The women of the Tomfoolery Convention, now being held in this city, talk as fluently of the Bible and God’s teachings in their speeches as if they could draw an argument from inspiration in maintenance of their woman’s rights stuff....  The poor creatures who take part in the silly rant of “brawling women” and Aunt Nancy men are most of them “ismizers” of the rankest stamp, Abolitionists of the most frantic and contemptible kind and Christian (?) sympathizers with such heretics as Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Parker Pillsbury, O.C.  Burleigh and S.S.  Foster.  These men are all woman’s righters and preachers of such damnable doctrines and accursed heresies as would make demons of the pit shudder to hear.  We have selected a few appropriate passages from God’s Bible for the consideration of the infuriated gang at the convention.

The New York Herald, under the elder Bennett, which from the beginning of the demand had been the inveterate foe of equal rights for women, contained the following editorial, September 12, 1852: 

The farce at Syracuse has been played out.  We publish today the last act, in which it will be seen that the authority of the Bible, as a perfect rule of faith and practice for human beings, was voted down, and what are called the laws of nature set up instead of the Christian code.  We have also a practical exhibition of the consequences that flow from woman leaving her true sphere, where she wields all her influence, and coming into public to discuss morals and politics with men.  The scene in which Rev. Mr. Hatch violated the decorum of his cloth and was coarsely offensive to such ladies present as had not lost that modest “feminine element” on which he dwelt so forcibly, is the natural result of the conduct of the women themselves who, in the first place, invited discussion about sexes, and, in the second place, so broadly defined the difference between the male and the female as to be suggestive of anything but purity to the audience.  The women of the convention have no right to complain, but for the sake of his clerical character, if no other motive influenced him, he ought not have followed so bad an example.  His speech was sound and his argument conclusive, but his form of words was not in the best taste.  The female orators were the aggressors, but to use his own language he ought not to have measured swords with a woman, especially when he regarded her ideas and expressions as bordering upon the obscene.  But all this is the natural result of woman placing herself in a false position.  As Rev. Mr. Hatch observed, if she ran with horses she must expect to be betted upon.  The whole tendency of these conventions is by no means to increase the influence of woman, to elevate her condition or to command the respect of the other sex....

How did woman first become subject to man, as she now is all over the world?  By her nature, her sex, just as the negro is and always