We must not fly in the face of nature
From the pages of the Westralian Worker comes this entertaining gem. In 1914, the paper’s regular column, “Cleopatra’s Needles: A Column of Points for Women,” published this letter from one of its readers:
WE OPPOSE POCKETS FOR WOMEN.
1. Because pockets are not a natural right.
2. Because the great majority of women do not want pockets. If they did, they would have them.
3. Because whenever women have had pockets they have not used them.
4. Because women are expected to carry enough things as it is without the additional burden of pockets.
5. Because it would make dissension between husband and wife as to whose pockets were to be filled.
6. Because it would destroy man’s chivalry towards woman if he did not carry all her things in his pockets.
7. Because men are men and women are women. We must not fly in the face of nature.
–”Public.”
It struck me as interesting because the column was typified by a passion for the Suffragettes. No editorial remarks accompanied the letter, but I suspect that it was a sarcastic commentary on the issue of woman suffrage — try replacing the word “pockets” with “votes”. (Of course, if I were a follower of Windschuttle such an inference would be entirely inappropriate — we must accept unquestioningly the written record.)
For the record, I’m a big supporter of pockets for women. I’m happy to do my chivalrous duty by carrying Carita’s keys or phone, but I find it disturbing that while they insist on carrying a bag with them wherever they go, women still have stuff left over. Weirdos.
Just for the record, weirdo, I only make you fulfill your chivalrous duty when you insist I don’t need to carry a bag!! Of course, then you wonder why I’ve got too much stuff to fit in my pockets. (Very small pockets, because I’m little, which means my pants don’t have much spare space floating around)!
Yeah, the old papers I’ve been reading about have some pretty interesting comments on women. I notice them particularly, given that my research focusses on women. There’s all the typical binary projections of homemaker vs. temptress that take my brain back to the days of english lit classes, then interesting pieces about female wrestling (yes, in the 1850s!!), bawdy houses and drunkenness. I have to say though, I find some of Punch’s extracts pretty offensive.
P.S. For anyone that’s interested, tonight I farewell the blogosphere. I did like being listed on Rob’s honour roll as his ‘little lady’, but alas, time does not permit me to maintain even my usual poor blogging form. Adieu!
You let women have pockets, and the next thing you know, some men will want to carry purses. Which will inevitably lead to the downfall of Western civilization.
Some people apparently don’t understand:
1] Irony isn’t new.
2] Apochrypha is always a winner.
3] What Windschuttle actually argues.
Woo! That’s the way, Norman, never say die! Don’t worry, the horse may have started to smell, but it’s not over ’till it fully decomposes.
Sorry to hear that, Carita… do we still get to call you “manas”?
Sorry about your problem, Mark, whatever it is.
Problem’s you repeating the same thing over and over again. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong, but you aren’t going to convince Rob no matter how many times you tell him he’s misrepresented Windschuttle, so you may as well drop it.
Apologies for causing you concern, Mark. But I believe Rob [as indeed he stated long ago on a post] DOES understand my point that Ryan’s tardiness in answering the main fabrication charges does seem a tad long.
In any case, MY beliefs are irrelevant here. On ANY issue, it’s what each individual concludes after examining the available evidence that’s important.