Female Suffrage | Page 4

I do),
should be prepared to examine and answer Susan Fenimore Cooper's
arguments to the contrary. Many of those arguments are still heard
daily in the press and on TV talk shows--not indeed to end women's
right to vote, but as arguments against further steps towards gender
equality. Unlike many modern commentators, Susan Fenimore Cooper
examines these arguments in detail, both as to their roots and their
possible effects, rather than expressing them as simplistic sound-bites.
She asks her readers to examine whether gender equality is compatible
with Christian teachings; whether universal suffrage can ever resolve
social problems; whether the "political" sphere is as significant to
human life as politicians believe. One need not agree with her answers,
but one can only be grateful that she forces us to ask questions.
{Hugh C. MacDougall, Secretary, James Fenimore Cooper Society--
August 1999}

FEMALE SUFFRAGE. A LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN WOMEN
OF AMERICA.

Part I.

{Publisher's Note} [NOTE.--We have printed this Letter, which will be
continued in our next Number, not as an expression of our own views,
but simply as the plea of an earnest and thoughtful Christian woman
addressed to her fellow-countrywomen.--EDITOR OF HARPER.]

The natural position of woman is clearly, to a limited degree, a
subordinate one. Such it has always been throughout the world, in all
ages, and in many widely different conditions of society. There are
three conclusive reasons why we should expect it to continue so for the
future.
FIRST. Woman in natural physical strength is so greatly inferior to
man that she is entirely in his power, quite incapable of self- defense,
trusting to his generosity for protection. In savage life this great
superiority of physical strength makes man the absolute master, woman
the abject slave. And, although every successive step in civilisation
lessens the distance between the sexes, and renders the situation of
woman safer and easier, still, in no state of society, however highly
cultivated, has perfect equality yet existed. This difference in physical
strength must, in itself, always prevent such perfect equality, since
woman is compelled every day of her life to appeal to man for
protection, and for support.
SECONDLY. Woman is also, though in a very much less degree,
inferior to man in intellect. The difference in this particular may very
probably be only a consequence of greater physical strength, giving
greater power of endurance and increase of force to the intellectual
faculty connected with it. In many cases, as between the best individual
minds of both sexes, the difference is no doubt very slight. There have
been women of a very high order of genius; there have been very many
women of great talent; and, as regards what is commonly called
cleverness, a general quickness and clearness of mind within limited
bounds, the number of clever women may possibly have been even
larger than that of clever men. But, taking the one infallible rule for our
guide, judging of the tree by its fruits, we are met by the fact that the
greatest achievements of the race in every field of intellectual culture
have been the work of man. It is true that the advantages of intellectual
education have been, until recently, very generally on the side of man;
had those advantages been always equal, women would no doubt have
had much more of success to record. But this same fact of inferiority of
education becomes in itself one proof of the existence of a certain
degree of mental inequality. What has been the cause of this inferiority
of education? Why has not woman educated herself in past ages, as
man has done? Is it the opposition of man, and the power which

physical strength gives him, which have been the impediments? Had
these been the only obstacles, and had that general and entire equality
of intellect existed between the sexes, which we find proclaimed to-day
by some writers, and by many talkers, the genius of women would have
opened a road through these and all other difficulties much more
frequently than it has yet done. At this very hour, instead of defending
the intellect of women, just half our writing and talking would be
required to defend the intellect of men. But, so long as woman, as a sex,
has not provided for herself the same advanced intellectual education to
the same extent as men, and so long as inferiority of intellect in man
has never yet in thousands of years been gravely discussed, while the
inferiority of intellect in woman has been during the same period
generally admitted, we are compelled to believe there is some
foundation for this last opinion. The extent of this difference, the
interval that exists between the sexes, the precise degree of inferiority
on the part of women, will probably never be