Woman's work in municipalities

by Mary Ritter Beard

In our survey of women’s varied municipal activities, we have had occasion to mention many instances of their holding official positions of one kind or another, and no one can be found who would deny the special aptitudes of women for certain municipal posts. Doubtless there are some offices for which women are specially fitted, just as there are some offices for which men are specially fitted. But office-holding in general is still under dispute. Nevertheless, there are plenty of advocates who claim that the wider participation of women in government, through the occupancy of technical positions, is for the public good.

Ten years ago in the San Francisco Bulletin there appeared the following editorial on “Why Women Should Be in Municipal Offices”:

The days of chivalry are no more, and though that means that young women no longer occupy their days at something called a lattice, embroidering sashes to tie about the middles of queer young men in boiler plate, it is probable that even they do not regret the loss, though He is now nothing more than a member in good standing of the Retail Clerks’ Union.

Men have been willing, for a wonderfully long time, that women should work—provided it was for small pay and did not imply any reputation or a possible swelling up beyond the nice, faithful limits of their sphere. And this not because men are mean—but because they are slow. They have even permitted certain emoluments and rewards of merit to accrue to certain professions—like those of nursing sick or spoiled children of larger and smaller growth, and school ma’aming—for which they had neither much taste nor aptitude.

It has also been cheerfully and generously conceded that in the matter of minor housekeeping affairs women could be trusted to get along, and the abominable lack of spirit shown by the weak provisions of the civil service, that do not seem to take natural laws into consideration, has proven that these fair creatures can so far forget themselves in their heavenand-man-appointed task of ministering angel as to actually take and pass common and vulgar examinations, and to follow up their effrontery by accepting and holding certain places of public trust and drawing their pay regularly therefor. What wonder then that when the very old story of the inch and the ell is being enacted men of tender municipal conscience tremble and turn pale.

Men expect “graft” in their city halls; they do not look for the enforcement of ordinances in disfavor with the “gang”; they expect to have the streets swept when the winds come; they bear witness that a man is a good fellow when he remembers his friends and relatives by place and power; they are accustomed to suffer with much noise and pay their taxes in silence; above all they constantly make good their calling as the sex that recognizes logic with the naked eye. For when a notorious politician follows his luck with a notorious political régime in the institutions of his state they actually hold him and his appointer responsible, and strangely enough seldom say anything about his sex.

Let but another individual—a woman individual—make the mistakes inherent in human nature—in an appointive position—and the most logical and the kindest man one knows will refer the whole thing finally and forever to—her sex.

If, however, it were possible that logic was not the inborn and native possession of every man and might have to be learned, a little tale from an English schoolroom can be warmly recommended, for out of the mouth of babes and little girls cometh occasional wisdom.

The little girl was given the following proposition as a “test of her reasoning powers”:

French people are excitable, so are Italians; so all foreigners are excitable. Is this true?