WOMAN SUFFRAGE
Some weeks since, Dr. Broughton
preached on "Paul and the Women," and
particularly with reference to votes for
women. I heard the sermon referred to,
and enjoyed its beautiful language, always
chaste and above criticism. Its rheotric (sic.)
was without fault; its rounded periods
were so arranged as to form one splendid
gem of literature. But its logic was very
disappointing to me. I went to hear the sermon for the purpose of getting a good
logical, working reason why women should
not be allowed to vote. The text I. Cor.
11-3, "But I would have you know that
the head of every man is Christ, and that
the head of the woman is the man, and
the head of Christ is God." This may—I
say it: may—refer to domestic relations in
the mind of the writer. I do not pretend
to enter Dr. Broughton's own domain and
interpret the apostle for him, but I wonder why he did not take for his text I.
(Cor. 14, 4-35,'"Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they
are commanded to be under obedience as
also saith the law. And if they will learn
anything, let them ask their husbands at
home, for it is a shame for women to
speak in the church."
This certainly is one step removed from
The home, and the prohibition here is
plain and positive, yet a literal application of this would not be allowed in the
doctor's own church. In I. Cor. 11 immediately following the text, the writer
goes into a detailed uncovered head,—
certainly a non-essential as applied to the
customs of today. In verses eleven and
twelve, he seems to get away from the
petty controversies of that church and de-
clares a broad equality of man and woman, each essential and equal to the other.
In Paul's day, the science of government was but little developed. Democracy
was not known to Paul, though perhaps
the freedom of the individual had been
dreamed of by some of the Grecian and
Roman statesmen. In Paul's day the
man's relation to the government was to
pay his tax and be silent about the administration of public affairs. He nowhere
referred to any participation of his own
in affairs of state. There is no "tally sheet" to show that he ever voted. Since
he took no part in governmental affairs
except to declare that "the powers that
be are ordained of God," we could hardly
presume, though he was inspired, that his
writings could have any relation or bearing upon political matters, except from a
standpoint of general morals. We might
as well say he forbade a high tariff or
the German submarine warfare as to say
he forbade woman suffrage. But it would
seem in harmony with Paul's logic In spir-
itual teaching for him to declare in the
light of present day events that if the
woman is held to be amenable to the law
In its civil and criminal application, she
should have a voice in making that law.
It is as logical that Gideon's request that
the sun stand still until he fought his
battles proves that the sun moves about
the earth as it is to declare that he
text forbade woman suffrage.
The man is amenable to the law. If he J
Is a criminal he will be deprived of his
liberty, possibly of his life.
The woman is amenable to the law in
every way and in every condition in which
the man Is.
The second reason assigned by the
preacher, that women should not vote is a
physiological one. She, not being able to
defend the issues of the ballot by physical
strength; or, in other words, as she can-
not shoulder her musket and march on to
war by the side of her brother, she should
not be allowed to go to the ballot box
with him. If physical strength is made a
condition of suffrage, it would certainly
give the prerogative of full citizenship to
some women and deny it to some men.
Many men of middle and past middle life
could not "defend the issues of the ballot"
with the bullet. Within the last few years,
it is proved beyond, a doubt that our sisters can render most efficient help in time
of war. If woman cannot go to the trenches
with her brother, she can go to the fields
and make bread for her brother and she
can go to the munitions plant and prepare
the deadly missiles to be used in battle
by her brother of stronger build. It is
agreed that the average man has more
avoirdupois than the average woman; that
in a prize fight he could probable "knock
her out of the ring," out it does not
logically follow that on that account he
should have the greater political privileges,
or that she should yield to him her inher-
ent right, if not accustomed right, of voice
in a democratic government. Dr. Broughton
would not admit that might makes right,
but his "physiological" argument must lead
to that. I suppose he would escape that
conclusion by taking refuge in the old claim
of the divine right of man to rule, a
principle common in government in olden
times but rejected by most enlightened
Christian thinkers of today.
His third reason for opposing full citizenship to women was a psychological one.
His illustrations clearly led to the inference that she is emotional rather than
reasonable; that that Indefinable something
called "Intuition" was the mainspring of
her actions rather than a careful consideration of the facts In the matter. I understood him to teach that she was "sudden"
in her decisions, and that these decisions
could not be affected by an array of arguments however strong; that she would cast
her ballot under the power of "sentiment"
without reference to the consequence of her
action- But he gave no instance that such
had actually occurred other than the suffragette demonstrations in London and also
in some American cities, in their effort
to secure what they believed to be their
constitutional political rights. If we admit
that these militant sisters have shown a
high degree of excitability, it must be admitted that many a mob of male members
has committed acts of violence to the extent of destruction of property and the taking of human life in the most brutal manner. If she has gone too far in her disregard of the laws of propriety, he has certainly gone to a greater length in his disregard for law and government. If the
preacher would deny the right to vote to
women because they are emotional, he sure-
ly would deny it to men when in so many
instances they have been ruled by passion.
The psychological argument fails unless he
can show, and it fails until he does show,
that she has not the mental ability to grasp
the affairs of state. It is here admitted
that many women could not give a clear
reason why we should or should not have
a protective tariff, and it must also be
admitted that a large number of men—the
majority if you please who have voted for
years, could not give a clear statement
of their position. If one sex Is denied the
right because she is ruled by sentiment in
some Instances, the other sex should be de-
nied the right because in some instances
he has been ruled by passion.
His fourth reason was that the opposed
woman suffrage because it would be detrimental to the home. In perfect frankness
and sincerity, if I thought it would be
detrimental to the home, I would oppose it,
too, with all my strength. I heartily agree
with the preacher that in the home she is
queen. I would emphasize it as much as
he, and all who heard him remember how
he raised his voice on that statement. His
plea for the sanctity of the home. I think
has never been excelled in beauty or in
power by any writer or speaker of the
English language. It was a most pleasing
expression of the loftiest ideals—ideals that
can be formed only by the pure in heart
after long experience and closest communion with the Most High. As he painted his picture of what the "queen" should
be in the home circle, I suppose every husband and father was filled as I was with
the striking similarity it bore to his own
fireside. That picture is the sweetest
known to any of us. The mother's influence on the little ones can be measured
only by a standard known to the councils
of eternity. That her mission in this world
is to mother a child and to minister in
tenderness commensurate with the delicacy
of his being, to his bodily wants and to
his mental and spiritual growth as well,
