in refusals?  In fact, marriage really concerns them more than it does men; they have to bear the chief of its burdens.  A wide and free choice for them would, then, seem to be only fair.  Undeniably a great many men are inattentive, unobserving, immersed in some absorbing pursuit, undecided, and at times bashful, and liable to fall into union with women who happen to be near them, rather than with those who are conscious that they would make them the better wives.  Men, unaided by the finer feminine instincts of choice, are so apt to be deceived.  In fact, man’s inability to “match” anything is notorious.  If he cannot be trusted in the matter of worsted-work, why should he have such distinctive liberty in the most important matter of his life?  Besides, there are many men—­and some of the best who get into a habit of not marrying at all, simply because the right woman has not presented herself at the right time.  Perhaps, if women had the open privilege of selection, many a good fellow would be rescued from miserable isolation, and perhaps also many a noble woman whom chance, or a stationary position, or the inertia of the other sex, has left to bloom alone, and waste her sweetness on relations, would be the centre of a charming home, furnishing the finest spectacle seen in this uphill world —­a woman exercising gracious hospitality, and radiating to a circle far beyond her home the influence of her civilizing personality.  For, notwithstanding all the centrifugal forces of this age, it is probable that the home will continue to be the fulcrum on which women will move the world.

It may be objected that it would be unfair to add this opportunity to the already, overpowering attractions of woman, and that man would be put at an immense disadvantage, since he might have too much gallantry, or not enough presence of mind, to refuse a proposal squarely and fascinatingly made, although his judgment scarcely consented, and his ability to support a wife were more than doubtful.  Women would need to exercise a great deal of prudence and discretion, or there would be something like a panic, and a cry along the male line of ‘Sauve qui peut’; for it is matter of record that the bravest men will sometimes run away from danger on a sudden impulse.

This prospective social revolution suggests many inquiries.  What would be the effect upon the female character and disposition of a possible, though not probable, refusal, or of several refusals?  Would she become embittered and desperate, and act as foolishly as men often do?  Would her own sex be considerate, and give her a fair field if they saw she was paying attention to a young man, or an old one?  And what effect would this change in relations have upon men?  Would it not render that sporadic shyness of which we have spoken epidemic?  Would it frighten men, rendering their position less stable in their own eyes, or would it feminize them—­that is, make them retiring, blushing, self-conscious beings?