In 1885, Catt (Carrie Lane) resigned from her position as superintendent of schools in Mason City, Iowa, and married Leo Chapman, editor of the Mason City Republican, a weekly newspaper. She became co-editor of the newspaper and started the column “Woman's World,” which she wrote would be “devoted to the discussion of such questions as purport to the welfare, the social, political and intellectual position of women.”
The next objection most frequently urged is “that were the privilege of suffrage granted to women, the moral effect is greatly to be dreaded, since the low, female characters of the cities would be led to the polls by their companions to cast a ballot for a furtherance of iniquity and depravity while intelligent, respectable, moral women would remain at home. The result would, therefore, be a greater moral degradation in politics, instead of a purification.”
Let us carefully examine this objection. Prison statistics show that in Iowa only one one-hundred-and-thirty-second criminal is a woman; in Illinois, including the city of Chicago, one sixty-sixth; in New York, including the city of Chicago [New York City?], one-fifth; in Massachusetts where the women largely out-number the men, only one-fifth. Further 9-10 of the liquor and nearly all the tobacco consumed in this country, are used by men. In the face of these facts, it is plain, that the number of moral women very largely outnumbers the immoral women; and that the number of victims, disreputable women in greatly out-numbered by vicious, disreputable men. Then, first should we suppose a vote of all men and women to be taken, not only would the vote of immoral women be balanced by the vote of moral women, but it would off-set the vote of immoral men. But, the opposer says all women would not vote. True, to accomplish good, it would not be necessary. Were only one-fifth of all moral women to vote, it would be a sufficient number to balance the vote of bad women and would do much toward off-setting the vote of bad men. Second, it is an injustice, to say that large numbers of debauchees can formulate laws to which intelligent, respectable women must submit.
Further, if woman’s suffrage would have a bad effect, evidences of it should be found where it has been tried. In Washington Territory 12,000 women voted last year and no evidence las yet come to light that there were any bad results. On the contrary, we have the testimony of the Governor, Chief-Justice, a majority of the legislature and the platforms of both political parties that the effect was highly salutary. In Wyoming, women have voted for sixteen years and the opponents of suffrage have been challenged to name two persons in the whole Territory, who assert that there has been any bad results. In Utah the women have done quite as well as the men, simply voting the Morman ticket. In England, where for fifteen years, single women and widows have had free municipal suffrage, the result has been so satisfactory that Parliament has voted to extend it to the women of Scotland and within a year it has been extended also to the women of Ontario and Nova Scotia.
Not only has woman’s suffrage been accompanied by no evil, but to preserve the moral status of society, woman’s vote is needed.
Yearly, thousands of emigrants come to us without property, without education, without judgement. Soon they posses the privilege of suffrage. They vote taxes, which the disenfranchised American women of property must pay; they vote to sustain gambling dens, and the disenfranchised mother must see her boys enticed to ruin; they vote for “free whiskey” and the disenfranchised wife must bear the cruelties of a drunken husband; they vote cigar-giving, beer-treating men into office and the disenfranchised teacher sees all her precepts set at naught by the elevation of such characters into positions of prominence; they vote to sustain Sunday amusements and the disenfranchised Sunday School worker finds herself powerless to reach the class most in need of her influence; they vote for the retention of the dance-houses, so popular in cities, and the disenfranchised moralist sees her sisters enticed from honest livelihoods into lives of immorality and vice; and so on ad infinitum. It is impossible for an intelligent man or woman who will honestly consider the conditions fairly, to believe in the immoral effect of woman’s suffrage.
**
The Christian Woman’s exchange, of New Orleans, made a superb showing during the past year. They took in over $46,000 and while the most of this large sum went to real working women, the Exchange has $4,000 in a bank. From the day its doors opened it has done a paying, legitimate business. It has never had a single benefit or any method of getting money except over its counters.—Woman’s Work.
**
The population of Paraguay is about 300,000; and what is strange about it is that there are only about 30,000 men and 270,000 women. Of course the females are the farmers, producers, and laborers. They work slavishly and are very poor. While the men sit at home and drink and smoke, they indefatigably toil and support the families.—Woman’s Work.
**
The Woman’s Journal contains the following:
An old Pennsylvania Dutchman, now gathered to his forefathers, invariably summed up his opinions of womankind in these three words: “Women are fools.” Wishing to investigate the subject, I have stumbled hap-hazard on the following instances.
Isabella, of Spain, comprehended and sympathized with the plans of Columbus, and aided him to accomplish his discoveries: therefore “Women are fools. They cannot grasp great theories.”
Caroline Herschol performed drudgeries of calculation to help her brother and also made independent discoveries; hence: “Women are fools. They cannot have a truly scientific bias.”
Lucretia Mott preached the gospel of “liberty of the individual”—bodily, mental and spiritual—to the last hour of her grandly courageous life; ergo: “Women are fools. They are bound by priestcraft and superstition.”
Fanny Medelssohn composed many of the works attributed to her brother Felix; so: “Woman are fools. They cannot grasp great musical principles.” (In this case I think Fanny was a fool not to take the credit due her.)
Mrs. Stowe did more by her pen than any ten men by their speeches to abolish African slavery in this country, which proves that “Woman are fools. They are not capable of judgement on great questions.”
Charlotte Bronte wrote an immortal novel, while toiling in the gloomy kitchen at Haworth; hence: “Women are fools. They can only think of one thing at a time.”
Mrs. Roebling, during her husband’s illness, carried on the stupendous calculations without which the Brooklyn Bridge could not have been built. Evidently “Women are fools. They have no head for the higher mathematics.”
Anna E. Carroll planned a vast campaign, during the Civil War, which threw victories into the hands of our Northern generals and virtually saved the Union; hence: “Women are fools. They have no military genius.”
Mary A. Livermore, in the late war did priceless work at the head of the Sanitary Commission, thus showing that “Women are fools. They have no executive talent.”
Mrs. Frank Leslie paid off a $50,000 debt in less than six months after assuming control of the great publishing business left by her husband; which makes it plain that “Women are fools. They have not financial ability.”
The elder Mrs. Button, wife of the senior partner of the Germantown woolen mills, invented an improvement to a machine after her husband and others had given up in despair; showing conclusively that “Women are fools. Thank have no mechanical turn.”
According to one William Shakespeare (though this may be a myth), a lady named Portia, in a learned doctor’s wig and gown, once confounded the elders, and solved a knotty legal problem, with which the Venetian masculine wits had vainly grappled; therefore: “Woman are fools. They are incapable of viewing any case in its legal aspect.”
Chapman, Carrie Lane. 1885. “Woman’s World.” Mason City Republican, July 23.
PDF version, courtesy of Mason City Public Library
Neither the Catt Center nor Iowa State University is affiliated with any individual in the Archives or any political party. Inclusion in the Archives is not an endorsement by the center or the university.