Life — March 5, 1914 — page 29: what you’re looking at

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

man’s reputation as an obstacle is con- siderable, and sometimes a massive ob- stacle in Congress is very valuable. But most of his reputation for con- structive statesmanship is still to be mot HERE was a Feminist, mass-mect- ing in New York on February 18th, We do not find it reported any- where that Norman Hapgood was there. But Max Eastman was, and Rose Young, and Edwin Bjorkman, and George Middleton; and M. Jenney Howe was chairman. The American, who was there, speaks of “the diffi- culty of picking out the few scattering women among the crowd of men who filled the hall”, Of course, there was a good deal said. That was what the meeting was for. For example, we read in the Eve- ring Post's brief report: Henrietta Rodman said that when feminism was the vogue, women would lose such privileges as “the right to alimony and the right to be supported all of her life”, and Will Irwin added that feminism would disprove “all of the bunk talked about the home and fireside". What does Will Irwin know about the home and fireside that he should be so confident that all the talk about “DRE: it is “bunk”? We look in vain in his record in the “ Writers’ Directory” for any entry that would imply qualifica- tions to speak as authority on the fire- side or the home as cultivated in this latitude. He seems to have no wife, and though “ Who's Who?” classifies him as a “Socialist” and credits kim with a “Home” in Washington Square, it leaves one incredulous, An unmarried man can have lodgings, but when he claims to have a home, he owes the public some more details. And did he ever see a fireside? He came here ten years ago from Cali- fornia. California has a mild climate. We do not know how prevalent fire- sides are in that State outside of the museums. There is no evidence at all that when Will calls the talk about home and fireside “ bunk”, he has anything better than a far-off, hearsay knowledge of the institutions that he slurs. O it seems to be with most of the extreme Feminists. They are apt to be Socialists, whose present aim is to destroy what apparatus of civiliza- tion we have, in order to replace it with something different. They are apt also to be unmarried people, or people who have not managed to make a go of domestic life, and have sub- “FORTY-FIVE OR MORE BABY LAMBS AND THEIR MOTHERS ARE SACRIFICED TO MAKE A SINGLE COAT” Exchange. TAN “OFFICER, WHERE AM 1?” “ YER IS ALL RIGHT, SOR; YER 1S IN THE PROPER NUMBER OF LIFE.” stituted for that ideal a vision of uni- versal homelessness, with all mankind standing up at the lunch-counter, and sleeping in any casual bunk improvi- dence may find, Their world is a world of politics and public meetings, of billboards and headlines, of hotels, clubs and theatres, and_ institutional nurture. There are no homes in it; no firesides, . But what is there to hinder them now from following their tastes? Di- vorce is easy. Lodging houses are cheap and abound. Why do they have mass-meetings and make ten-minute speeches to a lot of men about the impertinence of homes? Is our rapidly waning knowledge of the Bible to be restored by the moving-picture film? —The Evening Post. ERHAPS so; but, first, why not try eye-glasses? We have come to that, and find them very helpful in sacred studies, comicbooks.com