By Back in 1893 Colorado passed a law granting women
full voting rights. The following year, three women were elected to the
Colorado House of Representatives (Clara Cressingham, Carrie C. Holly,
and Frances Klock). Did this new political development put an end to the
fair sex’s unconscionable and constant suffering under the iron
domination of the legendary force of patriarchy with its hordes of
merciless phallus-bearing agents?
I’ll let you decide for yourself. For now, I offer
but a hint: a small bit of anecdotal evidence to spur your own research
on this burning social question. As you are well aware, the empowered
independent women of today is to be seen constantly scratching her head,
wondering out loud: “Just what are men good for anyhow? Are they even necessary?”
Ask any present-day career woman, be she
electrician, math professor, construction worker, fighter pilot or trash
collector and she’ll tell you how she stays up at night and – between
the broadcasts of her favorite reality TV shows – in a state of profound
pensiveness, mulls over this dark (and somewhat scary) mystery of the ages.
Sarah Prather was a resourceful woman. Despite the
horrors of patriarchy she managed to learn to think for herself and
figured out what, in her “way of woman’s knowing” the answer to what the
ancient “gender” conundrum might be. Following is an account (partial
one at least) that shed some light on this empowered woman’s
still-inspiring early discoveries in the science of gender philosophy
and gender practice.
Many other American women, the records indicate,
conducted their lives in a manner producing similar results, yet this
Colorado heroine was the one who turned instinctive art into an
industrial science. Indeed, Sarah was not a woman to settle for untested
theories, projections and speculations. Visionary that she was, this
Colorado trail-blazer conducted her experiments repeatedly and
thoroughly to make sure her science was founded on strong and verifiable
principles – and that they really worked in everyday practice.
•◊••◊••◊•
FULL TEXT: Pueblo, Col., Mar. 1. – The suit of Mrs.
Sarah Prather against Frank Prather for absolute divorce was thrown out
of court this morning when it was found that contrary to the laws she
had married Prather only three months after obtaining a divorce from her
previous husband.
Up to this time the suit had developed
considerable warmth and interest. Mrs. Prather had secured her husband
under false pretense. She had not told him that she had been
married three times previously and that therefore he was only No. 4. the
couple were made one Aug. 3, 1901. Husband no. 3, whose name was T.
Crudgington had been dropped only three months earlier, unknown to
Prather. What the dates of the previous marriages and divorces were he
has not yet discovered.
~ Thrashed Husbands. ~
The story of the conjugal bliss previous to the
filing of the suit is a sad one. Prather says that his wife was
tyrannical and cruel. He is physically a small man and has never enjoyed
good health. The wife is, on the other hand, big, handsome and strong.
She has also two daughters of good physique. Singly and together he
claims, that they would beat him. Sometimes they did it because he had
no money to give them, at other times just for the mere pleasure of it.
Two months ago they put him out of doors after midnight and he had to
seek shelter to keep from freezing. He claims to have been always
patient, to have never lost his temper, and after getting the worst
possible thrashing he would only gently remonstrate. Last summer Mrs.
Prather opened a restaurant. This was the beginning of the end. She
soon fell into the habit, says the husband, of bringing the male
waiters home with her, right into the home he had himself bought, and to
show them preference. In his own presence she made love to them.* when
he remonstrated, and he always did so gently, she alleges, she would
forcibly eject him.
~ Spent Night Elsewhere. ~
But one night when she returned after midnight with
a man the long-suffering worm turned. Prather lost his temper and
became violent. He insisted that she would have to give up the company
of other men entirely. The wife, still accompanied by the waiter,
thereupon left the house and spent the night elsewhere. The following
morning she swore out a complaint against her husband for creating a row
and had him brought before the police court, where he was fined because
he would not expose his shame and defend himself.
•◊•
* Note: The phase “make love,” at this time,
referred to flirting and other verbally or physically affectionate
behavior, to intercourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment