"'We must do our aspiring sisters the justice to say that several of them made very good speeches, and manifested a real talent for debate quite equal to that displayed by half the he-fellows we send to Congress. * * * We opine nothing serious will come of these Women's Rights' Conventions. If it amuses the darlings, to insist upon doing their own voting and fighting, let 'em talk on. If they go too far we can adopt measures and compel them to do their own kissing! They must have recreation of some kind, and this is a good substitute for fancy balls, expensive millinery, &c. Strong-minded women have a soul above buttons. Let the blessed angels weep and resolve if it relieves their minds.'"—New York Sunday Times. Now I'll wager a pair of new kid gloves that the writer of the above article is a whole-souled, loveable, handsome son of Adam. If all the men were like him the women would lay down their arms and take his!—there'd be no more drumming up recruits for petticoat parliaments—they'd 'resolve' to stay at home and 'do as they oughter.' "Nobody but a very 'wiry sister' could hold out against such an incarnation of good-humored gallantry. It's only the bad husbands who see their own ugly mental phizes in the looking-glass these 'female philanthro-pesses' hold up to them, that raise such a breeze about it. 'It's only the truth that wounds,' as the French proverb says. "If I had been of that convention, I should just draw off my glove, shake hands with that 'Sunday Times' writer, and sign an everlasting and repentant recantation of all incendiary resolutions,—now, henceforth and forever! Pass him round; send us a lock of his hair!—give us his daguerreotype!" |