when, therefore, it is said that the tradition against female suffrage keeps women out of activity, social influence and citizenship, let us a little more soberly and strictly ask ourselves what it actually does keep her out of. it does definitely keep her out of the collective act of coercion; the act of punishment by a mob. the human tradition does say that, if twenty men hang a man from a tree or lamp-post, they shall be twenty men and not women. now i do not think any reasonable suffragist will deny that exclusion from this function, to say the least of it, might be maintained to be a protection as well as a veto. no candid person will wholly dismiss the proposition that the idea of having a lord chancellor but not a lady chancellor may at least be connected with the idea of having a headsman but not a headswoman, a hangman but not a hangwoman. nor will it be adequate to answer (as is so often answered to this contention) that in modern civilization women would not really be required to capture, to sentence, or to slay; that all this is done indirectly, that specialists kill our criminals as they kill our cattle. to urge this is not to urge the reality of the vote, but to urge its unreality. democracy was meant to be a more direct way of ruling, not a more indirect way; and if we do not feel that we are all jailers, so much the worse for us, and for the prisoners. if it is really an unwomanly thing to lock up a robber or a tyrant, it ought to be no softening of the situation that the woman does not feel as if she were doing the thing that she certainly is doing. it is bad enough that men can only associate on paper who could once associate in the street; it is bad enough that men have made a vote very much of a fiction. it is much worse that a great class should claim the vote be cause it is a fiction, who would be sickened by it if it were a fact. if votes for women do not mean mobs for women they do not mean what they were meant to mean. a woman can make a cross on a paper as well as a man; a child could do it as well as a woman; and a chimpanzee after a few lessons could do it as well as a child. but nobody ought to regard it merely as making a cross on paper; everyone ought to regard it as what it ultimately is, branding the fleur-de-lis, marking the broad arrow, signing the death warrant. both men and women ought to face more fully the things they do or cause to be done; face them or leave off doing them.
on that disastrous day when public executions were abolished, private executions were renewed and ratified, perhaps forever. things grossly unsuited to the moral sentiment of a society cannot be safely done in broad daylight; but i see no reason why we should not still be roasting heretics alive, in a private room. it is very likely (to speak in the manner foolishly called irish) that if there were public executions there would be no executions. the old open-air punishments, the pillory and the gibbet, at least fixed responsibility upon the law; and in actual practice they gave the mob an opportunity of throwing roses as well as rotten eggs; of crying “hosannah” as well as “crucify.” but i do not like the public executioner being turned into the private executioner. i think it is a crooked oriental, sinister sort of business, and smells of the harem and the divan rather than of the forum and the market place. in modern times the official has lost all the social honor and dignity of the common hangman. he is only the bearer of the bowstring.
here, however, i suggest a plea for a brutal publicity only in order to emphasize the fact that it is this brutal publicity and nothing else from which women have been excluded. i also say it to emphasize the fact that the mere modern veiling of the brutality does not make the situation different, unless we openly say that we are giving the suffrage, not only because it is power but because it is not, or in other words, that women are not so much to vote as to play voting. no suffragist, i suppose, will take up that position; and a few suffragists will wholly deny that this human necessity of pains and penalties is an ugly, humiliating business, and that good motives as well as bad may have helped to keep women out of it. more than once i have remarked in these pages that female limitations may be the limits of a temple as well as of a prison, the disabilities of a priest and not of a pariah. i noted it, i think, in the case of the pontifical feminine dress. in the same way it is not evidently irrational, if men decided that a woman, like a priest, must not be a shedder of blood.
