ARE WOMEN CIVILISED?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 5802, 20 January 1906, Page 9

ARE WOMEN CIVILISED?

A further batch of correspondence upon this apparently inexJmubtibh* topic publi>luxl in this jsf>ue. Jhe ocnxuspondcuoo is headed, this morning by an epigram by “ Bhacops’*’ - Are women civilised or no? 1 join the open ayes. Composed of mingltxl men and wofe), They To full of civil-lies !*’ SOME DEFINITIONS. (To the Editor "S.'S*. Times. ) Sir, —Without apologetic prelude permit mo to call attention to the use ol words in mooning. In your columns it is asked “Are Women t. mlued.- So one ims attempted to define the word, and just for the reason Hint it is a general idea only could tlie question he According to dictionary deliniiion civilisation in its most general idea, is an improved condition oi man ioluM mg troni Un> establishment of social order in place ol the individual imle|»ndence ami lawof the savage or hurhaious lite;, it is susceptible of continual progress. It signifies the multiplication ot the means of culture and enjoyment ,of .progr«s and achievement—the lifting up of men morally ami socially. \our cor- 1 rosjwndcnis have compared women with men with advantage or disadvantage according to point ol view. But men and civilisation arc not necessarily synonymous. Presumably the question is asked in rcfoirncc to Anglo-Saxon women, for one might infer me Australian black' was under discutssion by correspondents., A simple denial then that women arc civilised should uuiiicc to establish an absurdity, and to provivthat women are included* in the terms of the definition given above, that is. are civilised. This is not the place io analyse the proportion of truth or error in any general statement except to point out that general statements are at best but partical truths, hence the possibility of contradictory opinions. However. “Umar” lias raised issues more profitable to discuss, ilis point, as he nuts it. is that women lack the characteristics whim are most mnlrd for ilie business ot government. - Hut while “Umar" describes woman's special qualities ho omits to state what the characteristics most needed for the business of Government arc. taiggostiug only that because of physical ami mental differrnctv, and became hitherto women have taken no part in Gpvcrnmcnt, they ai*o unfitted to do so. He stales «bo the functions of each sex are separate, but fails to explain satisfactorily why for that reason men alone should control the destinies of women. Indeed, it is just ; because their functions are separate that woman is the pro]>cr guardian of her own , Hex. Neither has “Omar" shown that political administration is incompatible with women's characteristics; nor that man ie specially endowed for any other than aggressive or tyrannical government; and once more in the old, old way, conjectures are given for reasons, and rerve to alarm some (logical?) men. In the flood of miscellaneous outpourings by correspondents the bodily superiority of woman has been obscured; likewise her ]>otcntial abilifien in intellectual, mechanical, unci originative* progress. When was woman’s unfitness to control her destinies proved? Do prudent men allow* trivialities to frighten them? Or nro such men less prudent than thoughtless and M’lfish? iiovr mr.r!) longer is the superstition of woman':; unfitness 1:> be promulgated? Has she not the .an;e right io demand that men should be considerate and worthy the sacrifices liny must make through 1 heir affection that man demands from woman? I must a; Ivin conclusion “Are ilen Civilised?" l« it not man who is the barbarian, the porscsssor of primitive instincts. Js it not he w’ho appears much lc.-a susceptible of continual progress than woman? And is he as concerned as woman for the lifting up of men morally and socially?— I am,etc., APOLLO. January 16th. HOW ELECTIONS AHE DECIDED. (To the Editor “N.Z. Times.’*) .Sir, Vou nro giving ns a great treat in allowing ns to di-ciu-s co freely a very intricate subject. “Umar's" letters are scholarly, the result of much observation and deep thought, Most of hid opponents arc mistaking vulgar abuse for argument. There is only one point on which X do not quite agree w ith “Omar," when ho doubts if women arc fit to exercise the franchise intelligently. A.*c most men fit? Could there be anything more pitiful than an election in a democratic community? Is not the multitude always deceived by catch phrofles and promises? Docs hot “the gift of the gab” exercise a more powerful influence than intellect? Elections am not decided by principles, but by interests. Roads and bridges, billots and contracts, compose the machine which arivos the show. Borrowed money id the flv-whcel. Hero you have, say, John .Smith, who can only talk shop, football, und horses. You would not wcustc two minutes to talk to him. But multiply John Smith with *o many thousand:*, ami yoti get the Voice of* the People. Trust the people, and “give them what (hey ask for/' this is called Statesman-«>hlp—-the old Komnn “bread and circuses" policy. Giving the franchise to women was simply mollifying ignorance by two. Opr lenders «re politician*. not statesmen, timeservers and waiter;* on providence.—l am, etc., •G.B. January 17th.

\VO_MAN‘S INELLENce. - (To the Editor "N.Z. Tinier.”) Sir,—'When “OmarV* able letter appeared in your columns 1 read ir through carefully, am! thought, and htill tliink, that it contained much that wan true, notwithstanding the bombardment that it has received at the bond* cf certain correspondents, which was to be expected. Sonic of the v,-riters are very superficial. thu« one lady writer snyj* all great men had uncommon mothers, while in reality the mo*t of o'ir greatest men sprang from the humblest narenfatr#*, mediocre, in fact, and not a whit different from that surrounding them, and how is it that when Shakespeare ami all the wonderful men of hi* time lived and education was not nearly .so common as now. and when, alas, there no female franchise movement, with ■ train of far-*eeing pncste**uv» to euid#* them, they should have thriven. well and shone with isuch uncommon lustre? Strange, passing strange: One ladv speaks of how much great men owed to their wives, etc., but she does not tell us of the cases where the reverse was the case; that, for instance, in the ease of the mother of Lord Hvrcn. *Un that of the inventor Waft, poor blind old Milton, etc. 'Hiose. and numerous others, show up whnr woman's influence ca-n sometime* be. I would eat. in courinsion. better the harsh, taouga wholesome criticism of

“Omar” than the ridiculout; and fulsome flatteries of Mich as ;.cur correspondent* “One Who Knows.“—l am. etc.. GLEANER. Ma&tvrton, January I7lh. ADVICE TO WIVES. <To the Editor “N.Z. Timet*.") Sir,—Some of your readers assert limb you have intn*lmvd this subject to tide over what is termed in io urn a list jo parlance. ihe silly f-Mivui. Thai is now my opinion. Your columns are too valuable, and the matter too important to be wasted in frivolous diseustdon as many of your eone-pondents ap|N'-tr to treat it. An old man. f have had a life-lung experience of woman in domestic life, in I mid lie m* as an employer, and iu politico, and 1 give place to ho man in my love and admiration for their many womanly qualities, but that does not blind me to their thus of omixdun and eoniiniwion. which, in my opinion and experience, have largely increas-eil since they havu received the doubtful privilege of the franchise. Many of them have become even moie impatient of motherhood ami domestic duties, or, us they term it. domestic drudgery, and will take any riek, even to the extent of ruining their constitution lor life, or take any employment. however profitless, to avoid those responsibilities. It women were to dcvc?r*jnore of their time and thought* to their children and households generally, and le*> to selfish pleasure ami politics, there would be happier homes and healthier children, and there would b« no necess-itv for the Government compiling pamphlets instructing the modern woman how to feed and rear her offspring, and tv* many husbands would not seek peace and pleasure outside their own lini'idos. i consider it nothing eshort of a disgrace to woman in these days ot advanced education that it should be considered necessary to inr;tmet them in tmeh mutters ns above. Much of the drinking by men at public* houses is in consequence of ill-managed ami comfortless homes. Not one young woman in six when she marries can boil a potato properly, and not one in twenty can iron a shirt.* Ih it not more docdnibl* lor women to know thorto and other simple neeeswiries of domestic life rather than to Tie Tiowliug and screeching at political meetings and making exhibitions of themselves generally as I saw hundreds of women doing during tli» recent elections? 1 am Marry to say the* majority of wo men of the present day appear to regard a husband simply ns someone to‘work Tsr tiiem. to pay their millinery bill*? and to keep them in luxury and indolence—not a vrfe according to nature’s laws, not a true help-mate in the non so and for Mto purpose she. was. created. How often do we find women of what is leyled the better class, mothers and daughter* parading the streets, trailing their silks and satins through the mud, mul showing off their fipery. while the old father, with bent back. is toiling from day tfl dnv to find means Vo meet their extravagance. and those daughters think this no shame, but consider it a disgrac* to their class to work for their own bread, an? look* down upon (hose of their sex who have to toil. Why does f. man take the responsibility and liability of another imiu’fi daughter upon iiff shoulders, not to cook Ins food and mend hi.s socks, for in niuo cases out of ton lie could get that done much better as t batchelor, and at a third of tho cost. No. he marries, expecting a truo helpmate and companion according to GodV and nature's laws. Lot tho using genera lion of woman look to it and mend som« of their ways, otherwise they will as surcdlv sullcr in tho future.—i am, elc„ A 'I’IITIE IiUVEK OF WOMAN, January ICth,