251

TAKES ISSUE WITH GIBBONS

Mrs. Peattie Discusses the Cardinal's Position Regarding "The New Woman."

Men Are Inferior to Women in Endurance of Pain and Resistance to Nervous Strain.

Some Plain Statements Relative to Motherhood -- Attitude to Be Assumed Toward the Criminal Classes.

Last Sunday there was published in the World-Herald an interesting interview, held by a young woman reporter, with Cardinal Gibbons. The subject discussed by these two persons was "The New Woman," whatever that may mean. Apparently it means, according to his eminence and the bright young reporter, the woman who is graduated by universities, who takes an interest in civic affairs, and who believes in science as much as she does in instinct.

Cardinal Gibbons has never approved of this type of woman. He has preached against her, and talked against her. IF he is correctly reported by his interviewer -- and, indeed, the interview bears every evidence of being truthful -- he says:

"As a Catholic, I am bound to disapprove of any so-called woman movement. The church of Rome exalts womanhood in the veneration it accords the mother of Jesus Christ, but in exalting a woman it still has regard for the special nature of her mission in the world, which is equal to man's though not identical with it."

His eminence refers, very evidently, to the mammal functions of a woman. She is elevated, he appears to think, in proportion as she exercises these. Napoleon, be it remembered, was of the same opinion. He respected most the woman who could bear the most children. He desired to have the women bear men in order that he might slay them. Cardinal Gibbons' reasons are, no doubt, less sanguinary. But he also appears to entertain the same idea. The woman he elevates above all others is distinguished because she bore a son in an unheard sort of a way -- a unique way, and one in which she set an example that no other woman has ever been able to follow.

IS BUT AN INCIDENT.

It seems then, that it is not for the truth, honor, industry, sobriety, intellectual development and spiritual growth that woman is honored or exalted, but merely because she can bear children. Now it is natural for woman to bear children. She does it as a matter of course. Sometimes she does it with joy and sometimes with sorrow, but in one way of another three-fourths of the women of the world reproduce themselves. But this is only an incident of their lives. They are responsible for their children only secondly. First comes their responsibility for themselves -- for their own lives, their own duties, their own destiny.

The age has passed when one sees the hand of God in an epidemic. Physicians are here, scientists have labored. When an epidemic arises it is fought and frequently defeated. Has not the time also passed when on secs the hand of God in the indiscriminate bearing of children?

Every thoughtful philanthropist knows that it would be a blessing to humanity if the criminal and half witted were emasculated so that it would be impossible for them to reproduce themselves. The statistics on such matters fill one with horror. Not long ago Dr. Kiernan mentioned the case of one insane criminal woman in Illinois who had eighteen children and grandchildren, none of whom were sane or innocuous. Is it possible that this is the hand of God?

Who has not seen a fretful, overworked, nervous wreck of a woman with six or eight little children tugging at her skirts, none of them properly cared for, all of them rather dirty, and doomed to poverty of the sort that grinds the soul down into the muck? Is the hand of God in that?

Not long ago I was sitting in a public medical clinic. A dragged-out looking young woman entered, carrying one little child, and with another tugging at her skirts. She was ill and told her symptoms to the physician who was in charge that day.

"Madam," he said gently, but with something of amusement in his tone, "is it possible that you have these children, and that you do not know what your symptoms signify? Why did you come to me? I can give you a little medicine to ease some of your suffering, but you are not afflicted with a disease. Your illness has natural causes."

She looked at him a moment, flushed a deep scarlet, and went wearily out trying to hide the tears that had gathered in her eyes. The students laughed after she was gone. They couldn't understand that a sentence of death would have been hardly more terrible to her than that verdict. It meant that with a back which was never free from pain, with a purse that never reached her needs, with two little ones not yet through teething, she was to go again through all the torments of a year's illness and anxiety. With each month of growing weakness her cares would be increased. No one would think of relieving her. No one would consdier her really ill. Her neighbors might come in and compare pains with her. They would probably never think of helping her. And then would come the final agony -- that black suffering which, once experienced, is never forgotten, and then the dragging convalescence, very likely with complications of the most painful sort.

One often wonders if men would consider the unrestricted bearing of children such a God ordained institution if they had some of the suffering to bear themselves.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
The truth of the matter is, that so inferior are men in physical endurance of pain, and in resistance to nervous strain, that they would perish under the suffering that women endure while they continue their daily work. The work is not well done, perhaps, and the body a mere house of pain, but someway or other they live and fret.

The question arises, are not two well-educated, self-respecting, well-trained, carefully developed children of more value to the state from an economic point of view than twelve under-fed, dirty, half-educated, weak and nervous children?

I once knew a woman who believed that it was God's will that she should have a child every year, or, at least, every year and a half. There were nine of them. She was not strong. She did not love her husband. She was bitterly poor. The children were fine babies, and the two eldest grew to strong manhood. The others, as they reached the age of puberty, developed the most astonishing weakness. Every joint seemed to be dissevered. The arms swung helplessly back and forth. The legs would sustain the body only at times and then with the greatest difficulty. The head would lie on the shoulders. It used to be very obvious that if the woman had cared for her health, built up her vitality, and waited a few years after bearing her first two children, she might have had a family to be proud of. As it was, her poor heart broke with grief and shame -- and it really seemed as if she had done something to be ashamed of. As for laying such misery as; this to God -- it would be blasphemous!

One does not deny that there are women who can bear twelve, twenty or thirty children. In Italy the descendants of the Roman matrons not infrequently bear thirty children. To be sure, they cannot very well support them. But in Italy one only lies in the sun and lives. In America it is against the law to merely lie in the sun and live, unless one has a bank account. The only vagrants approved of here are those who draw interest on invested money. Thirty children would consequently be a horrible embarrassment in America. But there are women here who can bear twelve children and still be strong and well. There is one very lovely and well-known Irish-American woman in this town who has borne twelve children, and still is comparatively young and happy and handsome. She, evidently, is the woman made for the task and, since she is able to educate and properly care for them, she has reason to feel herself blessed.

TAKES ISSUE WITH GIBBONS

Mrs. Peattie Discusses the Cardinal's Position Regarding "The New Woman."

Men Are Inferior to Women in Endurance of Pain and Resistance to Nervous Strain.

Some Plain Statements Relative to Motherhood -- Attitude to Be Assumed Toward the Criminal Classes.

Last Sunday there was published in the World-Herald an interesting interview, held by a young woman reporter, with Cardinal Gibbons. The subject discussed by these two persons was "The New Woman," whatever that may mean. Apparently it means, according to his eminence and the bright young reporter, the woman who is graduated by universities, who takes an interest in civic affairs, and who believes in science as much as she does in instinct.

Cardinal Gibbons has never approved of this type of woman. He has preached against her, and talked against her. IF he is correctly reported by his interviewer -- and, indeed, the interview bears every evidence of being truthful -- he says:

"As a Catholic, I am bound to disapprove of any so-called woman movement. The church of Rome exalts womanhood in the veneration it accords the mother of Jesus Christ, but in exalting a woman it still has regard for the special nature of her mission in the world, which is equal to man's though not identical with it."

His eminence refers, very evidently, to the mammal functions of a woman. She is elevated, he appears to think, in proportion as she exercises these. Napoleon, be it remembered, was of the same opinion. He respected most the woman who could bear the most children. He desired to have the women bear men in order that he might slay them. Cardinal Gibbons' reasons are, no doubt, less sanguinary. But he also appears to entertain the same idea. The woman he elevates above all others is distinguished because she bore a son in an unheard sort of a way -- a unique way, and one in which she set an example that no other woman has ever been able to follow.

IS BUT AN INCIDENT.

It seems then, that it is not for the truth, honor, industry, sobriety, intellectual development and spiritual growth that woman is honored or exalted, but merely because she can bear children. Now it is natural for woman to bear children. She does it as a matter of course. Sometimes she does it with joy and sometimes with sorrow, but in one way of another three-fourths of the women of the world reproduce themselves. But this is only an incident of their lives. They are responsible for their children only secondly. First comes their responsibility for themselves -- for their own lives, their own duties, their own destiny.

The age has passed when one sees the hand of God in an epidemic. Physicians are here, scientists have labored. When an epidemic arises it is fought and frequently defeated. Has not the time also passed when on secs the hand of God in the indiscriminate bearing of children?

Every thoughtful philanthropist knows that it would be a blessing to humanity if the criminal and half witted were emasculated so that it would be impossible for them to reproduce themselves. The statistics on such matters fill one with horror. Not long ago Dr. Kiernan mentioned the case of one insane criminal woman in Illinois who had eighteen children and grandchildren, none of whom were sane or innocuous. Is it possible that this is the hand of God?

Who has not seen a fretful, overworked, nervous wreck of a woman with six or eight little children tugging at her skirts, none of them properly cared for, all of them rather dirty, and doomed to poverty of the sort that grinds the soul down into the muck? Is the hand of God in that?

Not long ago I was sitting in a public medical clinic. A dragged-out looking young woman entered, carrying one little child, and with another tugging at her skirts. She was ill and told her symptoms to the physician who was in charge that day.

"Madam," he said gently, but with something of amusement in his tone, "is it possible that you have these children, and that you do not know what your symptoms signify? Why did you come to me? I can give you a little medicine to ease some of your suffering, but you are not afflicted with a disease. Your illness has natural causes."

She looked at him a moment, flushed a deep scarlet, and went wearily out trying to hide the tears that had gathered in her eyes. The students laughed after she was gone. They couldn't understand that a sentence of death would have been hardly more terrible to her than that verdict. It meant that with a back which was never free from pain, with a purse that never reached her needs, with two little ones not yet through teething, she was to go again through all the torments of a year's illness and anxiety. With each month of growing weakness her cares would be increased. No one would think of relieving her. No one would consdier her really ill. Her neighbors might come in and compare pains with her. They would probably never think of helping her. And then would come the final agony -- that black suffering which, once experienced, is never forgotten, and then the dragging convalescence, very likely with complications of the most painful sort.

One often wonders if men would consider the unrestricted bearing of children such a God ordained institution if they had some of the suffering to bear themselves.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
The truth of the matter is, that so inferior are men in physical endurance of pain, and in resistance to nervous strain, that they would perish under the suffering that women endure while they continue their daily work. The work is not well done, perhaps, and the body a mere house of pain, but someway or other they live and fret.

The question arises, are not two well-educated, self-respecting, well-trained, carefully developed children of more value to the state from an economic point of view than twelve under-fed, dirty, half-educated, weak and nervous children?

I once knew a woman who believed that it was God's will that she should have a child every year, or, at least, every year and a half. There were nine of them. She was not strong. She did not love her husband. She was bitterly poor. The children were fine babies, and the two eldest grew to strong manhood. The others, as they reached the age of puberty, developed the most astonishing weakness. Every joint seemed to be dissevered. The arms swung