“The Woman Question” is one of Stephen Leacock’s most famous examples of his shorter works of writing. Even today, just over a century since its original publication, it is rare but not unusual to find serious-minded academic writing engaging the piece as fodder for an attack on the commonly-held expressions of patriarchal dominion that viewed the question of women’s suffrage as an assault upon common sense and male superiority. Of course, this well-meaning but woefully misguided attack upon Leacock as a symbol of widespread patronizing attitudes toward feminism by living during the turbulent period when women marching in the streets transformed history and finally brought them the long-delayed right to vote is much more likely to have been written by an American than a Canadian. The difference? Stephen Leacock is a national institution as well-known as among its population as Mark Twain is among Americans. And it is the context of that familiarity which makes all the difference.
“The Woman Question” is perfectly representative of much of the truly voluminous output marking Leacock’s writing career. It is satire framed almost entirely within a pervasive spectrum of irony which remains perfectly self-contained from beginning to end. In order to parse the surface narrative which seems to indicate that readers should seek association between themselves and the chauvinism of the narrator and his drinking buddy, it may not be absolutely one-hundred percent essential to know that Leacock still reigns as Canada’s reigning emperor of literary humor. If one doesn’t understand that “The Woman Question” is a work of humor, it is perfectly understandable how it could be interpreted as a work of sincere opinion. The dynamic can be applied throughout Leacock’s work, but in certain cases it becomes even more complex. A piece titled “The Amazing Genius of O. Henry” consistently points toward the writer actually elevating the short story author who was famous for his own different brand of irony being a true literary genius. In fact, the reality is just the opposite: it is a work which subtly insults those who actually do think O. Henry is a literary genius. At least with “The Woman Question” there is no title to create even more confusion among readers.
The problem with this technique might not yet be obvious, however. To believe that Leacock was a great fan of a writer when he was not is one thing. It only ruins his estimation in the eyes of O. Henry fans. “The Woman Question” presents a surface view that expresses an opinion running so deep within the patriarchal mindset of the male population at the time—and a chunk of the female population—that even though those opinions would be repulsive if genuine are counterbalanced by their actually being the mainstream perspective. Leacock wrote on an exhaustive number of topics, however, and as noted often engages the same ironic approach toward conveying his satire. One piece with the potential to paint him as a male chauvinist pig is one thing, but what if a reader who misses the irony of that piece also misses the irony of another five or ten or twenty pieces with the potential to become must more solid evidence of the original misassumption? And, furthermore, what if the topic was not condescension toward a woman’s right to vote, but the judgment of an entire ethnic, religious or cultural subgroup as being less than human? What the topic being addressed through his engagement with satire and irony was simply the issue of whether half the population should be allowed to vote or not, but whether black, or Jews or Italians or people with blue eyes or anyone who lisps or the left-handed were genetically inferior? Such an approach has been taken before and the results have been misinterpreted as genuine. Remember, there was outrage against Jonathan Swift at the publication of “A Modest Proposal” by those who actually believed his satirical suggestions of cannibalism were genuine.
Stephen Leacock is a proven master of one of the most potentially dangerous literary techniques available. Adopting the ironic stance of the opposition in order to reveal the fundamental flaws of their positions a long-standing tradition that has at time proven quite effective as means political propaganda. But as each new indictment of “The Woman Question” as an expression of Leacock’s genuine views toward women’s suffrage continue to occasionally pop up, the danger is newly revealed. And in this post-truth age in which it is potentially so easy to subvert the truth about Leacock’s ironic technique, the danger becomes even greater. The inescapable reality is that a concerted effort launched by just a few with the intent of undermining the truth that Leacock was writing satire would not take very long to prove successful. And that is with keeping in mind that Leacock’s reputation in Canada has been established and unquestioned for a century. Imagine the damage that could be done by a gaggle of “Leacock truthers” in America. Now imagine that effort launched against a writer of satire who does not enjoy nearly the stature or legacy of Leacock.
