THE "AMERICAN WOMAN."
[To THE EDITOR OF TEL " SFECTATOR."1 SIE,—I was disgusted to read in your paper the two letters signed Andrew Macphail. That you should not only publish, but go out of your way to express admiration and approval of, such an insulting attack on women in general seems almost incredible. If the modern woman is open to criticism—and God knows the modern man is too—surely the criticism might be expressed in moderate and courteous language, and not with vulgar vituperation. When one considers what noble and useful work, social and philanthropic, cultured women are doing nowadays all the world over ; when one remembers the gallant struggle they have made to obtain the advantages of education, &c., which they now enjoy, and how splendidly they have vindicated their right to those advantages,—surely no man with a spark of chivalry or generosity in his nature would taunt them with their " weak- ness " and "inferiority." Your correspondent is not content with this taunt ; he improves on it by comparing the women who have "risen above their primitive functions" (that is, of nurse and cook) to "dancing dogs, and performing monkeys." Shame on the man who wrote those words,—and shame on you for publishing them !—I am, Sir, &c., [Could anything be more unreasonable than this attaCk on the Spectator? We publish two letters from a Canadiiin correspondent with the special reserve that, though *a think it useful and salutary to print his communications, We Mid not be held to agree with everything he says. More- otet, that correspondent, Dr. Macphail, expressly declares that he does not desire to arraign women in general, nor even American women as a whole, but only a particular class or type of women, American and European,—a type necessarily small in number since they are defined as rich. Yet in spite of Dr. Ma.cphairs almost tiresome iteration of the fact that be is not attacking women in general—his last letter closes with the declaration that the normal women will soon arise and extirpate the type he condemns—Mrs. F. C. Spender talks of an "attack on women in general," and shame is called down on our heads for daring to publish Dr. Macphatrs letters.—an indictment which does not seem to promise a very wide liberty of the Press if those who agree with Mrs. F. C. Spender ever control the Legislature. To realise the absurdity of the com- plaint made against the Spectator, imagine male readers in general up in arms because we had, as we have often done, attacked a particular type of man for selfishness, effeminacy, and sentimentality. It is, we feel sure, quite unnecessary for our correspondent to imagine that the cap made for the woman arraigned by Dr. Macphail fits her. Unless women in general are to be regarded as so sacred that even unde- sirable women must not be criticised, we can see no sort of sense or justice in Mrs. F. C. Spender's complaint. Her plea is only compatible with a more than Oriental seclusion and isolation for women. But surely that is not what she desires ! —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
