The Woman and the Right to Vote

by Rafael Palma

True democracy can not exist with one-half of the people free and the other half in a stage of slavery, with one-half of the people with representation in the public affairs and the other half without it. The people does not consist of men alone, but of women as well, and conditions being equal, woman should have the same political rights as man. She should, at least, have those fundamental rights the exercise of which, like that of the right to vote, requires nothing but intelligence and capacity, in order that she may have some voice in the decision of her own destiny and may herself fight the battles for her honor, her liberty, and other rights neglected or ignored by man on account of the undisputed monopoly exercised by him over the public affairs.

The injustices and social and juridical discriminations contained in our codes will not be eliminated in a radical manner and the condition of woman will not improve while man alone legislates and controls all the spheres of public life, dictating to woman what she must do and what she must not do; and woman will be incompetent to take care of her own interests and shape her own life so long as she does not look higher, so long as she consents to the superiority of man and believes that her lot is simply that of serving and pleasing man in bed and home, instead of being his true helpmate and companion, for the progress and felicity of the human race.

All arguments that are or may be adduced against female suffrage tend invariably towards these two objects: the confinement of woman to the home and the perpetuation of her civil and political slavery.

Woman must busy herself with nothing but her household duties and must live only for her husband and her children; she has her hands full from the rising to the setting sun if she manages the cook, cleans the house, and mends the clothes: this is the great argument of the partisans of the old régime. Another is, that it is not in the nature of things that woman should struggle with man in the battle of public life; that if she enters that struggle, man will cease to look upon her as a being to be worshipped, as a sacred idol at whose feet he must kneel, and will see in her a rival to be combated and overcome, for his own preservation, and woman will not only drag the pure flower of her virtue into the mire of political life, but will lose the esteem, respect, and consideration now tributed to her.

I have the most profound respect for all men and women who honestly believe this to be the case. It is not their fault that they believe that what has always been so is the best. They do not realize that life is motion and that the new elements of life and character which are being imperceptibly introduced into society demand changes and innovations. Society can not become stagnant, otherwise it runs the risk of becoming like stagnant water, which generates pestilential miasma. The theory that woman exists for the home alone has been a dead issue for some time past. Woman has quietly taken her place in public life and aids and directs man, even though he may not notice it and may not recognize her right to do so. In modern society, woman participates in the direction of public charity and in the education of the children, she practises law and medicine, engages in literary and journalistic pursuits, occupies many public offices, and takes interest and cooperates in the suppression of social vice and suffering.

Who does not admit that woman has duties towards her home and her husband and children to which she must ordinarily give the preference over all other duties? However, does this exclude the performance of other duties towards God, her neighbor, and the State? Like man, woman has many duties to perform, and the true merit lies in the orderly and complete performance of these duties. Does not the Filipina dedicate part of her time, sometimes a very considerable part, to the church and to her so-called social duties, receiving and making calls and attending celebrations, theaters, and balls?

Has anybody ever complained against this? Has woman ever been criticised for her assiduous attendance of the religious services and the public performance of her religious duties in crowded churches, in the public streets, filled with tumultuous throngs of people, marching in a procession behind some saint, jostled about and exposed to disagreeable incidents, which she bears with resignation because she suffers them for the cause of the public confession of her faith? Our women go not only to church, but to the theater and to popular entertainments and celebrations, where they may show off their elegant dresses and satisfy their feminine curiosity. In all this we see no pitfalls or dangers to their virtue, though we know that the women who go to those places and exhibit themselves in this manner are mothers, wives or daughters who have duties to attend at home.

Now, what is the difference if woman leaves her home to attend or take part in a political meeting where the public needs or the election of candidates for public office are discussed? In what way is the virtue or purity of woman imperilled by her taking an interest in public questions affecting the welfare of the families, considering that whatever her status may be in life, woman always occupies some position in the family? Why should we fear that woman will leave the flower of her charms on the brambles of politics if she listens to a political speaker, after having listened to sermons all her life, or if she herself makes a speech giving her opinions on some subject of interest to the family, on the necessity of remedying some social evil or of providing a home for abandoned and indigent children?

Let us take the case of one of the most vital questions of the present time, the subject of gambling. Do you not believe that this question has a direct bearing upon the welfare of the families, especially of the feminine part of them? Who suffers the most if the father or husband spends the money of the family in order to satisfy his craving for gambling? The women, of course, the daughters who are often condemned to undergo unnecessary privations and suffering because of the conduct of the head of the family. And you try to deny to woman the right to take a part in political affairs, to enlighten the electorate with regard to the fatal results of gambling or cast her vote for the candidate who promises to secure the passage of measures against it? And why should the opinion of woman on issues like this not have as much weight as that of man? Should it not be given greater weight, it being she who suffers the consequences and results of the evil? There are many questions like this which vitally affect the welfare and happiness of woman.

I fail to see anything pernicious in the activity of woman in the field of politics: I even believe that her activity in this respect will be highly salutary and beneficent not only for womankind, but for society in general. It will serve to instruct woman and give her a more extensive knowledge of the world and of life. She will not be considered as an outsider where society and government are concerned and will therefore not remain indifferent to their short-comings and progress. Nothing could possibly be more harmful to society than the presence in it of foreign bodies absolutely indifferent to its weal or woe, of useless parts in the machinery of progress.