A man uses his best _judgment_ when he meets disappointment. A woman
trots out her "feelings" and her best pocket-handkerchief, and calls in
the neighbors. So the woman gets the lion's share of "sympathy"--which
means that all the other women get out _their_ best handkerchiefs and
try to imagine just how _they_ would "feel" if in her place.

Of course there _are_ exceptions. I _have_ heard of men who wept and
retailed their woes; and I have heard of women with gumption.

The woman who wrote the letter at the head of this chapter is a feel-er,
not a thinker. She looks at the forlorn, bedraggled specimens of her own
sex and "_feels_" with them, never THINKING that the women themselves
have anything to do with making their conditions. She "feels" with the
woman because _she_ is a woman. Being an unthinking creature she cannot
"feel" for the man at all.

Woman is the weaker creature for no other reason than that she lives in
her "feelings."

Man is the stronger for no other reason than that he uses his wits and
his will to _control_ his feelings. "B. B." has seen children gazing
into shop windows. Immediately she imagines how _she_ would "feel" if in
their places. She does not stop to THINK that in all probability the
simple act of gazing into the window may bring more real joy to those
children than the _possession_ of the whole windowful of toys would
bring to some rich man's child. She does not _think_ that life consists
not in possessions or environment, but in the _ability to use_
possessions or environment. If she were an Edwin Abbey or a Michael
Angelo she would gaze on our chromo-bedecked walls and work herself up