Life, 1910-10-20 · page 26 of 44
Life — October 20, 1910 — page 26: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This satirical column by Priscilla Jamborees mocks the women's suffrage movement through exaggerated arguments. The first cartoon depicts a man blinded by a woman's oversized hatpin—the joke being that suffragists blame men for women's problems while ignoring women's own choices (elaborate hats with dangerous pins). The column ridicules specific feminist arguments: that voting will solve all injustices, that women should wear massive theater hats without restriction, and that women deserve government pensions rather than working. The police court anecdote portrays a wife whose husband provides housing and wages but is still deemed an inadequate provider—suggesting women's grievances are unreasonable. The satire targets what Jamborees sees as illogical feminist logic: attributing every problem to "male tyranny" while demanding rights that ignore practical reality. The illustrations of women wearing increasingly absurd hat arrangements reinforce this mockery of the movement's perceived disconnect from reason.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
“LE DEE : Telling Strokes from Priscilla EADING between the lines, dear sis- ters, you will discern in this ap- parently innocent news paragraph another insidious attack by the tyrant man on the few remaining liberties of our down-trod- den sex: Guido C. Grocbe, president of the Groebe-McGovern Company, of Newark, may lose the sight of his right eye as a result of an injury suffered while attending the Vander- bilt cup race last Saturday. He was assisting a woman member of his’ party to alight from his auto at the race-course when she tripped and her hatpin pene- trated his right eye. It is thought that the sight has been destroyed. It was the man’s own fault. What earthly right had he to put his eye in the way of the useful hat- / pin necessary to hold in place what was doubtless an extremely large and handsome arrangement of feathers, fins, furs and ribbons collected from the four corners of the earth to enhance the beauty and charm of the wearer? It is woman's inherent right to deck her person in apy way she sees fit, barbarous or civil- ized. Give us the ballot and we will protect this right by law. AM glad to see that some of the sisters are wear- ing little hats at the theatre. This is the en- tering wedge. A few, more cour- ageous than others, are begin- ning to adorn them with — ai- grettes. ery ai- grette, you know, means the death by starvation of a family of birds. Perhaps some of you will remember that this journal, Lire, from which I draw my measly stipend, was at the head of the agitation which a few years ago practically compelled women to give up the unselfish pleasure of wear- ing their headgear in the theatre. It was a cruel and tyrannical deprivation. Some of us have retaliated by piling false hair upon the top of our heads, so that those behind us could not see the stage. That is not enough. We must have laws permitting us to wear hats of any size in the-theatre. Votes for women will give us those laws. Votes for women! Votes for women! HIS letter, evidently from one of our down-trodden sis- ters, appeared in a recent issue of the newspaper to which it was addressed: To the Editor of the Sun—Sir: A girl writes to the Sun disclaiming any desire for pity or sympathy owing to the fact that she has to work for a living. She must be in a class by herself, as certainly no nice girl likes to work in dirty shops, or dark, dingy offices with a lot of rough, coarse men. Chivalry is dead, or no girl would be compelled to work for a liv- ing. They should be all pensioned. K. H. J. New York, October 1 Here is a precious thought and one which, if carried into our agitation, should gain many converts to our sacred cause. “Votes for Women” should win, because the de. mand is based on justice, but “ Pensions for Women” would stir to action many who cannot be reached by the other slogan. Still better, we might inscribe on our banners, “Votes for Women will mean Pensions for Girl Is it not a sweetly pretty idea? “K. H. J.” is perfectly right. RECENTLY read of a police court case which touched me deeply. A decently attired girl with a plumed hat and a hob- ble skirt, carrying in her arms a little baby which showed signs of neglect, came in to have her husband arrested for non-support. Her affi- davit showed that he paid the za, rent of a comfortable apart- ment and that he gave her all his wages except sums of money which he lavished in cheap restaurants for food because he refused to eat at home. The male judge asked the plaintiff if she prepared her husband’s meals. She answered that she had a natural love of dancing and that after a night at a ball she was sometimes so fatigued in the morning that she didn’t get up in time to cook breakfast. The brutal man judge told her to cut out the dancing, spend more time washing the baby’s clothes and face, and see that her man had a good meal before he went out for his day’s ‘work. Sisters, what are we to do in a case like this? Does it not mean that our sex should revolt against our oppres- sors? Votes for women! That is the answer. Feminine logic must prevail. All the domestic and industrial evils in the world are caused by man’s refusal to give women the ballot. A small minority of our sex show an interest in clothes and the trivialities of life. Is that any reason why we who have brains and energies above the average of our sex should not be permitted to vote? No—a thousand times, No! Agitate, my sisters, agitate, and pretty soon we shall have everything we want—even husbands for neglected spinsters. Prisci.a JAWBONES. comicbooks.com