i have just awakened from another visit to the land of dreams. so vivid is my recollection of every thing i saw and heard, that i am greatly inclined to the belief that i have visited one of the planets; and have been asking myself a number of questions, such as these: if time and space are almost nothing to the spirit, if spirit can travel more quickly than light, – yea, almost as quickly as thought, – may i not have visited one of the planets? and as the physical condition of the world so greatly resembled that of our own as to seem to me identical, and as the people were, in both physical and mental structure, so like ourselves, except that the women were superior to the men, i am more inclined to that idea than ever. on this, my last visit, i observed one or two very important facts: first, there was frost and snow; and second, the days and nights did not perceptibly differ in length from those of this earth. hence, though i may subject myself to ridicule, though i may be laughed at as a visionary, i must own that i am inclined to believe that i have visited in my dream the planet mars.
another facts tends to substantiate this idea. i distinctly remember standing by my bedside as the dream terminated, and then awaking to the consciousness that my spirit stood there looking at my body asleep. it was but a moment certainly; but this double consciousness, in connection with the circumstances above mentioned, and others even more decisive, that will be hereafter specified, are such as to give a strong probability to the hypothesis, that, in this instance, the impossible (or what is currently deemed such) has been achieved, and even spectrum analysis (which embodies the latest developments in astronomical science) is outdone.
in this my last dream i found myself in a large public library; and who should enter but mr. sammie smiley and mr. johnnie smith, accompanied by two beautiful women. then followed several ladies and gentlemen, whom i at once recognized as those i had seen at the meeting on man’s rights. there, too, was the lady who had so amused and delighted the audience by her speech on man’s inferiority. then followed several introductions, from which i learned that said lady’s name was christiana thistlewaite. she took from her pocket a newspaper, in which was a report (which she read) of a lecture delivered by an old woman who was on the editorial staff of a leading metropolitan paper. the lecturer considered that the recent extensive employment of men in stores in a neighboring city had proved detrimental to the morals of the sex; inasmuch as by opening up to them a prospect of support by their own labor, instead of being entirely dependent for a maintenance of their ability to secure a well-to-do wife, they became careless of their reputations, their independence thus tending to licentiousness. mrs. thistlewaite remarked, that, although she (mrs. t.) was decidedly opposed to men transcending their legitimate sphere, she considered the lecturer’s position highly absurd. “poor old woman!” she added: “she has done good service in her day; always, until within a year or two, working for the poor and down-trodden, against the rich and powerful. she was especially useful in introducing co-operative households; but she is now evidently in her dotage. the paper can not afford to carry her many years longer, if it means to continue first-class.
“while they talked together, and looked at the books, some of them reclining in easy-chairs or on lounges, with books in their hands, i opened a very large, handsome book, which i found to be a bible. “well,” i said, “this is just what i want;” so i opened it, and began to look over the passages of scripture which referred to woman. i was astonished – nay, shocked – to find, at the very commencement, that the whole history of the fall of man was reversed as to the sexes. adam was tempted by the serpent, and gave the forbidden fruit to his wife; for which reason it was said to the man that “she [the woman] shall rule over thee,” and “in sorrow thou [the man] shall attend to the children;” that a virtuous man was a crown to his wife, and his price above rubies; “he layeth his hands to the spindle, and his hands hold the distaff;” his wife being known in the gates, when she sat among the elders of the land, &c. farther on it was stated that husbands should obey their wives, as the head of the man was the woman, even as christ was the head of the church; that it was not becoming that a man should speak in the church; but, if they would know any thing, let them ask their wives at home. “why,” i said to myself, “this bible has certainly been translated and probably compiled by women; for no man in this land would have so interpreted the scriptures against his sex. thus the women have strengthened themselves behind the bible; and so the poor down-trodden men are held in slavery by means of this book, thus interpreted!”
while turning over the leaves, mrs. christiana thistlewaite came to my side, to whom i said, “are all your bibles like this, madam?” at the same time pointing to some of the preceding passages. she smiled as she replied, “certainly; they are all alike. our bible is translated from the languages in which it was originally written: wise, good women were the translators; and i would like mr. sammie smiley and mr. johnnie smith to see those passages of scripture.”
“those passages,” rejoined the former gentlemen, “were never intended to be used to keep men in an inferior position, or to deprive them of their just rights. those who wrote the books in the bible, like you, did not believe in man’s rights; and they wrote as they believed. god never said those men were inferior to women; for in christ there was neither bond nor free, male nor female (gal. iii. 28); but all were one. god, in his works, never utters the word inferior; the sun shines and the flowers grow for all; the earth brings forth enough of its fruits for all, the varied diversities of manifestation beautifully blending into one unity of design: and as the varied contrasts and diversities and blending of color in a painting produce a unity of expression, no color being inferior or superior to any other, so nature and art alike belie any written word implying inferiority of one sex to another, whatever may be the diversities. who says that god has made one sex inferior to another utters a blasphemy.”
here several ladies gathered around mr. sammie smiley and mrs. christiana thistlewaite.
“we,” continued the gentleman, “have only to ask our own common sense what is right or wrong with respect to man or woman, even as was asked by an ancient reformer, once abhorred, now adored (nominally), ‘why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?’ (luke xii. 57). you, ladies, have made the laws, and you have made them to suit yourselves; think you, that, if men as well as women had the making of the laws, in marriage the man would have no control over property previously belonging to him, unless secured to him by a special deed? realize, ladies, if you can, what would be your condition were the legal status of the sexes reversed! if a man owns property or has a store, he is wronged by having no voice in the laws or regulations of the town or city in which he resides. if the wife die, the husband has the use only during life of one-third of their joint property. if the husband dies, however, the wife takes absolute possession of the whole. man is thus wronged by being denied the right of franchise; even the children of the widower being in many cases subjected to the control of strange women appointed by a court, instead of that of the remaining parent.”
mrs. susan thistlewaite then said to mr. johnnie smith, “allow me, sir, to ask a question. why do gentlemen, when they meet each other, occupy the time entirely in frivolous conversation about love, marriage, &c.?”
“admitting,” replied mr. smith, “the generality and absurdity of the practice, it must be considered as an unavoidable result of the conditions inaugurated and upheld by those who would circumscribe man’s sphere, and limit his faculties to affairs, that, when exclusively followed, tend to dwarf the faculties, and make people narrow and gossiping. you, ladies, would do the same were you in our position. close to you, ladies, as you have closed to us, all avenues to honor and emolument; deprive you of education and pecuniary independence, making you dependent on the bounty of man; and would not the most important subject to you be marriage?”
“mr. johnnie smith is right,” i replied, as i stepped into the very midst of them. “in the land where i reside, men have all the rights which you ladies have in this country: men make the laws and oppress women, just as, in this land of yours, women make the laws and oppress men.”
“oh, oh! astonishing!” exclaimed several. “do tell us something about things there.”
“well,” i continued, “ladies are the housekeepers.”
“ridiculous!” interjected two or three ladies.
“ladies do all the sewing and knitting.”
how they laughed!
“the men hold the colleges, and are educated therein, only a few being open to women: the majority of ladies are educated at common schools, and a few at boarding-schools.”
“ha, ha! oh, ho! boarding-schools for ladies! fine education that must be for women!”
“go on, go on!” called out several; “i never heard any thing so ridiculous! ha, ha, ha!”
“men hold the purse, pay car-fares, pay for refreshments, and stand when the cars are crowded, while the ladies sit. men dress in plain clothes, while women are walking advertisements of dry goods; men wear their hair generally short and clean, while women not only wear their own hair, but add to it quantities of horse-hair, grease, and other materials, making of the whole a putrid, uncomfortable, disgusting mass. our women decorate themselves, too, with ribbons, as do your men, and have their fashion-books; their dresses far excelling in absurd ugliness and unhealthfulness any thing worn by your men.”
“is it possible? how outrageously absurd and repulsive!” they exclaimed; while a ringing laugh filled the library, and more ladies entered. “go on, go on!” said several.
“men, and only men, make the laws, as senators, representatives, judges, &c. no women vote or legislate: in short, the whole matter is reversed.”
“how are the women intellectually?” asked a lady.
“as a general rule,” i replied, “they are just in the condition that men are here. by a singular coincidence, an old man who edits a leading metropolitan journal in my country recently delivered a lecture (at a place called bethlehem, i think), in which he took the same position, as regards the employment of women in stores, and their morals, that your old-woman editor is reported to have taken in regard to the employment of men in stores here. the objection is probably equally well founded in both cases; and the parallelism is so far complete, that our editor is getting to be termed an old woman or old granny; those terms with us being used to designate weakness in intellectual or executive operations.”
then mr. sammie smiley stepped on a chair, and began: “friends, you have heard what the stranger has told us. what do you think of it? does it not prove my position that those ladies would be no wiser or better than we are, were they in our position? and does it not prove conclusively that not sex, but condition, is the root of the matter?”
“i do not believe the story told us by the stranger,” said mrs. thistlewaite. “man superior to woman! men legislate! oh! it won’t bear the light of day for an instant!”
“where is that stranger?” said several voices. i had entered a large room opening from the library, and was looking at several portraits of distinguished stateswomen; for no man’s face was among them. when i heard the inquiry, i returned to the library. then the crowd gathered around me in great curiosity. “so you live in a land,” said one lady, “where men have their rights, do you?”
“yes,” i said.
“and do you mean to say that you were never permitted to vote?”
“i never was permitted; but i have protested against the exclusion.”
“what is the name of your land?” asked several.
“the united states of north america.”
“where is that?”
“do you ask where it is?” i replied; “why, look at your maps.”
“here is a map of the world,” said christiana thistlewaite.
i went up to the map and looked it over; and, lo! it was not like our maps at all. there were the frigid zones, the equator and the ecliptic, the parallels of longitude and latitude, the tropics and the poles, to which were even added many isothermal lines; but the distribution of the land and water was very different in many parts, though in others maintaining something of a general resemblance.
“this map is not correct,” i said.
then arose a general derisive laugh. “i am very sorry,” said mrs. christiana thistlewaite. “it would have given me great satisfaction to see that land of man’s rights, my friend; but it has vanished! it is not to be found on the map! ah!” she continued in bitter sarcasm, “it is too bad that the beautiful land where men are the lords of creation, where men are the superior race, and women the inferior, can not be found.”
confused and astonished by the map, confused and astonished by these puzzling remarks, i awoke. the map, however, had made such an impression on my mind, that i drew an outline of it at once; then i consulted a friend of mine versed in astronomy, to whom i showed the diagram. he took down a strange work containing some excellent engravings of the planets as viewed through telescopes of the highest magnifying powers, and one of them corresponded, in the distribution of land and water, exactly to my diagram. yes, there was my dreamland, there my planet, – the planet mars!
