That thought ran through my head last night as I spent two pleasant hours reading some old magazines I recently found in an upstairs bedroom. They are mostly 1920s vintage women's magazines like The Modern Priscilla and McCall's, with a scattering of other random titles. I plan to sell them on ebay for my mom, and while assessing their condition, I was often distracted by some of the articles. Follow me below the fold for some examples:
A couple of these articles has a modern tone to them despite the span of over eighty years. It is as if they'd been written just last week. Here is one example:
To my mind, the wave of lawlessness, of immorality, or irresponsibility that is sweeping the country to-day is directly the result of taking the Bible from the schools and neglecting it in the homes.
The Bible In The Schools, Gene Stratton-Porter, McCall's, May 1925.
Another example from the same issue:
Every new moon brings some new cult of trail marriage, free love, the unalienable right of youth to experiment before marriage, equal privileges for both sexes, matrimonial bureaus and general bootlegging in love.
Mrs. Wilcox's Answers For Women,Winona Wilcox, McCall's, May 1925.
What serious discussions were held between ads for toothpaste, floor wax, laundry soap, cooking oil, breakfast foods and linoleum!
But the article which interested me the most concerned itself with the possibility of a woman president. WOmen had finally gotten the right to vote, after decades of struggle, less than five years before I was struck by the fact this was contemplated so early. And so seriously.
The title was Will There Ever Be A Woman President?", by Eve Pennyfield and published in the November,1924 issue of McCall's. It starts with a quote from Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Texas:
The day is not far distant when America may see a woman President, just as Texas will have a woman Governor. A few years ago, no one could have conceived of any state with a woman Governor. It is my belief that a woman could be elected President not only because of her sex, but also because she would stand for some great principle, possibly peace.
The tone is set in the first two paragraphs. The guys don't like the idea. The first quote is from Hendrik Willem van Loon, author of The Story of Mankind.
It is not that woman are intellectually inferior, it is biologically impossible"...but he was adamantine on the point that a woman's emotional and nervous make-up, her fundamental feminine psychology unfit her for a public position of prominence and responsibility.
My personal opinion is Mr. Van Loon is an ass, but that just makes me unfit for conducting interviews, not writing DKos diaries. Perhaps sharing my opinion, perhaps not, the author next goes to Dr. Lenna Means, the Medical Director of the Women's Foundation for Health:
"The question of health and nerves is no more pertinent to a woman candidate for the Presidency than to a man. Most of our presidents have been between the ages of fifty and seventy and it is plausible to suppose that a woman candidate would be of the same age. At that time, all things considered, a woman's health is stabilized and her emotions poised. After fifty, the woman who has lived actively is at the peak of her experience."
Perhaps seeking balance for her article, the author also interviews Alice Foote MacDougall, the famous "coffee" woman who is against the idea:
I am against a woman for the presidency for three reasons. One is because I do not think there is anything greater than motherhood...a busy public life cannot help but steal time away from her children."
The would be news indeed to female politicians, and also to political wives who bring their children along on campaigns. Although less personal time is a fact of life for those involved in politics, all adults concerned know that is a fact of life for any job, not just elected office.
Second, it will be a long time before woman have the equipment of experience - the traditional training that men bring to an executive position."
But how does a person gain experience in politics unless they win an election and have a chance for some on the job training? After all, once upon a time back in the Jurassic Age, John McCain lacked experience.
Back to Mrs. MacDougall:
Third, because she is primarily a woman and a mother, a woamn's psychology stands in her way."
There's that women's psychology thing again, the notiong we are too "flighty" for position which require deep thought. I have a feeling this sentiment would have made the late and lamented Ann Richards bust a gut laughing. Not to mention most women who have held (or are holding) an elected office.
Here is more pontificating, from a Dr. A.A. Brill, a translator of Freud, as well as a noted psychoanalyst. He brings up the usual tedious objection:
For the presidency, the ideal is always the aggressive, active executive. If a woman has lived the normal life of marriage and motherhood, she will have neither the training through experience or the temperament by nature to fulfill the position in the required spirit. 'Great' women are not often happy, because in many cases, the deep, potent desire for motherhood has been thwarted."
In a nutshell, Brill was saying the pangs of what we now call baby hunger would haunt any woman who dares give up child bearing for a career in politics. The author didn't really buy that line of reasoning, and neither did her next interviewee, Mrs. Larry Spring, Democratic National Committewoman:
Women ahve accomplished so many unexpected things in the last year that the possibility of a woman president is not at all remote. Such a woman would understandably be older - without the responsibility of children and home ties. The average woman, in my mind, would make no issue at all between her home and outside interests."
She then asks this question:
Isnt it infinately more worthwhile for a woman to do soemthing constructive and useful than to devote all her leisure to bridge and the social game?"
Over on the conservative side is next heard Mrs. Charles H. Sabin, a member of the Republican National Committee:
"The question of a woman president lies entirely outside the consideration of sex. It's the personality and leadership of the individual that counts."
She didn't have much more to say than that.
Asks Magistrate Jean Norris:
A woman president? Why not? Women receive the same training in professional fields as men; they are going through the same school of experience in the business world; and many of them are leaders in the political arena. It is all a matter of education and demonstration on the part of women of their fitness to hold public office...I believe it will be many years before a woman receives the nomination for the presidency, but it will not be long before she receives the nomination for the vice-presidency."
Well, yes and no...
The final word is given to Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, who had decades of experience behind her in the fight to win voting rights for women:
There is no doubt that today women are a noteable political force. But, whereas statistics show they are holding a surprisingly large number of minor political offices, they are not yet on the inside of politics.They are not yet consulted in the making of platforms and the dictating of party politics...the immediate problem is for men and woman to work together, to trust each other, and to take the best from their respective points of view. When the time comes that men and woman have learned this and some woman steps forwrd as a real leader of her party, a moral leader holding aloft the standard of some great cause which she will defend loyally and work for zealously, then men and woman will vote for her irrespective of sex."
And Mrs. Catt nails it.
The moral of the story? We've come a long way - but we've got a long way go yet. First Geraldine Ferraro, and now Hillary Clinton have blazed a new trail with the two major (or as some would argue, one corporate entity under two different names) parties. We can't be afraid to follow it.
It's all a matter of education...