💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › emma-goldman-the-woman-suffrage-chameleon.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:35:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Woman Suffrage Chameleon Author: Emma Goldman Date: May 1917 Language: en Topics: voting, suffrage, feminist Source: *Mother Earth* Vol. XII, No. 3, May 1917, reprinted in *Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's* Mother Earth
For well-nigh half a century the leaders of woman suffrage have been
claiming that miraculous results would follow the enfranchisement of
woman. All the social and economic evils of past centuries would be
abolished once woman will get the vote. All the wrongs and injustices,
all the crimes and horrors of the ages would be eliminated from life by
the magic decree of a scrap of paper.
When the attention of the leaders of the movement was called to the fact
that such extravagant claims convince no one, they would say, “Wait
until we have the opportunity; wait till we are face to face with a
great test, and then you will see how superior woman is in her attitude
toward social progress.
The intelligent opponents of woman suffrage, who were such on the ground
that the representative system has served only to rob man of his
independence, and that it will do the same to woman, knew that nowhere
has woman suffrage exerted the slightest influence upon the social and
economic life of the people. Still they were willing to give the
suffrage exponents the benefit of doubt. They were ready to believe that
the suffragists were sincere in their claim that woman will never be
guilty of the stupidities and cruelties of man. Especially did they look
to the militant suffragettes of England for a superior kind of
womanhood. Did not Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst make the bold statement from
an American platform that woman is more humane than man, and that she
never would be guilty of his crimes: for one thing, woman does not
believe in war and will never support wars.
But politicians remain politicians. No sooner did England join the war,
for humanitarian reasons, of course, than the suffrage ladies
immediately forgot all their boasts about woman’s superiority and
goodness and immolated their party on the altar of the very government
which tore their clothing, pulled their hair, and fed them forcibly for
their militant activities. Mrs. Pankhurst and her hosts became more
passionate in their war mania, in their thirst for the enemy’s blood
than the most hardened militarists. They consecrated their all, even
their sex attraction, as a means of luring unwilling men into the
military net, into the trenches and death. For all this they are now to
be rewarded with the ballot. Even Asquith, the erstwhile foe of the
Pankhurst outfit, is now convinced that woman ought to have the vote,
since she has proven so ferocious in her hate and is so persistently
bent on conquest. All hail to the English women who bought their vote
with the blood of the millions of men already sacrificed to the monster
War. The price is indeed great, but so will be the political jobs in
store for the lady politicians.
The American suffrage party, bereft of an original idea since the days
of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, and Susan Anthony, must needs ape
with parrot-like stupidity the example set by their English sisters. In
the heroic days of militancy, Mrs. Pankhurst and her followers were
roundly repudiated by the American suffrage party. The respectable,
lady-like Mrs. Catt would have nothing to do with such ruffians as the
militants. But when the suffragettes of England, with an eye for the
fleshpots of Parliament, turned somersault, the American suffrage party
followed suit. Indeed, Mrs. Catt did not even wait until war was
actually declared by this country. She went Mrs. Pankhurst one better.
She pledged her party to militarism, to the support of every autocratic
measure of the government long before there was any necessity for it
all. Why not? Why waste another fifty years lobbying for the vote if one
can get it by the mere betrayal of an ideal? What are ideals among
politicians, anyway!
The arguments of the antis that woman does not need the vote because she
has a stronger weapon—her sex—was met with the declaration that the vote
will free woman from the degrading need of sex appeal. How does this
proud boast compare with the campaign started by the suffrage party to
lure the manhood of America into the European sea-blood? Not only is
every youth and man to be brazenly solicited and cajoled into enlisting
by the fair members of the suffrage party, but wives and sweethearts are
to be induced to play upon the emotions and feelings of the men, to
bring their sacrifice to the Moloch of Patriotism and War.
How is this to be accomplished? Surely not by argument. If during the
last fifty years the women politicians failed to convince most men that
woman is entitled to political equality, they surely will not convince
them suddenly that they ought to go to certain death while the women
remain safely tucked away at home sewing bandages. No, not argument,
reason, or humanitarianism has the suffrage party pledged to the
government; it is the sex attraction, the vulgar persuasive and
ensnaring appeal of the female let loose for the glory of the country.
What man can resist that? The greatest have been robbed of their sanity
and judgment when benumbed by the sex appeal. How is the youth of
America to withstand it?
The cat is out of the bag. The suffrage ladies have at last proven that
their prerogative is neither intelligence nor sincerity and that their
boast of equality is all rot; that in the struggle for the vote, even,
the sex appeal was their only resort and cheap political reward their
only aim. They are now using both to feed the cruel monster war,
although they must know that awful as the price is which man pays, it is
as naught compared with the cruelties, brutalities, and outrage woman is
subjected to by war.
The crime which the leaders of the American woman suffrage party have
committed against their constituency is in direct relation of the
procurer to his victim. Most of them are too old to effect any result
upon enlistment through their own sex appeal or to render any personal
service to their country. But in pledging the support of the party they
are victimizing the younger members. This may sound harsh, but it is
true nevertheless. Else how are we to explain the pledge, to make a
house-to-house canvass, to work upon the patriotic hysteria of women,
who in turn are to use their sex appeal upon the men to enlist. In other
words, the very attribute woman was forced to use for her economic and
social status in society, and which the suffrage ladies have always
repudiated, is now to be exploited in the service of the Lord of War.
In justice to the Woman’s Political Congressional Union and a few
individual members of the suffrage party be it said that they have
refused to be cajoled by the suffrage leaders. Unfortunately, the
Woman’s Political Congressional Union is really between and betwixt in
its position. It is neither for war nor for peace. That was all well and
good so long as the monster walked over Europe only. Now that it is
spreading itself at home, the Congressional Union will find that silence
is a sign of consent. Their refusal to come out determinedly against war
practically makes them a party to it.
In all this muddle among the suffrage factions, it is refreshing indeed
to find one woman decided and firm. Jeannette Rankin’s refusal to
support the war will do more to bring woman nearer to emancipation than
all political measures put together. For the present she is no doubt
considered anathema, a traitor to her country. But that ought not to
dismay Miss Rankin. All worthwhile men and women have been decried as
such. Yet they and not the loudmouthed, weak-kneed patriots are of value
to posterity.