Why is it that as soon as women get the suffrage in any State they are called upon to clean up the cities and purify politics? As men have always been held to be so much better qualified to vote than women, the latter ought to find every city a Spotless Town and the political atmosphere too rarefied to breathe in safety.
The college girls all marry, according to recent statistics. They have to pass laws in many States to prevent school teachers from marrying. You can hardly keep a trained nurse single until her patient gets well. Stenographers go like hot cakes. The only girls that seem to have trouble in getting married are the old fashioned, womanly kind that do the sweetly domestic acts in the seclusion of the home.
At the big dinner given in New York for the Men and Religion Forward Movement the dean of Yale Theological School said: “The Church must have men because men are militant.” Go to: isn’t it militancy that is ruining the Women and Suffrage Forward Movement?
Ex-President Eliot, of Harvard, anti-suffragist, says, “Women are better adapted to work for the human beings of the future than men are.” Yes, and as there wouldn’t be any human beings of the future if it were not for women it almost seems as if they were of enough importance to have a vote.
Why should the advocates of woman suffrage be criticised for trying to defeat members of Congress who are opposed to it when all of the parties do their best to prevent the election of their opponents? If the suffragists did not try to keep their enemies out of Congress they wouldn’t have political sense enough to vote.