WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP

By

META SCHOOLEY LAWS

              Most of us remember the furore created by Mrs. Pankhurst and her daughters, and the “militant suffragettes” movement which they so energetically aided and abetted.             

             The agitation for “votes for women” in the cities and towns of the neighboring republic, and in some few of our own cities is also well within our memory.

             One of the active workers for the enfranchisement of women was visiting her country aunt.

             It was a busy day, butchering, and Aunt Em was trying her best to do two or three women’s work. She had helped with the milking, and with other outdoor chores. She had the afternoon before turned the grindstone while Uncle Joe ground the knives.                     

             She had heard, “Em, where it this?” or “Em, would you mind helping me with that?” until her stock of patience generous though it was, was exhausted, and sat down for a “breathing spell.”

             Aunt Emma, said her visitor looking up from the newspaper letter she was writing, “Don’t you think women should vote?” and Auntie replied more forcibly than elegantly, “For the land’s sake, no. If there is one thing in this world that men can do alone, let ‘em do it.”

             If the number of electors who fail to exercise their franchise be noted, one is forced to conclude that there are still many “Aunt Ems” among our women.

             One woman who has been somewhat prominent in public life, since women were enfranchised, was asked why she had never been associated with the suffragettes. Her reply was that there were so many doors wide open for service, that the closed one never concerned her, but she hastened to add, “since it is open, I shall accept as I may the responsibility and privilege offered.”

             Many women agree with her. The arguments used were so shallow. Why should women make the fourth class of non-voters.

             “Idiots, criminals, minors, women.”

             Subject to the laws, working with men in establishing the nation’s chief institutions, the homes, active in social service, proving herself man’s intellectual equal in college and university, there was no logic whatever in depriving her of a share in the government, to which she must submit.

             Still weaker was the contention that woman’s vote would only lead to duplication since, of course, she must vote with her husband or boss, father or brother. The “Lord of Creation” theory.

             But one still hears this latter sentiment of course Mrs. Brown will vote as “he” does! But why, “of course.”

             Which brings us to this question is the franchise-the epitome of all the civil rights of a free people, merely an instrument by means of which Mr. Brown “kills Mr. Jones’ vote.”

             Is this ballot a mere scrap of paper, upon which you and I put an X once in four or five years, with no more personal thought than a child give to the marks he makes in his sand-pile with his chubby fingers?

             Is it fair that this precious heritage bought, as it has been, by blood, should be in the hands of men, or women, who have neither thought nor care for the land and whose destiny they, with the ballot in their hand control?

             “With a great price obtained in this freedom,” most of us realize, or think we do, and yet, what petty trivial circumstances sway us, in the use of it! How little we study at first hand the questions involved!

             The outstanding lesson of the great war was this. Not one of us belong to ourselves or our family, but to the nation, to the great empire, of which Canada is no mean part. No right, however sacred, but must be subservient to the right the nation has to claim our service, even unto death.

             Theoretically, at least, personal interests and party advantage was lost in the great issue of national achievement.

             The fires of patriotism burned high and because women gave so unselfishly and so unreservedly not only her time to war service, but her husband, sons, dearer to her than her own life, she was entrusted with the franchise, that in the days of reconstruction she might serve her country still.

             But, in her first use of the ballot, the most personal of all sentiments was emphasized to her mother love, and she could not and did not see but one side to the issue-upon which she was asked to pronounce.

             Indeed, to her there was no issue, she just voted, everyone did, blindly.

             But the din of battle no longer resounds in our ears.

             We are beginning to think, to ask questions-what mean ye, by those things?

             Why is John a Conservative, Jim a Liberal, Joe an “Independent,” and it is not enough for the woman of to-day and her sons and daughters that John’s forbears were always conservative, and Jim’s grandfather was a follower of George Brown, and Joe’s family voted for the man?

             Why? Well, either for a reason he will not tell or one which he can give clearly and concisely according as he is a part of the ballot market or non-partisan.

             We ask today, we women, what is Conservatism? or Liberalism? What part have these parties played in the up building of Canada? What is their policy for her development?

             Questions which surely can be answered, but can John or Jim answer them? And, if not, why not?

             We boast of our educational system, but what is there in the curriculum of the public school in which 70 per cent of our boys and girls get all their education as we say, what is there to say to them-This course is but to fit you for the great School of Life? What to impress upon them their duties as citizens?

             Certainly, there are a few pages at the back of our history text books dealing in a very inadequate way with our system of government, but not one word which says: “You, Tommie, you, Mary, have your part to play.”

             We would not dream of setting Tommie to drive a binder, or Mary to use the sewing machine, without instructing them in the management of these, but we set them at work in their part in the great machinery of democratic government without any conception of the importance of the part they play.

             Yet the part the people play is the most vital.

             Democratic governments are inadequate or unsatisfactory largely because mainspring of the whole machine, the will of the people, is weak, inadequate, unsatisfactory.

             John and Mary get their introduction to citizenship when father, an ardent partisan sees to it that their name is on the list a year or so before it should be.

             The ballot market has been established and Dame Rumour insists that it plays no small part in determining issues.

             The birthright of the citizen sold for a mess of pottage. Who was most culpable, Esau who sold, or Jacob who bought, a good subject for debate.

             The best argument ever advanced to our knowledge against women participating in politics is this: “It is no fit place for women.” Well, if that is true, it is no fit place for men, either, and the sooner men stand aside and let women clean house the better. Men seem to be as averse to national housecleaning as they are to the periodical upheaval in which we women delight to plunge our homes, when fresh air and sunlight come in contact with every household article and moth and rust are eliminated.

             To us women, personal and party advantage must be subservient to national advancement.

             We weigh national questions not as they affect parties or leaders but as they affect homes. Today, we ask not so much is this man’s right or the other as “What is the bearing of this great moral question on my home.” My home is one of the units, the sum total of which comprise Ontario. We, the inmates of that home and those like it, are the nation.

             Has the O.T.A. been a source of uplift or degradation to these homes?

             People are saying all sorts of things. We women are not blind. We know whether our boy has “a bottle on the hip every time he goes out” or not. We know whether our daughters are drinking, etc, etc, etc.

             We will shut our ears to all the “they say” and use our own facilities given for that purpose.

             We must, because even the leaders differ. Who shall decide when doctors disagree. We must.

The Welland Tribune and Telegraph

18 November 1926