Sign into an existing account

Thanks! I'm happy with how it turned out. I think I suggested it be called something, I can't remember what, but I think it would be better if it was called "Primary Sources". I sort of headlined it myself in what I sent you.

Primary Sources - Mrs. Annie Riley Hale “Article on the Biological and Sociological Aspects of the Woman Question”. January 19th, 1917. An article submitted to the United State Congress.

As the mutilation of the otherwise natural relationship between men and women seems to be nearing what could only be it’s end (women can be men, and men can be women, because what’s the difference? In fact, there is none.), I find comfort in reading the words of a strong and intelligent woman of the past who wrote against the idea of women voting, and, in a larger sense, against women abandoning their natural role in society and entering the separate world of men. The words are those of Mrs. Annie Riley Hale, a high school mathematics teacher who later became a researcher for the Congress of the United States of America. I find it refreshing to know that such women did exist, and that their views were respected and relevant enough to be deemed worthy of entry into the official record of Congress in that day.

She begins, “Men accustomed to viewing only the political aspects of double suffrage are prone to overlook a deeper significance hidden in certain underlying principles of biology and sociology. Not as politicians, but as the sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers of women, I ask your consideration of the following fundamental facts inseparably bound up with the welfare of the race:”

It’s not simply women being able to vote that is the primary issue for Mrs. Hale, but rather something even more fundamental. For her there is such a fundamental difference between men and women that she goes on to state, men and women are, “... differently constituted in every fiber of their being, have a different contribution to make to the world, a different part to play.”

She goes on to say, “There are no female counterparts for such names as Bach, Handel, Chopin, Verdi; Phidias, Da Vinci, Rubens, Turner, Millet; Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, Milton, Burns; Aristotle, Roger Bacon, Newton, Darwin, Spencer; Socrates, Plato, Francis Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Edison; Confucius, Buddha, Mahomet, Swedenborg; and it is idle to contend that this is due to accident or custom. The explanation lies in the bedrock of sex differentiation.”

Immediately she adds, “But why should anyone argue from this that woman is in anywise inferior to man, or that her work in the world is of less import ?” And this is the key point to understand. Today, if one points out that men and women are different, and as such, men are better at some things than women, you are assumed to be arguing that men are, overall, better, or somehow more important, than women. Personally, I’ve never thought that, and, when I argue for defined male-female roles, it’s out of a sense of love and respect for women, not the opposite. Over the years I’ve even come to the conclusion that women, when they play their specific role in society, are possibly more important than men, at least in many ways.

Mrs. Hale explains it this way, “Yet this is woman's special mission, because to her is entrusted the life force in a peculiar manner; into her hands is given the guardianship and training of the race in its early, plastic stage. Not only as the mother, but as the teacher, at the time when teaching counts for most, she is given supreme control of the two greatest forces in life —nature and nurture.”

When considering the tragedy that is the modern relationship between men and women today, my greatest horror isn’t seeing women try to do what only men can do, but in seeing women NOT DO what only women can do. Men will never be able to replace you, ladies. The things I see lacking in our society, making it sick, are the things I think of only women doing. The social events, where neighbors become a neighborhood, where young men get a healthy chance to express their interest in young women, all under the watchful eyes of their mothers and fathers, these are the ways and methods by which women mother entire societies, and that’s what we’ve lost.

As Mrs. Hale puts it, “In short, the mother furnishes, or at least has the opportunity of furnishing, the bulk of hereditary tendencies; and the mother, assisted by the grandmother, maiden aunt, or older sister, if there be such in the home, and by the woman teacher, in the day school, in the Sunday school, furnishes practically all of the environment in which the young human plant buds and flowers; and heredity plus environment pretty nearly sets the boundaries of human destiny.”

We need more Mrs. Hales, and sooner rather than later. I implore you to read her full article here: https://ia800605.us.archive.org/4/items/womansuffrageart00hale/womansuffrageart00hale.pdf