they are born to, but are free to
employ their faculties, and such favorable
chances as offer, to achieve the lot which may
appear to them most desirable. Human society
of old was constituted on a very different prin6




82            ECCE FEMINA.
ciple. All were born to a fixed social position,
and were mostly kept in it by law, or interdicted fiom any means by which they could
emerge from it."
Again: "It is not that all processes are supposed to be equally good, or all persons to be
equally qualified for every thing; but that
freedom of individual choice is now known to
be the only thing which procures the adoption
of the best processes, and throws each operation into the hands of those who are best
qualified for it. Nobody thinks it necessary to
make a law that only a strong-armed man shall
be a blacksmith.  Freedom  and competition
suffice to make blacksmiths strong-armed men;
because the weak-armed can earn more by
engaging in occupations for which they are
more fit." (p. 32).
" One thing we may be certain of: that what
is contrary to women's nature to do, they never
will be made to do by simply giving their
nature free play. The anxiety of mankind to
interfere in behalf of Nature, for fear lest
Nature should not succeed in effecting its purpose, is an altogether unnecessary solicitude.
What women by nature cannot do, it is quite
superfluous to forbid them from doing"
(p. 48). At first, these arguments seem to be




THE SEXES COMPARED.           83
incontrovertible. If they are applied to women
as laborers, they are; and, in fact, there are no
laws to hinder women from engaging in nearly
every trade and profession that men do. They
are kept out of some positions solely by competition, and the fact of the natural adaptability
of men to perform some duties better than
women. We agree with Mill so far, then, that
there should be nothing done to hinder woman's
engaging in the same handicrafts as man; for it
has been settled, that these matters regulate
themselves, and are not subjects for legislation.
Yet, if his argument is applied to the political
status of women, it proves too much. It would
lead to the absurd conclusion, that then no
qualification should be required of voters and
office-holders; so that all persons, of all ages,
including children, should be allowed to go
to the ballot-box on the ground that no harm
would come from,    L giving their nature free
play."   Now, it is granted by all, that the
question who shall and who shall not take part
in government, is a proper subject for legislation, and must be decided on general principles.
In regard to female suffrage, the nature and.
wishes of the majority of women must be taken
into consideration.  Laws are not made for
exceptions, as was shown in the introduction.




84            ECCE FEMINA.
Notwithstanding Mill's ingenuity and skill in
combining truth and error, and ability to make
an argument which is good for one purpose
appear good for another, we do not think that
a candid judge of logical reasoning can claim
that he has, up to this point, weakened the
presumption in favor of the present system, or
created any in favor of female suffrage.




THE FAMILY.            85
CHAPTER III.
THE FAMILY.
f,EE become so familiar with some
things which we come in contact
with every day, that we do not
~ a    ^'recognize their importance; and
often are not aware of the part which they
perform. Few people have any idea of the
value of air and light; few know any thing of
the nature of their own bodies, or the means of
keeping them in a healthy condition. It is not
so strange, then, that the relation which the
family bears to government and society has
been so imperfectly understood by the Innovators. Some philosophers get so wise, that
they overlook commonplace matters, and undertake to remove the evils of society by some
new and marvellous method, when they have no
knowledge of the cause of the evil and nature
of the remedy needed.
The discussion in regard to female suffrage and
female labor has been conducted, for the most




86             ECCE FEMYINA.
part, on the supposition that society and government are based upon the individuals of
which they are composed; when, in fact, they
are based upon the families. It is true that we
reckon by population in some matters; but this
is practically the same thing where it is used:
while a great majority of the laws and customs
of the present time recognize the family as a
basis in such a way, that it cannot have the
same effect as it would to go back to the individual.
It is, perhaps, true, that society has been
formed and government organized, withlut any
conscious recognition of the real importance and
influence of the family, as the existing circumstances were generally provided for without
analyzing them into their simple elements. By
a careful examination of the facts, it will be
found that laws and customs generally recognize the unity of the family, and regard its
interests first, and those of the individual second.
We shall try to show that this is as the Creator
intended; hence right, and necessary to our
prosl)erity.  The Innovators are doing all in
their power to destroy the unity of the family,
place the individual above it, and degrade this
divine institution to the level of a mere partnership, to be dissolved at pleasure. Perhaps




THE FAMILY.               87
they do not all wish or intend to bring about
this result; but we may be able to show that
the measures which they advocate have that
tendency. If the family should be swept out
of existence, and society and government remodelled without it, there would be a necessity
of changing the greater part of our customs
and laws.
It is written, " And Adam said, This is now
bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken
out of man.    Therefore shall a man leave
his father and his mother and shall cleave unto
his'wife; and they shall be one flesh.'"  From
the time that God established the family, and
sanctified its unity in the garden of Eden, to
the present, in all civilized countries its unity
-has been recognized, and more or less protected.
Where barbarism has been the strongest, there
the family relation has been the most desecrated.  As the law recognizes the family as
one, of course there can be but one representative; and as the husband is the natural protector of the wife, and performs the greater part
of the duties which bring the family in contact
with the rest of the. world, there is a natural
fitness in regarding him as the head, or representative, of this institution.




88             ECCE FEMINA.
Some think that the fact that the law supposes the wife to be merged in the husband,
having lost her own identity, is a relic of barbarism, and unjust to the wife. The truth is
this: there is no method of regarding the husband and wife as one, without adopting this or
some similar legal fiction. As, in the great
majority of families, the husband and wife are
ordinarily of one mind, they are supposed to be
agreed, as exceptions cannot be recognized.
In ordinary affairs, the wife can make purchases,
and the husband is obliged to pay her bills. As
he has charge of most of the business concerns,
he can conduct them legally without her consent. This is an advantage to her as well as to
him; because it would cause them     much
trouble, if both were obliged to assent to every
business transaction  to make it legal.  In
important transactions, however, when any
abuse, in exceptional cases, would cause great
trouble and distress, the assent of both is required. We speak of law as it generally prevails in the United States.
When   they are regarded as individuals,
justice demands that they be treated alike;
that no advantage be given to the one, which
is not to the other. A reason which is sufficient for a divorce for one, should be for the




THE FAMIL Y.             89
other. Any safeguard against abuse, which is
granted the wife, should be granted the husband.
In case of death, there should be a uniform law
in regard to the property. But, in ordinary
cases, the fact that the husband is regarded as
the head of the family, and the wife is supposed
to have lost her individuality, is as favorable to
one as the other.   Any noisy declamation
against it is a mere quibble, as a double meaning can be attached to the language. The law
of our Creator, and the best. practice in all
couitries, demand that husband and wife be
recognized as one, by some construction of
language. Any legal recognition of their separate interests in ordinary matters must have a
tendency to introduce discord, and degrade this
divine institution to the semblance of a temporary partnership.
The laws of several States which make provision for the wife, so that she can own property in her own name, were intended to relieve
such as had bad husbands, but have now come to
be adopted quite generally where there is no
necessity for them. If a man wishes to cheat his
creditors, he puts his property into his wife's
hands, and fails (?). This is a good illustration
of the danger there is in recognizing and providing  for exceptional cases by legislation.




90            ECCE FEMINA.
Evils come in when we do not expect them.
We believe that there have been a hundred
wronged and reduced to want by these laws,
where there has been one wornan relieved.
In framing laws, we must protect people from
those evils which come indirectly, as well as the
more immediate. It must be remembered, that
there are many more husbands and wives who
will plot together to wrong others, than there
are who will injure each other.
English common law is, in some respects,
unjust to the wife. In our country, many
changes have been introduced. Some of them
have removed small evils, and introduced greater.
The most of these laws are based upon the supposition that husband and wife are two, not
one. We believe that the common law should
be modified so that the wife would have as good
a right to property as the husband; but this can
be done by giving them a common, not separate interests.  Probably the best method
of doing justice to both would be to make the
individual property of each common to both
after marriage. There could not be much
chllance for abuse, if tlhe signature of both was
required to make a legal transfer of real estate,
and each was allowed to dispose of personal
property without the consent of the other.




THE FAMILY.              91
Perhaps it would be well for the law to regard
as theft or ernbezzlement any disposal of personal property when. one of the parties absconds with the proceeds of the sale. If a
husband or wife kept any kind of goods for
sale, the laws could be so framed as to prevent
the disposal of them by the other, with the
intent of using the proceeds for selfish purposes.
No law can be so carefully framed as to hinder
crime and injustice entirely. Laws that are
for the general good cannot provide perfect
security for exceptional cases; yet they should
be based upon broad, general principles. The
Innovators have procured many changes by
going before committees, and harping upon some
story of wrong done, which may be true, but a
specimen of cases which are very rare.
The good of the masses cannot be provided
for, unless the unity and integrity of the family
be preserved. If, in times past, the husband
has had too much power, and his separate
interests have been regarded, the evil is only
aggravated by giving the wife a motive to contend with him, and look out for her individual
interests. The true method of correcting this
is to give the family one common interest, and
make it impossible for the husband to injure the
wife without harming himself, and vice versa.




92            ECCE FEMIVA.
Yet it will not be best to make too many rules
and regulations for the family, as the majority
can manage their own affairs better than legislatures. It must be remembered that the vast
majority of husbands and wives are united in
all matters that come before the law; and on
that account it would be wrong to frame laws
solely to provide for the contingencies of a
minority. It must also be remembered that the
husband generally conducts the business of the
family, and provides the means of support; while
the wife has charge of the household, and
applies the husband's earnings to their common
wants.  His wages are not simply payment
from the capitalist for his work, but for his wife's
also. Tile money that he earns belongs to
botl.
Doubtless the changes that have been made
in the laws of some States were undertaken
with good motives, and perhaps there have been
some beneficial results; but there have been evil
results also. We sympathize with those who
wisled to relieve women from the power of
unjust legislation; yet we think the good could
hlave been accomplished without destroying the
unity of the family. We learn from Mrs. Dall
that the laws have been changed in nineteen
States. The extent of improvement we have




THIE FAMIL Y.            93
not ascertained. It is our object to call the
attention of the public to a few facts, that the
people of each State may examine their own
laws. As a proof of the spirit which animates
some of these reformers (?), we quote the following from  Mrs. Dall's lecture on "The
United-States Law."  "If married, and over
the age of eighteen years, a woman in Illinois
may, in spite of her husband, devise her real
estate, and bequeath her personal estate, to any
one  forever."   The Innovators    complain
justly of any law that enables the husband to
dispose of his property "in spite" of his wife;
but, instead of removing this evil, they introduce
another to balance it. Mrs. D. adds, "The
wife may administer on her husband's estate, in
preference to all others, if she apply within
sixty days.  On   her husband's death, she
inherits one-half of his real estate in fee-simple
absolute, and the whole of his personal estate,
with her rights of dower in addition."  This
law, in connection with others, does not establish
impartiality, but is more favorable to the wife
than to the husband.
In the State of New York, the wife can own
and dispose of property in her own name, and
devise it by will without her husband's consent,
while he is obliged to support her and the




9-            ECCE FEMINA.
children, and can not dispose of all his property
by will, without her consent, even if she is
worth a million of her own, on which he has
no claim. In regard to these laws, Pomeroy
has the following, in his "Introduction to Municipal Law: -
"These several provisions plainly have the
effect to render marriage a mere union for the
production and management of children. As
to their other legal relations, the husband and
wife have not even the united interests of a
partnership; for in that, the several partners
embark their property together, and each is
bound to promote the advantage of the whole,
and to increase the common fund, which
is to be divided among    them.   But the
family in New York has no such community
of interests. The husband is still the nominal
head of the household; he determines their
dolnicil; he must provide for their maintenance: but one of the greatest safeguards to
a complete unity of sentiments, of hopes, of
plans, and of labors, is utterly destroyed."
Other States have laws of a similar tendency. On this account, we do not suppose
that we are all going to ruin, as there are many
influences so strong, that the family will
always be, in some sense, one, in spite of bad




TIlE FAMILY.             95
laws; but it is true that the influence of such
laws is evil, and tends to introduce discord
into the family. If an examination could be
made, we do not hesitate to venture the assertion, that the fact that the husband and wife
own property separately has caused trouble and
discord in five families, where it has been a
blessing to one. There is and can be nothing
worse in a family than " yours " and "mine "
all should be " ours."  God's law makes husband and wife one; and any violation of this
principle brings with it the punishment, in the
shape of discord and dissatisfaction.
These false notions of the family relation
have led to loose ideas of divorce; so that in
some States we have had the ridiculous farce
of marrying, unmarrying and remarrying the
same couple, and all within one or two years.
If we are not mistaken, we have read of one
case of this kind, in which this process was
completed within a few months. A marriage
relation that is degraded by such laws and
customs seems but one grade above concubinage. If both parties understand that their
union is to be for life, the number of rash and
unhappy marriages will be greatly decreased in
a few years. And in regard to property, is it
not evident, tlat, if a woman who has a hun



96            ECCE'EMII7A.
dred  thousand  dollars, has not confidence
enough in a man to make him a sharer of her
property, she ought not to marry him?  The
same may be said in regard to a man. These
contracts, by which the parties are half married
and half single, are fruitful of evil, and tend to
desecrate the marriage relation, which ought to
be held sacred.
The Innovators are not satisfied with having
levelled the family thus far, but wish to interfere
with its unity by sending two representatives
to the ballot-box, instead of one. They are
shrewd enough not to put the question to the
public in this way; but base their arguments
on the separate rights of men and women, and
disregard the fact that the majority of these are
husbands and wives, and then form one class
instead of two. But some one objects, by saying
that all men above the age of twenty-one are
allowed to vote, whether married or not. Now,
it is evident that there are so many chance
circumstances connected with the time of a
man's marriage, that it would be better for
government to consider all as heads of families,
after they have reached a certain age. Some
men have property to support a wife at twentyone; others are obliged to wait until they can
earn it; and there are other circumstances to




TIIE FAMILY.             97
interfere. As law does not take notice of exceptions, it recognizes all as real or prospective
husbands at the age of twenty-one. This age
has certainly not been chosen because men
have not.intelligence enough to vote when
younger. If that was the only qualification,
the age of fifteen or sixteen would be sufficient.
The Innovators have made a great noise, on the
supposition that women could not vote on account of a lack of knowledge. To be consistent
they ought to make common cause with all
boys who have the necessary intelligence. From
the frequency with which the term   "'1householder" is used in English law, it is evident
that we arrived at our present state of popular
suffrage from merely increasing the number of
voters, so that now all heads of families take
part in government. There is another important fact': in England and some other countries,
widows and unmarried householders have been
allowed to vote; but, until recently, no one has
been so wise as to discover the propriety of
sending two representatives from the same
family.  Our Saviour took for granted that all
could see the absurdity of dividing a house.
If it is desirable to abolish this time-honored
institution called the family, then there is consistency in individual representation.  If the
7




98            ECCE FEMINVA.
family is one as the United-States Government
is, then it would be as absurd to send two representatives to the polls, as it would be to send
two ministers to Great Britain to act on their
individual responsibilities.
The wisdom of the Creator is seen in the
method he has taken to make the family united
and harmonious. If he had made man and
woman alike, union would have been almost
impossible. This principle is so well known,
that it has become a proverb, that two persons
who are alike cannot agree. When a person is
conscious of a lack of any quality, that quality
seems the most desirable possession in the
world, and there is an irresistible inclination
towards any one who possesses it. The wife,
conscious of inferiority in strength, takes delight
in clinging to the strong, rough nature of her
husband. She loves to lean on his "arm for
support, and look to him for protection. To her,
manly strength seems to be the noblest and
most desirable quality in the world. The husband, aware that he is made of coarser material
than woman, is attracted by her gentle, delicate
nature, and warm, sympathetic heart, while her
grace and refinement seem to him qualities
superior to all others. He looks at other men,
and wonders what there is in them    which




THE FAMIL Y.             99
attracts women, as lie can see nothinc in their
natures which he longs to obtain. Of course,
it is not desirable that husband and wife should
stand on different planes, so that the mind of one
is so far above the other that there is no point
of contact; but if their minds are on the same
level, the blending of these diverse characteristics produces a union which cannot be easily
sundered, and one that is fruitful of the highest
intellectual enjoyment to both parties. If men
and women were alike, this world would resemble the monotonous, desolate plain where
there is a superabundance of a certain kind of
equality. This must be the paradise of fools,
so much talked about: a very good place, perhaps, yet no one. ought to be censured for not
hankering for the innovation.
When two persons are placed together with
equal shares of the same kind of power, a conflict is almost inevitable. In partnership business, unless each is conscious that the other
has a superior talent for some duties, there is a
probability of a dissolution, unless there are
powerful counteracting influences. As far as
our observation goes, we should think that
partnerships do not last five years, on the
average, except where the duties are divided,
so that there is but little chance for conflicting




100            ECCE FEMINA.
views. Where this is not the case, a diversity
of character and capacity is necessary to permanence. In the family, the husband has that
kind of power which is the prerogative of superior strength; the wife, that which belongs
to superior tenderness, refinement, and vivacity.
On account of this difference, it is not difficult for
one to prevail without a conflict with the other.
In the world, the power of man is more apparent
than that of woman, as his influence is exerted
directly upon the public; but there is a potent
influence which moves the man, and moulds,
to a great extent, his opinions.  The social
influence of woman has often been so great as
to change the course of empires. This has not
always been in the form of a depraved mistress.
The importance of the power which Josephine
exerted over Napoleon for good is well known.
Other instances of a similar nature might be
mentioned. Although man is the head of the
family, and represents it in public, yet, within
the family-circle, everybody knows that the wife
has and uses as much power as he does. A
wife that is ruled and governed is as rarely
seen as a husband who is completely and
meekly under the control of his wife. Both
characters can be found in almost any community. At the present time the majority of




THE FAMILY.             101
families are governed'by a true principle. The
wife takes charge of and governs in all matters
where she has a natural superiority: the husband has the superintendence of all concerns
for which he is naturally better adapted than
the wife.
Those who are now so earnest in demanding
that women be placed on the same footing as
men, to be consistent should demand that
women be deprived of their social supremacy,
and be placed on an equality with men. A
woman now attends to her own affairs, and conducts them in such a manner as she thinks best,
although her husband may have as much
interest in what she does as she has.  He
attends to his business without consulting her,
although she is interested in his progress. In
matters of importance, or when there is any
thing to be done out of the ordinary course,
they consult each other, and form their plans in
concert.
Mill sometimes agrees with public opinion.
On the division of labor, he writes as follows:
"When the support of the family depends, not
on property, but on earnings, the common
arrangement, by which tile man earns the
income and the wife superintends the domestic
expenditure, seems to me in general the most




102           ECCE FElMINA.
suitable division of labor between the two persons. If, in addition to tile physical suffering
of bearing children, and  the whole responsibility of their care and education in early
years, the wife undertakes the careful and
economical application of the husband's earnings to the general comfort of the family, she
takes not only her fair share, but usually the
larger share, of the bodily and mental exertion
required  by  their joint existence.  If she
undertakes any additional portion, it seldom
relieves her from this, but only prevents her
from performing it properly. The care vvlich
she is herself disabled from taking of the children and the household, nobody else takes;
those of the children who do not die, grow up
as they best can, and the management of the
household is likely to be so bad, as even in
point of economy to be a great drawback from
the value of the wife's earnings. In an otherwise just state of things, it is not, therefore, I
think, a desirable custom, that the wife should
contribute by her labor to the income of the
family" (pp. 87, 88).
All know that this is the case in a majority
of families, and that it is only the minority of
women who could engage in masculine duties,
if they wished. We desire to have the reader




THE FAMILY.             103
keep in mind two important facts: first, that
the great majority of women, from    choice,
sooner or later become wives and have charge
of a household; second, that laws are made for
the masses, not the exceptions, and that society,
in all its complications, becomes adapted to the
circumstances of the majority, so that the
minority must always labor under some disadvantages.  The   wisest End  most humane
nation canndt possibly make it otherwise. All
that can justly be expected is, that the disadvantages of the exceptions be made as small as
possible consistent with the good of the whole.
In respect to wages and any thing that is controlled by the laws of political economy, or the
wants of the public, of any kind, laws and
personal opinions are of no avail.  The path in
which the masses travel, always has been and
always will be   smoother and    freer from
obstacles than any other.  We will examine
this subject more at length when we come to
the subject of female labor.
" The general opinion of men is supposed to
be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that
of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be;
because, judging from  acts, from  the whole
of the present constitution of society, one
might infer that their opinion was the direct




104           ECCE FEMINA.
contrary. They might be supposed to think
that the alleged natural vocation of women
was of all things the most repugnant to their
nature; insomuch that if they are free to
do any thing else, —if any other means of
living, or occupation of their time and faculties,
is open, which has any chance of appearing
desirable to them, —there will not be enough
of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is
the real opinion of men in general, it would be
well that it should be spoken out. I should
like to hear somebody openly enunciating the
doctrine (it is already implied in much that is
written on the subject).' It is necessary to
society that women should marry and produce
children. They will not do so unless they are
compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them.'  The merits of the case would
then be clearly defined. It would be exactly
that of the slaveholders of South Carolina and
Louisiana" (pp. 49, 50).
Does anybody think this a fair statement of
the case?  It is not "the general opinion of
men " merely, but of women, that "the natural
vocation of a woman is that of a wife and
mother."  If there are any who wish to go out
of the beaten path, they are at liberty to do so;




THE FAMILY.            105
but, if they find more difficulties and obstacles
than those who glide along with the current, it
is useless and unreasonable to say that men
designedly place these in their way. Perhaps
the condition of the minority might be made
better than it is now; but the circumstances of
the majority will always be better than those
of the few. Where the demand is greatest, the
supply will be also. Mill knows as well as
anybody that there is no combination in
society to practically force women to marry.
Society is based upon the family, and all its
machinery is arranged accordingly. It is not
good for man or woman to be alone: but, where
circumstances make it necessary, there are
greater obstacles' in a woman's path than in a
man's, because the majority of men are obliged
to earn money enough to support a wife and
children, and the way is open to them; hence
there is more than a fair chance for a man to
support himself. As the few employments that
women are adapted to engage in, without
special training, are crowded, her wages are
low, and must always remain so. If women, as
a general rule, did not marry, but engaged in
some employment, in the same manner that
men do, in the course of time they would have
a better chance as laborers; but that can never




106           ECCE FEMINA.
be. Women, as well as men, help bring about
these circumstances against which Mill raises
an unreasonable complaint. The truth is this:
God intended both sexes for marriage, and
adapted their natures accordingly.  He intended that man should earn the bread for the
family, and has made the circumstances such
that he can support not only himself, but a
wife and children. It is evident that he did
not intend that woman should compete with
man in the more important kinds of labor, yet
she can earn enough to support herself. We
must ask the reader to suspend judgment until
the subject of labor is discussed.
The real enemies of those women who are
obliged to labor for a livihg, under disadvantages, are those who are degrading the
marriage relation in the eyes of the people, and
leading some to think that single life is better;
for such ideas tend to make this minority larger,
so that there is a greater number striving for the
same positions, and many are obliged to live on
what belongs to a few.    There are some
women who are going through the land, not
lecturing, but scolding, and doing all in their
power to make it appear contemptible for a
woman to become a mother. When a lady (?)
compares a mother to a " stock animal," is she




TIE FAMILY.            107
employing the best method of elevating her
sex? Is she not slandering her own mother,
by exhibiting the kind of "stock " which she
bore? There is another fact: since some of the
Innovators (we are glad that a part of them
are above such detestable ideas) have been
spreading their notions of marriage through the
land, the crime of murdering newly-born or
unborn infants has increased.  We cannot
prove that the Innovators are responsible for
the increase of this evil; but it is easy to see
how their exaggerated statements might, and
probably would, lead to such results.
If a woman should read or hear these statements, which are generally intended to be
heart-rending, andl be at the same time worrying and dreading the pains of child-bearing, she
would probably allow her imagination to depict
the lot of woman as something horrible, and
she would think that the whole was unjust:
hence she would try to justify herself in using
any means to escape a portion of these evils.
The Innovators have long enough accused
others of causing evils, which they have not
helped remove, but have aggravated. We do
not know that their teachings have helped
increase the evil to whicl we have alluded, but
the facts make it seem probable. Low wages




108           ECCE FEMINA.
cannot account for such crimes in rich families.
The whole tendency of this whining, scolding, and complaining is bad. Every evil that
falls to the lot of woman has been attributed
to her present position, even when there is not
a particle of evidence to sustain such assertions.
When such ideas have been spread, they have
not convinced the majority of good, sensible
women, and made them advocates of female
suffrage; but the class of whiners and scolders
have taken courage to complain louder and
make more noise about their troubles. Some
have obtained the idea that they are behind the
age, if they meet those evils which cannot be
avoided, with the noble spirit of a true woman.
Instead of trying to overcome calamities by
rational means, they sit and sigh for the time
when woman will be elevated! They ascribe
troubles to the present condition of their sex,
when the cause of them is in their own minds,
or is inseparable from the present existence of
the human race. We have not one word to
say against those women like M. C. A., who
favor female suffrage.  They are far above
any thing of the nature that we have been
describing. To such we can only say, we think
you are mistaken, and wish you were in better




THE FAMILY.             109
company. Some of those who favor female suffrage are as true women as ever breathed. They
have no mean and sordid notion of a woman's
duties. - Men and women should shrink from
the performance of none of the offices which
God has imposed upon tlem. Trouble may
sometimes be avoided; but when it cannot be,
honorably, there should be no shrinking.
" For every evil under the sun,
There is a remedy, or there's none.
If there is one, try and find it:
If there isn't, never mind it."
It is the duty of the husband to provide a
comfortable home for the family, and procure
the means of support, that the wife may have
an opportunity to devote her time and energies
to the internal prosperity of the household.
Society generally condemns the man that does
not provide money enough before marriage to
meet any emergency. The fact that poor men
sometimes marry rich women has nothing to do
with the general principle. Probably some of
the unreasonable changes in the laws were
secured by harping about these exceptional
cases, and discarding the unity of the family.
It is the duty of the husband to see that his
wife and children are protected in their lives,




110           ECCE FEMINA.
liberties, and the pursuit of happiness.  If
these blessings cannot be secured by peaceable
measures, he is in duty bound to take up arms
for their defence.  The same principle that
makes the husband the protector in time of war,
makes him such in time of peace. Political
life differs from war not so much in nature as
in degree.  Women are naturally more timid
than men, although there are exceptions.
Bravery is a virtue which we have no right to
demand of women: hence we owe them double
honor when they bravely perform such service
as they did during the late war. It is true that
women have the same right to the blessings of
liberty that men have; but this is not all:
they also have a right to expect that their husbands will provide such a government that
these blessings will be secured.  On the same
principle that the husband provides a house and
clothingfor the physical comfort of his family,
he provides money to support schools and government, and performs the duties of a voter, that
his family may be secure in their intellectual
and moral well-being.
The duties of the wife correspond with her
nature. They are more numerous than the
husband's, but not as rough.  She requires
less strength, but greater agility. The arrange



TIE'FAMILY.            111
ment and disposal of the household belong to
her, and no man has any right to interfere with
her here. We will join with the Innovators in
condemning any custom which interferes with
woman's supremacy in her own house or in
society.  Woman generally is and should be
regarded as above man, in all matters where she
has superior natural endowments. The equality
of power between the sexes does not and cannot
properly consist in giving each an equal share
in the direction of all matters; but each has,
and should have, the charge and control of those
affairs for which he or she has a superior
natural capacity. In some positions he is first,
and she second; in others she is first, and he
second.  In the care of young children, no
man, however kind-hearted, can    fill the
mother's place. He is too slow and clumsy to
take care of them, even if he could perceive
and appreciate their wants as quickly, which
he cannot do. Severe manual labor, or contact
with the rough side of the world, would tend to
make a woman unfit for a mother's duties,
while she would be an inferior sort of a man.
Whlo can believe that God intends that tenderness and delicacy should be used for the same
purposes as strength and vigor? The fact that
the woman bears the children is a strong proof




112            ECCE FEMINA.
that she was not intended to take part in the
rougher scenes of life.
No law can settle the question as to which
shall govern. The law must suppose that they
are of one mind, and consider the will of either
as the will of both. A safeguard can be provided against abuses. If both are required to
sign any kind of deed, the real estate is so protected that it cannot be squandered. Under
existing laws, we have known instances where an
injunction has been served on a husband to prevent his spending the personal property. There
may be special remedies for unusual cases, yet
the laws should not be made to discommode
the transaction of common business, as this
would injure both husband and wife. We do
not think that there is any injustice in considering the husband the head of the family, and
endowed with power to use the common fund
as he thinks best. The wife should have the
same chance. In the absence of proof to the
contrary, one is supposed to agree with the other.
Make the family one before the world, and
allow it to arrange its own internal affairs. At
one time the opinion of the wife -ill prevail:
at another, that of the husband. It always has
been so, and probably always will be. It cannot be asserted that the present division of power




THE FAMILY.             113
and duties between the sexes has been made by
men, since the majority of women are not willing that there should be any material change.
Women are satisfied with their power as
queens. In society, the man that treats a
woman no better than he would a fellow-man
is considered a barbarian. Here woman is first,
and every man is bound to pay her homage.
Everywhere he is obliged to give her the best
place: he must give up his seat, or do any
thing for her accommodation.
Tile attraction which exists between the sexes
is so strong, that their opinions can never vary
widely. The bond of conjugal love is stronger
than all influences combined.   Disturbing
causes, sometimes produce slight jars; yet whenever any person outside of the family injures
either, the strength of attachment between husband and wife is at once apparent. Those who
suppose that it will ever be possible to persuade
the majority of husbands and wives to act in opposition to or independent of each other, in politics or any thing else, are greatly mistaken.
This, however, is true: by carrying out the
measures of the Innovators, the amount of discord and misery in family circles would be greatly
increased, and the next generation made much
worse than the present. There can never be




114           ECCE FEMVIINA.
any method devised for the rearing of children,
equal to that which makes their own parents
their guides and protectors: hence the necessity
of preserving the unity and harmony of the
family. TheN children form so strong a connecting link, that a family separation is sometimes horrible. Both parents love to watch
over the child during its tender years, and both
take pride in watching their children as they
approach manhood or womanhood. "A wise
son maketh a glad father; but a foolish son is
the heaviness of his mother."  The parents
love to labor together for the good of their
children. They rejoice together when they
prosper, and weep) together when they are overtaken by calamity. The very existence of a
child is proof of the unity of the family, so
strong that it cannot be denied.
Some people take delight in trying to make
young people believe that the marriage relation
is the cause of all trouble. They will point to
this family and that family, and speak of some
kind of trouble which each has experienced.
They talk as though the unmarried never had
any troubles. We all know that this is a world
of sin and suffering, and everybody ought
to know that unalloyed happiness cannot be
attained in any relation. No person who is




THE FAMILY.             115
conversant with the world can truthfully deny,
that married people, on the average, are happier
than those who are not. The troubles and
trials of parents are of one kind; of those who
have no children, of another. A person may
avoid one evil by accepting a worse. The
world is dark, dreary, and desolate to those who
make it such; while it is pleasant, cheerful, and
abounding with good things, for those who look
upon the bright side of life.
Mill is sometimes quite candid when he has
not a special point to prove, yet he changes his
mind when it is convenient.   On page 83,
lie says, "I readily admit (and it is the
very foundation of my hopes) that numbers of
married people, even under the present law
(in the higher classes of England probably a
great majority), live in the spirit of a just law
of equality. Laws never would be improved,
if there were not numerous persons whose
moral sentiments are better than existing laws."
Yet on page 91, when he wishes to sharpen an
argument, he writes,   I believe that their
disabilities elsewhere are only clung to in order
to maintain their subordination in domestic life;
because the generality of the male sex cannot
yet tolerate the idea of living with an equal.
Were it not for that, I think that almost every




116           ECCE FEMINA.
one, in the existing state of opinion in politics
and political economy, would admit the injustice
of excluding half the human race from the
greater number of lucrative occupations, and
from almost all high social functions." By
trying to carry his point by this method of
proof, he tacitly admits that society is supposed
to be organized on a just principle, unless it can
be shown that some portion of the community
has a selfish or corrupt motive in making it
otherwise. It will be necessary to prove that
one or both of the sexes have such a motive,
or else we must conclude that the present
relation of the sexes is natural. We hardly
think that the Innovators would ascribe such a
design to woman, the oppressed sex, as they
claim. Men must be supposed innocent of
such wicked intentions until proved guilty:
hence the burden of proof rests on their accusers. It is not enough to say tlat an inorlinate desire for power would be a sufficient
motive: there must be proof that there is such
a desire among the majority of men at the
present time. The Innovators have only shown
that there is such a spirit existing in the breasts
of a few men. If women desire any thing, they
usually invent some means to carry their point.
Are not the majority of men willing to acquiesce




THE FAMILY.             117
in their wives' wishes, and do they not often go
contrary to their own judgment for the sake of
pleasing their wives? No one has a right to
say that they would not grant female suffrage
until a majority of women desire it. Mill's own
admission, in the first passage, is confirmatory
of our opinion. As there is no proof to counteract this presumption, which Mill tacitly
admits, we have a right to say that the present
relation of the sexes is natural. Whenever
man has wronged woman, there is abundance of
proof that lie did not yield to her wishes, but
followed the bent of his own will.   If, in
modern times, men have treated women with
justice on all points of law where they have
been asked by any considerable part of the
women to do so, it is fair to presume that they
have no inordinate desire of power. We have
seen already that they have changed some of
the laws, so that they are more favorable to
women than to men.
Mill is right when he says, We know that
the bad propensities of human nature are only
kept within bounds where they are allowed no
scope for their indulgence." On this ground,
we claim that the ideas which the Innovators
have promulgated in regard to marriage have
discouraged some frofm entering that relation




118            ECCE FEMINA.
and increased the number of single persons;
hence have increased the probability of immorality.  We know that there are men     and
women who can resist temptation; but, in
judging of masses, we must take the average,
and reason from probabilities.  The promiscuous mingling of the sexes in employment
must greatly increase the probability of immorality.
"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen:
Yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."
We cannot close this chapter better than by
quoting Pomeroy's remarks on the marriage
relation: L The idea of marriage - of the
mutual choice of each other by one man and
one woman, to unite and form    one separate
family, and be the parents of children who are
to be their special care, and are to perpetuate
their name-seems to be as naturally implanted
in the human race as the idea of language or
of religion.  The earliest record, which leads
us back to the very birth of mankind, tells of
marriage from the beginning; and the histories of all peoples who have a history disclose its existence. Often it has been debased




TIlE FAMILY.            119
from  its pure ideal, and its simplicity and
beauty marred and almost destroyed, by the
prevalence of concubinage and polygamy; but,
still, no nation has sunk so low, has so entirely
lost the original divine life breathed into
humanity, as to be without some approach to
that personal choice and separation of two
individuals of opposite sex from all others,
which constitutes this relation.  And among
those peoples where civilization has made the
most progress, whether in ancient or modern
times, and especially where the pure morality
of the Christian religion has been felt in moulding the institutions and laws, we shall find the
marriage-tie the strongest, the separation of
husband and wife from all others the most
complete, the unity of the family the most
perfect."




120           ECCE F.EMIiA.
CHAPTER IV.
THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN POPULAR SUFFRAGE.
HEN people discovered the truth,
that the right of governing did
not belong to one person or to one
class, but to one individual as much
as another, they at once accepted another conclusion, without any reason for so doing; viz.,
that the people were the ultimate source of
law, and that there was no higher authority.
A little reflection will convince a candid man
of the absurdity of this conclusion.  It is
evident that the majority cannot make it right
to enslave the minority, even if they make
laws to that.effect. A nation of pirates might
make laws legalizing theft, perjury, adultery,
and murder; yet it would not be right. The
people of the United States have enacted
unjust laws, and there are many wicked laws
in force in this country now; yet they are just
as wrong as though enforced by a single despot.




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          121
We are told that there is a law within us which
declares some acts just, and others unjust.
This is true; but the human conscience is
often so seared and blighted by sin, and the
human mind so perverted by wicked motives,
that it cannot always be trusted to render a
judgment according to the original law implanted in the human mind. But who framed
the human mind, and gave it this law to which
we have referred? There must be something
back of this. Every one but the atheist must
conclude, then, that God is the ultimate source
of all law. The best government, then, is that
which embodies the law of God the most perfectly. The statement that a certain condition
is natural, is only another method of stating
that it accords with a law of the Creator.
This law can be ascertained, to a certain extent,
from the works of nature and the constitution
of the human mind; but that mind has been so
perverted by sin, that we need something more.
We have just what is needed in the revealed
will of our Maker. In the Bible, the law of
God is clearly defined. Those who discard
this, in the formation of governments, reap the
fruit of their self-reliance in being obliged to
discover truth, by costly and dangerous experiments, which is clearly revealed in the Bible.




122           RCCE FEMINA.
We have already felt how terrible is the vengeance of a jealous God, who demands allegiance of all nations, and obedience to his
revealed will.  A destructive war has taught
us that we are accountable to a higher power;
yet we still cling to the atheistic principle upon
which our constitution is based.  The unnatural doctrines of the Innovators come logically from the declared principle that there is
nothing higher than " we the people." What
the Bible teaches on this subject we will show
in another -chapter.
It is true, that the will of the people is of
more importance, and should be considered as
of more weight, than that of a king or class
of nobles; yet government derives its authority
and just power from the great Lawgiver.
Government should be an embodiment of
the higher law. The form of government is a
matter of expediency.  If one man would
make better laws, and administer them better,
than a hundred, or any other number, it would
be expedient to place the power in his hands;
but no man is born with any natural right to
rule others. The problem to be solved is, in
what way can laws be made and administered so
that the law of God will be the most nearly
carried out? Perfection is impossible; yet it is




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           123
desirable to get as near it as practicable. If a
government could be secured which would
carry out the law of God to perfection, the
highest good of the people would then be
attained. Although there will be some evils
in any government, yet, by a careful examination of fundamental principles, many may be
eliminated.
It is true, that the law of our Creator has
been imprinted on our souls; and men, from a
sense of justice, will now do what is right, when
wicked motives do not lead them astray.
There are two conflicting powers in every
mind. In most men, the influence of selfishness
is so strong, that, when power is placed in their
hands, and there is no authority to call their
decisions in question, they will pervert it, more
or less, to the purposes of self-aggrandizement,
and that of their friends. An absolute monarch,
who has no fear of losing his throne, probably
wrongs the people in many respects; and, if he
is a wicked man, he can cause almost unlimited
suffering. People who allow one man to rule
run great risks, as their happiness often depends
upon caprice. MIen will try to satisfy their
consciences by trivial excuses. If the power
is placed in the hands of a large body of men,
who hold it for life, they will usually pervert




124            ECCE FEMINA.
justice, more or less, and make laws which are
more favorable to themselves than to other classes.
If some classes are allowed more power than
others, they will usually consider any measure
just which i's for their advantage.   If all
classes and all sections of a country, ruled by
one nation, are allowed an equal share in
government, the interests of one class or section
will counteract those of another; and the
chances of perverting justice by selfish motives
are reduced to a minimum. There is a probability, amounting almost to certainty, that the
good of the majority will be secured, so far as
men can learn what that is; and, under ordinary circumstances, justice will be done to all:
yet the minority will sometimes be seriously
wronged. This system of allowing all classes
to take part in government has serious faults;
yet it is the best which can be adopted. It
matters not, that other nations can point out
some evils in our system, which do not exist in
theirs, so long as we can show that the aggregate amount of good results is greater, and of
evil less, under our form of government than
under any other.
But let us examine this subject, and see to
what extent we have carried popular suffrage,
and ascertain how we arrived at our present




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           125
stand-point. The founders of our government
were well acquainted with the history of England. From the days of King John to the
time of George III., there had been a constant
struggle on the part of the people to limit the
power of the crown. At some periods, the
strife was between the nobility and the throne:
at others, between the people of the so-called
lower classes and the nobility. There were no
natural divisions, but the whole machinery was
artificial. There had been, and has since been,
a constant strife between the various classes.
Our forefathers resolved to discard all artificial
distinctions. They did not give all persons a
share in government, but all classes; so that
there should not be one class to rule, while
there was another, with conflicting interests,
without representation.  They did not make
all persons, who had sufficient intelligence,
voters; but they went back until they found a
natural division in society, - the family, - and
made the head of every family a voter. These
constituted about one-seventh of the whole
population. They did not even consider all the
males of sufficient intelligence, voters. If they
had acted on this principle, they would have
given all men the right of suffrage on reaching
the age of fifteen or sixteen. As the number




126           ECCE FEMIANA.
of voters is about equal to the number of
families, and as there is no other principle on
which the present system of voting can be accounted for, we have a right to consider it as a
fact, that suffrage, as it exists in the United
States, is based on the principle that each family should be allowed one representative. It is
true that this principle has not been written
down in so many words in our constitution,
and we are not aware that it is in any of our
laws; yet this, like most other fundamental
principles, was the outgrowth of the constitution of society on natural principles.  Our
forefathers accepted this great fundamental
principle, as it were, unconsciously. Perhaps a
majority of them had never examined this
matter by itself. It does not matter so much
how we arrived at the present position, as it does
whether it is a good basis for government. Is
there any better? and is there any valid objection to this?
Government is a representative system, from
necessity.  The masses cannot frame laws,
but must select a few to do this for them. It
is desirable to have voters enough to equally
and fairly represent all classes.  Any thing
beyond this is useless and troublesome. Now,
do men and women form two distinct classes,




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          127
with antagonistic interests? It is certain that
the Innovators are doing all in their power to
make them such; yet the bond of union between the sexes is so strong, that they have
made but little progress in the separation. A
few women scold, and cry out that men are
their oppressors; yet the majority move along
undisturbed by such assertions, as they know
them to be untrue. It is true, however, that
there is a minority of men who wrong and
slander women; and there is an equal number
of women who either abuse their husbands at
home, or publicly calumniate the male sex. We
do not think the employments of either sex
are so limited, that they must needs busy themselves in traducing and ridiculing each other.
Notwithstanding these exceptions in both sexes,
it is true that they are more firmly united than
different portions of the same sex. Men often
war with each other; yet we have no reliable
account of any general conflict between the
sexes, or any desire for one, until recently. If
every woman were obliged to accept any man
who offered himself, there would be a ground for
complaint; but, as it is, she can select such a
man as she desires to protect her in her rights,
and represent her and her future children at
the ballot-box. It is not a remarkable thing




128           ECCE FEMINA.
for a woman to reject a man on account of his
politics. It is the woman's fault if she does
not study all points of a man's character
before accepting him. Before marriage, both
parties ought to be satisfied that they will be
one on all matters of importance. Certainly,
if they differ on any important subject, they
ought to agree not to contend about it. Independent political action is not consistent with
the unity of the family. We do not suppose it
would produce any horrible result; but, so far as
any result would be produced, it would be evil.
It is very desirable that husband and wife
belong to the same church; yet, when they do
not, there is no act on the part of one which is
directly hostile to that of the other. In religion, representative belief is impossible.  No
wife can delegate to her husband the power to
perform her religious duties, for this is an
individual matter. We see no reason why
both sexes should not vote in the church, if
they wisl to. Perlaps it may sometimes be
the duty of women to vote on church-matters.
Nor do we see any reason why a young man
or young woman, sixteen or seventeen years of
age, should not vote. Any person who has
intelligence enough to make a profession of
religion can vote on the same ground.  The




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          129
reasons why children should be subject to their
parents, in the state, until they reach the age of
twenty-one, do not exist in the church. We
consider it tyranny for a parent to control the
religious belief of a son or daughter, while we
allow them the profits of their labor.
There is not the least ground to sustain the
assumption of the Innovators, that the sexes
form two classes with opposite interests. They
presume this in most of their arguments. As far
as the subject of labor is concerned, political
economists have proved that legislation is worse
than useless, as every thing of this kind must
yield to the invincible laws of political economy.
When the laws are unjust to woman, men
have evinced not only a willingness to change
them, but have made them, in some instances,
more favorable to women than to men. Not
long since we heard a man say that his wife
had a piece of land which she could dispose of
without saying a word to him, while he owned
real estate, but any deed from him without her
signature w'ould be worthless.  The fact that
women are so indifferent to female suffrage
proves that there is no antagonism between the
sexes. God has said that husband and wife are
one flesh; and we are warned that we have no
right to create a division. We take the follow9




130           ECCE FEMINA.
ing very sensible remarks from a letter written
by Rev. R. M. Hatfield to "The Independent: ""Human nature is selfish, and there is a
good deal of human nature in both men and
women; but any general antagonism  betweenthe sexes is impossible. Their interests are so
related and interblended, that no power can
separate them, much less array them under
opposing standards. And, when one man and
one woman are joined together by love in the
holy state of matrimony, they are no more
twain, but one flesh.  Any conflict between
them would be as unnatural as a conflict
between the different members of the same
body. The husband who attempts to oppress
or degrade his wife is a madman, who hates his
own flesh.   No  reconstruction of society,
therefore, is needed to abolish this imaginary
antagonism between the sexes."
In accordance, then, with the principle involved in popular suffrage, which our forefathers established, there is no reason why the
number of votes should be increased by making
it the duty of women to vote, as well as men;
but there are many reasons against it. The
supposition that the family can have two purposes is subversive of the very existence of




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          131
this institution which God established in the
garden of Eden.  Our fathers thought it sufficient that all classes were made voters.  It
certainly is impossible to allow all individuals
to go to the ballot-box. If female suffrage was
adopted, only two-sevenths of the population
would be voters; so that voting, even then,
would be done by two persons for themselves
and five others.  The principle which the
Innovators condemn would still exist. To place
the ballot in the hands of even half of the
whole population, it must be given to more
than half of those who are now considered
minors. We consider the ties of affection
strong enough to hinder fathers from making
unjust laws in regard to their children; and, for
the same reason, they can be trusted to perform
this duty for their wives.  Because minors
above fifteen are not allowed to vote, it by no
means logically follows that women should not
at any age; but, if this is just, it certainly
establishes the falsehood of the principle that
intelligence should be the only qualification of
voters. It goes to prove that the intelligence
of women is not sufficient to establish their
claim to suffrage, since there may be other
reasons strong enough to outweigh this.
All people, young or old, have a natural




132            ECCE FEMINA.
right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Suffrage is a mean, or expedient, to
secure those blessings; hence it is a mere matter
of expediency as to what part of the people shall
be voters. That system is best which secures
these blessings the most perfectly to all the
people, with the least trouble and expense.




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          133
CHAPTER V.
SHOULD WOMEN VOTE, AND HOLD OFFICE?
E are now prepared to give a sum-,\~ ~   mary of the reasons why women
should not engage in active political life.  If the reader does not
accept our conclusions on some points, it should
not produce such a prejudice that other arguments will be rejected without examining their
merits. It is true, that there is a connection
between the several arguments, so that one supports tle other; yet, to a certain extent, each
must stand or fall on its own merits, and the
overthrow of one does not necessarily weaken
the others. A part of this chapter may be a
repetition of what has preceded; but we wish
to bring all the arguments together, that the
reader may take a comprehensive view of the
whole.
1. Dificulties of a Physical Character. - It
has been suggested, that, if women vote, they
can send their ballots in a sealed envelope, by




134           E'CCE FEMINA.
the hands of men; but this would be granting
loo much: hence the Innovators do not genv lally favor this scheme.  It would open so
many avenues for fraud, that it could not well
be practised. If women vote, they must go to
the polls with the men. In cities, the difficulty
of getting to the polls is comparatively small;
but, in the country towns, this is a matter of
considerable importance. Some towns in New
England are so intersected with hills, that the
journey on election days is quite an important
matter.  Farmers usually have a horse; but
there are sometimes three or four villages in the
same town, and the " town-house" must be
several miles from some of them. We know
of towns where some are obliged to go ten
miles; and five or six miles is not an unusual
distance. At present, there is no small difficulty
in securing a full vote from the men.   If
women vote, of course tile difficulty will be
more than  doubled.   But election-days are
often so stormy, that one-third of the men stay
at home, and the number of women remaining
at home would probably be much larger. It
is sometimes necessary to hold town-meetings in
the winter, when it would be almost impossible
to secure the attendance of one-half of the
women. But, even in good weather, men con



POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           135
sider election-day one of the most fatiguing of
the whole year. The crowding is considerable
now, and it would be much worse if twice as
many went to the polls. The fatigue would be
more than most women would wish to endure.
The expense of elections would be increased
more than two-fold; for it would be necessary
to build town-halls more than twice as commodious as they are now, to provide even respectable accommodations for the women. We
do not think these considerations of as much
importance as those of another kind; yet they
are worthy of notice. Certainly, women should
not be obliged to suffer so much inconvenience,
and the taxes should not be increased, unless
there is an important advantage to be derived
from it.
But the result which these obstacles would
bring about might be an important matter.
The variation in the number of voters at
different elections would be much greater than
it is now. One year there would be a fair day
for election,-and the next might be stormy; so
that the vote in cities would be much larger
than in the country towns: hence one party
would prevail one year, and another the next.
Stability is necessary to the permanence of any
government. People have but little respect for




136            ECCE FEMINA.
laws that are made one year, and repealed the
next.  At present, the wavering of public
opinion from year to year is a great evil; but
this would be aggravated to an alarming extent
if women voted, as laws might then depend
upon the state of the weather. If, in addition
to this, women should not take so much interest
in politics as men do, laws would be as
uncertain as though they depended upon the
caprice of one man, and, in some respects, more
uncertain; as an absolute monarch would be
kept within bounds through fear of revolt. In
New Jersey the women nearly all went to the
polls some years, while only a few went generrally. Lucy Stone and H. B. Blackwell are
responsible for the following in regard to New
Jersey. We quote fiom Mrs. Dall's " College,
Market, and Court," p. 477. "That women
voted at a very early period, we are informed
by the venerable Mr. Cyrus Jones of East
Orange, who was born in 1770, and is now
ninety-seven years old.  He says that'old
maids, widows, and unmarried women very
fi'equently voted, but married women very
seldom;' that' the right was recognized, and
very little said or thought about it in any way.' 
2. As women do not wish the duty     of
suffrage imposed upon them, it would be unjust




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           137
to expect them to go to the polls. We have no
statistics to show how many women wish to vote,
but it is generally admitted  that they are
comparatively few. Of those who have signed
petitions for suffrage, it is probable that only a
minority have any decided desire to go to the
polls. A little urging would induce those who
are indifferent to place their names by the side
of others. We know of no one who claims
that any considerable part of the sex are
strongly desirous of suffrage; while it is certain
that the great majority of women not only do
not desire it, but are strongly opposed to it.
We can easily show that it would be wrong to
grant the wishes of this minority.
As soon as one woman is allowed to vote, it
becomes the ditty of all. It is only by taking
a partial and one-sided view of suffrage, that a
respectable minority of women have been
coaxed to desire it. In one sense, suffrage may
be regarded as a right; but, in its most important
and permanent bearings, it is a duty, and one
that often involves considerable difficulty. It
is deceptive and unfair to make a great noise
about the right of suffrage, as though it would
make women happy all their lives if they could
only vote. Suffrage in itself can only be
regarded as a duty or task, involving more or




138           ECCE FEMINA.
less trouble and expense. As productive of
good in the same sense that any labor is, it may
be regarded as a right or privilege. If women
are to gain more than they would lose by suffiage, it would be a privilege for them to vote;
but it must not be forgotten that this involves a
task upon the physical, mental, and moral
nature, more or less severe. Now, the majority
of women believe that voting should be classed
among the rougher duties which belong to men;
that they would gain no substantial advantage
thereby; that they would suffer harm in many
respects: hence they think that they have a
natural right to remain at home, and require the
men to furnish them protection.
But some one may say, " Let those vote who
wish to, and the rest can remain at home."
This sounds well, and seems fair; but it will not
bear examination. If women are allowed to
vote, wicked men will be numerous enough to
persuade or hire the worst class of women to
vote in support of any scheme; hence it will be
necessary for all upright women to go to the
polls to counteract such evil plots, and sustain
morality. If any women vote, there is no
safety for the public unless they all discharge that
duty; hence the adoption of female suffrage on
the ground that the few desire it would be an
0        




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          139
indirect method of forcing all to vote. Before
election, the papers, of all parties, would impress
upon their readers the duty of seeing that
every man and woman were at the polls. The
leading political women would look after others,
and any woman who remained at home would
be denounced as a traitor to her principles.
" The Independent" once said, " Any class of
womnen who will not vote are not the better
class, for they are false to their duty."  This
matter cannot be decided on the ground that a
minority wish the ballot, because the whole
community is concerned.    The Innovators
have no right to assume that they are the representatives of women, and are advocating their
interests. If the majority of women hold
erroneous views, proper means may be taken to
correct them; but, so long as their views are
unchanged, it would be the heilght of injustice
to adopt female suffiage. If the majority of
women desired suffra(e, there are reasons which
we think sufficient to refuse it; but, as tlie case
now stands, there cannot be the least doubt.
Perhaps they will change their opinions; but
they have considered the question so long now,
that we do not believe the time will ever come
when the majority of women will wish to vote.
From making the false assumption that they




140           ECCE FEMINA.
are the spokesmen for women, and representatives of their interests, the Innovators advocate
views which are ridiculously inconsistent. When
any thing has been said about woman's sphere,
they have replied with an arrogant tone, that no
man had a right to say what woman's sphere is,
but that they must decide for themselves; yet
they assume with perfect confidence that politics
do come within her sphere; and "'TThe Independent" has not been alone in declaring that those
women who would not engage in politics were
"false to their duty."  They have a perfect
right to prescribe to woman her sphere, while
we have no right to open our mouths on the
subject! If women have a right to decide what
their sphere is, they have a right to not engage
in politics; and no handful of women in a convention can decide for the majority.  Labor
should not be regulatel[ by law, and the minority ought to be allowed by society to follow
their own tastes, even if some do dislike their
preferences; but suffrage must be subject to
legal restrictions, and the minority must yield.
The Innovators, with a great many loud
protestations, assume that they are better friends
of woman than their opponents; which is not
true, if women are good judges. Those who
make the warmest professions of friendship are




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           141
not always the best friends. We do not deny
the fact that those men who favor female suffrage generally desire tle good of woman: but
their intentions are no better than ours; and we
who oppose them have as good a right to denounce them as the enemies of woman. Both
parties mean well, but one or the other is mistaken. When we see two men disputing, it is
generally safe to say that the one who makes
the most noise is in the wrong. Some of those
who oppose female suffrage have been intemperate and unreasonable in their arguments, but
we think not as much so as the Innovators.
Even John Stuart Mill seems to lose his selfcontrol on this subject.
Aside from the injustice of forcing suffrage
upon the fair sex, it would not be good policy for
the Innovators to ask the men to grant it until
the women are all earnest in demanding the privilege, if it is one. If female suffrage should be
adopted, perhaps the women might be persuaded
to go to the polls once or twice; but by that time
the novelty would be gone, and the stern reality
would have a salutary influence on minds of
a romantic tendency. They would begin to
comulain of the crowding, turmoil, and fatigue of
election-days. They might say that they never
wanted to vote, but consented to try just to please




14 2          ECCE FEMINA.
the men. The best of them might think best to
stay at home; and irregularities might become
as enormous as they were in New Jersey, and
the boasted reform might go under, as it did in
that State. Or the number of female voters
might become so small that it would seem best
to go back to the old custom. Mrs. Dall informs us, on the authority of a Mr. Parker, that
the women of New Jersey were not anxious to
retain the right of suffrage; and, as Mill cannot
be satisfied with any thing short of experiment,
the trial in New Jersey ought to have some
weight. If a trial now should prove a failure, as
it did then, the men who have talked so gloriously about this great movement (?) might feel
rather - say, something as Jeff Davis did
when captured! Now, they can save themselves
from any such mortification. If the Innovators
will use their imagination less, and common
sense more, they will look at the future not as a
picture of their romantic hopes, but will see a
world composed of good men and women, and
bad men and women, just as we have them
now. We can appreciate the generous impulses
that have animated some who advocate this
cause; but their actions speak better for the
heart than the head. A warm, sympathizing
heart is a blessing which any man might covet;




POP ULAR SUFFRAGE.         143
but it is a poor thing to draw conclusions from.
As the cry of justice to woman has been raised,
some have caught the inspiration, and rushed
blindly to the rescue, without stopping to examine carefully whether they were not advocating measures which involved the height of injustice to the majority of the sex. Enthusiasm
is good, but an excess is suicidal.
3. The family should have but one representative.  If there are husbands and wives who
have so little love for each other, or such a
spasmodic love, that they cannot refrain from
family broils, there are certainly very few who
have not respect enough for family unity to
represent themselves as one in public. We once
heard of a mal who was beating his wife so
severely that she shouted for help. A man,
who was passing, rushed into the house and
seized the cruel husband, when the wife at once
took her husband's part, and the intruder was
obliged to flee to save himself from harsh treatment. As a nation, we have our disputes; yet
we feel ashamed of ourselves when we cannot
show other nations that we are agreed.
It is not consistent with decency to suppose
that the family will be so divided against itself
that one member will perform a public act
directly antagonistic to the other; hence it would




144           ECCE FEIINA.
be folly to increase the trouble and expense
two-fold, when one could perform the duty as
well alone. If any one objects that husbands
and wives actually do differ in politics, we reply
that government cannot recognize any such difference; that husband and wife are supposed to
be one, and the family is allowed to arrange its
own internal affairs, except when the abuse or
infidelity of one of the parties is such that the
interference of law is necessary. There can be
no general provision for such cases; but, on the
application of one of the parties to a magistrate,
a specific remedy can be applied. We think
that laws should be so formed that a wife will
le protected against abuse.  Perhaps there
might be cases where the wife might not wish
or deserve a divorce, yet a remedy be needed.
For instance, if a wife could give a magistrate
satisfactory proof that her husband was wasting
property by gambling, drunkenness, or in any
way except by ordinary business mis-calculations, then she, or some one whom she might
choose, should be allowed to control the whole
property, so that he could not use a dollar unless
it went through her hands. If a man worth a
million dollars should marry a woman who had
no money of her own, we think that she should
be considered an equal owner in that property.




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           145
How can it be otherwise?  If husband and
wife are one, what either owns, the other does
also. In case that husband should be guilty of
adultery within a year after marriage, we think
that a divorce should be granted the wife, and a
division of the property made, so that she should
have three-fourths of the million dollars as her
own, and he one-fourth. In cases where both
parties are in fault, the court should be allowed
discretionary powers, and allowed to divide according to guilt.  We favor the most radical
measures, provided they are consistent with the
unity of the family. We do not see how female
suffrage can be adopted without discarding the
family, which is the foundation of all society.
If man is not the proper representative of the
family, then it must be woman. Both must not
be sent to the polls. As man is the natural
provider for the family, and protector, and performs those duties of a rough nature, we think
that the duty of voting belongs more properly to
him. We also believe that he would perform it
better than the wife would. There are other
matters which she can perform better than he
can; and it is but reasonable that she should
have the superintendence of them, and he
should be subordinate, or second. As the majority of women think that suffrage is a mascu10




146           ECCE FEMINA.
line duty, what reasonable objection can there
be to the present arrangement? Of the *vomen
who desire suffrage, the reasonable ones will not
complain if they are under the necessity of
yielding to the will of the majority. Those
who are unreasonable are not worth noticing.
We do not undertake to divide them: they
can place themselves in whichever class they
wish.
But some say, " All we ask is, that women be
placed where they can defend their own rights."
If they are not in that position now, they will
not be as voters. There is abundance of
facts which show that men generally have no
disposition to wrong women. If we bring the
sexes into antagonism, their sex will prevail, as
they are stronger than women. What would
we think of any one who should say, in regard
to military operations, that it was necessary to
arm women, so that they could defend themselves?-as though it were humiliating that men
were accustomed to defend them! God has so
constituted the sexes, that woman always has
been obliged to depend upon man for protection,
and always must. No woman has any objection
to this arrangement, unless she has false ideas
of honor, and is burdened with self-conceit.
In some respects, woman is dependent upon man;




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           147
while in others, man is dependent upon woman.
The strong man is as powerless as a child before
the woman whom he lpves. His happiness depends upon her love. Those proud and haughty
persons who stalk through the world so independent of everybody else are not usually wiser
than others, although they think they are.
Says Mill, " The majority of women of any
class are not likely to differ in political opinion
from the majority of men of the same class, unless the question be one in which the interests
of women, as such, are in some way involved;
and if they are so, women require the suffrage
as their guaranty of just and equal consideration."  The facts in regard to the laws in this
country, to which we have already alluded, are
sufficient to disprove the last part of this assertion. His admission that the sexes would generally agree is all that we could ask of him on
this point; for laws are made in accordance with
the circumstances of the majority. To say the
least, female suffrage would be the cause of a
great deal of trouble and expense to no purpose.
If it can be said that the wife is governed, it certainly is by her own consent. It seems a little
strange that the Innovators have such strong
faith in men, that they feel confident of persuading them to adopt female suffrage; while




148           ECCE FEMINA.
they have so little faith in them, that they are
not supposed capable of doing justice to women! If men will grant the greater, will they
not the less?  It is contrary to the principle
which underlies all society, to suppose that men
and women constitute two classes with opposite
interests. They are one, and their interests one.
The bond of love which unites husband and
wife is stronger than any law. Those who
marry without love should be left to their own
punishment.   Law should make no general
provision for such.  God does not suspend
a general law to benefit the man who thrusts
his hand into the fire. Provision for marriage
without love encourages the crime.
4. Woman's nature is not adapted to political
duties. We think that we have shown the injustice of requiring women to vote; and, if it is contrary to their nature, it is safe to conclude that
they never will generally desire to take part
in politics. The Innovators may hold conventions in every town in the United States, and
continue them for a hundred years; and we
venture the prophecy that the women desiring
to vote would then be in the minority. If the
nature of the fair sex is not adapted to political life, it is not unjust to exclude them from
office. As this is a subject for law: it is not




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          149
consistent with the public good to provide for
exceptions.
The sensitive nature of virtuous women generally shrinks from public places, where men of
all classes, including the baser sort, are congregated.- We have noticed the physical difficulties of election-days, but the mental and moral
obstacles are of a still more serious nature.
The excitement, and coarse, not to say vulgar,
talk of men at such times is peculiarly repugnant to women. Some have asserted, that, if
respectable women went to the polls, bad men
would stay away; but there is no reason to expect this.  Politicians will be sure that no
wicked man remains at home; and this class
would hardly be frightened or shamed by man
or woman. In spite of laws, some men will
have liquor; and, when they do not drink enough
to subject themselves to arrest, their actions and
appearance are not particularly pleasant to a woman. Even if order and decency should prevail
to a greater extent than they do now, still it
would be a rough and contaminating place. We
cannot select model towns, and draw conclusions
from them; but we must reason from town,
meetings as they average. The crowd would
be twice as large as it is now, and a rough scene
of turmoil would be almost inevitable. Per



150           ECCE FEMINA.
haps some have taken pleasure in dreaming over
the peace, order, and quiet that would prevail at
the polls when women vote; but there is no reason to expect that such hopes would be realized.
Coarse and brutal men would have little regard
for the delicacy of woman, when influenced by
liquor and the excitement of voting. If women
meet men on their own ground, they would soon
lose that respect which they now command, and
men would soon show them no more deference
than one of their own sex. Brutal men are
never restrained by any thing but the strong
arm of an officer.
If women vote, one of two things must happen: they will take no interest in politics, and
avoid contamination as much as possible, and
so will be but a dead weight, without any great
influence,; or, they will engage with the same
zeal as men, and, to be successful, must become
assimilated to their work; that is, their natures
must be more masculine. We do not believe
that they can become just like men; but they
can be changed enough to destroy much that is
lovely and noble in them now, while they will
have made but an imperfect attainment of that
which is desirable in man. It will be easier for
them to imitate the faults of men than their
virtues.




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           51
Would woman elevate politics or would politics degrade woman?   Which is the most
probable?  It is said that every man has his
forte.  If he can meet another on his own
ground, he will be triumphant. If his antagonist
has the choice of position or weapons, he is as
sure to fall as he was to win in the former
case. Now, women are superior to men in
some respects; and if they can get them where
there is the best chance to display their own
powers, while those of the men are taken at
disadvantage, the women will prevail, and vice
versd. In society, where there is an excellent
chance for woman to display her quick, warm,
sensitive nature, and her powers are free from
restraint, she will prevail over man, and restrain
his evil tendencies. The rough strength of man
does not serve him here, and he yields. But
if women go into the rugged paths which men
tread, they are out of their element, and conparatively powerless. Their delicacy was not
intended for grappling with the forces here
arrayed against them. While the sterner and
coarser part of man's nature is in its glory on
election-days, a woman's influence would hardly
be felt. She'would be obliged to retire from
such scenes, or yield to their influence. The
power would remain in the hands of men as




152           ECCE FEMINXA.
much as it is now. Suppose men should be
dissatisfied with the social supremacy of women,
and resolve to cultivate grace and refinement, in
the hope that they might equal women in quickness and delicacy, as well as in nobility and
generosity of heart, so that their nature would
be as sensitive and sympathizing as woman's.
Suppose they should expect to succeed, and
hope thereby to be allowed to keep their seats
in the cars and allow women to stand, and be
allowed to treat women in society with no
more respect than they show each other. Who
believes they would succeed? and who supposes that they would be able to imitate more
than the faults of women, without acquiring
their virtues? Who does not feel confident
that they would have parted with their own
excellences without receiving any thing in return? If this is true in regard to men, we
must suppose women, on the whole, superior to
them, if they are able to enter the rough scenes
of public life, and triumph. Superiority in opposite characteristics cannot be combined in tlhe
same individual. If it were possible for women
to triumph in public life, it would necessarily be
at the expense of parting with what they now
have. Some will not believe this, but all human
experience is against them. The probability is,




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          153
that women would lose their present position,
without gaining any thing. It is a wise proverb
which says, " Grasp all, lose all."
Wendell Phillips has well said, that there is in
the human mind an idea which demands " fair
play."  If women generally should demand
political equality, the majority of men might
say, "Very well, you shall have it; but you
must take its logical consequences. There must
be equality everywhere. In social circles we
must be your equals. We shall no longer pay
homage to woman. In public and in private
you shall be treated like men, -no better, no
worse. You stand on your dignity, and say that
you do not wish to be protected: all you ask is
that you be allowed to protect yourselves! Appoint your own police-officers.  Take your
chances in war with the men; for so great a
man as Plato thought that women could and
should be allowed to perform the lighter kinds
of military duty; and Lydia Maria Child says,
in'The Independent,''Even in physical
strength, I doubt whether there is so much
difference between men.and women as has been
generally assumed. Female slaves did as much
and as hard wbrk upon the plantations as the
male slaves.  In the long tramps of Indian
tribes, the women carry all the heavy burdens,




154           ECCE FEMIIA.
in addition to their children, strapped upon
their backs.'  John Stuart Mill, your best
friend (!), says,' There are no means of finding what either one person or many can do, but
by trying.' You have never been allowed to
study military science, because men wished to
keep the power in their hands; but we now
admit your equality! It is true, these ideas conflict with the prejudices of conservatives, but all
must yield to'the spirit of the age.' Equal
rights to all!"
Who could say that there would be any
unfairness on the part of men if they should
say the above to women, in case they should
accept the doctrines of the Innovators, and demand suffrage as a right?  The above is no
mere burlesque. It would be as fair and candid
as the demands of the Innovators. They make
their ridiculously fair statements and arguments
on the supposition that the sexes are equal in all
respects; when, in fact, one sex is superior in and
should have the control of one sphere of action,
while the other sex is superior in and should
have the control of another sphere. This is the
only kind of equality that has existed or ever can
exist between the sexes. Women have so much
good sense that the majority of them never will
wish to engage in political life: hence men will




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          155
never be under the necessity of replying as we
have represented them. This boasted reform
of female suffrage must and will prove a failure! The Innovators may agitate till doomsday,
and the majority of women will only sit and
smile at their enthusiasm. Good will come out
of this commotion, but it will not be in the way
some expect.
Why would office-holding corrupt women
more than men? Why would wickedness prevail to a greater extent than it does now? Many
might reply at once that such would not be the
result. This must not be decided by a superficial
examination, nor can this be decided by citing
one or two instances: we must reason from the
general characteristics of the sexes. We believe
that one sex is naturally as upright and honest
as the other.  Under present circumstances,
women are better than men.'A  woman's
nature is so sympathetic, her affections are so
strong, and her feelings are so much stronger
than any other part of her nature, that a shrewd
politician, by assisting her in some matter of
minor importance, and sympathizing with some
of her plans, could obtain such a firm hold of
her generosity that she would easily be led to
assist him in promoting almost any scheme. An
act that at first would appear to her unjust




156           ECCE FEMINA.
would be so explained, that, in the end, it would
seem to her infinitely meaner to forsake the
man who had been so good to her, than to support any measure. With women in Congress,
"log-rolling" would become a ten-fold worse
evil than it is now, and men would generally
get the best end of the bargain. The above is
true in regard to the majority of honest women.
Wicked and corrupt women would, we think,
get the advantage of the men sometimes, perhaps as often as men would cheat them in a political bargain. Men would sometimes be placed
in such a position that they would not dare to
refuse a woman's request to vote for a certain
measure. Kings have often decided important
measures through the influence of a mistress;
not in accordance with justice, but in accordance
with the wishes of that wicked companion. We
do not suppose that there would be intrigues
between one-half of the Congressmen and Congresswomen; but who does not believe that
there would be some instances of this kind?
But the great evil of a promiscuous legislative
assembly would be, that questions would not be
decided according to justice and reason, but by
influence brought to bear by different members
of each sex upon each other. A man can be
more easily influenced by a woman than by an



POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          157
other man. Lobbyists understand this, and employ them sometimes. Corruption is prevalent
enough in legislative assemblies now; and we
have every reason to think that it would be
much worse with women in them. We think
that a Congress composed entirely of women
would be preferable to one composed of an equal
number of both sexes.   Perhaps some may
think that we ought not to write about such
matters; but we tliink it false delicacy to cloak
them when everybody knows that this is one of
the most important questions involved in the
discussion of this subject.
" The Independent," in reviewing Mill's "Subjection of Women," says, "' Nine out of every ten
men and women who oppose Mr. Mill's views,
and who have any thing like reasonable ground,
any thing better than stupid conventionality and
blind prejudice, to support them, would say, if
they spoke out openly and honestly, that this
dread of the moral consequences of such a free
intermingling of the sexes as woman's political
emancipation ought to produce and encourage,
is their strongest objection to the movement.
Like everybody else engaged in the public discussion, Mr. Mill has ignored this part of the
question. The argument has not been formally
and publicly raised against him, and he has




158            ECCE FEMINA.
not apparently felt called upon to answer and
discuss it.  We know perfectly well what his
own opinion would be. Mr. Mill's belief in the
capacity of tile human race for self-control and
moral purity is one of the strongest of his faiths.
To him it seems clear, that, whatever extends
elllcation among women promotes the morality
alike of men and women; and this principle lie would, of course, apply to the political
emancipation he now advocates. Still, one cannot deny or doubt the deep and general influence of'tle arglruent to which we have
alluded; and we cannot help regretting that
Mr. Mill did not go a little out of his way,
were that necessary, to give it a full and fiank
consideration."
The belief of Mr. Mill or Mr. Tilton "in
tlhe capacity of the human race for self-control
and moral purity" may be good proof that
these gentlemen have sanguine and confiding
natures, but can have little weight in the decision of this question, so long as there is such a
strong array of facts against such belief. Tlle
llistory of the world shows that the only sure
way of resisting temptation  is to  avoid it.
Some persons, when they have once formed
good habits, can resist temptation, no matter how
great its allurements; but quite a large portion




POPULAR,SUFFRAGE.          159
of the race cannot, or certainly never have.
In regard to this question, it does not matter if
we do not know the exact proportion of the
race which can resist the temptation alluded to;
but this much we are sure of; that an increase
of temptation will produce an increase of crime,
and vice versa.  We can calculate this with as
much certainty as we can that an addition of
fuel to the fire will produce an increase of
heat. Those who feel confident that they can
resist any seductive influence generally pay for
their temerity by yielding to the temlpter. Human nature is such, that it is the duty of government to make the amount of temptation
as small as possible. IHas Theodore Tilton such
strong faith in man's power of self-control,
that he would multiply dram-shops for the
sake of promoting any measure?
If any one says that women can engage in
politics, and still avoid their influence, we reply,
If women are to touch politics only with the
tips of their fingers, they had better remain
where they are. Unless they engage in political life with the same zeal that men do, they
can be nothingbetter than a dead weight, and a
hinderance to action.
Some have such strongl faith that women would
reform politics, that a trial' would probably sadly




160           ECCE FEMINA.
disappoint their hopes. We do not see where
they can find facts to substantiate these hopes.
Women are not so stupid that they could not try
political scheming. It is but a few years since
there was considerable comment on the coalition formed in Kansas between Mrs. Stanton,
Miss Anthony, and George Francis Train. It
was not of quite as much importance as the one
in which Fox figured, but was as little expected.
This is sufficient to show what might happen, if
women should engage in politics. We have
every reason to think that they would form political schemes and combinations, the same as men
do; and they would probably be more frequent
and dangerous than those which are formed by
one sex alone. If two of the most prominent
and substantial leaders among the women who
demand suffrage have learned the politician's
tactics already, we might expect more of the
same kind if they were in Congress.
In the article by Mrs. Child, to which we
have referred, she says, "Few things connected with public affairs have given me so
much pain and mortification as to observe occasional indicatils that some women were willing to set aside the freedman's righlt to vote,
thinking thereby to hasten the acknowledgment of their own..... That there is one




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           161
woman who would gain freedom for herself by
violating principles of freedom with regard to
other human beings indicates a latent disease,
against which it behooves us to take warning in
time."  Mrs. Dajl, on discovering a sclheme of
this nature, says, "' If women seek to advance
their own cause by mean    and meretricious
tricks, such as those -which have dishonored
the policy of men, may God forever disappoint their hope! I would rather be defeated
with the friends of liberty, than crowned with
its foes. It is because I believe woman strong
enough to withstand the low and loose and degrading temptations of public life, that I would
lead her towards it. If she cannot enter it as
an inspiration, may she be forever shut out!"
Such rebukes are needed already; and more
severe ones would be needed if women should
really engage in politics. The Devil has not a
reputation for honesty, but can present as good
a claim to shrewdness as anybody. He probably lias not forgotten his success in the Garden
of Eden, as he has employed the same tactics
thousands of times since. If women should
engage in political life, and, in the course of time,
Satan should think best to send a few apples to
Congress, it would not be strange if he sent
them by the lhands of women.  The very char11




162           ECCE FEMINA.
acteristics which render woman less fit for politics than man are her glory in her present
position. Sin is nothing more nor less than the
use of all or any part of our physical, mental,
and moral nature for a different purpose from
that for which it was intended by the Creator.
If we suppose the greatest encouragement
given to women to engage in the same kinds of'
labor and in the same professions that men do,
still, the time would never come when the great
majority would not be wives, and on that account so occupied that they could not attend
to any trade or profession. For this reason,
women never will be as well informed on financial and other matters of public interest as men
are.  Probably three-fourths of the bills that
come before our legislatures every year are
about matters of which women could have no
opportunity to obtain the knowledge that men
have. If it was desirable, it would not be possible, to place any considerable portion of the sex
in a position to be as well acquainted with public affairs as men are.
Some may think    that women should be
eligible to office if they do not vote, as there
may be some who are eminently qualified for
office.  We think that we have given reasons
enouglh already to answer tlis. Aside from
I D




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           163
the danger of providing for exceptions, it is no
more than just that each sex should have the
important positions and emoluments of its own
sphere. It would be a very rare occurrence,
when a woman qualified for any public place
would desire it. Doubtless, many would desire
office who were not fit for any responsible
position. Perhaps it is hardly necessary that
there should be any law against woman's holding office, as the matter will take care of itself
without any law.
The fact that female suffrage has been
discussed in every house in the country for
several years, and women still shrink from politics, is enough to show that it is discordant with
their nature. It is useless to assert that they
do not speak their real opinions for fear of displeasing the men. There are probably more
men in the country now in favor of female suffrage than women.   Many of those who oppose the movement are the energetic, independent sort of women, who speak their
opinions frankly to everybody.   It cannot
truthfully be said, that the women have not
candidly considered the subject, but are clinging blindly to those customs which have helped
form their characters. Some of the most celebrated literary women of the country, as well




164           ECCE FEJINA.
as the most highly educated, are opposed to
female suffrage. Certainly, there is no woman
Rwho opposes the measure, more blinded by
prejudice than some who favor it.
Our attention is often called to such queens
as Isabella, Elizabeth, Maria  Theresa, and
others, wlo have been eminent rulers. Mill
claims that queens have, on the average, been
better than kings, and adds,  Tllis fact is so
undeniable, that some one, long ago, tried to
retort the argument, and turned the admitted
truth into an additional insult, by saying, that
queens are-better than kings, because, under
kings, women govern, but, under queens,
men.'"  He considers this a bad joke, and endeavors to show that it is not true. It cannot
well be denied tlat there is some truth in the
statement, that, under queens, the influence of
men has generally been great.  Who would
give Victoria any considerable share of the
credit of the important measures that have
characterized her reign? It is well known
tliat Elizabeth was capricious and wilful; and
we do not see how the glory of her reign
can be to any great degree ascribed to ler. A
re-action would have taken place after Mary's
reign under a good but mediocre queen. But why
do not the Innovators lay stress upon the gov



POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          165
erning power of such women as Catherine de
Medici and Bloody Mary? Mill refers to female rulers in Hindoo principalities, as evidence of the governing capacity of women.
The world knows but little about the circumstances which surround the men and women
who have ruled in that heathen country; but,
if we are not mistaken, both sexes are  eminently artificial" there; and, according to
Mill's own reasoning, we could learn but little
about the natural ability of Hindoos of either
sex.  At all events, the number of female
rulers has not been so great, and their individual influence so distinct, tlat we could form
any conclusion for or against the governing
capacity of women in general. Besides, the
position of queens was almost entirely unlike that which would be occupied by a woman
engaged in American politics. The most of
their administrative acts were performed in a
comparatively private way.  Nearly all that
they did in public was to display the royal
robes.
5. There is no good reason for changing the
present system of voting.  We hardly think
any one would favor female suffrage, without
entertaining the hope that some good would
result from its adoption. There are some who




166           ECCE FEMIANA.
have strong faithl; but there is a serious difficulty, since their hope is not well grounded. We
have been told that tile ballot would secure for
woman a better education, higher wages, more
self-respect, a higher social position, &c., &c.
No well-informed person will claim that wages
can be affected to any considerable extent by
the ballot. The price of labor must depend
upon quality, as well as supply and demand.
Experience has proved tllat equal laws can
be obtained without female suffrage.  The
numerous other blessings which we are told
would be so freely showered upon tle heads
of the fair sex are so remotely connected
with suffrage, that it requires a vivid imagination to enable a person of sanguine temperment to discover any relation between them.
Reforms usually have something besides " conjectures  for a foundation.  The Innovators
have never made a respectable attempt to prove
tlhat the blessings which they have dwelt upon
have any connection with female suffrage.
They have falsely asserted that women were
slaves, and then allowed their vision to feast
upon the glories of tlleir emancipation! They
have told us that certain results would be produced; but the world will not rest satisfied with
such assertions. The Innovators have become




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          167
so accustomed to exaggeration, that they would
probably all be astonished at themselves if they
should quietly sit down and examine the plain,
unvarnished facts of the case. They would
discover that they had made a great noise about
some very small matters. The public have
been  deceived  and  hoodwinked by facts!
Great stress has been laid on the sufferings of
laboring women, and otler evils have received
due attention; and the sympathy of the public
aroused in this way, althouglh tlese facts have
not the remotest relation to female suffrage.
There are some objections raised against the
present system, which we feel called upon to
answer. All who read "The Independent" are,
or ought to be, admirers of" 1M. C. A.," a woman
who favors female suffrage, while she does not
allow  her imagination to picture women as
slaves and men as cut-throats. We quote the
following from one of her letters to " The Independent," as it probably contains the views of a
large number. From the connection, we should
not tlink tllat it necessarily embodies the views
of " M. C. A.," but is rather a statement of
facts than an expression of her opinion:"You, an intelligent, educated, thoug(ltful
man, would feel it to be an insult, if some
ignorant woman, intellectually and morally




168           ECCE FEMIINA.
your inferior, should declare to you that you
had no right to the elective franchise solely
because you are a man. And you would feel
still more deeply outraged if the balance of political power were placed with the ignorant and
depraved, solely on the basis of sex, while you,
amenable to every law, were denied all voice,
solely on account of yours. The intelligent,
educated, thoughtful woman can feel no differently when an ignorant boor looks into her
face, and assures her that she is entitled to no
political right which he eljoys, because she is a
woman. Personally she may have no desire to
vote; yet the human nature in her feels a sense
of outrage, that such as he may control the
laws which govern her, solely through the caste
of sex. Think of an intellectual woman, who
had consecrated her best powers to the redemption of his race, being told by a man born a
slave, and but two years fiee,' Women had no
right to vote, because they were women.' The
fact cannot be denied, that many women, who
would have been content that their fathers and
husbands should have legislated for them  to
their dying day, are now fully committed to
female suffrage through their antagonism to this
spirit universal among freedmen, and to the
same spirit in the ignorant and brutalized thou



POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           169
sands who swarm from foreign lands to become
naturalized voters in this republic. In them, it
is the spontaneous protest of intellect and spirit
against the supremacy of brutality and vice."
In this same letter, she makes some excuses for
those women who scream the story of their own
personal wrongs on every possible occasion; or,
rather, an excuse for the Innovators for having
such. " Certain it is, that the great army of the
queer and crazy march instinctively after every
thing new.... Yet it is a very narrow vision
which sees nothing but the crudities and absurdities of outward forms."  We think that the
Innovators have a greater share of followers who
are either " queer " or " crazy" than reforms
usually have; yet we admit that the subject
should not be disregarded on this account:
although the large number of such followers affords a presumption that there is something
erratic in the movement. It would not be worth
while to notice what these " crazy " people say, if
more sensible persons did not agree with them.
If the Innovators should not be judged from
the wild remarks of such, neither should the
opponents of female suffrage by the language
or conduct of " an ignorant boor."  At the first
thought, it does seem rather unjust, that the
lowest man in the community can vote, while




170           ECCE FEMINA.
the wisest woman cannot; but a moment's reflection will convince any one that only an
imaginary advantage would be gained by female
suffrage, for the lowest and most degraded
women would vote as well as others, so that the
relative strength of the two classes would be the
same as it is now. If this argument is good for
any thing, it is good against popular suffrage.
Women ought not to become indignant at the
remarks of the ignorant, and form their opinions
on a great social question under the influence of
their feelings. The men should not, and generally do not, pay much attention to the remarks
of those " crazy " man-haters whose sole purpose
it is to scold, and complain of their lot. On the
other hand, women should not take notice of the
remarks of ignorant and unreasonable men, but
form their opinions of suffrage from a fair examination of the whole subject in all its relations.
We are constantly reminded that taxation
without representation is tyranny: therefore
women should vote! This is a good general
principle, but there are exceptions to all rules.
The women are all represented, except widows
and the unmarried. So long as a woman elects
her own husband (and they can sometimes take
their choice of several candidates), it is their
own fault if they are not properly represented.




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           171
It will be time enough to consider the exceptions
when a majority of the unmarried women and
widows express a desire for suffrage. There
could be no general good result to themselves or
others from a participation in State elections;
but, in regard to some local matters, it sometimes seems desirable that an unmarried woman
should vote. In school districts, where a widow
has children, she ought to have a voice, as well
as other families; and we believe that the law of
some States allows this. Except in some local
matters of this kind, the bestowal of suffrage
upon unmarried women would be for the sake
of satisfying the name of justice, rather than
granting them any substantial advantage. It is
a very sharp joke (!), we admit, to say that men,
instead of representing women, have always misrepresented them. The only fallacy in the statement consists in the fact that it is not true. The
majority of women sustain us in this assertion.
In reply to some arguments against female
suffrage, the Innovators say, " The same argument was urged in favor of slavery."  They
consider this conclusive, and think it necessary
to say no more to refute any argument. Their
reasoning is something like this: A. asserts that
the Bible authorizes and commends stealing:
B. declares that the Bible teaches us to love our




172            ECCE FEMINA.
neighbors as ourselves. The assertion of A. is
incorrect and false: therefore B.'s assertion is
also false.  Any one who has never seen a
work on logic could detect the fallacy in this
reasoning, yet this is a fair specimen of that
which is constantly used by these would-be
reformers. From the number of weak arguments used, we should think it not unfair to
infer that the Innovators have not a large stock
of good ones, although they seem to have an
extensive supply of assertions.
In reply to the argument that women have
already as much power as men, without suffrage,' The Independent " says, " Then why have the
laws relating to women been confessedly unjust? and, if they have influence, they should
be held responsible for it.  Margaret Fuller
well said,'There should always be open responsibility where there must at any rate be
concealed power.' Under the concealed influence of royal mistresses, France was misruled;
under the open control of Elizabeth and Maria
Theresa, England and Austria became great."
Wendell Phillips, in 1851, presented to the
Worcester convention a series of resolutions of
which we give one: " Resolved, That, so far from
denying the overwhelming social and civil influence of women, we are fully aware of its




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.          173
vast extent; aware, with Demosthenes, that'measures which the statesman has meditated a
whole year may be overturned in a day by a
woman;' and for this very reason we proclaim
it the very highest expediency to endow her
with full civil rights, since only then will she
exercise this mighty influence under a just sense
of her duty and responsibility; the history of
all ages bearing witness that the only safe course
for nations is to add open responsibility wherever there already exists unobserved power."
What is the meaning of all this? Do they
really claim that the women of our country have
exercised their social influence in such a way
that " the only safe course" for our nation is to
bring them into public life, where they can be
governed? Is there any reason to think that
their private influence would be exercised more
wisely than it is now? Would not the intrigues
of' mistresses" be more numerous than they
now are? Do men cease to plot secretly when
they get into places of responsibility?  Perhaps they are more careful to conceal their
schemes, and on that account they are the
more dangerous. Woman's influence is exerted
socially, but not in a secret or concealed way
generally.  Public opinion is the principal
check upon the power of office-holdersl and




174           ECCE FEMINVA.
women are as much accountable to that tribunal
as men. If women voted, they would give
their husbands as many curtain lectures as they
do now. No power can ever deprive them of
this right or duty; and, as long as the majority
of men do not complain, there is no need of interference on the part of government. It is
here acknowledged that woman's social power is
" overwhelming;" which is a plain contradiction
of Mill and some others, who claim that the
power is all in the hands of men.
Mill informs us that " every step in improvement has been so invariably accompanied by a
step made in raising the social position of women,
that historians and philosophers have been led
to adopt their elevation or debasement, as, on
the whole, the surest test and most correct
measure of the civilization of a people or an
age."  This is true, and is often urged as an
argument in favor of female suffrage; but it certainly is not, unless it can be shown that suffrage
would elevate rather than debase the sex. The
facts to which we have already alluded make it
appear more probable that suffrage would produce a mental and moral debasement of women,
rather than any thing else; hence, this becomes
an argument against female suffrage.
We have already said, that we have no doubt




POPULAR SUFFRAGE.           175
that it would be possible, by training, to make
the sexes more alike than they are now; but we
cannot see any reason for thinking such a
change desirable, while there are several reasons
against it. In the first place, men and women
have been found more alike in barbarous and
half-civilized tribes than anywhere else. Among
enlightened nations, the distinctive characteristics of the sexes have not been- disregarded. It
is no argument against distinction of sex, that
some nations have forced them farther apart
than they ought to be. When we find that they
have been freest from restraint, and most highly
educated, then we find them to a great degree
unlike.  Of course, there are limits; but any
thing which tends to make the sexes to any
considerable extent more alike than they are
now will promote discord. We assert this on
the strength of the well-known principle which
is embodied in the proverb that two persons
who are alike can never agree. We often see
two persons widely differing in their characteristics, who are life-long friends. We do not
believe that strong and lasting love or friendship
is possible, unless each possesses some excellence
that the other does not. Of course the minds
of men and women should not be so unlike that
there could be no point of contact. We can



176            ECCE FEMINA.
not help thinking that this reciprocal superiority
of the sexes is a beneficent arrangement of the
Creator; and without it this world would become
a great scene of discord and contention. We
sometimes see a ludicrous kind of harmony,
where the man becomes a woman, and the woman
a man. If an effeminate man wishes a happy
life, he must secure a masculine woman for a
wife.




THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.     177
CHAPTER      VI.
THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.,f&:K A  S infidelity has become unpopular in..S_ name, the ingenuity of man has
~~X    contrived to conceal its principles'^i~~    under popular names. It is so completely disguised, and mixed with the ideas of
the age, that when it comes to Christians under
the name of progress, many of them are led to
imbibe its principles. This most dangerous form
of infidelity does not openly assail the Bible
and Christianity, but has a very shrewd method
of letting them alone, and leading their devotees
to adopt principles which are opposed to the
spirit of Bible truth. Some of them have been
well described as " having a form of godliness,
but denying the power thereof."  But Christians seem to have forgotten that they are commanded to turn away from such. The most
deceitful method of evading the teachings of
the Bible is to claim that the Old Testament
has been superseded; when everybody ought
12




178            ECCE FEMIVA.
to know that only the ceremonial law has passed
away; that the main portion of the Old Testament has as much force now as ever. Nor is
there any conflict between the two divisions of
the Bible.
We cannot avoid thinking that the clergymen
of the present day are, to a great extent, responsible for the ignorance which prevails in regard
to the Bible, and the state of public opinion
which makes it so easy for concealed infidelity
to insinuate itself into the minds of Christians.
It does no good to denounce these evils, so long
as the proper method of hindering them is discarded. It has become rather unpopular to
preach doctrine; and some ministers have formed
a sort of compromise between Christ and the
world, and try to preach in such a manner that
they will offend neither.  The result is a series
of religious essays, which are good in themselves, but have no point to them, or, if there is
any, it is so rounded that nobody feels it. If
a young man who has attended church faithfully all his life goes out into the world, and
comes in contact with a man who calls himself
a liberal, instead of an infidel, he is easily led
astray, because lie has never had the truths or
doctrines of the Bible explained to him; while
the " liberal " is well informed on the whole sub



THE  TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.     179
ject. Ministers of the gospel should be the
teachers and instructors of the people, so that
any of their hearers would be able to defend
the truth. It is true that they cannot be such
if they burden thenlselves by writing two
sermons each week.   If they would spend
their time in preparing the matter of their
sermons, they would soon be able to express
themselves in such a manner that their hearers
would understand them.   Is it not better to
have two good ideas expressed in a respectable
way than to have one written out faultlessly?
If a young man who has always listened to
Orthodox preaching goes abroad and becomes a
Unitarian, his old pastor feels hurt and troubled.
Perhaps he may have declaimed the doctrine of
the Trinity a thousand times, but had never
presented the arguments on both sides to his
hearers, so that any one would be able to defend
the truth which lie believes. We think that a
great part of the heresy which some ministers
declaim against can be accounted for from these
two causes: superficiality necessarily produced
by writing sermons, and the fear of preaching
doctrine.  If a minister does justice to the
matter of his sermons, and still writes them out,
he is obliged to work so hard that his health
breaks down in a few years. There are many




180           ECCE FEMINA.
such, although we fear that the former class is
the larger. These thoughts were suggested by
the loose ideas of the Bible which are so prevalent. These remarks are intended for those who
need them; and others, who do not, will, we
trust, reiterate them.
If any of our readers do not believe that
the Bible is from God, we have nothing to say
to them here. If we should ever write any
thing on the inspiration of the Scriptures, we
would notice their arguments. To those who
profess to believe the Bible, we would say, that
they cannot consistently discard any of its
truths. They must accept them as they are.
Explanations are admissible; but they must be
reasonable, and have some foundation.  An
objectionable passage cannot be thrown aside
by simply saying, " It may mean this, or
perhaps it had that signification."  When the
Bible is quoted in regard to woman's position,
there is usually no attempt made to answer;
but it is thought enough to say that the Bible
was quoted to sustain slavery. Now, this is
merely an evasion.  The Bible does or does
not sustain slavery. It does teach that one
sex should occupy one position, and the other
another position, or it does not teach this.
Each question must stand or fall on its own




THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.     181
merits. The reference to slavery is only a
cheap device to evade the question. If any
man or woman does not believe the Bible, the
world should know it. No one ought to hold an
opinion that he is ashamed to proclaim to the
world.
We shall endeavor to show that the Bible
teaches the unity and inviolability of the family,
and a distinction of sex as wide as that which
exists in the United States; while both man
and woman are bound to obey the same law,
and the rights of one are regarded of as much
importance as those of the other. The unity
of the family is taught in Gen. ii. 23, 24,
and in some other parts of the Old Testament;
while this passage is quoted and commented
upon in several places in the New Testament.
The punishment for adultery is death; and
there are other facts which tend to show that
those who do any thing to degrade the family
relation must meet the vengeance of the Great
Lawgiver. The Innovators are not fighting
against man merely, but against God; and they
must take the consequences.  Adultery was
the only ground for a divorce. The divorce
laws of some States make marriage little if
any better than concubinage; and, if the Innovators could have their way, it would not be




182           ECCE FEMI'NA.
long before marriage would be little better in
one respect than it is in Utah, where anybody,
for any reason or without reason, can get a
divorce for the moderate sum of ten dollars!
The law of God is as binding to-day as it was
wlhen given to Moses. These crimes bring
with tlem their own punishment; and, if we
wish to escape from numerous evils, we must go
back to the divine law.
Throughout the Bible, the husband is regarded as the head and protector of the family,
and there is no provision for separate interests.
If the following passage occurred in any modern
statute, the Innovators would denounce it as a
barbarism: "If men strive, or hurt a woman
with child, so that her fruit depart from her,
and yet no mischief follow, he shall surely be
punished, according as the woman's husband
will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the
judges determine" (Ex. xxi. 22). If we regard
the husband and wife as two, as some modern
laws do, it would look as though the husband
was to make money out of the wife's misfortune; but the husband and wife are one:
hence, any money paid to one was paid to both.
There was but one fund. Then, why not let
the wife take the offender before the judges,
and claim damages?   Simply because it is a




TIE TEACHINGS OF T'IE BIBLE.     183
husband's duty to protect the members of his
family, and take any offender before the magistrates.
The family government is older than any
other. The patriarchal grew out of this, as
men then lived to such an age that their posterity would sometimes form  a large tribe.
This is the only form of government of which
we have much knowledge, until the Israelites
came out of Egypt. We are not speaking of
the surrounding nations, which were governed
by absolute monarchs. We wish to examine
the form of government as God established it.
We find that matters of importance were laid
first before the elders, and by them referred to
the people. The elders were all men. We
do not find women among the rulers or magistrates, in any position, although there were
some places which they might have filled as
well as they can now.    It does not avail
any thing to say that it was a rude age, as men
and women were both rude; and any adaptation of government to their condition must
apply to one sex the same as to the other. In
Num. ii. 2, 4, the number of elders is
mentioned  as seventy.  In Num. xxvi. we
find an enumeration of the several clans, or
general families, into which the tribes were




184           ECCE FEMINA.
subdivided. There would be about one elder
to each of these families, if we suppose that
there was one extra chosen from each tribe.
It is not certain how the elders were elected,
but, so far as there is any evidence, it seems
more probable that they were chosen by the
lieads of the several families. We find that
the family is always taken as a basis. There
is no evidence to show that women took any
part in government, while there are many
indications that every thing of the nature was
ill the hands of men. A young man did not
probably reach majority at any fixed age, but at
marriage, which may have taken place, on the
average, when the man was much older than
he generally is now.
The priesthood was composed entirely of men,
and the judges and prophets were men, with a
very few exceptions. Here, as elsewhere, the
exceptions prove the rule. The position of
prophetess seems to be more congenial to a
woman's nature than those positions from which
slhe was excluded; and the fact that God honored some women by speaking through them
is enough to show that they were not, in some
respects, mado subordinate to men, because they
were, on the whole, inferior to men. Woman's
position relative to man was about the same as




T'IE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.    185
it is now; yet they were, before the law, treated
as the equals of men. Although there was this
distinction of sex, as there is now, there was no
regulation or custom lawful which had any tendency to degrade woman, or deprive her of any
of her natural excellence. The management of
public affairs was in the hands of men. Miriam
led the women in singing and dancing; but she
was not satisfied with this pre-eminence. She
seemed to have the modern idea of woman's
rights, as she tried to form a conspiracy against
Moses, for which she was smitten with leprosy.
This was not a very propitious beginning for the
cause which has now become an important
movement. There are many at the present
time who conspire against Moses. They may
do some harm, yet no one need fear that they
will finally triumph. Some have become so
wise, that they think God has changed his
plans since the time of Moses. They do not
believe him when he says, " I am the Lord, I
change not."  Men change, but their Maker
does not. It was regarded so unnatural a thing
that a woman should rule, that it is spoken of as
an evil to be lamented, and an evidence of disorganization (Is. iii. 12).
In the whole of the Old Testament, the distinction of sex is not lost sight of, nor can it be




186            ECCE FEMINA.
at any time, without injustice to woman as well
as man. When the curse is pronounced, there is
one for woman and another for man. The same
curse would not have affected both equally. It
is a very narrow interpretation which makes
the language of the curse upon man refer merely to the difficulties in the way of his cultivating
the soil. Thorns and thistles are fit emblems
of the difficulties which man must encounter in
any occupation. The struggles and trials of
woman are of a different nature. She is obliged
to endure evils fiom which he is free; while
there are others which she avoids, and he encounters. It is useless for either sex to try to
avoid the curse. If they escape one difficulty,
they meet with a worse; hence it is better to
take patiently what is inevitable. Many of the
evils which the Innovators complain of cannot
be avoided, and their complaining and faultfinding only tend to make the morose more discontented and miserable. It is no evidence that
women are worse treated than men, because we
find that they are subjected to some evils which
do not fall to the lot of the other sex. We
must look at the other sidle, and see how many
conflicts men pass through which women escape.
When man is delivered floin the curse of a
broken law, woman will be also, and not before.




THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.      187
Thevisionary may picture to themselves the
peace and happiness which they expect to prevail when woman votes and occupies all the
lucrative positions which men do; but, if they
could see such a time, they would be sadly disappointed. Perhaps woman's condition can be
made better than it is now (we trust and hope
that it will); but it cannot be improved as much
as some expect, until the millennium comes.
In the New Testament we find evidences of
the regard and esteem which Christ and the
apostles had for woman; yet there is the same
distinction of sex. Only men are commissioned
to preach; and, through the whole, it is evident
that the sphere of woman was regarded as about
the same as it is now by all except the Innovators. Christ came to break every yoke; and,
if he had found woman abused as much as some
say she is, he would have set the example by
choosing them to preach, or in some way would
have condemned the existing customs. It is a
cheap and blasphemous evasion to say that he
yielded to and thereby encouraged the prejudices of the times. He did not hesitate to
trample on their prejudices in other matters.
He called them hypocrites, and denounced'them
as a generation of vipers. He drove the moneychangers out of the temple, and never hesitated to




188           ECCE FEMINA.
condemn any of their time-honored customs when
he found them wrong.  He chose the apostles
from the poor, the ignorant, and the' despised;
and, if he had ever intended that women should
preach, he would have chosen them also. If
there is any reason why a woman should preach
now, there was then.  They certainly have
no authority for entering  the pulpit.  We
need not a word from the epistles of Paul or
Peter to decide whether women should become
preachers.  But, when we have their words
against such a course, we do not see how
any woman dare enter the pulpit as the servant
of her Saviour.  We sometimes admire a
person who defies public opinion; but there is
such an enormous inconsistency in professing
to serve God, and at the same time defying his
Word, that the very thought ought to make
one shudder.  We can throw the cloak of
charity over any tling else which the Innovators
advocate, except encouraging women to preach
the gospel. Infidelity may be consistent, but
this cannot be. We do not care how honest
those women are who preach; they must be
held accountable for what they can know: the
Bible is plain enough, unless they refuse to see
the truth.  If people profess to follow their
own ideas of woman's sphere, that is one thing:




TIE TEA CHIiNGS OF THE BIBLE.   189
if they profess to follow the Bible, that is
another.
The passages which place a veto on woman's
preaching are 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and 1 Tim.
ii. 11-15. Some have endeavored to evade
these passages by saying that they had a special
meaning at the time they were written; but
there is not a particle of proof that such was the
case. They might as well claim that the command to husbands to love their wives was a
temporary command. The historical references
plainly show that he states a general principle,
and one applicable in all ages. He refers to the
law, and the creation and fall of the race. We
saw a newspaper article not long since, which
disposed of these passages with an ease that was
really laughable, by saying that the whole
world disregarded the command that woman
should not teach! By taking two or three
words without their connection, we can make
the Bible teach almost any doctrine. No candid
man will claim, on reading these passages, that
women are commanded not to teach, in the
sense that they were not to instruct their children, or perform the duties of an instructor for
others. If that was the meaning, a mother would,
even at that time, be doing wrong if she taught
the Lord's Prayer to her children. We find




190           ECCE FEMINA.
this word, Laaxcco, used when Christ taught his
disciples the truths of Christianity. We find
the same Greek word used in many instances
where reference is made, not to an exhortation
which a believer might give to others, but
where the apostles, or any one occupying the
position that an ordained minister now does, addressed the people, or preached to them.  The
pastors were the teachers of their flocks. It
seems most probable, then, that the reference in
these passages is not to what might be said in a
prayer-meeting, but to speaking with authority,
or teaching the people as a pastor is supposed
to do. Women were to keep silence in the
churches, not everywhere. We do not believe
that a fair construction would convey the idea
that a woman must keel) silence in a social
prayer-meeting; but the passages cannot be
fairly interpreted to mean less than that women
should not occupy the position of a public teacher
or preacher of the gospel.
If the instructions in the New Testament to
husbands and wives were followed, there would
be no occasion for family trouble. If any person
reads the passages in regard to husbands and
wives, with a mind overflowing with notions of
individual rights, they seem strange and unaccountable. If hle reads them with the mind




TIE TEA CHINGS OF THE BIBLE.    191
thoroughly impressed'with the idea that husband and wife are one, their interests one, and
remember that they ought to forget that they
have individual rights, and do all in their power
for each other's happiness, then there is nothing
harsh or strange in any of these passages. "' Let
the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own
body, but the husband " (1 Cor. vii. 3, 4). This
does not sound much like the doctrine of rights
which is proclaimed by the Innovators. They
would probably ridicule and scout such doctrine
if found elsewhere. But let us see the rest of
the passage: " And likewise also the husband
hath not power of his own body, but the wife."
He loses his individuality at marriage, as well
as the wife. Any husband, who, in business
or in any thing else, acts simply for his own
interests, without regard to wife or children, is
false to the marriage relation. Any action on
the part of husband or wife, simply for self, is
contrary to the spirit and teachings of Christianity, and subversive of peace and harmony.
There are some women delivering lectures
through the country, with the object of impressing upon the minds of women the duty of attending to their own wants and wishes first, and




192            ECCE FEMINA.
then, if they see fit to be so benevolent, they
can do something for their husbands. Whether
we should obey God or such women, judge ye,
who profess to be Christians. These women
may justly condemn any man who does not
place his wife before himself. The world should
make it unpopular and despicable for a husband
to place his own comfort or his own welfare
before his wife's; and should not the same spirit
on the part of the wife be condemned also?
For further instruction to husbands and wives,
we refer the reader to 1 Cor. xi. 11, 12; Eph.
v. 22-33; and 1 Pet. iii. 1-7. If we disregard the natural difference between the sexes,
and place individual rights above the family
relation, these passages are inexplicable; but if
we do not, there is no difficulty in them. They
do not contain a minute analysis of all the duties
of husbands and wives, but they warn them
against those evils and errors into which they
would be most likely to fall. The present movement, against which we are contending, is a
proof that these warnings were not superfluous.
The husband is commanded to love and cherish
the wife as Christ does the church, which would
involve the idea that he must sacrifice his life
for her if necessary. He is reminded that any
wrong done to the wife would be as unnatural




THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.     193
as it would be to injure himself, for they are one.
It must not be forgotten that the superiority of
strength belongs to the husband; and this was
given him not merely for his own good, but
that he might the better serve and protect his
wife. The honor which the husband owes to
the wife is not that which belongs to an inferior.
The last verse referred to is not so translated as
to convey the meaning of the original. We
will not give an exact translation, but the meaning seems to be something like this: " Likewise,
ye husbands, live with your wives as wisdom
teaches; while they are inferior to you ill
strength, give them honor, since they are your
equals as heirs of the grace of life."  As
immortal beings they are worthy of honor: their
souls are of as much value as man's.  The
homage which men pay to women at the present
time ought to satisfy them. They are respected
and honored more than men are by each other.
If women are slaves, they occupy a more
queenly position than slaves ever held before.
The wife is warned not to take the husband's
place, although he " obey not the word."  She
is reminded that she can gain or win her husband by her deportment. Herpower lies in this
direction; and, if she wishes to succeed, she must
use it. Through the whole of the New Testa13




194           ECCE FEMIVA.
ment the distinction of sex is kept up, yet the
highest and purest regard for woman is inculcated.  This cannot be explained unless we
grant that this distinction of sex is natural. The
only just and equal arrangement is that which
is adapted to woman's natural capacity and
tendency. We can know what this is, not from
extremes, but from the inclination and desires of
the majority. It is presumption for men or
women to pretend to know better what is for
their good than their Maker.




WOMAN'S SPHERE.            195
CHAPTER VII.
WOMAN S SPHERE.
HERE is more truth in the remark
that Nature will take care of herself
than those who use the expression
sometimes imagine.   The reason
that the Innovators do not make some of their
schemes work is because she does take care of
herself.  Prejudice often gets the credit of
doing some things, and hindering the performance of others, when Nature is really the
stubborn  conservative  that  directs  these
affairs.  There are special reasons why the
minority of women cannot follow their own
inclinations, if they wish to enter the pulpit or
engage in politics, as we have already seen.
But, aside from these, the minority of women
who wish to engage in masculine employments
can be allowed to fight their way wherever they
are able, without the necessity of hinderance from
the public. We have our opinion that they
cannot succeed in certain positions; yet, if they




196           ECCE FEMINA.
can prove to the world that we are mistaken,.there is no reason why they should not be
allowed to try. The great difficulty which the
Innovators will be obliged to contend with is
not in the obstacles thrown in the way by
public opinion, but that they cannot find the
necessary number of women to make the experiments. Nature is' stronger than exaggerated
statements or discontented spirits, male or
female, who wish to tear society in pieces and
build anew. Let us examine the nature of
the circumstances, and see if prejudice is the
only foe to the measures which we have
recently been told should be adopted.
Under the most favorable circumstances
which could be expected, so long as the family
relation exists, only a very few women can
ever be persuaded to practise law or medicine,
or engage in any occupations for life, except
those in which  they are already engaged.
This is simply because tie great majority of
women sooner or later become wives. It does
no good, or comparatively little good, to theorize,
and show   that learning a trade  does not
hinder a woman's becoming a good wife. The
number who will take the advice will always be
in proportion to the chance of being obliged to
resort to self-support. Perhaps the agitation




WOMAN'S SPIERE.           197
of the subject may make some difference, but
the majority of those who accept theories will
practise as before. Insurance against fire costs
much less in the country than in a city, and is
theoretically as necessary and expedient in proportion to the expense; yet it is not an uncommon thing for buildings to be uninsured, although
but a trifle is saved; simply because fires are
rare, and men feel that there is but little
danger. In a city, where the danger is great,
a man would hardly risk a building over night
without insurance. If twice as many women
were likely to remain single as now, there
would be twice as many seeking employment
for life.  The  great majority of men and
women make preparation merely for probabilities, while only the few look out for possibilities. It is true that this ought not to be so;
yet we have no reason to expect that human
nature can be so changed that this order will
be reversed.
It needs but little argument to shorw tlat the
wife should not generally do more than attend
to the household affairs, while the husband
earns the means of support. Only a few
cynical people will claim that marriage is not
desirable. Statistics show that the married are,
on the average, longer lived than the single;




198           ECCE FEMINA.
and the social and moral influence of home is
superior to that which surrounds those who
have none. If wives have time to do more
than attend to household affairs, it ought to
be devoted to their intellectual development,
rather than to a profession or trade.   To
those who have the talent, there are several
intellectual pursuits which are not inconsistent
with household cares; but no considerable
number of married women would ever become
lawyers, physicians, or merchants, even if they
were as well adapted to those pursuits as men
are. No one can be hired to take care of a household and attend to children as faithfully as the
mother herself. But let us examine the probabilities of success, if women try to achieve
eminence in the same field that men now
occupy.
In regard to the legal profession, we quote
the following from  Mrs. Dall's lecture on
" English Common Law:" " Women often
have occasion to smile, sometimes sadly, sometimes mischievously, at the verdicts passed upon
their own sex. If women were to enter the
practice of the law, or become law-makers, an
immense change would take place in all that
relates to it. Absurd technicalities would be
swept off its papers.  One hundred   words




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           199
would no longer do duty for one.   Simple,
common-sense forms of expression would take
the place of obsolete Latin and Norman
French. Daylight would be let into indictments, and flaws would soon be hard to find.
No woman ever existed whose patience would
stand, in cases where meaning and law are
evident, the absurd delays of chancery courts,
or the still absurder'filing of objections,' or'defining of terms,' with which lawyers amuse
a jury, and which Sir Leicester Dedlock, we are
told, considered as the bulwarks of the English
constitution.  This impatience  of  women
might not be very valuable, if she were to
legislate alone; but, controlled by man's conservative caution, it' would be of the greatest
service."
Mrs. D. had been reading law, it seems, to
prepare her lecture; and the above amounts to
nothing more nor less than a confession that
law is not adapted to woman's nature, hence a
change is necessary. If the " impatience " of
woman is to be the valuable addition to law
and politics, the country can get along without
it. The speed which we can obtain by the use
of steam is good for the railroad, but is hardly
desirable in the firamninr or execution of laws.
We think that most women would find the




200           ECCE FEMINA.
study and practice of law rather dry and
uncongenial to their nature. The surroundings at the bar would not be attractive to most
women. Is there any probability that they
would honor themselves or benefit the world
by engaging in the legal profession?
In the.medical profession woman can engage
more appropriately, without unsexing herself.
There are some departments of the practice of
medicine, in which women could engage very
appropriately; and there would probably be a
demand for them. But a woman can never
be a successful surgeon unless she crushes her
emotional nature, which is so strongly developed tliat her nerves spontaneously sympathize
with any kind of suffering. A successful surgeon and true woman will very rarely be found
to coincide and form the same person. This is
a priori reasoning, we admit, as we have obtained no information in regard to those women
who have practised surgery.  We not unfrequently hear women say that they think
there ought to be female physicians; yet we
rarely find one who would on any account become
one herself. The number of female physicians
will probably be larger in a few years than it is
now; yet, compared with the number of male
physicians, it must always remain small, as only




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           201
a few women have any inclination to engage in
the profession.
In the study of law or medicine, it can hardly
be considered desirable that the sexes be
educated together. In denouncing institutions
because they will not admit women, there is
an unreasonable strong-headedness which  is
worse than any conservatism. The supply of
institutions for educating women for a profession will be equal to the demand. In the
study of medicine, most women will prefer to
be educated by themselves, unless they have
an extra amount of boldness, which we usually
call brass.  It is unreasonable to denounce
everybody as the enemy of woman who. does
not adopt every educational scheme proposed
by the Innovators. In any labor or profession,
the indiscriminate mingling of the sexes must
be productive of evil consequences. It is true
that women ought to be as highly educated as
men; but it does not follow that every college
should be thrown open to them. There are
some strong arguments in favor of educating
the sexes together, and there are some very
strong ones against it. The Innovators would
command more respect if they could only see
that there are two sides to this question, instead
of denouncing their opponents as the servants
of an unreasonable prejudice.




20)2           ECCE FEMINA.
If there is an increasing number of young
women who wish for a college education, there
will be institutions ready to receive them.
The great difficulty is this: but few wish for as
good an education as men receive. They generally prefer a shorter course. If we can impress upon the people the importance of developing the mind for its own sake, there will be
a point gained in favor of female education.
The idea is too prevalent among men that they
must merely get as limited an education as
possible, to enable them to perform the duties
of an instrument: that is, to fill some place,
so that they can serve others, and thereby get
a living. Few men seek for an education for
the sake of expanding their minds.    We
Americans are too much absorbed in the
material prosperity of our country. We must
remember that the soul is of infinitely more
value than any thing else. It is true that we
must take care of our bodies; but we should
not stop here. Perhaps women will never be
persuaded to seek as high an education as men
do; but any thing which contributes to elevate
mental culture for its own sake will have that
tendency.  Too many men are narrow-minded
and  ignorant outside of their professions.
They merely obtain what knowledge they need
to follow their vocation.




WOMAN'S SPIERE.           203
But very few women wish to become public
speakers; yet we can safely allow Nature to
take care of herself. If there are exceptions
who wish to try the experiment, they will succeed if they have the ability: if they have not,
then they must fail. At present, there is in
some places a mania for female lecturers; and a
mediocre address by a woman is worth more
than a first-rate production by a man. There
is something novel about it; and people are, for
the time, led to lay aside their judgment, and
over-estimate the talents of some favorites.
But this matter will take care of itself. In a
few years, every woman as well as every man
who lectures will stand or fall on her own
ability. We venture the assertion, that those
women will be the most popular in five years
from this time who have the least to say about
woman's rights.  People like a good sharp
scolding for variety, but it becomes rather disgusting if continued. Some women have made
so many extravagant assertions in public, that
they will not be listened to when they tell the
plain truth a few years hence. No one need
be troubled at the present indications of some
portions of the country. There will be a reaction, since the Innovators are doing too much
for their own success. It is an old proverb,




204           ECCE FE1MINA.
that whom the gods would destroy, they first
make mad.
As a writer, there is an open field for
woman, and she will doubtless play an important part in the literature of the next
hundred years.  The female writers of our
country are now numbered by hundreds, and
some of them are not merely celebrated in this
country, but throughout the world.  Literature is better adapted to woman's nature than
any other field of intellectual labor; and she
can obtain the same price for her productions
that man can for his. The influence which is
exerted over the public mind by woman's pen
is greater than all others which she can use
directly. Pclblic opinion is moulded indirectly
by woman's social power, to an extent which is
almost immeasurable.
The number of women who will engage in
the high intellectual pursuits to which we have
already referred will probably never exceed a
few hundred, and can never have any material
effect on the thousands of women who are obliged
to earn their own living. Besides, they will
come mostly from those who are not obliged to
earn their own support, but do so from choice.
We will now note some of the circumstances
of those women who are obliged to labor from




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           205
year to year for very small wages, and see what
changes are possible and what are desirable.
It does no good to denounce the public for
their prejudices, and theorize about how things
ought to be. Political economy treats the poor
girl in great want just as well as the rich girl
who needs nothing, but no better. These laws
are impartial, but merciless. Any thing that is
done to make the circumstances of the unfortunate better must either be done in the way of
charity, or by some general change in the
labor-market which will benefit all engaged in
a certain way, whether needy or not.
This subject of female labor is a great question; yet there is much talk about it by people
who have little or no knowledge of the principles
involved. There are probably thousands of men
and women in the United States who believe,
that if prejudice were removed, and women
allowed to engage in the same employments
as men, the price of female labor would
soon be as high as man's. We should judge,
from the remarks of some of the Innovators, that
they have not yet learned that the price of labor
depends mainly upon supply and demand, although the most of them seem to have learned
this. But a great majority of the people do not
exactly seem to understand why a woman




206           ECCE FEMINA.
receives less pay for teaching, when she does a
certain amount of work as well as a man does.
Abstract justice seems to say that she should
receive the same pay.  If the wheat-crop is
large, and the potato-crop small, the former will
be cheap and the latter dear, no matter what
the relative amount of nourishment each contains. If the order of abundance ismreversed the
next year, the relative prices will be changed
accordingly. Now, this same principle is involved in the relative prices of male and female
labor.  If a woman gets only one hundred
dollars where a man can get two for the same
labor, it is because there are twice as many
women competing in that field as there are men.
If one woman says this is unjust, and refuses to
work unless she can get as much as man, another
steps in and offers to do the labor at the marketprice. They compete with each other; and
there is no remedy for this, unless one-half of
the women can be engaged in some other field
of labor, when the half who remain will get the
same wages that men do for the same amount
of labor performed as well. Can the number
of feminine employments be so increased that
woman will receive the same compensation for
her services that man does for his?  We shall
endeavor to show, that, as society is now constituted, this cannot be, and is not desirable.




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           207
We will suppose that the prejudice in regard
to female employments is entirely removed, and
women encouraged to engage in any and every
employment. Still, there are many kinds of
labor which women are not adapted to perform,
and never will engage in voluntarily. They
are now employed in almost every capacity that
they can fill or desire to fill. It must be remembered that only a very few women wish to
engage in any occupation for life: hence they
only occupy those positions which they can
learn to fill in a short time. If women engage
in nercantile business, they can make the same
profits that men do; yet they rarely make the
trial, and this must always continue, for two
reasons. In the first place, those women who
are obliged to earn their own living rarely have
the capital; secondly, they prefer to work for
small wages rather than make any permanent
arrangement.  We have not here taken into
consideration whether they have the natural
capacity for business that men have. Tie most
lucrative positions are those which are permanent. Tnose men who work for only a short
time in a place generally receive comparatively
small compensation. As the majority of labor-.
ing women do not seek permanent positions,
custom places some of those, which they might




208           ECCE FEMINA.
otherwise occupy, in the hands of men; and
when any woman who is qualified obtains employment for a term of years, she must take the
consequences of the condition of other laboring
women who receive small wages, because they
are engaged in the odds and ends of labor. She
may get more than she would in less responsible
situations; yet she cannot obtain as much as a
man, on account of the general market-price of
female labor.
If a woman goes to some part of the country
where women are scarce, she can get large
wages. In the rough mining regions, and more
remote sections of California, a female teacher
can obtain higher wages in a small school than
she can in a more responsible position in the
same State, where the regular routine of civilized life is established. The same is true in
other parts of the country. In those sections
where women are superabundant, the price of
their labor is greatly reduced; while it is correspondingly dear where there are more men than
women. The current of westward emigration
has taken more young men from the Eastern
States than young women: hence the amount
of female labor in tile market, in some portions
of the country, is more than is needed; and this
has caused a reduction in the price of their




WOMAN'S SPHERE.          209
labor, or, what is the same thing, has hindered
an advance to correspond with that which has
been made in male labor. It must be remembered that this is not a permanent evil, although
it may continue for years, unless something can
be done to provide for a more equal distribution
of the sexes throughout the different parts of the
country. If any thing is done for the relief of
laboring women, it must be done in accordance
with the laws of political economy.
Now, what have the Innovators done for the
practical relief of women who are laboring on
starvation wages?  They have denounced the
public, and accused everybody, except themselves, of injustice; in short, they have made
a great noise, excited discontented women, and
done all in their power to precipitate them into
public employments, and thereby increased the
amount of suffering and crime, instead of elevating the sex. They have raised the cry of
"fire! " but have done nothing to extinguish the
flames. They have called the attention of the
public to a difficulty, but have only increased
the confusion, so that laboring women are
devouring each other. Since they know nothing of the laws of political economy, the course
which they think for the best is really the most
ruinous. These are grave charges to make




210           ECCE FEMINA.
against those who profess to be reformers; but
let us look at the facts, and see if we have been
too severe. We do not accuse the Innovators
of intending to aggravate the evils against which
they declaim; but their intemperate zeal and unreasonable language have produced these results.
It has been in this way: they have denounced and ridiculed public opinion for considering housework the principal occupation of
woman; hence they have made it more disreputable for a young woman to become a family
servant. For this reason, young women have
imbibed enough of the woman's-rights movement to go out into the world and engage in
any employment rather than housework. The
wages of servants have so advanced that foreign
girls have been tempted to this country, and are
now our cooks and housekeepers.   In some
places women will work with the needle at
$2.00 a week, and board themselves, rather than
engage as servants at $3,00 a week, with good
board and lodgings.  There are two causes
which make housework so disreputable. In the
first place, those who employ servants take
unnecessary and unnatural pains to make them
feel the inferiority of their position; secondly,
the Innovators are doing all in their power to
persuade women to go out into the world and
engage in something higher (!) than housework.




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           211
Now, we wish to do nothing to hinder a
woman of superior mental capacity from engaging in the highest occupation which she can fill.
But she needs no encouragement.     Genius
will take care of itself. The Innovators forget
the sneering remark which they have so often
made to their opponents, " Nature will take
care of herself: why are you so solicitous to assist her?" A woman of great natural ability
will take care of herself. There is no need of
going through the country, and warning the
people to get out of her way! Women of genius
and common sense do not stand still and scold
about the obstacles in their path. No man or
woman ever achieved eminence without overcoming difficulties.  Prejudice is only one of
the minor hinderances which they have met with.
Nobody believes that a certain man or woman
has genius, until it is seen by its effects. We
need less talk and more action, before the world
will believe all the Innovators say. Let them
show us some practical good results, before they
claim to be the friends of woman.
We take the following from an article in
"Appletons' Journal," Sept. 4, by Catherine E.
Beecher:   In Massachusetts, during the last
ten years, among the men of that State, crime
decreased at the rate of 8,507 less than during




212            ECCE FEMINA.
the ten preceding years, while, among women,
crime increased at the rate of 368 during the
same period; that is, over 8,000 less men, and
over 300 more woman, were guilty of crime
than in the previous ten years."
In this State, the Innovators, during this time,
have probably held more meetings and exerted
more influence than in any other State in the
Union. Is this the kind of a reformation we
are to have? They have told the public that
low wages cause prostitution. A poor woman,
who has hitherto been virtuous, reads or hears
one of these statements, and takes it (as it
really is) as a sort of an excuse or partial justification for becoming a harlot; hence she yields
to the tempter. Another desires money for
fine clothes, and would partially justify herself
and take encouragement from  such remarks.
Proclaiming such doctrines has a tendency to
lead women to shirk individual responsibility,
and justify themselves in committing any crime.
The women of Massachusetts have been told a
thousand times by the Innovators that they
were crushed, oppressed, and down-trodden;
anUd that the men were really guilty of causing
the crimes which they committed.   It is a
characteristic of human nature, for a guilty
person to try to shirk the responsibility on to




WOMA N'S'SPHERE.        213
somebody else. So long as this can be done,
there is an encouragement to continue in crime.
Women will become worse and worse so long
as they are encouraged in wickedness by being
told that men are responsible for their crimes. If
a woman loses her virtue, the Innovators take
for granted that she has been seduced by some
man who is entirely to blame, while she is to be
held guiltless. In some cases, perhaps in a
majority, the man is more guilty than the
woman; in others, the woman is the seducer.
There is probably not one case in a hundred in
which both are not, to a great extent, guilty and
blamable.  If women are to be made better,
they must be made to feel that they are responsible to God and the world for their own
sins, and cannot excuse themselves by laying
the blame on man or society. We believe
that man ought to be more blamed and stigmatized by society than he is now, and severely
punished by law; but is there any reason why
it should be made more respectable for a woman
to lose her virtue than it is now?  Society
has for a long time been wrong in being too
lenient with men who have acted the part.of
seducers; but the Innovators, in this matter as
in most others, have acted on the wrong principle. They have tried to excuse women, and




214           ECCE FE.'MINA.
make these "unfortunate " ones more respectable in society. They have not said, and cannot
easily say, any thing too severe against men for
committing such crimes, except as they misrepresent the relative wickedness of the two sexes.
In regard to Hester Vaughan, the young woman of Philadelphia, who was guilty of infanticide, no one could justly find fault with
presenting to the public the extenuating circumstances which made the crime less heinous.
But facts were not enough: the whole affair
was exaggerated, and the criminal was made a
sort of heroine, a martyr to the cause of woman's rights. Does not such conduct tend to
encourage like crimes? The effect upon the
public is much better when there is a calm and
candid presentation of the facts, than when
they are presented in a sensational, theatrical,
or exacgerated manner.
When the good influences in a State like
Massachusetts have been so great as to decrease
crime among men, so that there were more than
eight thousand less criminals in ten years,
while there were three hundred more female
criminals in tile same time, there is need of investigation.  There is some cause for this. If
the Innovators say that it is caused by low
wages, we reply, that their agitation has led




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           215
young women from the fireside, to engage in
more public pursuits; and this has produced a
depreciation in the price of female labor, so
that, both directly and indirectly, they have
increased crime and suffering among women.
Where can they show any good results to the
laboring classes from their boasted reform?
Perhaps there are some, but they are small
compared with the evil. Do not come before
the world, and excuse the matter on the plea
of good intentions. We want proof that you are
not crazy and fanatical. Do not compare yourselves to Garrison and Phillips, in the antislavery conflict. They never exaggerated or
misstated facts. They never lost their reasoning
powers. It is true they have argued in favor
of female suffrage, but their language has been
qiite unlike that which has characterized the
movement in this country as a whole. As we
have not heard much fiom them lately, in connection with the Innovators, we have conjectured that they do not like the management
of some persons, and are becoming disgusted
with the intemperate manner in which the
innovation is managed. This is only a conjecture, and may have no truth in it.
We have had a plenty of talk, and the
starvation prices of female labor have been




216           ECCE FEMINA.
publicly noticed and declaimed against a
thousand times by the Innovators; but what
have they done towards procuring a remedy?
They have discovered that an increase in the
number of female employments will raise the
price of their labor, as the number of competitors will then be less in any one department; but
they have not examined circumstances, to see
how far this is possible, if we grant that it is
desirable. They have confused public opinion,
so that nobody knows what to do to attain a
desired result.  If they will, each and all,
purchase a work on political economy, and study
it thoroughly, they will learn that neither loud
talk nor female suffragre will assist laborina women. They will also learn that the course they
have thus pursued has made matters worse.
If they had done somethling to change public
opinion, so that it would be considered more
honorable for girls to engage in housework,
they would have done something for the relief
of destitute women. It ought to be made disreputable for any woman to be ignorant of the
art of cooking, and managing a household;
for this must always be the main employment
of women, and there will always be a demand
for good cooks. Those who have degraded, by
sneering remarks, the duties of a female house



WOMAN'S SPHERE.          217
servant and the duties of a wife and mother,
have increased the suffering of the sex, and
helped establish false ideas of true womanhood. Public opinion must be so changed that
female servants will be allowed a higher social
position; and it ought to be so changed that it
would be considered disreputable for a young
woman to be ignorant of the duties of a housewife, or unwilling to perform them when
necessary or convenient. Of course a servant
is often necessary; but, when a wife has only
herself and husband, it is often more work to
look after a servant than to take care of her
own house. If the Innovators can make the
position of a cook in a family even desirable,
they will then do something practical and beneficial to women as a class. This is not impossible,
for the occupation was considered respectable
in the days of our mothers and grandmothers.
If some people would cease a certain kind of
talking and complaining, and use rational common-sense language and measures, these evils
could be removed or greatly decreased in a few
years. When the Innovators do something
practical for poor women, it will be granted
that they are the real friends of the sex; and
public prejudice against them will doubtless
cease.




218           ECCE FEMINA.
Let us now examine some of the facts, and
ascertain, if possible, the condition of the class
needing relief, and the remedies available. In
the first place, only a few women seek employment for life. The laborers are young girls,
widows, married women who have met with
domestic trouble in some shape, and a few older
unmarried women.    The great majority of
them have little or no education, and many of
them have met with trouble in some way, so
that their minds are more or less unfit for engaging in pursuits which require a clear head
and skilful hand.  Open all the avenues to
employment possible, still they cannot compete
with men. When a young man starts out in
life, he can obtain but a mere pittance, even
where there is a fair prospect for him in future
years. A boy is always obliged to take the
odds and ends of work, and can never get as
good pay, according to what he does, as a man
can.  Now, a great proportion of laboring
women seek employment for only a few years,
at most, and many for only a few months, until
they meet with better circumstances in some
way: hence permanent positions will never be
kept open for them. They will have just that
position in the labor-market which they can
hold, and no more.




WOMAN'S SPHERE.            219
As the great majority of educated women
are either married, or engaged as teachers, it is
no disparagement to woman to say that those
who are left cannot compare favorably with the
average male laborer: of course, we include the
higher occupations. The most of these are far
inferior to them, and are not capable of filling
first-class positions; hence their range of employments must always be limited. Those who
are qualified can generally find situations as bookkeepers, or in something of that kind. But the
most important fact is, that a great many women seek employment for a short time, while
only a few do for life. Many intelligent girls
go from the country to work in the factories for
one or two years. They would not accept
positions for a long time, even if they could get
higher wages.   But the sufferers are usually
the lower classes in the cities; and only a small
part of them are above mediocrity. We must,
in considering this question, remember that the
occupations available to those needing them
are only those which can be filled by women of
moderate capacity, for a short time.
Now, relief can be furnished by opening the
way for some to become house-servants and
cooks, by using means to keep women from
collecting in large towns and cities, and by




220           ECCE FEMINA.
leading them to emigrate from those portions
of the country where they are in excess of the
male population to others where they are less
numerous.   In the country towns of New
England it is often difficult to obtain female
servants. We have known families to be in
want of one for several weeks, although all the
means possible were used to find one. Now, if
a society can be formed which will have agents
in all parts of the country, and proper means
be taken to know the condition and needs of
every section, and applications be received from
those women desiring employment, and those
families or corporations needing female laborers,
there would then be a fair prospect of improving the condition of laboring women. If some
rich benevolent individuals would give money
to pay for railroad-fare where it might be necessary, it would be the most economical method
of relieving suffering, because a two-fold advantage would be gained: those women sent out
of a crowded city would obtain employment,
and those who remained would receive better
wages, as there would be fewer seeking the
same positions. In the whole country, there
are probably no more women than needed at
respectable wages; and, if this plan is practicable,
it certainly would accomplish the desired end.




WOMAN'S SPHERE.            221
We believe that there is something of the kind
in large cities now; but it is necessary to include
the whole country, to obtain any permanent
good result. If any one has a better plan, it
should be laid before the public. Something
should be done to change public opinion, so that
American girls would consider it an honor to
obtain a position as house-servant. Work of any
kind must not be considered degrading. If
false notions of dignity and respectability are to
be established, as they are in some European
countries, then some portions of the community
must either starve or beg.
There is a passage in James, which the
majority of Innovators seem to have forgotten,
if they ever read it: l If a brother or sister be
naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of
you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye
warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give
them not those things which are needful to the
body: what doth it profit?"    They have
expressed a great deal of sympathy for laboring
women, but it has been nothing but talk. They
have devised no practical measures for their
relief. The boasted increase of the number
of female employments has proved more of a
curse than a blessing, as women have been led
to forsake the healthy duties of a housekeeper,




222            ECCE FEM1INA.
and engage in unhealthy shops, where they have
lost both physical and moral vigor. If this
boasted reform should continue in this way ten
years longer, statistics would tell a sad tale of
progress towards ruin! The world may forgive
the Innovators for the harm which they have
already produced, since they intended good.
We fear, however, that a few were influenced
by ambitious desires to make themselves famous,
rather than by philanthropic motives. At all
events, the public should demand, for the
future, that there be more calm thought and a
thorough study of the circumstances, as well as
less headstrong language and action. In the
antislavery conflict, those who were immediately
concerned were not within the reach of the
agitation; but all classes of women feel the influence of the Innovators, and those of weak
minds or small moral principle imbibe the extravagant language of the agitators; and think
that the movement means license; hence they
become more reckless and wicked.'If a man
accidentally drops a coal of fire into a powdermagazine, it will explode as quickly as tlough
he had done it intentionally.  There is no
greater heresy held by people than the idea
that it makes little difference what a man believes, if he is only sincere. Sincerity has been




WOMAN'S SPIIERE.           223
the ruin of thousands. It must be coupled
with knowledge and wisdom, when it becomes
an angel of peace and a harbinger of future
good.
If we are not mistaken, whenever any thing
practical has been done for the good of woman,
those men and women who do not favor female
suffrage have been more active than those who
do. We have but little knowledge in regard to
the "American Woman's Educational Association;" but, so far as we do know, we should
think that the plan, if carried out, would do
much to remove existing evils. At all events,
something besides condemning the public, and
finding fault with prejudice, must be done before
woman's condition will be better.
If the plan which we have suggested should
be carried out, laboring women would be in a
comfortable condition; yet they would not receive as much compensation as men do. Now,
some may ask, What can be done to secure for
women as good wages as men obtain, in proportion
to what they do? We reply, that woman's welfare, as well as man's, requires that her wages continue to be much less.than his, perhaps one-half
as much. This seems absurd and contradictory
at first; but let us examine the circumstances.
It must not be forgotten that the family is the




224            ECCE FEMINA.
basis upon which society is built; and the good
of this institution is paramount. The family cannot be properly organized and sustained, unless
the husband can earn money enough to support
his wife and children, as well as himself. Society is in an unhealthy condition when the
majority of wives are obliged to go abroad to
earn money to help support the family. A
high state of civilization is not possible under
such circumstances. Children become little better than barbarians, unless they are watched and
cared for. That the wife may remain at home,
it is necessary for the husband to be able to earn
the wages of two: so that, in one sense, women's
wages are as high as men's, when they receive
half as much, as what he earns belongs not to
himself merely, but to the family, and is used
for its support. If a man who earns his living by
manual labor were obliged to pay a female
servant, to assist his wife, as much as his own
wages amounted to, there would be nothing left
to support the family. When we take the support and education of the children into consideration, it is evident that men must have facilities
in their hands, which, on thee whole, enable them
to procure four or five times as much as a single
woman would need. Suppose a young woman
gets a good education, but can earn only one



WOMAN'S SPHERE.            2'5
half as much by teaching as her future husband
can. Perhaps she wishes to teach a year or two
to earn something to prepare her for marriage.
Now, she is not expected to have much besides
her wardrobe, while he is supposed to have
earned money enough to buy a house; or, at
least, to be in such a situation that he may have
good reasons for expecting that he can support
himself and wife comfortably. Now, is it not
better for this young woman, that society is so
constituted that she can get only small wages
for a few months or years, rather than that her
husband should be so situated that their family
would be in straitened circumstances during
their whole life?
But some one may say, " I know a girl who is
obliged to support herself and two sick parents."
Such cases are rare, and we cannot change
the whole course of society to benefit the few.
Where there is one such case, there are a thousand men who have a family to support. Shall
society be organized for the good of the one, or
the thousand? In this world of sin and sorrow,
it is impossible to make such reforms that all
can be equally provided for. The death of
fathers will leave many families destitute. General remedies cannot be provided, so that all will
be able to take care of themselves in adversity.
15




226           ECCE FEMINA.
The poor must sometimes be assisted by special
charities, or supported by the State. Yet we
ought to take care to make these cases as rare
as possible. If the Innovators desire to change
society so that women can earn as much as men,
and have half of the avenues to wealth in their
hands, they are providing a remedy which is a
thousand-fold worse than the disease. This would
practically compel women to leave their homes
and earn money like their husbands. It would
be nothing more nor less than the destruction of
the family, and the disintegration of modern society. We should have all of individual rights
that could be desired; for there would be nothing but individuality, since the family could no
longer exist as it is now. The Innovators have
undertaken more than they can accomplish; for
this little institution called the family is stronger
than all the forces that can be brought against
it. Men and women will defend it at all
hazards. But some others may say, "We do
not wish or intend any thing of this kind."
Then your schemes are not practicable, and cannot succeed. Men and women can never be on
the same footing in the political and financial
world; or, more properly, single women cannot
be considered of as much importance as whole
families.




WOMAN'S SPHERE.            227
But some one may ask us what becomes
of bachelors, on this theory. They are, to say
the least, all guilty of embezzlement, perhaps
not with "malice aforethought;" yet society
has not merely given them facilities for selfsupport, but for procuring money to provide for
a wife and children; and, if they use all this
money for selfish purposes, it is certainly a misappropriation. If a woman prefers to remain single,
notwithstanding the difficulties in her path, there
does not seem to be that chance to blame her
which there is in the case of a man who takes
advantage of the constitution of society, and robs
some woman of a support, not because his Creator made it right for him to do so, but because
he can. If we come to strict justice, government would do right in taking half or more of a
bachelor's property, and applying it to the relief
of destitute women. But this, of course, would
not be very practicable, as some might plead that
they were preparing for marriage, and others
that they had offered themselves, and been refused. When people find a rich bachelor living
by himself, they have an instinctive feeling that
he ought to share his wealth with a wife. However, many support one or more female relatives,
so that they may be pardoned for their disregard
of natural law. But this principle is certainly




228           ECCE FEMINA.
involved in the constitution of modern society:
that a single man has not done half his duty
when he merely supports himself.
If the family relation is to be sustained on
principles which will enable society to advance
in every thing that pertains to genuine progress,
it must be made possible for the wife to remain
at home; and how can this be, unless the husband has extra facilities for procuring wealth?
There are evils connected with the present system; yet it is, after all, the best that can be devised. The good of society demands that men
shall be the producers and managers of wealth.
The evils of this arrangement have been greatly
exaggerated. If laws were based upon the unity
of the family, many of the present difficulties
would be removed; and the trouble to be feared
from this system will be less than in any other
matter with which government deals, when we
take into consideration the aggregate amount
of happiness involved.
Now, unless society is to be entirely remodelled, and founded upon individuality instead of
the family, the whole tendency of the movement which the Innovators have inaugurated is
to aggravate existing evils. Relief can only
come from making the number of competing
female laborers as small as possible. They need




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           229
not be idle; for there is enough to be done, without sending women into the rough channels of
public life. Marriage may not always be desirable, but in ordinary circumstances it is: hence,
any encouragement in the way of placing unmarried men in a condition to support wives, or
by making marriage honorable and respectable,
would be a public benefit. It ought to be made
disreputable for an honest man to remain single.
The whole tendency of the innovation is to
make it impossible for a laboring man to support
a wife and family; hence there is nothing
strange in the fact, that prostitution and concubinage have been on the increase. The woman
who has a husband has but little temptation to
become a prostitute. Married men, as well as
married women, are sometimes guilty of adultery; but who can doubt that a great share of
the patronage which supports the thousands of
prostitutes in the country comes from unmarried men, who might be persuaded to live respectable lives if they had good wives?
We do not care how good the private opinions
of the Innovators may be in regard to the family relation: the reform which they are contending for is nothing more nor less than a revolt
against the family, an effort to degrade h umanity,
and establish the customs of barbarians. Let




230           ECCE FEMIVA.
us see how so grave a charge can be established,
when these headstrong enthusiasts are filled with
love for humanity, and a desire to elevate woman, and hate none except men! Nominally,
they are contending against men: in reality,
they are opposing the interests of women as well
as men; for they are aiming a deadly blow at the
family, and setting in motion a train of circumstances or causes which tend to increase the violation of the seventh commandment, as well as
all kinds of suffering, misery, and crime. It
happens in this way: " It is now known that marriages bear a fixed and definite relation to the
price of corn; and, in England, the experience
of a century has proved, that, instead of having
any connection with personal feelings, they are
simply regulated by the average earnings of the
great mass of the people."  (Buckle, vol. i. pp.
2:, 24.)  It does not follow from this that those
who do marry do not love each other, but that
those who love each other are   kept from
marrying by adverse circumstances.
Let us take an illustration as furnished by Mrs.
Dall. We will here state that we are opposed
to "' strikes " on the part of laborers, and think
they should be condemned as unnatural, except
when capitalists combine to keep wages down.
In such cases, strikes are necessary; and it must




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           231
be considered wrong for the laborers of one sex
to endeavor to thwart the purposes of the other
sex. Mrs. D. informs us, that, in a certain town,
we do not remember where, the printers were
on a strike for more pay. A certain man employed nine of them, and did not know what to
do, until a woman came to him, and offered to
bring eight female printers besides herself to do
the work. The consequence was, that these nine
men were thrown out of employment. We do
not know the circumstances, and are not prepared to say whether the men were wrong and
the women justified, or the men right and the
women contemptibly mean. We would not
condemn them for seeking work by fair means.
But this is doubtless considered by the Innovators as a glorious victory of woman over man.
Let us look a little further, and see how this is.
Perhaps six of these were married men, wllo
had wives and children depending upon their
labor for support, who may have been placed in
critical circumstances. Perhaps some of them
suffered from want of food and clothing before
their husbands found employment elsewhere.
Perhaps one of the young men was about to be
married. He may have saved something, and
told his intended that there was a prospect of
higher wages, so that he could then support




232           ECCE FEMINA.
a wife. When he is thrown out of employment,
he feels discouraged, disappointed, and heartbroken. He goes to some city, and finds work
as a printer there. He writes to his intended,
that it would cost so much to live, that he does
not see any prospect of marriage for years. She
is then obliged to seek employment, so that there
is one more woman competing with others to
keep down the price of labor. Perhaps this
young man becomes discouraged on account of
the postponement of his marriage, and is led into
temptation as he seeks to drown his troubles
in pleasure. He may be led to the use of strong
drink, and from that to houses of ill fame, and
so become a moral ruin. The young woman
to whom he was engaged may become disheartened when she finds that she is forsaken; and, in
her bewilderment, she may be led, step by step,
in the paths of sin, until she is finally ruined,
lost forever! This is the kind of reform we are
asked to support! Of those women, probably
eight had only themselves to support, and could
have found employment as house-servants until
they had a chance to work at their trade.
The Innovators have started on the wrong
principle. The only permanent cure for existing evils is the encouragement of marriage.
This can be done by hanging every man or wo3 7~ — I-7)-  -




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           233
man who tries to poison public opinion by teaching that there can be any more honorable
employment for woman than that of wife and
mother. Those who wish to remain single, and
engage in any of the higher intellectual pursuits
which are not consistent with marriage, do not
need encouragement. They will take care of
themselves. The effect of the doctrines whicll
some have proclaimed has been to poison the
minds of the lower classes, and lead those who
are well adapted to engage in the healthy and
respectable labor of house-work to go into employments which are really less honorable, as
they lead to physical and moral ruin. However
good the intentions of those blind enthusiasts
who have been trying to ridicule and cast contempt upon the duties of a wife and mother,
and have been teaching that there are other
positions higher and more honorable, which
women should seek, yet facts show that they
are sowing the seeds of death; hence we claim
that they should be strangled by public opinion.
They ought to be allowed time for retirement,
study, and calm reflection, before death. They
have been so faithful in spreading their doctrines,
that they have not had time to stop and reckon
the gain and loss thus far. They think that they
have caught a glimpse of Paradise ahead; but




234           ECCE FEMINA.
this has so dazzled their sight, that they have not
been able to see practical and common-sense
affairs. They feel certain that other people are
prejudiced and ignorant, "suborned and sycophantic," because they do not see the future as
they do! They can see the mote in the eye of
the public, but -
0 ye Innovators! do not get angry with us
poor deluded wretches, because we cannot behold the glory which you see so clearly. We
have not such vivid imaginations as you have.
Take us, step by step, and point out all the circumstances; and then, if you can make it all
clear, we will believe you: but we have had
enough of glittering generalities. Perhaps you
will s!ow us how many positions women hold
now, which they did not a few years ago.
Very well; but let us see how much you have
gained by it. How great an increase have you
made in virtue and morality?    You point
proudly to Washington, and tell us what a conquest you have made over prejudice, as women
can now be clerks in the departments. But
have you counted the slain? Do you know how
much your victory has cost you? Let us know
the whole truth. Compare the physical, mental,
and moral qualities of those who labor to-day,
with those which existed among women in 1840,




WOMANV'S SPHIERE.         235
before this movement began. Tell us to how
great an extent you have decreased prostitution.
Tell us how much better is the condition of
laboring women to-day. Any evidence of the
good already done will increase our faith in you
for the future, provided the evil which you have
indirectly brought about does not more than
counterbalance the good. Let us know to what
extent abortion and infanticide have decreased.
Perhaps you think that we have done you injustice in this chapter; but we will retract any
opinion we have expressed, when you give us
the facts, and a better interpretation of them
than we have given.
We will now show how marriage can be indirectly encouraged. It is not by giving female
laborers a better chance directly, but by giving
young men a better opportunity to earn money
to support a wife.  Some of the men and
women of the present day have made themselves morally unfit for marriage; but provision
can be made for the young, so that, when they
reach maturity, there will be less temptation in
their path. If we can increase the number of
marriages, of course there will be a smaller
number of women in the labor-market, hence a
better chance for them to obtain fair wages,
although they must expect them to be much




236           ECCE FEMINA.
less than man's. And, what is still more important, there will be a smaller number of young
men and women subject to the temptations of
immorality. Perhaps prostitution will always
exist to a certain extent, in spite of the efforts of
good people to check it; but this is the most
practicable method of decreasing the evil. If
parents and employers will use their influence
to encourage marriage among the young as
soon as they are old enough, and in a financial
situation such that it would be advisable, much
would be gained. If companies would be established in large cities, which would build
tenements in the suburbs, or near those cities,
which could be rented at moderate rates only
to respectable young married people, there
would be some encouragement to marriage.
We believe that it would be a matter of
economy to the merchants of cities, who are
troubled with clerks of intemperate or irregular
habits, if they would hold out some inducements
to marriage by building tenements, and in other
ways encouraging young men to marry. If
young men and women have pleasant homes,
they have less desire to go where they will meet
with temptation.  Life Insurance companies
discovered long ago that marriage was the best
guaranty of a steady life and good habits. We




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           237
know that there are many intemperate and
grossly immoral married men; but there are not
so many, comparatively, as there are among the
unmarried: besides, the most of these contracted
such habits before marriage.
Encouraging women to engage in what are
generally considered masculine employments
has an immediate good effect in providing for
them better means of self-support, but this indirectly produces evils which more than counterbalance the good effected. Perhaps the women themselves are placed in the way of
temptation.  This extra competition reduces
the price of male labor, so that the number of
men in circumstances to marry must be less;
hence, other women will be obliged to support
themselves, as they have no chance to marry.
The more we equalize the wages between the
sexes, by so much the more we decrease the
probability of marriage, unless husband and
wife both go abroad and labor. Every one
must admit that this is a great evil in ordinary
cases, although under some circumstances wives
prefer to leave home to engage in some employment. If the Innovators could bring about
the changes for which they have argued so
zealously, marriage would be impossible among
the laboring classes, unless they lived in a half



238           ECCE FEMIYNA.
civilized condition. There would be as wide a
distinction between plebeians and aristocrats as
there is in any European country; or there
would be no family organization, but men and
women mingled together like beasts. We do
not believe it possible to bring about so great a
change in society; yet this movement may be
carried to such an extent that the number of
unmarried men and women will become more
numerous, hence immorality, suffering, and
crime must be greatly increased. If accurate
statistics could be obtained, we have no doubt
it would be proved that the number of prostitutes in cities depends more upon the number
of unmarried men and women than upon all
other causes combined. Intoxicating drink is
in one sense the most potent agent of evil in the
world, but it must be remembered that the unmarried are more tempted to use it than others.
Perhaps some may think that we give undue
importance to this point; but, when we consider
that it has been estimated that there are twenty
thousand prostitutes in the city of New York,
the question how to reduce this evil becomes
one of great importance.  This may be an
over estimate; but the increase of licentiousness
througllout the country is becoming a serious
matter. To be sure, the Innovators have de



WOMAN'S SPHERE.            239
claimed against it as lotdly as others; but, in
their blind zeal, they have set in motion influences which have increased the evil. The
machinery of society is complicated; and it requires careful study and foresight, as well as
good intentions, to prepare measures which will
really benefit the people.
This labor question shows how intimately
connected are the interests of the two sexes.
One cannot be injured without harm to the
other. In regard to widening the sphere of
women, so that both sexes should have an equal
chance to earn money, the Innovators supposed
that they were contending with men; when, in
reality, they were contending with the family.
What woman gains with one hand she throws
away with the other; so that this labor scheme,
inaugurated nominally for the good of women,
like the scheme for suffrage, is really an indirect method of forcing them from their homes,
and obliging them to earn their own living.
"Ah, liberty! what crimes are committed in
thy name!"
The whole woman's-rights movement ]as
been conducted in a reckless manner. The Innovators took a few facts, exaggerated them,
and then overlooked or discarded other facts of




240           ECCE FEMINA.
more importance than t+ose which they hurled in
the face of public opinion. They have demanded
suffrage as a riglit belonging to woman; when,
in reality, the majority of women do not desire
it, and believe the measure opposed to their
physical, mental, and moral welfare, and would
consider it an act of tyranny to be either directly or indirectly forced to go to the ballotbox. They have been so monstrously inconsistent as to pretend to be the representatives of
women, when they accuse the majority of them
of stupidity, sycophancy, and lying. Mill is
not the only one that has done this. A large
proportion of the speeches made in this country
have in some way cast a slur upon the mass of
women. Some have openly denounced them
for not supporting the innovation; others by
implication, when they praise the good sense,
bravery, and nobility of character of those women who do demand suffrage. The Innovators
have rarely been so candid as to admit that
those women who were not in favor of their
movement were governed by any thing better
than'blind prejudice. If the mass of women
were really what they have often represented
them to be, they would not be fit for civilized
life. They have discussed the labor question as




WOMAN'S SPHERE.           241
though those women who support themselves
were the only parties concerned, and then only
in a mercenary way; when, in fact, the financial
interests of every family in the land are involved in this question, and the moral and
religious welfare of the whole community.
They have recklessly urged the employment of
men and women together, without regard to the
extra danger to virtue and morality: when a
little reflection ought to convince any one that
an increase of temptation is equivalent to an increase of sin. We do not deny that they have
told us much truth, but it has not been the
whole truth. They have presented almost every
subject in a partial, one-sided manner.
If we have been correct in considering that
the starting point for a reform is to improve
the condition of the male laborer, the public
ought to consider candidly the claims of labor.
If we have made no mistake, the moral as well
as the physical good of the public is at stake.
Laboring men must be in a condition to support
a family, if we wish to encourage good habits and
check wickedness. There is no spot on earth
like home.  The hallowed influence of the
family has saved millions, while the want of
this influence has ruined thousands. Who has
16




242            ECCE FEMINA.
the least doubt that the Creator intends marriage for all where it is possible? And is it
not the duty of society to encourage it, and help
to place all in such circumstances that it will be
not only possible but convenient?




MISCELLANEOUS.           243
CHAPTER VIII.
MISCELLANEOUS.
T has been frequently stated that
women have always been in a state
of subjection to men, and that, on
this account, experience can give
no testimony on this subject. It has been also
urged that any reasoning on the question must
be a priori. This is true only in part, as nearly
all the principles involved have been tested by
experience. Those which are involved in the
labor question have been tried, although some
additional truth may yet be learned by special
application of statistics to this matter as it now
stands and will stand for a few years to come.
Mill saw plainly that the presumption in favor
of the present relation of the sexes must remain,
unless he could show that it was brought about by
forced and unnatural means. The only argument of importance which he produced to weaken this presumption was the fact that brute
force had played an important part in the early




244                ECCE FEMINA.
ages of history. He asserts that women have
always been in subjection to men: hence their
natural powers have never had a chance to develop. Now, there is a total lack of proof that
they are, at the present time, out of their natural
position, and are in subjection to men. We quote
the following, to show, that, during the middle
ages, men were subject to the power of women:"Gassier, in his' Histoire de la Chevalerie
Frangaise,' speaking of the romancers, or
troubadours, has the following: -
"'Many knights are numbered among these poets. To
consecrate his heart and his homage to a mistress, to live for
her exclusively, for her to aspire to all the glory of arms and
of the virtues, to admire her perfections, and assure to them
public admiration, to aspire to the title of her servant and
her slave, and to think himself blessed, if, in recompense of so
great a love and of so great efforts, she deign to accept them;
in a word, to serve his lady as a kind of divinity, whose favors
can but be the prize of the noblest sentiments, a divinity who
cannot be loved without respect, and who cannot be respected
without love, - this was one of the principal duties of every
knight, or of whosoever desired to become one. The imagination sought to exalt itself with such a scheme of love;
and by forming heroes, it (the scheme of love, we presume)
gave reality to all the flights of the poet's imagination of that
time. The fair whose charms and whose merit the knights
troubadours celebrated - those earthly goddesses of chivalrywelcomed them with a winning generosity, and often repaid
their compliments with tender favors.... It is easy




MISCELLANEOUS.               245
to understand, that, love and war being the spring of all their
actions, some celebrated the deeds of arms which had rendered
so many brave knights illustrious, while others sang of the
beauty, the graces, and the charms of their ladies, and of the
tender sentiments with which the ladies had inspired them.'
" St. Palaye, speaking of the duties of knights,
remarks,' It was one of the capital points of
their institution on no account to speak ill of
ladies, and on no account to allow any one in
their presence to dare to speak ill of ladies.'
In a note he says,' This is, of all the laws
of chivalry, that which was maintained at all
times with the greatest rigor among the French
nobility.''If a virtuous dame,' says Brantome, as quoted by St. Palaye,' desire to maintain her position by means of his valor and
constancy, her servant by no means grudges
his life to support and defend her, if she runs
the least hazard in the world, either as regards
her life or her honor, or in case any evil may
have been said of her; as I have seen in our
court many who have silenced slanderers who
have dared to detract from their mistresses and
ladies, whom, by the duty and laws of chivalry,
we are bound to serve as champions in their
troubles.'
"' By the custom of Burgundy, a young maid
could save the life of a criminal if she met him




246           ECCE FEMINA.
by accident, for the first time, going to execution, and asked him in marriage.''Is it not
true,' asks Marchangy,'that the criminal who
can interest a simple and virtuous maid, so as
to be chosen for a husband, is not so guilty as
he may appear, and that extenuating circumstances speak secretly in his favor?' Again:'The greatest enemies to the feudal system
have acknowledged that the preponderance of
domestic manners was its essential characteristic.
In the early education of youth, women were
represented as the objects of respectful love, and
the dispensers of happiness.'
"It is not necessary to adduce further proof
of the eminence to which, morally, woman was
exalted.  Her empire was notorious and unchallenged. All writers of those times celebrate it, and in recent times it has been attested
by the charming pen of Scott, and by the sneer of
Gibbon. The theory of the worship is beyond
dispute; but it may be interesting to examine
how the practice of chivalry accorded with its
profession, and whether the power and position
of the sex were substantially as dazzling as
speculation represented them. Upon reflection
we shall probably all admit that they were so;
for, though the phase of lady-worship most
familiar to us is seen in the practice of the




MISCELLANEOUS.           247
knights-errant, to whose vagaries a certain
amount of ridicule attaches, there is ample evidence of a real, practical, established female
ascendency.  The wandering or the soldier
knight would vaunt the charms and virtues of
a mistress whose favor he might or might not
wear, and enforce the acknowledgment of
them with the point of his lance; he would
draw his sword for the deliverance of a captive
lady, or to redress a lady's wrong: but, independently of the effects of real or fancied passion, independently of acts of individual compassion or generosity or condescension, the sex,
as such, undoubtedly did experience and exercise the benefits and the powers which the
knight's profession assigned to it. In proof of
this, be it remembered that a lady never hesitated to lay her commands upon a knight,
whether specially devoted to her service or not;
and that it was imperative upon the knight to
obey her, except the command should unfortunately be incompatible with his devoir to his
own elected lady, to his sovereign, or to a
brother-in-arms. Conflicting orders and duties
thus sometimes placed an unhappy knight in a'fix;' and so delicate an affair was it, that,
when he had the opportunity of obtaining
advice, he generally submitted himself to the




248           ECCE FEMINA.
decision of a court of honor. The expressed
approbation of a noble or beautiful lady, whether
dame or demoiselle, was fame. The ladies could
and did soften and exalt the characters of
knights, and the sentiments of knighthood generally.'They can even impart,' says Digby,'noble and generous sentiments; so that their
power exceeds that of kings, who can grant
only the titles of nobility.' "
We take the above from an article in " Blackwood," and reprinted in " The Eclectic," March,
1868. We will also give an extract from Hallam:
" Next, therefore, or even equal to devotion,
stood gallantry among the principles of knighthood. But all comparison between the two
was saved by blending them together. The
love of God and the ladies was enjoined as a
single duty. He who was faithful and true to
his mistress was held sure of salvation in the
theology of castles, though not of cloisters.
Froissart announces that he had undertaken a
collection of amorous poetry, with the help of
God and of love; and Bocacce returns thanks
to each for their assistance in the' Decameron.'
The laws sometimes united in this general homage to the fair.' We will,' says James II. of
Aragon,' that every man, whether knight or
no, who shall be in company with a lady, pass




MISCELLANEOUS.            249
safe and unmolested, unless he be guilty of
murder.' Louis II., Duke of Bourbon, instituting the order of the Golden Shield, enjoins
his knights to honor, above all, the ladies, and
not to permit any one to slander them; because
from them, after God, comes all the honor that
men can acquire." (" Middle Ages," chap.
ix., Part II.)
These passages are sufficient to disprove the
assertion that women have always been under
the power of men.    If they had preferred
man's position to their own, they could have
taken it; for they could have had what they
asked. It is true that a few women tried the
sphere of man, but there was no general manifestation of such a desire. It is a most important fact, that this same chivalrous spirit, minus
the extravagances, has been preserved to the
present time. Since then, woman's social position has generally been higher than man's, as it is
at the present time. Says Mill, " The beauties
and graces of the chivalrous character are still
what they were."  In the middle ages, women
were placed in a loftier position than mortals
could occupy permanently; yet enough of this
feeling on the part of men has been preserved
to satisfy any reasonable woman. An excess
of devotion is now disgusting to a woman of




250           ECCE FEMINA.
good sense. No one can truly say that force,
for the past three hundred years, has had influence enough to make any difference with
woman's position among the most enlightened
nations.  If women are placed and held in
their present position by force, it is strange that
the great majority of them cannot be made to
believe it.
We have the testimony of experience against
female suffrage. Dr. Bushnell has given us
a good description of the evil effects of female
suffrage in New Jersey. We ilave no evidence
that there was any desirable result. During
the thirty-one years that women were allowed
to vote in that State, their attendance at the
ballot-box was so irregular, that they nearly all
voted some years, and nearly all remained at
home others. Some of them did not scruple to
vote as many times in one day as some men do
in New York. Perhaps it will be claimed that
we cannot tell much by this one trial; but, if
female suffrage had been a success in New
Jersey, who doubts that the Innovators would
lay great stress upon this fact in every public
speech? At present, they are obliged to comfort themselves with incidents of much less
importance. As'far as we have facts, there are
no indications that women would purify poli



MISCELLANEOUS.           251
tics; while we have proofs of an opposite
nature, which make the theory which was
offered in a former part of this book seem more
probable than any other. History informs us
that a woman's sympathies are stronger than
her judgment or reasoning powers; hence that
part of her nature which is her glory in her
present position would expose her to great
danger in public life.
As the presumption is in favor of the present
system, it is necessary for the Innovators to
make it appear very probable that much more
good than evil would be brought about by the
proposed change.  It is mere buncombe to
make pathetic speeches on this subject, as
though it were a matter of natural right and
justice to woman.  It is assuming the point
which is to be proved, and which the mass of
men and women do not believe. When the
majority of women authorize the Innovators to
speak in their behalf, thby can make pathetic
appeals to men, with more consistency. There
is something ludicrous in the pretensions of a
small band of men and women who come
before the public and assume that they are
speaking for women, when they are really
speaking against them. They need a different
method of agitation if they wish to enlist




252           ECCE FIEMINA.
women in their cause. It is a strong presumption against the soundness of this movement,
that it is obliged to resort to such catch-words
as " Idiots and Women," " Eggs, Blown-glass,
and Women."     Reformers usually rely on
something more substantial. What would they
say to their opponents, if they should try to
show  that man's. condition  is worse than
woman's by pointing to the farmers at work in
their fields, and crying out sneeringly, " Horses,
Mules, and Men"? Not long since, we heard a
woman deliver a lecture, who did not produce
a single substantial argument to sustain her
cause, but assailed her opponents with scorn
and ridicule. Before her speech was closed, she
gave them a moral lecture on the use of
sarcasm, and warned them that they could not
hinder this great movement by ridicule! The
Innovators complain when any one attacks them
with satire, but this is the chief weapon which
they use to achieve success! They are righteously indignant with their opponents, simply
because they themselves desire the monopoly of
scorn and ridicule!  Yet they are not to be
blamed so much for this, because, if they cannot be allowed to exaggerate and ridicule, their
boasted reform becomes a very tame affair.
When we obtained a copy of " The Sub



MISCELLANEOUS.           253
jection of Women," we expected to find Mill
free from those extravagant statements which
others had made; but we were disappointed.
Exaggeration is a mild term to apply to some
things which he says. In one part of the book
he argues that no one has a right to any thing
more than conjectures on this question; yet, in
other places, he himself makes positive statements, and then  reasons from  them.   He
seems to have a natural inclination to be candid,
as he admits some facts which do not assist him;
yet, when he is in a place where he needs proof,
he does not hesitate to assume propositions
which are directly contradictory to what he
has already written. On pp. 136-139, he argues
that the duties of women are already so
numerous that they can have no time to compete with men in preparing works on philosophy, science, &c.; yet he does not conjecture, but
states positively, on p. 153, that the proposed
widening of woman's sphere would have the
effect of " doubling the mass of mental faculties
available for the higher service of humanity."
We have already noticed a similar case. He
writes much that is good and true, but most of
the statements of this kind give little or no
support to his theory. He assumes many things
that he ought to prove, and often seems deter



254           ECCE FEAMINA.
mined to carry his point at all hazards. If he
should write a book on " The Subjection of
Men," and use the same ingenuity, and assume
as many things, he would certainly give us a
very plausible production. Of course he would
assume that men are in a state of subjection to
women. Let us see how it would read.
" It does not avail any thing that men declare
that they prefer their present position. A great
part of what men say is mere sycophancy to
women. They desire to be highly esteemed by
the other sex. Men have thus far given but
little testimony, and that little mostly suborned.
What unmarried men say about women is not
their real opinion; but they talk merely for
the sake of increasing their chances of marriage.
When a merchant labors hard to earn his thousands, in order that his wife may wear costly
jewels and have a splendid wardrobe, it must
not be supposed that he would submit to this
slavish life if he were allowed a fair chance to
express his real views. It must be remembered
that women have better means of keeping their
subjects in submission than any slaveholder
ever had: hence this would outlast all other
forms of slavery. Of course, this counterbalances any presumption in favor of the present
system. Women have such winning ways and




MISCELLANEOUS.           255
power of charming, that they can make men
believe that they are working for themselves,
when, in reality, they are merely the servants
of women.    They flatter men by allowing
them to keep the semblance of power, when the
essence is in their own hands. Men merely act
for women, as the horse does for its owner.
Women have been known to cause men to
frame laws which are more advantageous to
themselves than to men. Of course, they prefer to avoid the tedium of legislation, so long as
men are their obedient servants. Everywhere
we find men the most humble slaves. They
give up their seats to women, and sometimes
risk their lives for their good. Women have
always pretended that men were not naturally
adapted to fill the places which they (women)
occupy; but there is no telling what one person
or many can do, but by trying. No one knows,
or can know, how great an influence circumstances have in modifying character. The only
method of deciding this question is to place man
in woman's position for two hundred years, and
then experience will teach us the natural position of both sexes. Literary men are becoming
more free and outspoken, and a few have had
the courage to demand freedom.     No one
knows how many more cherish silently similar




256           ECCE FEMINA.
aspirations; nor can the real opinions of a majority of men be known, so long as women, who
are their instructors, strenuously teach them
that any lack of reverence or homage to woman
is contrary to the proprieties of their sex. Men
will get their eyes open, doubtless, some time;
but we must not become discouraged, as it must
be remembered that no enslaved class ever
asked for complete liberty at once. Men have
thus far been made to believe it their duty to
support the women; but some have dared already to defy public opinion: and, as the spirit
of the age seems to indicate that no one is under
any obligation to those around him, we feel
sure that this reform must ultimately prevail.
If marriage continues, it must be conducted on
terms of perfect equality. Husband and wife
can perform the housework, and then go forth
and labor together. Of course, the children
will have a right to take care of themselves."
We do not profess to have as much ingenuity
as John Stuart Mill; hence the reader can readily detect fallacies in the foregoing, particularly
as it appears in a condensed form. If Mill
would take these ideas and expand them into a
book, and be careful to conceal fallacies, he
would doubtless make the emancipation of man
appear as just and reasonable as that of woman.




MISCELLANEOUS.           257
The fault of the Innovators is not so much
that they have made statements that were not
wholly or partially true, as that they have practised the wickedest kind of falsehood; viz.,
stating only a half or a fourth of the whole
truth, and discarding the rest. We can take a
partial view of society, and make it appear that
man is a slave to woman, and not make a statement which is absolutely false. In reality, man
is, in some respects, the servant of woman,
while, in others, woman is the servant of man.
In one sphere, man is king, and woman subordinate; in another, woman is queen, and man subordinate.
Perhaps some may think that a few of our
remarks have been too strong. We can only
say that it has been our intention to be severe as
truth; and, if we have not been able to stop here,
we shall probably be obliged to take the consequences of our folly.  The Innovators have
such a variety of character, that it is a difficult
matter to do them all justice. Their speeches
and writings can be found at almost any point
between candor and madness, so that some may
think that we have laid too much stress on certain matters, and not enough on others. There
is chance for a wide difference of opinion in regard to this.
17




258           ECCE FEMINA.
We have faith enough to believe that this
agitation will do good; but we think that it will
be in the same way that infidelity benefits
Christianity.'Believers are obliged to examine
more thoroughly the grounds of their faith, and
by this means they are led to a better appreciation of the truth. The blessings of the family
relation will probably be more fully recognized
after the existence of this institution has been
threatened and endangered. The people will
then understand more clearly the fundamental
principles on which society and government are
and should be based: hence they will know better how to remove some evils and prevent others. We trust that the family will be restored
to its unity and integrity in all respects, and
preserved to bless and sanctify coming generations.