WE BOAST of the age of advancement, of science, and progress.  Is it not strange, then, that we still believe in fetich worship? True,  our fetiches have different form and substance, yet in their power over  the human mind they are still as disastrous as were those of old.

Our modern fetich is universal suffrage. Those who have not yet  achieved that goal fight bloody revolutions to obtain it, and those who  have enjoyed its reign bring heavy sacrifice to the altar of this  omnipotent diety. Woe to the heretic who dare question that divinity!

Woman, even more than man, is a fetich worshipper, and though  her idols may change, she is ever on her knees, ever holding up her  hands, ever blind to the fact that her god has feet of clay. Thus woman  has been the greatest supporter of all deities from time immemorial.  Thus, too, she has had to pay the price that only gods can exact,--her  freedom, her heart's blood, her very life.

Nietzsche's memorable maxim, "When you go to woman, take the  whip along," is considered very brutal, yet Nietzsche expressed in one  sentence the attitude of woman towards her gods.

Religion, especially the Christian religion, has condemned  woman to the life of an inferior, a slave. It has thwarted her nature  and fettered her soul, yet the Christian religion has no greater  supporter, none more devout, than woman. Indeed, it is safe to say that  religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the  people, if it were not for the support it receives from woman. The most  ardent churchworkers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are  women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained  her spirit and enslaved her body.

The insatiable monster, war, robs woman of all that is dear and  precious to her. It exacts her brothers, lovers, sons, and in return  gives her a life of loneliness and despair. Yet the greatest supporter  and worshiper of war is woman. She it is who instills the love of  conquest and power into her children; she it is who whispers the glories  of war into the ears of her little ones, and who rocks her baby to  sleep with the tunes of trumpets and the noise of guns. It is woman,  too, who crowns the victor on his return from the battlefield. Yes, it  is woman who pays the highest price to that insatiable monster, war.

Then there is the home. What a terrible fetich it is! How it  saps the very life-energy of woman,--this modern prison with golden  bars. Its shining aspect blinds woman to the price she would have to pay  as wife, mother, and housekeeper. Yet woman clings tenaciously to the  home, to the power that holds her in bondage.

It may be said that because woman recognizes the awful toll she  is made to pay to the Church, State, and the home, she wants suffrage  to set herself free. That may be true of the few; the majority of  suffragists repudiate utterly such blasphemy. On the contrary, they  insist always that it is woman suffrage which will make her a better  Christian and home keeper, a staunch citizen of the State. Thus suffrage  is only a means of strengthening the omnipotence of the very Gods that  woman has served from time immemorial.

What wonder, then, that she should be just as devout, just as  zealous, just as prostrate before the new idol, woman suffrage. As of  old, she endures persecution, imprisonment, torture, and all forms of  condemnation, with a smile on her face. As of old, the most enlightened,  even, hope for a miracle from the twentieth-century deity,--suffrage.  Life, happiness, joy, freedom, independence,--all that, and more, is to  spring from suffrage. In her blind devotion woman does not see what  people of intellect perceived fifty years ago: that suffrage is an evil,  that it has only helped to enslave people, that it has but closed their  eyes that they may not see how craftily they were made to submit.

Woman's demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the  contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of  society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right.  Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an  imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of  people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet  woman clamors for that "golden opportunity" that has wrought so much  misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance;  an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them  absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.

The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free  to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal  suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The  reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of  boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be  robbed of the fruits of his labor. Yet all these disastrous results of  the twentieth-century fetich have taught woman nothing. But, then, woman  will purify politics, we are assured.

Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the  conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical,  psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal  right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd  notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she  would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better.  To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something  which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with  supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she  was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in  being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore  subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that  two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already  inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the  political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a  folly.

As a matter of fact, the most advanced students of universal  suffrage have come to realize that all existing systems of political  power are absurd, and are completely inadequate to meet the pressing  issues of life. This view is also borne out by a statement of one who is  herself an ardent believer in woman suffrage, Dr. Helen L. Sumner. In  her able work on Equal Suffrage, she says: "In Colorado, we find  that equal suffrage serves to show in the most striking way the  essential rottenness and degrading character of the existing system." Of  course, Dr. Sumner has in mind a particular system of voting, but the  same applies with equal force to the entire machinery of the  representative system. With such a basis, it is difficult to understand  how woman, as a political factor, would benefit either herself or the  rest of mankind.

But, say our suffrage devotees, look at the countries and  States where female suffrage exists. See what woman has accomplished--in  Australia, New Zealand, Finland, the Scandinavian countries, and in our  own four States, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Distance lends  enchantment--or, to quote a Polish formula--"it is well where we are  not." Thus one would assume that those countries and States are unlike  other countries or States, that they have greater freedom, greater  social and economic equality, a finer appreciation of human life, deeper  understanding of the great social struggle, with all the vital  questions it involves for the human race.

The women of Australia and New Zealand can vote, and help make  the laws. Are the labor conditions better there than they are in  England, where the suffragettes are making such a heroic struggle? Does  there exist a greater motherhood, happier and freer children than in  England? Is woman there no longer considered a mere sex commodity? Has  she emancipated herself from the Puritanical double standard of morality  for men and women? Certainly none but the ordinary female stump  politician will dare answer these questions in the affirmative. If that  be so, it seems ridiculous to point to Australia and New Zealand as the  Mecca of equal suffrage accomplishments.

On the other hand, it is a fact to those who know the real  political conditions in Australia, that politics have gagged labor by  enacting the most stringent labor laws, making strikes without the  sanction of an arbitration committee a crime equal to treason.

Not for a moment do I mean to imply that woman suffrage is  responsible for this state of affairs. I do mean, however, that there is  no reason to point to Australia as a wonder-worker of woman's  accomplishment, since her influence has been unable to free labor from  the thraldom of political bossism.

Finland has given woman equal suffrage; nay, even the right to  sit in Parliament. Has that helped to develop a greater heroism, an  intenser zeal than that of the women of Russia? Finland, like Russia,  smarts under the terrible whip of the bloody Tsar. Where are the Finnish  Perovskaias, Spiridonovas, Figners, Breshkovskaias? Where are the  countless numbers of Finnish young girls who cheerfully go to Siberia  for their cause? Finland is sadly in need of heroic liberators. Why has  the ballot not created them? The only Finnish avenger of his people was a  man, not a woman, and he used a more effective weapon than the ballot.

As to our own States where women vote, and which are constantly  being pointed out as examples of marvels, what has been accomplished  there through the ballot that women do not to a large extent enjoy in  other States; or that they could not achieve through energetic efforts  without the ballot?

True, in the suffrage States women are guaranteed equal rights  to property; but of what avail is that right to the mass of women  without property, the thousands of wage workers, who live from hand to  mouth? That equal suffrage did not, and cannot, affect their condition  is admitted even by Dr. Sumner, who certainly is in a position to know.  As an ardent suffragist, and having been sent to Colorado by the  Collegiate Equal Suffrage League of New York State to collect material  in favor of suffrage, she would be the last to say anything derogatory;  yet we are informed that "equal suffrage has but slightly affected the  economic conditions of women. That women do not receive equal pay for  equal work, and that, though woman in Colorado has enjoyed school  suffrage since 1876, women teachers are paid less than in California."  On the other hand, Miss Sumner fails to account for the fact that  although women have had school suffrage for thirty-four years, and equal  suffrage since 1894, the census in Denver alone a few months ago  disclosed the fact of fifteen thousand defective school children. And  that, too, with mostly women in the educational department, and also  notwithstanding that women in Colorado have passed the "most stringent  laws for child and animal protection." The women of Colorado "have taken  great interest in the State institutions for the care of dependent,  defective, and delinquent children." What a horrible indictment against  woman's care and interest, if one city has fifteen thousand defective  children. What about the glory of woman suffrage, since it has failed  utterly in the most important social issue, the child? And where is the  superior sense of justice that woman was to bring into the political  field? Where was it in 1903, when the mine owners waged a guerilla war  against the Western Miners' Union; when General Bell established a reign  of terror, pulling men out of bed at night, kidnapping them across the  border line, throwing them into bull pens, declaring "to hell with the  Constitution, the club is the Constitution"? Where were the women  politicians then, and why did they not exercise the power of their vote?  But they did. They helped to defeat the most fair-minded and liberal  man, Governor Waite. The latter had to make way for the tool of the mine  kings, Governor Peabody, the enemy of labor, the Tsar of Colorado.  "Certainly male suffrage could have done nothing worse." Granted.  Wherein, then, are the advantages to woman and society from woman  suffrage? The oft-repeated assertion that woman will purify politics is  also but a myth. It is not borne out by the people who know the  political conditions of Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

Woman, essentially a purist, is naturally bigoted and  relentless in her effort to make others as good as she thinks they ought  to be. Thus, in Idaho, she has disfranchised her sister of the street,  and declared all women of "lewd character" unfit to vote. "Lewd" not  being interpreted, of course, as prostitution in marriage. It  goes without saying that illegal prostitution and gambling have been  prohibited. In this regard the law must needs be of feminine gender: it  always prohibits. Therein all laws are wonderful. They go no further,  but their very tendencies open all the floodgates of hell. Prostitution  and gambling have never done a more flourishing business than since the  law has been set against them.

In Colorado, the Puritanism of woman has expressed itself in a  more drastic form. "Men of notoriously unclean lives, and men connected  with saloons, have been dropped from politics since women have the  vote."1 Could Brother Comstock do more?  Could all the Puritan fathers have  done more? I wonder how many women realize the gravity of this would-be  feat. I wonder if they understand that it is the very thing which,  instead of elevating woman, has made her a political spy, a contemptible  pry into the private affairs of people, not so much for the good of the  cause, but because, as a Colorado woman said, "they like to get into  houses they have never been in, and find out all they can, politically  and otherwise."2 Yes, and into the human soul and its minutest nooks and corners. For  nothing satisfies the craving of most women so much as scandal. And when  did she ever enjoy such opportunities as are hers, the politician's?

"Notoriously unclean lives, and men connected with the  saloons." Certainly, the lady vote gatherers can not be accused of much  sense of proportion. Granting even that these busybodies can decide  whose lives are clean enough for that eminently clean atmosphere,  politics, must it follow that saloon-keepers belong to the same  category? Unless it be American hypocrisy and bigotry, so manifest in  the principle of Prohibition, which sanctions the spread of drunkenness  among men and women of the rich class, yet keeps vigilant watch on the  only place left to the poor man. If no other reason, woman's narrow and  purist attitude toward life makes her a greater danger to liberty  wherever she has political power. Man has long overcome the  superstitions that still engulf woman. In the economic competitive  field,  man has been compelled to exercise efficiency, judgment,  ability, competency. He therefore had neither time nor inclination to  measure everyone's morality with a Puritanic yardstick. In his political  activities, too, he has not gone about blindfolded. He knows that  quantity and not quality is the material for the political grinding  mill, and, unless he is a sentimental reformer or an old fossil, he  knows that politics can never be anything but a swamp.

Women who are at all conversant with the process of politics,  know the nature of the beast, but in their self-sufficiency and egotism  they make themselves believe that they have but to pet the beast, and he  will become as gentle as a lamb, sweet and pure. As if women have not  sold their votes, as if women politicians cannot be bought! If her body  can be bought in return for material consideration, why not her vote?  That it is being done in Colorado and in other States, is not denied  even by those in favor of woman suffrage.

As I have said before, woman's narrow view of human affairs is  not the only argument against her as a politician superior to man. There  are others. Her life-long economic parasitism has utterly blurred her  conception of the meaning of equality. She clamors for equal rights with  man, yet we learn that "few women care to canvas in undesirable  districts."3 How little equality means to them compared with the Russian women, who face hell itself for their ideal!

Woman demands the same rights as man, yet she is indignant that  her presence does not strike him dead: he smokes, keeps his hat on, and  does not jump from his seat like a flunkey. These may be trivial  things, but they are nevertheless the key to the nature of American  suffragists. To be sure, their English sisters have outgrown these silly  notions. They have shown themselves equal to the greatest demands on  their character and power of endurance. All honor to the heroism and  sturdiness of the English suffragettes. Thanks to their energetic,  aggressive methods, they have proved an inspiration to some of our own  lifeless and spineless ladies. But after all, the suffragettes, too, are  still lacking in appreciation of real equality. Else how is one to  account for the tremendous, truly gigantic effort set in motion by those  valiant fighters for a wretched little bill which will benefit a  handful of propertied ladies, with absolutely no provision for the vast  mass of working women? True, as politicians they must be opportunists,  must take half-measures if they can not get all. But as intelligent and  liberal women they ought to realize that if the ballot is a weapon, the  disinherited need it more than the economically superior class, and that  the latter already enjoy too much power by virtue of their economic  superiority.

The brilliant leader of the English suffragettes, Mrs. Emmeline  Pankhurst, herself admitted, when on her American lecture tour, that  there can be no equality between political superiors and inferiors. If  so, how will the workingwomen of England, already inferior economically  to the ladies who are benefited by the Shackleton bill,4 be able to work with their political superiors, should the bill pass?  Is it not probable that the class of Annie Keeney, so full of zeal,  devotion, and martyrdom, will be compelled to carry on their backs their  female political bosses, even as they are carrying their economic  masters. They would still have to do it, were universal suffrage for men  and women established in England. No matter what the workers do, they  are made to pay, always. Still, those who believe in the power of the  vote show little sense of justice when they concern themselves not at  all with those whom, as they claim, it might serve most.

The American suffrage movement has been, until very recently,  altogether a parlor affair, absolutely detached from the economic needs  of the people. Thus Susan B. Anthony, no doubt an exceptional type of  woman, was not only indifferent but antagonistic to labor; nor did she  hesitate to manifest her antagonism when, in 1869, she advised women to  take the places of striking printers in New York.5 I do not know whether her attitude had changed before her death.

There are, of course, some suffragists who are affiliated with  workingwomen--the Women's Trade Union League, for instance; but they are  a small minority, and their activities are essentially economic. The  rest look upon toil as a just provision of Providence. What would become  of the rich, if not for the poor? What would become of these idle,  parasitic ladies, who squander more in a week than their victims earn in  a year, if not for the eighty million wage-workers? Equality, who ever  heard of such a thing?

Few countries have produced such arrogance and snobbishness as  America. Particularly is this true of the American woman of the middle  class. She not only considers herself the equal of man, but his  superior, especially in her purity, goodness, and morality. Small wonder  that the American suffragist claims for her vote the most miraculous  powers. In her exalted conceit she does not see how truly enslaved she  is, not so much by man, as by her own silly notions and traditions.  Suffrage can not ameliorate that sad fact; it can only accentuate it, as  indeed it does.

One of the great American women leaders claims that woman is  entitled not only to equal pay, but that she ought to be legally  entitled even to the pay of her husband. Failing to support her, he  should be put in convict stripes, and his earnings in prison be  collected by his equal wife. Does not another brilliant exponent of the  cause claim for woman that her vote will abolish the social evil, which  has been fought in vain by the collective efforts of the most  illustrious minds the world over? It is indeed to be regretted that the  alleged creator of the universe has already presented us with his  wonderful scheme of things, else woman suffrage would surely enable  woman to outdo him completely.

Nothing is so dangerous as the dissection of a fetich. If we  have outlived the time when such heresy was punishable by the stake, we  have not outlived the narrow spirit of condemnation of those who dare  differ with accepted notions. Therefore I shall probably be put down as  an opponent of woman. But that can not deter me from looking the  question squarely in the face. I repeat what I have said in the  beginning: I do not believe that woman will make politics worse; nor can  I believe that she could make it better. If, then, she cannot improve  on man's mistakes, why perpetrate the latter?

History may be a compilation of lies; nevertheless, it contains  a few truths, and they are the only guide we have for the future. The  history of the political activities of men proves that they have given  him absolutely nothing that he could not have achieved in a more direct,  less costly, and more lasting manner. As a matter of fact, every inch  of ground he has gained has been through a constant fight, a ceaseless  struggle for self-assertion, and not through suffrage. There is no  reason whatever to assume that woman, in her climb to emancipation, has  been, or will be, helped by the ballot.

In the darkest of all countries, Russia, with her absolute  despotism, woman has become man's equal, not through the ballot, but by  her will to be and to do. Not only has she conquered for herself every  avenue of learning and vocation, but she has won man's esteem, his  respect, his comradeship; aye, even more than that: she has gained the  admiration, the respect of the whole world. That, too, not through  suffrage, but by her wonderful heroism, her fortitude, her ability,  willpower, and her endurance in her struggle for liberty. Where are the  women in any suffrage country or State that can lay claim to such a  victory? When we consider the accomplishments of woman in America, we  find also that something deeper and more powerful than suffrage has  helped her in the march to emancipation.

It is just sixty-two years ago since a handful of women at the  Seneca Falls Convention set forth a few demands for their right to equal  education with men, and access to the various professions, trades, etc.  What wonderful accomplishments, what wonderful triumphs! Who but the  most ignorant dare speak of woman as a mere domestic drudge? Who dare  suggest that this or that profession should not be open to her? For over  sixty years she has molded a new atmosphere and a new life for herself.  She has become a world-power in every domain of human thought and  activity. And all that without suffrage, without the right to make laws,  without the "privilege" of becoming a judge, a jailer, or an  executioner.

Yes, I may be considered an enemy of woman; but if I can help her see the light, I shall not complain.

The misfortune of woman is not that she is unable to do the  work of a man, but that she is wasting her life-force to outdo him, with  a tradition of centuries which has left her physically incapable of  keeping pace with him. Oh, I know some have succeeded, but at what cost,  at what terrific cost! The import is not the kind of work woman does,  but rather the quality of the work she furnishes. She can give suffrage  or the ballot no new quality, nor can she receive anything from it that  will enhance her own quality. Her development, her freedom, her  independence, must come from and through herself. First, by asserting  herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by  refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear  children, unless she wants them; by refusing to be a servant to God, the  State, society, the husband, the family, etc., by making her life  simpler, but deeper and richer. That is, by trying to learn the meaning  and substance of life in all its complexities, by freeing herself from  the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only that, and not  the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown  in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of  divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women.

Share Tweet Send
You've successfully subscribed to Bangladesh ASF
Great! Next, complete checkout for full access to Bangladesh ASF
Welcome back! You've successfully signed in
Success! Your account is fully activated, you now have access to all content.