Judge, 1916-12-30 · page 8 of 29
Judge — December 30, 1916 — page 8: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page satirizes male infidelity and hypocrisy. The accompanying illustration shows a man embracing a woman while a portrait of another woman hangs on the wall behind them—visualizing the article's premise. The text describes a real Indianapolis court case where a man charged with bigamy (having two wives—one in Grand Rapids, one in Indianapolis) claims he can't remember his other spouse. The article's dark humor argues that men are "essentially monogamous" because they conveniently *forget* their other wives when with either one, thus technically remaining devoted to whichever woman they're currently with. The satire cuts both ways: it mocks both male infidelity and the absurd legal/logical pretzel men twist themselves into to avoid accountability. The closing rhetorical question—wondering if women could similarly love multiple husbands while forgetting the others—emphasizes how the male argument collapses under scrutiny.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
A i pon wteAyins | WHEN JANUARY FIRST COMES ON WASH DAY The Vagabond told that we mistake the symptoms that it Grand Rapids, his chivalry would E'VE dragged our feet along the road it wasn’t so much a case of male monog- avail to forget Indianapolis—who can Of Time, to where another year amy as it was a throwback to SirGalahad. doubt it? And now we drop our load The days of chivalry come back! This Either way, men like this are the grand s while we give a cheer; fine fellow would spare his wife—either — prizes—too rare, too precious to be mo- w the start with eyes aflame, wife, or both, for that matter—the know- —_ nopolized, yet too monogamous to be For smooth the surface looks ahead, : ie: - : RA agin sito} be r 4, i ing that he knew she was twins. polygamous in purpose, were their wives We leave the toll this year can claim ie . . 4 . ¢ Upon the road we've walked with dread For the sake of Indianapolis he — as Solomon's for number or as Sheba for would forget Grand Rapids—but were good looks. Albert E. Hoyt. Gone is the year-path we have known; Gone are its sorrow, anguish, care; Gone are its sigh, its sob, its groan Forth on the newer path we fare; Look! See the golden sunlight gleam On every day that has its place In the Road Builder’s subtle scheme, Waiting to mirror on each face! Let us step boldly out beyond The turnstile; let us steal the sun Become a very vagabond Until the lane of life is run; Not always will the sun shine out... Let's make it ours ere it departs; And greet each day-stone with a shout Because the sun shines in our hearts. —A, Walter Utting The Monogamy of the Male SAY what you will of marital infelicity and asy divorce, man is essentially monogamous and will go to great lengths to prove it. Take the case which arose the other day inan Indianapolis police court. The defendant was charged with bigamy. The judge asked him: Haven't you another wife, in Grand Rapids?” “Really,” was the reply, “I couldn't say—I don’t know—I reckon not!" Here, then, we have « of constructive big- amy, but man, the essential monogamist, remains a monogamist in thought and purpose—yes, and in deed, for as the purpose is, so is the act. Get the idea? Here is no “how happy could I be with either, were Vother dear charmer away.” Here is male monogamy, so complete that with cither mate the existence of the other is perforce forgot- ten. “Have you another wife?” “Really, I don’t know—I reckon not!” Here is devotion, here is marital felicity, if you please. “Man's lov apart—'tis woman’s whole existence. wonder if a woman could so truly, so devotedly love two or more husbands that when with cither she would forget the other two or three? “Really, IT don’t know—I reckon not!” Granted, we may be AN ART PRINT