Judge, 1919-10-25 · page 6 of 36
Judge — October 25, 1919 — page 6: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
# Political Satire on Women's Suffrage This Judge magazine page attacks suffragists through two cartoons and accompanying editorial text. The top cartoon by Crawford Young shows a woman concerned her skirt will be "too long for the street," with a man wishing sidewalks were higher—mocking suffragists as vain and frivolous. The lower cartoon by C.D. Small depicts an absent-minded father losing track of a baby while purchasing cigars, satirizing male negligence as worse than female activism. The dense text criticizes a Republican senator from Colorado for opposing women's suffrage despite his state's support for it. The piece uses sarcasm to condemn anti-suffrage hypocrisy, suggesting opponents' arguments about women's "nature" are merely pretexts. The satire defends the suffrage movement against dismissive stereotypes.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
across the street from the White House — the National Woman's Party—continued their attack on the President? Did you think these women would be silenced if sent to jail? Did you finally hope they would starve to death and see them, instead, come forth martyrs for the Republican Party? Did you receive thousands of letters and telegrams demanding that you do something for these disreputable, disgraceful women? Did you foresee the day when a Senator would compare the Wo- man’s Party to the glorious heroes of the Boston Tea Party? Did you ever make the mistake of attacking them in the Senate one dull August afternoon, and hear Republicans, nay even your own Democratic colleague from Mis- souri, bitterest opponent of suffrage Drown by “Ceaw ne for women, acclaiming them as the rome by Ceawroun Your leaders of the suffrage movement— “Do you think this skirt will be too long for the street?” the only women who had put suf- “Well, I wish the sidewalk came up a little higher. frage on the political map? And were you suddenly con- vinced by your constituents that the only sincere ad- herence to democratic principles would be to change your attitude on the suffrage amendment since your constituency demanded it? ersaulted, glad that the question had been passed up to the Senate? And did you sadly watch the slow grind- ing ct of the same futile arguments you had heard and made — “the inherent wrong of giving females suf- frage;” that “women think they want the vote when as a matter of fact they do not want to vote, and man being aware of this fact is obliged 6 to prevent them from getting | the ballot that they don’t | want;” that “the ballot will | degrade women;” that “no man will care to marry a suf- fragist or a female butcher?” Did you applaud the Presi- dent when he said, “I would be without excuse to my con- | stitutional principles if I lent | my support to this very im- ] portant movement for an | amendment to the constitution | of the United States?” And were you appalled when you read his letter pleading for suffrage as the “Essential psy- chological element in the con- duct of the war for demo- cracy?” Did you fondly imagine that the Senator from that suffrage state, Colorado, would really prawn by C.D. State fulfill his threat to reconsider his favorable attitude on the Having purchased a cigar for himself, absent-minded Mr. Young-dad continues his amendment if those women walk with the baby. comichooks.