Chapter 2

Politics are perfectly compatible with the domestic duties and occupations of woman, whether she be mother, wife, or daughter. An educated woman realizes her responsibilities; she knows how to divide her time and will give her domestic duties the preference over any other duties outside of the home. A woman is not liable to engage in political activity if she is very busy at home, and when confined to her bed by the labors and cares of maternity, she will be unable to engage in politics, even if she were willing. Therefore, when I hear the argument that woman will be remiss in her household duties on account of politics and that she will neglect to take care of her husband and children if she is given the right to vote, I frankly confess that I am, perhaps, too dull to see the truth of it.

You insist that by divine precept the place of woman is in the home and that of man in society, and that this is the true and proper division of labor between the two halves of the human species. If this is really the plan of God, will you tell me then why all religions and all schools of ethics coincide in prescribing duties towards the neighbor and teach us to love our fellow-beings? Did the Lord speak to man alone, and not also to woman when amidst fire and smoke, on the quaking mountain, he gave to the world the tables of the Decalogue and said: "Love thy neighbor as thyself?" And the universal precept contained in every code of morals and in every religion, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,"--does it refer to man alone, or does it include woman also? To me, these precepts indicate that man and woman have duties towards others, that they have duties towards their fellow-beings, and that they must not confine their efforts towards happiness to the home, but extend them beyond it, to society. Will you tell me whether there can be happiness in the homes if society is not happy, seeing that society is nothing but the extension and sum of all the homes, and that all the suffering and evils that afflict society find their echo in the home, just as the happiness of the home exercises an influence upon the happiness of society?

You attempt to do something impossible: You try to divide the human being into halves: one-half that is happy in the home and the other that is happy in society, or vice versa. You can do it if you wish, but then you will either have to consign all your codes which confer upon man the government and administration of the home to the waste basket and make others vesting these powers in woman, or if you do not wish to do that, you will have to give woman a share in the public affairs in order that she may, the same as in the home, assist man in building up and strengthening the happiness of that other big home which we call society.

You say that woman, upon appearing on the stage of politics, will lose the respect and admiration of man; that instead of gaining any advantages, she will lose all those inherent in her present position, in which she is removed from any direct struggle with man, is adorable and adored everywhere, and reigns supreme in her home with the undisputed authority of the wife or mother, clad in the purple of the grace and majesty with which Nature has endowed her, pure and undefiled by the mire with which political strife and intrigue always bespatter the reputation and dignity of those who engage in them.

I believe I have stated the position of our adversaries in terms both poetical and precise, and when I speak of our adversaries, I include that numerous legion of women who still hesitate to ask for the right of suffrage, for reasons which, perhaps, deserve being called selfish.

However, the idealistic woman I have depicted will not disappear if our women are educated in politics the same as they are educated in the arts and sciences. A political education, far from being harmful to the natural charms of woman, will in my opinion enhance these, for the same reason that our modern education has given woman charms which the woman of the past did not possess. Unless you argue that education is in itself an evil rather than a blessing, and that it vitiates the character instead of improving it, you can not escape the conclusion that by increasing the knowledge and experience of woman, you give her more vigor, more energy, and a greater personal charm.

Nothing commands greater respect than education. Education elevates a person. From the moment that you show that you possess education, the consideration and respect of the others are yours. Education does not know the bar of race prejudice; through it an individual of a colored race can win the respect and often the admiration of the white man.

Does woman ever inspire man with greater respect than when she is instructed, when a college education has brought her to his own level? Was woman more respected in the past, when she remained ignorant, than she is now? I am willing to concede that she may have been courted more assiduously, but that does not mean that she was more respected. Do you understand by respect and consideration those empty forms of etiquette which make a man bow down to the ground to a woman and regale her with a few hollow compliments, designed to tickle the vanity or turn the head of a credulous and frivolous being? Do you call respect the singular habit of certain men to always find the eyes of the woman to whom they are speaking divine, to compare her mouth to a rosebud, her teeth to a string of beautiful pearls, and her form to the slender willow, and other stupidities of that kind? If that is the sort of respect and consideration that woman will lose if she goes into politics, she ought to be very glad to get rid of it, because all these empty phrases of gallantry are like the crowing of the rooster who wishes to dazzle a silly hen on which he has designs.

And, tell me, how is it possible for weakness and ignorance to inspire respect? As a matter of fact, when a little cooking, embroidering, and music, and the knowledge of the catechism were deemed sufficient to prepare a girl for married life, which was then the only career open to woman, she was the recipient of great consideration and courtesy from man. These, however, were not inspired by real respect, but rather by a sentiment of chivalry, because man thought woman so weak and ignorant that he deemed it his duty to show her that protection, consideration, and courtesy which are due to weakness and ignorance. Is this the opinion that our women want us to have of them? Respect is a sentiment engendered by the idea of equality, and unless woman is placed on the same level with man in the field of politics, we shall continue to hear ignominious phrases such as "But, woman, what do you know about these things! You go and mind your own business!"

Our women need not worry that if they are allowed to vote, they will necessarily forfeit the consideration and courtesy accorded to them at present, when they do not come into direct collision with man on the field of politics, and that the men will then consider themselves free to attack them as a rival whom they must overcome and destroy for their own preservation. In the first place it is a mistake to conclude that the participation of woman in public life will result in rivalry between the sexes. The attraction and sympathy between man and woman springs precisely from the difference in sex. If there were only men or only women, there might be such a thing as our mutually destroying each other, because there would be no purpose in life and the human race would not reproduce itself. It is in the interest of one sex not to destroy the other. On the other hand, politics is not always a personal struggle. In its proper and loftiest sense it is a struggle of ideas and principles, of theories and methods. Therefore, if a man is pitted against a woman in the arena of politics, they are certainly not compelled to engage in fisticuffs and kill each other, but each will present his own views on the points at issue, with more or less sound arguments in support of them. I do not believe any man has the right to insult a woman because she is his opponent, seeing that he has no such a right where a man is concerned. And if in the heat of political strife such an insult should be passed, has not woman the right to reply or to pay the offender back in his own coin? This is a case where woman will be given an opportunity to learn to be independent in judgment and action, seeing that certain persons do not want woman to vote unless she possesses independence of thought and action. I do not want, either, to give voice to the suspicion that many men are against female suffrage because they fear they might be worsted in a public debate, and what would then become of the prestige of the strong sex?

In the second place, if woman wants man to adore and idolize her, she can get him to do it whether she votes or not. Man does not adore woman because she has less rights than he has; but he worships her because woman is woman, the archetype of grace and beauty of creation, and man will forever burn incense at the shrine of that divinity. Remember that it has always been said that christianity elevated the condition of woman and gave her greater rights, and yet it is the Christian countries where woman is accorded the greatest consideration and respect.

Suffrage will not detract from the beauty of the long tresses of woman, nor will it make her cheeks and lips less rosy and the curves of her body less graceful. On the contrary, it will lend her an additional grace, that of being able to write a ballot in her diminutive handwriting, and man will always feel for her that love, tenderness, and adoration which grace and beauty will always inspire all the world over. Hercules will always bow to Venus because she is Venus, though Venus be a suffragist.

A political education will provide woman with new means for gaining the respect and admiration of man. Woman will realize that her duty does not merely consist in giving sons and daughters to the fatherland, but in educating and training them in such a manner that from their childhood on they will take interest in everything tending to improve social conditions, and in inspiring them with the desire to devote their efforts to a certain cause or party, for the best of their people. Public opinion will become much broader and stronger when it shall reflect the sentiments of our women, who are at present a passive element where the duties of citizenship are concerned; and when in her dark hours the nation shall need assistance, she will receive it not only from her citizens, but also from her citizenesses, who will not be ignorant and inexperienced in the tasks and duties confronting the people, but will be accustomed to the discipline of organization and to the calls of the public service.

There is no doubt, of course, that it is greatly to the advantage of man to maintain woman in ignorance, not only with regard to politics, but also where other matters are concerned. For one thing, it renders it easier for man to satisfy his whims and make of woman a toy which he can use or drop according to his fancy. She is obedient, submissive, and resigned; she never discusses or argues; she obeys and serves in silence, like a beautiful piece of furniture, differing from the rest only in that she is animate; she is a delightful doll because she can speak and has a little sense. I know that this is the ideal of many men, for the only reason that it suits their convenience.

But that is not woman as she should be; the woman that our century has redeemed from ignorance and slavery; the woman whom God has endowed with an intellect, a will and a heart, hers to cultivate and perfect in order that she may be not the servant of man, but his companion, not the subject of the king, but the queen enthroned by his side, to be his faithful and constant ally from the cradle to the grave, in prosperity and adversity, not only in the intimacy of the home, but also in the wide arena of public life. Man and woman were created to mate and to understand and love each other, to work, suffer, and struggle side by side for all that is good and beautiful in life, to perpetuate the sovereignty of human couple on earth, and to make it a place of happiness, free from tyranny and suffering and fit to be inhabited by peaceful and intelligent beings and not by vultures and wild beasts.

This is the mission of woman and man on earth as I understand and conceive it. Until man and woman are placed on exactly the same footing, until they stand on the same plane, so that there can be an intimate communion of thoughts, ideas, and interests, life will always be ominous and unhappy for one or for the other, and humanity will never overcome the evils with which it is now struggling. God made woman as perfect as man, and it is unjust to deprive her of any of the benefits and advantages which man derives from science, arts, and politics. Politics is a noble occupation, as it is the art or science of making nations happy, and it is but just that woman should contribute her share to the attainment of that happiness.

Is there any doubt that woman has faculties, sentiments, views, and methods of doing things of her own, different from those of man? How often has man, when he did not dare to do a thing, left it to woman to do! She has a personality of her own and should, like man, be given an opportunity to develop it; she should be given a voice where her own interests are concerned, and should on her own account face the risks incidental to life, venturing, experimenting, and discovering things for herself instead of having man establish an invariable rule of conduct for her and imposing upon her the methods which she must follow.

Politics is no longer what it should be; it has become too masculine and is brutal, selfish, and altogether too personal, because it lacks the kindness, the self-denial, the altruism, and the spirit of sacrifice which are characteristic qualities of the feminine sex. Why should we not benefit by the energy of woman, by her impulses and her views of things, in order to improve our practices and methods in public life? Perhaps, politics will be chastened and purified to some extent by the intervention and presence of woman, just as her presence at any gathering makes man more careful in language and actions!

Like a number of other institutions that are now a thing of the past, the monopoly exercised by man over the public functions is based on force and violence, and in order to perpetuate this monopoly, its supporters take shelter behind the wall of prejudice erected in the course of the times under the protection of the established order of things, and from there they hurl the shafts of satire and ridicule upon all who demand that this violent condition cease. Ridicule is the most powerful weapon now used against the woman who attempts to obtain justice and the vindication of the rights of her sex, some of which rights, such as that of governing the peoples, were not even withheld from them in many of the primitive states.

The result is that many persons have a very queer idea of the suffragist. She is represented as a woman who dislikes home work and is absent from her home at all hours of the day and night. The most common picture is that in which the wife addresses a gathering of other women, while the husband is busy at home, sweeping the floor and attempting to pacify the squalling baby. This is the idea which has been spread by cinematographs and reviews and which has impressed itself upon the minds of the unthinking masses, who are incapable of rising above a superficial view of things.

Nothing, however, is farther from representing her as she really is. The suffragist is a true product of our era of liberty. Having received the same education as man, she knows and does not shirk her responsibilities towards her family; but at the same time she is free from prejudice and deems it her duty to cooeperate with man in all work concerning social reform and the public welfare of the community in which she lives. She believes that for the very reason that there are duties in the home which are assigned to woman, she has also duties to perform in public life. The distribution of the work between man and woman causes no conflict between them in their home and family life, and there is no reason why there should be any conflict in public life if each sex is assigned the duties adapted to it.

Being a suffragist does not mean being antagonistic to the family duties. On the contrary, the suffragist realizes that the happiness of the family is the foundation of the happiness of society, and she knows that social distress and vices affect the family and that she can and should cooeperate with man in the relief of that distress and the suppression of those vices.

No, the general idea people have of the suffragist is altogether a wrong one and it is high time that at least the educated and intelligent correct their views where they are based on prejudices and ideas belonging to the past. We can not prevent the uneducated masses from thinking as they did half a century ago; but the fact that many serious and otherwise progressive persons content themselves with the opinion of the uneducated shows that here we do not go deep into subjects and allow ourselves to be carried away by the impressions of the moment.

Suffragism is a legitimate aspiration, an ideal of our century. It springs from the philosophy and institutions of the modern world and from the growing difficulty of the position of woman in the struggle for existence. It is necessary for her to protect herself and organize, not to create rivalry and make war upon man, but to become an asset in the social progress and protect herself from the exploitation and iniquity of the other social groups, whose victim she would become if she remained indifferent and took no part in the public life.

As a man of the law and a legislator, I would not think of opposing this aspiration. I consider it as natural as the right to live and the right of self-defence. I do not consider it premature for the Filipino woman to demand this right, as her sisters have done, successfully in some cases, in other parts of the world. To me it makes no difference that the number of those now demanding it is small and insignificant. It would even make no difference to me if the women of our country did not demand or want it at all. Where rights fundamentally in accordance with the spirit of our institutions and with the ideals of our times are to be granted, I would not consult those who are entitled to demand them, but would give them without the asking, because it would be just and God wants justice to prevail at all times and everywhere. I am not a judge, but a legislator, and it is my first duty to provide for justice, not to administer it, nor wait for some one to ask for it and some one to object to it.

It is a source of gratification to me that there is a group of women who, voicing the aspirations of their sex, have dared to approach our Legislature and call attention to a void in our statutes. This indicates to me that the consciousness of that right has been born and has revealed its existence in the Filipino woman, and more than that I need not know. I do not have to count and classify the women who think that way. When Rizal espoused the cause of the political rights of our race, his companions were very few, because in the majority of his compatriots that consciousness was lying dormant. But it would be a falsehood and an error to affirm that even at that time Rizal did not voice the cause of his entire race, and that no attention should be paid to his demands because he and those with him were few in number. He knew that his country was oppressed, that he was defending a just cause, and that he was fighting for the rights of his fellow-citizens, and he did not stop to reflect whether or not those fellow-citizens had the consciousness of their rights.

We must conclude, therefore, that the few women who now speak to us of the rights of their sex and for suffrage, represent all the Filipino women, unless we wish to insult our women by saying that they have so little common sense as to oppose the concession to them of rights that will broaden the scope of their lives and of their activity in society. It matters but little that the desire for suffrage appears in its initial stage, in the vague form of an indefinite proposition: the fact is that there has been an indication of that desire, and in my judgment the plant has germinated and it is useless to endeavor to smother it, as it will grow again. The more we delay female suffrage, the more shall we suffer by it, because why should we stifle a budding plant instead of allowing it to grow and in due season produce delicious fruit?

We need not imitate the older nations who have been so slow in recognizing women's rights. We have neither their traditions nor their prejudices and our progress need not come by slow revolutions. We must foster all those peaceful revolutions of ideas that will result in social justice. Just as we accept the latest inventions in mechanics, industry, and art, such as the automobile, the dynamo, and the aeroplane, so must we accept the latest improvements in the social and political institutions of the most advanced countries.

Female suffrage spells justice and vindication for the modern woman and we must adopt it forthwith, without unnecessary delay and formalities. The liberty of worship which gave us religious tolerance; the popular suffrage which strengthened our collective conscience; the free public school which emancipated our masses from the tutelage of the _cacique_: in short, all the achievements of democracy of which we are so justly proud would not yet be beautiful realities and we would not be able to enjoy their mature fruits as we now do, if we had been compelled to feel our way and make many tentative steps instead of at once entering fully upon our social and political life. We have to move quickly and anticipate the aspirations of the feminine masses, which are as yet vague, in order to save us the agitation which otherwise is sure to come and the justice of which will have to be recognized.

When we are told that our social condition is such that we are not ready for female suffrage, and that our women are not sufficiently educated to exercise political rights, I feel like asking whether we said the same thing when we imported and implanted in our country the democratic institutions that are the base and foundation of our present society. Our traditional education was diametrically opposed to a popular system of government, yet we adopted that form of government, because we considered it better than the other, more suited to our interests and to the ideals of the century, and did not worry about whether or not we were sufficiently educated and prepared for it.

It is more than twenty years now that the free public school has opened its doors to the women, and education has extended its benefits to them in the same proportion as to the men. Many of the women educated in these schools are now wives or mothers, and yet you still ask whether the Filipina has attained to the maturity necessary for her investment with political rights. I am sure there is no idea of requiring them all to be doctors or bachelors of art before we grant them the right of suffrage.