Why should it? If a woman thinks as her husband, she will
vote as he does; if not, none but an unreasonable and overbearing man
would insist that his wife must think as he does, and vote in accordance
with his views, whether they agree with her own or not. It would be
quite as just and as reasonable to urge that, because the peace of
families is sometimes disturbed by fathers and sons voting for opposite
parties, therefore, the sons should not be allowed to exercise the
franchise during the life-time of their fathers. There are differences
of opinion concerning politics in families now; there always have been,
and always will be, unless some process can be devised whereby women
will be deprived of the power of thought. Are these existing differences
less to be deprecated than those likely to result from extending the
franchise to women? How can it be supposed that the peace of families is
secured by men only having the liberty to give practical expression to
their views, by recording votes which may tell for the good or ill of
the country, while women have not? though very frequently a woman has
the outrage put upon her of knowing that her husband is recording a vote
upon her property, not his, for a party to which she is conscientiously
opposed. And this in a civilized, not a barbarous, land! Where is either
the justice or the moral honesty of such a course of procedure? Surely,
if a woman did vote for a candidate or for a measure to which her
husband is opposed, it is no worse, and ought to produce no more
disturbance in the family, than for him to vote for a candidate or
measure to which she is opposed, especially where the property
qualification is in her own right, or where--as is very frequently the
case--she has worked equally hard in earning it; nor would disturbance
be produced by it at any time, were men as much disposed to be just as
women are to forgive injury.
Pages:
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116