Judge — September 19, 1914 — page 17: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

Curbside Comments By OLEOLA W. HASKELL Roosters and Rights PHILADELPHIA paper suggests that feminists ought to be gratified by the policy of the administration, since a warn- ing bulletin from the Agricultural Depart- ment advises all owners of fowls to destroy roosters between May Ist and December Ist, on the ground that they are useless and consume more than they are worth. Again is brought to the front the idea that women who are advanced would like to destroy the male, to confiscate his rights and duties, to grab his ad- vantages and privileges and elim- inate him in every way from the scene. Of course woman has no “nobility in her makeup and so cannot cherish the thought of sharing with man the good things on this mundane sphere; but really fiendish though she is, wouldn't it be better sport for her to run side by side with man in the political race than to leave him in a corner, limp and gasping after a knockout blow, too far gone to even glare at her enfranchised efforts? On the Job HE National Housewive League has asked its mem- bers through the United States to investigate the prices of food- stuffs in their cities from every angle, and if they rise, to report the matter to the national executive committee. Thus do women sordidly restrain the wily mer- chant from taking advantage of the times to add to his coffers gold lured from the unwary by the plea of dire necessity. Extract from “‘ The Antiquary” A weeily journal edited and published by real ladies and op- pond to female enfranchisement DEAR EDITOR—Bubbling with indig- nation, seething with sorrow and humped horror, I snatch up my pen to ask you this momentous question, Why didn’t women prevent the European war? Haven't females all over this glorious globe, in the Land of the Stein and the Realm of the Pate as in that of the Stars and Stripes, that sacred possession and Power, indirect influence? Could they not have used it hurriedly and heroically? Why did not the twenty million foreign women place their forty million arms abc... the twenty million necks of the fighters girding themselves for the fray and in the liquid accents of love entreat them to desist? They could of, as the poet says, but they refrained. And now they are to blame for bloody bludgeons. Isn’t it strange that they have been to blame for everything since Eve ate the apple? But not only are the rank and file of womanhood culpable, but what about the suffragists? their best leaders abroad? Were not some of Did they do THE KIND OF SERVICE THE FAMILY NEEDS anything but flee, mute and mutinous, to their native shores? No. What further proof do we need that woman is unfit for political rights when she won’t stop such little things as scraps among men? But although I am enraged that the war was not prevented, I now ask with increased ferocity, Why do they not even now stop it? All they have to do is to unite in one vast company, millions strong, and march- ing bravely to the front, weep so copi- ously that army after army will drown in the floods flowing from their orbs. And yet, simple as the remedy is, I know right well they will not attempt it. Women are, as your fearless and sane paper 80 often states, good for next to nothing. Keep up the good work of criticism, cor- rection and crushing. Alas, they need it! Your constant reader, InpicNanT Ipa. Suffrage Snapshots Py IDA HUSTED HAKPER OW STRANGE that the North Da- kota liquor dealers should put up their own candidates for Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, pledged to work against woman suffrage, when the East- ern antis have been telling the weary world for the past year that there was a direct alliance between the suffragists and the liquor interests! The opponents should all get together and not work at cross purposes. a A ‘‘mere man’’ complains in a Chicago paper that ‘‘men have dwindled in importance in the eyes of women.’* Don’t worry! They are just as important as ever in their own eyes. Colonel Henry Watterson de- clares that he has ‘‘written more times and at greater length against woman suffrage than any other editor.’’ Maybe he has, and maybe that is the reason it is making such rapid progress in his own State. 4 “For six thousand years men have been trying to run the world,’’ said Speaker Clark, “and some people think they have made a bad mess of it.’’ If it had been for only that brief space of time, women might be willing to let them keep on trying awhile longer. Votes for Women says the peers, when they argued against woman suffrage, should have been clothed in skins, with feathers in their hair, and Lord Curzon, when he moved the rejection of the bill, should have begun by dancing around the woolsack and singing an incantation. We must protest against this libel on the American Indian; he would scorn to take an Englishman’s attitude against the rights of women. Vice-President Marshall can’t do any- thing for woman suffrage because his wife doesn’t believe in it. That might be a sufficient excuse for Mr. Marshall as an individual, but it is rather thin for the Vice-President of the United States. comicbooks.com