PRO WOMANS SUFFRAGE By Natividad Almeda*

From men, we are only separated by a difference of sex, which in itself is not enough to justify the exasperating inequality in our rights. Men and women together incorporate the essence of the human race, and our common humanity is the essence of all our rights. different sexes must necessarily perform But it is precisely from the sexual very distinct roles in society. difference that the inequality of rights has been derived, in the belief that the Oppositionists who defend this less than humane reasoning must respond to Krause**, who says: "It is contrary to the nature and destiny of man to arrogate that the ultimate role of women is reduced to her status as a mother" because the female half of humanity has unfortunately been excluded from participating in public social life. Sexual function and its moral and legal consequences, such as parenting, educating the children, housekeeping, etc., do not diminish, neither for women nor for men, the necessity and the possibility of a universal human culture and of a shared calling in all spheres of human destiny.
* Part of her speech before the Legislative Assembly of the Philippines on December 12, 1918 Philippine National Weekly on December 7, 1918 Pp. 20-21, 24) Published in the

**Note: German Romantic Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1831), Krausism became the dominant intellectual force in Spain during
the years 1854-74, profoundly shaping Spanish liberalism. Refer to

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/hispanic_american_historical_review/v081/81.1delaney.p df)

Romero Navarro in his writing entitled 'The Feminist Philosophy ' said: To believe that women were born only to bring children to the world is to reduce her to the function of an irrational female, to depreciate her sex as to whose purposes were reduced solely to procreation, to deny her of intelligence. her of that quality. Believers should not forget that it was God who granted woman the intelligence; and now they want to deprive Fortunately the countries that show greater splendor of contemporary civilization are those where there is a greater acceptance of feminism, and where we see a larger number of women involved in extra-domestic activities; social and political. It is in these countries that children have more perfect and general education than those countries that do not embrace the feminist process! Torres Campos in the "Bulletin of the Free Institution of Education" affirms that: "the deduction that in a woman's life, predominance must be given to their reproductive functions, affirming that she has to devote her life entirely to love, to motherhood, to nursing and to the education of the children as her only tantamount mission, is the same to say that man, as the stronger sex, ought to spend his lifetime working muscularly." The wise jurist consultant Dionisio Diez Enriquez, in his work The Positive Rights of Women, among other things, said: "The gender difference has served as the foundation for all time and in every country to make the legal status of women inferior to that of men." It has been observed, however, that as the predominance of the physical force (that is to say, the predominance of the coercive element in law) declines in a civilization, the social equilibrium is restored between the sexes. Great Britain, North America, Germany, France itself, Latin and Catholic, these are the principal nationalities of humanity who demonstrate our assertion. The protection for woman is present in their laws; it is manifested in common practice, and embedded in their customs. Thus every day, institutions are provided for the defense of womens honor,

for the improvement of education, and for support to the young and the vulnerable. Does it mean to say that these countries that are advanced in science and the arts would be backward when it comes to moral issues? The concept that they have of women, would it be true or false? There is no denying that as members of humanity, women have the same rights as men, and this must be respected so that women may reach their full potential. It is evident that a society whose customs fully guarantee equal rights for all without distinction to sex is more honourable than that which enforces the seclusion of women within the family household rationalizing it with fear for womens being exposed to slander or male impudence. In a non-discriminatory society, sanction for indecent assault would be rigorous not only in law. For them, before she is a woman, a female is first an individual person, predisposed to the same rights and privileges as those of men. Because they understand that the sex of a person does not essentially change ones persona. Even motherhood, which is a natural occurrence that differentiates the female from the male, is not a necessary fact in every woman. Thus, this factor cannot justify the dependence of unmarried women, and not even that of the married womens permanent subordination. Gender can influence individual preferences and inclinations, but it does not change the qualities of the individual. For this reason, neither should it change the rights of the individual. Before the fundamental laws and derivatives, before the private and juridical order, there should be equality of both sexes. It is therefore a rudimentary fact that the equality of rights between man and woman is indisputable. Fearful traditionalist women (las tradicionalistas timoratas) and the egoism of some privileged men (el egosmo exclusivista de algunos hombres) have predicted dire consequences should equal rights be implemented. In light of similar observations, however, Judge Kingman of the State of Wyoming, in the USA, once said: "The women elected to different public offices have dutifully filled their different roles and exerted a salutary influence in all spheres of public life, peculiarly in the

judicial administration and function, in their capacity as justices. These women performed conscientiously this role by setting more attention to debates compared to men, proceeding with greater probity and independence, taking more conscious effort of their responsibility and independence, acting more consciously on their responsibility and increasing their presence for the order of the Hearing Room and to the dignity of the debates. And later, the said judge adds: "I loudly declare that this step I take is the result from this amendment, I have seen great advantages and benefits for the public life. I have not found any inconvenience to family life and the household, despite the horrendous predictions made by the opposition regarding granting women equal rights. No one can therefore fear that the future female public servants neglect the education of our future citizens. On the contrary, they will educate them further and better when they feel on their shoulders the tremendous weight of responsibility which is always expected of a broader and more advanced culture. It is therefore a matter of beneficially conveying some of our old values. And those women holding public office, integrally and soundly aware of the real life, would know how to better educate because no one can teach better than those who learned from experience. Nor is there knowledge more sustainable and easily taught than that which constitutes the morality of our own life. Do you wish to have good citizens? Then we must strive to have mothers who diligently endow to bear all the attributes of good citizenship. If the Filipina has demonstrated her ability and adequacy in all businesses concerning the domestic society, which is the basis of all other human institutions, for what reason has she been refused the right to teach her activity in all levels of public social life?

The education of children! Condescension and injustice!

- Exclaimed those prudish traditionalists. Because I consider this as

- We cry out together.

having a very poor concept of women who are veritably cultured and educated who could choose to exercise this right, speculating they are less able even though common women perfectly perform the threefold simultaneous task of casing cigars or being a seamstress, being wives and being mothers. If these poor women, who are largely the ones who maintain their family economically, can easily perform all the duties of a wife and a mother, what commonsense would say that the literate could not do the same, if not better? It is staggeringly a genuine contradiction. It is certain that the Filipino woman cannot harbor in her soul more than a gentle and loving emotion, even though we sin of being egotistical and immodest. That the Filipina will cease to be gentle from the time she becomes a public servant and occupy a position of responsibility is an affirmation that we do not believe to be the logical and necessary consequence [of the participation of women in the public sphere]. Is it unseemly incompatible with the character of a public servant the more or less gentle sensibilities that one might have? Furthermore, what incompatibility is there when a woman occupies a position of responsibility, or engages in any productive work, when at the same time she is an obliging mother and a loving wife? Both good and evil emotions are innate in every person; and we do not believe that a woman in her tenderness would later become furious because of having a particular profession or position. The particular character of an individual does not change by chance. As it is very well said by an author named Gregorio Martnez: As much as one skilled gardener cultivates a rose, he could not succeed in turning it into a jasmine." Even when an extensive education, a strong Enlightenment, an increased freedom and responsibility will nourish and perfect the spirit of a woman, extending her capabilities and uncovering the scope of her activities, she should never fear to become a man. On the contrary, the closer she walks to perfection, the more she completes her life, the more she adapts her body and her soul, the more she becomes a woman.

One cannot assert itself by what is missing, but rather by what one possesses. To say that a modern woman, cultured, wise, free, conscious, and exhibiting the fullness of her rights and responsibilities, is less a woman compared to one who lacks awareness, with no other defense but her instinct, no other weapon but her frailty, and no more charm than her ignorance is tantamount to say that the savage men of the primitive jungle was more a man than the modern male, cultivated by the wisdom of the ages. A woman who is ignorant and a slave could never grow out of immaturity, not even in death. To know more does not make a woman less of a woman. To have a conscience and a strong will, to overcome a few secular sloths and be capable of work and having interest in life, does not make a woman less of a woman. To acquire the means to defend and to advocate for her and her children without the help of others, does not make a woman less of a woman. On the contrary, science, conscience, capability, and culture, all this shows that education cannot provide anything less than the perfection of our natural abilities, not a change in woman's nature. We understand why it was intended to be exclusive for men those manual jobs that require physical strength, that harsh and even brutal work in the garage and factories which actually degrade women, that convert them into beasts of burden, that hamper their physical development...notwithstanding, these poor and unfortunate women are mothers and wives. Would it not be very logical to assume that a woman who is learned would know better how to share her blessings and satisfactorily fulfill her obligations in this life? No one that I know of has demanded more time to be spent towards the education of Filipino children whose mothers are from the common and middle classes. They are actually the ones who work the most and suffer harder in their struggle for existence. However, today, when I gather the request for the Filipino women (those women who have some capability and reparation) the right to intervene in public affairs, many cry out in anger. Even worst, some even oppose vigorously to accept that women are intelligent.

Let me recount some episodes of our glorious revolution as discussed by some of our countrys old patriots. At the beginning, our intellectuals appeared to be anathematizing the patriotic work of emancipation. However, when they sensed the triumph of the revolutionary ideas, those intellectuals who were the major opponents later went on to occupy the highest positions in the ephemeral Philippine Republic. Now the same thing will happen. We are confident that if by chance, one of our more enlightened women conquered a position of responsibility in the public sphere and managed to fulfill her role perfectly, many women would follow suit and renew their efforts to achieve merits to forthright the doors of public responsibility. Others conform that women should learn to their fullest potential but do not agree that women should understand politics, because politics, they say, stains everything. Really, it is hard to understand that there are some who conceive such idea, because, what is politics? Politics is the art of governing and dictating laws and regulations to maintain the peace and security of the citizens. It is also the gathering of principles to serve as a standard of the government of a country, the science of government, of public affairs. If this is politics, why fear a revolution in the social order when the women understand of it? If on the other hand, we understand politics as an art of speaking often, lavishing smiles and praises, exploiting public credulity, and twisting concepts, then it is understandable that those who think this true would harbor such ridiculous fears. What happens is that since up to now we have not seen Filipino women as political or public servants, we think it is a scandal. This reminds me of what they say of a Village in South America, where all of its inhabitants have mumps and when they see a foreigner without mumps, they mock him saying, look at him, and he does not have swollen glands because for them it is abnormal for a fellow human not have those swollen glands. For that reason, they find perfection in the swollen glands where the rest of the world sees a defect.

So it must be. Every idea of social reform produces commotion. We are in a crucial period of implementing transcendental reforms. We are committed, as a people conscious of its destiny, in cultivating within our soil the delicate plant of democracy. Mr. President, if the honorable members of this House are supporters of the democratic regime, then they should not forget that the beginning upon which the democratic regime will rest is in the following principle: "Obey the law you have created". How could it be fair that women are obliged to obey the law if they have not been involved in their creation? Women constitute half of the human race and it is but fair that such respectable half could savor the same privileges that are being enjoyed by the male half, and that we are represented in the legislative authority which is the point of reference and the basis of the peoples welfare. If this will be the case, there would be an equitable and just legislation. Women as well as men are all subject to the law, and therefore it is essential that we assist in the making of these laws. The advent of the new era in the Philippines has resulted in rapid and remarkable progress in the general populace and for the Filipino woman. In particular, the Philippines is undoubtedly the only country in the East, if not the only country in the entire universe, where we have conquered within the brevity of eighteen years what women of other nations took centuries to accomplish. It is certain not premature what we are trying to accomplish. On the contrary, we believe that it has been a while since the Filipino women deserve the kind redemption from the slavery they have been subjected to in terms of civil and economic rights. And no one better than a woman can safeguard the interests of their gender. Mr. President, - what we seek is the grant of a right, our rights. And this time no one can say that whoever aims such, only intends to secure rights, because our

whole argumentation consists precisely in this: that the Filipino women have fulfilled and fulfills the duties that forcibly empowers them to claim the rights that they are now seeking.

Translated by Emily Querubin, with Veronica Walker Vadillo, and partially edited by Anna Leah Sarabia in September 2012.