{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_71805/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_71805","id":"gutenberg_71805","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71805","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Sex","Women"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note\n  Italic text displayed as: _italic_\n\n\n\n\n  WOMAN\n  A Vindication\n\n\n\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_\n\n\n  A DEFENCE OF ARISTOCRACY\n  MAN\u2019S DESCENT FROM THE GODS\n  THE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS OF DEMOCRACY\n  ETC.\n\n\n\n\n  WOMAN\n\n  A Vindication\n\n  By\n\n  ANTHONY M. LUDOVICI\n\n\n  CONSTABLE \u00b7 LONDON\n  BOMBAY \u00b7 SYDNEY \u00b7 1923\n\n\n\n\n_Printed in Great Britain by_ Butler & Tanner, _Frome and London_\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAP.                                                             PAGE\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                                       vii\n\n\n  Part I\n\n  PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS\n\n     I POSITIVENESS\u2014THE SAYING OF \u201cYEA\u201d TO LIFE                        3\n\n    II THE SUBJECT TREATED GENERALLY                                  24\n\n   III WOMAN AND HER UNCONSCIOUS IMPULSES                             37\n\n    IV THE POSITIVE MAN AND THE POSITIVE WOMAN                        54\n\n     V VIRGIN LOVE IN THE POSITIVE MAN AND THE POSITIVE GIRL          80\n\n    VI THE POSITIVE ENGLISH GIRL                                     104\n\n\n  Part II\n\n  INFERENCES FROM PART I\n\n   VII THE MARRIAGE OF THE POSITIVE GIRL AND THE POSITIVE MAN        125\n\n  VIII BREACHES OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT AND DIVORCE                 178\n\n    IX THE OLD MAID AND HER RELATION TO SOCIETY                      229\n\n     X THE VIRTUES AND VICES OF WOMEN                                280\n\n    XI WOMEN IN ART, PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE. THE OUTLOOK. CONCLUSION 346\n\n       INDEX                                                         369\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n \u201cThe most disgusting cant permeates everything. Except for the\n representation of savage and violent sentiments, everything is stifled\n by it.\u201d\u2014Stendhal, _De l\u2019Amour_.\n\n\nThe object of this volume is twofold: in the first place to\nraise certain weighty objections to that industrialization and\ncommercialization of woman, which has stamped the \u201cprogress\u201d of Western\nEurope during the last fifty years; and, secondly, to reveal woman, not\nonly as a creature whose least engaging characteristics are but the\noutcome of the most vital qualities within her, but also as a social\nbeing in whom these least engaging characteristics themselves only\nbecome disturbing and undesirable when she is partially or totally out\nof hand.\n\nWhile trying to escape the influence of all that \u201ctinsel of false\nsentiment\u201d which in the atmosphere of Democracy and sentimentality has\ngathered about the subject of Woman in modern England, it has been my\nendeavour to defend her against certain traditional and well-founded\ncharges, by showing that the very traits in her character which have\ngiven rise to these charges form so essential a part of her vital\nequipment that it would be dangerous to the race to modify or to alter\nthem. Thus, despite the fact that there is much in this book that\nmay possibly strike the reader as unfriendly, if not actually harsh,\nI am aware of no other work in which so complete and so elaborate a\nplea (from the standpoint of Life and Life\u2019s needs) has been made in\ndefence of Woman\u2019s whole character, including all that side of it which\nthe wisest of mankind, and the oldest traditions of mankind, have\nconsistently and unanimously deprecated.\n\nCouched in the briefest possible terms, my thesis is practically this,\nthat, whether we contemplate Woman in the r\u00f4le of the adulteress, of\nthe heartless stepmother, of the harlot, or of the creature whose\nduplicity has been the riddle of all ages; or whether we contemplate\nher as the staunchest of lovers, as the most reliable of allies, as\nthe mother whose noble devotion to her offspring will drive her to any\nextreme of danger in defence of them, and as the representative of that\nsex which has given us a Joan of Arc, an Emily Bront\u00eb, and an Emily\nDavison of Derby fame; we are always confronted by a creature whose\nworst can, on final analysis, be shown to be only the outcome of her\nbest and most vital qualities, turned to evil by mal-adaptation; and\nwhose best is but the normal and effortless expression of her natural\nendowments.\n\nSeeing, however, that among the mal-adaptations which cause Woman\u2019s\nbest to manifest itself as her worst, I include lack of guidance and\ncontrol from the quarter of her menfolk, I range myself naturally\namong the Anti-Feminists, though at the same time I most emphatically\ndisclaim all anti-feminine prejudices. Indeed, so far from this being\nthe case, I am a deep and passionate admirer and lover of Woman. In\norder to love her, however, I do not find it necessary to exalt her to\na plane on which all her sturdier, more vital, and more \u201cdangerous\u201d\ncharacteristics are whittled down to mere sweetness. Those to whom the\nlove of woman depends upon so gross an idealization of her nature as to\ncause them to overlook or deny that \u201cwickedness\u201d in her, which is at\nonce her greatest vital strength and her most powerful equipment as the\ncustodian and the promoter of life, will find very little to sustain\nthem in this love throughout the present volume. And, if in this age\nof \u201cSafety first,\u201d they fancy that it is expedient to rear and to love\nonly those women from whom all \u201cdanger\u201d has been removed, they will\nfind that I have endeavoured to demonstrate to them the extreme peril\neven of this plausible ideal.\n\nAs far as I know this work represents the first radical attempt that\nhas been made to differentiate two very definite and dissimilar types\nof women\u2014the positive and the negative\u2014and to account for their\nrespective virtues and vices on the grounds of their peculiarities of\nhealth, tonality, vigour, and constitutional bias in favour of life. It\nis my belief that this is a necessary and useful differentiation, that\nwithout it there can be no clarity about Woman, and that the fact that\nit has not been attempted by previous writers, accounts for much in\ntheir work which is both unfair and untrue. It must be quite plain to\neveryone, that in a world where so-called virtue is all too frequently\nthe outcome of a _minus_ rather than of a _plus_ in vitality, it\nwould be grossly inaccurate to class all women together; for while\nin the case of one woman chastity may be a great feat of discernment\nand self-overcoming, in the case of another whose body is less tonic\nand less vital, it may be the easiest of human accomplishments. All\nreactions are known to differ according to the vitality of the organism\nstimulated. To overlook tonality and vitality in any description of\nhuman beings would therefore be a most unpardonable omission. Thus,\nWeininger\u2019s and Schopenhauer\u2019s failure to differentiate between\npositive and negative women effectually invalidates, in my opinion,\nmost of what they have said about her; while a good deal of the rest\nof the literature dealing with the subject of sex seems to me to fail\nowing to the fact that it makes no attempt to describe a standard or a\nnorm before it proceeds to expatiate upon sex characteristics and their\nconsequences.\n\nThe fact that a classification on these broad lines does not prevent me\nfrom occasionally bringing charges which will seem severe against the\nvery type that I most warmly recommend, is in no way inconsistent with\nmy claim that my work is a vindication; for while I show that all the\ncharges that I myself advance are only an indictment of Woman in so far\nas she is unguided and uncontrolled, I also defend her against many\nother harsh judgments which are commonly passed against her, and with\nwhich I will have nothing to do.\n\nThus in the course of this work, the reader will find that I defend\neven the so-called \u201cmale\u201d woman against the gibes which recently it\nhas been the fashion to level against her. And on what grounds do I\nundertake her vindication?\u2014I point out that, in a nation that can\nboast, as England undoubtedly can, of great and worldwide masculine\nachievements in the past, such achievements can only have been possible\nbecause the women of the nation did not too seriously dilute the\nmasculine qualities of the race, with the element \u201ceffeminine.\u201d But for\nthis to have been the rule, these women must have had a large share\nof masculine virtues. I show that other nations, such as the Romans\nand the Red Indians, also reared generations of masculine women, and\nalways to the advantage of the community. These male women, against\nwhom so much has been said, are therefore merely the vestiges of our\ngreat masculine past. Now they are ill-adapted, because they can no\nlonger find the men to whose greater masculinity they might adapt\nthemselves. It is the degeneration of man that is the cause of their\nmal-adaptation. Women, or at least the best women, nowadays, are no\nlonger inspired or uplifted by their association with him.\n\nTo reply to this, as most people all too hastily do, that the last\nWar was a proof that Englishmen at least have not degenerated, does\nnot constitute a serious objection to my statement. For, after all,\nsuccessful fighting is only one\u2014and the most primitive\u2014among the many\ndesirable qualities that the masculine civilized being has cultivated.\n\nDegeneration may be defined as a departure from the high qualities\nof a race or a kind. But it is possible to depart from a very great\nnumber of cultivated qualities, and still to retain the moral and\nphysical equipment of the good fighter. When, therefore, I seek to\nexplain a good deal of Woman\u2019s discontent with Man, and most of her\nvery justifiable contempt of him, by pointing to his degeneration, I\nmean that, despite the evidence of the great War, in which the modern\nEuropean admittedly revealed the primitive fighting qualities in all\ntheir pristine strength, the man of to-day in many other respects\u2014in\nthe matter of catholicity of tastes, for instance, versatility of\ngifts, will-power, vigour, character, and health\u2014shows a marked\ndeparture from the higher endowments of his ancestors. The fact that\nthis degeneration is due to the devitalizing, cramping and specialized\nlabours which several generations of Commercialism and Industrialism\nand excessive \u201cUrbanism\u201d have imposed upon the male sex, can hardly be\nquestioned; and if we are in search of an explanation of Feminism, if\nwe are anxious to discover how and why it is that women are now coming\nforward in large numbers to measure their strength against men in all\nthose callings and offices which hitherto have been regarded as Man\u2019s\nspecial spheres, we may be sure that the true cause of all this does\nnot lie so much in a desirable change in Woman\u2019s nature itself, as it\ndoes in an undesirable depreciation in our own general abilities, which\nwomen have been only too slow to observe.\n\nTo point to the great War in such circumstances, is only cant; but like\nall cant, it is the outcome of a desire to spare our vanity at a moment\nwhen everything points indubitably to our humiliation.\n\nThere is, however, no subject in the whole world, or at least in the\nwhole of our English world, around which more cant has collected, than\nthe subject of sex and the relation of the sexes. But perhaps it would\nbe as well to make quite clear what is precisely meant by \u201ccant\u201d in\nthis respect. With Stendhal, I am of the opinion that cant is created\nmore by vanity than by Puritanism, or the sense of propriety. And it is\nbecause vanity is involved, that the fight against cant is so stubborn.\nIf Psycho-Analysis had really assailed our vanity, instead of merely\noffending our sense of propriety, we should have heard much less about\nit. Also we have only to think of the huge popular success of writers\nlike Zola in order to assure ourselves that for a man\u2019s work to be\nhushed up and ignored, he must be guilty of a greater crime than the\nmere violation of the proprieties or conventions.\n\nAs a rule, mankind will listen patiently when it is told of the\nmaterial and not infrequently sordid animal background to some of its\ndearest emotions; for, after all, it is only disturbed in its prudery\nby such revelations. But proceed to tear away the tinsel of cant from\nthose activities, for instance, which are alleged to be humanitarian,\n\u201cunselfish,\u201d or to belong to the class known as \u201cself-sacrifice,\u201d and\npoint out how all these activities themselves invariably arise from\npurely egotistical emotions and desires, and mankind will immediately\nbecome both incredulous and indignant. Why is this? Obviously because a\nvery large section of the population of the western world find the very\nbasis of their self-esteem in the activities enumerated. To show the\negotistical root of these activities, as Hobbes, Helvetius, Stendhal\nand Nietzsche consistently did, is therefore to wound these people in\nthe very sanctuary of their vanity; and those against whom this kind\nof violence is attempted nowadays usually retaliate with both rancour\nand rage. Hence the determination with which writers like Hobbes,\nHelvetius, Nietzsche and Stendhal are forgotten and ignored.\n\nOver the writings of all these men there hangs a very pronounced and\nunmistakable fragrance, which may be almost painful at the first\ninhalation, and a certain atmosphere which has a noticeably low\ntemperature. Frequently this atmosphere is quite glacial, and produces\nthe distinctly unpleasant reaction of goose-skin in the reader\u2019s mind.\nBoth in the ideas they present, and in their manner of presenting them,\nthese authors scorn to please. They all possess the same penetrating\ninsight into the psychology of man; they reveal what the French call\n\u201c_une psychologie fouill\u00e9e_,\u201d and their honesty is hampered by no\ndesire to fortify themselves or their fellows in their self-esteem.\nUnlike Swift, however, it is certain that these men did not write\n\u201cto vex the world more than to divert it,\u201d but because they realized\nthat certain falsifications of sentiment are dangerous and lead to\ndegeneration.\n\nNow there is an instinctive inclination in every reader to identify\nhimself with the picture of humanity presented to him in the book\nthat he happens to be perusing, whether it be a novel or a scientific\ntreatise. Naturally enough, therefore, he is exposed to the severest\nshocks if at every turn he is prevented from idealizing his own nature,\nor from thinking too well of it, owing to the fact that the picture\nhe is contemplating is too humiliating to be pleasant, and yet too\nconvincing to be lightly rejected.\n\nThe bulk of modern readers, however, are women. This fact, too well\nknown to editors and publishers, is quite inadequately understood\nfrom the standpoint of its influence on taste and quality in literary\nproduction. For not only do women reveal the trait common to all\nreaders, which consists in a tendency to identify themselves with\none of the characters of a novel, or with the portrait of humanity\npresented in a scientific treatise, but they are also addicted to the\npractice of confounding that which is pleasant to themselves with that\nwhich is true. Thus in the woman reader there is a twofold tendency\nto tolerate or to applaud cant; for, on the one hand, she views truth\nhedonistically, and, on the other, she feels deep discomfiture,\neither when she finds herself unable, through her false idealization\nof herself and her motives, to identify herself with the anti-cant\nportrayal of a certain heroine (Stendhal\u2019s F\u00e9licie F\u00e9line, for\ninstance), or, when she finds her reading of human nature, which is\nbased upon her idealized reading of herself, affronted by a picture of\nhumanity which shatters her rosy view.\n\nTo the influence of women in this connexion, however, ought in all\nfairness to be added that of a vast number of men, who, in these days,\nwhether from the same hedonistic view of truth, or prompted by a\ncertain poltroonery and vanity in the face of reality, tend to shrink\never more and more from any understanding of human relations and the\npassions that govern them, which would distort their comfortable and\ncomforting assumptions concerning both. If, however, they actually\nform, together with the women, a force sufficiently powerful to govern\nthe taste of the day, especially in the world of literature and in that\ndepartment of it which treats of human psychology, we may well feel\nsome anxiety concerning the real worth of that literature. If Byron and\nStendhal could honestly complain of cant even in their time, what can\nbe our position to-day?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrankly acknowledging my indebtedness to the school of writers that can\nbe said to have adopted the rigorous psychological uprightness of our\ngreat philosopher Hobbes, I have endeavoured also to strip the \u201ctinsel\nof sentiment\u201d from one of the most important of human relations, in\norder, if possible, to build afresh, and to build wholesomely, where\ntoo much confusion and too much falsehood have been allowed to flourish\nin the past. In order, however, to protect myself from a charge to\nwhich the asperity and frequent severity of my language is almost sure\nto expose me, it may be as well for me to state at once that, unlike\nmany that have written on the subject of Woman, I have been animated by\nno bitterness and by none of those unhappy experiences which often warp\njudgment and impair the vision. On the contrary, to all my principal\nrelations to women I owe the most pleasant and possibly some of the\nmost valuable experiences of my life.\n\nUnlike Schopenhauer, Byron, or Balzac, my relationship to my mother\nwas an exceptionally devoted and happy one. Both friends and relatives\nare unanimous here, and have frequently declared that they rarely saw\nanything to equal it, both on her side and on my own. Up to the time\nof her death she was my best and dearest friend, and in my passionate\nlove for her, my love for my subject may well be said to have begun.\nWhat has my relation to other women been? In this regard I can only\nsay that, though I have spent an enormous amount of my time with\nwomen, I have never suffered the smallest wrong at the hands of any\none of them; neither have I had any experience which could possibly\ngive me a distorted view of the sex, or a resentful attitude towards\nit as a whole. I have learned a tremendous deal from women, and,\nhaving not a little of the woman in me besides (and to _comprise_ is\nto _comprehend_), I have through the usual channels of introspection\nbeen able to supplement my objective studies with a good deal of\nsubjective information. From my earliest youth, too, the subject of sex\nhas interested me deeply. True, it interests every one deeply; but I\nhave fortunately never felt any of the customary shame that so often\narrests thought and speculation on the subject. Neither can I say that\nmy environment was ever of a kind to hinder me in my free and careful\nstudy of it. Brought up in an atmosphere of art and literature, I never\nbecame acquainted with that false modesty and embarrassment that seizes\nupon most young people when, for the first time, they are confronted\nwith the most mysterious and fascinating subject of existence. I was\nallowed to dwell on the question, had no reason to suppose it was wrong\nto do so, and even when, at the age of ten I took my first steps in the\nscience of physiology\u2014a subject I used to beg all my elders to instruct\nme upon\u2014I and they little knew that I was anticipating, by at least\nsix years, a passionate interest in the principal and most fundamental\nquestion of human relations. To this day I remember the little green\nmanual of Physiology, by Professor Huxley, that my governess put into\nmy hands, and I cannot say I remember any book better, save perhaps\nanother little green volume containing Schopenhauer\u2019s essays on _Woman\nand the Metaphysics of Love_, which I read when I was eighteen. At the\nage of nineteen I wrote my first book, which bore the title _Girls and\nLove_; but, needless to say, it was never published. And ever since\nthe subject of sex has scarcely ever ceased from occupying my mind in\nvarious ways. For the rest, I have listened with respectful attention\nto the voice of the Ancients\u2014of the Orient, of Egypt and of Greece\u2014and,\nas usual, have listened most intently there where I knew relative\npermanence to have been achieved and humanity to have flourished best.\nSuch preoccupations in regard to a matter that ought to be so natural,\nso well ordered, as to be taken for granted, just as breathing is, can\ndenote but one thing, namely: that to the thoughtful, nowadays, sex\nhas undoubtedly become a real and puzzling problem; that is to say,\nsomething that is not in order, that is not properly understood, and\nthat every one has, as it were, to face and to overcome for himself\nafresh, before he can \u201ccarry on,\u201d and before he can allow time and age\nto overtake him.\n\nIn the present work I have attempted to be as clear and as\nstraightforward as is compatible with the task of handling a delicate\nsubject delicately. I am convinced that a good deal of the dangerous\nsilence that hangs over the vital and fundamental questions I shall\nsometimes have to touch upon, owes its existence for the most part to\nthe unfortunate fact that the subject of sex, outside medical circles,\nhas hitherto usually been confronted by only two classes of mind\u2014the\npuritanically prudish, who have done their best to shelve it, and their\nopposite extreme, the licentious and libidinous, who have refrained\nfrom no excess or extravagance that could possibly offend and startle\ntheir opponents in the opposite camp. With neither of these classes\nhave I any connexion. I object to the licentious as wholeheartedly as\nto the Puritanical. I protest against being suspected unjustly of a\nlicentious turn of mind, because I venture to speak freely concerning\na subject that is systematically hushed up to the peril of all; I also\nprotest most emphatically against being suspected of Puritanism because\nI make no attempt to conceal my loathing of certain modern aspects of\nthe sexual relationship.\n\n\n\n\nPart I\n\nPRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n Positiveness\u2014The Saying of \u201cYea\u201d to Life\n\n\n(1) SEX _VERSUS_ DEATH\n\nA scheme of life that includes death as the periodic end of each\ngeneration of beings must, if it is to persist, include some form of\nperiodic reproduction of life. Reproduction, or the reproducing of a\nfresh generation of beings, is thus the necessary balance of death.\nThis sounds the merest platitude. But it is a platitude that cannot be\ndwelt upon too often or too carefully, if one remembers how constantly\nand obstinately its consequences are denied or vilified.\n\nTo speak of the higher organic life on this globe as sexual, therefore,\nis merely to state in other words, that all higher organic life is\ndoomed to die, and must be replaced by new life. Abolish death and you\nabolish the meaning and the need of sex and reproduction. Abolish sex\nand reproduction, and, if you cannot establish eternal higher organic\nlife, the higher organic life of the globe must for ever perish.\n\nAt least for human beings and myriads of animals, Death and Sex are\nconsequently counterparts. Sex with its purpose, reproduction, might\nbe regarded as the contrivance for circumventing Death, for nullifying\nit, for cheating it of its complete victory over life. And that is why\nall dreams or concepts of eternal life are, and cannot help being,\ntainted by a certain hostility to sex: because where eternal life is\nthe scheme, sex drops out. Conversely, all hostility to eternal life is\nand cannot help being tainted by a certain positiveness, friendliness\nand favour towards mortal life and its ally sex: because where eternal\nlife is an impossibility, sex is indispensable.\n\nIt is for this reason that, in its depths, Christianity is more logical\nand more acceptable to a rational man than Mohammedanism. Christianity,\naccepting the concept Eternal Life, says: \u201cIn heaven there will be\nno marriage or giving in marriage.\u201d[1] It realized that you cannot\neat your cake and have it. Mohammedanism, while accepting the concept\nEternal Life, imagines an eternity of sex-life into the bargain, which\nis an absurdity. Mohammed did not realize that you cannot eat your cake\nand have it. Read the Koran and you will understand how it happened\nthat he could be guilty of this confusion of thought.\n\nSex, then, while as a scheme it is opposed to eternal life, is\nnevertheless the enemy of _death_\u2014the most unconquerable, crafty,\nresourceful and untiring enemy of death\u2014so much so, indeed, that\nwhereas mortal life is not nearly such a good opposite of death as is\neternal life (for the dead mortal is eternally dead to this world), sex\nmight, and in this book will be regarded as _the_ opposite of death,\nthe reverse of death.\n\nThis point is important in any case; but it is particularly important\nto me in this book; because all my conclusions will be based upon\nit. To repeat, then, the equation reads: Sex = Mortal Life; No-Sex =\nEternal Life, or, in the absence of Eternal Life, Death.\n\nFrom this chapter onwards, however, save in regard to the one\nparticular question of virtue, I shall cease from considering Eternal\nLife; because, as we see from the equation, Eternal Life and Death come\nstrangely as correlatives together\u2014that is to say, for all ordinary\npurposes, and as far as this world is concerned, they mean the same\nthing\u2014they both oppose mortal life and sex.\n\nA very significant conclusion arises from this: that in this conflict\nof sex and death, all those who are opposed to sex, or who call it\na sin, or who associate it with guilt, or who cast odium upon it,\nrange themselves on the side of death; while all those who stand by\nsex, favour it, wish to vindicate it, and claim for it a character\nabsolutely free from all sin, guilt or odium, range themselves against\ndeath. Here Christianity is quite logical. At its root it is hostile\nto mortal life, and in favour of Eternal Life. But it never refers to\nEternal Life as a possibility on this globe, but always as an existence\nthat is a correlative of _death_ on this globe.\n\nChristianity, therefore, being an advocate of Eternal Life, very\nlogically preaches that sex is to be deplored, to be avoided, and,\nif possible, negatived. And the Puritan, who may be regarded as\nthe extreme Christian, is notorious for his implacable loathing of\nsex. Unconsciously he sees quite clearly that any scheme of organic\nlife that involves sex, must be a substitute for eternal organic\nlife[2]\u2014which in an idealized form is the life for which he has been\ntaught to crave. Death to him, therefore, is merely a merciful gateway\nleading from Sex into Eternal Life. Being the foe of Sex, he knows\nquite well that Death must be his ally, his accomplice, his ringleader,\nin his conspiracy to realize Eternal Life.\n\nIs this quite clear? For the present I have wished to say nothing\nconcerning the respective merits either of Sex, Death, Eternal Life,\nor Mortal Life; I have only wished to point out that, as schemes, as\nideas, they are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable, and that you\ncannot desire the one without thereby coveting the doom of the other.\n\nAs far as this world and its problems are concerned, however\u2014and who,\nif you please, stands outside this world and its problems?\u2014we have to\ndeal with one kind of life only\u2014Mortal Life. As I have shown, the\nnecessary correlative of Mortal Life, if it is to continue, is Sex. We\nare concerned, therefore, immediately and directly, with Mortal Life,\nand its indispensable correlative Sex. We need not accept the scheme\nas it is thus unceremoniously thrust upon us. We can deny Mortal Life\nand its concomitant need, Sex, by putting an end to everything at least\nfor ourselves, through straightway committing suicide the very moment\nwe realize that Mortal Life and Sex are undesirable. If, however, we\naccept the proposition, \u201cMortal Life is desirable,\u201d we necessarily\ncommit ourselves to the rider, \u201cSex is desirable.\u201d These features are\nall we know concerning Life; they constitute the two sides of the only\nkind of Life of which we are aware, and however real and realistic our\nvisions of an Eternal Life may be, however vivid our mental pictures of\na Heaven may seem, such visions and such mental pictures, as we very\nwell know, are of a kind the true existence of which is quite incapable\nof proof or demonstration; whereas Mortal Life is here before us, with\nus and in us, and the way to live it is our chief concern; the way to\nlive it well so that it may redound to the benefit and credit of all,\nis our highest concern.\n\nThroughout this book, I shall argue on the assumption that the reader,\nlike myself, believes that mortal life is desirable. I shall take\nit for granted that he, like me, is content to allow transcendental\nquestions to weigh with him only in so far as they do not render him\nhostile to Mortal Life. I shall therefore assume all along that he\nbelieves, as I do, that Sex is desirable, however far the consequences\nof such an admission may lead him.\n\nBe this as it may, let him entertain no qualms as to the direction in\nwhich I wish these consequences to lead him. There are more than two\nalternatives in the choice of one\u2019s attitude to Sex. To most people\nthere appear to be but two opposite extremes: the attitude of the\nlecherous reprobate who makes decent women ashamed of being women;\nand the attitude of the Puritan who, in his heart of hearts, feels\nthat if only he could have been at the Almighty\u2019s elbow at the time\nof the Creation, he would have respectfully suggested a somewhat more\n\u201cdrawing-room\u201d method of propagating the species.\n\nTo neither of these attitudes has this book, or the spirit of it,\neven the remotest relation. The acknowledgment that Mortal Life is\ndesirable, and that consequently its indispensable correlative Sex\nis desirable, can be made by a man in full possession of a healthy\ncontrol over his passions,[3] in a state of complete mastery over his\nappetites, and endowed with the most fastidious taste as to where\nnormal desire and its gratification end, and where excess begins.\nExtremes belong only to the uncultured, to the hogs of life. It is they\nwho make everything appear disgusting, simply because they are unable\nto approach a single aspect of life with that amount of understanding\nand reverence which is due to all things connected with the sacred task\nof making mankind and his existence an honour and not a curse to the\nuniverse.\n\nTo accept the proposition that Mortal Life is desirable and to commit\none\u2019s self by so doing to its inevitable rider that Sex is desirable,\nmay lead one very far, as this book will show; but, if it lead one to\na tastelessly pornographic or licentious attitude towards the most\nfundamental instinct of life, then one is of a nature that has no right\nto Mortal Life, much less, therefore, to its indispensable correlative\nSex.\n\nWithout wishing to labour this point, but with a keen sense of the host\nof misunderstandings and prejudices that will cling like barnacles\nto a book of this kind, unless I make my position unmistakably clear\nfrom the start, let me put the case a little differently by the use of\nanother instinct of Mortal Life. Let me say, to accept the proposition,\n_Mortal Life is desirable_, is to commit one\u2019s self to its inevitable\nrider that eating and drinking are desirable. There is no objection\nto this statement as it stands. All who endorse Mortal Life also\nendorse eating and drinking. And those who attack eating and drinking,\nsimultaneously strike at Mortal Life.\n\nThis conclusion, however, provides absolutely no sanction for those\nwho are sufficiently material and gross to make food and drink\nthings of shame and of horror. No man, therefore, need fear lest by\nacknowledging that eating and drinking are desirable he should find\nhimself supporting gluttony, drunkenness and bestiality of all kinds.\nIt is, however, a strange and significant coincidence that, where we\nfind hostility to Sex, we also find a certain suspicion of all things\nconnected with the body. The Puritans did not accept Sex as desirable;\nat the best they held it to be a necessary evil; but we also find the\nPuritans hostile to eating and drinking, and not only to excessive\neating and drinking. I have already shown with sufficient elaboration\nelsewhere what regrettable reforms in food and drink they introduced\ninto England in the seventeenth century.[4] This only supports my\ncontention that you cannot be hostile to Sex without being hostile to\nMortal Life in general.\n\nIf, therefore, you believe that the acceptance of Sex is immoral, as\nOtto Weininger did;[5] if you believe, as he did, that \u201cwoman is the\nsin of man\u201d;[6] if, moreover, you claim, as he did, that \u201cit is the\nJew and the woman who are the apostles of pairing to bring guilt on\nmankind\u201d;[7] if, again, you assert that \u201csexual union is immoral\u201d;[8]\nthat \u201cwomen must really and truly and spontaneously relinquish it\u201d;[9]\nthat \u201cwoman will exist as long as man\u2019s guilt is inexpiated, until\nhe has really vanquished his own sexuality\u201d;[10] that \u201cman must free\nhimself of sex, for in that way, and that way alone, can he free\nwoman\u201d;[11] and, finally\u2014this gem of negativeness: \u201call sexuality\nimplies degradation\u201d;[12]\u2014if this be your position, I say, then, you\nmust logically be hostile to Mortal Life, and you cannot rationally\naccept it. Your only course is to commit suicide. This, as we know,\nOtto Weininger was logical and consistent enough to do. He died by his\nown hand on October 4, 1903.\n\n\n(2) MORTAL LIFE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ACCEPTED\n\nAs we have seen, it is impossible to have it both ways and to remain\nconsistent. You are at liberty, of course, to take up the Puritan\u2019s, or\nOtto Weininger\u2019s, or St. Paul\u2019s attitude towards Sex; but, by so doing,\nyou straightway disclaim Mortal Life itself and reject it utterly. Let\nthis be quite clear to you before you go any further, because a good\ndeal depends upon this simple but profoundly significant issue. The\nfact that St. Paul and the Puritans did not put an end to themselves\nright away, as Otto Weininger was clear-headed and honest enough to\ndo, need not disturb you. Fanatics are rarely clear-headed, and they\nare scarcely ever honest. It is sufficient for my purpose to point to\nSt. Paul\u2019s and the Puritan\u2019s hostility to life in general in order\nto show that, although they did not reach the logical end of their\njourney, they were certainly well advanced along the road thither.\nBesides, if you study St. Paul and the Puritans, you will find, as I\nhave done, that there is perhaps another explanation to their apparent\ninconsistency.\n\nA man may remain longer than he likes in a certain vicinity or\napartment, if he feels it his duty, before taking his leave, to get\nothers to accompany him thence, to persuade and exhort others to\nforsake the place as well. St. Paul certainly felt it his duty to act\nin this way, and so for that matter did Schopenhauer.\n\nFor us who accept Mortal Life and say \u201cYea\u201d to it wholeheartedly,\nthere are certain very grave duties too. The thing to which we say\n\u201cYea,\u201d we wish to keep both clean, sweet and alluring. This world is\nour home, and we take a pride in it. We must make it such that we are\nable to take a pride in it. We recognize that Mortal Life includes\npain as a prominent factor; but, provided that pain is practically\ninseparable from the best purposes of life (as, for instance, the pain\nof self-discipline, self-mastership, the pain of habituation to new\nknowledge, new arts, the pain resulting from the natural relationships\nto our myriads of fellows, and the pains of child-birth), we say \u201cYea\u201d\nto it too, and with the same wholeheartedness.\n\nWe do not shrink from pain, as Schopenhauer did, we do not magnify it\nor concentrate upon it, as he did, and condemn the whole of existence\nbecause of it. We do not call our glorious history, as the King of the\nAnimals, the _Martyrdom of Man_, as Winwood Reade did. We call our\nhistory the _Triumph of Man_; and it is because we wish to maintain it\nas the triumph of man that we face it with spirit and positiveness.\n\nOur duties are grave, I say; they involve everything, in fact, that can\nbe conceived as belonging to the task of keeping that to which we say\n\u201cYea\u201d in the highest degree worthy of our \u201cYea\u201d\u2014worthy, that is to say,\nof our unreserved acceptance.\n\nThe conduct of Mortal Life, therefore, is our principal concern. And\nfor this conduct to be correct and fruitful in good things, we must be\nquite clear as to the \u201cshall\u201d and the \u201cshall not\u201d of what we should\nhate and what we should love, of what we should call bad, and what we\nshould call good.\n\nThroughout this book the word \u201cgood\u201d will always mean \u201c_that which is\nfavourable to the best kind of Mortal Life and its multiplication_.\u201d If\nthis book reveals any hate at all, it will be for that which is hostile\nto the best kind of life, and if it reveals any love at all it will be\nfor everything that is friendly to the best kind of life.\n\nThis takes us far, no doubt; but not farther, I believe, than anyone\nshould wish to go who has said \u201cYea\u201d honestly and sanguinely to Mortal\nLife.\n\nFor instance, in opposition to men like St. Paul, Knox, Calvin, Prynne,\nSchopenhauer, Otto Weininger and their like, we say that Sex is good,\nWoman is good, the flesh is good. And we heartily dislike men like St.\nPaul, Knox, Calvin, Prynne, Schopenhauer and Otto Weininger because\ntheir attitude shows not only hostility to Woman and to Sex, but also,\nby implication, to Mortal Life, to which we have said \u201cYea.\u201d\n\nWe call _good_ all that which actuates us and maintains us in a proper\nexercise of our functions, and makes Mortal Life desirable: appetite,\ndesire, lust, motherhood, fertility, reproductive love, reverence for\nthe body, prepossession in favour of health and prejudice against\nsickness, respect of love, of beauty and of its multiplication. We also\ncall _good_ the loathing of ugliness and the desire to suppress it; we\ntherefore approve of deep suspicion towards ugliness and illness, and\ntowards everything and everybody that attempts to give ugliness and\nillness fine-sounding and euphemistic names, and we cultivate a love of\nmoderation and a loathing of excess.\n\nWe call _bad_ all that thwarts us in a proper exercise of our functions\nand all that makes Mortal Life undesirable or seem undesirable:\nloss of appetite or desire, the abuse of appetite or desire, as of\nall things; the finding of excuses or extenuating circumstances for\nugliness, botchedness and sickness. We also call the following _bad_:\nexcess, sterility, non-reproductive love, prostitution, homosexuality,\nirreverence towards the body, the setting of transcendental questions\nbefore vital questions.\n\nOn our side, in our advocacy of the first-named things, we have our\ninstincts which, if they are sound, confirm us on every point.\n\nIt frequently happens, however, that Mortal Life is so difficult, and\nthose who preach against it are so many, so eloquent and so powerful,\nthat we need almost an intellectual assent over and above our\ninstinctive acceptance of it. For it is precisely in the moments of our\ngreatest weakness, when we feel uncertain, when we have made mistakes\nand know that we have erred, that the preachers against life and the\nbody, and against the fundamental instincts and desires of Mortal Life,\nwill seem to be right, will seem almost to convince us that they are\nright. Like vultures they wait afar off till they see the body of our\ntrust and hope in life, the corpse of our clean conscience, prostrate\non the ground, and then down they swoop and devour the carrion that is\ntheir natural food.\n\nIt is before such disasters happen that an intellectual assent to\nthe deepest promptings of our instincts is the greatest need of all.\nIn practical life it may be taken as a general rule that it is more\nhelpful to have an intellectual justification for our mistakes and the\ninstincts that have led to them, than the most convincing theories\nin favour of our virtues. For it is innocence in the exercise of our\nnatural functions that the preachers against Mortal Life and the body\nare most anxious to undermine, and most successful in undermining. And\nhow often, particularly when an instinct has, so to speak, \u201cdrawn in\nits horns,\u201d or ceased to assert itself owing to a momentary mistake,\ncheck or rebuff, would not an intellectual justification of its\nvigorous re-assertion help us to tide over the evil hour without our\nfalling a prey to the opposing party\u2014to the enemies of Mortal Life and\nthe body!\n\nIf, however, we bear in mind the maxim that everything is \u201cgood\u201d that\nis favourable to the best kind of Mortal Life, and everything is\n\u201cbad\u201d that is unfavourable to the best kind of life; if, moreover,\nwe stand bravely and firmly by the principle that Mortal Life is\nacceptable and desirable, and therefore that all it exacts for its\ncontinuance must also be acceptable and desirable, and consequently\nthat the things of the body\u2014beauty, charm, ardour\u2014together with the\nflesh, the world, sex, woman, procreation, multiplication and good\nfood, are for the glory, joy and exaltation of Mortal Life and man;\nif, over and above all this, we heroically embrace pain as a necessary\nincidental factor in the process of living, then, I say, we have an\nintellectual weapon far more formidable and far more effective for\nthe warding off of those vultures of gloom and doubt\u2014the preachers\nagainst life and the body\u2014than any known engine of destruction could\npossibly be. It is this intellectual attitude to Mortal Life, with all\nits consequences in our code of morals, our likes and dislikes, that\nthroughout this book I shall call the \u201c_positive_\u201d or \u201c_yea-saying_\u201d\nattitude: while the opposite attitude of mind will be designated by\nthe word \u201c_negative_.\u201d[13] Nor shall I refer any longer in these pages\nto \u201cMortal Life,\u201d but will speak merely of Life itself: for not only\nis it the only kind of life that will concern me here, but also, as\nwe know nothing about Eternal Life, and our only notions of life are\nderived entirely from what we know of Mortal Life, Mortal Life and Life\nare to all intents and purposes one and the same thing for us, and\nthe expression \u201cMortal Life\u201d can well fall out at this stage of the\ndiscussion.\n\n\n(3) THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POSITIVE MIND\n\nUnless they are very delicate or very sick, all children are positive.\nThey are fresh from the anvil of Life. Life itself speaks through them\nwithout reserve, without constraint. They have made no mistakes yet,\nor are not aware of having made any; they have had none of those rude\nshocks that shake our faith in Life and render us an easy prey to those\nvultures of which I have already spoken, that live on the carrion\nof shattered hopes and broken consciences. They say \u201cYea\u201d to Life\ninnocently and unconsciously, like kittens playing with balls of wool.\nAnd it is because they say \u201cYea\u201d to Life innocently and unconsciously\nthat they are so deeply interesting to the positive philosopher.\nBecause in them he sees the attitude which he must maintain and\nsustain intellectually, despite all the shocks and misfortunes life\nhas brought. But I point out again that I speak of this intellectual\npositiveness only as a helpful confirmation of sound instincts. If the\nsound instincts are not there, the positive intellectual attitude is\nnothing but a pose.\n\nThere is something strangely pathetic about this positiveness of the\nchild. The philosopher knows the wilderness it is in. He knows that\non the mountain peaks all around, the vultures are waiting hungrily\nto see it make its first mistake, to see it writhe under its first\nmisfortune\u2014or its first \u201cguilt\u201d as they like to call it. He knows with\nwhat extraordinary vigilance they are tracking its footsteps, so that\nthey may be there in time, so that they may be at its side in the first\nmoment of its doubt in Life, to tell it that Life is sinful, that\nlust is sinful, that sex is sinful, that the World, the Flesh and the\nDevil are interchangeable terms. And the positive philosopher cannot\nhelp wondering with some alarm how the child will survive this first\nencounter with doubt, with suspicion, and with distrust concerning that\nto which a moment ago it said \u201cYea\u201d so wholeheartedly.\n\nThe positive philosopher trembles over the outcome of the conflict.\nWith fear and trepidation he forges the weapons of intellectual\npositiveness and flings them with anxious prodigality before the child,\nhoping that they will sustain it in the struggle and confirm its best\ninstincts; trusting with all his heart that they will revive its\n\u201cYea\u201d to Life before it is completely overcome. And when the positive\nphilosopher succeeds in this and sees the birds of ill-omen turn\ndisconsolately away, foiled in their endeavour, he celebrates his feast\nof feasts; because there is more rejoicing in his heart over one child\nthat is saved from negativeness than over thousands that repent!\n\nTo the positive philosopher, then, the healthy child is the best\npattern for the yea-saying and positive man. The only danger the child\nis in, as I have shown, consists in the fact that it is intellectually\nunprepared to justify its \u201cYea\u201d in the face of the preachers of \u201cNay.\u201d\nApart from this one flaw, however\u2014which in a universally positive\nworld would not be felt as a disadvantage at all (because it is\nonly in negative environments and negative ages that a conscious or\nintellectual confirmation of one\u2019s soundest instincts is necessary)\u2014the\nchild, or the animal for that matter, presents the perfect example\nof the positive attitude towards Life. The positive philosopher,\ntherefore, learns from the child, and watches it with interest.\n\nThe principal characteristic of the healthy child is, that it does\nnot play with its primary appetites; it does not laugh about them;\nit cannot abide a joke about them. Watch a healthy child eat! It is\nabsolutely serious, absorbed, concentrated, intent! A very healthy boy\nwill even frown over his meal, just as he will frown when he eats a\npiece of chocolate. It is obvious from his expression that eating is no\njoke with him. It is one of the gravest, most pressing, most engrossing\ninterests in life. And the same holds good of all healthy, positive\nadults. Watch a healthy and positive adult at his meals; he is serious\nto a fault! It is only when the demands of his body have been satisfied\nthat he begins to indulge in levity. The man who habitually jokes at\nthe beginning of a meal is past salvation. He is negative by nature and\ncannot be rescued.\n\nSeriousness towards the primary instinct of self-preservation is\none of the principal characteristics of the healthy child. But the\nhealthy child is not yet fully, consciously concerned about any other\ninstinct; if it were\u2014if, for instance, it were fully conscious of the\nreproductive instinct\u2014we may be quite sure that it would take it quite\nseriously too; for it is serious\u2014most serious perhaps\u2014even when it is\nplaying.\n\nIn spite of all the apparent light-heartedness of the healthy child,\nwhich is all that superficial people can see in it; in spite of the\nease with which it turns from sleep to wakefulness, from tears to\nlaughter, and _vice vers\u00e2_, there is a profundity, a sobriety, a\nsolidity about its seriousness that nothing can affect. It takes its\nown body, itself, the world, and life tremendously seriously. It takes\nits wants and its desires seriously. It takes its loves and its hates\nseriously. Little children can be homicidal in their loathing of other\nchildren; they can be heroic in their devotion. Those who always depict\nchildren with a smile on their chubby faces, and hopping about on one\nleg, know nothing about them. They know nothing of the imperturbable\ngravity of the child, and of positiveness generally.\n\nTo watch the face of an elderly, negative spinster when a really\nhealthy boy loses his temper, is to witness in one human countenance\nthe whole history of the long conflict between those vultures of which\nI have spoken and the artless yea-sayer to Life.\n\nLater on, if he is carefully handled, this boy will take his love\nseriously; he will cling to the girl he chooses in a manner that will\nmake that same spinster marvel at his determination, and he will be as\nfierce and as serious in his desire for the woman of his choice as he\nonce was over his games, over his hates, and over his meals.\n\nLaughter is not nearly such a common characteristic of healthy positive\nlife as the superficial imagine\u2014more particularly noisy laughter. In\nevery mixed party where much loud laughter or shrill laughter is heard,\nthere is sure to be a good deal, not of gaiety, not of wanton spirits,\nbut of nervous irascibility, sexual excitation, and particularly\nsexual abstinence, exasperation and\u2014negativeness! He who travels the\nworld over ascertains this curious fact: that loud, shrill laughter is\nessentially the social _noise_ of Puritanical countries.\n\nPositive people take too serious an attitude to life, to themselves, to\neach other, and particularly to members of the opposite sex, constantly\nto vent what they feel in an idle cackle or giggle. They laugh, but\ntheir hilarity is short, violent, and apparently effective; because\nit seems to relieve them for longer periods than does the laughter of\nnegative people.\n\n_One of the chief characteristics of the positive mind, then, is the\ngravity, the solemn interest, with which it confronts life itself, the\nbody that holds it, and everything vital, including sex._\n\nBehold the healthy child, and you have an automaton guided absolutely\nby a positive mind! To retain this positive mind throughout one\u2019s\nyouth and adulthood is the greatest triumph\u2014particularly nowadays\u2014that\nanyone can achieve. He who achieves it may well laugh; he has a right\nto laugh; for he has mastered the most redoubtable foe a man can\nencounter\u2014the powerful false values that are now seeking to prevail\neverywhere, and over the victims of which the vultures are muttering\ntheir thanksgiving.\n\nThe only positive form of laughter is the expression of a consciousness\nof acquired power. This is Hobbes\u2019 view, it was Stendhal\u2019s view; it\nis the biologist\u2019s view, who says that laughter is the expression of\nsuperior adaptation.\n\nAnother characteristic of the positive mind _is its forgetfulness in\nregard to the things that incapacitate it for taking a lively interest\nin life_. This quality of the mind is simply a spiritual counterpart\nof the healthy body\u2019s power of evacuating those portions of the food\nabsorbed which cannot be assimilated without hurt: forgetting and\ndigesting being the same function of evacuation in two different\ndepartments. The positive mind, like the healthy body it is in,\nknows how to get rid of a useless thing quickly\u2014in fact knows how\nto forget. Things do not weigh on it, or bear it down, any more than\na hearty meal lies heavily on its body\u2019s stomach. Its body digests\nquickly, and has very soon done with the process. The positive mind\ndigests quickly\u2014particularly its supposed misdeeds. That is why it is\nso difficult to give a positive person a guilty conscience; because a\nguilty conscience is simply a costive conscience. The positive mind\nremembers only so much as interests it keenly, or as much as does not\nstand in the way of a continued positive attitude to life; just as its\nbody only retains the nourishment out of all it absorbs.\n\n_The positive mind has no fear of pain_, particularly if this pain is\nincurred in a vital effort. Little boys will actually enjoy enormous\ndiscomfort and pain, provided it is encountered in doing things that\nreek of active life, that bring their bodies into violent action, and\ngive them the thrill and bracing sensation of overcoming an obstacle,\nof resisting an attempt at capture, or of effecting a capture. \u201cYea\u201d is\ntheir constant attitude to everything, even to the things which, to the\nadult, are disagreeable.\n\nI remember on one occasion, when I was walking home from a friend\u2019s\nhouse in the pouring rain, I met that same friend\u2019s two little sons\nreturning at a perfectly leisurely pace from school. I had an umbrella,\nthey had not. Naturally I felt it incumbent upon me to see them\nhome, and, gathering them carefully under my silk shelter, I marched\nthem smartly in the direction of their father\u2019s house. I soon found,\nhowever, that all my pains were wasted on them, for whenever I was\nnot looking, out one of them would stray into the drenching shower;\nand when I insisted on their keeping quite close to me, each of them\ngravely extended his free arm out into the rain to catch as much of\nit as possible, while every puddle was conscientiously and solemnly\nexplored by their feet.\n\nThis may seem a trifling circumstance to dwell upon; but unimportant\nas it was, it struck me as being but another example of the indomitable\nyea-saying of healthy childhood to anything and everything.\n\nThe gravity of the little boy when he does these things shows clearly\nthe relation between positiveness and things that matter\u2014things that\nhave _weight_, _solidity_, _importance_, _tangibility_, _definition_.\n\nAnother incident occurs to me as I write. I remember once feeling a\nlittle intrigued by the sight of a knot of little village boys standing\nlike conspirators very seriously together in one of the streets of my\nfavourite Sussex village. Their ages ranged from about eight to eleven\nyears. I knew them all perfectly well, and the fact that I drew close\nup to them did not disturb them in the least. When I was near enough to\ndiscover what they were talking about, this is what I saw and heard:\u2014In\nthe centre of the grave and almost hushed group there stood a lad of\nabout nine years of age. He was exhibiting his dirty hands proudly and\nalmost arrogantly to his friends, and the latter were listening with\nrapt attention to his harangue. I noticed that they all appeared to be\na little crestfallen and dejected, save the boy who was demonstrating\nwith his hands, and one other boy who seemed to be arguing with him.\nNow the explanation of all this profound interest, rapt attention\nand conflicting emotions, was as follows:\u2014The central figure, the\nboy of nine, had hands that were covered thickly with large warts,\nand he possessed one particularly big and ugly-looking specimen just\nbeneath the knuckle of a finger of his right hand. He was exhibiting\nthese horrible excrescences to his schoolfellows triumphantly and\ndefying them to show anything like them, or even approaching them in\nsize and number; and there was but one of them who had a sufficiently\nrespectable record, where warts were concerned, to be able to answer\nhim and meet him, as it were, on equal ground, and this was the boy who\nhad been contesting his point all the time.\n\nAgain, this is a trifling incident, but it is full of significance\nfor the analyst of the positive mind. This yea-saying to anything and\neverything, which surges up with the conviction of an explosion at\nevery moment, everywhere, is far more important, far more profound,\nfar more solid, as a characteristic of childhood, than that mythical\ninnocence and sweet merriness which is the only characteristic of\nhealthy childhood that superficial child-lovers will either grant or\nrecognize.\n\n\n(4) DISCIPLINE IN ITS RELATION TO THE POSITIVE MIND\n\nThe discipline of healthy children, because of their very positiveness,\nis one of the most intricate and delicate tasks that devolves upon the\nadult man or woman. It is the task and problem of practical morality,\nand to solve it without chilling any of that valuable positiveness\nof childhood, to impose a limit, in fact, upon juvenile positiveness\nwithout destroying or blighting it, is the most difficult achievement\nin education.\n\nTo say \u201cyea\u201d to everything\u2014to mud, to filth, to danger, to illness (for\npositive children are positive even to their bodily disorders), to the\nrain, to animals, to vermin, to the knife, to explosives, to ladders,\nto dangerous altitudes, to the precipice, and so on\u2014is of course,\nsupremely delightful, supremely healthy; but it cannot be allowed in\nits full catholicity. This I am perfectly ready to knowledge. The\nluxuriance of the child\u2019s positiveness _must_ be pruned. The human\nbeing must be reared for society. He must be taught the limitations of\nhis freedom; above all, he must be taught taste and discrimination:\nwhat to select and what to reject. And there is perhaps no more\nsolemn moment in life than when a full-grown man or woman, in perfect\npossession of all the necessary intellectual equipment for the task,\napproaches his universally yea-saying junior to discipline it\u2014that is\nto say, to determine its \u201cyea,\u201d to limit it, and to confine it only to\na certain set of things.\n\nThe problem is obviously, how can the child be kept positive to this\nworld while being rendered negative to the undesirable elements in\nthis life. Or to put it in a sentence: how can I make my little boy\nsay \u201cNo\u201d to warts without saying \u201cNo\u201d to the world? To all those who\napproach the child with a negative creed, to all those who are vultures\nthemselves, or who derive from the vulture breed, the order is clearly\n\u201cHands off!\u201d Only people who have retained their positive attitude\nto life should be allowed to interfere where children are concerned;\nbecause ordered social life itself is discipline, and but very little\ncareful and discriminating guidance need be added. When Herbert Spencer\nsaid that children of large families were always better than those of\nsmall families, because in the case of the former the parents have\nless time to interfere with natural processes, he propounded a very\ntrue principle as far as the modern negative world is concerned;\nbecause most of the juvenile discipline nowadays is not only imposed by\nnegative people, but the very social environment in which these people\nmove and breathe is also negative and hostile to life.\n\nThe object and province of juvenile discipline are simply these: to\nrear a positive human being for social life; to discipline it to\nselection and rejection without forcing it to scout or to suspect vital\nfunctions or vital virtues. It sounds simple enough when stated in a\nsingle line; but how many misunderstandings, how many ruined careers,\nhow many bitter, disappointed and ill-adapted adults are not the result\nof the opposite principle, the principle which reads that the positive\nchild should above all be taught to distrust its deepest instincts, its\nbody, and to be suspicious of the world, the flesh and the Devil\u2014the\nlatter meaning very often no more than wanton spirits.\n\nSometimes when one sees the kind of people\u2014men and women\u2014into whose\ngentle bloodless hands, into whose drab, lifeless but well-meaning\nexistences, healthy helpless children are made to fall, it is\ndifficult not to shudder. How good they are! How sweet is their ideal\nof what a child ought to be! How vigilant they are for any signs of\n\u201cwickedness\u201d! Who can submit to their Procrustean method and survive\na whole, positive being? They _know_! They know what pleases God and\nthe angels! No one is better informed than they on this subject.\nHonest?\u2014no one could be more so than they. Reliable?\u2014they could be\ntrusted to stamp the exuberance out of a boa-constrictor! Good?\u2014not\nmerely good, but holy! Their mild cerulean eyes gaze beyond the child\nin their tender care, and towards a wonderful ideal, far away, of\nperfect childhood\u2014a bright, merry, glowing angel who, preferably, would\nhave wings on his shoulders, _\u00e0 la_ Joshua Reynolds, and nothing\u2014no\nnothing at all\u2014beneath the thorax. His body might end there with\nadvantage. That is their belief, their hope, their ambition. All human\nbeings might end there with advantage; but above all the child, because\nchildren are so pure, so guileless, so sweet; it is such a pity that\u2014\u2014\n\nLuckily, robust positiveness has a tenacity and a vigour that\nfrequently survive even the contagion of these toads with evil\nconsciences. But how few are the survivals compared with the number\nthat go under annually!\n\nThat is why little girls survive the process more often than little\nboys; because, as a rule, unless attacked from the side of the body,\na female\u2019s positiveness to life is wholly and utterly unbreakable.\nBut it is deeper, more silent, less conspicuous, less articulate\nthan that of the little boy; therefore it more easily eludes the\ncerulean but very superficial glance of the negative adult. It is\nmore unconscious and consequently less liable to betray itself in the\npresence of constraining influences. It manifests itself, too, in a\nless arresting, less annoying fashion; it appears to be \u201charmless.\u201d\nBehold the girls that are turned out annually from convent schools or\nstrictly Puritanical High Schools. If their tremendous positiveness had\nnot been secret, concealed, subcutaneous, unconscious, how could it\npossibly have survived? Again and again I have heard the negative adult\ndeny a passionate positive temperament in a little girl, when I saw it\nclearly. It is this mistake, this inability to detect a trait that is\ndeep enough to be very far below the surface, that is alone responsible\nfor the salvation of thousands of girls to-day.\n\nModern man is not only less positive generally than woman, but\nthe modicum of positiveness he possesses is also more apparent,\nless resisting, more self-assertive, more conscious and therefore\nless secret. It also manifests itself in a more obtrusive and more\nirritating way.[14]\n\nBoys suffer most from a negative discipline. Men are suffering most\nphysically and mentally from our negative age. Women only suffer from\nthe indirect results of the age\u2014that is to say, from the deterioration\nit causes in their men.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] See St. Matthew, chap. xxii. verse 30: \u201cFor in the resurrection\nthey neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of\nGod in heaven.\u201d\n\n[2] It should always be remembered that the promise of Christianity is\n\u201cthe resurrection of the body.\u201d\n\n[3] For an explanation of what I mean by this much-abused phrase, see\npp. 70, 90-94.\n\n[4] See my _Defence of Aristocracy_ (Constable), chap. V.\n\n[5] See _Sex and Character_ (Heinemann, 1906), p. 299.\n\n[6] _Ibid._, p. 299.\n\n[7] _Ibid._, p. 329.\n\n[8] _Ibid._, p. 336.\n\n[9] _Ibid._, p. 343.\n\n[10] _Ibid._, p. 345.\n\n[11] _Ibid._, p. 345.\n\n[12] Op. cit., p. 346.\n\n[13] Of course, I mean this intellectual positiveness only as a\nrational confirmation of bodily and constitutional positiveness; for\nfrequently when I shall use the expression \u201cpositive\u201d it will also\nmean the unconscious, spontaneous positiveness of a healthy body.\nFrom the context there will be no mistaking which I mean. The same\nremark applies naturally to the expression intellectual negativeness.\nFor instance, St. Paul and Calvin were both intellectually as well as\nspontaneously negative. An unhealthy child, or an unhealthy adult, may\nbe only unconsciously or spontaneously so.\n\n[14] In this connexion, see pp. 98-103.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nThe Subject Treated Generally\n\n\nIn my Introduction I have said enough to show that I can be neither\na so-called Woman-hater nor a Woman-despiser. And if I have departed\nsomewhat from the common rules laid down by precedent for the writing\nof a book of this nature, it was because I felt compelled to safeguard\nsome of my hardest and most unacceptable views and conclusions from the\nwithering suspicion of having been dictated by bitterness or resentment.\n\nOther men have written about Woman, and have said hard things about\nher too: Knox, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Weininger are among them.\nNeither Knox, Schopenhauer nor Nietzsche, however, started life with\nsuch a large fund of prepossession in her favour. Neither Knox,\nSchopenhauer nor Nietzsche can be said to have been free, as I am,\nfrom those bitter experiences and shocks that distort one\u2019s vision and\ndestroy one\u2019s focus.\n\nIf I appear to say things that are hard, therefore let it be plainly\nunderstood at this stage in my work, that I do so only because I wish\nto speak frankly and clearly about my subject; and that in view of the\nmuddled and maudlin misunderstandings that now hang like a stifling\nmist over the female sex, it is impossible to dissipate errors or to\ntake up a clear and definite stand at all, without occasionally seeming\nhard, unrelenting, metallic. Any flash may be taken for a flash of\nsteel, particularly when one is in a fog.\n\nMy intention in writing this book was to save Woman from the cruel\nmisconceptions that are steadily undermining her body and her\ncharacter, and although there is much in my work that will try the\npatience and the endurance of many of my readers\u2014particularly men and\nunhealthy women\u2014I could not possibly eliminate a single one of the more\nprovocative passages without failing in what I feel to be my duty to my\nundertaking.\n\nI maintain that Woman is now miserable, wretched, desperate. I am\nnot one of those who are certain that present woman is a product of\nman\u2019s own fashioning. If she were she would not be miserable, because,\nstep by step, as man has advanced\u2014or declined!\u2014she too would have\nchanged, and thus remained his adapted and contented mate. But there is\nsomething essentially idiosyncratic in Woman, something that makes her\nan individual, unalterable and for ever fixed; something that nothing\ncan fashion. You can make her miserable; you can make her sick; you\ncannot change her! I would go further and say, that all women from\nPekin to London and Lisbon are the same; they are only a little more\nhappy or healthy, or a little more miserable and ill, according as to\nwhether their men do or do not understand how to treat them.\n\nDisbelieving utterly, as I do, in the theory that Modern Woman is as\nman has made her\u2014I mean apart from her wretchedness or sickness, of\ncourse\u2014I cannot uphold the view that Woman has any destiny to work out\nfor herself. She has no \u201ctrue Womanhood\u201d that has yet to be sought and\nfound while we leave her alone. We cannot leave her alone. The moment\nwe leave her alone she ceases to be true Woman: where, then, could she\ngo alone to seek and find her \u201ctrue Womanhood\u201d?\n\nAll those who speak of a \u201ctrue Womanhood\u201d to be sought and found away\nfrom us and from the children we give her, would do both Woman and the\nworld a kindness, a great and inestimable kindness, in henceforward for\never holding their tongues on the subject of Woman.\n\nWe try to soothe our consciences; we try to slur over our social\nmistakes; we sneakingly pretend to ignore the fact that our social\nlife is wrong; and we, and even some women themselves, preach the\naccursed doctrine that there is a true Womanhood to be sought and\nfound in women alone, by women alone, for women alone! We have not,\ncannot, will not, do our duty by Women, and we assuage their blind and\noften unconscious misery by this damnable falsehood which thousands\nof them in their trustfulness believe. We tell them that somewhere\nin the Far Away, in the Never-Never-Land\u2014not in the Backwoods of\nSuperior Bunkum\u2014there is a True Woman, a hybrid of a misunderstood Joan\nof Arc and a glacier. She is alone glorying in her True Womanhood.\nNo man has fashioned her. She has no fashioning\u2014or fashion either,\nfor that matter!\u2014and she simply sits and exults in her manless,\nchildless, splendid independence! Towards this ideal we bid our sisters\nstrive\u2014nay, some of our sisters themselves bid their sisters strive;\nand we have not enough decency left to blush at our perfidy, at our\nblackguardly deception!\n\nThe problem is out of hand; its difficulties have proved too much for\nus, otherwise we could not have the barefaced duplicity to settle it in\nthis transparently farcical manner.\n\nWhat should we think of a cattle-farmer, who, on discovering that he\nhad not enough pasture-land for all his sheep, taught the pastureless\nones, when they had grown thin and wan for want of their proper food,\nthat there was a True Sheephood somewhere, a lofty ideal\u2014a Sheephood\nthat could go without pasture-land and without grass altogether;\na Sheephood that was self-contained and self-reliant, independent\nand indisputable, and that they were to go in search of that True\nSheephood, and if necessary grow thinner and less attractive every\nday in their search for it? We should feel that they would have to be\nvery inferior sheep to believe this story, or, rather, very real sheep\nindeed! Everything in their body, from their cud-chewing molars to\ntheir long grass-digesting gut, would surely tell them that the Ideal\nof True Sheephood was arrant nonsense, and _cruel_ arrant nonsense too.\n\nNo, it is impossible to accept the \u201cTrue Womanhood\u201d ideal of woman\ngloriously alone, emancipated from man, independent and \u201cdiscovered.\u201d\nInasmuch as we have not fashioned her, and could not do so if we tried,\nwoman is as her r\u00f4le in the course of evolution has made her. She is\ncertainly more unhappy, more tormented, more unwell, than she ever need\nhave been; but that is because her principal adaptation\u2014her relation to\nman\u2014is now so often entirely wrong, or alas! non-existent. I point out\nagain: if, as some presumptuously maintain, _we_ have been fashioning\nher all through the ages, she would have followed us contentedly to\nour present stage\u2014a thing she has _not_ done. There is something\nessentially idiosyncratic in woman then, something that defies our\nclumsy \u201cfashioning\u201d hands.\n\nThis unalterable individuality has not to be found. It is not an ideal\nafter which we might strive. It is present, it is seated in Woman now\nand for evermore, and one of its principal characteristics is that it\ncannot brook isolation, solitude, independence, glorious singleness.\nThe \u201cTrue Womanhood\u201d hoax of Woman refound by herself, for herself,\nand in herself, as if all this time her association with man and\nher dependence upon him had been a mistake, an error of judgment, a\ncramping, limiting and disturbing factor in the evolution of \u201cPure\nWoman,\u201d is simply pure falsehood of the worst description; because it\noverlooks the facts precisely there where they are most glaring, most\nundeniable, most conspicuous.\n\nExamine the tendrils of the vine and deny that it is a creeping plant\ndestined to cling to a wall or to a tougher plant than itself, and you\nwould declare yourself in so many words an ignoramus or a madman.\n\nExamine Woman and deny that she must have two primary adaptations\u2014that\nto the man and that to the child\u2014in order simply to fulfil her destiny\nas it is stamped indelibly on her body; and you acknowledge yourself\nstraight away not only an ignoramus and a madman, but a dangerous\nspecimen of both.\n\nImmersed as Woman obviously is, up to her shoulders in the business of\nLife and its multiplication, let it be said plainly and unequivocally:\nall those who teach her that any other business is her business, all\nthose who, in face of the dilemma of modern problems, confuse her with\ntales about a true Womanhood away from Life and its multiplication;\nall those, in short, who beguile her with promises of happiness,\ncontentedness, or even comfort, without her primary adaptations to man\nand the child, are liars both unscrupulous and criminal.\n\nAnd here I have touched upon what I claim to be idiosyncratic and\nperfectly individual in Woman\u2014her deep and almost whole-bodied concern\nwith Life and its multiplication. Above all the other functional\ndifferences and similarities between the sexes, this fundamental trait\nmust prevail as a permanent and ineradicable characteristic of Woman,\nand it is the bedrock on which we must build, and from which we must\nset out, if we wish to arrive at a clear and untainted image of Woman\nas distinct from Man.\n\nWhen, moreover, one remembers that this principal characteristic of\nhers is the seed and generating force of all her will, her leading\ninstincts and her virtues, it is simply deliberate blindness to deny\nthat she has not a distinctive and powerful individuality that places\nher far outside the possible influence of those \u201cfashioning\u201d male hands\nthat some have the impudence to maintain have warped or diverted the\ntrue course of her evolution.\n\nLeave her alone then; leave her to work out her own salvation, and like\nNora in Ibsen\u2019s _Doll\u2019s House_, to venture single-handed in search of\nthat true Womanhood which according to some theorists has yet to be\nfound, and has never yet been allowed a free development, and what\nhappens?\u2014She ceases from being a true Woman at her very first step into\nthe wilderness of isolation. She denies her principal characteristic,\nher distinctive individuality, by the very act of desertion constituted\nby her flight into so-called freedom and autonomy. For the only power\nthat rules Woman with an iron hand, the only power that moulds her\ndestiny and actuates her behaviour and aspirations, she can never\ndesert; and that is a power far more inexorable and irresistible than\nthe power of man. It is the power of Life itself, with which she is\nmuch more deeply, secretly and thoroughly in touch than we are, or\ncould ever hope to be. We are an amputation from Life, to which we\nreturn only at odd intervals, as it were to pay tribute: she is Life\u2019s\nuninterrupted stream that receives this tribute.\n\nI repeat, therefore, that while we have the power to make Woman\nmiserable and ill\u2014a power which for the last 250 years in England we\nhave exercised with ever-increasing folly\u2014we have no more right to\nboast that we have moulded or directed her evolution than we have a\nright to boast of having shaped the stars and the moon. And those women\nwho allow us this boast and who accuse us of having arrested their\ndevelopment (whatever that may mean), or of having distorted their true\nindividuality, fall with treacherous perfidy to their sex, into the\nranks of Woman\u2019s worst enemies.\n\nHow have we made Woman miserable and ill?\n\nLet me explain what misery and illness means:\n\nPut a mole to live upon a concrete floor, lay a frog in a parched sandy\nplain, and confine the agile cat to a space only just large enough to\nallow it to lash its tail, and you will have succeeded so thoroughly in\nthwarting the primary instincts of these three animals\u2014the subterranean\nlife of the mole, for which its large forelegs and its whole body\ncrave; the amphibious life of the frog after which its webbed feet and\nnimble limbs hanker, and the stalking, hunting and prowling lust of the\ncat to which all its magnificent body is so superbly adjusted\u2014that you\nwill have made them utterly and desperately miserable and probably ill\nas well.\n\nWhat have you done? You have deprived them of their primary\nadaptations. The same holds good of Woman. Millions of women to-day\nare hopelessly irrevocably deprived of their primary adaptations, and\n_even those who are given their primary adaptations, so frequently\nreceive them in a form that is inadequate and unsatisfying, effete\nand inferior_, that even among the married women of our day there is\na depth of disappointment, disillusionment and vague dissatisfaction\nthat makes some of them even more miserable than their single sisters.\nThe latter, at least, are still able to hope against hope (a wonderful\npower in women); the others can only await the end, knowing the worst\nand knowing that everything is hopeless.\n\nHow do we men absolve ourselves from the blame of this? For it is\ncertainly we who mould society and ourselves, even if we do not mould\nwomen. How do we try to evade, escape, circumvent the main issue?\u2014We\nhave the effrontery to teach Woman the doctrine that since we fail\nthem both in quantity and quality, there is a life away from us and\nthe children they could have from us that is worth living. We do not\nscruple to tell them that they can be happy, content, comfortable,\nwithout the surroundings to which they are primarily adapted. We abet\nand promote a process by which millions of our women deliberately turn\ntheir backs upon their primary adaptations, and spring to our side like\nneuters in the arena of _our_ active life, _our_ besotting duties,\n_our_ drudgery! But not content with undermining their health and their\nhappiness by denying the just privilege of their primary adaptations,\nwe undermine their spirits by casting them like convicts into the\nwheels of the very machine that has already reduced us to such pale\nshadows of our former selves, such faint echoes of manhood, that they\nwere rightly growing dissatisfied with us.\n\nBut not only that, we taught them that they could find happiness in\nthis independence, in this single-handed struggle\u2014_happiness_! Aye,\nthere were even some women who arose and assured their sisters that we\nwere right and that they could _live lives_, yes, and enjoy _Life_, in\nthis independent isolation!\n\nIf this were not all visible before us, many would still refuse to\nbelieve it. Unfortunately it is all only too true! This incredible\nfarce is _our_ present-day existence\u2014_our age_!\n\nWe have actually not refrained from telling young girls that they can\n_live a life_ away from their principal adaptations!\n\nOnly recently, for instance, when the 1921 census revealed that there\nwere approximately 2,000,000 more women than men in Great Britain\u2014that\nis to say, 2,000,000 women who on the monogamous principle could not\nbe expected to find mates\u2014several prominent people wrote to the papers\nprotesting indignantly that these women were not superfluous, and\narguing that there was \u201cenough work in the world\u201d for all the women.\nThese people wrote as if the whole question were an economic one, and\nthat, provided the two million unmated women could only make themselves\nself-supporting in their singleness, the difficulties of the case would\nbe entirely overcome.[15] But this attitude towards the question was\nridiculously unsympathetic. For, if the only object in life were to\nbecome self-supporting by means of work, one would not require to be\neither a man or a woman; a neuter, after the style of the worker-bee,\nwould be all that one required to resemble. But the attitude of these\nprominent people was unfortunately worse than unsympathetic; it was\ninsulting and dishonest. For, to tell a body of two million women that\nthey need not despair, that even if they could find no mates, there\nwould be work enough for them in order to render them self-supporting,\nwas to assume, without enquiry, that they _were_ neuters, or that\nthey _were_ capable of leading satisfactory lives as neuters. It was\nat least tantamount to assuming that they would be content in leading\nthe lives of neuters\u2014an assumption insulting both to their physical as\nwell as to their mental development, and one which, having not a fact\nto support it, was entirely dishonest. Apart from all this, however,\nit amounted to a vulgar narrowing down of all earthly aspirations and\ndesires, to the economic struggle\u2014to success in the task of finding\nsustenance.\n\nThe Holy Catholic Church was more honest in this, and more practical\nthan we are. It told all those women for whom society failed to provide\ntheir principal adaptations, that they could find comfort, occupation,\nand even a high purpose, by entering the Church, but it was frank\nenough to add: if you do so you must turn your back for ever upon those\nthings for which you were built, those things to which your whole body\nwas ingeniously and artfully adjusted and contrived.\n\nAnd even when the system broke down, as it frequently did,[16] at least\nwhere Life was illicitly found in the convent or the monastery, it\nwas found and enjoyed _secretly_, under the respectable auspices of a\npowerful institution, and not on the streets of big cities where the\nfruits are nothing but distress, disgrace and disease.\n\nBut behind all this unwillingness to recognize or admit that Woman\ncannot really be \u201cadapted\u201d (which is simply a biological way of saying\nshe cannot be really happy or well) without fulfilling the destiny\nthat her r\u00f4le in the process of evolution, and not man, stamped\nindelibly upon her body from the start, is the very same insidious\nand devastating force that has made her unhappy in other directions,\nthat has reduced her men, for instance, to nincompoops. I refer to\nPuritanism.[17]\n\nPuritanism, always so hostile to sex, would fondly like one to believe\nthat sex is no longer one of the first considerations of Life, even\nfor women. It would give a good deal, and has given a good deal, to\nconvince everybody that one can \u201cget on without it\u201d! And, indeed, its\nvalues and atmosphere have now reared so many thousands of wretched,\nlank, bloodless and lifeless men and women who _can_ get on without it,\nand who _do_ get on without it, that quite a large number of people are\nbeginning to believe that Puritanism is right. In any case, it is to\nthese unconscious victims of its system that it now has the effrontery\nto point as evidence of its criminal contention when it seeks to\npersuade the unwary that it is right.\n\nWhen, therefore, the cruel solution of modern sex problems (problems\nthat only arose through the kind of society Puritanism has created)\nwas supposed to have been found by telling women that \u201cthey really did\nnot want men or children, and could easily \u2018get on\u2019 without either,\u201d\nit was the voice of Puritanism that was distinct and persuasive here;\nPuritanism at last within an ace of complete triumph, and exulting over\nhaving achieved what to all intents and purposes must have seemed an\nimpossible undertaking from the start.\n\nWhen, however, one remembers how carefully and skilfully the ground had\nbeen prepared, when one remembers how unscrupulously every possible\nmeans had been exploited in order to consummate the end in view, how\ncan one wonder at the unravelment!\n\nAfter having reduced man to a mere shadow of his former self, after\nhaving atrophied, besmirched and slandered the sex instinct until it\nwas literally ashamed to show its face (fancy, the fundamental instinct\nof life being ashamed to show its face!)\u2014after having heaped up so\nmuch odium on the waning innocence of sexual beauties and the sacred\njoys of procreation that shame descended upon them like a deadly and\nwithering shroud\u2014no wonder that there were some, nay, thousands,\nwho were ready to acknowledge that there was a life away from the\nfundamental instinct of life!\n\nFor fire alone purifies; _fire alone renders some fusions and\ncombinations possible_. Damp the ardour of man, therefore, reduce\nhis fire, and the sexual act does indeed become an affair from which\nmany might be justified in shrinking. The procreative love of human\nbeings was obviously designed on the presumption that they would\nremain warm-blooded animals. Once they grew to be cold-blooded, it\nof necessity became improper, impious. The procreation of fish is\naccomplished without any embrace, without any _\u00e9treinte_ of male and\nfemale: but fish are cold-blooded.\n\nThus in support of the Puritan\u2019s chilling cry that there was a life\naway from the fundamental instinct of Life, there arose very soon a\nchorus of disillusioned and indignant married women\u2019s voices, who knew\nthe anguish and embarrassment of human sexual life with a human fish,\nand who were not in the least prepared to conceal its horrors.\n\nAnd how convincing all this seemed! How many sensitive and intelligent\ngirls have not listened to this married woman\u2019s chorus in support of\nthe Puritan\u2019s plea, and felt their hope in life, their trust in life,\ntheir love of life, shake in its foundations! So much so, indeed, that\nit is now possible for them to listen no longer with suspicion but\nwith eager interest to those of their \u201cfortunate\u201d sisters who are too\nunhealthy, or too deficient in vigour to feel any desire for their\nprincipal adaptations; it is possible even for the naturally sterile\namong women, for the women below par in every respect, and incapable,\neither through repulsiveness or botchedness, to fulfil their destiny,\nto pass through the world without being despised, without being looked\ndown upon. And since the number of women who lack the vigour and the\nspirit really to crave for their principal adaptations increases every\nyear, an atmosphere of reality and naturalness is imparted to the\nartificial and destructive claims of Puritanism, which is as deceiving\nas it is dangerous, and as difficult to dissipate as it was slow and\ngradual to form.\n\nIt is precisely because women are so deeply in touch with Life, so\nsecretly and unconsciously Life\u2019s ally, Life\u2019s ambassador, Life\u2019s\n_custodian_, that they cannot help being miserable and in pain\nnowadays. The voice of Life inside them tells them emphatically\nthat things are wrong, that the muddle man has made of Life is\ntragic, cruel, insufferable. As Life\u2019s unconscious advocate, Woman\nis essentially opposed to modernity, however much she may seem in\nfavour of it. When she appears to be most in favour of it, she is only\nfollowing modern man and his ideals most closely.\n\nHaving all the equipment for Life\u2019s most important business, it will\nnot appear hard to believe that Woman is positive. Life through her\nsays \u201cYea\u201d to itself. In fact when Woman says \u201cYea\u201d to Life, it is\nsimply Life itself accepting itself as such. All women\u2019s apparent\nnegativism is either only skin deep, or else it is the outcome of\nbodily sickness or degeneracy. The mere fact that in all periods of\ndecline Woman has always come to the fore, the historical fact that\nFeminism is undeniably a phenomenon of male degeneration\u2014the swan-song\nof male-constructed societies\u2014shows how inevitably Life itself comes\nforward at the last moment in order to try to rescue itself when it\nfeels all else is failing. But it comes forward in a form that cannot\nlead to salvation. Because, although Woman is equipped for carrying on\nLife\u2019s business, she is not equipped for ordering it. You cannot be a\nthing and above it, or out of it, at the same time. The part is not\ngreater than the whole. And, as Woman is immersed in Life, she has not\nthe duality of vision that is necessary for placing and ordering Life.\nShe knows, because she feels, when Life is going to pieces; she knows\nwhen Life has been outraged, when hostility to Life is working havoc\nwith Life\u2019s material; but she can only ascertain the fact, she can only\nprotest against the fact; she cannot remedy it.\n\nTo remind me that modern women\u2014or the most far-seeing among\nthem\u2014organized a powerful agitation to obtain the Parliamentary vote,\nis simply to point to a proof of what I say. The Parliamentary vote\nis essentially a male invention. It is essentially a male idea. It is\nnot an idea of Life. In fact, three-quarters of the harm that has come\nto Life might be ascribed to this very Parliamentary vote, and the\nDemocracy it implies; and yet, when Woman in her agony casts about her\nfor a remedy for Life\u2019s sickness, she can do nothing more than lay hold\nof this futile and dangerous male invention, and seek salvation through\nit.\n\nIt is her cry of protest, however, that is interesting as a symptom, as\na warning. And all those who have ears to hear, know it is the cry of\nLife itself, agitating for reform. But, as the feeling is unconscious\nwith Woman, and as she is not equipped for the task of standing outside\nLife and ordering it, the remedies she advocates must be suspected and\nrejected just as earnestly as her cry of warning must be respected and\nobserved.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[15] See Arabella Kenealy in _Feminism and Sex-Extinction_ (pp.\n211-12): \u201cThat all women do not marry\u2014cannot marry, indeed, because\nof their preponderance in number over the other sex\u2014is no reason for\ndissembling the truth that in wifehood and motherhood lie women\u2019s most\nvital and valuable r\u00f4les. Nor is it a warrant for training the whole\nsex as though none were destined to fulfil this, their natural and\nnoblest, if not always their happiest, vocation.\u201d\n\n[16] The reports made in the reign of Henry VIII by his Commissioners,\nconcerning the state of the convents and monasteries, give proof enough\nof this, as do also the reports of visiting bishops in the Middle Ages.\n\n[17] For an exhaustive description of the metamorphosis of the\nEnglishman through the influence of Puritanism, see chapter V of my\n_Defence of Aristocracy_ (Constable & Co., 1915).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nWoman and her Unconscious Impulses\n\n\nIf a healthy child be told to sit still for a long time at a stretch,\nthe chances are that it will disobey the order at the end of the first\ntwo minutes.\n\nLikewise, if a rhinoceros be placed in a soft-floored stable, the\nchances are that it will very soon plough up the whole of its place of\ncaptivity with its nasal horn.\n\nOther examples can be thought of: the wallowing of ducks, unprovided\nwith water, in dirty puddles and ditches; the nail exercise of the cat\non the legs of our dining-room tables; and the gnawing away of wood by\nwhite mice in a manner that can in no way effect their escape.\n\nLet me explain some of these examples:\n\nA healthy child\u2014a little boy\u2014is told to sit still. What happens? The\nmuscles and tissues of his body are well-nourished. In his constitution\nthere is a reserve of strength which, like the power of a galvanic\nbattery is seeking an outlet, a method of discharging itself. All his\nmuscles tell him most emphatically that they _want_ to be moving, that\nthey want to be actively employed.\n\nNow let us turn to the child\u2019s consciousness and to his brain. Let us\nlook to see what is happening there. These impatient messages that\nare constantly coming up from every nerve and tissue in his body are\nregistered in the brain, but they do not enter consciousness in their\noriginal form. _Consciousness receives only an interpretation of them._\nThe child is not really aware of them at all. If you asked him when he\nfirst began to move or fidget: \u201cWhat is the matter with you?\u201d he would\nreply either \u201cI don\u2019t like sitting here\u201d or \u201cI want to go and play.\u201d\nNot only is he unconscious of the fact that while he is sitting there\nhis body is in a state of genuine distress, because of energy seeking\nto be discharged, but he would be utterly incapable of using the proper\nphraseology to explain his condition, even if he were aware of it. All\nhe knows, all he is conscious of is this:\n\n(1) _Playing is good fun._\n\nHe does not know that the reason why his body insists on moving is that\nall his tissues are alive with energy that wants to be used.\n\n(2) _Sitting here is a hopeless bore._\n\nHe does not realize that sitting still to a live body in a state of\nenergetic exuberance is actually painful, and even if he cries from\nsheer pain, on this account alone, his consciousness will still say: \u201cI\nwant to play,\u201d \u201cI don\u2019t want to sit here.\u201d He will never say, \u201cI am in\npain,\u201d or \u201cIt hurts not to play.\u201d\n\nLet him get down from his chair and go to play, and in less than a\nminute you will probably find him exerting vain efforts to move a huge\nstone or a massive log from one place to another. The purpose of the\ntransposition of this solid and inert mass will be clear neither to you\nnor to him; but that is immaterial. His body wants to spend its energy,\nand the little boy, therefore, likes moving a large stone or a large\nlog about. And he will cry or protest violently if you tell him he is\nnot to do it. He does not know in the least why he wants to do it; he\nonly knows, for the moment, that moving big stones is good.\n\n_From all this it is clear, not only that the brain\u2019s interpretation of\na bodily state is unreliable as a sign of what is actually proceeding\nin that body, but also that it does not always require to be reliable\nin order to lead its owner to do the right thing, or to adopt the\nproper course of action._\n\nNow let us suppose the same child peevish and irritable. What actually\nhappens?\n\nLet us look inside his body for a moment! The large intestine is\ncongested; his bowels have not been properly opened for thirty-six\nhours. Last night, owing to this condition, his sleep was restless and\nfeverish. This morning he has eaten a good breakfast, but he is not so\nlively as he was yesterday. Messages are going up to his brain every\nsecond from every tissue in his body. And all these messages say one\nand the same thing: \u201cWe are not happy: we are not in our usual clean,\nhealthy condition.\u201d The brain itself, owing perhaps to disordered\ncirculation, is also a little surcharged with blood; so that, in\naddition to the messages of distress that incessantly rise from the\nbody, it has its own distress.\n\nNow let us turn to the child\u2019s consciousness! What is happening there?\nThe child is not conscious of all the alarms and signals of distress\ncoming up from his body; he is not conscious of the pressure of blood\non his brain. All he knows is that he is feeling thoroughly and\nutterly discontented. And since his human intelligence tells him that\ndiscontent must have a cause, this cause must be found. An incident at\nbreakfast soon provides the whole scheme of a convincing cause for his\nfeeling of distress. His little sister picks up a crumb of his bread\nand eats it\u2014an innocent action which, if it had happened yesterday, or\nthe day before, would only have provoked laughter.\n\n_It is, however, sufficient to provide the badly informed brain\nwith material for a false interpretation._ The sister\u2019s action is\nimmediately posited as the cause of his feeling ill at ease, and in\na moment all his body\u2019s angry discontent about its bad condition is\nvented against the unfortunate little sister, who is as staggered as\nshe is hurt by his sudden unaccountable outburst of tears and bitter\nwords.\n\nIn the two examples given, what has been the _unconscious_ motive of\nthe little boy\u2019s behaviour? In Example 1 it was a reserve of physical\nenergy that was seeking an outlet\u2014interpreted by the little boy\u2019s\nconsciousness as a desire to roll a stone or a log as an end in itself.\n\nIn Example 2 it was a state of physical depression which, reaching the\nlad\u2019s consciousness as a vague discontent, led him to seek its cause.\nThanks to a false interpretation, and still acting quite unconsciously\nof the _real_ cause, he flies into a passion with his little sister,\nbecause her taking of his crumb of bread seems to him a sufficient\ncause for his discontentedness.\n\nThis part of my disquisition on the unconscious, together with what\nfollows, will do excellent service, if understood, in helping the\nreader to see more clearly into the complicated train of consequences\nwhich, as I shall point out later on, in Chapter VIII, lead to most\nconjugal differences, and ultimately to Divorce. Irrelevant as the\nabove examples may seem, therefore, I would ask the reader to endeavour\nto make quite sure that he understands the principle they involve;\nbecause much of the lucidity of Chapter VIII will depend upon a\nthorough grasp of this principle.\n\nWhen I speak of people acting in a certain way, or doing otherwise\nunaccountable and apparently immoral deeds as the result of a bodily\nimpulse that they misinterpret, I shall speak of an _unconscious_\nmotive on their parts. Only in this sense shall I speak of unconscious\nmotives.\n\nThe correlation of bodily equipment and motive or desire, therefore,\nmust always be kept very carefully in mind if we are to comprehend the\nbehaviour of our fellows, and of the lower animals.\n\n_An animal that has a horn on its nose, like the rhinoceros, will have\na concomitant desire to use it._ Its motive for using it may be quite\n_unconscious_; but that does not matter. The little kitten does not\nhate you, or desire to hurt you when it uses its claws on your hands.\nIt has a bodily part, well supplied with intricate mechanism and\nnerves, and it is more than it can do not to use that part.\n\nThe impulse coming from a bodily part that cries to be used is\ngenerally misinterpreted. That can be taken as a more or less\nuniversal rule. We have seen how the child, though it acted in the\nright way in the first example, was utterly unconscious of the true\nsprings of its action. But that almost every positive action we perform\nin our lives is the outcome of a correlation of our bodily parts\nsending commands to our brain, is nevertheless an undeniable fact.\n\nTake, for instance, the man who possesses the happy combination of a\nvery good eye and an agile, dexterous hand. According to the sort of\nenvironment into which he falls, he may be one of several things\u2014either\nan excellent shot and warrior, or an excellent draughtsman, sculptor,\ncraftsman or painter. The correlation of his bodily parts determines\nhis desires and consequently his career. His motives throughout may be\nunconscious\u2014that is to say, he may be unaware until the end, of the\nnature of the forces that actuated him.\n\nTurning now, with these considerations in our mind, to the\ncontemplation of Woman, what do we find?\n\nWe find a creature who stands up to her shoulders in the business of\nLife and its multiplication. Artfully contrived and richly equipped for\nthis business, and with the whole of her trunk and its nervous system\nintricately organized for it\u2014so that even in her limbs and the skin\nupon them, so that even in her face and the hair on her head one can\ndetect reverberations, as it were, of the mighty and momentous forces\nthat irradiate her being\u2014Woman cannot evade the common fate of all\ncreatures, and cannot help being guided in her conduct rigidly by the\ncorrelation of her bodily parts, any more than all other creatures can.\nBut her actions and the unconscious motives behind them will be all the\nmore inevitable, for having such an elaborate, such a purposeful, and\nsuch a deep-seated mechanism as their generator.\n\nWoman\u2019s positiveness to Life, therefore, only amounts to her saying\n\u201cYea\u201d to her bodily impulses, and this she cannot help doing without\nentertaining thoughts of self-destruction. And her \u201cYea\u201d to Life is\nmore determined, more unswerving, more unrelenting than man\u2019s, in\nproportion as she is more thoroughly organized and equipped than he\nis for Life\u2019s business. Her \u201cYea\u201d to Life cannot be changed to \u201cNay,\u201d\nbecause she is utterly unconscious of it, and is therefore powerless\nto change it. She may in a moment of bottomless despair say \u201cNay\u201d\nto herself, when a sufficient number of people, or a sufficiently\nimportant one of many people, has said \u201cNay\u201d to her; but even then,\nshe is not saying \u201cNay\u201d to Life, but \u201cNay\u201d to the thought of living an\nempty life, or no life.[18]\n\nWoman may ultimately marry. But she is already wed when she is born.\nShe is wed to Life. Life is her taskmaster, and Life is her Lord. I\nshall show very soon how she unconsciously acknowledges this sway,\nsacrifices herself to it, and immolates herself before it\u2014aye, even\ncommits adultery for it, lies for it, murders and thieves for it, and\nsometimes kills herself for it.\n\nWhat is man in the presence of this formidable engine of Life\u2019s\npurpose? Merely a means that Woman unconsciously exploits while she\nconsciously imagines that she loves him. What are her children?\nChildren are the object of her eternally unconscious gratitude, because\nthey are the product of her healthy functioning, the instruments on\nwhich she has played off the whole gamut of her sensibilities and\nsensations.\n\nThe hierarchy then reads: (1) Life, (2) Woman, (3) Man. For the present\nthis will do.\n\nTo understand Woman, then, we must first of all think of her as a\ncreature who is constantly being actuated by the readiness and desire\nher bodily equipment feels, to be used, to be made to function, to\nexercise its powers. But we must always remember that she is not\naware of the nature of this actuating force, that it is always the\n_unconscious motive_ of her actions. We know it must be so; we know it\nis so; but we also know that she does not know it.\n\nAll her will, all her conduct, all her crimes or great deeds\u2014if she\nperpetrate any\u2014must be ascribed to the actuating force of her bodily\nequipment; but she will always be aware only of other motives for her\nconduct, and her mind will invariably misinterpret the causes of it.\n\nLet me go over the ground I have just covered, in a slightly different\nway, in order that I may be quite sure of being understood. All those\nwho have already thoroughly grasped my point can skip this passage.\n\nIf we examine the relation of instinct to will, what do we find it to\nbe.[19]\n\nAn instinct may be understood as a predisposition implanted in a living\ncreature to act in a certain way prior to experience, or, as a bias\nin favour of a certain line of conduct before any knowledge of that\nline of conduct or its consequences has been brought clearly to the\nconscious mind by individual experiment.\n\nAn infant, for instance, has no experience of food and its relation to\nthe body; it has no experience of anything; but it has a predisposition\nto suck, which is the outcome of its bodily condition and ancestral\nhistory at a certain period of its life; and, as far as its early\nmonths are concerned, a child may be said to have an indomitable will\nto be suckled or to suck\u2014it will cry violently if this proclivity be\nnot indulged; its tears and cries will immediately subside if it has\nits way.\n\nHow does instinct become implanted in a living creature? Instinct may\nhave two origins: (1) A racial origin, by which I mean that it is the\noutcome of an ancestral habit, and constitutes a predisposition to\nperform certain actions in a certain way, because of the incalculable\nnumber of times that the ancestors in the same line of descent have\nperformed them in that way. As an example of this, take the circling\nmovements of the dog before he lies down. The movements have no purpose\nnow, because the domestic dog no longer lives in tall grass; but it is\nreminiscent of his ancestors\u2019 behaviour for ages, and in this sense may\nbe called an instinctive action of racial memory. The dog\u2019s will is\nbent on performing this unnecessary and now perfectly empty formality,\nsimply because his ancestors performed it so often in his line of\ndescent.\n\n(2) A bodily origin, by which I mean that an instinct is the natural\noutcome of a certain correlation of organs, bodily parts or weapons,\nand the possession of which in itself is sufficient to suggest and to\nenforce a certain mode of conduct in their possessor. As an example\nof this take the butting or tossing proclivities of the goat and bull\nrespectively, the clawing of the cat, the burrowing of the mole, etc.\netc. All these activities are the outcome of the possession of certain\norgans or bodily parts, that insist upon being used, that cause the\nanimal to feel ill-adapted and miserable if they cannot function.\n\nWhat, then, is will?\n\nAll will is obviously the power of the instinct that determines conduct\nfor the moment, for a given period, or, as in some cases, for a\nlifetime.\n\nThe will of an animal, therefore, is inseparable from the instincts to\nwhich either his racial memory or his bodily parts give rise. For he\nwill do whatever his most powerful instinct, for the time being, bids\nhim do.\n\nLet us now turn to man. With Reibmayr let me posit the three\nfundamental instincts of man as (1) the Self-preservative Instinct, (2)\nthe Reproductive Instinct, (3) the Social Instinct.\n\nAccording to his nature, man has one of these instincts stronger or\nweaker than the other two, and this strength or weakness determines his\ncharacter, his choice of paths in life and of conduct in life.\n\nImagine the Self-preservative Instinct superior in power to the other\ntwo, and, like all ambitious men bent only on self-aggrandisement,\nhe will scout both woman and society at all points where either of\nthese threatens to make him pay too heavy a toll. Suppose that his\nReproductive Instinct is the most powerful\u2014as was the case with Mark\nAntony\u2014and he will be ready to sacrifice society and himself for the\nwoman he loves. If his Social Instinct leads him\u2014as it lead Napoleon,\nDisraeli, Charles I, Strafford, Colbert and others, he will make woman\nand self subordinate to society\u2019s claims upon his energies.\n\nHis will\u2014that is to say the guiding power directing his conduct\u2014is thus\nonly the popular term for \u201cleading instinct.\u201d\n\nIn men of the Herbert Spencer, Nietzsche, St. Francis of Assisi, John\nthe Baptist type, the social instinct was so strong that it completely\nmastered and sacrificed the other two instincts. Their reproductive\ninstinct was suppressed and snubbed, and women were scouted by them,\nwhile they considered their self-preservative instinct only in so far\nas it assisted them in continuing and prolonging the exercise of their\nsocial instinct. The will in these men resided in their leading social\ninstinct. It was that which determined their conduct.\n\nIn the coward, the anarchist, the deserter, the ambitious upstart\nbent only on self-aggrandisement and security, in the unscrupulous\nplutocrat, the self-preservative instinct is so strong that woman and\nsociety are sacrificed or ignored, whenever any emergency or dilemma\noccurs in which it becomes necessary to sacrifice them for the sake of\nself-preservation. Such men\u2019s wills reside entirely in the thought of\ntheir own survival and security, and are determined exclusively by the\nself-preservative instinct.\n\nIf, now, we ask what is Woman\u2019s will, by what instinct is it\ndetermined?\u2014we are in a position to say at once: Woman\u2019s will, owing to\nthe very correlation of her bodily parts and the important place the\norgans and business of Life\u2019s multiplication hold in her constitution,\nis at least likely to have a strong bias or predisposition in favour\nof being determined by her reproductive instinct. For the latter is\nclearly very strongly implanted in her. The two sources from which\nalone instinct can arise, and from which this particular instinct can\ndraw its strength, are present within her; they are undeniably her\nidiosyncracy, and they are: (1) Racial memory (her women ancestors for\nmillions of generations, with the same organs as she possesses, having\nperformed all the functions of conception, parturition, and the rearing\nof children more or less successfully, otherwise she herself would not\nbe there) and (2) the correlation of bodily parts (her body having\nthe full equipment for reproduction, which must crave the exercise of\nits functions and suggest its use, if that equipment be healthy and\nwell-formed).\n\nYou may suggest that the same holds good of man. As a matter of fact,\nit does not. Because in man there is some doubt, some uncertainty as\nto the bias, as to the prejudice, suggested by his bodily parts. If\nin man the organs concerned with Life\u2019s multiplication held the same\npredominant place as they do in woman, the same would certainly hold\ngood of him. But it is obvious that this is not the case. The case is\nrather the reverse.\n\nIt is because of woman\u2019s elaborate and extensive equipment precisely\nfor the business of Life\u2019s multiplication, that we are justified in\nsuspecting that her will is likely to reside in this equipment, or\nrather in the instinct that springs and takes its strength from it. We\nare justified in suspecting this, on the same principle as that which\njustifies us in suspecting that the will of the mole is determined by\nits forelegs and general correlation of bodily parts.\n\n_Provided she be healthy and well-formed_, then Woman\u2019s will cannot\nhelp being determined by the paramount equipment of sex in her body,\nfrom which arises the reproductive instinct. Her social instinct\nwill be subservient, docile, ready to retreat before its master the\nreproductive instinct on all occasions. The self-preservative instinct,\ntoo, save when she is with child, will be limited by and associated\nwith the reproductive.\n\nAnd all this will be so much Woman herself, so much part of her\nessential being, that she will not be aware of it, _and while her\nreproductive instinct will guide her, she herself will misinterpret\nits promptings while doing its bidding_. So much so, indeed, will\nshe misinterpret its promptings, and her unconsciousness will be so\nprofound, so genuine, so unpretended, and so impenetrable, that it will\ndeceive even the spectator himself, even the contemplator and observer\nof Woman.\n\nIf she has virtues, they will be offshoots from the reproductive\ninstinct; her vices will be the same. Her immorality, if she be capable\nof it, will be Life\u2019s immorality, vital immorality, positive immorality.\n\nBut what is most important in understanding Woman is, I repeat, her\ninevitable mental misinterpretation of these phenomena. Weininger\u2019s\nbook is wrong, weak, unjust, because he never lays sufficient stress on\nthis question of the unconscious and its bearing upon the nature and\nconduct of Woman. Later on in this book many apparent problems in the\nlife-conduct of Woman, many of Woman\u2019s apparent crimes, all Woman\u2019s\nso-called immorality, will be explained precisely on the basis of her\nunconsciousness of the true forces actuating her. There is no other\nexplanation. There is no other way of understanding these things.\n\nLet me repeat the sort of dialogue I constantly have with the average\nman who is in the habit of taking things at their face value.\n\nI. How\u2019s Miss A.?\n\nA.M. Oh, flourishing, thank you!\n\nI. What is she doing now? Is she engaged yet?\n\nA.M. No\u2014not yet.\n\nI. Any prospects?\n\nA.M. None that I am aware of.\n\nI. Where is she?\n\nA.M. She\u2019s attending lectures on Political Economy.\n\nI. Political Economy!\u2014whatever for?\n\nA.M. Oh, she\u2019s a very clever girl, and she\u2019s interested in these\nsubjects.\n\nI. Let me think!\u2014how old is she?\n\nA.M. Just twenty-three.\n\nI. Well, well! I suppose she will meet plenty of fresh men at the\nSchool of Political Economy, and may find what she wants there.\n\nA.M. Oh, but you misunderstand Miss A. She has no such thought. She\nsays herself that she is deeply interested in Political Economy.\n\nI. She does not know why she goes to the School of Political Economy;\nshe imagines it is because she is interested in the subject. But I know\nwhy she goes there. Life sends her there. And even if the only thing\nshe could learn there were the turning and painting of skittles, she\nwould be interested in that. Life has found that one environment has\nfailed to give the girl her primary adaptations, so now it bids her\nseek a new environment.\n\nA.M. Oh nonsense!\u2014you always imagine women think of nothing but men.\n\nI. I didn\u2019t say so!\n\nA.M. But you imply it.\n\nI. I. I don\u2019t even imply it.\n\nA.M. You do!\n\nI. On the contrary, I feel quite certain that Miss A. is quite\nunconscious of the true nature of the command that sent her to the\nSchool of Political Economy.\n\nAt this stage in the dialogue the average man usually shrugs his\nshoulders, because he knows nothing of unconscious motives; he knows\nnothing of the brain\u2019s misinterpretation of the body\u2019s messages to it,\nand the consequence is that he believes honestly in the avowed motive\nin people\u2019s conduct always being the real and true one.\n\nBut if this were so, women, with their moral upbringing as it is at\npresent, would be ashamed of doing half they constantly and habitually\ndo. It is their salvation in the present Puritanical age that their\ndeepest motives for their actions are not apparent to themselves,\notherwise the more tasteful, the more sensitive among them, would fly\nto the nearest cellar for concealment and never show their faces again.\n\nNever accept a Woman\u2019s explanation of the motives actuating her\u2014not\nbecause she is deliberately lying, but because she does not know them:\nThe motive to her is always the one that is apparent, _the one that is\nthe outcome of her mind\u2019s misinterpretation of the body\u2019s messages to\nit_.\n\nPeople who say that women deliberately lie in these circumstances\nsimply do not know the subject, and had better start studying it afresh.\n\nLet us analyse Miss A.\u2019s case. I assume that she is a healthy normal\ngirl. Her hips are broad, her chest is full, she has been regular\nin her periods from her fourteenth year. What is going on inside\nher? All this equipment, in perfect working order and vigorously\nconstituted, has not ceased from signalling to the brain ever more\nand more insistently for years: \u201cWe are not content; we are idle;\nwe are _sitting still_; we are not functioning; we are aching from\nsitting still.\u201d The brain misinterprets all this straight away, and\ntransmits it to consciousness as follows: \u201cWhat a bore life is! _When_\nis anything interesting or exciting going to happen? What are all the\nmen in my circle doing? Why don\u2019t they notice me, or fall in love with\nme?\u201d The messages continue persistent, and they are the same as in the\nfirst case, but more emphatic, more urgent. Again the brain transmits\nthem to consciousness as follows: \u201cWhat a bore _home_ life is! What a\nself-complacent, heedless creature mother is! What a tedious round this\nweek at home has been! I must go out; I must get away from it! I must\nleave home! Couldn\u2019t I study something? Anything that gets me out of\nthis tiresome futility! Isn\u2019t there a course of something at the School\nof Political Economy?\u201d And so on!\n\nIn the terms of Life, this means simply: \u201cMy present environment is\nfailing to procure my principal adaptations for me. Life bids me seek\nanother environment at once.\u201d\n\n_Fidelity to Life in Woman must prevail over every other form of\nfidelity._ In order to be _faithful_ to Life and Life\u2019s purpose,\ntherefore, Miss A. must be _unfaithful_ to her old environment.\n\nBut to accuse such a girl of falsehood or dissimulation when she\ndeclares that she is interested in Political Economy, and is pursuing\nthe study for its own sake, would be the cruellest injustice. Life is\nquite unscrupulous in achieving her ends, and if Political Economy can\nprove a road to them, why not Political Economy? But the woman is no\nmore conscious of the fact that Life is secretly directing her, than\nthe mole is of the reasons why it selects a subterranean life.\n\nHitherto I have spoken only of the healthy or positive woman. I\nmust, however, refer to the unhealthy woman; because, unless she is\nrejected immediately, as a standard, we shall be utterly misled in our\nexamination of the true Female attitude.\n\nFor the present work, all I shall mean by unhealthy or negative,\nwill be that condition in which the body may be said to be either\n_atonic_\u2014that is to say, lacking in tone, in sanguine vigour\u2014or\nunfit, owing to inadequate, arrested or faulty development, for the\nperformance of its functions.\n\nThe fact that Weininger makes no classification of healthy and\nunhealthy, but confines himself entirely to the two orders of women\nthat are either inclined to be male or inclined to be truly female,\nvitiates the whole of his argument.\n\nUnless I take into consideration whether a woman is properly equipped\nnot only with the mechanism but also with the tonality of the mechanism\nfor her functions, how can I proceed to postulate that she is either\nmale or female in her physical bias?\n\nWe know that the impulse to use an organ normally arises in the organ\nitself in a state of health, and that the instincts of a creature have\nonly the two sources\u2014racial memory and a correlation of organs\u2014from\nwhich they can possibly draw their strength. Suppress the more powerful\nof these two sources, the organic impulse, and you cannot help\nreducing, depressing, or even totally eliminating the instinct.\n\nAn unhealthy woman, in my sense, therefore, will approach maleness\nin any case, whether she have male elements in her or not (to recall\nWeininger); because with the decline in vigour of her reproductive\ninstincts consequent upon the atonic condition of her reproductive\norgans, the voice of other instincts will make themselves heard, and\nshe will be less of a woman the more her other instincts dare to\nmeasure themselves against her reproductive instinct.\n\nTo me, therefore, Weininger\u2019s classification \u201cMale\u201d and \u201cFemale\u201d woman\nseems superfluous; it serves no useful purpose\u2014because almost all the\nsecondary sexual characteristics of the male are rudimentary in woman\nand come into prominence when her sex is in abeyance, either through\nnegativeness, immaturity (childhood), or at the climacteric (late\nmiddle age); besides, even Weininger himself admits that he has \u201cnever\nyet seen a single woman who was not fundamentally feminine,\u201d[20] and\nscores of cases could, moreover, be adduced which show that certain\nraces have reared women approaching as closely as possible to the\nmale\u2014the _squaw_, for instance\u2014without having produced _feminine_ males\nto couple with them.\n\nHow Weininger, by the by, reconciles the opinion just quoted with his\nother view, it is not incumbent upon me to say. His book is so full of\nshallow conclusions, contradictions and superficial judgments, that it\nis difficult to understand how it was ever taken seriously.\n\nThe relation of the unhealthy woman to Life, then, is rather that\nof the renegade, of the atheist, of the infidel, towards his native\nreligion. She will not hanker after the business of Life and its\nmultiplication. Her Will will not reside in her reproductive instinct.\nAnd this is what goes on in her mind:\n\n(We are now inside the unhealthy woman\u2019s brain.) Messages are being\nreceived from all corners of her body. Her trunk with all its intricate\nmechanism for reproduction sends constant signals of no urgency at\nall\u2014mere small talk! \u201cWe are quite content to be left alone; we are\nquite happy sitting still; we are not anxious to have our lot altered\nin the least.\u201d The brain misinterprets all this straight away and\ntransmits these signals to consciousness as follows: \u201cMan and my\nsupposed fatal relationship to him do not interest me in the least.\nI am _above_ sex. I do not even feel a thrill in the presence of the\nmost virile, most positive male. All this talk about my lot on earth\nbeing the business of Life and its multiplication, is simply nonsense\nmultiplied _ad infinitum_! I am born for higher things; I have the\ninstinct of higher things.\u201d\n\nAs if there could be anything higher than the purpose of human\nlife!\u2014Unless, of course, one is of the opinion of Schopenhauer,\nWeininger and the rest of that ilk, and disbelieves in the desirability\nof prolonging human life on earth.\n\nTo us, then, who are positive to Life, and to whom sterility is\ntherefore a thing to be regretted, deplored, and not admired, as\nWeininger admired it; to us, who loathe the infertility of prostitution\nand particularly of homosexuality, and who regard such a statement as\nthat of Weininger\u2019s in regard to the last-named vice[21] as sufficient\nnot only to condemn a whole book, but a whole man as well: the\nunhealthy or negative woman, despite all her superior and overweening\nclaims, is a subject of repulsion and disgust; and we would give her\na place in society where all her misinterpretations of her condition\nwould be rendered non-infectious and innocuous.\n\nUnfortunately, what with the influence of Puritanism and its hostility\nto sex and to sex-expression, what with the depressing foods and drinks\nit has introduced,[22] or whose use it has fostered in the nation,\nvitality even among creatures so positive and so vigorously positive as\nwomen, has been greatly reduced and frequently hopelessly impaired; and\nparticularly in England, negative women, asexual women abound.\n\nIf, however, we keep strictly to our positive tenet: \u201c_that all\nthat is good which is favourable to the best kind of life and its\nmultiplication_,\u201d we shall have no difficulty in deciding whether this\nincrease of asexual women is a good or a bad thing; and our judgment\nmay be accordingly both definite and severe.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[18] The statistics showing that more women than men commit suicide and\ngo mad through disappointed love, prove that the importance attached by\nwomen to this rebuff is much greater than that attached to it by men.\nSee Lombroso and Ferrero\u2019s _La Femme Criminelle et la Prostitu\u00e9e_, pp.\n515 and 517.\n\n[19] I have already done this in my _Defence of Aristocracy_; but as\nthe standpoint is comparatively new, it will bear being related here in\nfresh terms.\n\n[20] Op. cit., p. 188.\n\n[21] Op. cit., p. 66: \u201cIn the second part of my book, however, I shall\nshow reasons in favour of the possibility that homosexuality is a\nhigher form than hetero-sexuality.\u201d See also p. 226, where Weininger\nsays: \u201cHer position outside the mere preservation of the race, the fact\nthat she is not merely the channel and the indifferent protector of\nthe chain of beings that pass through her, place the prostitute, in a\nsense, above the mother.\u201d\n\n[22] See my _Defence of Aristocracy_, chapter V.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n The Positive Man and the Positive Woman\n\n\nI have spoken about the positive child and its Yea-saying attitude to\nLife generally. Now I am going to turn to two creatures, a man and a\ngirl, who have been fortunate enough to succeed, despite the negative\ninfluence of the age, in growing up to manhood and mature girlhood\nwithout having lost the positive attitude to Life.\n\nLet us consider the positive male first. And I refer to him only\nbecause no book on Woman is complete without a more than passing\nreference to her counterpart\u2014Man.\n\nFirst of all examine his body! It is clear that Life and its business\nof multiplication have not nearly so strong, so complete, a hold over\nhim as they have over Woman. The sphere the business of reproduction,\nalone, occupies in his body is limited, comparatively small, and\nconfined. The part he plays in this business is, moreover, incidental,\ntransitory, spasmodic. As I have already said, he is an amputation from\nLife rather than Life itself; and he returns to Life only at certain\nintervals in order, as it were, to pay tribute to her, to enable her\nto carry on her grand scheme. When he has paid this tribute at stated\nintervals, the fact that he willingly renounces any further concern\nin the matter, in fact, with some discontent and sense of surfeit,\nturns away as one who does not want to have anything more to do with\nit, is proof enough of the relatively small part he plays. For while\nhe turns away and refreshes his resources by indulging for a space his\ntwo other instincts only\u2014the self-preservative and the social\u2014Woman\u2019s\nreproductive work goes silently on and may be truly said never to cease.\n\nIn Man, therefore, we must not confound the attitude of positiveness\nor yea-saying to Life with positiveness or yea-saying to sex. In Woman\nthey amount practically to the same thing. Her reproductive instinct\nand her yea to Life are inextricably involved. They merge; they are\nsimply different ways of expressing the same attitude. But in Man there\nis a positiveness to sex which is smaller, more fitful, more irregular\nthan his positiveness to Life. For the latter may last uninterruptedly\nthroughout his whole existence, whereas the former, as we have seen,\nunless he be a mere beast, is moody, transient, intermittent.\n\nLooking upon men from the outside, therefore, we should no more expect\nto find their reproductive instinct universally predominant in them,\nthan the vice of kicking is universally predominant in horses.\n\nWe should readily acknowledge that a certain supernormal sexuality\nmight exist in men of the Mark Antony type, in which the reproductive\ninstinct prevailed over all others; but we should be forced to conclude\nthat as a general rule there would be every chance, even in the\nhealthiest and most normal man, either of the self-preservative or of\nthe social instinct obtaining the upper hand.\n\nAnd this indeed is what we find constantly occurs in real life\u2014at least\nsufficiently often for us to recognize that the reproductive or sexual\nobsession in Man is more or less an exception, or an abnormality.\n\nFrom the correlation of his bodily parts, then, we cannot deduce a\npredominance of the reproductive instinct in Man.\n\nWhat do we know of his racial memory? What have his ancestors done\nand been doing all these years? If we can posit anything absolutely\ncertain about them it is this, that they have been almost incessantly\nconcerned with the mastering of Life, and the organization of Man\u2019s\nlife as a social being. Nothing is more certain than that. Nothing can\nbe read more clearly in the pages of history. Whereas the reproductive\ninstinct has formed but a recurring _leit-motif_ of man\u2019s life, his\nsocial instinct, with all that it entailed in the mastery of Nature\nand the concomitant organization of man\u2019s life, as a social being, has\nconstituted the unremitting and endless harmony of his existence.\n\nWhereas, therefore, a woman cannot be positive without being\nparamountly sexual, a man who would be paramountly sexual would be\nnegative to a most important part of his being\u2014his relationship to\nNature, to the mastery of Nature, and therefore to the ordering and\norganization of Life, including himself as a social being.\n\nA paramountly sexual man, therefore, is as hostile to Life as the\nasexual woman, and just as useless.\n\nWhen a positive man faces Life with his social instinct keenly\nsharpened, his ordering mind becomes creative and his creation is\nsociety. He feels himself above Nature and bends it to his will which\nis governed by his social instinct. The stylobate of the ancient Greek\ntemple, the elevation above the ground of the foundation of the Ch\u00eateau\nde Versailles\u2014these things are but instances of the unconscious tokens\nMan has given all through his career as a rational being, of his\nfeeling of difference, of distance, from rude uncultured Life. When he\nfaces Woman, he also faces Life pure and simple, and in exactly the\nsame spirit. But here his body obtains the mastery, and the creation is\nthe child.\n\nNature and Woman, being both different forms of Life unordered and\nunarranged, yield to Man\u2019s ordering mastery. They understand it and\nfollow it, always _provided it understands them_; for, obviously, the\ngardener who sought to turn the rose-tree upside down, the cattle\nfarmer who sought to make the sheep carnivorous, or the social gardener\nwho sought to convert woman into a sort of non-productive asexual\nworker, might certainly come within an ace of success, but would be\nequally certain of having consummated the wretchedness if not the death\nboth of the rose-tree, the sheep and woman respectively.\n\nBut when nature is understood it yields cheerfully and eagerly to\nMan\u2019s ordering power, although it does so dumbly and inarticulately.\nWoman, on the other hand, who is simply nature, Life itself, become\narticulate, does so admiringly, cheerfully, happily and consciously.\n\nThe positive man, therefore, is positive to three things; Society,\nself-preservation, and Woman. He cannot be wholly positive if he lack\nany one of these attitudes; and those men who have maintained all these\nattitudes with dignity and _creative_ success, have been the only\ntruly great men of history. Others are simply specialists, cripples,\ndeformities or nonentities. Of course, for a man to be positive to\nWoman it is not necessary that he should actually have had a child from\nher. Circumstances may have been hostile to this consummating proof of\nhis sexuality. This is only documentary proof, so to speak, and its\nabsence does not necessarily argue against his having maintained a\nstrictly positive attitude towards her and sex all his life.\n\nWe must always remember, too, that the complicated and wearing\nresponsibility that man has always cheerfully undertaken, of ordering\nLife and mastering nature, is an arduous and very onerous business, and\nthat those men who have fulfilled their obligations to their social\ninstinct most scrupulously and honestly, have frequently come to their\njourney\u2019s end without having been able to cast more than a glance of\nhearty encouragement and tender affection at the women they passed on\nthe road, however positive may have been their feelings towards them.\n\nWhen we see a whole regiment, or two or three regiments, present arms,\nor slope arms simultaneously, so that the glint on their rifles seems\nlike one flash that illuminates the whole multitude in the same second\nof time; when we see one policeman suddenly make a clear channel\nthrough the congested traffic of Cheapside, in order that a fire-engine\nmay dash through to perform its work of rescue; or when we watch the\nrhythmic and regular movements of a _corps de ballet_, keeping strict\ntime with a well-conducted orchestra;\u2014a mysterious thrill passes\nthrough us, a magic breath of cool air seems to lap the lower regions\nof our spine, and for some reason which we do not stop to analyse, we\nfeel uplifted, exalted, in mystic and glowing fusion with something\ndeep and distant, buried far away in the history of our race.\n\nWhat is this mysterious thrill, this cold shiver? It is intensely\npleasurable. It is the only purely non-sexual thrill that in any way\napproaches the sexual thrill. Its importance, therefore, to us and our\nlives must be enormous. For the fact that it is poles asunder from\nsexuality, ought to make us see that here we have something, a deep\ninstinct that is not reproductive, which is capable of feeling immense\nbodily pleasure.\n\nAs a matter of fact, this cold shiver is one of the most infallible\nsigns of profound unqualified approval that our body shows. When it is\nfelt deep down in the back, man may conclude with absolute certainty\nthat one of the strongest, most vital and most necessary chords of his\nnature has been touched and set vibrating. For the fact that it is the\nbody that speaks here, is, I repeat, a proof that we are concerned\nwith an instinct, and not with an act of intellect. It is always\npossible to make quite sure of this distinction by remembering that\nthe body never participates in an act of intellect. When the intellect\napprehends anything, the body, remembering its superior rank, and its\nsuperior age, remains coldly distant and unaffected. For the intellect,\nas Schopenhauer rightly observed, is the servant of the body, and not\n_vice vers\u00e2_. And the body does not share either its servant\u2019s triumphs\nor pleasures.\n\nConversely, when the body apprehends something by means of its\ninstincts, its servant\u2014the intellect\u2014is all agog, intensely interested,\nwatchful and helpful; the intellect \u201cstands by\u201d and is ready to seek\nways and means by which the body may speedily be guided to the object\nof its longing or to the consummation of its desire\u2014no matter what the\ninstinct be that is providing the momentum.\n\nAll bodily thrills, then, are very important; because they signify\nthat the superior part of one, the older, more traditional, more\nunalterable, and more untractable part of one, is gratified,\nacquiescent, _deeply approving what happens to be taking place_.\n\nThis fact is most significant, particularly in regard to all that is\ngoing to follow in this book.\n\nThe thrill of the sexual union is easily explained and disposed of once\nand for all:\u2014It is the superior, the oldest, most traditional, and most\nunalterable part of us\u2014our body\u2014approving the act of procreation, which\npromises a continuation and a multiplication of Life.\n\nNow my claim is that this other thrill, which, in its different way, is\njust as pleasurable as the thrill of sexual union, is also an act of\nbodily approval\u2014but of what?\n\nLet us consider in what circumstances this thrill is felt. I have said\nthat it is when we see a large body of troops man\u0153uvring in such a\nmanner that the movements of the whole multitude are as the movements\nof one man. I have said that it is when we see one single man in blue\nstep into the midst of the torrent of vehicles in Cheapside, put his\nhand up, and clear, as if by magic, an open thoroughfare for the\nfire-engine to dash through on its mission of mercy and of rescue.\nI have said also that it is when we see the rhythmic movements of a\n_corps de ballet_ adjusted to perfection to the regular beat of a fine\norchestra.\n\nNow what is common to all these three instances? It is obvious that the\nonly thing that can be common to them all is the quality of _order_,\nthe quality which is the result and creation of the _ordering power of\nman_. Where this is found in a tangible, forcible, overwhelming form,\nthe body approves, the body is thrilled. And this thrill is the body\u2019s\nexultation over witnessing what from time immemorial must have been one\nof the human being\u2019s strongest cravings and deepest faiths,\u2014the faith\nin order, in regular arrangement, in the power of ordering confusion;\nbecause such order, such regular arrangement, and such power of\nordering confusion, have always meant greater mastery over nature, over\nour foes, over Life in general, and therefore greater security, better\nfruit, more happiness, more beauty!\n\nThe particular manifestation of order that the body may be witnessing\nis immaterial; for it is not the nature of the manifestation, but its\nquality of order, that moves and thrills us so deeply, that, perhaps,\nin no other moment of our lives\u2014save possibly in sexual union\u2014do we\nfeel such an exquisite titillation of our nerves and tissues.\n\nThis approval, this never-to-be-forgotten chorus of praise that our\nold body sings, in spite of ourselves, is the sign that our _social\ninstinct_[23] feels gratified, feels secure, and in the environment in\nwhich it can thrive; for it is our _social instinct_ that knows how to\nappreciate the value of order, how important order is, and how great\nwere those who first created order out of chaos.\n\nI do not know whether women get this cold shiver down their backs at\nthe sight of order\u2014I believe they do; in fact I am sure they must:\nbecause, to the extent to which they feel positive to Man and to the\nchild they must feel positive to the order that makes men and children\npossible and safe acquisitions.\n\nWoman\u2019s respect for Man, her whole attitude of awe towards him, must of\nnecessity fall to pieces when the order which it is his duty to Life to\nestablish by means of his social instinct, either collapses, or proves\nin any way inadequate. Because, although Woman is constantly seeking to\nlure Man to specialize in his reproductive instinct, she never respects\nthe man whom she thus succeeds in forcing to betray his other trusts;\nand knows perfectly well, unconsciously, that only that man who remains\npositive both to his social and his reproductive instinct, is of any\nuse to the world and ultimately to her and her child.\n\nFor Man to fail in the exercise of his social instinct brings him\ninto just as bad repute with decent women as when he fails in his\nreproductive instinct. Women realize that he cannot be wholly positive\nto Life without the exercise of both, and although they may make a mad\nand delirious rush into voluptuous pastimes with the man of degenerate\nsocial instincts\u2014as they are doing at present, for instance\u2014the more\nfar-seeing among them, the more sensitive and apprehensive of their\nsex, will have a sense of insecurity and dissatisfaction which will\nmake them look anxiously around and wonder whether all is well with\nLife and the world.\n\nThis is not the place to discuss the Woman\u2019s Suffrage Movement; but the\nabove adumbrates my view of the deepest causes that underlay this most\ninteresting, most significant and most symptomatic agitation of recent\nyears. It was by no means the most frivolous, the most superficial, and\nthe most pretentious women who were militants in this movement. All\nfrivolous, superficial and pretentious women nowadays are to be found\nonly shoulder to shoulder with degenerate man wherever and whenever he\nis \u201cenjoying himself,\u201d and whiling away his empty existence in a whirl\nof still more empty pleasure.\n\nFor the present I must proceed with the consideration of Man\u2019s social\ninstinct in its relation to Woman.\n\nIn addition to the task of imposing order on chaos and of creating\nthe foundations of civilized society, it is the social instinct of\nman that has always been responsible for the contriving of all codes\nof morality, however diverse, however conflicting. It is the social\ninstinct in lesser men that keeps them moral. For immorality is, in the\nfirst place, a crime against society.\n\nSocial life\u2014and all healthy human life is social life\u2014cannot flourish\nunless it is well ordered; unless, that is to say, it follows certain\nwell chosen rules of conduct, diet, amusement and the like. Where\nman\u2019s social instinct begins to decline, therefore, he is not only\nceasing from being positive to social life, but he is actually immoral.\nOf all this the best women, the most sensitive women, are vaguely,\nunconsciously aware. As the custodians of Life, they cannot respect, or\nfeel confidence in, men whose social instincts are declining.\n\nBy immorality I do not mean that limited, foolishly narrow-minded\nnotion of the Puritans, which confines itself to the condemnation of\nall sexual pleasure. The Puritans themselves were immoral in my sense;\nbecause, they were hostile to life. St. Paul himself was immoral, in\nmy sense; because, being a celibate, and as good as a monk himself,\nhe said to the Corinthians: \u201cIt is good for a man not to touch a\nwoman,...[24] For I would that all men were even as I myself[25]....\nI say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if\nthey abide even as I.\u201d[26] St. Paul was indeed very immoral in my\nsense; because when he cast about him for a reason to justify the holy\nand sacred union of matrimony, the only one he could find was that it\nalleviated a man\u2019s lust.[27] I mean by immorality, as I have already\nexplained, all those crimes of omission and commission that are hostile\nto the best kind of life. Social life cannot continue unless it is well\nordered. Disordered social life is in danger of annihilation: therefore\nall those crimes that lead to social disorder as the result of man\u2019s\ndeclining social instinct are, in my sense, immoral.\n\nIn Chapter III I showed how predominant the reproductive instinct must\nof necessity be in Woman; but I also showed that, owing to her mind\u2019s\nconstant misinterpretation of bodily messages, it does not follow that\nWoman will always be _thinking_ of sex, man and the child, simply\nbecause her body thinks and works round nothing else.\n\nThe Positive Woman\u2014the young fully formed girl\u2014is all sex; her body\naspires and yearns for nothing more ardently than the fulfilment of her\ndestiny; this cannot help being so, and yet what from all appearances\ncould be more remote, more different from thoughts of sexual relations\nand reproduction than the mental preoccupations of the healthy decent\nyoung girl? She could not tell you why she is fond of men\u2019s society.\nShe knows only that she is fond of it. She could not explain why she\nhopes to marry ultimately; she knows her father and mother were married\nand that most adults seem to marry, but she has not the faintest\nconception of all that this implies. She notices that she has a marked\ntaste in men\u2014that some men are like wooden images to her, and that\nothers thrill her through and through; but she is not aware of the\nreasons of all this. While, however, the very mystery of these thrills,\nthe very impenetrability of her likes and dislikes in regard to men,\nmake her abandon any hope of knowing the why and the wherefore of\nthese experiences, she is not unfavourably disposed towards them. On\nthe contrary they interest her and attract her as if magnetically;\nwhile men are the object of her most solemn and most undivided\nattention. Occasionally she has a terrible, unutterable dream, the\nvery recollection of which shocks her for days afterwards; but these\nadventures she has in slumber throw no fresh light on her problem for\nher; for has she not had the most impossible dreams all her life? Who\nis to say that these she is having now are any more reliable than those\nshe had three, four, five or six years ago,\u2014although the subject of\nthem is so entirely different? Still, it is all very strange, _very_\nstrange; and she regards men with perhaps a trifle more penetration on\nthe morrow, and the day after.\n\nThe very positive girl may be timid, in fact is, as a rule, very\ntimid in the presence of men, and very self-conscious too. Her body\nis aware that in this environment it can find its consummation, it\nwould like to find its consummation, and it is therefore all tense and\nbraced with excitement\u2014an excitement that the girl herself does not\nquite understand, except that it makes her extremely uncomfortable.\nAnd it is the difficulty she feels in overcoming her body\u2019s concern\nthat constitutes the strain. This difficulty may easily be understood,\nhowever, if we remember that ever since she first became fully\nformed, her body has silently, but regularly been preparing for the\nconsummation of its destiny. Unbeknown to the girl\u2019s consciousness,\nthough of course she has been aware of the phenomenon, every month Life\nhas prepared her\u2014her body has dressed itself, so to speak, for the act\nthat will lead to the consummation of her destiny,\u2014no wonder that after\nall these months and years of silent waiting and waiting, and elaborate\nand minute preparations for the guest, that there should be some\nbustle, some joyful apprehension, when a potential guest is at hand, or\nactually waiting. But the mind knows nothing of all this. What in fact\nis going on in the girl\u2019s mind?\n\nAll this bodily agitation gets telephoned through correctly enough to\nthe brain; but it is transmitted to consciousness in a form so utterly\ngarbled and inaccurate, that it becomes unintelligible. Consciously,\nthe girl only feels uncomfortable, and sometimes so painfully so that\nshe has to take flight altogether, and retire somewhere alone to\nrecover her self-possession. Charlotte and Emily Bront\u00eb had to avert\ntheir eyes when they passed an attractive man in the street.\n\nYou may be quite certain that when a fully formed and decent girl looks\nboldly and unmoved (as hundreds do nowadays) into the eyes of men\u2014even\nof the most attractive men\u2014her degree of positiveness is very low\nindeed, and her body feels very little at all in the presence of the\nmale sex.\n\nThe whole of the above, of course, applies only to the virgin.\n\nThere is no true positiveness to the social instinct in the positive\ngirl. The social instinct\u2019s next finest products,[28] which are the\nfine arts, are to her but means to an end\u2014unconscious means to an\nend, just as everything else is: the end being the full exercise of\nher reproductive instinct. If a girl show a strong desire to play\nthe violin, to paint or to write, you may feel quite sure these next\nfinest manifestations of man\u2019s social instinct are attracting her only\ntemporarily, as extra plumage with which to eclipse her sisters and\nfriends. And the really positive girl will throw all these accessories\nto her bodily charms overboard the moment they have served her purpose.\nNo admirably positive woman would ever continue the pastimes of\npainting, or music, once they had achieved her object for her.\n\nAs I suggested in Chapter III, for the social instinct to speak with\neven an ever so feeble voice in Woman, it means that some part of\nher reproductive instinct has had to stand aside\u2014_ergo_, that her\nreproductive instinct is not as strong as it might be, and consequently\nthat some flaw may be suspected either in her ancestry, or in the tone\nor correlation of her bodily parts. If, then, she applies herself to\nthe fine arts\u2014which are only the next highest bloom of the human social\ninstinct working for order in expression\u2014she can do so only under\ntwo conditions\u2014(1) At the bidding of her reproductive instinct which\nmakes her unconsciously adopt one of the arts temporarily as an extra\nfeather with which to make her a more conspicuous female against the\nbackground formed by her sisters and friends; or (2) at the bidding of\na genuine impulse to art, arising from a real whisper coming direct\nfrom her social instinct\u2014in which case her reproductive instinct may be\nconsidered as imperfect, suspect, lacking in vigour. All positiveness\nto the social instinct in Woman, therefore, denotes a decline of Woman\nas Woman, a depression in the manifold and exalted virtues, the beauty,\nthe charm, and the power of Woman as the breeder, the mother, and the\ncustodian of Life.\n\nEnough has now been said on this subject to leave the reader in no\ndoubt as to how I distinguish between the Positive Man and the Positive\nWoman.\n\nThe first must, in order to be whole, be positive both to sex and to\nsociety, through his reproductive and social instincts respectively.\n\nThe latter must, in order to be whole, be positive to sex only.\n\nOf course, I need hardly remind the reader that all men, by the\nexercise of their social instinct cannot be creative in social order,\nor in the fine arts; but the least of them, if their social instinct is\nnormal, can protect and maintain society by observing its conventions\nand rules.\n\nNor do I wish to imply that, because Woman is now anxious about the\nfate of Life and society, she is therefore developing or acquiring new\npowers of which neither her female ancestors nor her body can reveal\nthe generating source. I say only that the most apprehensive and most\nsensitive of modern women are losing their faith in man because of\nthe undoubted decline in his social instinct, and because of their\nhaving become aware of the danger that this entails to Life. I do not\neven mean to suggest that what they say on this subject is worthy of a\nmoment\u2019s attention. It is the fact that they _feel_ the danger, that is\nimportant.\n\nIt now remains for me to differentiate between the Positive Man\u2019s\nand the Positive Woman\u2019s attitude to the sexual act itself. This is\nnecessary, in fact indispensable; because upon a proper grasp of this\nmatter a true and serviceable understanding of Woman largely depends.\n\nI shall deal with Man first.\n\nThe Positive Man, who is necessarily the healthy and moral man,\nis faced by Woman as a temptation from a few years after puberty,\npractically until the end of his life. He is faced by her as a\ntemptation very much in the same way as the child of my third chapter\nwas faced by the heavy stone as a temptation. One of the first things\nhe observes in regard to this temptation, however, is that it is not\ncontinuous, not constant, but intermittent and fitful. It is much more\nin the nature of an appetite that can be satisfied and momentarily\nstilled, a desire that can be met and gratified, than a need that never\nceases, as for instance the need of air, or of food. What is more,\nthe very satisfaction it is possible to give it, is the principal\ncause of its intermittent character. I do not, myself, believe in any\nfeeling of disgust or repulsion arising in the male towards the female\nafter a gratification of the male sexual appetite; I am convinced that\nwhere this occurs it is only the outcome of bestial excess; but I am\ncertain that the appetite of the male, his desire, undoubtedly can and\ndoes remain quiescent for a space after its gratification, _that it\nis possible for him during that quiescent period to act and live in\na way which is absolutely, to all intents and purposes asexual, or\nindistinguishable from the asexual life_.\n\nThe fact that the sexual act alone constitutes the whole of man\u2019s\nshare, the whole of his desire, and the whole of his physical\nconcern, in regard to reproduction, and that for a space after its\naccomplishment he may be regarded as practically asexual, is so\nimportant in the understanding of Man\u2019s attitude and his duty both to\nthe world, to Life, and to Woman, that it cannot be too thoroughly\nunderstood.\n\nIt is the fitful nature of Man\u2019s sexual Life, the _crescendo_\nand _diminuendo_ of his desire, that constitutes its principal\ncharacteristic. From the moment he rises from the couch\u2014not refreshed,\nbut having rejoined the continuous stream of Life for a moment, only to\npay it tribute\u2014he becomes for a while purely social, purely asexual,\nturning his mind to other matters, _pleased_ to turn his mind to other\nmatters, and retaining the woman who is his mate, _no longer from pure\ndesire_ (let all women thoroughly grasp this), but from pure morality,\npure sociability;\u2014aye! and supporting her children too, no longer as\na sexual accomplice or confederate, but as a social agent, prompted\nthereto by his social instinct.\n\nThis state of asexuality, or pure sociability, lasts until the next\nlonging for the stream of Life seizes him once more; but even then\nagain, it is his social instinct that guides him in the way in which\nhe should gratify it, and the way he should meet the responsibilities\narising from having gratified it.\n\nOne can recognize immediately the man with a normally developed social\ninstinct (just as one can recognize immediately a well-developed social\ncommunity) by the strictness with which his fitfulness in regard to sex\nis not allowed to work havoc among his female acquaintances generally,\nor to make him neglectful of the responsibilities it imposes.\n\nFor, it should always be remembered that to the positive man,\nwell-built and well-fed, the sexual longing is sometimes the most\nintolerable anguish, the most acute and importunate suffering, and its\ngratification a thing which for the moment appears fraught with such\nunspeakable, such ecstatic joy and delight, that to think of subsequent\nresponsibilities here, to dwell on subsequent duties here, denotes\na degree of social instinct that is far beyond the measure usually\nsupposed to be possessed by even the civilized individual. During the\nmoment of crisis, at its most acute stage, the only object that seems\ndesirable, reasonable, possible, the only prize that seems worth while,\nis\u2014gratification, satisfaction, in fact the willing Woman; even if\ndamnation loom threateningly behind her, even if death stand waiting at\nthe end!\n\nWho has felt this and not marvelled at the fact that Man was ever able\nto build up a _possible_ human society! Who has felt this and not\nlearnt thereby to admire and respect Man\u2019s social instinct, which was\nable, out of this fierce and tremendous passion to construct a scheme\nwhereby he who felt it took upon himself the responsibilities arising\nfrom its very gratification![29]\n\nNo wonder a cold shiver of exquisite and mysterious pleasure courses\ndown our backs whenever we are in the presence of a masterful example\nof Man\u2019s order! What triumphs of the past that cold shiver remembers,\nwhich we are at a loss to recall, but which we still unconsciously\napplaud every time the regular movements of a multitude, the measured\nstrains of a rich melody, or the swing and stride of a _corps de\nballet_ appear before our eyes! For these are but the outward, visible,\ntangible and most obvious examples of Man\u2019s social instinct working for\norder!\n\nPowerful as the sexual passion is in Man, small though intense as is\nhis share in the joys of reproduction, only think what a powerful force\nwas required to meet this sexual passion, with any hope of success, in\norder to discipline and control it! It had to be a force as great if\nnot greater than the reproductive instinct itself. And what force is it\nin us that gives us a mysterious thrill, so different from, and yet so\nsubtly akin in bodily strength to the sexual thrill? I have spoken of\nthis thrill already; it is the cold shiver mentioned in the preceding\nparagraph\u2014the cold shiver of the social instinct gratified. This,\nthen, was the only power in man, that he himself could rally against\nhis fierce and ungovernable sexual desire; it was the only power that\nheld anything like a corresponding hold over his body; and he turned\nit so successfully against his reproductive instinct, that he taught\nthe latter its limits, and forced it to accept the responsibilities\nits tempestuous ardour involved.[30] This is the only form of\n\u201cself-control\u201d that arises from the strength and not from the weakness\nof a man.[31]\n\nTo return, however, to the question of his attitude to the sexual\nact, it is clear that man, once he has risen from the couch, after\ngratifying one of his fitful longings, has for the time being _done_\nwith sex. This is most important. After having rejoined the stream\nof Life to pay it tribute, he becomes once more the amputation from\nLife, and can turn away from its sexual thraldom until another of his\nfitful longings overtakes him.[32] As a well-known French painter once\nsaid to me at a moment when his house was in a turmoil over his wife\u2019s\npresenting him with his first child: \u201c_J\u2019y suis pour si peu de chose l\u00e0\ndedans!_\u201d\n\nIt is clear, then, that while the joy of sex for man is intense,\nimmense and indescribably pleasurable\u2014for, in addition to the actual\nphysical gratification it brings, there is the spiritual ecstasy of\nthe exercise of power, and power in its most flattering form, i.e.\nover another human being\u2014it is all concentrated into a few such brief\nmoments, into a space so short as to seem ridiculous when the efforts\nmade to experience it are taken into account. True, it is zenithal,\nstupendous, quintessential; but it is perhaps, for that very reason,\nshort and exquisitely so. It is as if all the qualities of pleasure,\nphysical and spiritual, had for man been distilled and re-distilled\nuntil they had been reduced to the smallest possible compass, in order\nthat he might be quickly and sufficiently gratified, and yet not\ndetained too long from those other duties to Life to which his other\ninstincts direct him.\n\nAnd it is precisely this tabloid form of sexual ecstasy that enables\nman to know exactly the limits and boundaries of his part in sexual\nlife. _He knows that there it begins and ends._ It is a definite thing\nthat he can seek and find. He can be quite conscious about it and _is_\nquite conscious about it from the start. It is small enough, short\nenough, intense enough, to be grasped and understood by consciousness.\nThe only things connected with sex that _last_ and _endure_, where man\nis concerned, are its responsibilities\u2014and these are, of course, the\nvery aspects of it that the man with a declining social instinct wishes\nto cast off from the problem of sex. That is why the value of a man, as\na man, may almost always be determined by his attitude towards Woman.\nThe anarchist, the degenerate, loves the prostitute; the true artist,\nthe sober, healthy citizen loves the mother.[33]\n\nTo turn now to the attitude of the Positive Woman to the sexual act,\nhow very different is the case with her!\n\nTake the little jewel constituting man\u2019s small instant of sexual\necstasy and beat it out to a length sufficiently great to cover twenty\nto thirty months, and sometimes more, and you have its extended and\nattenuated equivalent for the female. Until Woman has gathered up\nall the experiences that constitute her participation and her share\nof pleasure in the sexual act, and which are distributed over the\nperiod above mentioned, her sexual life and the pleasure it brings to\nher, cannot be said to be complete. Even the craving for the proper\nfunctioning of her organs and the primary instinct that animates and\nactuates her cannot be gratified unless she picks up every one of the\nmoments strewn over that space of time\u2014unless, that is to say, she\npasses through the whole cycle of events and sensations that go to make\nup her complete relationship to man and to the child.\n\nTo suppose, by a false analogy with man, that sexual union alone,\nwithout its natural results, is going to satisfy Woman\u2019s body, however\nmuch she herself may be deluded into believing it will, is nothing more\nnor less than to condone an act of pure cruelty, of savage violence,\nagainst a basic instinct and its elaborate generating mechanism.[34]\n\nAs a matter of fact, although Woman means everything to Man\u2019s\nsexuality, and is the embodiment of all that his reproductive instinct\ncan desire, even when it is at its keenest, Man means very little to\nWoman. He is, after all, no more than the sparking-plug that sets an\nelaborate process going, and the brief moment in which his share in\nher business is accomplished, and the incomplete pleasure it affords\nher, are ridiculously insignificant when compared with the importance\nhe himself would fain attach to them. Woman\u2019s supposed devotion to\nman, and even her love for him, is therefore much more of an illusion\nthan Man\u2019s love for Woman. Regarded dispassionately and coolly, Woman\u2019s\nlove for Man must be more or less of an exaggerated and romantic ideal.\nHe is merely the first station on a long and delightful journey, in\nwhich the subsequent destination is the chief concern. Of course he may\nbe desired again as the first station for a second, third, fourth or\nfifth journey; but it is always self-deception that induces any woman\nto regard a man as more than that, as more final, more satisfying than\nthat; although utilitarian motives may induce her to exploit and use\nhis social instinct to the utmost while she is serving nature\u2019s and her\nown ends by having children by him.\n\nThe only kind of woman to whom Man is everything, is the prostitute,\nand I shall show in Chapter IX what a cruel misconception even her\nposition is.\n\nBy the time that man has done his share in the sexual act, therefore,\nand that his social instinct _alone_ has taken command of him, bidding\nhim protect and support his mate, and face the responsibilities that\nare coming, the Woman may be said to have only just begun, only\njust started on the road. Silently, secretly, but with vigorous\ndetermination, the reproductive instinct still reigns supreme, and has\nan enormous amount to do\u2014pleasures and pain to bring and to forget,\npower to confer and to withhold.\n\nThis is as important as it seems generally to be misunderstood; and\nyet its non-acceptance as a principle is the source of more than\nthree-quarters of the crimes that are committed against and by women in\nthe whole of the modern world.\n\nUnfortunately, positive Woman herself does not come forward with any\nhelp here. Because positive Woman\u2014sometimes even when she is married\u2014is\ncompletely unconscious of what is necessary in order for her to have a\ncomplete and full sexual experience. _All positive women are in the\nfirst place positive to men, and to men alone._ This cannot be helped,\nas I shall explain later; it is one of the inevitable consequences\nof Woman\u2019s universal unconsciousness. But how easy is the step from\npositiveness to men to exclusive positiveness to sexual union alone,\nonly those women who have experienced it can tell! And this fatal step\nis taken by thousands of women annually\u2014particularly in France, and it\nis a step taken by all prostitutes.\n\nIt is, of course, physical anguish for the woman. Her body suffers;\nbecause all the necessary subsequent stages of the sexual cycle are\nomitted: the period of gestation; parturition; suckling, when the\nmother\u2019s power reaches its zenith, and when the soft helpless creature\nin her arms offers exquisite flattery to every fibre, both mental and\nphysical, in her body. All this, until the actual day of weaning, comes\nstrictly within the cycle of Woman\u2019s complete sexual experience. To\nsuppose that the mere act of sexual union, which is the first step in\nthis cycle, is sufficient or adequate in the case of Woman, especially\npositive Woman, is to court disaster, it is to violate her deepest\ncraving. She does not know this. How many millions of women have lived\nand died sufferers through not knowing this!\n\nBut those who profit from her unconsciousness in this matter, those who\ntrade upon her apparent inability to understand her body\u2019s demands in\nthis matter, those, in short, who while debasing her from her exalted\nposition of the mother of Life to a mere instrument of pleasure, also\nrob her of her full and complete sexual experience and its quota of\npleasure, are in my opinion no better than barbarians, troglodytes,\ncommon whoreson knaves! Many thousands of them get punished quite\nsoundly enough, as I shall show in Part II; but how many thousands get\noff scot free!\n\nThe Positive Woman, although she does not know it, must be and is\npositive to the whole cycle of female sexual experiences. Her body\nknows nothing else and craves for nothing else. It is true that her\nbody bids her seek the male alone (consciously), but merely because if\nit were not for man\u2019s diabolical skill and craft, this attitude would\nperforce lead to the natural and inevitable results. The body, however,\nknows nothing of the interception of the male fructifying element;\nwhen, therefore, it drives woman to be positive at first to man alone,\nit does the right thing; it does all it can be expected to do. It\nforces woman to the first step which, as far as it is aware, will lead\nto the inevitable cycle. Contraceptives obviously cannot come into its\npurview.\n\nThat is why positive woman is conscious only of desiring the male,\nwhile her body insists blindly on obtaining the whole cycle.\n\nNo young virgin who craves for children, or for a child of her own,\nis really sincere. Such a desire never reaches consciousness from the\nbody. In fact the girls that make the best mothers are frequently\nabsurdly impatient with and intolerant of other people\u2019s children. My\nmother always told me that before she had her first child she took no\nkeen interest in children whatsoever. A positive girl may be fond of\nchildren, and kind to children; but she is _consciously positive to\nman only_. It is only natural that she should be so. The body knows of\nno royal road to the love and possession of offspring save through the\nportals of sexual life. Very often, however, a very positive girl will,\nfrom mere bashfulness or decency, express her strong desire for man\nby what she conceives to be a more polite and more euphemistic way of\nrevealing it, and will tell you that she longs for a child. This should\ndeceive no one. It is either a pose on her part, or a very transparent\ndisguise of her genuine feeling.\n\nAlthough, therefore, we may again be deceived, and frequently are\ndeceived, by Woman\u2019s double life\u2014the unconscious life her body leads\nwith all its determined aspirations and desires constantly directing\nher footsteps, and the mental or conscious life she leads, which\nfrequently has not the smallest bearing on the true aims of the\nbody, and as often misinterprets these aims\u2014we cannot help admitting,\nnotwithstanding, that positive Woman, though she appears to be, and\nwill declare she is, positive to man and the sexual union alone, must\nunconsciously be positive to the whole cycle constituting the female\nsexual experience, _including particularly those long months spent with\nthe child alone_.\n\nThe prostitute, therefore, is merely a positive woman whom unfortunate\ncircumstances have conspired to petrify and confirm in her\nmisunderstanding of her true needs and desires.\n\nThe important bearing this admission has on the subsequent chapters\nof this book, emboldens me to urge the reader to bear it well in mind\nfrom now onwards; for, simple as it seems in its baldest statement, it\nclears up so many of the apparent complications of practical sexual\nlife, that unless it be properly grasped and remembered now it may in\nitself appear complicated before my task is done.\n\nI have but one more remark to make on positive Woman\u2019s attitude to\nthe sexual act, and with it I shall draw this necessary but delicate\ndiscussion to a close.\n\nAfter admitting that she, or rather her body, pronounces it, alone,\ninadequate, insufficient, why do I assume that though she consciously\ncraves for it alone, she unconsciously craves for the whole cycle?\n\nAs I have pointed out, it is possible for man to recognize the limits,\nthe full extent of his momentary participation in the business of\nprocreation. It is short, intense, tangible. But think of the host of\naccidents, unexpected joys and pains that may attend an experience\nlasting eighteen to twenty months! How could that possibly be grasped\nby the body, let alone the mind, as a definite desire! Prophetic power\nwould have to enter into consciousness as well as into the body, in\norder to distil from this panorama of events anything so delicate and\nunequivocal as a desire for a pleasurable experience! It is impossible\nfor the young girl consciously to desire _all_ the events of these\nfateful eighteen to twenty months, however much her body may insist\nupon having them, and complain and murmur if it does not get them.\n\nPersonally I am convinced, from my knowledge of the healthy well-built\nand positive mothers I have known, that once the joys of these eighteen\nto twenty months have been experienced, they are _consciously_ desired\nagain. As, however, such mothers are, as a rule, not very communicative\nconcerning the precise nature and degree of these joys, but secretly\nhug them all through their lives as something precious and private that\nelevates them and differentiates them from the rest of mankind, a girl\ncan scarcely be expected to know about them secondhand, nor can she be\nblamed for not finding out about them.\n\nHave you ever injured or harmed, even by accident, a child that\nits mother had reared at the breast? Have you ever experienced the\nfierce love that immediately flashes out of the mother in the form\nof the heartiest and most unjust indignation at your unintentional\ntrespass? If you know all this, like myself you can entertain no doubts\nconcerning the untold joys that Woman\u2019s life, alone with the child, can\nand often does bring her. To regard her relationship to man (without\nits natural consequences) as her sexual consummation, or even as her\nsexual pleasure, is, therefore, simply the most crass and most hopeless\nform of primitive barbarism.\n\nIt is true that, in order to rule man and to get a hold over him,\nalso with the view of providing herself with an ever-ready means for\ncreating in him a guilty conscience about her, Woman, in Europe at\nleast, has grossly misrepresented her attitude to motherhood, and by\nconcealing its joys and exaggerating its pains as much as possible,\nhas at last succeeded in making maternity appear a sort of voluntary\nself-martyrdom. It should never be forgotten, however, that with\nstupid and ill-informed men, woman finds it easy to obtain power and\nmastery in this manner; for, if her man be foolish enough to believe\nher, it is the best means she has for cowing him. In making him\nbelieve that he gets all the joy and she all the suffering from the\nsexual life, she gives him a constant sense of guilt or at least of\nindebtedness which makes him submissive. But the whole attitude is of\ncourse pure misrepresentation and fraud. For the very idea that the\nperformance of a natural function should be so painful as to amount\nto an act of \u201cself-sacrifice,\u201d is obvious nonsense. Certainly, when\ndisease or malformation is present (as it is now in the majority\nof cases), maternity is nothing less than a torment; but in such\ncircumstances, disease or malformation should be pleaded, and not\nmaternity or matrimony, as the cause of the trouble. A man coupled to\na wife who moans and groans over maternity, should realize that he\nhas been guilty of a fundamental mistake in taste, that he has chosen\nan inferior woman, and should blame himself, his upbringing, and his\ngeneral notions about life, for the trouble maternity brings into his\nhousehold. But he should not let himself be persuaded that because his\ninferior woman suffers over a perfectly normal function, that therefore\nall maternity is \u201cself-sacrifice\u201d and \u201cunselfishness.\u201d There could not\nbe a grosser misunderstanding. Only the sick or badly-formed woman has\nany honest right to complain of motherhood; _but she has no right to\nmotherhood at all_. Motherhood is only \u201cunselfish,\u201d therefore, when\nit is unpleasant (i.e. when abnormal conditions prevail); and those\nEnglish philosophers who derive altruism from the maternal instinct are\nguilty of taking the abnormal as the norm for the basis of their values.\n\nHealthy, honest women will confess that they thoroughly enjoy every\nmoment of motherhood; but inasmuch as to-day it is the fashion to speak\nof self-sacrifice in regard to these functions, they will only admit in\nsecret, and with the feeling that they are making a guilty admission,\nthat they have enjoyed them. It has become the custom in modern Europe,\nand particularly in England, to represent women as performing some\nmysterious personal \u201csacrifice\u201d in marriage. In all modern novels\nand plays this view of women is taken for granted. But it is only\nanother of the sentimental myths created by modern Western women for\ntheir own ends. Where it is true, it ought to be a subject of shame,\nas showing marked physiological inferiority; and where it is not true,\nit is never anything more than a hoax for exercising moral power over\na foolish husband. For thousands of men nowadays are convinced that\nwhether a woman be healthy or unhealthy, well or badly formed, there is\nsomething sweetly and edifyingly \u201cunselfish\u201d about motherhood. Western\nCivilization has not produced a greater lie, or a more pernicious\nlie than this; for it makes abnormality a virtue, and physiological\ninferiority a claim upon our admiration!\n\nUnfortunately the number of women to-day who really do suffer from\nmaternity shows such a large annual increase, and men\u2019s taste in women\nis so much vitiated by ignorance and false values, that the morbid\nassociation of \u201cself-sacrifice\u201d with motherhood is now regarded as\nalmost inevitable, and doctors who thrive on it are the first to\nproclaim it as a necessary and even _natural_ association.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[23] I feel I must offer some explanation here in regard to the precise\nrelationship of the social instinct to order. Some will object, and\nquite rightly, that all order is not social order, and that all rhythm\nis not gregarious rhythm. There is the natural rhythm (and therefore\nthe natural order) of birds\u2019 songs, of insects\u2019 buzzing, of horses\u2019\nand most animals\u2019 movements, of fish in water, of corn waving in the\nwind. Whatever be the strength or weakness of our social tendencies,\ntherefore, we must, as animals, feel instinctively and deeply akin to\nthe phenomenon of rhythm and its charm. This affinity will reside deep\ndown in our natures, and will hark back to an age far more remote than\nthat in which the first human society was formed. All this is perfectly\ntrue. But this very phenomenon of natural rhythm, extended into the\ngeneral notion of order, is the only origin to which we can possibly\ntrace the power of rhythmic or orderly arrangement in the creative\nhuman being. Extended into the notion of order and applied creatively\nby a superior human being to Nature, whereby chaos becomes arrangement,\nand confusion is unravelled, this rhythm constitutes the birth not only\nof all human society, but of each separate civilization that has ever\nexisted. In this way I conceive of the social instinct having, as a\nproduct of natural rhythm and order, engulfed and absorbed the source\nof its existence, in the human kind, and established itself in humanity\nas the developed and highly extended form of that source.\n\n[24] 1 Corinthians vii. 1.\n\n[25] _Ibid._, vii. 7.\n\n[26] _Ibid._, vii. 8.\n\n[27] _Ibid._, vii. 9. \u201cBut if they cannot contain, let them marry; for\nit is better to marry than to burn.\u201d\n\n[28] For the connexion between man\u2019s social instinct and the Arts, see\nmy Introduction to _The Letters of a Post-Impressionist_ (Constable &\nCo., 1912).\n\n[29] I know of only one woman who has recognized this and given man\nfull credit for his self-mastery in regard to the consequences of his\nsexual lust. See Arabella Kenealy (_Op. cit._, pp. 178-9). The passages\nare too long to be quoted, but they should be read by all those who may\nbe tempted to conclude that my views, as expressed above, have been\nprompted by masculine bias alone.\n\n[30] See Sir Almroth E. Wright, M.D., F.R.S., _The Unexpurgated Case\nagainst Woman Suffrage_, p. 74, where the author hints at how much\nunder civilization has been done for women by man.\n\n[31] See also pp. 7, 90-94.\n\n[32] The part played by his self-preservative instinct in all this will\nbe disclosed in another chapter. See chapter V, pp. 89-90.\n\n[33] Cf. Weininger, Op. cit., p. 227: Where the author disagreeing\nwith me says: \u201cGreat men have always preferred women of the prostitute\ntype.\u201d It is true that eighteen pages farther on he contradicts\nhimself by saying of the prostitute: \u201cShe is the mate of the worst\nsort of men\u201d; but this single example, taken from among the many\nequally amazing contradictions in this book, only tends to show its\nextraordinary futility.\n\n[34] And yet most of the modern books on sex questions, particularly\nthose written by women, take this false analogy for granted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n Virgin Love in the Positive Man and the Positive Girl\n\n\nThe moment when a healthy young man stands for the first time before\na beautiful positive girl, with a full consciousness of what that\ngirl can and may mean to him, is one of the most trying and most\ndisconcerting in his whole life.\n\nIn plain English, he is standing before Life itself. Life itself is\ntaking stock of him. Let us be in no doubt here. His eyes may wander,\ndazed, over the bewildering spectacle before him; his eyelids may\nquiver; he may not understand what his feelings are, or why he feels so\nnumb and speechless, and breathes so deeply; but he is well aware that\nan iron Fate has suddenly seized him like a vice, and is holding him\nspellbound before an examiner, who is far more relentless than any he\nhas hitherto encountered at school or college.\n\nAnd now turn your eyes on Life itself! Look at the girl! Provided that\nhe is not watching her too closely, her eyes are scanning every inch\nof his body, with a penetration, an attention, a fierce criticism,\nthat is allowing no detail to escape, no indication of virile potency\nto go unnoticed. Her hands may be cold, even moist with emotion; but\nLife in her is neither cold nor moist: it is at white heat, working its\nhardest, and deciding for her whether it shall be Aye or Nay!\n\nThe very speed with which this decision is often made proves how\nconcentrated, how unrelaxing the scrutiny must be; and however hard\nthe work that has to be done, it is all over and frequently quite\nbrilliantly dispatched in a few seconds\u2014a minute at the most!\n\nAye or Nay! No wonder the youth feels embarrassed! Such an examination\nby Life itself is hard to bear. The verdict, too, if it be favourable,\nis gratifying. The approval of a positive, healthy, well-built girl\nis a certificate of potency; because it is not only Life\u2019s approval\nof one of its own products; it is healthy Life acquiescing in one\nof its essential means to multiplication. To feel pleased in such\ncircumstances is perfectly justifiable; to feel satisfied here is\nnothing but becoming.\n\nBut there is another side to the picture, and I state it now, while\nwe are discussing this particular situation. There is nothing more\nharrowing, more pathetic, more heartrending than to witness poor,\npatient and enduring Life, in the form of a beautiful maiden, being\nforced by circumstances (by the fact perhaps that this is the girl\u2019s\nonly chance) to choose the next best, the second best, the third best!\nOh, how she stifles her highest feelings! How she chafes beneath the\nyoke! And how ruthlessly Life re-registers upon her eyes all the\ndefects of her future mate, as fast as she in her positiveness wipes\nthem away with the impatient sponge of her desire!\n\nThat \u201cYea,\u201d given reluctantly, shamefully, almost guiltily (because\nwomen feel that they are betraying a trust in such circumstances),\nin the presence of a poor specimen of manhood,[35] simply because it\nis better to be positive to Life, even on a minor scale, than not to\nbe positive at all!\u2014there is nothing more excruciatingly painful to\nwitness!\n\nHow often this tragic farce is enacted in _our_ part of the world, only\nwomen know, only brave women know\u2014they who prefer anything rather than\nnot to remain positive to Life.\n\nUnfortunately, it is not unusual nowadays for the positive healthy\ngirl, particularly of the wealthier classes, to be spoilt by foolish\nmodern prejudices that misguide her in this first important criticism\nof the men with whom she is confronted. From the very atmosphere she\nhas breathed ever since her infancy, she has imbibed certain wholly\nfictitious standards regarding so-called \u201cmanliness\u201d which, at this\nvital moment in her life, frequently cause her to make the most\ngrievous mistakes. She has had dinned into her innumerable conventional\ndesiderata relating to manners, sporting capacities, cheerfulness,\nlevity, boyishness and bodily build, which now cause her to select\nconsciously the very kind of man who is least likely to constitute\nan understanding and adequate mate. He must possess a certain kind\nof mind\u2014supple, ready for light laughter, humorous, not too broody,\nnot too masterful, not too self-centred, and above all, painstakingly\nchivalrous. He must have had his spirit, if not broken, at least\ncurbed by the public-school system; his self-esteem severely shaken\nby excessive contact with mediocrities who have insisted on his being\nlike one of themselves, and he must have the body and face of a young\nathlete. He must be capable of being trusted alone with her on rambles\nin the country, at games, on short excursions. He must not take himself\nor his claims or his thoughts too seriously, and the _sine qua non_\nis that he must be capable of idealizing Woman, of \u201clooking up\u201d to\nher, of feeling a lump in his throat at the thought of her purity, her\ndevotion, her \u201cheroism\u201d as a mother, her condescension as a possible\nmate to himself, and her ladyhood.\n\nAll these attributes the spoilt positive girl of our wealthier classes\nhas been taught to seek and select among the young men that are paraded\nbefore her; and in insisting on these attributes, she consistently,\nalmost without exception, succeeds in taking a man who is ideally\nequipped with every possible characteristic for making her thoroughly\nand exasperatingly miserable the whole of her life. For very few indeed\nof these attributes have any connexion whatsoever with true, desirable\nmanliness in a mate, and the young man who has been tamed into making\na trustworthy companion to a single positive girl in her games and her\nwalks, is more often a torture machine than a delight as her husband in\nlater years.\n\nBut let us see what unspoilt Life, through the positive unspoilt girl,\nis actually trying to discover in the positive young man before her.\nIs she concerned with probing his soul? Does she meditate about his\nchances of going to Heaven when he dies? Is she wondering whether he\nhas a load of sin that weighs him down?\u2014She is very far from giving a\nthought to these matters. Her primary consideration is undoubtedly:\nIs he a fully equipped male? Is he a normally equipped male? Has he,\nabove all, that _exuberance_ which at one and the same time is beauty,\nsexual potency, and tense passion? Is he savoury?\u2014that is to say,\nis he devoid of everything capable of ultimately inspiring disgust?\nClassical features are by no means a vital consideration. Exuberance\nand savouriness are much more important. Is there fire in his\neyes?\u2014voluptuousness and fullness in his mouth? Is there eagerness and\nenthusiasm in the dilatation of his nostrils? Is there energy lurking\nin the vibrations of his voice? Is his mouth clean and his breath\npure?\u2014Is there all this, and yet a remoteness from the brute, from the\nmere animal into the bargain?\n\nThese facts are ascertained in the first few seconds, and all this time\nLife alone has been active in criticism. A satisfactory reply to all\nthese questions makes the young man at once an object of the keenest\ninterest to the girl, and her eyes now begin, in a more collected and\nless rapid manner, to survey the accessory man\u2014his hands, his feet, his\ntaste as revealed by his clothes, his intelligence as revealed by his\nremarks, his degree of mastery as revealed by his manner of approaching\nher. All these things are important, because they represent not merely\nthe \u201cquality\u201d but also the \u201csurviving power\u201d of the tree to which the\nfemale butterfly is going to entrust her eggs.\n\nA sleek, flourishing youth has a tremendous advantage here; because it\nis not Woman\u2019s self-preservative instinct that demands the evidence of\na sound worldly position in a man, but again her reproductive instinct\nthinking of the security of the coming brood. All this, of course, is\nmore or less unconscious, but it is satisfactorily accomplished by the\ninstinct.\n\nA brilliant exuberant youth, who is shabby and poor, is naturally and\nvery rightly less attractive to the positive girl than the youth who,\nthough less brilliant, but quite as exuberant, flings on an opulent\nfur coat after a champagne supper, and gracefully hands her and her\nchaperon into his 40-horse-power Rolls-Royce. This youth is simply\nirresistible!\n\nThis must be so. Because, although the more brilliant youth may be\nan artist, a fascinating poet, or a gifted musician\u2014all these things\nbelong to the sphere of the social instinct, which Woman can scarcely\nappreciate critically, while the flourishing circumstances of the\nfur-coated youth belong to the sphere of the reproductive instinct,\nsince they are one of the necessary conditions of the tree to which the\neggs are going to be entrusted.\n\nGreat spiritual gifts, _per se_, never really attract the healthy,\npositive girl; the only reason why she so frequently falls in love\nwith men of great spiritual gifts is because extraordinarily high\nsexual exuberance is so often correlated with great spiritual gifts\nand powerful creative genius in a young man. In later life, of course,\nthe relationship changes; because you cannot burn a candle at both\nends, and the man of great spiritual gifts who has cultivated that side\nof himself alone, generally suffers a proportionate loss of sexual\nexuberance as he advances in years. But in any case, as far as young\nmen are concerned, the rule holds good that high sexual exuberance is\nfrequently accompanied by very superior spiritual gifts.\n\nIncidentally, this association always constitutes the most dangerous\nand often most disastrous characteristic of the artist\u2019s life. It is a\nchoice of roads\u2014and frequently the favour he finds with women leads the\nyoung artist inevitably along the road of least resistance and greatest\nvoluptuousness.\n\nRecalling our positive couple, we will suppose that the youth, in\naddition to responding favourably to all the girl\u2019s searching scrutiny,\nis also a person of sound material position. Then, when the chorus of\nbodily messages to the girl\u2019s brain are unanimous in praising him,\nconsciousness comes forward with the conclusion: \u201cThat man attracts me\nor fascinates me!\u201d or \u201cI like that man!\u201d or \u201cThat man is a dream!\u201d or\n\u201cHe\u2019s my ideal!\u201d etc. etc. It is from this moment that the relationship\nof virgin love may be said to begin, and if there is a response from\nthe young man besides\u2014if, that is to say, he also comments favourably\non the girl, then the two may be said to be each other\u2019s destiny; and,\nif they are both very positive, and therefore impatient, the sooner\nthey marry the better.\n\nMany girls are, however, so overwhelmed by spiritual gifts, nowadays,\nthat the position of the man, his material wealth, is often foolishly\noverlooked. On the whole this is not quite the fault of the modern\ngirl. This Age, for some reason or other, sets enormous store by\nspiritual gifts. Girls are brought up in an atmosphere steeped in the\nworship of intellect. \u201cClever\u201d\u2014this is the most coveted adjective. Is\nhe clever? Is she clever? Very often the most unhappy marriages are\nconsummated precisely owing to the absurdly exaggerated value that is\nattached to cleverness. I do not lose sight of the fact that great\nspiritual gifts are frequently accompanied by great sexual exuberance\nin a man, and I make allowances for that and for the temptation such a\nman may certainly prove to the positive girl; but his spiritual gifts\nought not to be allowed to weigh against his poverty if he be poor,\nor his inferiority as an animal, if he have bad teeth, an undersized\nand weak frame, a delicate constitution, or foul breath. Only girls,\nof course, whose minds have been perverted in this matter, make the\nmistake of taking a poor clever man, or an unappetizing clever man,\nin preference to a duller though wealthier or more appetizing suitor;\nfor the instinct of the female when unperverted is to find not only a\nsecure support for her offspring, but also a mate whom it will at least\nnot disgust her to embrace.\n\nAnd, after all, what does this spiritual fascination amount to\nfor women, apart from its occasional correlation with high sexual\nexuberance? If you ask yourself what it is you tire of first in life;\nif you inquire to which kind of phenomenon you can relevantly apply\nthe expression \u201chackneyed\u201d when you have seen or heard it once too\noften\u2014what is your inevitable reply? The word \u201chackneyed\u201d can be used\nrelevantly only in regard to products of the spirit. A song, however\nbeautiful, repeated too often becomes a bore. A picture seen too often\nbegins to pall. (It is only because we scarcely ever notice with deep\nattention the pictures on our walls, that we can endure them. In\ntime, they form part of the general scheme of decoration.) The finest\npoem read too frequently becomes insufferably wearisome; and who can\nread even the best novel more than three times? I confess I have read\n_Wuthering Heights_ three times; but I doubt whether I could perform\nthe feat a fourth time. All these things, however, are of the spirit,\nproducts of spiritual gifts. It would not sound strange or irrelevant\nto apply the epithet \u201chackneyed\u201d to any one of them, provided that\ntheir charms had been impressed upon us once too often. This fact alone\nshould make us suspicious of the spirit as a phenomenon possessing\nlasting powers of attraction.\n\nThere are, however, other things to which the expression \u201chackneyed\u201d\ncould not be relevantly applied. What should we think or say, for\ninstance, of a visitor, who rising suddenly in the middle of one of\nour tea-parties, exclaimed quite gravely that she refused to take\nanother piece of bread-and-butter for the rest of her life, because\nbread-and-butter was \u201chackneyed.\u201d We should all be astonished, not to\nsay alarmed. We should suspect her of something a little more serious\nthan mere eccentricity. But, as a matter of fact, nobody in his senses,\nhowever professedly devoted to the spirit he might be, would ever dream\nof saying \u201cbread-and-butter is hackneyed.\u201d It is a thing of the body,\nand provided the body remains healthy and exuberant, the pleasures it\nprovides are _never_ hackneyed. Given a fair appetite and a healthy\ndigestion, and bread-and-butter will remain a joy for ever. Unlike the\nspirit, therefore, which however exuberant and however healthy, wearies\nand fatigues if it be called upon to appreciate the same spirit, or\nthe same product of another spirit too often, the body can enjoy\n\u201cbread-and-butter\u201d for threescore years and ten without ever feeling\nthat it is hackneyed.\n\nThis alone ought to make all admirers of \u201cbrains\u201d in men pause before\nthey allow themselves to be so completely dazzled by mere spiritual\nbrilliance, as to forget other things.\u2014What other things?\u2014Material\nposition, and that quality which all eminently desirable men have in\ncommon with good bread-and-butter\u2014I refer to _savouriness_.\n\nI know of one very sad case that happened in my own circle. A\nwell-educated but misguided Swedish girl who while being no fool\nherself had the modern exaggerated love for \u201cbrains,\u201d happened to meet\na man in Ireland who, though brilliant to the point of genius, was\nas unappetizing, as _unsavoury_ as the form of man can possibly be.\nI confess to having sat in that man\u2019s company frequently myself, and\nhaving revelled in the easy and fluent flow of his exuberant wit. There\nwas virtuosity not only in his speech but also in the thoughts behind\nhis speech. When he met the girl in question she too came under the\nspell of his extraordinary intelligence; and, forgetting the rule about\nthe spirit, and forgetting the quality of good bread-and-butter\u2014for\nhe was so unsavoury that one could not approach him without becoming\naware of the fact with one\u2019s nostrils, not to speak of one\u2019s eyes\u2014she\nworshipped and married him.\n\nIt was, of course, a cruel mistake, because marriage from the woman\u2019s\nstandpoint is a tragedy if she has to smother any loathing in the\nembrace. Still, she admired \u201cbrains\u201d and she certainly obtained what\nshe admired. But at what cost! In time, of course, she explored all the\nterritory of his spirit, and tasted all the delights of his skilful\nconceits; and had, no doubt, by a kindly effort of will, prolonged her\nenjoyment of these things very far beyond the point at which anyone\nelse would have tired of them; and then\u2014what was left?\u2014Only boredom\nwhere spiritual intercourse was concerned, and ever-increasing disgust\nof all physical intercourse, because of her unfortunate husband\u2019s\neminently unsavoury person.\n\nNo truly positive woman, however\u2014particularly if she has remained\nuninfected by modern brain-worship\u2014ever takes any notice of a man\u2019s\nspiritual gifts, provided that he be savoury, exuberant, and in a sound\nmaterial position; and the very fact that she does not do so is a sign\nof the wise and penetrating vision of Life behind her. Men have to take\nspiritual gifts into consideration in their dealings with one another;\nit is essential that they should. They may be pardoned, therefore, if\nthey all too frequently extend this habit to their relations with the\nother sex. But the woman who takes a man for his brains is a ninny, or\nelse a poor deluded victim of the madness of the Age. All she wants,\nI repeat, is exuberance with savouriness and a sound position; and if\nbrains enter into the bargain as well, they are usually accepted quite\nunsuspectingly by the really positive and sane woman as one of those\nincidental details concerning her husband which, like his number in\ngloves or his taste in ties, she bears in mind simply as part of his\ngeneral identity. Truth to tell, however, most women are saved from the\nmistake of marrying brains alone, owing to the readiness which most of\nthem show to impute brains to the dullest male, provided he pleases\nthem.\n\nThis explains why so many wives of gifted men have loved and eloped\nwith males infinitely inferior to their husbands where brains were\nconcerned; it also explains why so many wives of gifted men, who have\nbeen faithful, have been bitterly unhappy in their fidelity.\n\nWhere the artist is concerned perhaps we might make an exception,\nbecause the artist\u2019s peculiar gifts are so frequently allied with an\nexceptionally exuberant sexuality. One German writer has suggested that\nthe creative power itself is the outcome of an excess of absorbed semen\nin the blood. But even the artist\u2019s mental gifts, though correlated\nwith a quality that is frequently irresistible to women, are an unsound\nreason for a girl\u2019s mating with him. All women should remember that\nartists cannot marry them without committing adultery. For, if Woman\nis wed to Life before she marries, the artist is certainly wed to his\nparticular muse.\n\nAll this the positive girl knows more or less instinctively, because\nLife in her knows every word of it. It is only when she has become\ninfected with the stupid modern worship of brains that her conscious\nbias sometimes overrides her better bodily feelings.\n\nBut to return to our positive couple\u2014the condition of mutual attraction\nin which they now find themselves is one of tremendous fascination,\nbecause it constitutes an enhancement of the feeling of power, and\na deepening of the feeling of surrender. So intense is this feeling\nof power and of slavery at the same time, so exquisite is the scale\nof emotions that run from the bottom note of absolute subjection to\na human being to the top note of supreme sovereignty over a human\nbeing\u2014so that the girl bids and her bidding is done, and the man bids\nand his bidding is done\u2014that it is probably the richest experience,\nas spiritual sensations go, that anyone can have. While it is being\nundergone the self-preservative instinct of both parties is entirely\nsuspended. The male\u2019s must be in any case, because no male throughout\nthe animal kingdom can approach sex without making a substantial\nsacrifice in self-preservation. He cannot join the stream of Life\nwithout paying it tribute, and this to begin with is hostile to his\nself-preservative instinct inasmuch as it reduces his surviving power\nfor the time being. But there is this fact in addition: his social\ninstinct cannot face the responsibilities of a wife and her offspring\nunless his self-preservative instinct is prepared to make a good many\nreluctant concessions.\n\nThe woman, too, readily sacrifices all her self-preservative instinct\nto her first-husband Life, and to her second husband, her lover. In\nfact, to speak with levity, but with some profound truth as well,\nin every respectable love-marriage, the legal husband is the dupe\nor breadwinning agent who _keeps_ the girl while she does her first\nmate\u2014Life\u2019s business.\n\nChild-birth is not always successful even in the most healthy\ncommunities, and a woman\u2019s reproductive instinct often has to clap its\nhand on the mouth of her self-preservative instinct before she can\nconsent to having a second child.\n\nWith the self-preservative instincts both of the man and the girl\nin abeyance, then, we have what is always a dramatic situation. We\nhave a situation in which neither the man nor the girl cares what\nhappens provided that each can get the other. Pain, hardship, parental\nhostility, parental injustice, privation, dangers of all kinds, fire,\nwater, exile\u2014all these things, even to Death itself, will be faced with\ndetermination by the positive couple who are waiting only to be united,\nif only they help a step forward, or put an end for ever to all doubt\nand misgivings.\n\nHow often in the history of our race have not a chaste and positive\ncouple, kept apart by unfavourable circumstances and in the midst of\nappalling difficulties, whispered to each other passionately: \u201cOne\nlong embrace from you and I should be content to die!\u201d This shows that\nthe self-preservative instinct is as good as dead in such cases. Dead\nin the woman, because when her reproductive instinct is \u201cmeaning\nbusiness,\u201d nothing else can live beside it; and dead in the man,\nbecause (1) he knows that love and his girl expect him to be determined\nand unrelenting in his worship and his desire, and (2) because his very\npositiveness itself makes him set the multiplication of Life higher\nthan his own existence for the time being.\n\nMoreover, when the girl and the man insist upon an attitude of complete\nand unreserved \u201cunselfishness\u201d in each other, they are simply betraying\nthe fact that they expect the self-preservative instinct in each other\nto be for the time being in a state of suspended animation. This is\na proof of what they understand by love. As a matter of fact, it is\na proof only of the circumstance that the reproductive instinct is\nexpected for the moment to become all-powerful or to suppress every\nother feeling.\n\nWhen this state is reached, if the girl has no vigilant protector or\nguardian, and the man is not strongly endowed with social instinct,\nthe result is usually and inevitably seduction, particularly if the\nman shows some mastery in sex, and some understanding of it too. And,\nindeed, when one considers the forces that are active here; when,\nmoreover, one considers the temptations that are elevated here to the\n_nth_ power, the wonder is not that seduction occasionally occurs among\npositive couples, but that it does not always occur, that it is not\nthe rule. Only man\u2019s social instinct can prevent it. Only man\u2019s social\ninstinct remains, and is strong enough to prevent it. Do not, however,\nlet us confound the social instinct of the positive man, which is\nstrong enough to stand up to his reproductive instinct, to control it,\nand to make it wait and consider responsibilities, with the so-called\n\u201cself-control\u201d of the negative young man, who could love his negative\ngirl for half a century without ever desiring more than to squeeze her\npale thin hand, while she feels exactly the same about him.[36]\n\nOf course, in countries like France, where positiveness on both sides\nis at such a high pitch of intensity that it actually fills the\natmosphere of every room and makes every mixed company electric, and\nalso where the social instinct of men is declining more and more every\nyear, the only possible check on wholesale seductions is a vigilant and\ninexorable protector or guardian, who watches over the _jeune fille de\nfamille_, until she is married, and does so with such unabating zeal\nthat it can truly be said that a respectable French girl is _always\nbeing watched_.\n\nAs a matter of fact, if the same custom of vigilant supervision of the\nyoung girl does not prevail in England, it is a bad rather than a good\nsign.\n\nIt is a bad sign for the following reasons: (1) It is waived either\nbecause it is a generally recognized thing that the Englishman\u2019s\nsocial instinct is of a higher order than the Frenchman\u2019s (which is\nnot the case); or (2), because it is a generally recognized fact that\nthe Englishman is safer, i.e. less inflammable, i.e. less exuberant\nsexually, i.e. less positive than the Frenchman (which _is_ the case).\n\nI think it would be hard to prove that the social instinct of the\nEnglishman is of a higher kind than that of the Frenchman. There is\nnothing to show that there is more order in England than in France,\nmore social harmony, more mastery of social problems. There are\nabsolutely no grounds whatever for assuming that there is less social\nmisery in England than in France, less social muddle, less social\nstrife. Nor if we go to the next highest products of the social\ninstinct, which are represented by the sense of order manifesting\nitself in artistic productions, can we say that there is more Art, or\na higher kind of Art, in England than in France. In fact, if we draw\nthese comparisons at all, we must in fairness conclude that if there is\nany difference, that difference is undoubtedly to the advantage of the\nFrenchman. But for the sake of this discussion it is sufficient for me\nto assume that the social instincts of the Frenchman and Englishman\nrespectively are about equal.\n\nWell, then, if this is so, it must be some other circumstance that\naccounts for the enormous freedom allowed in this country to the girl\nturned sixteen, in her intercourse with men of her own generation and\nolder.\n\nThere can be no doubt that, in the first place, the English girl is\ngenerally a little less positive to Life and therefore to man than\nthe French girl; this accounts for a good deal. There can be no doubt\neither that there is a very much larger sprinkling of negative girls\nin England than in France\u2014girls, that is to say, who are happy and\ncontent as spinsters, or whose passions are so tepid as to enable\nthem to endure platonic relations with men, and to resist men quite\nsuccessfully for interminable periods.\n\nA few facts alone, apart from the evidence that can be gathered first\nhand by all those who know France and England well, will be sufficient\nto prove this.\n\nIn 1910, although France had for many years admitted women to the\nhospitals, to the Bar and to the chemist\u2019s dispensary, there were out\nof a total of 13,000 French doctors only eighty-three women[37]; there\nwere only two women barristers\u2014one in Paris and one at Toulouse, and\nthere were only three women chemists\u2014one in Paris and two at Montpelier.\n\nTo take the profession of the Bar alone, think how very many more\nwomen-barristers we should have in England in the space of five years\nif the Bar had been opened to women!\n\nTo point to economic pressure here, and to say that the English girl is\nmore hard pressed than the French girl, would be entirely false. It is\nmuch more difficult, as a matter of fact, for a French girl than for an\nEnglish girl to find a husband.\n\nThe truth of the matter is that the French girl is very much more\npositive to Life and therefore to man, than the English girl. The\nlatter can frequently not only be happy without man; but she will boast\nof the fact\u2014applaud, that is to say, her negativeness, her nothingness!\n\nI do not say this in any spirit of hostility to the English girl,\nbecause I have travelled England and Scotland, and am aware that\nvery large numbers of British girls are positive and extremely\npositive to Life and to man; it is, however, unfortunately true that\nnegativeness is on the increase\u2014hence the almost amazing liberty\nthat is granted, and every year more readily granted, to the English\ngirl in her intercourse with young men. Were things otherwise, such\nliberty would only lead to the most disastrous results; because there\nis absolutely no reason whatever to suppose that the Englishman\u2019s\nsocial instinct\u2014which is the only adequate check to an overpowering\nreproductive instinct\u2014is superior to that of the Frenchman.\n\nThere is, however, another side to the question, and a far more serious\nand alarming side. I refer to the almost universal and increasing\nnegativeness of the English youth and young man. The negativeness among\nfemales in England is as nothing compared with the negativeness to be\nfound among males\u2014and it is here really and truly that the safety of\nthe young positive girl lies. Often to her intense annoyance and sorrow\nshe finds she is dealing with wood and not with vital tissue at all.\nIt is simply humbug to speak of self-control in such cases. For the\nnegative young man is nothing more or less than a wet squib\u2014and who\nbelieves in the self-control of a wet squib when it refuses to respond\nto the lighted match.[38]\n\nThe ravages that Puritanism perpetrated in the human kind\u2014and I have\ndwelt sufficiently upon these ravages in another work[39]\u2014affected the\nmen of England far more deeply than the women; and were in a sense\nbound to do so. Men are not Life itself, they are an amputation from\nLife. As I have shown, the reproductive instinct is less powerful, less\nwilful, more fitful and less persistent in them than in women; how,\nthen, could they fail to be more disastrously affected by the cruel\nrepressing and detoning methods of Puritanism than women are? They had\nfewer forces to meet and resist the attack; sex held their bodies with\ntoo much laxity to make them survive it completely, and the consequence\nis that in England and all countries like England, sexual exuberance\nin males\u2014save in the working classes (which are always the last to be\naffected by anything)\u2014is not only lower than elsewhere, rarer than\nelsewhere, and more heartily suspected than elsewhere; but it is also\ndecreasing more and more every year. So much so, indeed, that for many\ngenerations now, long chaste engagements have not only been possible,\nbut more or less common; so much so that _positive girls who marry are\nable to declare quite honestly that marriage is a disappointment and\nan empty delusion_; so much so, that in nine cases out of ten we could\nwithout a qualm and without a scruple allow our unmarried daughter to\ntravel round the world with her so-called lover and feel quite certain\nthat they would both remain perfectly chaste.\n\nThis may seem most convenient and even desirable from the standpoint\nof the squeamish matron; but would it not be ever so much better from\nthe point of view of Life if it were impossible, and if we were forced\nto exercise a vigilance at least equal if not greater than that of the\nFrench chaperon over the young couple?\n\nTo mention self-control in connexion with such safety in the\nassociation of young people is to use a euphemism for a very much\nless acceptable word. It would be unfair and wrong to postulate the\npossession of a higher degree of social instinct by the Englishman than\nby the Frenchman; therefore it must be some other factor that is active\nin this unnatural continence where there are no safeguards; and that\nfactor, as every one must know, as every doctor knows, and as most\nwomen know, is a low degree of sexual exuberance, a strong and in many\ncases a pronounced form of negativism.[40]\n\nMany readers will probably cry out: \u201cBut surely this is excellent!\nWhat could be better! Our girls are safer; we do not require to be\nsuspicious; we can trust the young men\u2014and everybody is happy!\u201d\n\nBut _everybody is not happy_! The men are not happy; because this\nnegativism in sex, this lack of exuberance in sex, gives them no\nmastery over it, and leaves them all their lives with a guilty\nconscience about it. (For, as pointed out earlier in the book, _certain\nfusions are only made possible through fire_. Fire purifies all\nthings.) And the women are certainly not happy, particularly if they\nare positive; because they meet with no response, they meet with no\nleadership, they yield to no overwhelming impetuosity where sex is\nconcerned\u2014an impetuosity that carries everything before it, and which\nleaves them with no ungratified desire or longing, with not one of\nthose aching, secret longings that thousands of women are too tasteful\nand too proud to reveal and often even too modest to entertain.\n\nOf course the negative ideal in sex was excellent from the Puritan\npoint of view; because, as I have shown elsewhere,[41] the Puritans\nwere concerned with rearing a race of office hermits, clerks,\ncommercial and industrial slaves of all kinds; and to these, sexual\nexuberance would naturally be a most irksome, dangerous and undesirable\npossession. But Life is not an office or a factory, or, for that\nmatter, a large draper\u2019s store; and what may be eminently desirable for\nthese horrible institutions, is simply ugly, repulsive, and nauseating\nout in the open, amid fields, sucking lambs and beneath a shining sun.\n\nThere are few things more pathetic, more tragic, than a positive\nyoung English girl going to her coming-out dance. What could be more\nbeautiful than to see her, figuratively speaking, extend her eager\nopen hand to Life, with a confidence, a fullness of hope and trust, a\nprofuseness of delicious expectations, and a bravery and singleness\nof purpose that is never again equalled in her life? And who can help\nhiding his eyes when he sees the same girl take back her hand again and\nagain, either holding nothing at all, or filled with the merest husks,\nthe merest scrapings of Life? Oh, the youths that go to dances!\u2014these\nsacred functions where the positive girl takes her first step towards\nher sacred calling! One can watch with equanimity the negative young\nMiss of narrow hips, still narrower chest, and even still narrower\noutlook, succeeding in captivating her negative affinity. Such dramas\nleave one unmoved. But to witness exuberant Life itself, obliged to\nbe content with creatures who are mere mementoes of Life, mere echoes\nof Life; to see exuberant Life itself unnoticed, unselected, feared,\nshunned, and shelved!\u2014to anyone who has any feelings at all, such an\nexperience must be too painful ever to be forgotten.\n\nFor in England, not only are there barely sufficient men to go all\nround; but there are not nearly sufficient positive men for the\npreponderating number of positive girls. And since innocent girls are\nabsolutely unconscious of the causes of their misery when they meet and\nmarry the negative man, you find in England and all countries like it,\nhundreds and hundreds of positive women who will affirm\u2014nay, who are\nready to prove\u2014that marriage is the most unexciting thing in existence,\nand that Life itself is the most unexciting phenomenon in the universe!\nAnd the tragedy of it all is that, as far as their own unfortunate\nexperiences go, they are right, and they convince because they are not\nonly right but miserable.\n\nThus Life gets suspected, slandered, unjustly weighed and valued, and\nthe legion of negative women about seize hold of these facts with the\navidity of famishing jealousy, and _prove_ that Life and its legitimate\njoys are suspicious, rightly maligned, and valueless!\n\nAlthough this is a book on Woman, it is necessary to speak about one\naspect of the question of virgin love which strictly belongs to this\nchapter, but which is concerned only with men; I refer to the love felt\nfor a girl by a man, and of the forces that direct him in feeling this\nlove.\n\nWhen the positive man faces the positive girl, he really has but one\ninquiry: \u201cDoes the girl provoke desire?\u201d Because desire is essential\nto his share in the sexual act. He does not actually say: \u201cDoes she\nprovoke desire?\u201d but he implies as much.\n\nHe insists upon her being what he calls \u201cpretty\u201d or \u201cattractive.\u201d But\nfrom that point onwards it depends entirely upon his upbringing, the\nvalues and current opinions of his Age, the prejudices of his religion,\nhis class, or his own particular taste, whether he makes a wise or a\nfoolish choice from the standpoint of Life.\n\nI have shown that Man is much more conscious of the limitations and the\nextent of the joys that sexual life is going to bring him than Woman\nis or can be. He is not only more conscious as regards the sexual life\nalone, but also as regards its consequences, its responsibilities.\n\nNotwithstanding all this, however, or rather precisely on account\nof all this, he is much more susceptible to the traditional values,\nopinions, or prejudices of his time, his country or his class, than\nWoman is, in the making of his choice. Woman is in the grip of Life.\nLife constantly speaks through her. Unless she is actually unhealthy or\nspoilt, Life speaks through her in a way that is profitable to Life.\nThe positive, unspoilt girl, then, although she acts unconsciously,\nrarely makes a mistake in her choice of a man as a sexual being,\nprovided that she be not reluctantly compelled to do so by social\nstress, by the feeling that her choice is a last shift to be positive\nsomehow, or by any other non-vital consideration.\n\nMan, however, is rather differently situated. Being conscious, he\nis much weaker in the stand he takes. For _conscious_ opinions,\n_conscious_ views, can be modified by persuasion, by precept, by\nexample, by a consensus of contemporary opinion.\n\nWhen the man faces the girl, therefore, he is often and almost\nuniversally swayed by the prejudices in regard to what constitutes an\nattractive girl that are current in his Age, country or class. And\nthus we arrive at this important conclusion: _That provided his Age,\nhis country and class entertain positive views and values in regard to\nLife, his choice will be correct and perfectly desirable as far as the\nhighest purposes of Life are concerned; but that provided his Age, his\ncountry and class entertain the wrong or negative views or values in\nregard to Life, his choice will be incorrect and entirely undesirable\nas far as the highest purposes of Life are concerned_, and this despite\nthe fact that he himself may be a healthy, exuberant and positive\nspecimen of humanity.\n\nIf, for instance, the ethereal, languishing, angelic and slightly\ndelicate type of female beauty be the type exalted by the current\nvalues of his environment, he runs considerable danger of regarding\nher as the attractive type; and in selecting her he will deliberately\noverlook her narrow frame, her lack of fire, her lack of exuberance,\nher lack of positiveness.[42] Where Puritan values prevail, the\nsexually exuberant female with the ardent and fierce brow and eye\nwill be regarded even as distinctly ugly. It will not surprise some\npeople to hear, therefore, that in France the angelic, passive, and\nmeek expression of most Englishmen\u2019s wives is regarded as strangely\nincompatible with the frequently robust, self-assertive, exuberant\nappearance of the Englishmen themselves.\n\nPurity is indeed exhaled by such women: but not the purity that all\npositive people understand as purity. _To them the only purity worth\nhaving is that which is the outcome of fire._ Everything else is\nimpure. A tepid passion, a non-exuberant passion, is impure: it can\nwait, it can temporize, it can play with Life; it can even thwart the\nhighest purposes of Life: therefore it is impure.\n\nHow often in our own small circle have we not seen a youth that we\nadmired\u2014a positive, robust and savoury fellow, full of trust and\nenergy\u2014condescend to take the most fragile, shadowy reminiscence of\nLife for a mate and the mother of his children! I say \u201ccondescend\nto take\u201d; but I mean _in his sense of course_, \u201caspire to taking\u201d;\nfor it was obvious that he regarded her as the highest example of\nwomanhood that could possibly be discovered; to this extent was he\nprevailed upon by the Puritanical prejudices of his Age! But it is\nwithin the experience of most people that the negative values of an\nenvironment will drive some men even farther. There are a few who will\nnot even stop at deformities, sickness, disease. I know of two such\ncases: one man who fell in love with a consumptive girl, knowing her\nto be consumptive; and another who loved and married a girl with hip\ndisease. Both of these men were acting in a manner utterly hostile\nto the highest purposes of Life; their love actually denied, baulked\nand frustrated the highest purposes of Life; they were, in my sense,\ntherefore, utterly impure, immoral, criminal. But from the point of\nview of their Age, their class, their religion and their country, what\nwas there, in sooth, to show them that they were wrong?\n\nHad they not heard from their earliest childhood onwards, that the soul\nwas everything and that the body did not matter? Had they not had it\ndinned into them at every turn along their life\u2019s path, that a pure\nsoul can make up for any physical defect, even foul breath? Had they\nnot learnt to regard brains as better than brawn? And who had ever told\nthem when they were children and when they were quite ready to despise\nsickness, deformity, or botchedness generally, that their instincts in\nthis respect were quite right and proper? Who had explained to them\nthat things that are unclean (as the good, honest Old Testament has it)\nshould be avoided?[43]\n\nThere is no science of physiognomy and of human selection to-day. It\nwill be objected, of course, that no possible elaboration of such a\nscience could ever induce young people to \u201cfall in love\u201d with the\nproper mates. My reply to that is: Let it be tried. When our young folk\ntell us that they have fallen in love at first sight, we know that\nthey must have followed some principles of physiognomy and selection.\nHowever adventitiously these may have been acquired, they constitute\nthe only guide obtainable. But are these principles any the better\nfor having been acquired by chance, and very often from false and\nunreliable sources? They must have acquired their principles from some\nsource. Is it better that they should have picked them up, as it were,\non life\u2019s way, than that they should have been taught them? It is not\na difficult matter to educate the taste of children on certain broad\nlines. The fact is not that these guiding lines are lacking to-day\u2014on\nthe contrary, they abound\u2014but that they are based on no understanding\nof essentials and are as a rule not regulated by a deep concern for\nhealth and high vitality. And since you can teach mankind the points of\na good horse or a good dog, it is surely a little bold to deny that you\ncan teach it the points of a desirable mate.[44] At least you can lay\ndown certain very distinct principles regarding the mate to be avoided.\nBut not even that is attempted nowadays.[45]\n\nThe danger at present is that a young man, despite his proper instincts\nin this matter, may be wrongly influenced by the values and prejudices\nof his Age, his country and his class, so that willy-nilly he goes\nastray, and inclines in a negative direction when all the time his\ninstincts are positive.\n\nIn regard to sex and the choice of the positive woman, the Englishman\nparticularly, therefore (more especially of the wealthier middle\nclasses), wants re-educating, re-instructing in the values of positive\nLife. And it is to him, more than to Woman (for, after all, he is the\nchooser), that the chapters of this book are addressed.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[35] Always from the standpoint of sexual potency be it remembered.\n\n[36] See also pp. 7, 70 and 94.\n\n[37] In 1911 there were 477 women doctors in England, 382 of whom were\nunmarried.\n\n[38] See also pp. 7, 70, and 91.\n\n[39] See _A Defence of Aristocracy_, chapter V.\n\n[40] It will occur to some that I ought perhaps to have referred to the\nfact that English Law is more severe against illicit relations than is\nthe Law of France. This is true; but, after all, English Law applies\nonly to girls under a certain age, and is by no means repressive of\nillicit relations after that age.\n\n[41] _A Defence of Aristocracy_, chapter V.\n\n[42] Speaking of the prevalence of this type of girl at present,\nArabella Kenealy says (op. cit., p. 84): \u201cSo devitalized and\nneurasthenic are many of our pretty young girls that their flowerlike\nfaces, topping over-tall and undeveloped bodies, suggest delicate\nblossoms crowning long attenuated, sapless stems. Neither faces nor\nbodies are vitalized and athrill with powers rooted in healthful\norgans, vivified by healthful functions, and instinct with warm,\niron-rich, magnetic blood. They show that making for beauty which is\ninherent in the Woman-traits, but which, in latter-day girls, owing to\ndefective constitutional vigour or to educational, social or industrial\nexhaustion, has been able to realize itself only in sickly and\nweed-like development.\u201d\n\n[43] Even the fiction they read did not help them to the correct\nattitude in this. Does Lord Lytton ever express any horror at his hero\nand heroine, who were both consumptive, falling in love with each other\nin _Pilgrims on the Rhine_? And how many other cases could be quoted!\n\n[44] The teaching that is most steadily opposed to this view is that\nof Christianity; for, if once you admit that the physical points of a\nhuman being are important, you underrate the supreme importance of the\nso-called \u201csoul,\u201d which takes precedence of everything. That is why\nChristianity has always strongly deprecated any doctrine of physiognomy\nor human selection.\n\n[45] For instance, most of the stigmata of degeneration and disease are\nwell known. Why are they not generally taught to the young? This would\nconstitute at least a start in the right direction. The ancient Hindus\nwere in this respect, as in many others, very much more civilized than\nourselves. In the Laws of Manu, Book III, definite hints are given to\nthe young man regarding the kind of girl he should choose. In verse\nseven we read: \u201cLet him avoid that family (in selecting a wife) which\nneglects the sacred rites, one in which no male children (are born),\none in which the Veda is not studied, one (the members of) which\nhave thick hair on the body, those which are subject to hemorrhoids,\nphthisis, weakness of digestion, epilepsy, or white or black leprosy.\u201d\nVerse eight: \u201cLet him not marry a maiden (with) reddish (hair), nor one\nwho has a redundant member, nor one who is sickly, nor one either with\nno hair (on the body) or too much; nor one who is garrulous or has red\n(eyes).\u201d Verse ten: \u201cLet him wed a female free from bodily defects who\nhas an agreeable name, the (graceful) gait of a _Hamsa_ or an elephant,\na moderate (quantity of) hair on the body and on the head, small teeth,\nand soft limbs.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nThe Positive English Girl\n\n\nNothing is more instructive than to proceed from a general to a\nparticular case; and nothing, at all events, could possibly be more\ninstructive where women are concerned, than to select the positive\nEnglish girl as the particular case; because it is in her heart that\nthe conflict between the sound promptings of the body, and the unsound\nexternal promptings of the modern world rages most fiercely and most\ndramatically. It is in her heart that the issue of the conflict has its\nmost momentous and far-reaching consequences.\n\nTo a heart overflowing with human sympathy, there is something\ninfinitely wistful and pathetic in the appearance of this apparently\ncareless and blooming maiden. For, has not every circumstance of her\neducation and upbringing conspired to make her believe that all those\nthings which to-morrow will be the meaning and explanation of her\nexistence, are the very things that yesterday were most concealed, most\n\u201ctabooed,\u201d most anxiously hushed up?\n\nThe transition from indifference, here, to keen disconcerting interest,\nis an effort of the first magnitude\u2014however willing and eager the body\nmay be to assist in the change of standpoint.\n\nHer soul is very self-contemptuous, self-condemnatory, pessimistic.\nAnd the more positive she is, the more this will be so; because the\ngreater will be her feeling of conflict with it. She feels she must\nbe wrong, and her soul and the world right. She is on the verge of\nmorbid self-dislike, self-rejection. But how can it be otherwise?\nHer body is a scandalous and exuberant old Pagan, and every minute\nof the day is whispering all kinds of shameless \u201cindecencies\u201d to\nher modern high-school soul. And she has been taught to value her\nmodern high-school soul more than anything on earth. How can she help\ndespising herself from the standpoint of a first-class high-school\nupbringing, when the latter constantly snorts prudishly at everything\nher other self\u2014her body, dares to hint to her reluctantly attentive\near? Who is there to tell her that her high-school soul is entirely\nwrong in making her despise herself?\n\nBut it is her pessimism that is so terrible and so virulent. All\nill-adapted creatures are prone to be pessimistic, and she is horribly\nill-adapted. Beneath all her tennis-playing, her hockey-playing, her\nbright and cheerful manner, that always utterly deceives her parents\nand the superficial adults about her, this pessimism clings to her like\na limpet. But how could she help feeling ill-adapted and pessimistic,\nin the face of the terrible alternative that now confronts her\u2014the\nalternative consisting of either doing violence to the healthy dictates\nof her body, or of rejecting all the deepest beliefs of her childhood\nand adolescence?\n\nAnd that is why an everlasting curse must surely hang over every\ncreature, woman or man, who can be so unscrupulous as to exploit this\ntemporary pessimism of healthy English female adolescence, and to turn\nit to negative account. For all those who, in the nefarious traffic of\npolitical or religious propaganda, avail themselves of it in order to\nturn a girl against Life finally and irrevocably, no punishment that\ncan be imagined is sufficiently severe. Let them draw the unhealthy,\nnegative girl over to their side; for it is better for all concerned\nif she and her like are converted to Life-Heresy; but let them leave\nthe healthy positive girl alone, to fight her own battle with her\nhigh-school soul.\n\nBut the healthy English \u201cFlapper\u201d is courageous and infinitely\nenduring. And this is the secret of her constant success against her\nhigh-school soul. For, what is it that really matters in her apparently\nuneven conflict between soul and body\u2014a conflict, remember, in which\nall the weight of her environment and education is on the side of the\nsoul? What matters is her body. Now her body knows quite well that\neverything is all right, and it has its tongue in its cheek the whole\ntime, more particularly when the girl herself dallies with thoughts\nof the convent or of suicide. Besides, even her high-school soul has\nelements that can be persuaded and lured over to the other party. She\nis attractive, and is beginning to receive attention. The vanity in\nher soul, therefore, soon forms a league with the instincts of her\nbody. Her soul also wants power, and this power her body guarantees to\ngive her, if only she will snub the importunate high-school portions\nof herself, and neither balk nor overlook its designs. Above all, her\nsoul is aching with curiosity concerning the secret of life, and the\nhappiness of life; and as her body\u2019s irrepressible lust of life is\nalways at hand to lend support to any intellectual inquisitiveness,\na combination of forces is effected that is as formidable as it is\nusually triumphant.\n\nWhere is the party on earth that could survive all these defections\nfrom its ranks? That is why, if left alone, the negative side of her,\nher high-school, puritanical soul, is bound to be defeated; that is why\nshe ultimately rises superior to her shame, her apprehension and her\npessimism.\n\nBut it would be a mistake to underrate her struggle, to minimize her\nqualms, or to scoff at her cryptic religiosity; her conviction that she\nis tremendously deep\u2014all people are deep who have a fight raging in\nthem\u2014and that she stands on the brink of an even deeper abyss! Even the\nhaughty manner in which she holds her inexperienced nose high in the\nair is instructive. She is trying her hardest to appear as if she were\nalready above the struggle that is not yet over. Besides, all people\nwho are in pain, not only feel deep and proud, but are deeper and\nprouder than those who do not suffer. Pain not only delves, it also\ndistinguishes.\n\nHer confusion and the conflict raging inside her, are inclined to make\nher ill at ease with all men except the youth of seventeen; for, since\nshe feels years his senior, he cannot disturb her. She will readily\nkill time with him, and with his assistance play an empty game while\nshe is waiting for the forces in her body to readjust themselves\nto the new facts. Then she will not even look at him. Then it is\nbusiness. Lads of seventeen will strike her as raw, ridiculous! Even\nfull-grown men will interest her only to the extent to which they mean\nbusiness. They will evoke her blessing only to the extent to which they\nrealize that she too is in earnest about life, and takes it perfectly\nseriously. Then woe to her if one who attracts her heedlessly passes\non! But woe to _him_, above all, who while promising business, and\nundertaking it legally and conscientiously with all the sanction of\nsociety and the Church, yet undeceives her, and disappoints her when\nit comes to the point, and drives her back to the pessimism of her\nyouth, and the doubts and shame she had so valiantly overcome. For the\nduty of the positive man is to give woman a perfectly clean conscience\nin regard to sex and its pleasures. As the Church of England Prayer\nBook nobly and rightly puts it: \u201cThe husband ... is the Saviour of the\nbody.\u201d He who does not realize the profundity of this passage in the\nChurch of England Prayer Book had better put the present work aside;\nfor he will never be able to sympathize with anything in it. No man who\nis not the \u201cSaviour of the body\u201d of his wife can help being anything\nelse than a thing of torment and torture to her; while her love and\nher devotion to him are increased a thousandfold, and her fidelity to\nhim probably secured for life, if only he knows how to confirm and\nconsolidate the triumph her body once achieved, single-handed, over her\nhigh-school soul during the trying period of her adolescence.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet no young lady who has read the above passage with indignation\nsuppose that it was an attempt to describe her particular type. The\nvery fact that she has felt indignant about it sufficiently proves that\nit does not refer to her in the least; so she can set her mind at rest\nand absolve me of any intention of slighting or offending her.\n\nIf, however, she has read the words with a feeling of passionate\nanger\u2014anger at the thought that all I have said truly applies to her,\nthough no longer now, alas!\u2014no longer at her present stage in life;\u2014if,\ntherefore, her emotion is the righteous anger of one who is filled with\nregret and sorrow for the things that she now recognizes as having\nonce been hers, though they are hers no longer;\u2014things she is still\nyoung enough to possess, though they have been filched from her by her\nenvironment and her unsound mode of life\u2014I, as the mere analyst in this\naffair, applaud her feeling, and am glad that she has not yet reached\nthat stage of listless resignation when youth, positiveness and ardour\nhave ceased from moving her or from exciting her longing. If once she\nhas been the girl I have just described, and she has deteriorated or\ngrown negative, either (1) through a too prolonged and too exhausting\nwait, and a period too protracted of absolute abstinence; or (2)\nthrough unwholesome living, or\u2014which is worst of all\u2014(3) through\nmarrying a man who has not proved the \u201cSaviour of her body\u201d; then I,\ntoo, join my anger to hers, and am perhaps even more angry than she;\nbecause all those who have a keen appreciation of quality, must loathe\nto see it squandered, destroyed or so badly mismanaged as to be made a\nthing of naught.\n\nThe three causes of deterioration and deflection to negativeness will\nnow be examined separately, and in the order of the numbers given above.\n\n(1) Maybe that at seventeen, or perhaps eighteen, the positive English\ngirl was fully equipped, and felt herself fully equipped. Maybe Nature\nitself at that age had concentrated all its most subtle art on the one\ntask of making her as attractive and as irresistible as possible. Her\ntop wave came with her nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first years\u2014all\nyears of bewilderingly beautiful ripeness, when every fibre in her body\nwas agog, on the _qui vive_, harking for the approach of the mate that\nwould justify all this sumptuous and generous preparation; harking\ntimidly, though eagerly, for him who would consummate her expectant\nwomanhood, give the only genuine value that they could claim to all her\nwondrous charms, and reveal herself to herself in all her wealth of\nancestral virtues, gifts and skill.\n\nShe had received her pearl necklace; she had received her golden\nbracelets; she wore on her right hand a ring that had belonged to\nher grandmother; but now she wanted the crowning jewel of all, the\nhall-mark of her genuine womanhood\u2014the little band of gold that was the\nemblem of matrimony.\n\nHer twenty-second year went by, and nothing happened. Her twenty-third\nand twenty-fourth vanished also, and still her insignia were\nincomplete. But there was time yet, and anxiety, though present, was\nby no means acute. She was prepared for another year, or two, or even\nthree, of patient waiting.\n\nSince, however, it is impossible even for Nature herself to stand for\never on the tiptoe of anticipation; since it is too much to expect of\nanything or anybody, that weariness will not ultimately supervene if\na wait is prolonged unduly, or if nothing\u2014aye, nothing!\u2014ever comes\nto repay an all too lavish outlay of beauty and its promise of joys\nuntasted; it is, alas, a not uncommon occurrence\u2014however ready the\ngirl herself may be to continue waiting and watching\u2014for Nature itself\nto feel so bitterly snubbed that it withdraws, as it were, from its\nposition of proud and unstinting impresario, and wanders off elsewhere\nto spread its ornaments and charms over another and perhaps more\nfortunate subject.\n\nThis stage in the positive English girl\u2019s career is not apparent to\nthe outsider, nor is it immediately apparent to the girl herself. All\nshe knows is that she does not feel quite as well as she used to feel.\nShe does not sleep so well, eat so well, or resist fatigue so well.\nShe is not conscious, yet, that her looks are no longer so startlingly\nattractive as they were three or four years ago; but there is a shade\nof difference of which even she herself is aware on certain days. Her\nface is beginning to acquire definition. Her features do not melt into\none another with the same indefinite sweep of downy cuticle; while\nthe tone has also begun to decline in her bigger organs, and they are\nlosing the braced, tense, healthy readiness they possessed at the\nbeginning of the wait.\n\nShe may have all kinds of disorders now which she did not have at\nthe moment of her top wave, while a concomitant depression of spirit\nmakes her feel less keen about life, less eager about its mysteries.\nThere is even a threat of an\u00e6mia\u2014the result of occasional costiveness,\nits frequent correlative leucorrh\u0153a, and a general lack of tone in\nher whole system. A neglected organ avenges itself, a neglected body\navenges itself; her whole spirit wishes to avenge itself; for, like\na flower, she needed the sun\u2014in her case the sun of love\u2014and she is\nvisibly withering without it.[46]\n\nWith the third and final stage, all the symptoms become acute,\nbefore dying away completely only to leave the body a mere husk of\n_unrealised_ and now _undesired_ possibilities. Discontent, unconscious\nor conscious, together with all kinds of troublesome, though not\ndangerous, disorders, gradually reduce her body and her spirit, and\nthus undermine her positiveness. Her temper is irascible; her periods\nirregular, unreliable and sometimes very painful\u2014the sign that the body\nis really indignant! Costiveness and leucorrh\u0153a set in chronically.\nNobody understands either; nobody cares. The first principles of\nnegativeness begin to creep stealthily into her once positive mind.\nHer features, hands and arms have lost all their bloom and roundness.\nWith genuine alarm, one day, she suddenly recognizes that she is but a\ntravesty, a caricature, of what she once was; and that Life itself is\nonly a caricature of what it used to be. Now she no longer feels any\nreal physical horror at the thought of spinsterhood, because she is not\nwhat she was when spinsterhood would certainly have filled her with\nhorror. If she dislikes the idea of spinsterhood now, it is chiefly\nowing to her vanity, not to her bodily appetites. She feels that her\nprestige would be enhanced by the \u201cMrs.\u201d\u2014that is all! But her body has\nno share in this vain sentiment.\n\nIf she has once been the positive girl I describe, however, she is now\nfilled with an indescribable feeling of burning, aching, consuming\ndetestation of the world she once loved. Hope, trust, yea-saying have\nall gone. Her thwarted instincts manifest themselves in an obverse\ncharacter, and she becomes misanthropic, purely negative to Man and to\nLife, and desiring only to end her existence in an act of revenge on\nman, society and her more fortunate sisters.\n\nOnly the very positive girl makes a hateful spinster, because only\nshe has lost anything precious, only she knows what a cruel snub\nher sumptuous preparations once received! To have had all these\npreparations wasted; to have had to look on while, one by one, her\ncharms grew so faint as no longer even to lure the guest for whom\nsuch a rich banquet had once been laid; to have been a magnet and to\nhave watched one\u2019s magnetism gradually vanish without having been\neffective\u2014these experiences are cruel in any case; but their cruelty\nincreases in proportion to the magnitude, wealth and beauty of the\noriginal welcome that Nature had organized.\n\nThe negative girl, to whom an atonic state of the body, irregular and\npainful periods, have been an ever-present and familiar condition since\nher earliest puberty, or the negative girl who, while suffering from\nnone of these disorders, is yet insufficiently vigorous or sound in\norganic equipment to render the thwarting of her reproductive instinct\na state of suffering and bitter disillusionment, may make a perfectly\ncheerful, engaging, companionable and even thoroughly good-natured old\nmaid.[47]\n\nIt is an interesting fact that in France, where positiveness among\ngirls is ever so much more general than in England, the old maid is\nuniversally unbearable, and is proverbially known to be so.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n(2) But there are other agencies at work in modern society for reducing\nthe positive English girl to negativeness, besides the unfortunate\nand often inevitable circumstances of an all-too-long wait. For, in\nEngland, there is extraordinarily little care taken of the female body.\nIt should never be forgotten in this regard, that although we, as a\nnation, are lovers of both sport and open-air exercise, we are culpably\nneglectful of that hygiene which is concerned with the fundamentals\nof life. Genuine and gentle reverence for the body, particularly for\nthe young female body, is startlingly rare in England. Fundamentals\nare not faced; they are, if possible, avoided; and frequently owing\nto a deliberate refusal to recognize the needs and fragility of an\nequipment that is vital, elaborate and easily disordered, girls are\nas much as possible handled and treated like boys of their own age.\nPositive girls, particularly, who are well built and vigorous, whose\ncorrelation of bodily parts is as near perfect as it is possible for\nthe organs of modern people to be, have very few difficulties in early\npuberty. They are regular, they feel little or no inconvenience from\nthe attending phenomena of puberty; but owing to this very freedom\nfrom morbid symptoms they are often allowed, thanks to the prevailing\nlack of reverence for the body, to engage in pastimes and sports\u2014even\nduring their moments of indisposition\u2014which must, and undoubtedly do,\nultimately induce a morbid condition if the habit is persisted in. Let\nme explain:\u2014\n\nTo begin with, the very fact that anxious and almost fearful silence\nand secrecy are made to hang over all the manifestations of puberty in\ngirls, is in itself an inducement for the young female to desire to\nbehave during her moments of indisposition as much as possible like her\nschoolmates who are not indisposed. When, therefore, in addition to\nthis desire, she feels and is known to feel no very marked discomfort\nat such moments, there is apparently nothing to prevent her from going\na long walk or joining in a game of tennis, net-ball or even hockey\nwith the rest of her friends, at a moment when violent exercise of\nall kinds ought to be most carefully avoided. In girls\u2019 high schools\nand later on at college, such breaches of reverence towards the body\nare not only of constant occurrence, they may be said to be the rule\nwhere the positive girl is concerned, unless, of course, her parents\nhave been wise enough to insist specially upon the proper precautions\nbeing observed. In the end, however, long as the period of successful\nresistance may be, the body must suffer from this violence, and the\ntoll paid is then both severe and heavy.\n\nAnother very dangerous custom is that of having recreation and games\ndirectly after a meal. There is nothing objectionable in sports for\ngirls, provided they are not too violent.[48]\u2014On the contrary, games\nkeep them out in the open air and exercise their bodies. But it\nis a risky thing, in view of the subsequent cost to the whole body\nand spirit, to give the alimentary canal in girls the slightest\npossible excuse for getting out of order; and exercise after a meal,\nparticularly when such exercise is violent, is a potent factor in\nbringing about indigestion, costiveness and all their concomitant\ndisorders. This notwithstanding, it is not uncommon, in fact it is an\nalmost regular practice for girls in high schools and at college\u2014often\nwith the consent of their parents if these happen to know\u2014to rush out\ndirectly after lunch to a game of hockey or tennis, or what not, and\nto engage in the most violent exercise and movements in the course\nof their play. This is the most unscrupulous vandalism; for, even\nif they are not indisposed at the time, the evil effects of such\nexcessive activity directly after a meal are notorious. In the end\ncostiveness must occur, not as a temporary affection, but alas! as a\nchronic habit; and the custom of correcting this tendency by means of\nconstant purgation only aggravates the trouble.[49] Now constipation\nis in itself a bad thing. It lowers spirit, it gives rise to nervous\ntrouble, causes auto-intoxication that saps energy and interferes\nwith sound sleep; it also acts as a poison on the red corpuscles of\nthe blood and reduces their number, and thus fosters the development\nof an\u00e6mia. But this is not all; for with constipation there is always\nserious infection of the lower colon, and a general loss of tone in\nthat organ. The gravity of this condition in women cannot, however,\nbe overrated, because the surrounding and adjacent parts are so vital\nand so important, that no risk that can possibly imperil their health\nand vigour ought ever to be run, much less therefore courted and\nchosen. How long it takes for an infected and atonic colon to affect\nthe neighbouring organs, it is impossible to say; but that the atonic\ncondition can and does spread from the original seat of the trouble\nto other parts is unquestioned, particularly when an\u00e6mia has reduced\ntheir resisting power; and the results are always of the worst possible\nnature. Very quickly, if it is not already present, that worst and most\ninsidious of maladies, leucorrh\u0153a, makes its first appearance, and then\na vicious circle is formed which it is extremely difficult to break.\n\nThis does not pretend to be a medical work; but the consequences and\nsymptoms of this disease, leucorrh\u0153a, are so far reaching and generally\nso much ignored, that it seems imperative to speak out quite openly on\nthe subject. All through this book, the relations of the spirit to the\nbody is considered as being so close, so intimate, and the relation of\nthe attitudes of the positiveness and negativeness to the state of the\nbody is recognized as so inevitable and deep-seated, that I should be\nguilty of a flaw in my argument, of a grave omission in the frank array\nof my facts, if, particularly at this stage, I were to scout a subject\nwhich, however disagreeable and delicate, formed a necessary link in\nthe chain of my reasoning.\n\nTo begin with, then, let it be said most emphatically, for all those\nwhom it may concern, that leucorrh\u0153a\u2014this most regrettable and most\nneglected of the hidden scourges that harass the women of England\u2014is a\nmuch more serious and much more distressing ailment than the ordinary\ngeneral practitioner, or even specialist gyn\u00e6cologist, is ready to\nadmit. The fact that Albutt in his _Twentieth Century Practice_ allots\nonly one paragraph of about fifteen lines to the subject of leucorrh\u0153a\nin girls, shows at once with what a frivolous shrug of the shoulders\nthe orthodox medical school cavalierly disposes of this all-important\nquestion. Leucorrh\u0153a is not only a catarrh in a most vital part, it is\nalso the symptom of a loss of tone in a most vital part\u2014a loss of tone\nand therefore of vitality. It is important to remember, in regard to\nthis disease, _that scarcely a case of the kind has ever been known in\nwhich colon bacilli were not present in the mucous discharge_. The\nintimate connexion between leucorrh\u0153a and the state of the colon is\ntherefore indisputable, and shows with what reverent care the body of\nthe young positive girl should be tended and watched. The body of the\nnegative girl does not matter nearly as much.\n\nWhen it is remembered that persistent and obstinate leucorrh\u0153a is\nthe cause not only of more than three-quarters of the irregularity\nand pain of girls\u2019 periodic indispositions, not only of a depression\nand degeneration of sexual keenness that may make sexual union quite\nunenjoyable, not to say unpleasant, but also that it is a reducing,\nan exhausting, and a sterilizing ailment (sterility where it is not\nthe result of actual malformation is almost always the result of\nleucorrh\u0153a), it cannot be too urgently or too deeply impressed upon the\nparent and the guardian of the positive English girl, that reverence\nfor her body, and not alone for her pure soul (which, as we have seen,\ncan well be left to look after itself), is their most solemn and most\nsacred duty.\n\nUnfortunately, and incredible as it may appear, I have, after the\nmost careful inquiry, discovered that even where leucorrh\u0153a has been\ndiagnosed and proved beyond any doubt to be present, it has been\nimpossible to prescribe the only effective remedies and the only\nsalutary hygiene, owing to the fact that they are frequently of such\na nature that no English parent would dream of tolerating their\napplication for an instant! The price we pay for our Puritanism is\noccasionally very heavy indeed.\n\nWhen in addition to chronic costiveness and leucorrh\u0153a, an\u00e6mia\nultimately sets in to stamp its powerful blight upon the face and body\nof our fair and positive English girl, the amount of positiveness\nthat has been left within her, the extent of her original self that\nstill remains, may easily be computed. I need hardly say that this is\nnot much, and yet, though she is spoiled for every other purpose, she\nprobably stands as a tennis, a hockey, and often a classical champion,\nas the glory of her whole family, class and nation.\n\nAnd, mark you, she has been spoiled for every other purpose, not\nby necessity, not by fate or accident, but by a manner of life the\nmistakes of which could have been avoided, eliminated and corrected,\nif only those to whom she was related had felt that reverence for her\nbody, which all beautiful things deserve and demand, and without which\nthey surely perish.\n\nWhere the positive girl of the poorer classes is concerned the evil is\njust as great and just as widespread; but at least in her case, there\nis the excuse of necessity, of compulsion, of economic pressure. She\ndoes not, it is true, rush out to a game of hockey, tennis or net-ball\nimmediately after her meals, neither, as a rule, does she have to take\na long pleasure-walk; but she has certainly to rush off either to the\nlocal underground railway or to an omnibus in order to get to her work,\nor else she has to hurry along a considerable distance on foot to get\nthere. She does not play at hockey or tennis when she is indisposed;\nbut if she works at a factory she has to go there all the same; if she\nworks in a shop she has to stand about there all the same; and if she\nis a laundress she has to stand at a board or a machine all the same.\n\nIn both classes, then, rich and poor, Puritanism in different ways\u2014on\nthe one hand by its doctrine of indifference to the body, and on the\nother by its creations, modern industry and commerce\u2014has succeeded in\nsuppressing all reverence for the positive girl\u2019s beautiful body, and\nthe spiritual as well as the physical cost to the nation of this stupid\nand iniquitous attitude is as appalling as it is incalculable.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n(3) Even if she marry early\u2014as all positive girls should\u2014she may\nstill be converted to negativeness; and in this last instance, not by\ndiscontent, a too long wait, or an unhealthy mode of life during youth,\nbut actually by her young husband himself.\n\nAlthough, strictly speaking, this question should come in the chapter\non Marriage, its discussion here, in view of what has gone before,\nseems so opportune and necessary, that I have decided to include it\nhere, and thus leave myself all the more room for other considerations\nin Chapter VII.\n\nI have mentioned before that the deterioration of men from the\nstandpoint of Life\u2014i.e. their gradual approximation to a purely, or\nrelatively, negative type\u2014has been a process that, in England at least,\nhas been going on for almost 270 years. In this time a good deal can\nbe accomplished in the matter of altering a type, and there can be\nno doubt that a good deal has indeed been accomplished. Fortunately,\nhowever, apart from the actual deterioration through bad food and\nunhealthy living and work (which, as I have shown elsewhere, are the\nindirect results of Puritanical values), Puritanism has not done much\nto affect the positiveness of the poorest classes in England. Where it\nhas proved most formidable is in (1) the plutocracy, (2) the middle\nclasses, and (3) the lower middle classes. In these the ravages of\nPuritanical tradition on the constitutions and outlook of the men is\neverywhere noticeable; and that which makes the incidence of this evil\nall the harder to bear is the fact that the women of all these classes\nhave not suffered nearly to the same extent from this tradition.\n\nWhereas, therefore, it is a more or less common experience to find a\npositive girl in all these classes, the appearance of a truly positive\nman is excessively rare. I may have occasion to refer to this state\nof affairs again in Part II; but, for the present, let us examine its\nimmediate effects on the positive girl who has just married.\n\nThe positive girl extends her hand confidently, bravely and hopefully\nto Life. She does not expect to draw it back empty; she does not desire\nto draw it back full of bliss. She is brave enough, rational enough,\nand above all exuberant enough, to expect to draw it back with its full\nquantum of pleasure and pain. She wants _Life_, and what though Life\nmeans some pain, willy-nilly she will have it notwithstanding, and her\nheart whispers \u201cdamn the consequences.\u201d\n\nBut there is something she does expect, something she has a right to\nexpect; and that is that her husband himself should be her guide, her\nmentor and initiator. From time immemorial it is his sex that has been\n_prehensile_. Throughout the higher animal kingdom, prehension in the\nsex act is the exclusive attribute of the male. He often has the organs\nfor it, and he almost always has the superior strength for it\u2014even when\nhis strength is not required for other purposes. But just think what\nprehension means! It involves initiation; it means taking the first\nsteps; it is certainly tantamount to setting the tone, the manner,\nthe order of an encounter. Traditionally, then, for millions of years\nthe male has had his particular r\u00f4le, the r\u00f4le of prehension, with\nall its correlative virtues and qualities. Before self-consciousness\ndawned in the human being, he was prehensile in the sexual act\u2014and his\nr\u00f4le therein involved, as I think it necessary to repeat, powers of\ninitiation, the ability to take the first steps, the necessary mastery\nover sex, to set the tone, the manner and the order of the sexual\nencounter. What does all this imply? It is obvious! It implies that\nfor an equal number of millions of years the female of the species has\nexpected this prehension and all its correlative qualities in the male.\nIt means that now, to this very day, her deepest feelings tell her\nthat it is only right, only proper, and only becoming, that he should\npossess and display a certain mastery, a certain free virtuosity\u2014that\nvirtuosity of a flame in a roaring fire\u2014in the matter of sex, and that\nhis very ardour, his very virtuosity, his very ease in mastery, should\nfinally seal the coffin of all that guilty feeling towards sex which\nshe had almost killed in her youth, and which she now expects to be\nburied once and for all.\n\nThis, positive Woman understands. This is what she has a right to\nexpect; this is what makes her serene, content, free in conscience and\nin gait, confident that life is worth living and that her positive\nimpulses have been correct all along.\n\nBut what is it that happens so frequently that often a sense of shame\nregarding sex actually begins in a positive woman on the very day of\nher marriage\u2014never again to be completely dissipated?\n\n\u2014The unfortunate modern man whom our positive girl marries, is often as\nremote from any mastery over sex, or from any ease or free virtuosity\nwhere it is concerned, as a marble statue. Thanks to the prudish\nnature of his upbringing, his environment and his outlook, and also\nto the general lack of sexual exuberance in his constitution, he is\nfrequently as terrified of the subject as is his spinster aunt, and\nhe knows no more about taking the initiative properly, artistically,\ncapably, than a child of three. As for that impetuosity that carries\neverything before it, even the girl\u2019s natural modesty, and releases the\npent-up demons of roguery so long stifled in her breast!\u2014poor man! far\nfrom releasing them he would prefer a thousand times to slip another\nbolt across the door that imprisons them! Hesitation, shame, disgust,\na sense of guilt and of discomfort, often followed by incredibly\nlong periods of post-conjugal virginity and chastity, are frequently\nthe result, and with general consequences that are most deeply to be\ndeplored.\n\nPrehension!\u2014He has not even comprehension where sex is concerned! And\nsince in this matter, which is rightly so delicate and therefore so\ndependent upon consummate art, the Woman is utterly dependent upon\nhim, a miserable, uncomfortable and clammy atmosphere is straightway\ngenerated in a new home, in which everything could otherwise be so\nbright, so clean, so full of mutual confidence and good spirits. And in\nall this, mark you, no reference is made to the need of child-bearing\nfor the woman, which here is left indefinitely ungratified and\nunconsidered.\n\nHow many women ever survive this first great shock to their\npositiveness it is impossible to say; but that a very large number\nundoubtedly do grow negative from the effects of it, I myself have\nbeen able to ascertain and to record, even in my own small but fairly\nrepresentative circle.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[46] Hundreds of people, doctors included, will declare that this is\nwrong; that an all-too-long wait does not necessarily impair health\nor beauty. As if not being used, not being made to function, could\npossibly be a good thing, or at least a thing that does no harm! Make\na child sit still for years, and see how its health will be affected!\nIt is absurd to argue that when an equipment is normal and healthy, it\ndoes not do it and the body containing it considerable damage not to\nuse it! But in this matter, I do not ask you to believe me! Ask the\npositive girls themselves! Ask them (if they remained virgins) whether\nthey felt the same at twenty-five as they did at nineteen! Ask them\nwhether they have not learnt from sad experience that an elaborate\nmechanism when it is not used gets out of order! Get them into your\nconfidence, and you will hear the truth for once on this matter.\n\n[47] Paradoxical as it may seem at first sight, it is however only\ntoo true that the worst kind of spinster is precisely this \u201cperfectly\ncheerful, engaging, companionable and even thoroughly good-natured old\nmaid,\u201d because, like the cheerful cripple or the happy invalid, she\nis a living mockery of Life, passion and instinct thwarted. Her very\nadaptedness to her unnatural lot seems to the unwary an argument in\nfavour of an unnatural lot, or at least not an argument against it. See\nchapter IX.\n\n[48] By violent sports I mean any form of jumping, hockey, football,\nlawn tennis, golf and lacrosse. In all these games the movements\nof the body are too jerky and too jarring, and muscular effort is\ntoo long sustained. Even for men football is very bad, for women it\nis barbarous. In young girls Nature makes an effort to compensate\nthe excessive demands made by violent sports on the muscles and\nbony structure of the legs and pelvis, by proceeding to a premature\nstiffening of the fleshy, and a premature ossification of the bony\nparts\u2014both of which processes not only arrest full subsequent\ndevelopment, but also make for unnecessary rigidity in the pelvic and\nupper femoral regions\u2014effects which are heavily paid for later on\nunless the girls remain unmarried. The fact that even among males,\nsailors show smaller hip measurements than soldiers\u2014the former being\nhabituated from earliest youth to much more violent bodily exertions\nthan soldiers\u2014shows what a difference this natural compensation for\nearly muscular strain makes in a sex in which pelvic development is\nneither as vital nor as characteristic as it is among girls. Another\ndanger arising from violent sports for young women, which is not\nmentioned in the text, consists in the jerking and jarring of the\nspine, small and imperceptible sprains of which, particularly near\nthe ilium, often lead to very obscure but severe nervous disorders in\nlater life. The fact that young girls enjoy violent sports is often\nadduced as an argument in favour of their adoption at school and\nelsewhere. But surely young people, as I have shown, are so catholic\nin their positiveness, that their mere liking for an occupation or\namusement should not constitute in itself, and without further inquiry,\na sufficient ground for allowing them to pursue it. Neither should\nparents allow themselves to be influenced by the fact that a conclave\nof women doctors has recently decided in favour of violent sports for\ngirls. The decisions come to by middle-aged matrons or middle-aged\nspinsters concerning the care and discipline of young girls, should\nnever be trusted. It is always difficult to be quite certain about the\nmotives, whether conscious or unconscious, that have animated women of\nthis age in their dealings with young girls. On the whole, unless it be\nher mother, the advice of any middle-aged woman concerning a young girl\nought to be treated with suspicion. See p. 246 (footnote).\n\n[49] With regard to the effects of diet on constipation, I give some\nuseful hints in chapter V of _A Defence of Aristocracy_.\n\n\n\n\nPart II\n\nINFERENCES FROM PART I\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nThe Marriage of the Positive Girl and the Positive Man\n\n\nThe multiplication of life in human society involves certain burdens\nand responsibilities. A normal, positive young man could easily\nfertilize a hundred women a year, without departing even for one\ninstant from his usual habits of industry and useful productivity.\nCould he, however, undertake to provide for, protect, and rear\na hundred children in the ensuing year? He might if he were a\nmillionaire; but all men are not millionaires.\n\nAlthough, therefore, the mere carnal union of two young positive people\nis the normal and natural consummation of their desire, it is bound to\nbe interfered with by the State, or by the community, in order that\nthe burdens and responsibilities resulting from Life\u2019s multiplication\nmay be delimited, defined, fairly apportioned and allotted as far as\npossible to those who ought properly to bear them. And since a man\ncannot procreate a hundred children a year without in the vast majority\nof cases imposing grave burdens and responsibilities upon his fellows,\nthe State or the community officially refuses to recognize, or to offer\nlegal status, to any offspring that are the outcome of multiplication\nthat takes place outside the monogamic union. Thus although marriage\nand its forms and limitations\u2014particularly the monogamic limitation\u2014may\nfrequently have a religious ceremonial, it is society, or the\ncommunity, that ultimately favours it, because society as a whole\ncannot undertake to pay for the promiscuous indulgence of every man\u2019s\nlust.\n\nHence, despite the fact that the carnal union of our positive couple\nis all that the multiplication of Life requires, and all that the\nconscious or unconscious desire of the two young people demands, the\nState interposes its jurisdiction and declares that the multiplication\nof life that will follow the union, in fact the union itself, will\nonly be legally recognized provided that it take place along certain\nspecified lines.\n\nThus marriage is not a natural state, nor is it even the logical\noutcome of the \u201clove\u201d of a positive couple; it is an artificially\nimposed condition devised for the purpose of safeguarding the\ncommunity. And, being unnatural and gratuitously imposed upon the\nsimple relationship that Nature requires, it complicates that\nrelationship, and necessarily possesses all the disadvantages that any\nunnatural[50] solution of a natural problem must involve.\n\nIt might be thought that if it is so very unnatural the positive\ncouple would instinctively rebel against it?\u2014Not so! How many of them\nare aware even that it is not a natural law? Custom deceives the\nyoung positive couple in the same way as it deceives us all. We are\naccustomed to innumerable constraints which to a man unfamiliar with\nthem would be intolerably irksome. When, therefore, the young positive\ncouple stand at the altar and hear the priest say to the man: \u201cWilt\nthou love her, comfort her, and keep her in sickness and in health,\nand forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both\nshall live?\u201d and the young positive man answers innocently \u201cI will,\u201d\nneither of them suspects the cloven hoof of social fear or social\nconstraint behind the words. They imagine not only that the question\nis a perfectly normal one, implying a normal condition, but they also\nimagine that this implied condition itself\u2014that of lifelong love\u2014is a\npossible and generally acceptable proposition. They are not even led\nto suppose that it is an _ideal_ difficult to realize, otherwise the\nman would not be invited to take such an enormously difficult vow with\nso little preparation and warning. To answer the priest\u2019s question\nhonestly\u2014that is to say, with a full knowledge of the terms of the\nvow and with a perfect conviction that he is ready to fulfil them\u2014a\nyoung positive man would require to be in possession of knowledge\nregarding himself and the future which he can hardly be expected to\npossess. For a man to say on March 20, 1922, that, if he live so long,\nhe will entertain the same \u00e6sthetic or moral or political sentiments\non March 20, 1952, as those he holds on the day he makes the vow,\nwould be daring\u2014or to say the least, presumptuous\u2014as implying a claim\nto a gift of prophecy. But for a man to say of a sentiment in which\npassion enters as an important factor, that he will hold it thirty\nyears hence, he must either be quite ignorant of what he is being asked\nto declare, or a prophet capable of accurately reading the future; or\nelse he must be the most unprincipled blackguard that ever lived, and\nprepared to take any vow in order to obtain his immediate needs. Now,\nsince it would be unfair to assume that the majority of the young men\nwho answer \u201cI will\u201d to that question are blackguards; since, moreover,\nit would be unscientific to suppose that any of them are gifted with\nthe superhuman power of prophecy, we can only conclude that they are\ncompletely ignorant of what it means. They are completely ignorant of\nthe whole significance of the marriage rite, and it is their ignorance,\ncoupled with the fact of the force of custom, that enables them to\naccept the unnatural imposition of the State-ordered marriage as if it\nwere a natural condition. Besides, the young positive couple are, as a\nrule, not very analytical. The only thing they insist upon with all the\nimpatience of what is called \u201clove,\u201d is union; and since their elders\nand society seem to offer them the chance of union without black\nlooks and moral indignation, only in legalized \u201cmarriage,\u201d they seize\nsociety\u2019s offer without thinking much about the question of natural or\nunnatural solutions of natural problems. Thousands, it is true, do not\nwait for the unnatural solution.[51] They simply unite and consummate\ntheir desire without taking any public vow. Then, however, they\nfind the social machinery for discouraging such simple behaviour so\nformidable and unrelenting that they are frequently unable to face it,\nand resort to crime in order to attempt to wipe out the consequences\nof their action. Unmarried motherhood, with all the moral indignation\nit provokes; prosecutions for affiliation, and the weekly payments in\nwhich they result\u2014are some of the unpleasant menaces that face those\nwho refuse to wait for the State\u2019s conditions before consummating\ntheir desire; and, in the end, the great majority, preferring the more\npeaceable and more generally accepted course, resolve on marriage the\nmoment they feel they must consummate their desire.\n\nThe desire that makes the two young positive people wish to unite is\ncalled \u201clove.\u201d It is mutual attraction culminating in a condition\nof mutual irresistibility. It is the power which, in the course of\nevolution, each has acquired to draw the other into that condition\nwhich best serves the purpose of Life and its multiplication.\n\nNow, as we have already pointed out, this power of attraction serves\nits purpose\u2014multiplication\u2014whether they unite legitimately or\nillegitimately. Since, however, the purposes of society are best served\nby their uniting according to certain rules, and since these rules\nare chiefly designed to secure each party to the union against the\nevil consequences (to society) of promiscuous mating, it is expedient\nthat the two should be bound together for life; and the marriage tie\nis made a permanent tie: \u201c_Till death us do part_,\u201d\u2014that is the ideal\naimed at. But in this way a lie is tacitly smuggled by society into the\nmarriage of two young people. Since society\u2019s purposes are best served\nby a permanent match between the young positive couple, they are led to\nbelieve that the desire which the moment before union has drawn them\ntogether, and which is called \u201clove,\u201d is also permanent; in fact that\nit is really the _best_ reason for making the match permanent!\n\nHaving once been perpetrated by the social organism, this lie is\nrepeated in all the moral prejudices and saws, all the fairy-tales,\nthe popular novels, the poetry and the songs, of a whole nation\u2014of a\nwhole continent\u2014and soon acquires the sanctity of truth; and he who\ndares to nail it to the counter as a piece of counterfeit psychology or\nphysiology, is dubbed a cynic, an anarchist, and a misogynist.\n\nWe call the emotion \u201clove\u201d which convinces two young people that they\nhad better, on grounds of expediency, accept the State regulations\nconcerning their prospective union, but we have no business to imply\nby actual words or by suggestion that the desirable permanence of that\nunion, from society\u2019s point of view, will find one of its principal\ncauses in the persistence of the emotion that led to its being\nconsummated. Unfortunately, the advantage to society and to the family\nof a permanent legal contract, has led to so complete a distortion of\nthe truth, that the majority of young people are led to believe, quite\nblindly, that it is the enduring power of the emotion itself which\njustifies the nature of the contract. And everything is done to confirm\nthem in this belief. It is only when they are married that they find\nhow utterly untrue it is.\n\nIt is readily admitted that in every generation of human beings there\nis a percentage, an ever-dwindling percentage in degenerate days, of\nmen and women who are capable of deep and lasting emotions. These rare\ncreatures of profound and enduring passion, to whom change of any\nsort is distasteful, and who cling faithfully and stubbornly to their\nhobbies, their pursuits, their ancestral faiths, and their particular\ntaste in literature, music, the graphic arts and food, may and do\nsometimes evince a steadiness and a stability in their love which makes\ntheir monogamic unions exceptionally harmonious and affectionate to the\nlast. But for the average modern couple to claim that they belong to\nthis very small percentage of human beings, is the most contemptible\nimpudence. Even positive couples cannot all be said to belong to this\nclass, and as for the negative couples, whose unions are chiefly an\nidle pursuit of sensation or else a gratification of vanity, they\nare as different from these slow-moving, deeply passionate people as\nif they belonged to a race utterly strange to them. It is therefore\nessential that, for the vast majority of people, a more sensible, less\ndramatic, and more realistic colour should be lent to their unions,\nso that they may enter them with a clearer understanding of the\nenormous difficulties with which permanent marriage is beset, and with\nother considerations to support and fortify them, than a trust in a\npossibility so utterly fantastic as the endurance of their emotions.\n\nWhen once they are married, it is perfectly true that expediency,\neconomic considerations, and the presence of children frequently\nconvince them that it is better that their union should be permanent;\nbut to call by the name of \u201clove\u201d the reasons which cause them to\narrive at this conclusion, is a colossal hoax, the prodigiousness of\nwhich would be amusing did it not lead to such untold misery.\n\nBut, it may be objected, even if we admit that the legal union,\nmarriage, is as a rule incompatible with lasting \u201clove,\u201d where is the\nharm, provided that the two objects of the contract, the obtaining of\na union between two positive people and the propagation of children on\nregular and well-ordered lines, be secured? Is it not after all the\nbest solution of the sex problem?\n\nThe question whether it is the best solution of the sex problem we must\nleave undecided for a moment. But to the first part of the question\nwe may now answer definitely that there is harm in any contract based\nupon a lie, when that lie is one which, connected as it is with the\npsychological and physiological conditions of a certain common human\nrelationship, is bound to be discovered as a lie by the parties to that\nrelationship.\n\nTo allow, however tacitly or implicitly, that society\u2019s unnatural\nsolution of the sex problem is even favourable to the endurance of the\nemotion which first led the couple to desire union, is harmful in the\nfirst place:\u2014\n\n(1) Because it makes the idea and pursuit of marriage too hedonistic.\nYoung people know that the state of mutual desire in which they find\nthemselves before the union, is one of exquisite pleasure. As we have\npointed out in Chapter V, it is probably the richest experience, as\nspirito-physiological sensations go, that anyone can have. They also\nknow that the happy and masterly consummation of this desire is a\nsource of enormous spiritual and physical well-being and delight.\nThe parties to be united, therefore, can easily be persuaded, both\nimmediately before consummation and for a brief period afterwards, that\nthis exquisite pleasure and delight will be secured them permanently\nby a permanent contract, and marriage is pursued as a source of\nhappiness. People are even in the habit of asking of a married couple,\nnot \u201cAre they successful?\u201d not, \u201cAre they breasting their difficulties\nsatisfactorily?\u201d; but always, \u201cAre they happy?\u201d\u2014as if for all the\nworld one were necessarily happy in fulfilling a difficult and vastly\ncomplicated contract.\n\nIt is necessary for the positive young girl to find her physical\nadaptation. Only the negative girl can be content without it. It is\nalso necessary for the positive young man to find his. But surely it is\nnot necessary to lead either of them to suppose that in doing this by\nmeans of legal marriage they will find anything more in the long run\nthan the most moderate well-being, disturbed by the most tremendous\nresponsibilities and difficulties.\n\nThe way in which girls and young men are led to look forward to the\nmarried state as if it were a kind of fairy transformation, summed up\nin the formula \u201cand they were happy ever afterwards,\u201d vitiates the\nwhole value of the contract; for while it lays all emphasis on the\ncontentment that naturally comes with proper physical adaptation, it\npasses over the enormous difficulties which any such permanent contract\nbetween sensitive and intelligent beings must entail.\n\n(2) It is harmful, secondly, because by leading both young people\nto expect too much from marriage, it expedites the period of\ndisillusionment, which is bound ultimately to supervene in the great\nmajority of such unions. If the State solution of the sex problem,\nknown as monogamic marriage, be really a good institution, then surely\neverything should be done to make it tolerable for as long as possible\nto those who are parties to it. Since disillusionment must come, it\nis obviously the duty of teachers and elders to endeavour to postpone\nit as long as possible. And the way to do this is certainly not by\nemphasizing the \u201chappiness\u201d of marriage to the exclusion of all thought\nabout its enormous and almost insuperable difficulties. A salutary\nreform in this respect would consist in leading young people to accept\nthe State\u2019s solution of the sex problem in a more sober mood, with a\nmore grave concern about the future, with a greater insight into the\nutility of marriage, and with less precipitancy than is shown at\npresent. They would realize that while union was what they desired,\nlegal marriage was the least unsatisfactory way for all concerned of\nmeeting that desire for union; but that it was only a clumsy way of\nsecuring their sexual adaptation, and held no necessary promise of\nany greater happiness than they could expect from any other system of\nconstraints.\n\nIt might be objected that, in this case, young people would not marry.\nThe reply to this objection is that they would if their desire for\nnormal adult adaptation were strong enough, but that they would be\nlikely to fulfil the contract all the more satisfactorily by realizing\nfrom the start its utility, its limitations, its very doubtful promise,\nand its artificial nature.\n\n(3) It is harmful, thirdly, because, by _confusing marriage with\nthe pursuit of happiness_, grave considerations are likely to be\noverlooked. Let me give a concrete instance:\u2014\n\nIt may be in the best interests of a farmer\u2019s son, who intends to\nadopt his parent\u2019s calling, to marry a rural maiden, accustomed to the\nproblems of a farm, and familiar with all the valuable traditions of\nthe countryside. In fact, from the standpoint of the State also, it may\nbe best for him to select his bride from among the female population of\nhis village or locality; for by so doing, in addition to acquiring a\nuseful mate, his children will inherit rural virtues from both sides,\nand are more likely to become good and efficient farmers in their turn.\nBut if, by a false association of happiness with marriage, he fancies\nthat he will have what is known as a \u201cbetter time\u201d with an urban\ntypist of smart appearance, with small bird\u2019s-claw hands and expensive\ntastes, he is likely to overlook the gravity of the purpose of marriage\nin order to gratify his hedonistic lust. This accounts also for the\ndestruction of many of our aristocratic houses by _m\u00e9salliances_\nwith chorus-girls and American and Jewish heiresses. If the utterly\nhedonistic bias were only removed from marriage, such stupid and wanton\noutrages against good blood might be prevented. For since the alleged\n\u201chappiness\u201d of a permanent association like legal marriage is in nine\ncases out of ten pure illusion, it should not be allowed to override\na man\u2019s duty to himself and to his children. One of the principal\nrewards of the legal marriage is the means it gives a man of preserving\nhis family virtues and tradition, and since this is best achieved by\nchoosing a girl from his own kind and set, the supposed pursuit of\nhappiness can only act as a disturbing element, which could be condoned\nonly if it were not so entirely illusory.\n\nOf course the _m\u00e9salliance_ as a social evil has a Puritanical root\nas well, which ought perhaps to be mentioned here. The Puritans were\nnot so utterly and incurably stupid as to deny the existence of bodily\npleasure. They knew perfectly well that the joys of sex were very real\njoys. By insisting, however, upon these joys being sought only in fast\nwedlock, they threw a burden upon marriage which it was hardly designed\nto bear. They converted it by one stroke into a source of joy\u2014that is\nto say, into the unique source for a certain kind of joy, into a symbol\nof pleasure and happiness of a certain kind. By so doing, however, a\nfalse association grew up in the minds of men regarding marriage, which\nhas resulted in the scions of some of our best houses seeking happiness\nand pleasure in matrimony by marrying women whose blood necessarily\ndiluted or destroyed their stock qualities. Had the stupid Puritan\nprejudice not existed, they might have found pleasure with these\ninferior females without marrying them, and thereby saved their family\nline with some one who, though perhaps less garish and less vulgarly\namusing, was at least capable of giving them children true to their\ntraditional stock quality.\n\nThe advantages of the legal monogamic match are chiefly social. _They\nhave very little to do with happiness, and most of them redound to the\nbenefit of law and order._ They are:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The creation of a compact unit known and recognized as the\nfamily, in which responsibility for the fruits of the union fall on\nthe two parents, and in which the financial responsibility in the\ngreat majority of families falls upon the more free (physically) of\nthe two parents\u2014the male. The State is by this means secured against\nthe obligation of having to rear the innumerable host of children that\nwould result from promiscuous parenthood where the father could not be\ntraced.\n\n(_b_) The creation of a unit with which it is easy for the law to deal,\nbecause in it human duties are simplified down to the three relations,\nspouse, parent, child, each of which has its status in the law, all\nconverging towards the head of the unit, who can be made answerable to\nthe law for his unit.\n\n(_c_) The creation of a definite and stable environment for the early\nand tenderest years of the nation\u2019s youngest inhabitants, where, in\nthe majority of cases at least, they may be assured the care and the\nsupervision and the schooling of those who are by nature best equipped\nfor discharging the duties of protectors and tutors with love and\ntenderness, with natural pride in their work, and above all without\ndemanding payment for their services.\n\n(_d_) The creation of a natural centre of interest for the female and\nthe male, but particularly for the former, after the first bloom of\nyouth and attractiveness has fled, so that each may claim, as by right,\na place in a _home_, in which their presence is earnestly desired, at\nleast by the majority\u2014the children.\n\n(_e_) The creation of a microcosm\u2014a part and counterpart of the nation\nas a whole, reduced to its smallest compass, in which the traditional\ncharacter of a people becomes imparted to its children, in which the\nvirtues and aspirations of a nation are inculcated by precept and\nexample upon its youngest members, and in which these form the first\nstrong attachments which, increasing with age, ultimately identify\nthem, and act as the first moral check upon their conduct.\n\n(_f_) The creation of a centre in which the child has a chance to\ndevelop family or stock qualities quietly, slowly, and unhindered;\nbecause it is sheltered, or partly so, from the influence of\nantagonistic or competing mob or universal characteristics.\n\n(_g_) The creation of relationships\u2014that of spouse to spouse, parent\nto child, child to child, and child to parent, in which the growth of\nmany virtues useful to society are fostered and cultivated: a sense of\nresponsibility, self-respect, fidelity, early associations of devotion\nand gratitude, the sense of traditional continuity which gives rise\nto the feeling of dignity, honour, obligation, and individual rights,\nclaims and duties.\n\n(_h_) The creation of a community on the smallest scale, in which the\nchildren may, by constant association with their parents, acquire their\nstock of general and specialized knowledge, learn the business by which\nthey may ultimately earn their living, and cultivate efficiency in\nit quietly and gradually from infancy upwards. (This is an advantage\nwhich, except in rare cases, has hardly survived in family life in\nEngland.)\n\nNow, attractive as these advantages may appear to the legislator, or\nlegislators of a people, and cogent as they may make the argument for\nmonogamic marriage, it will be seen, that they contain little that\nwill necessarily secure the conjugal \u201chappiness\u201d of the two young\npeople whose actions and movements they are designed to limit and to\nconstrain. They consist chiefly of duties which, while not necessarily\nunpleasant, give rise to no small amount of anxiety and misgiving, and\ncertainly lend a graver accent to matrimony than is usually imparted to\nit by that promise of light-hearted enjoyment upon which most stress\nis laid by the traditional literature, poetry and public sentiment of\nall Anglo-Saxon people. On the other hand, it would be idle to deny\nthat if the aspects of monogamous marriage that they represent were\nmore frequently emphasized and brought to the attention of both young\nand old, the number of \u201chappy\u201d marriages might certainly be very much\nincreased. For as I have shown, it is the hedonistic view of marriage,\nor that picture of it that dwells immoderately upon its supposed\nunfailing gift of happiness, that has done most in modern civilised\nsocieties to undermine its value as a working and workable institution.\nIts plain utility is smothered under too much sentiment and false\ndoctrine. This result has been brought about largely by Christianity,\nwhich has persistently endeavoured to teach the high-falutin\u2019 nonsense\nof matrimony as principally \u201ca union of souls\u201d[52]; but added to\nChristian influence in Anglo-Saxon countries, at least, there has also\nbeen the detrimental overlay of romantic obsessions,[53] which has made\na realistic view of primitive and natural needs almost impossible.\n\nThe general tendency in Puritanical and Anglo-Saxon countries, at\nleast, is to keep as far as possible in the background the subject of\noffspring and the fruits of marriage when discussing it or arranging\nfor it in the presence of any two young people who have stated their\ndesire to be joined together. It is not considered decent to refer\nto this, its most important side. As we have seen, the advantages of\nthe legal monogamic marriage chiefly concern the children that may\nresult from the match. Scarcely any other advantage exists. It is\nfolly, therefore, not to make the subject of offspring one of the most\nimportant in all deliberations relating to matrimony. It is true that\nin the _Book of Common Prayer_ the first reason given for the joining\nof a man and woman together in holy matrimony, is \u201cfor the procreation\nof children\u201d; but there are many people who dislike this passage in the\nmarriage service, and all those who have attended marriage ceremonies\noften will be able to testify to the frequency with which it is rapidly\nslurred over in order to give the least possible offence.\n\nNow this is the most pernicious nonsense that could ever have been\ndevised for destroying the value of the legal monogamic marriage. For\nif proper stress were laid upon the consequences of the union, _the\nchildren_, it would not only check the hedonistic attitude towards\nmarriage as an institution, but would also make young people more\nserious in the matter of choosing their mates and more critical of\nthemselves in regard to their readiness for marriage.\n\n\u201cAm I one who can grant myself the privilege of contributing fresh\npeople to the world? Am I sufficiently desirable? Is it at all\ndesirable that I should reproduce myself in a second, third or fourth\nedition?\u201d\n\nBut how can these questions be asked in an atmosphere where the\noffspring of a marriage is the last consideration to be thought of?\nHow can they be expected to be asked in an atmosphere where \u201cLuvv\u201d is\nsupposed to justify any match, however horrible?\n\nIn regard to the mate, too\u2014who nowadays selects her with that serious\ncriticism which gazes through the optics of the next generation and\nenvisages their best interests? How can the average man assume this\nattitude, when all the stress in matrimony is laid upon the love match,\nupon the union of two souls? As far as possible, everyone tries to\nforget the other matter in contemplating a girl and her betrothed.\nPeople shrug their shoulders and say, \u201cIf children come, they come\u2014and\nthere\u2019s an end of it.\u201d They prefer to regard the couple from that\nstandpoint. Christianity has so far succeeded in establishing a false\natmosphere of a union of souls around this most fundamental of all\nrelationships (that of the betrothed couple) that it is possible now\nto meet people who entertain the most solemn determination to marry,\nand yet who have hardly one single feature in their minds or bodies\nthat would render their repetition or recurrence on earth in any way\ndesirable.\n\nThe whole attitude of Christianity towards the joining of male and\nfemale together, however, is so unrealistic on the one hand, and so\nbase on the other, that it is not astonishing that after 2,000 years\nof Christian teaching we have wellnigh reached matrimonial chaos in\nEurope, and all countries like Europe.\n\nMarriage should be regarded as the sacred garden of the next\ngeneration. All the exalted emotions that possess an artist at his\nwork, all the solemn misgivings that beset a responsible man when\nhe feels he is determining the future of Man, ought to surge in the\nbreast of him who contemplates matrimony. To feel that emotion which\nthe modern world calls \u201clove\u201d may excuse a man for forming an illicit\nunion, but, alone, it does not justify him in concluding so grave a\ncontract as marriage.\n\nThe disadvantages of the monogamic marriage are chiefly confined to its\neffects upon the individual, and are of a nature that the State can,\nas a rule, afford to ignore and to waive. I shall only point to one\ndisadvantage that deeply concerns the State (see objection H), and that\nis so serious that it should be examined and removed instantly.\n\nThe disadvantages are the following:\u2014\n\n(A) Monogamic marriage presupposes a possibility which is the very\nreverse of natural and human, one in fact which, through the optics of\nlife, does not even amount to a probability\u2014and that is that two people\nof different sexes can be united for life without needing or craving\nfor that same variety and respite which in all other departments of\ntheir lives they regard as the most essential factor of well-being.\nThis is the great _lie_ underlying the State\u2019s tacit assurance that its\nsolution of the sex problem is for the benefit of the individual.\n\nEvery child suspects, every adult knows, how difficult friendship is,\nhow hard it becomes to keep up that enthusiasm and eager interest\nin the relationship of friends, which alone makes companionship a\nrefreshment and a pleasure. And everyone feels that there is a natural\nprudence in sound friendship which, founded on good taste, points\ndistinctly to a moderate frequentation of a friend at all times\nwhen that enthusiasm and eager interest show signs of declining too\nseriously. So that it might truthfully be said in a paradox, that\nfriendship can be maintained only by judicious separations, and that\nthe duration of these separations is determined by the barometric\nlevel, so to speak, of the friendship felt at certain periods.\n\nNo one who has attained to adult years can fail to have realized\nthe value of change to the body. Variations in diet, occupation and\nenvironment act as a stimulus not only to the senses but also to the\ntissues; they brace and invigorate the system. Life, like beauty,\nhas even been defined as \u201crepetition with a certain modicum of\nvariation.\u201d[54]\n\nMoreover, every human being, child, adult, savage or sage knows the\nfatal consequences of complete and exhaustive exploration: how it\ncloys, how it surfeits, how it nauseates! The very constitution of man\nas a sentient being necessitates such consequences. The repetition of\na stimulus reduces the force of its appeal owing to the very tendency\nto habituation to which all of us as adaptable creatures are prone. We\nreact eagerly and quickly at first; the thousandth time we hardly lift\nan eyelid.\n\nNow, in the face of all these facts of common and everyday experience,\nit would seem both absurd and indefensible to claim that any two\npeople, whether of the same or of different sexes, could hope to spend\nmany years together\u2014not to mention a lifetime\u2014without ultimately\nfalling the prey to indifference, if not dislike; and where the\ncircumstances of their first coming together have been attended by any\nexcessive warmth of feeling, the ultimate revulsion of that feeling,\nby constituting at once a disillusionment and, among unwise people, a\nsurprise, must lead to an indifference proportionately more acute.\n\nUnlike the mere association of friends, in which two people may work\ntogether, share the same interests, enjoy the same games, or suffer\nthe same hardships, pleasures and difficulties, the married couple are\nunited chiefly by a physical bond which has its basis in an act of\n_passion_, an act of _desire_, an act of _power_.\n\nBut _passion_ is largely a matter of surplus strength, violent\nstimulation and the lust of possession, all of which are steadily\nworn down by (_a_) a steady drain on surplus strength, (_b_) the\nsupervention of gradual callousness through the repetition of similar\nstimuli, and (_c_) the consciousness of holding definitely, or rather\nindefinitely, the object originally coveted.\n\n_Desire_ also, by being gratified, is stilled. The best cure, in fact,\nfor desire is precisely gratification. But a _cure_ is hardly what is\nanticipated by the usual love-match.[55]\n\nWith regard to the _act of power_, which, despite civilization, still\naccounts for more than half the savour of the sexual relationship,\nthat is surely seriously impaired by the law itself which enjoins\ncohabitation as a duty upon the parties to a marriage contract.\n\nThus the indefinite continuance of the emotion which first led a couple\nto unite, and the protraction _sine die_ of the delights of the early\nconsummation of their desire, are bound, as it were, with mathematical\ncertainty to become impossible. But this makes the relationship\nexceedingly difficult, and one which, far from constituting a promise\nof happiness, is very much more likely to develop into an absolute\nguarantee of incessant and most tiresome differences.\n\nTo reply to these objections that there is a \u201clove\u201d that transcends all\nthese difficulties, may sound pleasant and charming and good-natured,\nbut it is hardly candid. For as I have pointed out above, the\npossibility of the existence of this rare kind of love does not justify\nus in making marriage a lie for the bulk of mankind.\n\n(B) Furthermore, monogamic marriage makes no allowance for the fact\nthat human courtship and the subsequent union of the sexes to which it\nleads, partakes essentially of the nature of an adventure. In fact, to\na large number of people in these dull and ordered days it is the only\nadventure of their lives. In many of its aspects it is reminiscent of\nthe qualities of the chase, and it would be unscientific not to allow\nfor this smack of venery in the preliminaries which precede _venery_.\nThat mutual attraction which ultimately leads to mutual capitulation is\nfull of the excitement, the doubt, the anxiety and the final triumph\nof the huntsman. When the quarry is a positive virgin and her pursuer\na positive man, even the fascination of fear is added\u2014fear of the\nintensity of the passion awakened\u2014to complete the similitude of the\nexperience to the circumstances of the chase.\n\nBeside this, however, the steady hum-drum routine of married life can\nat best only be a flat parody\u2014particularly married life in modern\ncivilization, witnessed, as it is, by innumerable stuffy relatives,\nmarred by imperfect health, supported by tired and irascible nerves,\nand depressed by the consciousness that it must last a lifetime.\n\nNor can it be said that the divine gifts of imagination and artistic\ncreativeness tend to mitigate the solemn boredom and exasperation that\novertake the parties to such a legal union; on the contrary, they but\nenhance its horrors: behold the unhappy married lives of most men of\ngenius, Dickens, Carlyle, Byron, and the philosophic Socrates!\n\n(C) The monogamic marriage based on the modern idea of \u201clove\u201d (which\nshould, by the by, be spelt \u201cLuvv\u201d to differentiate it from the nobler\nidea called by the same name), in addition to leading to bitter\ndisillusionment, has in its very first condition\u2014this sentiment\n\u201cLuvv\u201d\u2014the seeds of its most potent corrosive. For it is impossible\nnowadays to conceive of love without contempt. Indeed, an innuendo of\ncontempt is essential before love can be possible. This is easily seen\nif we reflect upon what love is. It is, in its present acceptation,\na very wild, a very torrential sentiment. From the man who says he\nloves her, the girl exacts little less than single-minded adoration.\nShe expects him to say she is the best girl in the world for him, and\nshe insists on his believing it. She might, at a pinch, forgive his\nnot regarding her as _the best girl_ in the whole world, in the sense\nof supreme above all other girls _in fact_. But to him, relative to\nhis taste alone, she expects to be that. And he expects the same. But\nwhat does this mean? What can it not help meaning? Both parties in a\ncourtship are fully aware of what sorry figures they cut before the\ncritical and fully informed eye of their own inner consciousness. Each\nknows his shortcomings, his pitiful and helpless foibles, his ugly\ntraits, his despicable features, his nauseating, revolting side!\n\nAnd what? Some one has been found who calls this the best? who raves\nabout it? who is visibly frantic about it?\n\nDeep down in her heart, therefore, where the girl secretes her\ncontempt for herself, she now begins secreting the first drops of\ncontempt for the one who can appear so wildly enthusiastic over\nsomething she knows to be so defective. Her man feels exactly the\nsame, and though he may be exalted, for a while, by the girl\u2019s having\nmistaken him for a hero, he would not be human if he did not feel a\nlittle contempt for one who could appear so enthralled by such humble\nattainments as he knows his to be.\n\nWhen once, however, the first blush of passion has died away, this\nseed of contempt has to be reckoned with, and then, watered by\ndisillusionment and nourished by indifference, it soon germinates and\ngrows into the fungus which helps to blight the last green leaves\nthat may still be left on the spare frail tree of conjugal affection.\nBecause, the moment it shows its true colour and nature, it is\nrecognized by either party in the other, and interpreted as a flat and\nwilful recantation of their former protestations, and consequently as\nan insulting and heartless _volte-face_ which cannot be forgiven.\n\n(D) In addition to the element of contempt in all love of the\nordinary sort, there is another factor which, when once the moment of\ndisenchantment comes in monogamic marriage, adds seriously to its force\nand hastens the end; and that is the unpardonable arrogance which is\nimplicit in all these \u201clove\u201d matches.\n\nWhen a young man A so far misunderstands his condition as to say\nhe loves a young girl B with _undying_ affection, although the\npsychologist may smile, he does not necessarily expostulate; for, after\nall, the attitude, though ridiculous, is not necessarily provokingly\nimpudent. It is true that it is assuming that he is capable of an\nenduring passion, and therefore, that he is arrogating to himself a\ndepth and a permanence which nine hundred and ninety-nine people out of\na thousand do not possess; nevertheless, it is allowed to pass, because\na certain modicum of exaggeration is allowed to lovers.\n\nWhen, however, the young girl B believes A\u2019s declaration of undying\nlove, and accepts it as a fact, the psychologist is naturally annoyed;\nfor here a degree of self-deception comes into play which cannot\npossibly arise out of anything else than the most stupendous arrogance.\nIn order that B may believe A, she must first have convinced herself of\nthe following:\u2014\n\n(\u03b1) That she is capable of inspiring an undying passion.\n\n(\u03b2) That she is capable of keeping it alive when once it has been\nkindled.\n\n(\u03b3) That there is nothing at all unlikely or preposterous in her being\nthe object of such a passion.\n\nBut to convince herself of any one of these propositions she must\npossess the most prodigious conceit, the most unbounded impudence.\n\nAnd the same applies to A, to whom B has declared her undying love.\n\nIn addition to contempt, therefore, there is in every love-match in\nwhich the parties propose to adopt a permanent monogamic union as their\ndestiny, a degree of arrogance and self-esteem on either side which is\nwholly and unspeakably distasteful both to the sane psychologist and to\nthe man of balanced mind.\n\nBut let that pass! What does it matter that the psychologist should be\noffended when he hears that A has declared his undying love to B and\nthat B has believed him?\n\nYes, but unfortunately the arrogance that B shows in listening with\npatience and even credulity to such a declaration as A\u2019s, does not end\nmerely in giving offence to the psychologist. It ultimately recoils\nupon herself in the cruellest possible manner; just as A\u2019s arrogant\nacceptance of B\u2019s declaration recoils upon him. When the moment\nof disillusionment and indifference supervenes, as it must in all\nordinary \u201clove\u201d matches, A finds it somewhat difficult to forgive B\nfor having ever dreamt, even in her wildest nightmare, that she could\nkeep their love alive all through their married life, and B finds\nit equally difficult to forgive A for having fancied, even in the\nwildest flights of his imagination, that he could ever provoke a life\npassion. And thus, in addition to the contempt that has already been\nanalysed in the preceding section, there now arises a rankling feeling\nof indignation of each towards the other for ever having been guilty of\nsuch stupendous arrogance.\n\nAnd we must confess that in the majority of cases this indignation is\nwell deserved.\n\nThe only excuse that may be pleaded in mitigation of A\u2019s and B\u2019s lack\nof modesty is that probably no one had ever told them, nor had they\never read, that to accept a declaration of undying love necessitates a\ndegree of self-esteem that is positively indecent.\n\n(E) There are many modern people who will protest that I have not\nconsidered the monogamic marriage on its \u201chigher\u201d or more \u201cspiritual\u201d\naspect as _companionship_, and that unless its possibilities in this\nrespect be viewed fairly and impartially, its general desirability\ncannot possibly be estimated. But before we assume too hastily that\nthis is one of the brighter aspects of the monogamic marriage, let us\nmake quite certain that we are not confronted by yet another of its\ngrave disadvantages.\n\nCompanionship is a matter of the spirit. The pleasure of it might be\nlikened to the refreshment that a parched body obtains from a fresh\ndrink. It is the bliss peculiar to friendship. The friend refreshes one\nby his companionship. Provided we have not spent too many of our years\nwith him, he opens before us a new aspect of things. Provided that we\nhave not frequented him too much, his mind, however simple it may be,\nalways offers us some sentiment or point of view which we have not\nyet thoroughly explored. And this communion with the friend is a joy,\nbecause it is a recreation. It makes the old world seem new again. Even\nfamiliar landscapes, viewed again with a friend whom one has seen at\ndiscreet intervals, acquire a freshness they did not possess before.\nThe very essence of companionship, therefore, if it is to be a joy,\nconsists in the freshness, the novelty, the change that it introduces\ninto our life.\n\nBut where is the freshness, where, therefore, the joy of companionship\nwith some one whose mind one has thoroughly explored, whose every\nword, comment, or exclamation one anticipates five or six seconds\nahead? Where is the exquisite quality of the companion in one whom\none knows as well as oneself, whom one has had endless days, weeks,\nmonths and years to study, to listen to and to understand? The most\ngifted brain can be circumnavigated if it be lived with daily. The\nrichest storehouse of spirituality can hardly hold out against daily\ndepredation.\n\nCompanionship, however, offers something else that is priceless in the\nmortal monotony of our lives. It draws us away from excessive communion\nwith ourselves, from the surfeit of self. Thus the friend comes as a\nwelcome disturber of the interminable meditation that proceeds at all\nhours of the day between a man and himself.\n\nBut the mate who is always with you is so much a part of yourself,\nso intimately known to you, that nothing she can say is sufficiently\narresting to disturb any meditation; and unless she actually overturns\nthe lamp, or accidentally chops one of her fingers off, or falls\ndownstairs, she is hardly noticed.\n\nAnd what is true of the husband here is equally true of the wife. She\ngets to know her husband\u2019s every word, every mood, every gesture by\nheart. To call his presence companionship, or the boon that comes with\nfriendship, would be to cast a slur on all companionship and friendship\nfor ever.\n\nCompanionship between husband and wife is therefore impossible.\nIt is impossible because the very source of the chief quality\nof companionship\u2014refreshment\u2014is cut off at the root by too much\nassociation, too much and too incessant exploration of each other\u2019s\nminds, by the two spouses.\n\n(F) The monogamic marriage is as a rule more satisfying to the female\nthan to the male; but only, as we shall see in the chapter on Divorce,\nif children are born regularly, and the circumstances of their birth\nand their infancy run a normal course. The reason of this is that\nsince the positive healthy woman finds her complete sexual experience\nonly by means of the coitus, _plus_ the period of gestation, _plus_\nparturition, and _plus_ the months of lactation, she finds, as a rule,\nin the course of a married life in which she brings forth children\nregularly and in normal circumstances, all that her body can possibly\nexpect from an adapted sexual life.[56] The act of fertilization,\nwhich, as we have already seen in a former chapter, is only the\nsparking-plug that starts the huge cycle that culminates in the\nweaning, is such a trifling incident in her sexual experience that very\nsoon her husband begins to assume in her eyes the importance which,\nas a matter of fact, he enjoys relative to the huge cycle itself. And\nif she happens no longer to feel that enthusiasm for him which she\nfelt as a fianc\u00e9e, she can endure the disillusionment with equanimity\nand sweetness because she is now aware that, after all said and done,\nhe does not really matter to her nearly as much as she once rather\nfoolishly imagined. Promoting and expediting the drop in a woman\u2019s\naffection for her husband must also be reckoned not only the natural\nsurfeit and indifference that comes with excessive familiarity, but\nalso the presence of the children themselves. For while they act as\na consolation to the woman for the declining affection of the pair,\nthey also operate as a powerful reducer of that affection in herself.\nThe unconscious longing for fertilization that has long been drawing\nher to her husband and forcing her to transfigure his very common and\nordinary personality into something exceptional, naturally abates as\nfast as children are born, because, as an unconscious longing, it gets\ngratified and therefore stifled. And thus children, far from being\nthe alleged bonds uniting couples, may become the most potent wedges\ndriving them asunder. The extraordinary number of loving childless\ncouples in which the woman\u2019s devotion remains unabated may be accounted\nfor in this way.[57] Policy, as a rule, bids her treat him with\nconsideration and the outward signs of devotion as the breadwinner, as\nthe father of her children, and as a person who, since he is destined\nto be her constant companion, it is merely ordinary good sense to\nhumour and to please; but provided that she have children from him at\nregular intervals, she is not much troubled by the pronounced drop in\nher affection and regard for him.\n\nTo the man, on the other hand, to whom, as we have seen, the\nsparking-plug incident constitutes a complete sexual experience, and\nwhose sexual life therefore begins and ends with this spasmodic desire\nfor woman and the brief relation with her to which it leads, this\nfalling off in affection and desire is a matter of very grave concern,\n_because he has no bodily consolation_. He may love his children, he\nmay delight in their company, and he may be wholly interested in his\nhome; but the bearing and nursing of his children constitutes no bodily\nexperience to him; and in life it is the demands of the body that are\nmost important and most importunate when they are not obeyed.\n\nFor his body to enjoy its necessary, satisfactory experience, slight\nand brief as it is, it is essential that some desire, some passion, in\nfact some of the feeling he felt for his wife as a fianc\u00e9e, should\nremain. It is necessary that he should still look upon the act as one\nof passion, desire and power. But as we have seen, the act has been\ndeprived of most of its passion, desire and power by the inevitable\nconsequences of the State monogamic marriage. Its beauties have\nliterally been worn away. It has lost its savour and its strength by\nhaving been systematized, time-tabled, protected, ordered, and above\nall, repeated too often, without that \u201ccertain modicum of variety\u201d\nwhich is the essential element in all life.\n\nGenerally speaking, then, it may be argued with justice that, where\nconditions are normal and children are born regularly, monogamic\nmarriage can be tolerated quite well by women, but not by men. For when\nonce the elements constituting the joy of cohabitation have been robbed\nfrom the man\u2019s share\u2014as in nine hundred and ninety-nine marriages out\nof a thousand they must\u2014the relationship, though still endurable to the\npositive healthy female, to whom the act of fertilization, and _raison\nde plus_ her husband, is of such minor importance, becomes intolerable\nto the healthy positive male; and unless he is prepared to face a life\nin which every week is a long-drawn-out torture to his body, he cannot\nremain faithful to his spouse.\n\nIn its general attitude towards and understanding of monogamic\nmarriage, therefore, this Age, in addition to smuggling the lie of\nhappiness into the contract, also completely distorts the true relation\nto the union of the woman on the one hand, and the man on the other.\nBy a false and entirely gratuitous analogy, it supposes that the man\u2019s\nposition can be and is as tolerable as that of the child-bearing female.\n\nIt is useless to object that thousands of married men to-day remain\nfaithful to their wives, and yet cannot be said to be among those rare\ngeniuses in love for whom alone the monogamic marriage is suitable. In\nthe first place it may be asked, how many of those thousands are really\nhealthy positive men, sexually exuberant and virile? It is simple\nenough to be a Puritan if one is below par. But how many faithful\nhusbands are truly normal, in the sense of their body\u2019s insisting upon\nleading a satisfactory sexual life?\n\n(G) It would be unfair to omit to mention among these objections to\nthe modern monogamic marriage, those that arise more particularly from\nthe woman\u2019s standpoint in a match with a man who is both positive and\nhealthy.\n\nAt the risk of repeating statements already made, the reader must be\nreminded here that when either party to a matrimonial match is negative\nor unhealthy, the union ceases from being one to which mere objections\ncan be raised; it then becomes actually impossible. And by positiveness\nand health in the woman, I mean that condition in which the bearing\nof children is accompanied throughout by an easy pleasure-giving\nfunctioning of the body.\n\nBecause I am not attempting to discuss all the sordid complications\nof the sort of match in which either one or both of the parties are\nunhealthy or negative, it does not follow that I fail to recognize the\nenormous percentage of unhappy marriages, to which such unions lead.\nBut this is not a book on the pathological aspects of sex. I take only\nthe best possible conditions\u2014the mating of a healthy and positive\nwoman with a man of the same stamp, and show the objections that may\nbe raised to their monogamic match. Naturally, if the unfavourable\ncircumstances with which the start is made be increased, the objections\nto the match necessarily increase proportionately.\n\nNow, despite the best initial circumstances, there are objections\nto monogamy from the woman\u2019s standpoint which will be seen to be\nboth serious and insuperable. But these objections, let it be well\nunderstood, only arise in thoroughly modern conditions. I have hinted\nat one of them in a former chapter (see Chapter VI, section 3).\n\n(G1) A woman may marry a man who is wholly positive, healthy, and\ntherefore quite savoury (such men get ever more rare, but they are\nstill to be found). Very early in her married life, however, she\ndiscovers that, through some cause which she of course cannot fathom,\nher husband is a person utterly unfit to make her his wife in the only\nway in which her instincts and senses easily accept the r\u00f4le\u2014that is\nto say, as the yielding partner to an impetuous, masterful, and at the\nsame time skilful initiator. Although he is not negative by nature, he\nhas been brought up negatively. He fears and shuns what he should be\nmost eager to experience. His timidity and awkwardness are infectious.\nHe proves himself not only unmasterly; he convinces her that he is a\nbungler\u2014often a bungler more terrified than she is herself.\n\nA relationship which should have been but a means of raising their\ncourting happiness to ecstasy becomes instead either frigid and\nfrightened post-marital virginity for weeks after marriage,[58] which\nproves disastrous to their love and ruinous to their nerves; or else, a\nconsummation which is so hopelessly clumsy, hurried and nervous, and so\ndistasteful to either party, that it is repeated as seldom as possible,\nand is always followed by the most bewildering disenchantment.\n\nI have previously explained that to the decent girl the act of\nconsummation seems acceptable and right only if purified by fire. She\ndoes not need to be in the least influenced by Puritanical prejudices\nin order to hold this attitude. It is the natural outcome of her\ninstincts, as they have been formed throughout the ages. The bulk of\nthe ancestors in her line, for millions of years, on the female side,\nhaving encountered the proper impetuosity and fire in the male, which\ncarries all before it\u2014that prehensile and initiatory masterfulness that\nbelongs by nature to the male\u2019s share in the act of consummation\u2014this\nis what her racial memory leads her to expect, this alone is what gives\nher that clean joy in sex, that light-hearted innocence in sex, without\nwhich her married life is but a torment.\n\nYet now she finds herself with a creature who far from showing any\nmastery or abandon, actually increases, if you please, her own natural\ntimidity about the whole affair, and even carries it one stage further\nuntil it is brought perilously near to disgust and moral indignation.\n\nBeginnings tell most poignantly, particularly when they consist of\nfirst experiences in fundamental matters. And this kind of beginning,\nif it is not quickly corrected, is almost always fatal. It destroys\nthat trust, that confidence, that humble and willing subservience,\nwhich are at once a young woman\u2019s instinct and her joy. It poisons the\nfirst hours of her maturity, of her self-realization, of her taste of\nlife\u2019s deeper waters; but, above all, it revives in her precisely those\nemotions and prejudices which ought to have been stifled for ever\u2014her\nhigh-school doubts and qualms regarding the general desirability of her\nMaker\u2019s scheme for mammalian fertilization.\n\nShe may forgive this first tragic disenchantment. It is doubtful\nwhether she ever forgets it. And if her husband, as is often the case,\ncontinues inept, clumsy and uneasy about the whole relationship, it\nmatters not even if they have children, that disillusionment which, in\nany case, is bound to come, is unduly expedited, and the union gets\nprematurely blighted. If there are no children\u2014then there is either\nopen revolt or infidelity, or both.\n\nIn this way very many eminently desirable women suffer untold\nhardships through monogamy[59]; and though they are frequently too\nproud and too dignified to reveal to anyone the smallest hint of their\nsuffering, this may be read in a hundred signs about their homes and\ntheir persons. The bitter contempt that many women display towards\ntheir husbands, their tendency to contradict, offend and insult them\nbefore strangers, and their aptitude to appeal to outsiders rather than\nto their husbands for advice and help, are all probably the outcome of\nexperiences that have occurred quite early in their married life, all\nof which were disenchanting, unpleasant, and destructive of confidence.\n\nFor the healthy, positive young man, in this case, all that can be\npleaded is that it is not entirely his fault. In England, as a rule, he\nis bred in an atmosphere so perfectly sex-tight, that no intelligent\nor enlightening word ever reaches him on the subject. On the contrary,\nall is clammy, frightened, guilty silence. On reaching maturity, if he\nbe sensitive, the ordinary means of acquiring practical experience in\nthe matter will probably strike him as too sordid, too commercial, too\ncompletely lifted out of the atmosphere of romance and adventure in\nwhich his mind has always pictured ideal sexual experiences; and the\nconsequence is that frequently he not only practises abstinence for too\nlong, but also develops inhibitions and fantasies which hardly conduce,\nwhen the time comes, to a happy consummation of his first love-match.\n\nAnd yet the world has grown so stupid in regard to all these matters,\nand foolish romantic women\u2019s voices have become so clamorous, that\nthere is an ever-increasing body of idiots who insist on the\ndesirability of men being virgins when they marry!\n\n(G2) Another deep objection, from the standpoint of woman, to the\nmonogamic marriage, arises out of what is known as \u201cmaleness\u201d in women.\nAccording to Weininger this varies in degree with each individual,\nand modern authorities on psychology have more or less confirmed\nWeininger\u2019s view.\n\nFor the reader unacquainted with the present knowledge on this point,\nperhaps it would be as well to state plainly what results have been\nobtained.\n\nIn the first place it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of most\npeople that no one male or female is wholly masculine or feminine.\nThe stage of hermaphroditism through which all human beings are\nsupposed to pass in their early f\u0153tal development, is never apparently\nquite overcome, and the fully developed f\u0153tus, as also the perfectly\ndeveloped child, retains in its constitution vestiges of a sex to which\nits outward and primary sexual characteristics do not belong. These\nvestiges of the other sex which survive are both physical and mental,\nand according to their proportion in the individual body, determine the\ncharacter of their host. Thus a child who is to all outward appearance\na boy may yet possess elements according to which he is actually 25\nor 30 or only 10 per cent female. A female child may likewise possess\nvestiges of the other sex which constitute her 10, 20, 30 or even 40\nper cent male.\n\nAlthough, therefore, all men have a preponderancy of male elements, and\nall women a preponderancy of female elements, each may possess a more\nor less heavy percentage of the elements of the other.\n\nIn extreme cases these elements of the opposite sex cause trouble by\nleading those who possess them to form desires and to lead lives so\nconspicuously out of keeping with their primary sexual characteristics\nas to make them obnoxious to society; but it should be remembered\nthat this degree of morbidity is rare, and that as a general rule\nthe modicum of _maleness in the female and femaleness in the male has\nno such disturbing results if the other elements proper to the sex of\nthe primary reproductive organs in each individual find their normal\nadaptation_.\n\nThus the maleness in the female has a tendency to manifest itself, more\nespecially when her sexuality is not fully developed or not actively\nengaged. Little girls, for instance, are notoriously sadistic\u2014sadism\nbeing a derivative of the male reproductive instinct\u2014as are also many\nspinsters and some old women.\n\nFemaleness in the male, on the other hand, tends to manifest itself\nparticularly in cases where the male reproductive instinct has been\nstifled, or unhinged, or when his spirit has been ruthlessly broken.\n\nNow it may be as well for the reader to know that the attitude of\nthe modern world is to fall down in a state of acquiescence before\nthis important fact of sex, without attempting to inquire whether the\nimportance with which it looms on the horizon of our lives is not\nprecisely due to the attitude of prostrate acceptance with which it is\nmet.\n\nParticularly in England is the phenomenon of mixed elements\nnoticeable\u2014so much so that foreigners call attention to it as something\nexceptional.[60] But it is only noticeable in this marked degree in\nEngland because, like all other manifestations of sex in this country,\nit is ill-adapted. A well-adapted sexual proclivity does not cry aloud\nand call attention to itself in this way.\n\nHumbly as they may acquiesce in it, however, it is customary for people\nin this country to speak disparagingly of the \u201cmale woman,\u201d of her who\nflaunts manly attire, affects a walking-stick, hunts like a man, and is\nalways the last to be drawn away from a drain or other refuge in which\nsome unfortunate fox or other hunted animal has run for safety. I know\nof a case where such a woman constantly waits until long after dark in\norder to catch or kill the fox that has thus hoped to save its life.\n(Unconscious Sadism.)\n\nNow it is all very well to inveigh against the existence of such\nviragos, and to describe as morbid their manifestation of male sexual\ncharacteristics, but, as a matter of fact, there is as a rule nothing\nreally morbid in their constitutions. And in any case, an attitude of\nhumble acquiescence before them, as if they were an imposition from\nProvidence, which must be suffered willy-nilly, is hardly the best way\nof modifying either the disagreeable character of their proclivities or\ntastes, or the evil to which these proclivities and tastes undoubtedly\nlead.\n\nI realize that in making this statement I am at variance with\npractically every authority on the subject; but it is because in no\nauthority on the subject have I found a suggestion of what I am about\nto say, that I venture to trust my own judgment, and provisionally to\nadhere to it until such time as the authority who opposes it makes\nallowances for all I am going to advance in defence of these so-called\n\u201cmale\u201d women.\n\nIn the first place, then, it may be pointed out that it would be absurd\nto complain that a race is breeding women with manly traits in their\ncharacter, if the desideratum of that race is avowedly to breed people\nof highly virile propensities. The mating of highly virile males with\nwomen devoid of all trace of virility would surely only lead to a\ndepreciation of the stock. For the males, by having their seed diluted\nby elements utterly unlike them, could not hope to be the fathers of\nboys in any way worthy of them.\n\nThe rearing of women with strong male characteristics is, in fact,\nalways an advantage to a race that wishes to produce a fine virile\nmanhood;[61] for the dangerous diluent \u201ceffeminine\u201d\u2014to coin a new word\nfor a new notion\u2014is thus reduced to a minimum.\n\nAmong the ancients Celts, Teutons and Slavs, than which few races have\nbeen more virile, women, when necessary, used to fight side by side\nwith their men. It is said of the virile Similkameen Indians, that\n\u201cthe women were nearly as good hunters as the men.\u201d[62] The whole race\nsurvived only by means of hunting. It was therefore an advantage for\nthe females to approximate to the men in their skill. By this means\na double strain of hunting virtues descended to the offspring, thus\nleading to ever greater and greater refinement and specialization of\ninstinct and judgment.\n\nFrom the reading of the biographies of great men also we are in a\nposition to determine to what extent the quality which to-day is\nopprobriously referred to as female \u201cmasculinity\u201d was present in\ntheir mothers. Think of Schopenhauer, Byron, and, above all, of King\nAlfred the Great, to whose mother history declares the monarch owed\neverything! She could hardly have reared so manly a king, had she not\nherself possessed some innate knowledge of manliness and masculine\nvirtue.\n\nThis manliness of women, therefore, far from being a disaster, is\nrather a desirable trait, if a particularly virile race of men is\nrequired. And since the existence of women with pronounced male\ncharacteristics cannot possibly be a novelty in this world, it is\nfar more likely that the outcry against them, which is modern, is\ndue to modern conditions, than that they are truly and intrinsically\nundesirable.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d argue the man and woman of taste, \u201cthe masculine woman in our\nsociety is surely disagreeable!\u201d\n\nI agree. But while I shall now endeavour to explain why she is, or has\nbecome, disagreeable, I should like to repeat that she is by no means\nthe only example of a disagreeable sex-phenomenon in our midst; that\nthere are other phenomena just as obnoxious, and that all take their\nroot not necessarily in abnormality of an incurable kind, but in the\ncondition of ill-adaptation into which sex has fallen in this country\u2014a\ncondition that sex-psychologists do not sufficiently reckon with when\nthey regard as pathological the unfortunate modern female who is either\nsadistic, hostile to man, unnatural in her love and pursuit of women,\nor blatantly and ostentatiously masculine in her tastes, her kit and\nher interests.\n\nThe maleness of women, considered from the standpoint of marriage\u2014which\nis the only standpoint relevant to this chapter[63]\u2014can be deprecated\nonly when it renders impossible, or more than usually difficult, the\ncohesion of that valuable unit in society known as the family.\n\nAs this is not a work on the pathology of sex, I cannot deal with\ncases of genuine physical and mental aberration in which a woman is\nso intensely masculine that motherhood is quite out of the question.\nI can only deal with those cases where male elements are present in\nsufficient quantities in the female to avert serious dilution of virile\nqualities in a stock.\n\nNow in such cases marriage is not only possible, but can be quite\nsuccessful\u2014or at least as successful as any marriage can be from the\nstandpoint of the individual\u2014provided that the female elements in the\nwoman find complete and happy adaptation, and the male elements in her\nare prevented from guiding her conduct and her judgment at the cost of\nthe female elements.\n\nIf the male elements in her are not prevented from guiding her conduct\nand her judgment, the evil result will be twofold: (1) she will develop\nher masculine proclivities at the cost of her female or maternal side;\nand (2) she will come into early and bitter conflict with her husband.\nEither one of these evil results is sufficient to upset the balance of\nthe unit known as the family.\n\nWhat kind of man, then, is likely to be the best mate of the woman with\npronounced masculine elements in her constitution?\n\n_The problem is to make her masculine elements recessive in favour of\nher female elements._ It amounts to this, then\u2014in what circumstances\nis a woman likely to abandon her masculine elements as a weapon in the\nstruggle of life? In what circumstances is she likely to realize their\nuselessness to her?\n\n\u2014Only, it may be said, when she has found them utterly useless; only\nwhen she has learned to despise them. But when does this occur?\u2014It\nalways occurs where the masculine elements belonging to the woman have\nin a sharp conflict, or by gradual experience covering innumerable\nsmall incidents, discovered superior, overwhelmingly superior,\nmasculine elements in the mate. It may never come to a conflict. The\nsuperiority of the male elements in the husband may become impressed\nupon her by repeated lessons, by small daily occurrences, that teach\nher in spite of herself to trust his masculinity more than hers.\nWhen this point is achieved, her masculine elements rapidly become\nrecessive, and thenceforward give no further trouble\u2014nay, they may\ncease to manifest themselves altogether.\n\nFor this end to be attained, however, the male\u2014the husband\u2014must be\na creature of overwhelming masculinity, against whom no masculine\nelements belonging to any female could possibly measure themselves\nwithout the certainty of absolute rout.[64]\n\nIn the same way it might be pointed out that the womanly man finds his\nhappiest and best adaptation with the female\u2014the wife\u2014of overwhelming\nfemininity; for then his female elements finding it impossible to\nmeasure themselves against those of his spouse, quickly become\nrecessive and cease to give any further trouble.\n\nBut what actually happens to-day?\n\nOur great past as a virile race has certainly left us an inheritance of\nthousands of virile women, some of whom excel anything that any other\nEuropean country can produce; but alas! owing to the degeneracy of man,\ncaused by his bad health, his Puritanism, his bemeaning occupations,\nand his absurd obsessions about chivalry, there are not the males to\nhand with whom to mate these women.\n\nWhen one of these women marries nowadays she must perforce unite\nwith a man who is utterly incapable of making her male elements\nrecessive; who, on the contrary, is himself so exiguously endowed with\nmasculinity that his wife not only has every temptation, but also every\nopportunity, to express, assert, and impose her masculine elements upon\nthe family and himself.\n\nBut the continuous expression and assertion of male elements in a\nwoman, and of female elements in a man, at the cost of those elements\nproper to their primary sexual organs, far from leading to happiness,\nresult in nothing but misery both mental and physical, while the\nultimate effect on the nerves is always disastrous.\n\nIf, however, there is nothing in her immediate environment to make her\ndespise her male elements, or to convince her that they can safely lie\nquiescent, a woman\u2019s very self-preservative instinct will not allow her\nto abandon them to the process of recession, and the consequence is\nthat in thousands of marriages at the present day the wives are utterly\nand deeply miserable on this account alone. Masculine men are lacking.\nThe great past of the race has produced generation after generation of\nfine, stout-hearted women with a large percentage of virile elements.\nBut the mates for these remaining memorials of our whilom greatness\nare no more, and thus these unfortunate women either wander the world\nunmated, or if mated, suffer an ill-adaptation that is sometimes even\nmore cruel than spinsterhood itself.\n\nTo point to these wretched, unadapted virile women\u2014whether married\nor unmarried\u2014as the legitimate butts for our scorn or our contempt,\nhowever, is the acme of ignorance and stupidity. It is the degeneration\nof man, the low ebb of his former greatness, that has left them\nstanding high and dry in conspicuous isolation; and if England\u2019s\n\u201ctrousered women\u201d now strike the foreigner as one of the regrettable\nfeatures of our civilization, it is regrettable only in the sense that\nit proves positively that this country once enjoyed a racial greatness\nof which she can no longer boast, and of which these women are the\nbelated reminder.\n\n(H) But the chief and most serious objection to the monogamic marriage,\napart from all the pain that it brings to individuals, male and female,\nconsists in the injury which, particularly at the present day, it does\nto the offspring of each generation. From the standpoint of posterity,\nindeed, the gravity of this charge can hardly be exaggerated.\n\nIt may seem a far cry to speak of the increase of indigestion and of\nbad or defective teeth in connexion with the monogamic marriage, but in\npractice this connexion is not so remote as it would appear.\n\nThe ideal condition for a child that is to be well-constituted and\nflourishing in body and mind, is, in the first place, that its mother\nshould be left in peace during gestation, and certainly that she should\nbe left scrupulously alone during the period of suckling. From the\nstandpoint of the race it is of such supreme importance that a child\nshould be reared on mother\u2019s milk, that everything should be done, no\nstone should be left unturned, to secure if possible the certainty of\nthis condition.\n\nWith regard to cohabitation during gestation it is only fair to\nsay that opinions are sadly divided, some doctors maintaining one\nthing, and others the reverse. If we require a standard, however,\nwe have only to study the lower animals, among which the female is\nnot even accessible during pregnancy. Whereas some doctors will\ndeclare, however, that any cohabitation whatsoever during gestation\nis most pernicious, all are unanimous in pronouncing against _normal_\nindulgence at such times. But apart from everything that changeable and\nuncertain science may periodically proclaim regarding this question,\nit would seem obvious that cohabitation at a time when fertilization\nis impossible cannot in any case have been Nature\u2019s design; and if,\ntherefore, there remain the smallest doubt about the matter\u2014as the\ndivision of opinion among medical men reveals\u2014surely the benefit of the\ndoubt ought, in all humanity, to be given to the expected offspring!\n\nWith regard to cohabitation after the confinement and during the seven\nto nine months of suckling that should follow, there can, however, be\nno doubt whatsoever. This _must_ be bad; for, seeing that it is of\nprimary importance that the child during these months should be able\nto obtain mother\u2019s milk, no risks should be run which can in any way\njeopardize the happy fulfilment of this condition.\n\nAt such times the mother should be left severely alone. She is happy,\nexquisitely happy.[65] Her nervous system is concentrated on the one\nimportant and essential object\u2014that of providing for her infant child.\nAny action or diversion that tends to disturb the attention of the\nnervous system, or to shake this precious concentration upon the mamm\u00e6,\ncannot therefore be too strongly deprecated.\n\nWhat is the alternative? The mamm\u00e6 find the nervous energy of the body\ndivided. The woman\u2019s system is no longer that of a mother alone; it\nhas been recalled to its r\u00f4le as a wife. There may be conception or\nthere may not\u2014at any rate, the frequent occurrence of children only a\nyear or thirteen months older than a brother or sister, shows how often\nconception does take place in such circumstances\u2014and the consequence is\nthat the suckling has to be removed from the breast, in order to become\nthe experimental victim of every kind of abomination in the form of\nsubstitutes for mother\u2019s milk.\n\nTo the ignorance of the young mother concerning artificial foods are\nnow added the ignorance of neighbours, the audacious and criminal lies\nof commercial baby-food manufacturers, and frequently the ineptitude of\nthe local doctor. Against such a conspiracy of error\u2014irrespective of\nthe fact that no substitute, however good, can possibly compensate for\nthe loss of mother\u2019s milk\u2014it is not surprising that the infant\u2019s body\nshould rebel; and the result is a child who cannot by any conceivable\nchance be saved from digestive trouble, whom nothing can cure of\ndigestive trouble, and who, by having alimentary disorders started so\nearly in life, reaches maturity not only with a strong bias in favour\nof gastric and intestinal vices, but also\u2014if indeed his teeth survive\nso long\u2014with every imaginable kind of dental disease, from caries to\npyorrh\u0153a.\n\nFrom mothers congenitally and constitutionally unfit either to have\nbabies or to nurse them, there will surely always come a sufficiently\nvast contribution of unhealthy and undesirable babies to each\ngeneration; but these, at least, no ordinary precaution can save,\nand if their early upbringing only tends to promote a condition of\ndegeneracy already inherent in them, so that they find it difficult to\nsurvive, we can only applaud this confirmation of a thoroughly moribund\ntendency.\n\nBut in the case of healthy, positive women, admirably fitted to fulfil\nall the functions of motherhood efficiently and pleasurably, anything\nthat interferes with this healthy functioning amounts to a national\nand racial calamity, and it is to these I refer when I emphasize the\nimmense danger of cohabitation during the nursing period.\n\nNow the monogamic marriage makes this sort of plague almost a natural\nnecessity, a sort of ineluctable scourge. It is impossible to ask a\nnormal, positive, healthy man to exercise sexual abstinence for sixteen\nor eighteen months\u2014that is to say, the nine months of his wife\u2019s\npregnancy and the seven or nine months of lactation. Only Manicheans,\nPuritans, or people thoroughly below par and quite devoid of virility,\ncould possibly think of recommending such a course. Psycho-analysis\nhas at last shown what all decent and clean-minded people knew about\nprolonged sexual abstinence\u2014that it is both wrongful and harmful. It\ncan only be thought of and practised by people who have either used\nreligious and alcoholic methods of sublimating their passions, or else\nby people who are utterly and conspicuously undesirable; but in the\ncase of the latter it should be remembered that it is not abstinence\nor so-called \u201cself-control,\u201d but semi-impotence. Where it is attempted\nby exuberant, positive young men, who are neither geniuses in art,\nphilosophy or religion, it can only mean disease\u2014possibly physical, but\ncertainly nervous.\n\nThe husband, therefore, in a monogamic marriage consisting of the\nunion of two positive, healthy people, finds himself on the horns of\na dilemma. If he be sound and normal he cannot dream of abstaining for\nthe number of months that would be necessary for his child\u2019s welfare\n(for even if he indulges in cohabitation during gestation, he still has\nto face the seven or nine months of suckling, during which he _must_ at\nall costs leave his wife in peace); and yet society (modern society)\nand convention generally bid him rather ruin his child than practise\neven the most innocuous form of virtual polygamy.\n\nOf course the intelligent, thoughtful and good-natured man in such\ncircumstances turns to some sort of modern substitute for polygamy. But\nthe curse of modern civilization, its great blot and disfigurement,\nlies in the fact that at this stage in his wise resolve, he must\nperforce resort to secrecy, to deception, to concealment, to a\nhole-and-corner liaison, which may and frequently does expose him to\nevery conceivable danger and expense\u2014danger from disease if he be a\nfool and unwary, danger from blackmail if he fall into the hands of\nknaves, danger from ruin if he happen to have lighted upon unscrupulous\nassociates, and danger from a criminal prosecution into the bargain.\n\nBut in any case, however fortunate he may be in forming his liaison,\nhe is certain, if found out, to incur the moral indignation of all\nthe snivelling, worthless, ignorant and \u201crespectable\u201d people of his\ncircle, among whom the loudest in their outcry will be the spinsters\nand the Puritans, of whom not one\u2014_no not one_\u2014can have or ever has had\nthe faintest beginnings of an understanding of any aspect of the sex\nquestion.\n\nThis is how our society is organized. Its whole basis, its whole\nprepossession, is directed stubbornly towards degeneration. Nothing\nthat points, however meekly, the other way, is any longer listened to,\nmuch less observed!\n\nCan it be wondered at, in the circumstances, that the average\nunresourceful and timid man, prefers to remain strictly faithful to\nhis monogamic vows? Can it be wondered at that he prefers to ruin his\nchild\u2019s constitution and temper?\n\nThis is the gravest charge that can be brought from the standpoint of\nthe race against the monogamic marriage, and it embodies the outline of\nan explanation of perhaps half the physical and mental degeneracy of\nmodern times.\n\nIt seems necessary to remind the reader here, that all these strictures\nagainst monogamy only apply to the healthy, normal, positive man and\nwoman. They do not, therefore, apply to half the existing population.\nFor in order that a woman may be thoroughly happy bearing and nursing\nchildren, she must be healthy, well-constituted and positive, and\nin order that a man may find it impossible to practise what the\nmodern Age arrogantly calls \u201cself-control,\u201d he must be positive,\nhealthy and exuberantly virile. To half the modern world this alleged\n\u201cself-control\u201d is merely a euphemistic cover for the ease with which\nthey can forget the weak, barely audible call of their bodies; and to\nan ever-increasing number of modern women there is precious little\nenjoyment associated with any stage in the sexual cycle, whether it be\nactual fertilization, gestation, parturition or lactation.\n\nIn discussing the value of monogamic marriage, therefore, and the\npossible reforms that might be instituted to render it suitable for the\npositive man and woman, it is hoped that none of the remarks I shall\nmake will be thought to apply to the vast crowds to-day who are able\nto find in monogamic marriage a satisfactory, though perhaps tiresome,\nadaptation.\n\nBut, in the first place, it may be objected that, since I find so\nmany serious difficulties in modern monogamic marriage, why do I not\nstraightway recommend its total abolition, and advocate polygamy, or\npromiscuity, or polyandry, or total sexual anarchy?\n\nI might certainly be tempted to advocate frank and open polygamy were\nI not too deeply conscious of the very many serious and far-reaching\nadvantages that the ideal of the family, as at present held in modern\nEurope, enjoys over every other kind of social unit designed to solve\nthe problem of the sexes.\n\nAs I have already stated these advantages, from the standpoint of\nsociety, earlier in the chapter, there is no need to repeat them here.\nNevertheless, before proceeding, it might be as well for the reader\nto glance at them again, so that he may the more easily follow the\nmodifications I am about to recommend.\n\nThe problem before us, therefore, is _how to maintain the monogamic\nmarriage and give it fresh life, while modifying it in such a way as to\nmeet the gravest of the objections that can be advanced against it_.\n\nBut before I proceed it may be as well to utter some words of warning\nto those romanticists and sentimentalists who have doubtless been\noffended by the strictures I have already pronounced against monogamic\nmarriage.\n\nLet me tell them, therefore, that however much they may be persuaded\nof the contrary, it is not I, with my clear and merciless criticism\nof modern marriage, who am the bitterest enemy of that institution,\nbut they themselves, with their wilful concealment of all that I have\nbrought to light.\n\nModern marriage is now on the rocks. If it has drifted into this\nperilous position it is, however, not because the question of its\nadvantages and disadvantages has been properly ventilated and\ndiscussed, and the disadvantages corrected; but because it has been\npersistently and almost maliciously overlaid with false sentiment\nand bogus psychology, by these very romanticists and sentimentalists\nthemselves.\n\nIf, therefore, it is to be saved, as it should be saved, this end\ncan be achieved only by a blank refusal to shut one\u2019s eyes to its\ndrawbacks, so that the latter may be rectified wherever possible; and\nby a full and earnest advocacy of its advantages, however unromantic\nand unsentimental these may appear to feverish modern sensationalists.\n\nBefore proceeding to the review of the specific objections outlined\nabove, the general criticism of modern monogamic marriage with which\nthe chapter opened must first be dealt with.\n\n\n_Method of Meeting General Criticisms._\n\n1. Stress should be removed from the alleged permanence of love and the\nhappiness of the marriage state, as far as possible, and laid on the\nutilitarian aspect of matrimony.\n\n2. The young people should be taught realistically that since some sort\nof physical adaptation in sex is indispensable to the healthy adult,\nmonogamic marriage was designed as a means of meeting that need.\n\n3. Its difficulties should be emphasized, and a happy issue shown to\nbe as difficult an accomplishment as the complexities of the contract\nwould lead them to expect. They should be told that in their search\nfor a mate they should show more concern about minimizing these\ndifficulties than about desiring to have \u201ca good time.\u201d\n\n4. The responsibilities of a family should be understood, and the\nwife regarded in her utilitarian aspect as a keeper of the home, as a\nmother, and as a guardian of the home comforts; marriage itself, as\nthe sacred garden of the future of mankind, in which each party to the\ncontract has the privilege of contributing to that future.\n\n5. Differences of temperament and tradition between mates should be\navoided. Since ill-health forbids our marrying into our own families\n(the ideal match), the young must not forget that in going beyond\ntheir families for a mate in order to contradict certain hereditary\ntaints\u2014such as gout, or consumption, or cancer, or any other\nconstitutional vice\u2014they need not therefore contradict the virtues\nand abilities that their particular family line has cultivated; for\nthis leads to decline, and to the procreation of children who have no\ncharacter and no ability. They should seek, as far as possible, their\nlike in a strange family.[66] The policy of avoiding family taints in\ntoo near relations should not be extended into a policy of seeking\nopposites.\n\n6. If by chance the expected disenchantment does not supervene in a\nform intolerably acute, when marriage has been taught on these lines,\nand the two young people discover that they do not necessarily become\nsurfeited of each other with years, then at least the surprise would\nbe pleasant, and not as it always is to-day, the sudden unpleasant\nrealization of complete disillusionment.\n\n\n_Method of Meeting Specific Objections._[67]\n\n(A1) People should be taught quite early how changeable they are. They\nshould be persuaded of the frangibility of their resolutions, vows, and\npromises, and they should learn how deeply they are wedded to variety\nbefore ever they celebrate their final and most fateful wedding.\n\n(2) They should be taught that it is only the exceptions among mankind\nthat have that genius for love which can endure for a lifetime, and\nthey should be shown the hollowness of the popular assumption that\nevery one is capable of _une grande passion_; therefore, that to\narrange their lives as if they were one of these geniuses in love is\nnot only the grossest form of megalomania, but dangerous into the\nbargain.\n\n(B) The problem here is one belonging to the art of life. Those who can\npractise this art, and contrive to make themselves always the desired\nobject of the spouse, have overcome one of the principal difficulties\nof monogamic marriage. The French are perhaps the most successful\nEuropean people at practising this art\u2014hence the high percentage of\nhappy marriages in France.\n\n(C) If the approval of each party to the match is understood merely to\nmean the recognition by each of the necessity of an adequate physical\nadaptation, and the unconscious desire for this physical adaptation in\neach is discounted from the enthusiasm felt for the other as mate, then\nit will be seen that the residue, which will be a pretty tepid feeling,\nis by no means the outcome of an overvaluation of the individual, and\nthe contempt need not arise.\n\nIn other words, teach the girl to subtract the need and the desire for\nphysical adaptation from her love of the man, and teach the man to do\nthe same in regard to the girl, and what remains will quickly be seen\nto consist only of a strong personal regard, which can hardly lead to\nthe contempt that would otherwise result if the enthusiasm on both\nsides were supposed to arise from the unaided charms of either party to\nthe match.\n\n(D) The remedy here is the same as for (C). If a man realizes that when\na girl protests her undying love for him the bulk of the ardour she\nfeels is provoked merely by him as her physical adaptation\u2014by him _qua_\nmale\u2014and that his individual traits play only a minor part, he will\nbe less likely to believe that he is capable of provoking a life-long\npassion because a girl approved of him as her mate. It is a simple idea\nto grasp. Both the girl and the man should always reflect how much\nnature is helping them towards their success. When the declaration of\nlife-long love came, it could then be estimated at its proper worth,\nwithout either party fancying that any exceptional fascination in\nthemselves had been the principal power at work.\n\n(E) It should be inculcated upon all, young and old alike, that\ncompanionship is not to be sought with people whom, in view of peculiar\ncircumstances, one is bound to see every day and every hour of the day.\n\nThe sooner we free our minds from these foolish notions the better. A\nman and a woman should seek companions of the same sex as themselves,\nand outside their families. Then an hour with the mate\u2014with the lawful\nspouse\u2014may come as a rest, as a respite, as a welcome spell of peace\nwhen we need not say or do anything. But this moment of repose, of\nspeechless serenity, with the sound of someone breathing not three feet\naway, should not be confused with companionship.\n\n(F) As society is organized at present it is difficult to meet\nthis objection. Wherever possible the man should, of course,\nhave a concubine of some sort. Provided that the wife continues\nchild-bearing, at regular intervals, as she should, she cannot weary\nof the relationship as hopelessly as he will. Women should be taught\nto realize that the division of labour is so unfair, that they get so\nmuch more entertainment out of sex than men do, that some compensating\nfeature ought to be introduced into the lives of the latter. The\nimportance of the act of fertilization alone to the man\u2019s reproductive\ninstinct cannot be exaggerated. To woman, its importance is only equal\nto the proportion it bears to the rest of the sexual cycle. To preserve\nhis peace of mind and health of body and nerves, therefore, the man\nmust be in a position to perform his one function with healthy desire.\nThe children he had from his concubine, if any there were, would not\nnecessarily rank in law with the children of his first wife.\n\n(G1) In order to meet this objection it is imperative that we should\ninstitute some sort of tasteful method of initiation into sex for\nyoung men. Let the girls be initiated by their proper and natural\ninitiators\u2014their husbands; anything else is simply modern nonsense; but\nmen should be properly and carefully initiated before marriage, away\nfrom the dangers of commercial prostitution. This school of initiation,\nhowever formed, would also serve, as it did with the Greeks, as a means\nof preventing the evils of total sexual abstinence among the young men\nwho have to wait a long time for marriage.\n\nThe general ideal in modern England is that the eligible young man\nshould be what is called \u201cclean-minded.\u201d It cannot be disputed that\n\u201cclean-mindedness\u201d is a very desirable and very rare quality. But the\nway to set about securing it is the very reverse of that which the\nbulk of modern English people would recommend. They would say, let the\nyoung man practise rigorous sexual abstinence before marriage, let him\ngo in for sport and exercise \u201cself-control.\u201d Only thus can he remain\nclean-minded.\n\nBut the very last means by which a healthy positive young man may\nhope to attain to a clean mind is precisely the means advocated under\nthe general head of sexual abstinence. _The non-indulgence of the\nsex-impulses in the vigorous young male is the means par excellence of\ndestroying clean-mindedness._\n\nSexual abstinence, even when accompanied by energetic exercise and\nindulgence in sports, by chaining in the desires and wishes arising\nfrom the young man\u2019s reproductive instincts, causes them to become\nramping demons. It causes the imagination to become filled with wish\nfantasies, often of a morbid kind. It fills the mind with obsessions,\nalways obscene and frequently revolting, and if not quickly relieved\nmust undermine the whole of a young man\u2019s healthy mental and physical\nattitude towards a normal sexual life. No mind residing in a healthy\nyoung male body, practising sexual abstinence, can remain clean every\nminute of the day, and even in the night it is disturbed by occasional\nbodily protests in the form of dreams.\n\nThe dangers of not being clean-minded, however, are so great and so\nfar-reaching, and the risks run by the healthy total sexual abstainer\nare so enormous, that it is high time that the truth about this matter\nwere more widely understood.\n\nTo clean the mind, the deep wishes of the body, which refuse to be\nflouted, must be satisfied. To forget sex, in fact, the sex instinct\nmust be indulged. Freedom here, as in the case of any other appetite,\ncan only be attained by gratification.\n\nIt is true that permanent sublimation is also a possible alternative.\nBut unless a young man is destined for the Holy Catholic Church, who\nwould wish to sublimate his sex?\n\nIt necessarily follows from this, that clean-mindedness in abstinent\nyoung men, as it is generally understood, is a pure myth, a complete\nmisunderstanding; and that if it is desirable that eligible young men\nshould be clean-minded (and I am of opinion that it is most desirable),\nthen the road thereto does not lie through the dark spook-haunted\nswamps of sexual abstinence, but through the open sunny highways of\nhealthy sex gratification, secured from the dangers of commercial\nprostitution.\n\n(G2) This objection can only be met by the Herculean undertaking of\nrearing a type of manhood richer in masculine traits of mind and\ncharacter, and possessed of more exuberant virility\u2014a type, that is\nto say, by the side of which virile women would immediately feel the\ninadequacy of their male elements and would not be tempted to use them\nas weapons. By this means alone can the male elements in the finest\nwomen be made recessive.\n\nAt present the idea of the \u201cmanly\u201d man is foolishly limited to one who\nloves sports of all kinds, who believes in open-air life, and who,\nwhile having a sense of humour, also wears about him an air of breezy\nmodesty. By this modesty is meant a disinclination to make any special\nclaims for himself.\n\nBut all women quickly discover the ease with which they become mistress\nof the fate of such a man, and it is curious that, in spite of the\nthousands of cases of such subjection on the part of this type of man\nin English marriages, he still continues to pass as the \u201cmanly\u201d man.\n\nThe man of will, the man of character, the man who wishes to administer\nhis own life and the lives of those dependent upon him, because he is\nconscious of being fit for the responsibility, and repeatedly proves\nthis fitness,[68] is being born in ever smaller numbers every year.\n\nIt is the system of education in England that is at fault. It produces\na womanly will-less creature, with heavier muscles than the average\nwoman, but with less grit and less bite in him, with less pride and\nless jealous love of responsible action and mastery than the average\ngirl has who is his partner at golf.\n\nIf this seems like calumny or exaggeration, let the reader watch the\ncareer of any one of these alleged \u201cmanly\u201d men of England, from his\nschool years to his tenth or eleventh year of marriage, and if in\n_every case_ they do not behold a creature who has long abandoned all\nself-direction, not to speak of direction of dependents, I invite him\nto close this book at this point as the most unspeakable nonsense.\n\nWith such a man, woman\u2019s male elements cannot possibly be made\nrecessive. But it should not be imagined that she is any happier on\nthat account. On the contrary, both wisdom and compassion would seem to\nunite in advocating the return in ever larger numbers of exuberantly\nvirile men, if only for the sake of securing happier and fuller lives\nto the bulk of modern women.\n\n(H) Regarding, as I do, this objection as so serious as to constitute\nthe chief and most fundamental objection to monogamic marriage, I can\nsee no possibility of making the institution sound unless something\nbe done to meet it. We cannot hope that things will right themselves\nwith an evil like this at the root of our national life. Suppressing\nthe sale of commercial products fraudulently declared to be equal\nto mother\u2019s milk is not enough. Self-control is the counsel for\nwax-figures. To be offended by a frankly polygamic solution and yet\nto feel that no stigma attaches to women unable to suckle their\nbabies,[69] and to be conscious of no indignation at the horrors of\nthe present state of monogamy with prostitution, is wanton and brutal\nhypocrisy. Those who are guilty of this hypocrisy have wished to run\nthe world too long.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have now examined the monogamic marriage of the positive man and the\npositive woman in all its more important aspects. Wisdom would seem,\nat all costs, to advocate the salvage of monogamic marriage from the\nwreckage of modern society. But before marriage can be saved and handed\non as a valuable institution to the New Age, it must be reformed and\nestablished on a sounder basis. To continue along our present lines,\nwithout correcting our attitude towards marriage and some of the most\nrigorous customs that govern it, is simply to steer our course headlong\nback into sexual promiscuity, anarchy and chaos. No reform of modern\nmarriage, or of the ideas that cluster about it, can possibly achieve\nany good, however, which does not satisfactorily meet every one of\nthe objections I have advanced against it. To proceed, as we are now\nproceeding, by making the dissolution of marriage easier, is only one\nstep farther in the direction of barbaric promiscuity. No readjustment\ncan avail that does not go to the root of the problems involved; and\nalthough it may certainly be legitimate to inquire whether, at this\nlate hour in our torrential degeneration, it is worth while making any\nreforms in anything, it does not alter the fact that if marriage is\nto be saved, all the objections to it that have been raised in this\nchapter will require to be fairly and seriously faced.\n\nSince, however, the sex question is so fundamental as to be almost of\nprimary importance; since the building of the social unit, the ideal\nfamily, constitutes the first elementary task in all sound social\norganization, it is not impossible, fantastic though it may seem, that\nwise and thorough reform in this department of life may alone prove the\nbest means of rescuing Western Civilization itself.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[50] When I use the word \u201cunnatural\u201d here, I should like it to\nbe understood as meaning \u201cunnatural to human beings,\u201d for, as we\nknow, \u201cnearly all rapacious animals, even the stupid vultures, are\nmonogamous,\u201d certain monkeys are so too; but no anthropologist would\nargue that _monogamic marriage_ was natural to man.\n\n[51] The proportion of those who do not wait, to those who do, may be\njudged to some extent from the following figures:\u2014\n\n\nLegitimate and illegitimate births in England and Wales during the nine\nyears 1911-19.\n\n                 Legitimate.    Illegitimate.\n  1911.            843,505            37,633\n  1912.            835,209            37,528\n  1913.            843,981            37,909\n  1914.            841,767            37,329\n  1915.            778,369            36,245\n  1916.            747,381            37,689\n  1917.            631,189            37,157\n  1918.            621,209            41,452\n  1919.            650,562            41,876\n\n\n[52] See Ch. Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage_ (London, 1891):\n\u201cChristianity, which taught that the earthly country was of no account,\nand taxed with impurity all that related to sexual union, made marriage\na sacrament, and consequently an institution quite apart from humble\nconsiderations of social utility.... We shall see how hurtful the\ninfluence of Christianity has been on marriage, and we shall come to\nthe conclusion that in order to manage earthly affairs well, it is not\ngood to keep our looks constantly raised to the skies\u201d (pp. 205-6). See\nalso p. 245: \u201cAbandoning the modest reality, it [Christianity] lost\nanchor from the first and was drowned in a sea of dreams. Marriage,\ninstead of being simply the union of a man and woman in order to\nproduce children, became mystic.\u201d\n\n[53] As we shall point out later, these romantic obsessions in regard\nto matrimony are chiefly Woman\u2019s work.\n\n[54] See the interesting treatise entitled _The Grammar of Life_ by my\nfriend Dr. G. T. Wrench (Heinemann, 1908), p. 218.\n\n[55] That is why the world\u2019s greatest love stories\u2014those of Dante and\nBeatrice, Romeo and Juliet, and Heathcliff and the elder Catherine\n(in _Wuthering Heights_)\u2014are all stories of a love that _was never\nconsummated_. In poetry and fiction, as in life, it is felt that for\na great love romance to remain at its lofty level of passion and\ndesire, the couple enacting it must never have an opportunity of living\ntogether as man and wife.\n\n[56] Naturally these remarks do not apply to the large and\never-increasing number of women nowadays to whom every stage in the\nprocess of child-bearing, from the preliminaries to the weaning, is\na torment and a source of disgust. But such women are too abnormal,\nwhatsoever their numbers may be, and too sick and below par to be\ncalled positive healthy women, or to be reckoned with in any discussion\nregarding what is characteristic of happy and successful functioning.\nThey are the kind of women who can truly regard matrimony and maternity\nas states of self-sacrifice.\n\n[57] Of course this can only happen where the woman is inclined to\npronounced negativeness, otherwise the longing for children drives her\naway from a husband who cannot or does not give them to her.\n\n[58] The writer has known one case in which it lasted for years.\nSometimes, in extreme cases, where the girl is too decent to be\nsacrificed for a lifetime, there is a nullity suit, and the man\nproduces doctors who declare that he is perfectly normal. Of course\nhe is perfectly normal! What is wrong about him is the whole of his\nupbringing and the effects of absurdly Puritanical notions about sex,\nacting upon a peculiarly sensitive nature. For such men are usually\nextremely desirable and acutely sensitive. They cannot, however,\novercome the ridiculous prejudices that prevailed regarding sex in the\natmosphere in which they have been reared.\n\n[59] It should be noted that this does not apply to working-class\nwomen. The men of the working classes may be coarser and more brutal\nthan the men of the wealthier classes, but they are also very much more\nnormal, easy, natural, and gifted in the matter of sex, and from this\npoint of view generally make excellent husbands. They may sometimes\nstrike their wives, but they also know how to love them. The nullity\nsuits and the bad lovers are to be found in the so-called \u201cupper\u201d\nclasses.\n\n[60] August Strindberg, in a letter written in the autumn of 1888,\nrefers to England as \u201ca nation of bigots that has delivered itself\nup into the hands of its women,\u201d and later on speaks of \u201cEngland\u2019s\ntrousered women.\u201d\n\n[61] I mean here, by \u201cmale characteristics,\u201d only such traits as can\nbe safely emulated and acquired by the female without the sacrifice\nor impairment of her reproductive functions, or of the instincts and\nvirtues that derive from them (see chapter X).\n\n[62] See _Journal Anthropological Institute_, Feb., 1892, p. 307. See\nalso Bancroft, quoting Heame (_Native Races_), Vol. I, p. 117, where\na North American Indian Chief of some nomadic tribe, speaking of the\nwomen said: \u201cThere is no such thing as travelling any considerable\ndistance in this country without their assistance.\u201d Evidently here too\nit was an advantage to the race for the women to be as nearly masculine\nin their characters as possible. Australian women, like Cuban women,\nused to fight beside their men and were very formidable. The former,\nwhen on the march, are said to have hardly troubled to halt for so\nslight a performance as child-birth. The newly-born infant was wrapped\nin skins, and the mother marched on with the rest.\n\n[63] I shall deal with other standpoints in the chapter on the Old Maid.\n\n[64] This solution of the problem of the manly woman, who is not\nundesirable, will thus be seen to be the very reverse, the flat\ncontradiction, of that advanced by the decadent Weininger. He argues\nthat the male woman does and ought to marry the female man, and the\nmodern, decadent world, more or less agrees with him. But this means\nan accentuation of her maleness, a triumph of her maleness, at the\ncost of her femaleness\u2014obviously an undesirable result, both from\nthe standpoint of the race and the family, the only two standpoints\nfrom which the monogamic marriage has any meaning or can find any\njustification.\n\n[65] I remind the reader that I refer here to the healthy, positive\nwoman, all of whose bodily functions are a joy to her.\n\n[66] See my more detailed discussion of this question in chapter VII of\nmy _Defence of Aristocracy_.\n\n[67] The letters correspond to those heading each objection in the body\nof the chapter.\n\n[68] Such a man can be, and usually is, just as fond of open-air\nexercise and sports as the merely \u201cmanly\u201d man.\n\n[69] The fact that at present no stigma attaches to loss of function or\nfailure to function in the human body, is one of the most conclusive\nproofs of the degeneration in taste and instinct that Christianity\nhas brought about. It is interesting, however, to be told by a woman\nemphatically that \u201cthe incapacity of a mother to nourish the babe she\nhas borne should be known for a mark of degeneracy\u2014sign, too, that she\nwas unfitted to have borne a child\u201d (see Arabella Kenealy, Op. cit., p.\n214).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nBreaches of the Marriage Contract and Divorce\n\n\n(1) ANALYSIS OF THE MARRIED LIFE OF POSITIVE PEOPLE\n\nIn the chapter on Marriage we saw that the married state is a difficult\none for both parties, but that monogamy is more tolerable to the woman\nthan to the man, provided always that children are born regularly. It\nwas there seen that woman must not be falsely likened to man in the\nclaims she makes on monogamy for a perfect sexual life. The coitus is\nrelatively so unimportant to her, that the man himself, her husband,\nholds only a secondary or tertiary place in her life. That which\nchiefly matters to the healthy positive woman is that, at stated\nintervals, her body should be allowed to experience the whole female\ncycle of sex, from the coitus to the weaning of the child.\n\nIndeed, woman\u2019s unconscious demand for the experience of this whole\ncycle is so persistent and clamorous that they may be excused who, like\nSchopenhauer, perceive in it the importunate voice of the Will of the\nSpecies (_Wille der Gattung_) resolutely demanding Life, and ever more\nand more guarantees of its survival.[70]\n\nIt is owing to the secondary, tertiary, or, at any rate, minor position\nof importance that her husband occupies in the life of a woman who\nis bearing him children at regular intervals, that his individual\ncharacteristics do not really require to be very striking in order to\nprove satisfactory to her. It is for this reason that he must be a\nbrute indeed, or a drunken sot, or a maniac, if he is to provoke her\nactive hatred while child-bearing continues. Finding, as she does, her\nprincipal pleasure in the experiences of motherhood\u2014provided that he\nbehaves with average decency and earns a comfortable living\u2014she asks\nbut little more.[71]\n\nShort of impossible conduct on his part, therefore, it may be taken for\ngranted that it never occurs to the positive healthy married woman, who\nbears children at regular intervals, to make any effort to seek another\nlove affair, and even if the opportunity for such a love affair should\ncome her way, and be set before her with all the persuasiveness that\ndeep desire in the other party can lend it, she will, as a rule, resist\nit and let it pass by without very much of a struggle. She is finding\nthe consummation of her being in the life she is leading, and let her\nhusband be ever so besotted, ignorant, boring and uncompanionable, it\nwill never occur to her to go in search of another love.\n\nThis conclusion is, I think, borne out by the statistics of divorce\nin England and Wales, where separations between people who do not\nattempt to limit the family, is extremely rare. It is usually said\nwith reference to such cases that it is the children who \u201cstrengthen\nthe union.\u201d This is the popular and even the learned opinion.[72]\nThe prevalence of this opinion, and the high authority behind it,\nhowever, should not lead us to misunderstand the true nature of the\nactual forces at work. It is to some extent true that the presence\nof children does induce parents, who might be tempted to separate,\nto think twice about it. The father pauses before he decides to\ndeprive his offspring of their mother, and _vice vers\u00e2_. But these\nwholly impersonal considerations binding a couple together are as\nnothing compared with the vital forces that are actually at work. The\nimpersonal considerations may weigh, but only if supported by the far\nmore potent promptings of healthy and normal conditions. Nor should\nit be concluded too hastily from the low figures of divorce among\npeople who have large families, that the presence of children operates\nin causing the parents to feel a deeper \u201clove\u201d for each other. It is\npossible for a fruitful couple to be almost entirely indifferent to\neach other, as many thousands are, and yet to remain together, partly\nbecause of the impersonal considerations already referred to, partly\nfrom pure conservatism, and also from fear of publicity, or scandal, or\na feeling of shyness, or a certain cynicism which leads them to prefer\nthe devil they know before the devil they know not.\n\nWe must not allow ourselves to be blinded by sentimental tears,\ntherefore, to the extent of supposing that offspring invariably\nincrease conjugal affection. A long observation of our fellow-creatures\nconvinces us, on the contrary, that the presence of children operates\nin precisely the opposite direction, and that if we are going in search\nof \u201cromantic\u201d love, lasting long after the first years of marriage,\nwe are much more likely to find it among infertile than among fertile\ncouples. Children, far from cementing the affection existing between\ntheir parents, are rather inclined to supply its most potent and\ninfallible corrosive.\n\nThe alacrity with which a young mother becomes absorbed in her young\nones, the lightning speed with which all her activities, mental\nand physical, concentrate upon her brood, their wants and their\ndevelopment, is hardly calculated to effect that \u201ccementing\u201d which is\nbelieved to take place in marital relations from the moment children\nbegin to appear.\n\nVery soon after the birth of the first children there occurs in all\ndecent positive women a certain definition of the maternal side of\ntheir nature, which tends to convert them ever more and more into the\nnun, miser, or prophet type\u2014that is to say, self-centred, impatient\nof distracting forces, and fanatical. They listen to matters foreign\nto the nursery and their children, as if they had been wakened out of\na dream or roused from some thrilling meditation. A certain vagueness\ncomes over them in regard to all matters not strictly domestic, which,\nwhile it may please the wise and understanding husband, as furnishing\na conclusive proof of their perfect femininity, nevertheless can\nhardly fail to inform him that his rank in the household has suffered\nnoticeable degradation.[73]\n\nWhen he speaks concerning topics which interest him, he is no longer\nlistened to with the same attention\u2014not to mention eagerness. Indeed,\nhe soon finds that strangers outside his home are very much more\ninclined to vouchsafe him an attentive hearing than the spouse of\nhis heart, and more ready to give serious consideration to his more\nthoughtful expressions of opinion. Now, it requires all the philosophy\nand understanding in the world\u2014particularly to the man who may cherish\ncertain ideals about marriage as companionship\u2014to accept this secondary\nposition in the home of his own creating, without a feeling of\nresentment or mortification. How, then, can the full realization of the\nposition be said to \u201ccement\u201d or \u201cstrengthen\u201d the affection between the\ncouple?\n\nIt is true that the normal father acquires a deep fondness for his\nchildren, and that this attaches him to the home in which he has\nsuffered his degradation of rank.[74] It is also true that, as the\nchildren grow older and realize him as their father, he may enjoy a\nfresh access of the very importance of which their arrival deprived\nhim. But, while all these facts are readily admitted, they can hardly\nbe used to prove that the presence of children \u201cstrengthens\u201d the union\nbetween the parents as lovers. _That_ has been shaken once and for all\nbeyond any hope of recovery. Economic reasons, the attitude of each\nparent to the children, reasons of policy, etc., may now attach each\nparent individually to the home; but that does not mean that the other\nparent is the lasting attracting force.\n\nLater on, when the children grow old enough to discriminate or to draw\ncomparisons, and the original dependence, which makes filial affection\nso fanatical, is beginning to wane, certain members of the growing\nbrood may, and frequently do, exhibit preferences for one parent or the\nother\u2014preferences which nine times out of ten are reciprocated. The\nmore passionate the attachment between the parents and the children has\nbeen in infancy and childhood, the more likely is this to occur. But\ndistinctions of this sort drawn by children in favour of one parent\nonly tend to increase the cleavage already existing; and wherever in\nsuch circumstances an occasion for any divergence of opinion happens\nto arise between the parents and sides are taken, as they must be\ntaken where preferences have already been mutually proclaimed, the\ndeclaration of allegiance by becoming overt amounts to little less than\na frankly acknowledged feud with the other side.\n\nQuite apart, however, from the possibility of particular children\nappealing more to one parent than the other, and the cleavage which\nsuch factions confirm or start in the home, children and their\nmultifarious wants are, in themselves, an inexhaustible source\nof contention. Their particular foibles, their wilfulness, their\neducation, are matters which, while they are constantly to the fore\namong the problems of the home, as constantly give rise to friction,\nor, to say the least, to differences of opinion between their parents.\nWhen once, therefore, one of the parents\u2014the father\u2014has naturally\nand inevitably suffered so marked a degradation in rank that his\nword, his opinion, his judgment, is no longer attended to with the\nrespect and eagerness which he encountered in his wife in their early\nchildless days, it is not surprising that discussions or arguments,\nfrom being merely amicable exchanges of opinion, should degenerate into\nacrimonious and heated quarrels\u2014the husband resenting every minute\nmore and more the cavalier manner in which his views are rejected as\nworthless by the \u201cspouse of his heart,\u201d the wife resenting every moment\nmore and more the presumption with which the mere _means to an end_,\nthis _sparking-plug_ and _breadwinner_, is daring to assume supreme\nauthority over _her_ brood, _her_ babes, the fruit of _her_ womb.\n\nNow, in view of all this, can it any longer be maintained that this\nelement in the home\u2014the children\u2014actually contributes to the affection\nbetween the parents? In the happiest cases the ardent love of the\nfather for one child, and the ardent love of the mother for another,\nmay attach each parent individually to the common hearth; but to argue\nas the two judges, above quoted, argued before the Divorce Commission\nof 1912,[75] that this proves that children \u201cstrengthen the union,\u201d or\n\u201ckeep it together,\u201d without explaining more narrowly how they effect\nthis end, is to deliver the whole question over into the hands of the\nromanticists and sentimentalists, who will not scruple to arrive at\nthe foolish conclusion that children perforce increase the affection\nexisting between parents.\n\nI have stated the extreme case in order to make the nature of the\ncleavage, in so far as it arises from the presence of the children, as\nplain as possible. In all families it does not become acute, because\nthere is too much at stake; and much is therefore suffered in silence,\nswallowed down or repressed, for the sake of the home. The only point\nit is necessary to make clear is, that when it is also argued here\nthat the presence of children in the home does contribute to a very\ngreat extent to the stability of that home, something very different is\nmeant from what sentimentalists and other muddlers are likely to infer.\nI most emphatically do not mean that the presence of the children\nincreases the mutual love of the parents\u2014nay, I would go farther and\nsay that it leads to exactly the opposite result.\n\nWhat, then, is the precise influence of children?\n\nMy reply is, that in all homes where the wife is a positive, healthy\nand desirable woman, the repeated birth of a child at regular intervals\nthoroughly adapts the woman by giving her a full physiological and\nspiritual life, and thus reconciles the principal member of the\nhousehold (as far as stability is concerned) to the monogamic state and\nto the home.\n\nShe can afford to control her temper when she is enjoying the\nperfect serenity of mind and body that complete adaptation brings.\nShe can afford to pretend devotion, for economic and other reasons,\nto a creature who has long ceased from holding even that space in\nher heart, which is occupied by her first baby\u2019s smallest toe. She\ncan afford to put up with years, not to mention hours, of a boring\ncompanion, seeing that he secures her this perfect serenity, and, by\nhis daily labours, guarantees her own and her precious children\u2019s\nsurvival. If she is clever, she realizes how much is at stake, and she\nmakes allowances for his peculiarities. If she is shrewd enough to\nappreciate the true nature of her happiness, she does her utmost, in\norder that her bliss may be uninterrupted, to delude him into thinking\nthat he is _not_ merely the fifth wheel of the family coach. And\nwhile all the world points the moral that it is the children who have\n\u201ccemented\u201d the affection between herself and her husband, she knows\nperfectly well that this affection has long ago been transmuted into a\ncurious compound of which the principal ingredients are: a desire to\nplay a safe game, a deep attachment to her children impelling her to\nsecure by fair means or foul someone who will supply them with all they\nneed, and a patient toleration of a creature whom she does her best to\nregard as something more precious than a necessary evil.\n\nThe fact that this curious compound appears to the outside world in the\nfalse light of connubial affection does not disturb her, because, as a\nrule, she is constitutionally and congenitally predisposed herself to a\nromantic interpretation of phenomena, and eagerly seizes the tinselly\ncloak the world gives her, in order to conceal the sordid truth.\n\nIn such circumstances the union might last for ever. The only event\nthat can bring it to an end is the demise of one of the parties to it.\n\nThe husband, actuated by habit, timidity, a sense of duty and\npropriety, attached to his home by his deep affection for one or more\nof his many children, and deluded both by the voice of the world and\nby the repeated asseverations of his wife into believing that there is\na deep affection uniting them, endeavours to act up to the part, and\nas a rule succeeds extraordinarily well. But is that all? There must,\nof course, be something else. Just as the woman is induced to accept\nthe situation, because it provides her with the only prize that is\nreally worth securing in life\u2014complete physical adaptation[76]\u2014so the\nman must also be deriving some deeper satisfaction from the position\nthan the mere pleasure of conforming to a social ideal. It is otherwise\ninconceivable that he should persist in \u201cplaying up\u201d to his spouse with\nthe histrionic zeal of a paid actor.\n\nTruth to tell, the father of a large family is attracted to the\nposition he holds by very deep and very powerful appeals to his most\nprimitive instincts. But again, it requires emphasizing that these deep\nand powerful appeals are as a rule quite independent of his attitude\ntowards his wife, and provided that she do not actively conspire to\ndisplease or to harass him, they will continue to bind him to his home\nlong after all genuine affection for her has entirely subsided.\n\nThese appeals are: The sense of power he derives from the visible\nextension of his own identity in his offspring, and: The silent tribute\nthat the presence of offspring makes daily and hourly to the deepest\nsource of his self-esteem\u2014virile potency.[77]\n\nBoth of these appeals act secretly, and chiefly through the least\nconscious functions of his mind, so that he may never be perfectly\naware of them. Nevertheless, they give rise to a constant feeling of\nself-assurance and self-confidence which is pleasant and fortifying,\nand which, being interpreted roughly by the conscious mind, appears to\nhis intelligent perception in the form of a very profound attachment\nto his home and family. This pleasant feeling, like the complete\nphysical adaptation of his wife, also fills him with a certain calmness\nand serenity which enable him to suffer kindly any exasperating\npeculiarity in his spouse, to endure with patience her ill-concealed\nindifference to him as being little more important than a sparking-plug\nor breadwinner, and to meet in a conciliating spirit any opposition\nwith which she may encounter his plans for their children, or for any\nother feature of their joint lives. It should not be forgotten either\nthat this feeling helps him to resign himself also to the conscious\ndepreciation in his own affection towards her.\n\nThe world speaks of him as \u201cunselfish,\u201d \u201cdevoted,\u201d \u201cself-sacrificing,\u201d\n\u201cgood-natured,\u201d etc., and his children are reared, sometimes by their\nmother, but always by strangers, in the belief that he is entitled to\nall these epithets, because there are so many men who have not acted\nas he has. He himself, however, accepts these epithets with a mild\npretence of modest deprecation, for in his heart of hearts he realizes\nthat somehow they ring strangely by the side of his intimate knowledge\nof the deep satisfaction he has derived from the whole business.\n\nNow statistics and legal authorities tell us that this kind of marriage\nis the best, the most lasting, and the happiest kind of marriage. The\njudges say that it is because \u201cchildren strengthen the union\u201d or \u201ckeep\nthe home together.\u201d We have seen in what way a growing family effects\nthis end. We have seen that it has very little to do with the attitude\nof the parents towards each other. Now we have to discover how it is\nthat, according to statistics, divorces are more frequent where there\nare only one, two, or three children, and where child-birth may be said\nto have stopped.\n\n\n(2) UNHAPPINESS IN THE HOME OF THE POSITIVE COUPLE\n\nIn another chapter the positive woman has been called \u201cthe custodian of\nLife\u201d; we have already seen that Schopenhauer has graphically described\nher unconscious insistence on experiencing the whole physical cycle\nfrom the coitus to the weaning of the child as the Will of the Species\n(_Wille der Gattung_) demanding more Life and thus achieving human\nsurvival. We have also spoken of the voice of nature in her, clamouring\nnot only for Life, but also for Life\u2019s multiplication.\n\nThese are only different more or less successful attempts at describing\nthat instinct which in the positive woman is paramount\u2014the instinct\nto employ her elaborate reproductive equipment effectively. The fact\nthat when this equipment remains idle the existence of the species\nis imperilled, evidently led Schopenhauer to discern the unconscious\nwill of the species in the positive woman\u2019s restlessness in awaiting\nfertilization. But we should always be careful in using these\ndescriptions of woman, to remember that in her the end, which is the\nmultiplication of life, is quite unrealized by her conscious mind.\nShe acts in a way that brings about the multiplication of life; her\ninstincts impel her to achieve that end; but she is not intelligently\nconcerned with anything so remote as the will of the species or its\npreservation.[78] She is much more concerned with her own personal\nwishes, her own personal notion of pleasure, and her own sensations.\nWhen once these are gratified, the fact that the demands of the species\nare also satisfied is, as far as woman is concerned, merely a happy\ncoincidence, in which she can have but an academic interest.\n\nNevertheless, in judging of her conduct, and in drawing moral\nconclusions from it, we must be careful to allow her the full benefit\nof the view that, in acting as she does, she is securing the survival\nof the species in ultimate fact. More than nine-tenths of the abuse\nto which women have been subjected throughout the ages has been due\nprecisely to man\u2019s omission to allow her the full benefit of this view.\nThe gratification of woman\u2019s passions serves her own end, inasmuch as\nit affords her pleasure\u2014Yes!\u2014but it also serves the purpose of the\nrace. That is the fundamental fact to remember.\n\nIn another chapter I have described how Life itself is woman\u2019s hardest\ntaskmaster, and that her first impulse in all circumstances is to be\nfaithful to this taskmaster, even at the cost of infidelity to human\npledges.\n\n(_a_) _Adultery of the positive spouse through absence of the mate._\n\nLong absences of husbands, therefore, during wars, transoceanic\nvoyages, explorations, etc., should always be viewed in the light of a\nrebuff to woman\u2019s hardest taskmaster. The prolonged absence of the male\nimposes idleness on the female\u2019s reproductive organs, and, since the\nbest women are primarily faithful to Life itself, and only secondarily\nso to their mates, it must follow that in all cases in which husbands\nare absent for long periods, that the call of Life in positive women\nbecomes too imperious to be ignored\u2014hence the thousands of wives who\nwere unfaithful to their husbands during the last war, both in England\nand on the Continent.[79]\n\nIgnorant, pious people, and even experienced Divorce-Court judges\nexpressed their horror at the thought that while their men were nobly\nrisking their lives in defence of \u201cKing and Country,\u201d these women in\ntheir thousands calmly sought fertilization elsewhere. But a woman\u2019s\ncharacter as a woman would be almost forfeited if she did not act in\nthis way![80] Where else would you have her transfer her allegiance?\nWould you invite her to break the whole valuable tradition of her sex\nwhich has been consistently devoted to the multiplication of life, in\norder to show allegiance\u2014say to an oath, or to an ideal, or to a moral\nprecept? But even Schopenhauer himself, with all his detestation of\nwomen, would defend them here, and say, \u201cSurely the species is more\nimportant than your trumpery moral codes, your ephemeral oaths, and\nyour pretentious ideals!\u201d\n\nThe English world is almost comic in the light of its most cherished\nillusions. It does not base its outlook upon the unalterable laws of\nlife, consequently it is constantly receiving the rudest shocks and the\nmost unpleasant surprises. The fact that so many thousands of women in\nEngland and Wales were unfaithful to their husbands during the war came\nas a shock to the dear Puritanical and ignorant old ladies, chiefly\nunmarried, that rule public opinion in England.\n\nHad they ever dreamt, or had they ever been told, that the best women,\nthe most desirable women, must be unfaithful to their husbands when,\nthrough what cause soever, the latter are forcing them to be unfaithful\nto Life itself, they might have shown less righteous indignation and\nmore understanding when the women of the country in their legions\nturned adulteresses in war-time.\n\nAs it was, the phenomenon was quite unexpected, and proved a most\nterrible blow to the national conscience. For it was realized only\ntoo shrewdly that if thousands of these women were ultimately found\nout, many more thousands must have escaped the discovery; and thus\nthe character of the nation seemed to have suffered very severe\ndeterioration.\n\nTruth to tell, the parties to blame were not the women at all, but the\nhopelessly vain men who were the co-respondents in the actions, and who\nunderstood so little of female psychology that they interpreted these\nadulteresses\u2019 fidelity to Life and its multiplication, as a preference,\nif you please, for themselves before their legal spouses. Not knowing\nof the positive woman\u2019s inveterate fidelity to Life, they arrogantly\nimagined that their personal and irresistible attractions were the\ncause of these adulteresses\u2019 infidelity to their husbands.\n\nThey\u2014these men\u2014were the people against whom the world ought to have\ninveighed; for the man who is capable of so misunderstanding the human\nfemale as to flatter himself that it is his personal attractions that\nare seducing her, when all the time it is the Will of the Species,\nneglected by her absent husband, that is impelling her to go in search\nof fertilization elsewhere, is not worth the rope with which he ought\nto be hanged.\n\nThe mistake, as a mistake, is all the more monstrous, seeing that it is\nthe outcome of maniacal vanity. For no man who was not too much elated\nby a woman\u2019s attention to retain calm reflection, could ever be such a\nfool as to imagine that his triumph over her husband was due to his own\npersonal charm.\n\nThere is no need, however, to labour the question any longer, if once\nthe true nature of woman be properly grasped; for then it is seen\nimmediately that, in the best and most vital women, fidelity to Life\nmust take precedence of fidelity to the mate, to a pledge, to an oath,\nto a vow, to a custom, or to anything else.[81]\n\nWould the reader perhaps have it otherwise? Would he have a race of\nwomen reared (we are unfortunately not so very far from the attainment\nof this ideal to-day) to whom the claims of Life are secondary\u2014women,\nthat is to say, who are so constituted that they could hesitate between\nLife\u2019s call and some trumpery human convention? Would he have women so\nconstituted that their self-preservative instinct is more powerful than\ntheir reproductive? Because that is what it amounts to. A woman who,\nwhen confronted by Life\u2019s call, can calmly discriminate between that\nand her own safety, her own future, her own smug ease, and can proceed\nto select the latter in preference to the former, is not a desirable\nwoman in the best sense, for she cannot be trusted to do the right\nthing for the species in all circumstances. The spark of vitality in\nher does not glow with sufficient ardour to compel her to serve Life\u2019s\ninterests before her own. She is the kind of woman that is rapidly\ncoming into power in all classes above the working class, but hers is a\n_bad_ character, not a _good_ character, for a woman to possess.\n\nNo, we want to keep the best women as they are. We do not want to tame\nthe life out of them. But since we cannot have it both ways, if we\ninsist on women remaining desirable\u2014that is to say, faithful primarily\nto Life itself, we must breed a race of men who understand them, and\nwho in the absence of their fellows on wars or expeditions can see\nwhat is happening when young wives \u201cmake eyes at them.\u201d Any man who in\nsuch circumstances imagines he is irresistible and falls in with the\nwoman\u2019s designs through sheer vanity, deserves a punishment very much\nmore severe than being mulcted in damages; he has qualified himself for\nsome disciplinary correction which ought at least to include a term\nof hard labour. For it is not his understanding of woman alone that\nis at fault\u2014although this in a full-grown man would be unpardonable\nenough\u2014but his estimate of himself, which leads him to the gross\npresumption of imagining himself capable of conquering another man\u2019s\nwife single-handed without the assistance of Life itself, pushing her\nviolently into his arms the whole time.[82] Why, he might just as well\nflatter himself that a flea has bitten him, not because it was too\nhungry to wait, but because there was something exceptionally delicate\nor precious in the composition of his vile blood!\n\n_Thus adultery, when the wife is the defaulter, is always a case of a\nman betraying another man, and never that of a woman betraying her man.\nWoman, if she is the right sort, remains throughout faithful to Life.\nOnly if she betrays Life does she cease to be desirable._\n\nContinuing our consideration of the positive couple, we must now\nexamine the forces which operate in causing a woman to be unfaithful to\nher husband while yet living and cohabiting with him in apparent peace\nand happiness.\n\n(_b_) _Adultery of the positive spouse through impotence of the male or\nthrough childlessness._\n\nIf the positive female cannot tolerate long absences on the part of\nthe male without endeavouring to seek fertilization elsewhere (because\nher equipment for Life\u2019s multiplication is otherwise reduced to\ninaction) it is obvious that, since male impotence is tantamount to a\ncomplete absence of the male (from the standpoint of reproduction), she\ncan hardly be expected to tolerate it any more gladly.\n\nTruth to tell, I have known cases of male impotence where the natural\nmodesty and fear of publicity in the wife prevented an action for\nnullity and also all adulterous liaisons; both parties to the match\nhaving advanced quite peaceably and resignedly to middle, and\nultimately to old age, without anyone, except the couple themselves and\ntheir immediate relatives, knowing the truth;[83] and it is probable\nthat in many cases of childless marriages, in modern England, impotence\non the part of the male may be suspected as the cause, although the\nwife may have been too timid or too shamefast to drag the misery of\ntheir married life before the courts. But in almost all marriages\nwhere this occurs without adultery on the part of the wife, it is safe\nto infer that the female of the match is herself partly or wholly\nnegative, or that she has become so in process of time, otherwise it\nis inconceivable that her timidity or shame should thus override the\ndeepest force within her, which, as we have seen, is the Will of the\nSpecies for Life and its multiplication.\n\nIn the case of most positive and desirable women it is safe to argue\nthat, where the husband is impotent, either adultery or a suit for\nnullity will be the inevitable result.[84]\n\nAmong the positive couples where, although the male may be potent,\nchildlessness is secured by some contraceptive method, for reasons\nof economy, or because it is thought that three, four, or even five\nyears of connubial bliss without children will allow both parties to\nhave what is known as a \u201cgood time,\u201d it is obvious that the toleration\nof the positive female may last longer than in cases where the male\nis impotent; but since the orgasm does not supply the female with her\ncomplete sexual experience, it is equally clear that the state of\nchildlessness cannot last an unlimited time without causing trouble.\nAs, however, in these peculiar circumstances, the psychological\nprocesses in the female, which lead her to adultery, are more subtle\nthan in the event of male impotence, I shall be obliged to enter into\nthem with more detail.\n\nWhen the male is impotent the positive woman knows that this is so, and\nshe _consciously_ realizes the need of seeking fertilization elsewhere,\nlest she remain childless for the rest of her life. This alternative is\npresented plainly to her consciousness and there is no doubt about it.\n\nIn the case of the couple using contraceptives while cohabiting\naffectionately together, however, the female is not conscious of a\ndesire to seek fertilization elsewhere. Not realizing clearly that, in\nfact, her life is equivalent (but for the repeated orgasms) to that\nof the married woman whose male is impotent, she has no _conscious_\nmotive or warrant for seeking fertilization outside her home. Very\nfew women indeed know that the orgasm forms such an insignificant\npart of their sexual experience as to leave their bodies completely\nunsatisfied and disappointed.[85] It follows, therefore, that if her\nlove for her husband be very deep and guileless, she may continue\nliving with him for years without taking any notice of other men. If\nher positiveness persist, however, despite the deleterious influence\nof the contraceptive habit, and she and her husband still continue to\npursue their policy of childlessness, she will eventually find that\nother men do begin to interest her a good deal, although this interest\nat first will appear to herself as entirely involuntary and innocent.\nIt will begin to show itself by a certain childish eagerness to see\nher husband\u2019s friends, to meet them at bridge, at golf, or at tennis.\nShe may suggest dancing lessons, or regular attendances at public and\nprivate entertainments, where she can meet and talk with other men.[86]\nAll this time her affection for her husband will continue as strong\nas ever, and she will not be conscious of his having declined in her\nesteem by one iota. If the men she meets at this period in her married\nlife happen to be men of the world, they will note the eager interest\nwith which she looks at them, laughs at their clumsiest sallies, and\napplauds their most trifling manifestations of intellect, and they will\nbe on their guard and remain punctiliously formal. If, on the other\nhand, they belong to the modern herd of arrogant, overdressed townsmen,\nwhose only mainspring is vanity, and who find in the favour of a poor\nstarved female body the highest flattery that their stupid, fatuous\nlives can offer them, they will fancy that this young wife\u2019s eager\nattention when they speak, and her delirious laughter when they attempt\nto be witty, constitute a tribute to their intellect and wit. They will\nflatter themselves that the little woman has been captivated by them.\nAnd from that time onward the little woman in question will be in great\ndanger.\n\nNow let us try to ascertain precisely what has occurred in the body of\nthe young wife in question, in order that we may follow and understand\nher conduct.\n\nWe will suppose she has been married three or four years, and all this\ntime has been living in perfect concord with her husband. Occasional\ndifferences there have been, of course; but they have been unimportant.\nThey have all turned, as is customary in English houses, upon the\nridiculous words \u201cselfish\u201d and \u201cunselfish.\u201d When the young wife has\nwanted her way against her man she has endeavoured to make him yield\nby giving him a guilty conscience over the matter, and calling his\nopposition \u201cselfish\u201d; and when at last he has yielded, she has declared\nboth to his face and to the world, that he was the most \u201cunselfish\u201d\nof husbands.[87] Likewise the man, when he has wanted to exert some\nleverage upon his wife\u2019s mind, has warned her that resistance on her\npart would be \u201cselfish,\u201d and upon her yielding has admitted that she\nwas \u201cunselfish.\u201d But apart from these foolish verbal quibbles around\nthe utterly fantastic antithesis \u201cselfish\u201d and \u201cunselfish,\u201d they have\nhad no quarrels.\n\nMeanwhile, however, although the husband\u2019s sexual experience has\nbeen complete, his wife\u2019s has been of the most fragmentary order.\nHer reproductive organs and functions, though repeatedly stimulated\nas if their important business were about to begin, have been robbed\neach time of the natural sequel to that stimulation. Despite hundreds\nof alarms and starts, the complete cycle has never been experienced.\nAs a result, this large reproductive equipment has not only remained\nidle, but in this very idleness has also been cheated again and again\nof its legitimate expectations, when those expectations seemed most\ncertain of being fulfilled. These repeated rebuffs, together with\nthe continued inactivity of this important mechanism, has not been\nsuffered with impunity. Gradually, as the idleness came to be felt\nmore and more acutely, and the sense of physiological disappointment\nbecame insistent, vague messages were sent up through the young wife\u2019s\nsubconsciousness to her brain. These messages we can decipher without\nany serious inaccuracy as follows:\u2014\u201cWe are still idle; we are still\ninactive. _When_ are we going to function? We ache to function.\u201d\n\nIt must not be supposed, however, that these messages are deciphered\nas accurately as this by the woman\u2019s conscious mind. She is vaguely\nconscious of the importunate calls from her dissatisfied reproductive\nequipment; but she is aware of them only as _dissatisfaction_. Whence\nthey hail, what they mean, she has not the slightest idea. If you told\nher that they amounted to protests from her inactive reproductive\nequipment, she would probably feel so utterly outraged that she\nwould never speak to you or see you again. She would need to be a\npsychologist herself to interpret them accurately.\n\nNow it is when this vague feeling of dissatisfaction first becomes\ninsistent in her conscious mind that she proceeds to act upon it in the\nmanner already described (see p. 196).\n\nQuite unsuspecting, her husband falls in eagerly with her plans. Truth\nto tell, any such marked change in a young married woman is a very\nserious sign; but the husband knowing nothing of these matters, and\nconcluding after a review of the last three years that he has perhaps\ninvited his wife to lead too dull a life, acquiesces with alacrity in\nher schemes.\n\nNow if we suppose that the new r\u00e9gime, with its constant round of\ngaiety and variety, has lasted a further six months or a year,\nand still nothing has happened\u2014that is to say, the young wife\u2019s\nreproductive equipment is still inactive\u2014a second and more dangerous\nphase very rapidly sets in.\n\nThe young woman suddenly finds one morning or evening that she is\nunaccountably exasperated by the way her husband fingers his tie\nwhile he talks to her or to a friend, or by his habit of knocking his\npipe out against the iron of the grate, or by his manner of clearing\nhis throat, or by any other peculiarity which, twenty-four hours\npreviously, she was not even aware of having noticed particularly.\n\nAt first she is a little alarmed and suppresses her feeling of\nirritation. She feels that it is unfriendly, and that he does not\ndeserve a rebuke for something so ridiculously trifling. Very soon,\nhowever, after she has continued to note the exasperating peculiarity\nfor four or five days, her irritation begins to choke her, and she\nfeels she must express it. The next time she observes him doing the\nfatal thing, therefore, she snaps sharply at him with a \u201cDon\u2019t, Harry,\nyou fidget me with that constant noise!\u201d or \u201cDon\u2019t, Harry, you always\nfinger your tie in that ridiculous manner when you are talking\u2014why do\nyou do it?\u201d etc.\n\nShe has not the faintest suspicion that this irritation and\nexasperation over a trifling aspect of her husband\u2019s behaviour is only\na surface ripple of a very much deeper and more bitter exasperation,\ndown somewhere in her body; and the young husband, who is even less\nconscious of the matter than she is, turns to her in a manner utterly\ndumbfounded, and wonders what on earth can have happened.\n\nHe sees that she is serious. He has noted the strain of bitterness in\nher rebuke and its threatening note of anger, and, if he is a man of\nspirit, he points out to her that if she is out of sorts she had better\ngo to bed, but that it is absurd for her to start now, after four years\nof marriage, rebuking him for something he has done regularly every day\nof their married life.\n\nThis discussion may end in a serious quarrel\u2014the first serious quarrel\nin which words very much more stinging than \u201cselfish\u201d and \u201cunselfish\u201d\nare used freely for the first time; and both may retire to bed utterly\nbewildered by what has happened.\n\nIt is about this time that the young wife shows the eagerness described\nabove in her attitude towards other men. These men may be, and usually\nare, a hundred times plainer, prosier and less potent than her husband;\nbut this does not disturb her. She looks into their faces as if in\ntheir countenances alone she expected to find a spark of intelligence\nor manliness. Her husband\u2019s superior witticisms fall flat, while at\nthe grossest pun from his friends she contorts herself with laughter.\nShe organizes games, picnics, excursions, and even summer holidays, in\nwhich some of her husband\u2019s friends always contribute their share to\nthe entertainment. Quiet lanes in Devonshire alone with her husband\nare no longer her ideal. She wants to organize a \u201cjolly\u201d party for the\nholidays, and learn to dive and swim with the other girls and young men\nof the party.\n\nIt is usually at this juncture that some prize fool of a man comes\nforward, who, in his superlative vanity and his crass ignorance of the\ntrue state of affairs, sets all the young woman\u2019s restless eagerness,\nand particularly her attentiveness to himself, down to the credit of\nhis own irresistible charm.\n\nThis sums up the psychology of all co-respondents. They are fatuously\nvain, they are criminally ignorant of female psychology, and they\neagerly place to the credit account of their wit, their good looks,\ntheir intelligence, and their virility, a so-called conquest in which\nthe part they have played is no more than that of an old horse\u2019s leg\nthat is taken into a stagnant pond to catch hungry leeches with.\n\nAt all events, if such a dangerous fool happens to be in the\nneighbourhood at such a juncture, and the young wife is thrown much\ninto his company, the chances are that, encouraged by his eager\nacceptation of a situation in which his personal characteristics count\nfor nothing, she is likely to imagine herself both \u201cloved\u201d and \u201cin\nlove\u201d; and then nothing can save her from matrimonial ruin.\n\nHer blind man\u0153uvres will have achieved what her reproductive equipment\nmost ardently desired; they will have removed her from a male who\nabused without satisfying this equipment, and will have thrown her\ninto the arms of a man who, though possibly inferior to her husband in\nevery respect (as she herself would have realized had her reproductive\norgans been content), or at any rate not so very much superior to him\nto justify all this fuss, was at least holding out to her reproductive\nequipment a fresh promise of fertilization.[88]\n\nAnd since fertilization is what the will of the species insists upon,\nand woman is that will, she must be forgiven if, in the circumstances,\nshe goes over to the vain ass who imagines he has captivated her\naffections. At any rate, she herself is in no way to blame. She\nhas been true to the power to which she owes all her fidelity. The\nblame, if any, lies, in the first place, with her husband for having\ndeprived a positive and desirable woman of her full sexual experience\nfor a number of years, and for not having realized that this was\nher trouble when she first became restless; and secondly, with the\nco-respondent for having mistaken an exasperated woman\u2019s longing for\nfertilization\u2014not for \u201ccompanionship,\u201d for \u201cunderstanding\u201d or for a\n\u201ckindred soul\u201d as she has declared\u2014for a triumph attributable to his\nirresistible attractions. The illicit lover in this case, besides being\na vain fool, betrays his own sex in the man whose wife he robs.\n\nIn such cases a little knowledge of sex psychology will, as a rule,\nsave the situation. But so long as the world continues to be thronged\nwith jackasses who are ready to go hot all over with pride at every\nwoman\u2019s smile, the ridiculous spectacle of a co-respondent in every\nway the inferior, or at least no more than the equal, of the wronged\nhusband, will continue to be common in our midst.\n\nThe strange part of the whole affair is that the young wife\u2019s notion\nof promised bliss with the co-respondent is based entirely upon her\nunconscious or bodily hope that fertilization is now sure to follow.\nUnless it do follow, therefore, she finds herself a twofold dupe;\nfor she has exchanged a man to whom she is at least legally attached\nfor a man who in nine cases out of ten is either no more than her\nhusband\u2019s equal, or his inferior; and she is no better off; because,\nthe moment the novelty of the situation will have died down, the same\ndissatisfaction that takes its root in her rebuffed reproductive organs\nwill make itself felt again.\n\nNow the above analysis of the workings of a positive married\nwoman\u2019s mind in all cases of adultery resulting from physiological\ndisappointment, is typical, and may stand as the unalterable frame or\npattern which all similar cases may be made to fit. For it matters not\nwhether the marriage is a childless one, or whether it be one in which,\nfrom motives of economy, child-birth has been stopped after the birth\nof one, two, or three children; the phases which mark the approach to\nadultery are always the same. And it may be said with perfect accuracy\nthat, where positiveness persists in the woman, and child-birth is\nstopped while she is still too young for her reproductive equipment to\ntolerate idleness gladly, some kind of unhappiness is bound to enter\nthe home, and as a rule this unhappiness will lead to adultery.\n\nWhen we note in the statistics of divorce the comparatively high\nfigures shown for marriages in which there have been one or two\nchildren only, therefore, we may take it that unhappiness began to\nenter the home in the third, fourth, or fifth year after the birth of\nthe last child\u2014that is to say, at a period when the idleness of her\nreproductive organs was beginning to prove a source of intolerable\nexasperation to the young female. And in these cases, as in the\nclassical instance detailed above, the same phases occur. There is the\nsame sudden interest in matters outside the home\u2014either golf, tennis,\nacting, bridge, dancing, a new religion, a new philosophy, or a Cause.\nThis brings the young wife into touch with a number of strange men,\nand as her interest in these increases, she begins to be aware of a\nvague feeling of irritation concerning certain aspects of her husband\u2019s\nperson or behaviour, of which theretofore she had not been conscious.\nFinally, she becomes infatuated with one of the strange men, and her\nfeelings for her husband suffer a corresponding change for the worse.\nThen only cowardice, caution, or extreme devotion to her small family,\ncan possibly prevent her from compromising herself.\n\nThis is now the time and the place to consider whether there are not\nperhaps other physiological and psychical conditions resulting from\ndeliberate childlessness, or from the deliberate limitation of the\nfamily, besides those discussed above, which hasten the rupture between\nthe positive couple.\n\nThere are certainly many such physiological and psychical conditions,\nand the foremost of these is the deleterious effect which the constant\nuse of contraceptives has upon the happy sexual relations of the\nyoung couple. That there should be no known contraceptive which does\nnot in some way mar the complete happiness of marital intercourse,\nwill perhaps be regarded by some as a very wise dispensation of\nProvidence;\u2014for certainly the best brains of all nations for many\nthousands of years have concerned themselves with the problem, and it\nseems astonishing that, so far, nothing really perfect should have been\ndiscovered;\u2014but at all events this fact goes a considerable way towards\nmaking the marriage-bed of people who deliberately limit the family at\nleast a breeding-place of very serious trouble.\n\nSecondly, the very fact that childlessness as an end is incessantly\npresent to the minds of the young couple\u2014whether they have had no\nchildren at all, or only one, two, or three\u2014during the cohabitation,\nconstitutes in itself an influence which in time is certain to destroy\nthe savour of their relations at a pace commensurate with their\npositiveness.\n\nThe reduction of any human function to the plane of sensationalism\nalone has this strange result that, in the end, the very sensations it\nprovides tend to decline in intensity. It is as if sensation alone were\nan insufficient psychical foundation to support the whole arch of any\npermanent human interest or effort, and that where it is not correlated\nwith the feelings of power or purposefulness, it tends to crumble and\nto perish.\n\nThe woman in such cases suffers even more quickly than the man,\nbecause in her the physiological disappointment sings in chorus with\nthe psychical disillusionment. But in the man too ultimate an\u00e6sthesia\nis inevitable; for, sooner or later, the fact that the natural\nconsequences of his act (offspring) are not forthcoming, will begin to\ntell on his self-esteem and his sense of power, with which elements\nmore than half the savour of sexual relations must certainly have been\nassociated by his ancestors.[89]\n\nA further psychological factor must be reckoned with, which has its\nshare in bringing about matrimonial difficulties in the state of\ndeliberate childlessness, or of the limitation of the family, and\nthat is the feeling of aimlessness that ultimately supervenes, when\nany two people associate together without any further object in life\nthan that of eating, drinking, or making merry. This is not due to\nthe fact that eating, drinking, and making merry are in themselves\nbad, as the Puritans would have us believe; but that they are at least\nmonotonous if unrelieved by any other interests. Life, as we have\nseen, is repetition with a modicum of variation, and so is happiness.\nNothing that can introduce variety into the home of the young couple,\ntherefore, ought to be eschewed, for fear lest that lack of variety\nshould be realized which causes life to lose its interest and its\nsavour. Now children are obviously a constant source of variety in\nthe home. Each child, in its turn, gives the home a different aspect,\na different outlook, a different responsibility. Children, moreover,\ngive the family unit a superior aim and purpose, which increases in\nimportance with the number of the offspring. In this sense alone,\ntherefore, a state of childlessness or of family limitation (when the\nnumber of children is small), in an ordinary home, where there are no\ncompensating features such as ardent artistic, scientific or religious\npreoccupations, constitutes a dangerous state from the standpoint of\nconnubial stability.\n\nBefore concluding this discussion of the positive couple in relation to\ndivorce, which we propose to do with an examination of the statistics,\nit will now be necessary to consider the circumstances under which the\npositive man himself becomes unfaithful.[90]\n\nFrom the statistics it would appear that more women than men go wrong\nin a childless marriage. This is only what, from our argument, we\nshould have expected; because since the coitus represents a complete\nphysiological experience to the man, he is less likely to become\nvaguely dissatisfied with childlessness than the woman. Nevertheless,\nshould the childless state be continued too long\u2014that is to say, for\nfive, six, or more years\u2014there are sure to arise certain indistinct\nfeelings of dissatisfaction in the man, which will cause him to\nbecome restless and interested in other women. These feelings will\nbe the result of the total lack of those \u201cappeals\u201d to his primitive\ninstincts, which the regular procreation of children provides for\nalmost all men without exception. He will miss the sense of power\nwhich he would derive from the material and visible extension of his\nown identity in his offspring, and he will also feel the need of that\nsilent tribute which children would make to the deepest source of his\nself-esteem\u2014virile potency.\n\nIt should also be borne in mind that, where there are no children, the\nman is more likely, owing to the absence of heavy responsibilities, to\nindulge that inclination to varied sexual experiences, to which every\npositive man is subject after some years of marriage. We have seen how\nentirely man\u2019s sexual experience depends for its savour upon desire\u2014the\ndesire he feels for the object of his sexual passion. When, therefore,\nthrough years of regular intimacy with his wife, this desire tends to\ndecline, there naturally follows a corresponding decline in the savour\nof his sexual experience. To correct this he is tempted to go in search\nof change, of novelty. Now, when this inclination arises in monogamic\nmarriages, it is frequently checked out of consideration for the\nchildren, and more especially by the secret satisfaction derived from\ntheir presence. Where there are no children, it is much more likely to\nbe given free rein.\n\nAnother factor which ought to be given due weight in the sexual\npsychology of man, is his love of protecting and patronizing. The wife\nwho gives him a number of children not only makes a strong appeal to\nthis love in her own person but also in the persons of her offspring.\nHe becomes, figuratively, a huge buttress supporting the dependent\nmembers of his family, and this gratifies the self-esteem of the\naverage simple-minded man, and in innumerable cases induces him not\nonly to accept the burden, but also to love it deeply and passionately\nfor giving him such a delightful and constant sense of real importance.\n\nFinally, in the conduct of the man of high ethical development, there\nwill enter the factor of moral ideals. When once he feels his family\nabout him, he will be conscious of certain duties, certain obligations,\nwhich will preclude all idea, all velleity, of not abiding by his\noriginal pledges. This man will be able to live till the end of his\ndays with a woman, however much his feelings may have changed towards\nher, and still give the world the impression of being a most dutiful\nand most devoted husband. Temptation, sexual passion, the desire\nfor variety, will simply not enter within his purview. The moment\nan irregular thought occurs to his mind, it will be, as it were,\n\u201cswitched off.\u201d It should, however, be remembered that when such men\nare positive by nature, they will usually be found to practise in their\nleisure hours some kind of sport (_hard walking_, _cycling_, _golf_,\n_riding_) or industry (_carpentry_\u2014true of thousands of Englishmen\nto-day; _wood-cutting_, e.g. Gladstone and the ex-Emperor of Germany;\n_stamp-collecting_ and _numismatics_\u2014true of thousands of modern\nEnglishmen) or religious activity (_Christian_, _Spiritualistic_ or\nother propaganda) in which much of their sex becomes absorbed.\n\nIn Chart I, I have given figures covering a period of twenty-one\nyears\u2014from 1899 to 1919 inclusive, for England and Wales; and the\nmost important conclusions to be drawn from them at a glance are the\nfollowing:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The preponderance of divorces which occur as the result of\nhusbands\u2019 petitions over those which occur as the result of wives\u2019\npetitions.\n\nBearing in mind the more insistent impulse to variety in sexual\nexperience which harasses the male throughout life, this preponderance\nof husbands\u2019 petitions only tends to show the extreme difficulty with\nwhich women can tolerate either the premature cessation of child-birth\nor no child-birth at all. For although it may be argued that in order\nto obtain a divorce the woman must charge her husband with something\nmore than the mere indulgence of his craving for variety, and therefore\nthat proportions are misleading from this point of view, it should also\nbe remembered that, where there has been a transference of affection\nwith adultery on the male\u2019s part, desertion would necessarily follow,\nand therefore supply the minimum grounds for the woman\u2019s petition.\n\n\nCHART I. NUMBER OF CHILDREN AT TIME OF FILING PETITION OF DIVORCE.\n\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                      |  1899.  | 1900. | 1901. | 1902. | 1903.\n  _Number of          +\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    Children_         |H. W.[91]| H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  No children         |175 147  |167 156|188 166|230 185|183 170\n  1 child             | 97  83  | 80  84|129  91|140 115|105 133\n  2 children          | 58  57  | 59  53| 93  57| 98  62| 76  75\n  3 to 6 children     | 66  69  | 68  63| 86  67|131  65|128  70\n  Above 6 children    |  4  14  |  6   9| 10  11|  9  15| 11  11\n  Number unknown      |         |  1   1|       |       |\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n                      | 1904. | 1905. | 1906. | 1907. | 1908. | 1909.\n  _Number of          +\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    Children_         | H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  No children         |178 147|180 167|201 161|169 182|198 235|213 197\n  1 child             |110 116|114 137|120 127| 91 128|119 136|104 137\n  2 children          | 78  82| 73  86| 73  80| 84  82| 86  67| 75  89\n  3 to 6 children     | 97  66| 83  69| 62  78| 84  70| 82  71| 80  79\n  Above 6 children    |  6   7|  3   5|  9  12|  6   7|  3  11|  3   6\n  Number unknown      |       |       |  2   1|       |      2|\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n\n                      | 1910. | 1911. | 1912. | 1913. | 1914. | 1915.\n   _Number of         +\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    Children_         | H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.| H.  W.\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  Total successful    |       |       |       |       |       |\n    petitions         |412 343|466 393|506 414|548 450|607 468|682 461\n  No children         |412[92]|  408  |  444  |  493  |  496  |  491\n  1 child             | 222   |  281  |  347  |  372  |  366  |  379\n  2 children          | 146   |  201  |  193  |  194  |  241  |  248\n  3 to 6 children     | 119   |  170  |  160  |  192  |  228  |  231\n  Above 6 children    |   9   |   12  |   10  |   12  |   17  |   17\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n                      | 1916. |  1917.  |  1918.  |   1919.\n   _Number of         +\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    Children_         | H.  W.| H.    W.| H.    W.| H.     W.\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  Total successful    |       |         |         |\n    petitions         |781 382|1,044 379|1,807 516|4,076 1,009\n  No children         |  563  |   660   |  1,043  |   2,338\n  1 child             |  382  |   433   |    707  |   1,627\n  2 children          |  231  |   307   |    488  |     930\n  3 to 6 children     |  200  |   285   |    423  |     831\n  Above 6 children    |   16  |    19   |     27  |      36\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n\nCHART II. DURATION OF MARRIAGE UP TO TIME OF FILING PETITION OF DIVORCE.\n\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                   |1910.|1911.|1912.|1913.|1914.|1915.|1916.\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  Less than 1 year |     |  14 |  17 |  29 |  22 |  18 |  35\n  1 and over to 2  |  29 |  26 |  25 |  44 |  17 |  40 |  58\n  2 and over to 5  | 110 | 143 | 145 | 136 | 150 | 130 | 192\n  5 and over to 10 | 284 | 353 | 378 | 427 | 394 | 371 | 383\n  10 and over to 20| 369 | 418 | 440 | 481 | 583 | 618 | 577\n  Above 20         | 116 | 119 | 155 | 146 | 182 | 194 | 165\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                   |1917.|1918.|1919.\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  Less than 1 year |  27 |  36 |   75\n  1 and over to 2  |  78 |  86 |  156\n  2 and over to 5  | 274 | 516 |1,171\n  5 and over to 10 | 482 | 858 |1,947\n  10 and over to 20| 667 | 930 |2,008\n  Above 20         | 177 | 262 |  405\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n\nThe high figures for faithless wives revealed in these statistics,\ntherefore, point to the extreme refractoriness of women under the\nconditions imposed by modern economic pressure, which makes the\nlimitation of families an ineluctable rule in most homes. This is\nfurthermore confirmed by a comparison of the high figures given for\nchildless marriages, or marriages of only one, two, or three children,\nwith those given for marriages which have more than three children.\n\nOn the other hand, the proportion of husbands\u2019 petitions to wives\u2019 in\nthose marriages in which there are more than six children, leaves no\ndoubt that in most of these cases not the wife but the husband was at\nfault, which is exactly what we should expect.\n\n(_b_) It is interesting to note the steady rise in husbands\u2019 petitions\nduring the years 1915-1919\u2014all years of war: the figure 4,076 as\nagainst 1,009 in 1919 constituting the most convincing evidence we have\nof the difficulty with which women tolerate the lack of children or the\ncessation of child-birth, even when it is due to the absence of their\nhusbands on what was believed to be a \u201cCrusade.\u201d It seems probable that\nthe bulk of these women must have been young, for the total number of\ndivorces for that year, in cases where there was only one child or\nnone, amounts to 3,965.\n\nOf course, from my point of view, the value of these figures is\nlessened by the fact that it is impossible to differentiate between\nmarriages of positive and negative couples; but perhaps the steadiness\nwith which certain characteristic proportions are revealed in them\ncompensates to some extent for this defect.\n\nWhen we add to this Lord Salvesen\u2019s evidence before the Royal\nCommission on Divorce (1912), in which he declared that in Scotland the\nproportion of divorces among childless couples was \u201cimmensely larger\u201d\nthan that among fertile couples, it can leave little doubt in our\nminds that, in order to be so constant and universal, this rule must\nbe based on unalterable laws taking their root in deep physiological\nand psychological conditions, and that the sentimental and emotional\nfactors can be but surface phenomena accompanying rather than affecting\nthe operation of these laws. For, if we have been right in arguing\nthat the presence of children does not operate as a strengthener of\nthe union by cementing the _love_ of married couples, but by meeting\ncertain instinctive needs in their physical and mental constitution,\nit is clear that the sentimental elements in the union are the most\ninsignificant\u2014hence their inability to tide large numbers of positive\ncouples over the periods of physiological and psychical stress which\nchildlessness or the limitation of the family imposes.\n\n(_c_) When we turn to Chart II and examine the figures given for the\nduration of the marriage up to the time when the petition was filed\n(for the years 1910-1919), we also note a fact that does not surprise\nus, and that is the immeasurably higher figures given for the four\nyears lying between the fifth and the tenth years of marriage, than for\nall other periods.\n\nIt is precisely during these four years that those two disturbing\nforces which do most to mar modern marriages are most likely to begin\nto operate, viz:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The irascibility of the wife as the result of the cessation\nof child-birth; this irascibility showing itself in a decreasing\nsatisfaction with her home and her husband, and an increasing interest\nin outside amusements and occupations, and in other men.\n\n(_b_) The loss of desire for his wife, in the husband, which causes\nhim to seek other sexual experiences.\n\nWith regard to (_a_) it is obvious that during the sixth, seventh,\neighth and ninth years of marriage, most couples who are attempting to\nlimit their families will have ceased from procreating. They will have\nhad from one to three children, and will have decided to have no more.\nThe wife will therefore tend to become increasingly impatient with her\nlot, and ultimately make a confidant of some idiot of a man, who will\ninterpret her marked attentions as a proof of his irresistible charm,\nand the two will end in what the world is pleased to call \u201cfalling in\nlove.\u201d\n\nWith regard to (_b_), six, seven, eight or nine years is a long\nperiod over which to extend the average man\u2019s desire for fresh sexual\nexperience, and in the event of a cessation of child-birth (which\nmeans the use of contraceptives\u2014always unfavourable to happy marital\nrelations) it is during these last years of his first decade of married\nlife that he is most likely to feel the ardent desire for a change.\n\nThe two factors (_a_) and (_b_) conspiring together soon force the\ncouple asunder, if they are positive, brave, and intolerant of\nconventions and rules\u2014hence, I believe, the high figures for the period\nin question.\n\n\nCHART III. DIVORCES ACCORDING TO PROFESSIONS.\n\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n          |Agriculture.|Mining.|Manufactures.|Navigation|  Inland\n          |            |       |             |   and    |Transport.\n          |            |       |             | Fishing. |\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  1908    |     26     |   17  |      168    |    14    |    42\n  1909    |     19     |   21  |      172    |    25    |    29\n  1910    |     22     |   11  |      118    |    18    |    38\n  1911    |     21     |    9  |      194    |    24    |    30\n  1912    |     24     |   17  |      211    |    38    |    21\n  1915[93]|     37     |   26  |      362    |    31    |    84\n  1916    |     28     |   24  |      310    |    43    |    60\n  1917    |     44     |   48  |      419    |    33    |    79\n  1918    |     61     |   95  |      744    |    63    |   204\n  1919    |    133     |  192  |    1,581    |    78    |   468\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n          |Trade.|Domestic|Professionally|Unspecified\n          |      |Service.|  Employed.   |Occupations.\n          |      |        |              |\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  1908    |  345 |   13   |      298     |     87\n  1909    |  253 |   10   |      244     |    110\n  1910    |  344 |   12   |      267     |     78\n  1911    |  366 |   12   |      320     |     97\n  1912    |  347 |   24   |      389     |     87\n  1915[93]|  381 |   11   |      361     |     79\n  1916    |  397 |   27   |      444     |      1\n  1917    |  446 |   18   |      545     |     73\n  1918    |  591 |   34   |      826     |     79\n  1919    |1,174 |   64   |    1,903     |    169\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n\nIn Chart III we have the statistics for divorce, tabulated according to\nthe occupations of the husbands. Now, according to the 1911 census, the\nfigures given for the total number of males engaged in three out of the\nnine categories is as follows:\u2014\n\n  Professional callings         367,578[94]\n  Agriculture                 1,140,515\n  Mining                      1,039,083\n\nIf we compare these total figures[95] with the corresponding figures\ngiven for the divorces in each category, we see the enormously high\npercentage of divorces that occur in the professional classes, as\ncompared with both the mining and agricultural industry, and although\nin accounting for this conspicuous difference we have to bear in\nmind the facilities, chiefly financial, for procuring divorce in the\nprofessional classes, we are nevertheless confronted by a disparity\nwhich requires some explanation.\n\nWhen, however, we consider the greater prevalence of birth-control\namong the professionals, with the inevitable unconscious disaffection\nthat it introduces among the wives of that class; when, also, we\nreflect upon the more artificial circumstances in which this class\nlives, and the higher and less natural demands that its spouses make\nupon each other; when, moreover, we remember the greater irascibility\nand nervousness, together with the usually lower passion, of all people\nengaged in the more intellectual pursuits of life, which make them more\nprone to chafe under the many vexations to which married life gives\nrise, and less likely to attain that physiological serenity which is\nthe pre-requisite of all solid contentment, these statistics seem to\nconfirm the conclusions at which we have arrived, and, on the whole,\nto support the analysis we have made both of the marriage tie itself,\nand of the factors that conspire to loosen it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHaving dealt with divorce in so far as it concerns positive couples,\nI have now to deal with it in its relation to the negative man and\nwoman. My present task is, therefore, by far the more difficult of the\ntwo, seeing that the moment we leave the uniformity of natural law\nand the regularity of indomitable forces, we find ourselves in a maze\nof possibilities, which, while they defy enumeration owing to their\nextreme multiplicity, also elude all effort at classification because\nof the infinite combinations and permutations that low health and\neccentricity are capable of producing.\n\nIt must be clear that the moment the driving force of healthy, normal\npassion ceases to be the motive actuating male and female, the vagaries\nof human conduct are no longer calculable. One knows what in certain\ncircumstances a healthy passionate animal will do. It is impossible to\nforetell what an unhealthy or unpassionate one will do.[96]\n\nTo describe all the possible complications that will ultimately lead\na negative couple into the Divorce Court, or cause them to seek a\njudicial separation, or induce them to conclude that they would be\nhappier living apart, is therefore beyond the powers of any human\nbeing. The negative man and woman, like the invalid or the eccentric,\nmust remain an enigma, because natural laws and forces no longer\noperate normally or calculably in them.\n\nNevertheless, it is possible, in a rough way, to outline certain\nfeatures which are more or less common even to sub-normal people, and\nfrom which, therefore, certain general rules of conduct may be inferred.\n\nFor instance, we may say of negative men and women that:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The physiological promptings of an instinctive and organic kind\nare never likely (as with their healthier brethren) to weigh very\nheavily with them. (The ethereal lovers who believe that marriage is a\nunion of souls.)\n\n(_b_) The sentimental and intellectual aspects of a sexual situation\nare more likely to determine their conduct than its vital or\nreproductive aspects. (The lovers in most modern novels, in which\n\u201cLuvv\u201d is supposed never to have bodily union as its aim, but only\ncompanionship, or sweet words, or pure affection, or a life of\n\u201cunselfish\u201d mutual service, or some other high-falutin\u2019 nonsense.)\n\n(_c_) The force of passion being no longer the ruling determinant in\nthem, such factors as vanity, caution, cowardice, and even indolence,\nmay dominate the sex impulses and direct conduct to their own ends.\n(The bulk of hasty marriages made during the war were of this nature,\nvanity both in the man and the woman giving rise in each individual to\nsuch elated feelings that these were mistaken for depth of passion.)\n\n(_d_) The intellectual attitude towards love, and the passions which\nit tends to assume, may cause negative people to _imitate_ without\n_feeling_ the behaviour of their more passionate fellows and their\nlove affairs, thus producing a false but fairly accurate image of true\npassion. (The actors in modern society, all of which are by no means\nprofessional histrions.)\n\nDealing with (_a_) first, it must be fairly obvious that where\nphysiological promptings are feeble, deep bodily disappointments, and\nparticularly rebuffs to the reproductive system of the women, can be\ntolerated very much more placidly than where physiological promptings\nare imperious.\n\nThus all negative women are likely to endure for a very much longer\nperiod a childless marriage, or a marriage in which child-birth has\nceased in the first four to six years, than are their positive sisters.\nIn all \u201chappy\u201d marriages of this kind, therefore, which have only\nterminated with the demise of one of the parties, negativeness may\ncertainly be suspected in the woman, and, since like tends to attract\nlike, also in the man.\n\nWhen, therefore, unhappiness supervenes in such a home, other causes\nmust be sought than the secret and unconscious revolt of the woman\u2019s\nreproductive equipment, or the man\u2019s fiery need for sexual variety.\n\nNegativeness being the outcome of an atonic condition of the body,\nor, at least, of the genital organs, and negative women being less\nlikely to function properly than their more positive sisters, there\nwill naturally arise a tendency, in all such matches (owing to the\nsmall amount of pleasure and gratification that is derived from the\nwhole of the physical side of marriage and motherhood), to discount the\nphysiological side, and to exalt only states of the soul and the mind.\nThese people will have the old maids of all Puritanical communities\nwith them when they cast scorn upon the pleasures of the body; and as\ntheir number is increasing daily, the chorus of body-despisers grows\nsteadily louder and louder in all the countries enjoying Western\nCivilization.\n\nThe women in these matches are likely to confound motherhood with\nself-sacrifice and martyrdom, and their husbands to confound the\nbirth of a child with the threat of financial ruin. Science, costly\nand inefficient science, helps them at every step, and when finally\nchild-birth stops, which is never too soon (for the women in any case),\nand nurses and perambulators take their leave, science remains to\nthe last to try to repair or neutralize the debility that unwelcome\nfertility has left behind.\n\nIn their most private moments the women of such matches speak of the\n\u201chorrible sensuality\u201d of men, and of the havoc this sensuality has made\nof their lives; and in thought and in action they incline to everything\nthat emphasizes the soulful or spiritual side of life. They cultivate a\ntaste for extremely soulful literature or poetry (Maeterlinck\u2019s _Serres\nChaudes_, for instance) and tend to gravitate towards those forms of\nChristianity that are most quintessential.\n\nDivorce, if it is ever resorted to by such couples, is usually the\nfault of the husbands. They may at length manifest a desire to have\na breath of air untainted by sickness or debility, and in that case\nusually become entangled with a woman quite as negative as their wife.\nThe women hardly ever go further than to cultivate an apparently\nardent but platonic attachment to some poet, musician, or other\nartist, to whom they write long soulful letters, full of hints about\na non-physical kind of bliss in love, which they have longed all\ntheir lives to experience. But in a large majority of cases, negative\ncouples of precisely this kind tend to finish their days more or less\ntiresomely together, each bewailing the fact that such a white elephant\nas the body ever became associated with the more \u201cexalted\u201d spiritual\nside of man.\n\nIn regard to (_b_) it can only be said that the type is so very\nprevalent that it is becoming almost the _norm_ of modern civilization.\nIts principal characteristic is that both the male and the female\ntend to choose each other for reasons which are as remote as possible\nfrom the body. The men of this type choose \u201cclever,\u201d \u201cartistic,\u201d\nsylph-like, narrow-hipped \u201csweet\u201d women, with thin slender hands,\nspiritual interests, and probably a history of some intestinal\nirregularity in their past. The women, while aspiring to a high ideal\nof health and manliness in their mates, have not the instinct to pick\nout the passionate man, but usually select one, who though he may be\nbig of body and limb, intellectual and \u201cbreezy,\u201d is quite fireless,\nunpassionate and dull.\n\nThe couples belonging to this type can also endure childlessness or\na cessation of child-birth with almost perfect equanimity; the man\nbeing very much more concerned about the figure he is cutting as a\nchivalrous, sporting mate, who observes the rules of \u201ccricket\u201d with his\nspouse, than about any other aspect of their married life. He studies\nwith asinine perplexity the so-called inscrutable complexities of\nhis wife\u2019s mind, and is always making \u201callowances\u201d and preaching the\ndoctrine of give and take. His great charm, according to modern values,\nis the fact that he regards women as utterly incomprehensible. Women\nare so powerful nowadays in determining opinion, and have so often\nand so emphatically called the men who show some insight into women\u2019s\nnature \u201cprigs,\u201d that at the present day both women and men unanimously\ncall any man who voices penetrating views about _woman_, an out-and-out\nprig. In fact, in order to be a prig it is necessary to have shown some\nability in analysing the true nature of woman.[97]\n\nThe women in such unions very frequently outstrip their male companions\nin mental nimbleness, and this disturbance of the proper balance\nfrequently leads them, in their vague discontent, to become prominent\nexponents and defenders of all those claims of sex-equality and\nsex-levelling, which have agitated the home life of northern European\ncountries (where most negative people are to be found) for the last\nhundred years. The spectacle of their lady-like and unobtrusive\nmale, there can be no doubt, is usually the first incentive towards\nthese kinds of activities, and, seeing that they have the constant\nsubstantiation of their claims in the tame animal with whom they\ncohabit, it is not surprising that they frequently enter into \u201cWoman\u2019s\nCause\u201d with a conviction and a fervour very much more intense than the\nmore academic enthusiasm of the old maid who is usually their associate\nin the movement.\n\nIndeed, it not infrequently happens that the \u201cmale\u201d of these militant\nwomen is himself an active collaborator in his wife\u2019s public work, and\nso complete is their intellectual and sentimental agreement on the\nquestion, that he will echo her words with the docility of a parrot.\n\nThe type (_c_) is also common enough and is growing more plentiful in\nall classes of society. It is the negative type which approximates most\nto the passionate, tragic type of real life and fiction; because, while\nit possesses no deep passions, its extreme vanity makes it capable of\nthe wildest excesses.\n\nIn all the possible situations of married life, this type never\nconsults any other arbiter than vanity, and it is only when its\ncaution, cowardice or indolence can overpower its vanity that the\nlatter does not decide the issue.\n\nHaving no real deep passion to direct them, the men and women of\nthis type are actually drawn into marriage in the first place solely\nfrom motives of vanity, because the state of being betrothed is a\nstate of (1) supreme importance, (2) conspicuousness, (3) intense and\nunscrupulous mutual worship, and (4) romantic glamour.\n\nTheir marriage is likely to be the least stable of all marriages among\nnegative people, however, for the moment their vanity ceases to be fed,\nor humoured, they are likely to weary of an association that affords\nthem ever less and less of the joys of their engaged days. Lacking\nthe sound physiological promptings which make a fully-adapted life\nsufficient for their happiness and serenity, they become restless the\nmoment (1) adulation declines from the quarter of the spouse, (2) the\nattention of their world ceases from being concentrated upon them,\nand (3) that feeling of exaltation which filled their breast during\ncourtship\u2014and particularly on their wedding day\u2014shows signs of waning.\n\nThe woman in this kind of match finds out soon after marriage that\nwhile she has become the mistress of her own home, she is living in an\natmosphere which, compared with that she had grown accustomed to in\nthe days when her matchmaking mother directed her life, and during the\nmonths or years of her courtship, is depressingly deficient in appeals\nto her vanity.\n\nHer husband is securely bound to her by law. His first raptures are\nover, and the two seem to be settling down to a hum-drum existence, in\nwhich those deep thrills of yore seem entirely to have gone from her\nlife. But precisely those thrills were the breath of her nostrils. All\nthe joys of marital intimacy with the man she \u201cloves\u201d do not make up\nfor the loss of that. Her body is not tonic or vital enough to provide\nany comfort for the exaltation her vanity once afforded her.\n\nShe therefore contrives so to modify her hum-drum existence as to\nrestore to it some of the atmosphere of her late adolescence and the\ndays of her courtship. She goes in search of company; she insists on\nmen coming to the house. She sings, or acts, or goes in for sports\u2014all\nwith a view to restoring that atmosphere in which she became engaged.\nIn the end, she easily finds some idiot of a man who will be ignorant\nand vain enough to court her, and when this happens she will at last\nbreathe deeply again.\n\nThese courtships which the vain negative woman contrives to bring\nabout, in order to feed her vanity, may or may not lead to adultery.\nFrequently they do, because, although she is certainly not actuated by\npassion in contriving them, she may by chance light upon a paramour who\nis passionate, and then, in order to prolong the farce, she finds she\nmust yield to his importunacies. Indeed, unless she do yield, the whole\nof the realistic nature of the love affair, which she has done her\nbest to impart to the experience, will be destroyed. Thus, despite her\nlack of real passion, this kind of vain adulteress frequently finds\nherself in the Divorce Court, with the most damning evidence against\nher, when all the time she has never desired the illicit consummation.\nWhat was necessary\u2014nay, essential\u2014to her, was the breath of adulation,\nnot the final embrace of the procreator. She wanted a life that was a\nlong courtship, because courtship is the time when vanity receives its\nstrongest appeals. As, however, she could hardly simulate _une grande\npassion_ without actually appearing desirous of the consummation, her\nfirst marriage is ruined.\n\nVery frequently indeed these women do not allow the consummating step\nto be taken. Not being at all disposed to it physically, their caution,\ntheir cowardice, and their indolence easily get the upper hand, and\nthey ultimately disappoint their expectant lover; but as a rule\nthis happens only when they have squeezed him dry of every possible\nflattering epithet and attention.\n\nBut, the reader will object, as far as behaviour and results are\nconcerned, where is the difference here between the negative woman\nacting on the impulse of vanity, and the positive woman acting on the\nimpulse of passion?\n\nTo judge from the evidence heard in the Divorce Court, the difference\nis admittedly slight. There is the same dissatisfaction with the home\nand the mate, leading to the same longing for amusements and activities\nof all kinds which promise a chance of variety. In actual practice,\nhowever, the differences are marked. The positive woman goes about\nthe business with more solemn, even sullen determination. She does\nnot smile, laugh, and frivol about it as the negative woman does. The\nlatter betrays her immediate aim, which is the satisfaction of vanity,\nby her extreme enjoyment of every step along her irregular path. She\nenjoys the mere means to an end, which supply the gratification that\nher vanity needs. The former, having only the end in view, accepts the\nmeans as a necessary preliminary, but these means obviously leave her\nmuch more unmoved than they do her negative sister.\n\nThus negative women are notoriously what the French call _grimaci\u00e8res_.\nThey proclaim their true nature by the perpetual grin that distorts\ntheir features throughout the whole period in which they receive\nattentions from their worshipper. Deep passion does not grin in this\nway. It is either too deeply stirred, or it is too shy, to make an open\nexhibition of its feelings. Besides, it is greatly agitated and anxious\nabout the issue.\n\nThe vain, negative woman, moreover, is always conscious of an observing\npublic when she is in the company of her admirer, and her triumphant\nglances at onlookers in such circumstances are a sort of challenge to\nthem to contemplate her in the full intensity of her joy. Part of the\ngratification of her vanity consists in drawing the envious looks of\nother women upon her. Hence, too, her perpetual grin, a good deal of\nwhich is meant for public notice. The positive woman, on the other\nhand, is too deeply interested, too seriously concerned, to be able to\ngive a thought to the onlookers. She may even shun the crowd. In her,\neverything is subordinated to the principal end she has in view.\n\nThe vain, negative woman, moreover, because she does not really desire\nthe man who happens to be worshipping her, will brook no breach of\nmanners, of chivalry, of steady worship from him. She is constantly on\nthe alert and vigilant. She keeps him up to the mark, and will quickly\nrap his knuckles if the incense he is burning at the altar of her\nself-esteem is the least bit stale, or burns with only a moderate fury,\nor is swung with any sign of diminished zeal. The passionate woman, on\nthe other hand, will bear anything from the man she really desires,\nexcept\u2014absence.\n\nThe vain woman\u2019s hatred is roused, not by a refusal to cohabit with\nher, but by a noticeable lameness in her worshipper\u2019s flattering\nfluency. _She hates those who wound her vanity, not those who cheat her\nwill to Life and its multiplication._ She will become homicidal only if\nshe is made to look small or ridiculous, not if she is left sterile.\nShe loathes situations in which she cannot make a display of her bliss.\n\nThe positive woman, on the other hand, longs for privacy and secrecy,\nand forgives nothing less easily than a lack of virile ardour in her\nmale pursuer. He may be silent to the point of dumbness, inarticulate\nto the point of being unable to apologise when he spills his soup over\nher dress at table;\u2014all these things she overlooks if he has the first\npre-requisite of Life, which is virile ardour rising to impatient and\nrestless importunacy. On the other hand, the worshipper who spills his\nsoup over his negative mistress\u2019s dress in a restaurant or any public\nassembly, would thenceforward be loathed on that account alone. Because\nit is mortifying to one\u2019s vanity to be made ridiculous in public.\n\nThe negative man of this class is of the cold Don Juan type, who\ngratifies his vanity more than his sexual appetite by repeated\nconquests. He too soon tires of his wife and of his home. He does this\nall the more readily, seeing that his marriage itself has usually\nbeen quite an unintended consummation on his part of one of the many\nflirtations his vanity led him into in early manhood, and that he has\nbeen chafing ever since it was finally settled at the thought of the\nmany conquests he might have made before taking the final step.\n\nHis nostrils, too, yearn for the hot breath of adulation. He is a\ntormentor of positive women, because he can so readily hold himself\naloof at the last station before the terminus.\n\nIf this man becomes unfaithful, it will be because his enormous vanity\nhas overcome his caution. In order to extract the last and most\nenthralling confession from a young woman\u2019s heart\u2014which will cause him\nto reach his highest pinnacle of exaltation\u2014one day he will go too far,\neither in his protestations or in his caresses,[98] and then, if he is\ndealing with the kind of girl or woman who knows of no facile retreat\nfrom such avowals, and who is really in earnest, he will find himself\nimpelled in a direction and to an end which he can truthfully swear he\nnever had in contemplation at the outset.\n\nThe fact that the law of England deals too lightly with this kind of\ndandified scoundrel (for such men almost always dress well) is due not\nmerely to the fact that, generally speaking, it is grotesquely lenient\nto correspondents as a class, but also to its inability to distinguish\nbetween the adultery of the negative man and woman, whose misdemeanour\nis the outcome of vanity alone, and whose ruin of another\u2019s home is,\ntherefore, wanton and unnecessary, and the adultery which is the\noutcome of genuine passion, and which, therefore, partakes far more of\nthat quality of human action which is elemental and inevitable.\n\nThis man only becomes tragic under a snub. He finds no infinite\nresource in a deep knowledge of his own value, and is, therefore,\nincapable of self-consolation when shown the cold-shoulder. Hence the\nwoman who does not fall in with his scheme of mutual worship, incurs\nhis homicidal loathing. She destroys his _joie de vivre_, his very\n_primum mobile_, the source of his will to live. His career is a series\nof escapes from female fires he has deliberately kindled; but he is\nalways more ready to forgive a burn than the fuel that refuses to flare\nup under the power of his bellows.\n\nBefore concluding section (_c_) perhaps it would be advisable and\nalso helpful to give a brief analysis of the psychological forces\nwhich impel the negative, vain man and woman along their career of\nvanity-gratification at all costs. For, while to understand them will\nbe in a measure to exonerate them, it will also serve as a means of\nrecognizing their type when we see it.\n\nNow the fundamental truth to be grasped about vanity is that it is\nalways found in conjunction with modesty. It is the intense modesty of\nthe vain person that forces him to gratify his vanity at every turn.\n\nWhat, then, is modesty? In ultimate practice it amounts to an inability\nto set a value on oneself, an inability to place oneself according to\none\u2019s worth in the graduated hierarchy of human beings. The modest man\nwaits to be given his place, to be told where he stands, to be priced\nand valued by his fellow-men. Compliments mean a good deal to him,\nbecause, since he has no settled opinion of himself, they promote his\nself-esteem. In short, his self-esteem fluctuates according to his\nreceipts in compliments and abuse. And since his good spirits depend\nlargely upon his self-esteem, his spirits may also be said to fluctuate\naccording to these receipts. Unlike his proud brother, he does not hold\na good or poor opinion of himself because of an inner conviction of\nhis worth, which is settled; he holds it because he has been _modest_\nenough to wait for the world to give it to him.\n\nBut this makes him entirely dependent upon his fellow-men for his\nknowledge of his worth, and consequently for the condition of his\nspirits. By throwing him always upon the judgment of his fellows for\nhis opinion of himself and his good spirits, his modesty therefore\ntends to lead the modest man into the constant practice of trying to\n_seduce_ his fellow-men to such an opinion of himself as will not\ncause his spirits to suffer. He covets good opinions, because on them\nalone can his self-esteem, and therefore his good spirits, thrive.\nIn order to enjoy that comfortable feeling of satisfaction which\npromoted self-esteem affords, he is constantly tempted to persuade his\nfellow-men into giving it to him. This makes him amenable, and what the\nmodern world calls \u201clovable,\u201d because he glows under compliments, and\nbecomes pliable and susceptible to influence, and by the side of him\nhis proud inflexible brother appears to the modern world as cold and\ninaccessible.[99] The vain man asks: \u201cWhat did So-and-so say of me?\u201d\nor \u201cWhat did So-and-so think of me?\u201d And according to the answer he\nreceives he is either happy or depressed.\n\nThe proud man does not care what So-and-so thinks of him. He is not\nconcerned with public opinion. He knows his own good and bad points,\nand no views about himself, entertained by his fellows, can modify that\nknowledge one way or the other. Consequently he is not always busy\ntrying to seduce his circle of relatives, friends, and acquaintances\ninto a good opinion of him. This makes him stiff, independent,\nunamenable, and dignified\u2014in fact, everything that the modern world is\nleast able to tolerate with patience.\n\nThe modest man lives in his neighbour\u2019s views of himself. He depends\non them for his self-esteem, and therefore for his _joie de vivre_. On\nthese views he measures his worth. It is only human, therefore, that he\nshould be anxious to make them as favourable as possible.\n\nNow it is this constant effort to make these views as favourable as\npossible, and the pleasure he feels over the success of his efforts,\nthat constitute the characteristic known as \u201cvanity,\u201d for which the\nmodest man is notorious. It is obvious that when no other deeper\nmotives interfere\u2014as in the case of all those people whom I call\nnegative, and whose physiological or bodily promptings are hardly\naudible\u2014vanity very soon becomes the only mainspring of action. It\nconstitutes the only tribunal before which life\u2019s alternatives are\ndrawn for examination; and, according to whether vanity promises to\nbe gratified or not by a certain course, that course is adopted or\nrejected.\n\nWhen I say, therefore, that these vain, modest and negative people\napproximate nearest to the passionate, tragic type, it will readily\nbe seen why this must be so. For to snub or to withhold your good\nopinion from the vain man or woman, is not only an offence in itself,\nit also deprives that man or woman of self-esteem for the time being.\nThey depend on your good opinion of them for their good opinion\nof themselves. Not to give them your good opinion is, therefore,\ntantamount to destroying their _joie de vivre_ for the time being;\nit amounts to depriving them of their mainspring, which is gratified\nvanity. But this is as good as killing them. Until they can find\nsomeone, or think of someone, who can cancel out your poor opinion of\nthem, by a more exalted opinion, they are, therefore, desperate. They\nhate with a homicidal hatred (vain people never forgive anyone who has\nmortified their vanity), and this makes them tragic. Tragedy among vain\nnegative people is always to be traced to wounded vanity, and never to\npassion. The constant mistake made by the modern world is to confound\nthe passionate crime with the crime that arises from vanity.[100] But\nthe passionate crime is of a different order of rank altogether. It is\nalways a crime arising out of an affront against Life itself, whereas\nthe crime that springs from vanity is always the result of the much\nmore insignificant fact that somebody\u2019s good opinion of himself has\nbeen assailed.[101]\n\nIn class (_d_) we also have a very large and growing section of the\npopulation, particularly among the middle classes. It consists of\npeople, not unlike the former, but who know exactly what real passion\ndoes, and how it does it, and who proceed to ape it in every momentous\nincident of their lives. They are negative and therefore have no\ngenuine promptings from passion; but they read and observe a good deal,\nand they emulate their passionate fellows with a pertinacity worthy\nof a better purpose. They will fall in love, marry, commit adultery,\ndivorce, and even commit murder, provided that they can convince\nthemselves that each successive step has been taken in the grand style.\nAnd, as they proceed through their various metamorphoses, they watch\nthemselves with the double interest of participators and spectators of\na great drama.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOf the whole negative class it may be said that they are radically\nunstable in marriage, because they are not actuated by any natural\npassion or impulse, and therefore do not become _wedded_ to any\nenvironment where their instincts find perfect adaptation. On the\nother hand, however, they are frequently able, owing to this very\nlack of natural passion, to endure for a lifetime matrimonial unions\nwhich would be intolerable to the positive type for a month, and this\naccounts for the fact that, in England particularly, there are so many\npeaceful lifelong unions of couples who are childless and doomed to\nchildlessness.\n\nThe most constant characteristic of all negative people, however, is\nthis, that they are always prepared, and able, to silence the natural\npassions (because in them these forces are so feeble) and to direct\ntheir conduct according to any conceivable rule other than that of\nthese natural passions. Thus opportunism, vanity, an eye to the main\nchance, love of display, histrionic tastes, indolence, caution,\ncowardice\u2014each one of these factors may at different moments direct\ntheir lives; but true passion certainly never will, and the very\nfact that it cannot, they will dress in every form of high-falutin\u2019\neuphemism. They will call their lack of passion, self-control, or\nstrength of will; they will describe it as ordinary common decency;\nthey will even have the impudence to call it simply \u201cgood breeding,\u201d\nand sometimes they will have the duplicity and arrogance to call it\npurity.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[70] See Chapter 44 of the _Erg\u00e4nzung zum vierten Buch_ of the _Welt\nals Wille und Vorstellung_. In _La Femme Criminelle et la Prostitu\u00e9e_,\nby C. Lombroso and G. Ferrero (Paris, Felix Alcan, 1896) the authors,\nwishing to emphasize the same fact, say very plainly: \u201cC\u2019est le besoin\nde l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, le besoin maternel, qui pousse la femme vers l\u2019homme,\nl\u2019amour f\u00e9minin \u00e9tant une fonction subordonn\u00e9e \u00e0 la maternit\u00e9\u201d (p. 107).\n\n[71] See _ante_, p. 148. See also Lombroso and Ferrero, Op. cit.\n(p. 112): \u201cPsychiquement, l\u2019amour de la m\u00e8re se greffe toujours et\nl\u2019emporte sur le besoin du sexe.\u201d\n\n[72] See Sir Bargrave Deane\u2019s evidence before the Royal Commission\non Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, 1912, para. 1163: \u201cMy impression\nis that it is a very serious question\u2014this absence of children\u2014to\nthe married life, and I believe you will find (I am certain it is so\nfrom my experience this term) that if there are children it keeps the\nhome together, and they both work together.\u201d Lord Salvesen (Judge of\nCourt of Sessions, Scotland), speaking before the same Commission, and\ndiscussing the statistics as to childless and fruitful marriages, said:\n\u201cI draw this inference, that I think they show where there are children\nthe union is strengthened, and parties are more unwilling to have it\ndissolved\u201d (para. 6214 of the Report).\n\n[73] In addition to the engrossing character of the r\u00f4le of mother, and\nthe tendency it has to invade every controlling centre in a positive\nwoman\u2019s nature, we should also remember that, inasmuch as man is only\nimportant to woman as a means to an end, his importance must diminish\n_pro rata_ as the end tends to be achieved and visibly materialized in\nthe form of the growing family.\n\n[74] The modern man\u2019s chief safeguard against becoming a complete\nnonentity in the home is, of course, his hold on the purse-strings.\nThis procures him a sort of perfunctory regard.\n\n[75] See footnote, pp. 179, 180.\n\n[76] Buffon in his _Discours sur la nature des Animaux_ makes the\nfollowing profound remark which English people as a whole would do well\nto take to heart: \u201c_Amour, pourquoi fais-tu l\u2019\u00e9tat heureux de tous les\n\u00eatres, et le malheur de l\u2019homme? C\u2019est qu\u2019il n\u2019y a que le physique de\ncette passion qui soit bon; c\u2019est que, malgr\u00e9 ce que peuvent dire les\ngens \u00e9pris, le moral n\u2019en vaut rien_\u201d (see _Oeuvres Compl\u00e8tes, Tome\n3me_, Paris, 1837, pp. 21-22).\n\n[77] As a proof of this, behold the aggressive exultation of the\nordinary man over every fresh addition to his family.\n\n[78] So far from being conscious of the will to the multiplication of\nlife, it frequently happens that women do all that is required in order\nto achieve fertilization, and yet protest that they do not wish to have\nchildren, or that they do not care for children.\n\n[79] The ancient Hindus, from whose great wisdom nothing was hidden,\nnot only openly recognized this fact, but made special provision for\nit. In the _Book of Manu_ there were special periods of absence allowed\nfor husbands, beyond which their wives were no longer forbidden from\nseeking fertilization elsewhere (see Book IX, verse 76). It should be\nborne in mind, however, that a very large proportion of the women who\ncommitted adultery during the war did so out of vanity rather than out\nof passion. The preponderance of negative women in England makes the\npassionate crime a much rarer occurrence than is generally supposed.\nSee explanation of the r\u00f4le of vanity in adultery in the second half of\nthis chapter.\n\n[80] Even in regard to the legendary Penelope we have to remember that\ntradition relates certain facts about her that cast some reflection\nupon her normality. Why, for instance, was she thrown into the sea by\nher parents? Both of her parents came from Sparta, and the Spartans\ndid not scruple to destroy abnormal children. In fact, they regarded\nit as a religious duty to do so. At the very beginning of her life,\ntherefore, some suspicion is cast which entitles us to question whether\nshe can have been as desirable as the numbers of her suitors leads us\nto believe. Further, we may quite pertinently inquire what it was that\never induced Odysseus to spend twenty years of his life away from his\nwife, unless there were some secret and profound reason. It is true\nthat his adventures are presented to us in the narrative as being\nforced upon him. But who has ever known an adventurer whose adventures\nwere not inevitable?\n\n[81] The realism and methodical certainty with which adultery was\nexpected in the wife by the absent husband both in antiquity and\nthe Middle Ages is shown (1) by the general attitude of wonder\nand admiration maintained towards Penelope, and (2) by the famous\n_ceintures de chastet\u00e9_ in which the aid of the locksmith was enlisted\nin order to safeguard an absent husband\u2019s honour.\n\n[82] The fact that during the war numbers of married women were thus\nserved by men very much older than themselves, only shows how, as his\nyears increase, a foolish man\u2019s vanity sets ever greater store by a\nfemale\u2019s favours. It is too easily forgotten that when a man is a born\nfool, old age does but increase his foolishness; it does not, as most\npeople suppose, turn bad wine into good.\n\n[83] In one case this occurred, despite the fact that all the woman\u2019s\nrelatives and friends constantly urged her to rid herself of her\nuseless mate by fair means or foul.\n\n[84] The _Laws of Manu_ make special provision for a woman who is\nchildless owing to her husband\u2019s fault.\n\n[85] A good deal of the pseudo-scientific literature of their day\neven tells them that the orgasm is just as important to them as to\nthe male, and lays such stress upon it that they may be forgiven for\nmisunderstanding its real value to their lives.\n\n[86] Women of a slightly more intellectual mould of mind generally\nbecome interested in some public movement or Cause, or begin to take up\na new religion or philosophy, or express the desire to go in for acting\nat this stage. But the same forces are at work in them as in the woman\ndescribed above\u2014that is to say, their old environment having failed\nto procure them the whole physiological cycle which they need, their\ninstincts urge them blindly to seek a fresh environment.\n\n[87] Women are particularly prone to endeavour to rule in the home by\nmeans of this trick of giving their spouse a guilty conscience, and\nthey do not mind much what words they use or abuse to achieve that\nend. The word \u201cselfish,\u201d however, is a very convenient word for this\npurpose, particularly if they happen to be dealing with a man who\nbelieves, as they do, that it has a meaning and that this meaning is\noffensive.\n\n[88] All this time she may have been protesting _consciously_ that\n_she does not want children_ and that she is quite happy without them.\nIt is her blind instinct and the impelling force of her dissatisfied\nreproductive organs that have been driving her (despite her conscious\ndisinclination or indifference to motherhood) into situations in which\nshe can be fertilized.\n\n[89] To this anthropologists may object: What about the Australian\nBushmen who did not associate the coitus with reproduction? True; but\nthey knew that children came with marriage, although they did not know\nthat the coitus had anything to do with their appearance. And the fact\nof being a married man would thus become inextricably mingled with the\ncondition of paternity.\n\n[90] Among the reasons given for the wife\u2019s unfaithfulness there are\nof course a few that apply also to the husband. These the reader will\nreadily pick out, and they do not require to be re-stated here. To give\none example of these common reasons, however, I would remind the reader\nof the effect of the continued use of contraceptives on happy sexual\nrelations.\n\n[91] \u201cH\u201d signifies husband\u2019s petition: \u201cW\u201d signifies wife\u2019s.\n\n[92] Unfortunately these figures were unobtainable, as for the previous\nyears, distinct for husband and wife.\n\n[93] Figures for the years 1913 and 1914 unobtainable.\n\n[94] Priests of the Holy Catholic Church not included.\n\n[95] As they include unmarried men, they are somewhat in excess of the\ncorrect figures for families, but the proportions between them would\nnot be so very much affected by the omission of the unmarried.\n\n[96] It is this omission to draw a sharp distinction between the\nproclivities of flourishing health and those of lack of health or of\nsub-normal health, that vitiates the arguments and conclusions in\nsuch books as Otto Weininger\u2019s _Sex and Character_, and essays like\nSchopenhauer\u2019s on _Woman_ and _The Metaphysics of Love_. This omission\nis more particularly fatal to-day when negative people are becoming\nvery much more numerous than positive people.\n\n[97] The reason why women live in such dread of the man who can see\nthrough them, and endeavour to heap every kind of ignominy upon him, is\nthat in their alleged \u201cmystery\u201d lies their power over the average man,\nand that their sentiments and insistence on a sentimental view of their\nsex, all help to furnish their arsenal with the weapons they can wield\nmost effectively against man in general. The wonder is that they have\nbeen able to impose _their_ view of the penetrating man upon the mass\nof British mankind.\n\n[98] The same lack of caution probably led to his marriage; for, in\nview of the negative character of his constitution he is not likely to\nmarry in order to meet the deep bodily need St. Paul speaks of.\n\n[99] Truth to tell, the proud man is disliked nowadays. There is no\nplace for him. The whole of the modern world is run and organized\non such lines, that only the vain man and woman are regarded as\ndesirable. The bulk of modern men are of the modest-vain type, who purr\ncontentedly when their fellows smile upon them; hence the enormous\nincrease in futile and meaningless orders and badges of honour in\nrecent years, and the stampede there is to obtain them.\n\n[100] In his _House of the Dead_, Dostoiewsky lays some stress on the\nfrequent occurrence of vanity in criminals. See particularly Chapter I.\n\n[101] It is this fact that makes the judgments of vain people so\nunreliable and worthless; because a vain person always judges all\npeople, not according to their true worth, but according to the\nsatisfaction his vanity has derived from them. Thus a genius who\nmortifies a vain man\u2019s vanity (or a vain woman\u2019s vanity) is called a\n\u201cfool,\u201d a \u201cdetestable fraud,\u201d a \u201cstuck-up, pretentious prig,\u201d etc.,\netc. On the other hand, the fool who knows how to flatter is regarded\nas intelligent, understanding, perspicacious, knowledgeable, etc.,\netc., by the vain person. The whole of modern opinion, based as it\nlargely is upon vain impulses, thus becomes quite worthless.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nThe Old Maid and Her Relation to Society\n\n\nOne of the first facts to be remembered about the spinster, whether\nshe be a positive or a negative woman, is that she is an abnormal\nbeing\u2014just as the celibate priest is abnormal, and just as any\nnon-reproductive adult animal is abnormal\u2014and therefore that her\nimpulses must inevitably find their adaptation in an abnormal manner.\n\nThis may be an unpleasant fact, and it may seem a hard thing to say;\nbut we are not concerned here with what is pleasant, kind-hearted, or\ncourteous. Our concern is much more to approach as nearly as we can\nto the truth on this matter; and since the phenomenon of spinsterhood\nis well known, to deal with it in a manner that will be useful to all\nthose who wish to arrive at a better understanding of it.\n\nModern people have grown so emotional and sentimental as to truth\nin general, that it is becoming more and more difficult to deal in\na straightforward way with subjects having unpleasant associations,\nor likely to lead to unpleasant conclusions, without incurring all\nkinds of imputations that are utterly irrelevant to an honest spirit\nof inquiry. The moment they leave the investigation of such obviously\nharmless subjects as chess or bridge, and turn their attention to human\nnature, modern people feel that the pursuit of truth must or ought to\nbe directed more by a constant regard for good feeling, politeness and\npleasantness, than by any rigorous endeavour to arrive at facts.\n\nFor instance, when the ordinary middle-class person of the present\nday hears it said that spinsters are abnormal, cannot help acting\nabnormally, and must therefore constitute an abnormal influence in\nsociety, he finds it difficult to resist the temptation to object\nindignantly: \u201cOh, but it isn\u2019t their fault if they are spinsters\u2014why\nsay such hard things about them?\u201d\n\nIt never occurs to such a person that the business of discovering\nthe facts about a certain phenomenon is not an undertaking that can\nbe trammelled by considerations either of gallantry or drawing-room\netiquette, nor is it embarked upon with the object of apportioning\npraise or blame. The contention that it is not the spinster\u2019s fault\nthat she is a spinster, therefore, is no more relevant to an inquiry\ninto spinsterhood, and ought no more to influence us in the conclusions\nat which we arrive concerning spinsterhood, than the fact that the germ\nof tuberculosis is not responsible for being the germ of tuberculosis\nought to influence us in our inquiry into its relation to pulmonary\nphthisis.\n\nI am quite prepared to admit without further ado that there are\nhundreds, possibly thousands, of noble and eminently desirable women in\nEngland to-day who have remained spinsters from deliberate choice. I\nhave no doubt that if I had been a woman and had entertained anything\napproximately like my present opinion of modern men, I too would\nhave remained a spinster, maybe from sheer nausea.[102] The majority\nof modern men are so very much below even a modest idea of what man\nshould be, they have been so much besotted and debilitated through\ngenerations of unmanly labours and occupations, that it is not merely\nconceivable that many women should prefer not to condescend, it is\nalmost inconceivable that any woman can be found who imagines she has\nfound her match. Let us clearly define, however, what we have set\nourselves out to investigate. We have not undertaken in this chapter\nto show the multifarious reasons why a woman may elect spinsterhood\nas her r\u00f4le in life. We have undertaken the more important task of\ndiscovering her relation to society when once the r\u00f4le of spinster\nhas been assumed. Whether she has remained a spinster from deliberate\nchoice, therefore, or whether she is a spinster owing to the loss of\nher fianc\u00e9 at sea or in a railway accident, matters but little. The\nfact is that, as the result of circumstances which may or may not have\nbeen beyond her control, she has remained unmarried. As a spinster she\nwill inevitably develop characteristics more or less true to type.\nThese characteristics will exercise some influence on her own life\nand that of others. It is this influence that we propose to consider,\nirrespective of the causes which brought the spinster herself into\nbeing.\n\nFrom the outset, therefore, it is as well for everybody to bear this\nin mind in regard to spinsterhood in general, namely, that since the\nspinsters of any country represent a body of human beings who are not\nleading natural lives, and whose fundamental instincts are able to find\nno normal expression or satisfaction, it follows, on _a priori_ grounds\nalone, apart from any question of evidence, which we may ultimately\nfind for or against, that the influence of this body of spinsters on\nthe life of the nation to which they belong, must be abnormal, and\ntherefore contrary to the normal needs and the natural development of\nthat nation. Moreover, since the abnormal, when it is not supernormal,\ntends constantly to gravitate into the morbid, it is not inconsistent\nwith this principle, but rather a necessary conclusion from it, to say\nthat the presence of a body of unadapted spinsters in any nation must\nexercise a morbid influence upon the life of that nation.\n\nThe attitude of the average thinker to this conclusion is, as a rule,\nto shrug his shoulders and to exclaim: \u201cWhat would you do with them,\npoor things? They must live!\u201d Certainly. And it is precisely because\nthey must live that they cannot help exercising a baneful influence on\nthe life of the community. The fact that modern society can offer no\nsatisfactory solution of the surplus-woman question does not justify\nus in overlooking the evils which are the outcome of surplus women in\nour midst. The fact that we can devise no adaptation for them, does\nnot relieve us of the duty of investigating the nature of the evils to\nwhich their non-adaptedness gives rise.\n\nTo concentrate upon the economic aspect of the question, and to say\nas many do, that provided these surplus women can support themselves,\nthe problem of their lives, and the difficulty of their evil influence\nupon their nation, is entirely solved, is simply to draw a red\nherring across the path of our inquiry. For self-support is not even\nthe consummation of the life of _man_. How then could it be the\nconsummation of the life of _woman_, in whom a very much more elaborate\nequipment than man\u2019s for a definite calling, demands a far more\ncomplicated range of bodily activities than any to which an occupation\nproviding merely self-support can possibly lead? Self-support is never\nmore than a means to an end. The needs of a full and complete life,\ntherefore, cannot be met by self-support and the industry by which it\nis achieved.\n\nNeither is it any satisfactory reply to the question, How can we\ncorrect or eliminate the evils of spinsterhood? to point to the number\nof spinsters who are doing what is called \u201cuseful work.\u201d In the first\nplace, it is always wise when such a plea is advanced, to inquire into\nthe \u201cuseful\u201d work in question, in order to discover (_a_) how much of\nit has been rendered necessary by the very existence of spinsters in\nlarge numbers, (_b_) how much of it is the creation of the spinsters\nthemselves in their resolute insistence on acquiring some importance,\n(_c_) how much of it is actually harmful, (_d_) how much of it is not\nessentially woman\u2019s work at all. Finally, when these questions have\nbeen gone into with sufficient care, we find ourselves back at the old\nobjection that, however useful the employment may be at which spinsters\nmay be working, since it cannot thoroughly adapt them (except in the\nevent of its conforming to two additional conditions which shall be\ndiscussed later),[103] it must leave them still abnormal members of the\ncommunity, and therefore a morbid influence.\n\nI propose to discuss the whole question of spinsterhood from the age\nwhen, in healthy girls, the condition begins to prove noticeably\ndeleterious to health and spirits, to the time when, if marriage has\nnot taken place, no fertilization can occur.\n\nI therefore have for my subject the general question of spinsterhood,\nfrom the time when a virgin reaches the age of twenty-five, to the time\nwhen she is fifty or more. And very naturally I propose to concern\nmyself not with spinsters in the legal sense, but only with spinsters\nwho are entitled to the epithet _intacta_.\n\nProceeding along the accustomed lines, spinsters shall accordingly be\nclassified as follows:\u2014\n\n(1) Positive virgins.\n\n(2) Negative virgins.\n\n\u2014that is to say, (1) those whose bodies and instincts say \u201cYea\u201d\nemphatically to life, and who will brook no negative compromise; and\n(2) those whose bodies and instincts are not sufficiently vital or\nsanguine insistently to demand the fulfilment of their destiny.\n\nIt is necessary to make this sharp distinction again, because it is the\nonly way to be clear regarding the diversity of characteristics which\nare to be found among spinsters of all nations and climes.\n\nIn Chapter III, I dealt with the question of the origin of instinctive\ndesire, or bodily impulse or wish. I showed how it arose from two\npossible sources:\u2014\n\n(_a_) An ancestral habit, leading to a predisposition to perform\ncertain actions in a certain manner, or to function in a traditional\nway in complete conformity with the lines laid down by previous\ngenerations within a species.\n\n(_b_) A certain correlation of bodily parts or organs, the possession\nof which in itself is sufficient to suggest and to enforce a particular\ncourse of conduct in its owner.\n\nI showed that the blind will to function in a certain way, and the\nimpulse to seek the means of functioning in a certain way, must arise,\nprovided that these two conditions are present in an individual, and\nthat his body is in a sufficiently tonic state for these conditions to\noperate normally.\n\nNow in a woman the blind will to function as a mother finds its source\nin:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The long line of female ancestors who _must_ have been mothers,\nand who therefore have established an ancestral maternal habit on the\nfemale side, which reaches the individual female with a considerable\namount of accumulated momentum through the generations that have\npreceded her.\n\n(_b_) A certain correlation of bodily parts\u2014the large amount of space\ntaken up in the female body by the organs connected directly or\nindirectly with procreation, the importance of these organs, and the\nelaborate nervous organization contrived to bring these organs into\neffective and harmonious action when once the proper start has been\ngiven.\n\n(1) In the unmarried woman, therefore, whose body is sufficiently\nhealthy and tonic to act normally, there are two forces incessantly\nimpelling her to the employment of her important reproductive organs,\nof both of which forces she may be and usually is, childishly\nunconscious: they are (_a_) her ancestral bias or habit, and (_b_) the\ncorrelation of her bodily parts. The more perfectly formed she is and\nthe more healthy she is, the more importunate will these forces be, and\nthe less inclined will they show themselves to be put off without a\nstruggle.\n\nThis woman or girl I shall call the positive spinster\u2014that is to say,\nthe type of unmarried female who says \u201cYea\u201d emphatically to life,\nand whose tendency will always be to favour those opportunities,\ncircumstances, and directions in her life which promise to lead her to\nmotherhood and the normal functioning of her body.\n\n(2) In the unmarried woman, however, whose body is not sufficiently\nhealthy or tonic to act normally, there are the same forces present,\ndriving her to employ her reproductive organs; but the insistence of\nthese forces not being very great, the drive is hardly felt, or not\nfelt at all. The ancestral habit, although the same of course, speaks\nwith a fainter voice, and the correlation of organs which are less\ntonic and less healthy perforce generates a less impetuous impulse.\n\nThis woman or girl I shall call the negative spinster\u2014that is to say,\nshe is the type of unmarried female who either says \u201cNay\u201d emphatically\nto life, and who will not hasten to seize opportunities that promise\nto lead to motherhood, or else she will be listless and apathetic\nabout the whole matter, unconsciously so, and therefore consciously\nuninterested, unmoved by any of its aspects.\n\nThese two types of spinsters will now be examined separately.\n\n\n(1) THE POSITIVE SPINSTER\n\nShe is usually a great conscious sufferer, sometimes both mentally\nand physically; for, while she possesses the physical equipment for\nmarriage in a highly tonic condition, with all the potential virtues of\nthe mother, this equipment and these virtues never have the opportunity\nof deploying their power.\n\nShe may, at the cost of great pains, develop other virtues and other\nadaptations; but the fact to be remembered about her is, that the\nfunctions for which she is best fitted and the virtues which are most\nessentially hers, cannot be used in her life.\n\nWhatever else she may become\u2014_that_ is always her second calling. Her\ntrue vocation will have been missed. What perfection soever she may\nattain in her second calling, will always be inferior to that which she\nwould certainly have shown in the calling for which she was primarily\nand chiefly endowed.\n\nIn addition, however, to the extra fatigue, worry, pains and distaste\nalways connected with pursuing a vocation not primarily one\u2019s own, she\nherself will always feel and reveal the disillusionment and bitter\nregret of one who is conscious of having been designed for something\ndifferent. The mood of the artist whom circumstances have compelled to\nadopt accountancy for a livelihood, will be her constant mood.\n\nIn addition to being a person pursuing a wrong vocation, in this sense,\nhowever, she will feel something more than the artist who is doomed to\naccountancy. She will feel \u201cout of it,\u201d as the popular expression has\nit\u2014outside that which is most thrilling, most enthralling, and most\nuniversally interesting, outside the main _Stream of Life_ itself.\n\nAll of us, as we look around and behold our big cities, our municipal\nauthorities and their offices, our streets, our traffic on those\nstreets, our railways, our Parliament, our system of Judicature, our\nindustries, our commerce, and finally the land beyond with all its\nagricultural and mining activities; all of us who can with one sweeping\nglance comprehend the immensely vast and intricate activities which\ngo to make a modern nation, have sometimes a lucid moment when we can\nabstract from the wild and confusing tangle of our environment the idea\nof the _purpose_ for which it is all there, the idea of the _force_ for\nwhich it is organized\u2014in short the underlying _fact_ which gives the\ncity, the country beyond, and all the activities we see, a sense, a\ngenuine meaning.\n\nThis purpose, this force, this fact, is the _Stream of Life_ that runs\nthrough our organized State, and to which all these activities, all\nthese complex conditions, do but minister. The factory is thus beheld,\nnot as an end in itself, but like art, like railways, like the bus\nservice and the Government, it is only an instrument serving the most\nimportant thing of all, the Stream of Life, Human Life.\n\nNow it is precisely from this most important thing of all that the\nspinster feels herself most radically and hopelessly severed. She\nmay minister to it indirectly, through the factory, the municipal\nor Government offices, the studio, the nursery or the scientific\nprofessions; but her importance will be commensurate with the relation\nshe bears to it. She is one step removed from the main stream, she does\nnot directly flow with it; before the most important thing on earth,\nthe thing that gives everything else its sense, she is and can only be\na spectator. This is the additional anguish she must feel as a creature\ncheated of her proper calling. The artist with whom we have compared\nher, who suffers the mortifying experience of pursuing a vocation\n(accountancy) not his own, may after all be flowing with the Stream of\nLife, and form part of it. The additional anguish of being \u201cout of it,\u201d\nin this sense, he need not necessarily feel. He experiences only half\nthe spinster\u2019s spiritual distress.\n\nNor will it necessarily console her, or reconcile her to her relatively\nunimportant fate as spectator, to point to the pain, the passion, the\ndisappointment, the hardships, the disease and the poverty that lash\nthe main Stream of Life like a flail. If she is honest, she will tell\nyou just what everybody else feels\u2014that she would risk all these things\nto be in it.\n\nBut there is yet something more she endures, which the artist doomed to\naccountancy is spared. Provided he be wise and observes the essential\nrules of hygiene and sound diet, there is no reason, despite his\nabandoned mission, why his body should suffer very severely. While he\nmay deplore his wasted capacity for art, he may nevertheless live a\nhealthy sexual life and become a happy father.\n\nThe positive spinster, on the other hand, cannot well escape the\nphysical penalty of her total sexual abstinence. The rebuff offered\nto her reproductive system by the long, endless wait is neither\npassed over by Nature nor forgiven. Such elaborate preparations as\nhave been made in her body for a specific consummation cannot end in\nnothing, without certain very definite reactions, which it is neither\nfanciful nor fantastic, but rather helpful, to describe collectively\nas a profound _physiological disappointment_. The fact that this\nphysiological disappointment does not enter consciousness as a\ndisappointment has nothing whatever to do with its reality.\n\nThe energy that has been waiting and waiting to be used endeavours\nto discharge itself. Since it cannot find the customary and normal\nchannels of discharge, it disperses itself erratically along any\nchannel that it can find\u2014usually the nerves\u2014and it does this angrily\nbecause of the impetus it has acquired through being checked. The\nthwarted instincts show their revolt in internal conflict with the\nother instincts of life, and may be so powerful as to convert a\ngirl hitherto consistently yea-saying into a radical nay-sayer,\nor a suicide.[104] Hence the strong tendency to suicide in very\npositive girls between the ages of fifteen and twenty, when the\npassions are most impetuous, and waiting leads to the maximum amount\nof conflict.[105] The fact that the number of suicides among women\nincreases where their occupations bring them in contact with men, and\nthat the same association with men also increases their tendency to\nlunacy and criminality,[106] supports the view that the physiological\nexpectancy, by being increased owing to the presence of a strong sexual\nstimulus, leads to a greater conflict when it is disappointed.\n\nThe discharge of the sexual energy along nervous channels may lead to\nevery variety of neuropathic symptoms. The woman may become the victim\nof phobias, obsessions, melancholia, morbid self-contempt, or morbid\nself-esteem (narcissism), facial tics, other spasms, insomnia, vicious\nsecret habits, and hallucinations. Owing to the fact that other parts\nof her body, away from her sexual organs (the throat, \u0153sophagus, or\nbowel, etc.), may attempt to find compensation for the inexperienced\nsexual sensations, she may find a morbid pleasure in consuming\nhighly condimented foods, or foods which she can swallow in a bulky\nbolus[107]\u2014bananas, new bread, pastry, insufficiently masticated hard\nfoods, such as bread-crusts, apples, and even raw vegetables. This\npropensity, while quickly inducing indigestion, may, by giving a false\nappetite, cause her to be taken for a glutton. A case has been known\nof a girl who, addicted to this method of pseudo-sexual satisfaction,\nused to employ artificial means of vomiting up her food, like the more\ndissipated Romans of old, in order to be able to enjoy a fresh bout of\nswallowing.[108] The effects of this kind of abuse upon the alimentary\ncanal may well be imagined, and even where it is not carried to\nextremes, must in the long run lead to all the most distressing forms\nof chronic dyspepsia.\n\nFurthermore, the instinctive effort which every woman will make, in\ncases of vague physiological distress, to conceal her bodily misery\nfrom her friends and relatives, frequently leads to consistent\naffectation. It is not necessary that the nature of the bodily misery\nshould have reached consciousness in order that affectation, as a\nmeans of concealment, should be indulged in. It is sufficient that\nthe physiological distress should have been communicated vaguely as\n_distress_ to the brain. From the moment this has occurred there will\nbe a tendency in all brave women, who incline to show a bold and\nhappy face to the world, to practise every kind of affectation. Their\nspeech, their voice and even their laugh will strike their friends as\nover-strained or peculiar. Some will habitually make strange grimaces,\nothers will smile in a set, exaggerated way, or over-emphasize their\nhorror at objects disliked and their pleasure at objects approved. The\naffectation may even affect their gait, so that they will walk with\na bold manly stride in which an unconscious attempt will be made to\ndemonstrate to the outside world excessive self-assurance and happy\nadaptation, in order to conceal the reverse of these feelings which are\nagitating their spirits. As time goes on these affectations will become\nfixed habits that no training and no changes in environment can remove.\n\nThere may be attempts at sterile compensation, taking the form of\nan excessive fondness for children, or a desire to fondle or to\nhave power over them. This is particularly obnoxious, and entirely\njustifies psychologists like Dr. E. Jones in strongly deprecating\nthe too exclusive teaching of children by unmarried teachers.[109]\nIt may look very sweet to behold the spinster of from twenty-five\nto forty manifesting her affection for a child and kissing, nursing\nor instructing it. But when it is remembered that the spinster in\nquestion is not merely giving herself very well-defined pleasure by\nthe immediate touch of the soft downy skin of the child, or by the\nsense of power over it, but may also be rousing in the child itself\ncertain pleasurable feelings, or certain notions, that do not fail to\nbecome registered on its memory, and may induce either regrettable\nsexual precocity or a distorted view of life,[110] the behaviour of\nthe spinster appears in a less innocuous light. Nevertheless, it must\nbe admitted that such attempts at sterile compensation by unmarried\nwomen are hard to prevent; for the spinster\u2019s action at such times is\nquite unconscious, and she is usually so far from realizing what she is\ndoing, that if you were to enlighten her upon her conduct she would be\nboth indignant and disgusted. There can be little doubt, however, that\nthe spinster\u2019s strong predilection in favour of the teacher\u2019s calling\nis largely due to this blind pursuit of some kind of power over the\nyoung.\n\nThere may also be attempts at compensation with members of the same\nsex\u2014not necessarily in the form of vicious unnatural relations, but in\nthe nature of patronizing friendship with younger girls. Spinsters in\nthe wealthy classes who organize and direct girls\u2019 clubs are usually\nseeking compensation of this kind, and receive a tremendous amount of\ncredit for humanitarian motives, of which they are entirely innocent.\nNevertheless, the misinterpretation of the crowd, which takes their\naction to be humanitarian, is eagerly seized and adopted by them,\nbecause it helps them to give a definite description to the merely\n_compensatory_ character of their interest in the club, which even they\nthemselves do not, of course, understand.\n\nAmong the more wealthy spinsters, there may also be attempts at\ncompensation through frankly humanitarian propaganda, through the\nendowment or enriching of humanitarian institutions, or through\nhumanitarian labours. This is usually expressed by a very deep concern\nabout the welfare of animals, or the poor, or the babes of the poor,\n_or anything over which the assumption of power constitutes an easy\nand uncompromising matter_. We should remember that the relationship\nof mother to child derives more than half its exquisite pleasure for\nthe female from the fact that it is a relationship of almost absolute\npower. This instinct to wield power, therefore, which forms an\nessential factor in female psychology in its relation to the helpless,\nand which explains the regret most mothers feel when their children are\nfirst able to run about and become independent, has to be reckoned with\nin the psychology of the spinster. If it cannot in her find its normal\nexpression, it will seek compensation in every possible way, and since\nhumanitarian interests offer an uncompromising outlet for its exercise,\nhumanitarian interests are naturally in very great favour among the\nspinsters of all classes.\n\nIntimately connected with humanitarian pursuits, particularly when\nthey are adopted with frenzied resolution, is however another and\nless inviting psychological factor. The theory that males and\nfemales contain in their constitution certain elements, more or less\naccentuated, of the other sex, is now so widely accepted that it has\nbecome a commonplace in all speculations upon the sex question. Now\namong the characteristics which most frequently manifest themselves in\nwomen of marked male tendencies is a proneness to sadistic expressions\nof the sex instinct. The habit of teasing among hysterical girls, and\neven among female children not yet pubescent, is a sign of this.[111]\nIn the normal life of the married female these sadistic impulses become\nsublimated either by the action of the stronger male upon her psyche\nand physique (which draws the masochistic elements in her to the fore)\nor by the natural expression of her power over her baby or babies. In\nthe unmarried female, or the female without offspring, these sadistic\nimpulses have to be repressed or curbed. The peaceful and orderly\nexpression of them in modern society is hardly possible. But we are\ntold by psychologists that an overpowered instinct asserts itself in an\nobverse character.[112] In spinsters, therefore, we should expect the\nsadistic elements _in the happiest circumstances_ to become inverted\ninto intense humanitarianism.[113]\n\nThis explains why we so frequently encounter middle-aged spinsters\nwhose hard metallic faces and cruel cold eyes seem so utterly out of\nkeeping with their ardent participation in humanitarian movements\nof all kinds. I remember one occasion when I happened to call on a\nlady of this kind. I was appalled by the terrifying hardness of her\nfeatures, and yet, I must say, I was not in the least surprised when,\nin the course of the conversation, she asked me (I ought to mention\nthe district where she lived was a very hilly one) whether I did\nnot suffer at the sight of the _poor_ horses in the neighbourhood.\nThese women, who frequently have hearts of stone, nevertheless find\ncompensation for the repression of their sadistic impulses in the\nexercise of the most ungovernable and most obsessional humanitarianism\nand sentimentality, but while their neighbours and the local clergy\napplaud their lives to the echo, no one has the smallest inkling of\nthe true nature of the phenomenon. A child would tell at a glance\nthat these humanitarian and sentimental ladies were not radically\nkind by nature, and those who live with them every day would probably\nconfirm the child\u2019s first impression; but such is the distrust in\nEngland of what the eye can read, and so great and instantaneous is\nthe respect for humanitarian zeal, particularly when it is backed by a\nheavy banking account, that these women frequently die leaving a big\nreputation for warm-heartedness behind them.\n\nThe fact that this feverish humanitarianism and sentimentality are\nfrequently most mischievous in their effects and create a number of\nnational abuses, besides involving the expenditure of large sums of\nmoney on what are frequently the least desirable and least promising\nelements in the nation, is concealed beneath the dramatic munificence\nof the wealthy spinster\u2019s life.[114]\n\nIn the wealthy classes, as the result of their superior cultivation,\nthe compensation frequently takes an active intellectual form, and\nwhen, owing to the vague consciousness of enduring a great grievance\n(common to most positive spinsters who have not successfully sublimated\ntheir reproductive instincts), misanthropy supervenes, there may\narise a very pronounced sex-antagonism, leading the spinsters who\nhave developed it to engage in pursuits, or in intellectual pastimes,\nwhere they feel they can clash with men, or where they know they can\nresist or impede men in the natural business of their lives. Spinsters\nseeking this kind of compensation frequently derive great satisfaction\nfrom misogamist meditations. They will display a morbid interest in\narguments against marriage, in the statistics of insanity or disease\namong married women, and in the evidence of excessive parturition\n(leading to debility) among the wives of the poor. They will exercise\ntheir influence to convert young girls to misanthropy, to misogamy,\nor at least to an indifference to men; and if they can achieve this\nend, under a religious cloak (which is not difficult with passionate\nyoung girls of eighteen, whose \u201cvague voluminous and powerful feelings,\nif afforded means to do so, settle down and concentrate on a single\nobject,\u201d[115]), they justify themselves on the score that they have\nled such young girls into paths of purity and devotion.[116]\n\nIt would be impracticable here to deal with all the possible\nmanifestations of sex-repression in the female celibate. They have been\ndiscussed very fully by other authors, and in detail they would serve\nno purpose in this book. I have contented myself with hinting broadly\nat those morbid results of sex-repression in the positive virgin which,\nwhile not leading to definite lunacy or insanity, are yet common enough\nto demand consideration in a discussion upon the spinster\u2019s relation to\nsociety; but let not any reader imagine that in the outline given above\nthere has been any desire to dwell upon the black side of a picture\nwhich from whatever angle it be viewed cannot at best be a pleasant\none. There is a good deal of strong feeling among the majority of\npeople to-day against the belief that sex-repression need necessarily\nhave _bad_ results. These people say that the school of psycho-analysts\nhave grossly exaggerated the facts about the phenomena, and have drawn\nan unnecessarily lurid description of them. But surely the question is\none concerning which it would be suicidal in a scientist to exaggerate\nor overstate his case. Is it not after all common sense?\n\nYears ago\u2014or to be precise in the year 1840\u2014de Quincey, comparing the\nmental diseases that arise from excessive expression with those that\ncome from insufficient expression, or the non-expression, of deep\nsensibilities, wrote as follows concerning this matter:\n\n\u201cAmongst the Quakers (who may be regarded as a monastic people)\nanomalous forms of nervous derangement are developed, the secret\nprinciple of which turns ... upon feelings too much repelled and driven\nin. Morbid suppression of deep sensibilities must lead to states of\ndisease equally terrific, and possibly even less tractable; not so\nsudden and critical it may be, but more settled and gloomy.\u201d[117]\n\nThis anticipates most of what modern psychology has discovered about\nrepression, and can be applied just as legitimately to repression in\nthe physical as in the psychical sphere. But a very much earlier record\nof the same common-sense view about repression, or non-expression of\nnatural appetites and sensibilities, is to be found in Aristotle\u2019s\n_Poetics_, where the doctrine of _catharsis_ constitutes the kernel of\nall that modern psychologists would claim in regard to this particular\naspect of civilized humanity.\n\nAs the life of the individual female is prolonged, and the _tone_ of\nher reproductive organs depreciates through the deleterious influence\nof long idle waiting, there occurs an abatement of the unconscious\ninfluences impelling the positive spinster to seek a fuller life.\nA sort of passive adaptation to abnormality takes place in which a\nbalance is attained, and the restless and more afflicting symptoms\nbecome accordingly less acute. But, with the decline in sexual vigour\nand alertness, there is a corresponding falling off of good spirits,\nhopefulness, and the love of life, and frequently there supervenes a\npronounced distaste for human concerns or a general depression, which\nmakes the spinster the proverbially embittered female of popular\ntradition. The more positive she was at the outset, the more likely is\nthis revulsion of feeling to appear in an intolerable form\u2014hence the\ncommon occurrence of embittered spinsters on the Continent, where women\nare, as a rule, more positive than in England.\n\nIndeed, it can usually be taken for granted that where Nature has been\nthwarted without any dire results, Nature was not originally very\nstrong, or not assertive enough to offer very severe resistance. The\npresence of thousands of very cheerful and completely adapted spinsters\nin England, therefore, far from being a good sign, is in reality a very\ndeplorable one; for it argues that in them Nature was not powerful\nenough to offer any determined fight before allowing herself to be\ncompletely conquered.\n\nThere are but two possible exceptions to this rule, and they occur\nwhere the reproductive instinct has been subjected to the process\nknown to psychologists as _sublimation_. This innocuous transmutation\nof the sex appetite and emotions may be effected either by means of\nChristianity (religious fervour)[118] or Alcohol (dypsomania). When\neither of these potent sublimators of the sex impulse has come into\noperation, it is no longer safe to argue from the spectacle of a\ncheerful and happy spinster of middle age, that in her Nature was not\nvery strong from the start. But, again, the fact should be emphasized\nthat with the spread of enlightenment on the one hand, and the general\ndecline in vigorous health on the other, these hitherto unfailing means\nof sex-sublimation are becoming ever less and less accessible to the\nwomen of the nation. A generation has arisen on whom the fundamental\ntenets of the old faith have lost their hold, and in whom, therefore,\nit is becoming ever more and more difficult for Christianity to become\na burning substitutive passion; while this same generation can no\nlonger undertake the alcoholic cure, owing to the fact that human\nhealth is no longer what it was.[119]\n\nBefore proceeding to a discussion of the negative spinster, I now\npropose to consider one aspect only of the positive unmarried girl of\nthe poorer or working classes.\n\nThere can be little doubt that in her case, very much more frequently\nthan in the case of the well-to-do spinster, compensation is sought\nin some kind of illicit relation to the males either of her own class\nor of the class above. The statistics of prostitution alone show what\nan enormous contribution the women of the poorer or working classes\nmake to the ranks of the courtesans in Europe; and seeing what the\nalternative usually is\u2014that is to say, a life of drudgery unrelieved by\nany brighter element and aggravated by all the evils of unsuccessful\nrepression\u2014it is not surprising that among the more positive girls of\nthe poorer classes, particularly in towns, there are many who go to\nswell the army of fast women.\n\nBut at this point it will be necessary for me to digress a little in\norder to make quite clear my own standpoint in regard to this very\nvexed question of prostitution. For it is only an evil in modern\nWestern Civilization because people insist on making it so.\n\nOur civilization stands or falls as a whole. The intricate adjustments\nwhich constitute its fabric, and the minute ramifications that wander\nin all directions from every centre in its complicated organization\nto every other centre, and sometimes to every other civilization,\nlend to its various parts a character so interdependent and mutually\nsubservient, that it is no longer possible to lay hold of any important\nportion of it, with a view to condemnation, without thereby condemning\nthe whole.\n\nThe comfortable and short-sighted people who, from the security of\ntheir smug homes, point a finger of censure at prostitution, therefore,\nhave not as a rule the imaginations or the knowledge to realize that\nin so doing they are bringing an indictment against the whole order of\nsociety, including their own pathetic fastnesses of bourgeois luxury\nand morality.\n\nIf prostitution exists on a large scale in modern Europe, and\nprostitution is wrong, then the civilizations of modern Europe are\nwrong, and it is fatuous to point to the most obvious sore, when the\nwhole pig is diseased. Nobody nowadays denies, perhaps, that the whole\npig is diseased? Then it is absurd to moan over this one sore.\n\nBut why is so much fuss made precisely about prostitution on its sexual\nside? There is the prostitution of healthy rosy-fingered youth in\nhundreds of other walks of life, and nobody, or scarcely anybody, stirs\nto point it out. The young girls who to-day are sent by their parents\nat the age of sixteen to twenty to bow their heads for forty-three\nhours a week before a typewriter, or a ledger, or a stamping, cutting\nor folding machine, get ill just as quickly, lose their beauty just\nas surely, and grow depressed and spiritless just as rapidly, as\nthe sexual prostitute, and they get only a sixteenth or less of the\nprostitute\u2019s entertainment out of life into the bargain. Watch the\ncareer of the girl who sells herself to the modern taskmaster of\ncommerce or industry! Could anything be more tragic? Could any satyr\nbring about grosser degradation of health and spirits? What sympathy or\nhorror or righteous indignation can you rouse in the moral toads, who\ninveigh against prostitution, by pointing to the rounded shoulders, the\nloveless life, the listless eyes, the bloodless cheeks and hands of the\ntypewriter or other machine drudge? None!\n\nThey reply that the typist\u2019s worn-out looks, her lost beauty, her faded\nyouth, her hopeless expression and outlook, are _not_ the result of a\nlife of immorality, _therefore_ she is honourable, therefore she need\nnot be rescued, therefore everything is all right, therefore nothing\nneed be done.\n\nBut enough! The wide-awake will see at once that there is cant in\nthe very frown that is vouchsafed to sexual prostitution\u2014_cant_, the\ninevitable ingredient of every movement and every counter-movement in\nthese islands.[120]\n\nThe evils of prostitution are no greater and no more tragic than\nthose of any other form of exploitation of the individual. That which\nunnecessarily aggravates the horrors of the public courtesan\u2019s life in\nEngland is not necessarily the natural consequences of the life itself,\nbut the whole attitude of the community and of the legislature to the\nquestion of prostitution in general.[121]\n\nSociety in England seems resolutely determined not to face and answer\nthe question: Is prostitution necessary or unnecessary? If it is\nnecessary to the kind of civilization we have evolved, then the only\nhonourable, the only humane, the only magnanimous course to take, is\nto face it bravely and honestly, and do all we can for those women who\nare contributing their lives to a public service, just as we do all we\ncan for soldiers and sailors in war-time, and for all public workers\nwho perform useful and dangerous duties for the public weal. If it is\nunnecessary, then steps should be taken to find out why it continues\nto exist, what flaw in our social system accounts for its survival,\ndespite the fact that it is superfluous; and how that flaw can be best\nremoved.\n\nThe general consensus of opinion among European legislators and\nthe European public must be to the effect that prostitution is\nnecessary. It is inconceivable that it should be allowed to survive as\nflourishingly as it does in England and on the Continent, if public\nopinion and the legislators in each country could find no excuse for\nit. What is still more inconceivable, however, is the diabolical\nhypocrisy of a public, which at the same time tacitly assents to it as\na social need, and yet covers with shame and contempt those who devote\ntheir lives to making it possible.\n\nTruth to tell, there are many grave reasons why prostitution[122] still\nconstitutes a necessary adjunct to our topsy-turvy, hare-brained social\nsystem, and as long as it remains as topsy-turvy and hare-brained as\nit is, the prostitute will continue to be indispensable. In view of\nthis fact, it is but rational, not to mention humane, to regard with\nmore solicitude and charity those who from what motive, or through what\ncircumstances soever, supply the means for its existence.\n\nI will touch but lightly on two aspects of society which seem to\ncontribute chiefly to the causes making prostitution a public\nnecessity. I refer to (_a_) the virgin ideal in marriage, or\n_parthenogamy_, and (_b_) the economic system which compels thousands\namong the men of the struggling classes to marry at a date very\nmuch later than their physiological development would indicate as\nreasonable.[123]\n\n(_a_) In order to preserve the custom of parthenogamy in conjunction\nwith (_b_) it is obvious that there must be some safety-valve, some\noutlet for the expression of virile passions, which while being\nnormal is capable of safeguarding a certain large body of virgins\nannually, and of preserving them from pre-connubial amours. The fact\nthat, at present, this safety-valve or outlet, though countenanced by\nsociety, is entirely neglected, despised and concealed by the public,\nand is thus allowed to breed many evils which are not necessary to\nprostitution _per se_, is not so much a reflection on the prostitute\nas upon the administration which leaves this department of social life\nutterly uncared for and unorganized.\n\n(_b_) Apart altogether from the fact that late marriages resulting from\neconomic pressure necessitate the existence of some relief measure\nwhich will preclude the deleterious alternative of repression, or\nunnatural vice, in young men; for the adolescent, as we have seen in\nthe Chapter on Marriage, it is highly desirable that there should be\nsome school, some opportunity for experience in sexual relations, as\nthere was in ancient Greece, for instance, in which the young male, in\naddition to finding the means of healthily delaying marriage, may also\nacquire that mastery in the mysteries of life without which his future\nmarriage may very seriously suffer. It is one of the most scandalous\nfeatures of modern society that, while this relief measure and this\nschool are allowed to exist, nothing is done to protect either the\nwomen who supply its personnel, or the young men who resort to it, from\nall the worst consequences of promiscuity and vice.\n\nThe old moralists or moralizers of the nineteenth century, now thank\ngoodness rapidly becoming extinct, used to justify this scandal by\narguing that the dangers attending the recourse to the prostitute\nserved a good purpose in two respects: (1) They offered a strong\ninducement to sexual abstinence among young men, and (2) they cast\nthe well-merited stigma of shame and disease upon those women who\nministered to these young men\u2019s ungovernable passions.\n\nIt is now no longer possible either medically or psychologically to\nsupport (1), consequently the cold-blooded moral inference in (2)\nfalls to the ground. The evils of abstinence among men are certainly\nin this country more serious than those of indulgence, while the evils\nresulting from a total absence of experience in sexual matters among\nyoung men are perhaps the worst of all.\n\nThe present obvious duty of civilization, therefore, short of so\nrevolutionizing society as to make parthenogamy a thing of the past,\nand late marriages unnecessary, is to see that the sexual relief\nmeasure and school that the modern world provides for its young men are\nplaced upon a sounder, a purer and a more humane basis, free from the\nignorant bias of puritanical busy-bodies, and secured from the dangers\nthat now attend them.\n\nIt only remains now to say a word on the position of the prostitute\nherself. From the psychological and physical point of view the sadness\nof her plight does not reside, as the Puritans of England suppose,\nin the moral turpitude of her lot, or in her loathing of it\u2014for that\nis simply high-falutin\u2019 nonsense.[124] It resides in the fact that\nher very taste for her calling, or the very desire that drew her into\nit\u2014that she herself in fact\u2014is a physiological misunderstanding. Her\ncalling, like that of the childless married woman, presupposes that\nshe will have to cry \u201cHalt!\u201d to a physiological process in her being,\nwhich only finds its first step in the coitus. By a false analogy with\nman\u2019s sexual life the orgasm, which to woman is only the beginning of a\nlong cycle of sex-experiences which end with the weaning of the child,\nis the only part of the female cycle which is vouchsafed her. Like the\nbarren woman, she is denied the whole of the subsequent stages of the\ncycle, so rich in delightful experiences to her, and continues like a\nman to confine herself to orgasms\u2014orgasms _ad infinitum_.[125]\n\nIt is this that constitutes the sad side of the prostitute\u2019s life. If\nshe have a tragedy, this is her tragedy. But for fear lest, prompted\nby vague moral prejudices, we feel tempted to make too much even of\nthis aspect of her life\u2014generally overlooked, by the by, in all\ndissertations I have read about her\u2014we should remember that she shares\nthis sad experience not only with thousands of spinsters, but also with\nthousands of married women who, from some cause or other, frequently\neconomic pressure, are compelled to remain childless.[126]\n\nFrom the national point of view, the feature about modern prostitution\n(apart from the evils incidental to it which are preventable) which\nis most strongly to be deprecated, is the fact that, since it is from\nworking-class girls that its ranks are largely recruited, the danger\nis that it is upon the most temperamental and most positive of these\ngirls\u2014upon the most desirable of these girls, therefore\u2014that the\ntemptation to illicit relations with men is likely to exercise the most\npotent influence.\n\n\n(2) THE NEGATIVE SPINSTER\n\nI now come to the consideration of the negative spinster, and when once\nI shall have dealt with her, a few remarks about the characteristics\ncommon both to the positive and negative spinster will conclude the\nchapter.\n\nThe negative spinster, unlike her positive sister, is not a great\nconscious sufferer from her condition. She may ail as the result of\nconstitutional debility incidental to the inferior vitality which\ncauses her to be negative; but, from the absence of that element in her\nlife which consummates a woman\u2019s destiny, she will not be conscious of\nsuffering very severely.\n\nThe physical equipment for marriage, and the traditional impetus\nderived from the ancestral habits of her sex, are both present in\nher, but their urge is faint, the inner voice, far from being loud\nand insistent, is barely audible, and she is harassed by little of\nthat importunacy on the part of her reproductive organs which compels\nher sister either to adapt herself normally to life, or else to seek\ncompensations and to develop acute nervous symptoms in so doing.\n\nHer own and her friends\u2019 failure to recognize the true nature of\nher condition, however, frequently, if not invariably, leads to\nmisinterpretations of her precise value as an individual which are as\ngross as they are dangerous\u2014_gross_ because they apply moral values to\na condition that is primarily physical, _dangerous_ because they lead\nthe rest of the world into a misunderstanding concerning the importance\nof a normal sexual life to the individual, and the worth of life\ngenerally.\n\nThese misinterpretations, particularly in England and America, usually\ntake one or all of the following forms:\n\n(1) Miss A, the negative spinster in question, may regard herself, and\nbe regarded by others, as _above_ the ordinary impulses of her positive\nsister, so that she and others may draw a moral from her condition,\nand argue that, by means of exercising sufficient _self-control_,\nand preoccupying the mind sufficiently with \u201celevated\u201d thoughts, the\nsex-impulse is easily overcome without any dire results whatsoever.\n\n(2) Miss A may regard herself, and be regarded by others, as too \u201cpure\u201d\nfor sexual impulses, so that, far from needing to repress or suppress\nthe fleshy \u201cdemons\u201d within her, she soars to an altitude too lofty to\nbe reached by them.\n\n(3) Miss A may regard herself, and be regarded by others, as\n_indifferent_ to men, so that she is able to assume an attitude of\nphilosophical detachment towards the main stream of Life, which she\ncontemplates from a distance as a mildly amused and sometimes scoffing\nspectator.\n\n(4) Miss A may convince herself, and convince others, that\nsex-impulses, because they do not happen to be noticeable in her,\nare a pure\u2014or rather, an impure illusion. She may argue, and induce\nothers to argue with her, that the power of these impulses is absurdly\nexaggerated by modern psychology, and that she herself is the best\nproof of this absurd exaggeration.\n\nAs I have pointed out, these misinterpretations are gross, and they are\nalso dangerous. They are gross, in the first place, because they take\nno cognizance of the fact that Miss A is a different creature from her\npositive sister, an inferior and a less tonic creature, and secondly\nbecause they give what is really a lamentable condition a falsely\nenviable character by concealing its true nature beneath a number of\nhigh-falutin\u2019 euphemisms.\n\nThis procedure is dangerous for the following reasons:\n\n(_a_) The Miss A\u2019s of this world, particularly of this English world,\nare increasing at such an alarming rate that very soon Miss A will be\nthe normal woman, and by being held up as the normal woman and the\nnormal ideal, will mislead the ignorant regarding the most valuable\ntype of woman.\n\n(_b_) To regard a person as _above_ a normal human passion, when she is\nconstitutionally and congenitally beneath it, is to lend a power and an\ninfluence to degenerates which must contaminate the national outlook on\nall that is desirable in life.\n\n(_c_) To be deceived into imagining that Miss A has achieved by\nself-control what her inferior physique has made inevitable is again to\ngrant her a quality which, by becoming associated with her type, loses\nall its instructional worth, besides attributing to her a spurious\nvalue.\n\n(_d_) To accept Miss A\u2019s alleged \u201cpurity\u201d as a fact is to remove from\npurity all its positive, potent value. The pure virgin is she whose\npride and self-mastery together have protected her from condescending\nexcept to the man who has thoroughly captivated her heart, her\nimagination, her sense of the ideal, and her body. But Miss A is not\npure in this sense at all. She is simply _virgo intacta_ because no\ndeep instinct, no deep impulse, no wild desire, has ever driven her\nforth to seek her normal adaptation.\n\n(_e_) To accept Miss A\u2019s mild amusement at life as that of a creature\nwho, having tasted and tested all life\u2019s joys, concludes that they are\nworthless, is to run the danger of scorning life without the advantage\nof Miss A\u2019s inferior physique to help one\u2014an experiment which, if\none is positive, can only lead to disastrous results. The fact that\nMiss A\u2019s influence on young girls may lead many to try the experiment\nis one of the most perilous consequences of the negative spinster\u2019s\nexistence in our midst. She, in her own person, constitutes a lure\nto the negation of life\u2019s joys, to the contempt of the body and its\ndemands, and to the disdain of the other sex, which is next door to\nsex-antagonism. Her mind is merely an instrument seeking intellectual\njustifications for her body\u2019s inferiority.\n\nSo much for the misunderstandings of the negative spinster\u2019s true\nnature, and their corresponding dangers. We may now examine her outlook\na little more narrowly, in order that we may recognize her when we meet\nher, and measure her various boasts at their proper worth.\n\nShe will usually gravitate almost automatically to the Christian\nChurch, and become an eager exponent of its principles and an ardent\nsupporter of its work. She will do this, not because, like her positive\nsister, she will require to sublimate impetuous reproductive instincts,\nthat _will_ find expression, but because the negative character of\nthe Church\u2019s teaching will naturally appeal to her, and strike her as\noffering to people like herself a philosophy which might have been \u201ccut\nto measure.\u201d\n\n\u201cLove not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any\nman love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that\nis in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes, and\nthe pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.\u201d[127]\n\n\u201cFlesh is death, Spirit is life and peace. The body is dead because of\nsin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If ye live after\nthe flesh, ye shall die, but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the\ndeeds of the body, ye shall live.\u201d[128]\n\n\u201cFor to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is\nlife and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God.... So\nthen they that are in the flesh cannot please God.\u201d[129]\u2014And so on _ad\ninfinitum_.\n\nThese texts will appeal to her. They will help her to a conviction,\nto which she is already predisposed\u2014that she is more godly than her\npositive sister, and superior to the rest of the fleshy world. She will\nnotice that \u201cbody\u201d in the text from _Romans_ is spelt with a small b,\nwhereas Spirit appears in the pompous parade dress of a capital letter.\nShe will understand this perfectly. She instinctively thinks of her\nbody with a small b, and of her great, lofty spirit with a capital S.\n\nWhat effort is it for her to mortify the flesh, seeing that her own\nflesh came to her half mortified by nature? (See Gal. v. 24.)\n\nLike the positive spinster, she is conscious of her own unimportance,\nof being cut off from the main stream of Life, consequently she exerts\nevery effort\u2014even at the risk of making herself a perfect nuisance\u2014to\nprove herself _most_ important. She will try to be foremost in the work\nof the Church, in the work of the parish, or in the work of the Borough\nCouncil. If she be wealthy she will endow special missions, and back\nmissionaries with more zeal, but with a far more disastrous result,\nthan that with which most people back horses. What does she know about\nthe virtues, the good order, the content, the peace of Indian women,\nChinese women, or the females of the Mohammedan harem? She lives in\na country, England, where there is more misery, more disorder, more\nsickness and more misunderstanding in connexion with sex than in any\ncountry on earth; and yet by means of her wealth she is determined to\nguarantee that this same misery, chaos, sickness and misunderstanding\nshall be spread by her minions, the missionaries, to every quarter of\nthe globe.[130]\n\nShe will interfere with anything and everything, quite irrespective of\nher qualifications, provided she can leave no doubt in anybody\u2019s mind\nas to her extreme importance.\n\nUnlike her positive sister, who is generally too busy mastering or\nsublimating her sex-impulses to think of much else, she will watch the\nworld of the flesh with perfectly unconscious but bitter envy. She will\nthink, as St. Paul did, that it were good for them if they could \u201cabide\neven as I,\u201d and all her activities, all her influences, all her money,\nwill be directed towards favouring her type and its multiplication.\n\nShe will tend to spend her time with the people over whom it is easiest\nto exercise power\u2014the sick, the crippled, the blind, the very poor,\nthe inmates of prisons, and the very aged or the very young. She will\nprofess that she loves the poor, never dreaming that it is the power\nthat is so easily exercised over them that is sweet to her. She is\nof course hopeless at self-analysis, and even when these facts are\npointed out to her, she is intellectually too dishonest to acknowledge\ntheir truth.\n\nWhile professing a love of all humanity, she will secretly cherish\na loathing for men, for, where all sex-impulses are absent, the\nnatural and radical hostility of the sexes (as seen in healthy little\nboys and girls, and in animals) finds its full expression. She will\nalways suspect men of grossness and brutality, and never realize the\nstaggering brutality of her own thoughts about them, and her own secret\nwishes regarding them. Whatever their politics or patriotism may be,\nthe hearts of all decent positive females are so tortured by war and\nthe death of men that war involves, that during a long tragedy like the\nlast War all warm-hearted women longed only for one thing, and that was\nthe conclusion of hostilities at the earliest possible moment. Not so\nthe negative spinster. She perceived in the war a means of expressing\nher loathing of men under the noble mantle of patriotism, and she did\nnot scruple to go so far as to agitate for its prolongation as long as\npossible.[131] These women could be seen during the war eating their\nbreakfasts with gusto, while their newspaper, folded to present the\nRoll of Honour to their view, was propped up against the milk jug.\n\nBut where the negative spinster most thoroughly deceives the world\nis in her cheerfulness and general absence of any signs of faulty\nor unhappy adaptation. People behold her and are wont to exclaim,\n\u201cSee, here is a woman who has had none of those experiences which\npsychologists assure us are so essential to the happiness of the\nfemale, and yet she is the embodiment of good cheer and general\ncontentedness!\u201d True! But such people do not know how to distinguish\nthe negative from the positive spinster, and by confounding the two\nassume too readily that it is possible, when sex-impulses have been\nimpetuous and insistent, to have ignored and flouted them without any\nmore serious result than a pleasant, contented, and thoroughly peaceful\nsmile.\n\nThe distressing fact is that the number of these women who in England\ncheerfully survive a life in which their most important organs and\ninstincts have been wholly neglected and spurned, is increasing at such\na rate that there is hardly a circle in England that cannot boast of\none or two of them. And seeing that their existence is only possible\nwhere reproductive impulses are low, atonic, and seriously below\nstandard, their increase is one of the surest indications we possess of\nthe declining vitality of our race.[132]\n\nAlthough, in the negative spinster, the sex-impulses are hardly\naudible to her consciousness, she reveals in her actions many of the\nmotivations of her positive sister. On a lower key, for instance, she\nmay seek compensations of all kinds for the absence of sex-expression;\nthe only feature that will distinguish her behaviour along this\nline from that of her positive sister will be the inferior zeal or\nfanaticism with which she enters into the particular compensatory\noccupation or activity adopted.\n\nShe may show the same fondness for children, but in an attenuated\nform; she may reveal the same delight in acquiring power over them,\nboth bodily and spiritually; she may manifest the usual sadistic\ntendencies, with their inverted correlatives, humanitarianism, extreme\nsentimentality, and hyper-sensitiveness, and she may show the same\ngeneral misanthropy, overlapping her sex-antagonism. In the negative\nspinster, however, all these symptoms are likely to be very much more\nfaint than in her positive sister; nevertheless, she is just as likely\nas the latter to die honoured and respected by her Church and the\ncommunity, for the \u201cunselfish\u201d humanitarianism of her life, and the\nwarm-heartedness she showed to everything that was feeble, degenerate,\nbotched, sick, very young, very aged, dumb, blind, poor or utterly\nhelpless.\n\n\n(3) THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SPINSTERS AS BREAD-WINNERS AND\nINDEPENDENT FUND-HOLDERS\n\nThe thousands of spinsters of all classes who are now achieving\n\u201cindependence,\u201d both in commerce and industry\u2014not to mention the\nprofessions[133]\u2014naturally only increase the acuteness of the economic\ndifficulties which make their self-support a necessity; for, by\ncompeting with male labour they only aggravate the severity of the\nstruggle, and increase ever further and further the age at which men\ncan safely undertake matrimony. In this sense alone the influence of\nthe spinster on our economic life is a very serious one.\n\nIf, in heightening the fury of the economic war, she achieved her\nown adaptation and contentedness; if in complicating the economic\ndifficulties of large societies, she achieved any specific result,\nvaluable to the community and unobtainable without her, her presence\nwould be as much a boon as is that of the mother, or any other active\ncontributor to the main stream of Life. But, seeing that she neither\nsucceeds in securing her own happiness, nor in promoting the happiness\nof the society in which she finds herself\u2014for, apart from nursing,\ndomestic service and certain trades connected with drapery and women\u2019s\nand children\u2019s apparel, it is difficult to point to any extra-domestic\noccupation that is typically women\u2019s work\u2014it is doubtful whether she\nmay not be regarded as a burden on the community and an aggravation of\nits already enormous problems.\n\nIt should not be forgotten that industry, commerce, the professions and\nthe Civil Service are but institutions organized for the purposes of\nLife. The main stream of Life certainly runs through them, and derives\nits security, its relative permanence and its fluency from their\nharmonious functions, but they exist for Life, and not Life for them.\nIt is Life that is important, the channels through which it flows are\nonly significant, as auxiliary to the main purpose.\n\nNow the spinster, by being wholly divorced from any direct connexion\nwith the main stream of Life, for which society and the Empire exist,\nis severed from the most important phenomenon on earth that can justify\nexistence. The next best course is to obtain an indispensable foothold\nin the machinery that makes the stream of Life, as we have said, more\nsecure, more permanent and more fluent. The moment, therefore, it can\nbe shown that the spinster can lay no valid claim to this one remaining\nindispensable foothold, but rather that she only clogs, impedes and\nretards the machinery that assists Life, her last justification for\nexistence vanishes; and whatever the work may be that she is doing,\nhowever \u201cuseful\u201d it is, we fail to make out her claim to toleration\nthe moment it can be shown (1) that the work would be done as well\nor better by a man or a married woman, (2) that she is not assisting\nbut only retarding the machinery that makes the main stream of Life\npossible.\n\n_In short, it amounts to this_: Society does not exist for the\nspinster. Life does not flourish when it is cultivated too luxuriously\nin its cul-de-sac ramifications. The main stream is too important.\n\nBut there is another and even sadder aspect to the entrance of women\ninto the arena of commercial, industrial and financial occupations.\n\nOne of the greatest tragedies of life for modern women is precisely the\nhavoc that these occupations have made of modern men. The Alcibiades\ntype of man, the complete man, the man who, while he can wield a sword\nas well as anyone, can also sob over a sonnet, direct a difficult\ntransaction with shrewdness and sound judgment, be an ardent lover,\na dutiful father, and also a being capable of wisely directing and\nordering his womenfolk at every juncture of their lives, is now\nextinct. The versatility of gifts and catholicity of tastes which once\ncharacterized the normal man, has been destroyed by two hundred years\nof occupations that are not only emasculating and besotting, but alas!\nalso specializing. All men nowadays are specialists, and frequently\nspecialists in the most dehumanizing form of labour. The Leviathan of\nCommerce and Industry, Trade and Finance, by compelling them to eschew\nother interests and other activities, has reduced the gamut of their\ncapabilities and their tastes to the limits necessary for making them\ncontented workers in one of the many narrow and monotonous ruts of\nmodern life, and _pari passu_ with this metamorphosis there has also\noccurred a corresponding decline in physical and particularly in sexual\nvigour.\n\nBut until recently women had escaped this influence. The very dullness\nand specialization of men, which frequently makes women despair of\nmeeting the male of their dreams (who still continues to be the\n\u201ccomplete man\u201d), had until quite recently not infected the female.\n\nThe reader will object that because the bulk of women in the past were\nengaged in more domestic duties, it does not follow that these duties\nwere not besotting or dehumanizing.\n\nThis is not really true. The women who advance this view are generally\nlazy and frivolous, and prefer to pay even the price of their own\nbesotment, in order to get out every day and meet clammy-fingered\nclerks in stuffy offices.\n\nThe work of the home differs in many ways from the work of the factory\nor the office, and always to the advantage of domestic pursuits.\n\nIn the first place it is work done for the personal ends of the worker\nherself, and not for some one, or some company of people, with whom she\nhas not the smallest personal concern.\n\nSecondly, it is done in her own time and in her own way.\n\nThirdly, an enormous amount of it is of such a nature that it is both\nsoothing and wholesome, while it also allows of meditation, thought and\nthat most precious of lost pastimes, communion with self.\n\nFourthly, when done efficiently and with a good heart it is so soon\ndispatched that it allows of a good deal of leisure, and,\n\nFifthly, it is never of that nerve-racking nature which, while\ndemanding unremitting attention, also destroys attention owing to its\nlack of interest and all personal value.[134] Now, however, that women\nhave become active competitors with men in those very occupations to\nwhich modern men owe the principal features of their degeneration, it\ncannot be expected that the female of the species is going to escape\nany more happily than her male has done the worst consequences of\nbesotting and specializing labour; and it is therefore inevitable that\nin a few generations we shall witness the evanescence in woman of that\ncatholicity of tastes and interests and that versatility of gifts which\nhas until lately differentiated her from her male companion.\n\nWe shall also witness in her that same bodily degeneration that has\ncome over man, and yet it is difficult to see how or when the movement\nthat now leads women to engage in these pursuits can be arrested. The\nfact that this movement was largely initiated and supported by that\nbody of unattached females roughly grouped under the heading \u201cSurplus\nWomen,\u201d cannot well be denied; but it does not follow from this that it\nis a permanent evil in our midst. For, if the problem of the surplus\nwoman, and of those who are misled by her, be attacked along lines\nwhich have as their ultimate aim the marriage of all women, it does not\nseem impossible that something may be done to arrest a tendency which,\nfrom the standpoint of woman\u2019s future, must be bad, and which, from the\nstandpoint of the future of the race, is nothing less than alarming.\n\nThe surprising feature about this movement which during the last\nfifty years has led the bulk of girls and young women into the very\noccupations to which modern man himself owes his besotment and\nmiserable limitations, is that those who become the victims of it\u2014that\nis to say the vast majority of women workers in Commerce, Industry, the\nCivil Service and the Professions, enter joyously, and almost with a\nwhoop of triumph into the various callings with which they achieve what\nthey claim to be economic independence. Not only that, but those who\ncontemplate the procession of them marching into these callings, stand\nand applaud and congratulate each other on the spectacle.\n\nIt is true that millions of these women in later life have the\nintelligence to realize the mistake they have made, and to measure\nwith some approach to accuracy the deterioration it has effected both\nin their minds and in their bodies in one generation. It would be too\nmuch, perhaps, to expect young girls to anticipate these results,\nwhen they first leave their homes to earn their own livelihood; but\nwhat leaves one marvelling is the fact that the older elements in the\npopulation do not seem to understand the doom which will inevitably\novertake this female army and its descendants, and that far from making\nany attempt at driving it back, they shout vociferously and applaud it\nas a desirable and excellent phenomenon of modern life.\n\nThe cynic may reply \u201cAll the better! You say that 200 years of\ncommercial, industrial and office occupations have deteriorated man,\nso that modern woman has very naturally learnt to despise him. Very\nwell, then, if women now suffer a similar amount of deterioration, the\nbalance will once more be restored, and all will be well.\u201d\n\nAll those who can derive some comfort from this reflection, in the face\nof modern tendencies, are welcome to it. But to those who, like myself,\nrealize that hitherto the rapidity of our degeneration has been to some\nextent checked by the comparative aloofness of one sex from the worst\ninfluences of modern civilization, and that henceforth, instead of one\nstream of degeneration we shall have two which will become confluent\nat marriage, the future does not seem to be a very bright one, nor\ndoes it hold out any promise of producing, from the human elements it\nwill contain, the individuals capable of initiating a counter movement\nsufficiently powerful to arrest the tide of degeneracy that threatens\nto sweep everything of value away.\n\nWith regard to the fund-holding wealthy spinster, it may be taken as a\ngeneral rule that she cannot fail to be anything else than a burden to\nthe community to which she belongs.\n\nShe is not only a cul-de-sac, or a blind-alley of the stream of Life,\nwhere the forces that have produced her come to a dead stop, but she\nis also the means of damming up a portion of the community\u2019s wealth\nin produce and labour in that cul-de-sac. She herself, her household\nexpenditure, her retinue, and her disbursements for humanitarian and\nreligious objects, exact a toll on the community, very little of which\nis substantially helpful to the fluency or security of the stream of\nLife.\n\nHe who has travelled much over England does not require to be\nreminded of the countless villages and towns where the most imposing\nand well-appointed private residence or residences are the homes of\nprecisely this kind of spinster. I could name half a dozen villages\nmyself off-hand where by far the most commodious and luxurious house\nis the property of one, two, or three spinster ladies. About them in\nsmaller and conspicuously meaner houses are the other inhabitants of\nthe village\u2014small families with parents struggling to make both ends\nmeet, with children frequently underfed and underclothed, but all of\nthem belonging to the main stream of Life, and constituting the only\njustification there is for the existence of the very town and village\nitself, the Church, and all the machinery of social life. The spinster\nladies from their wealthy fastness, with its carriage drive, its troop\nof servants, its rich solid furniture, and its overfed animals, look\ndown upon the busy scene about them. They are not part of it, but\nmerely spectators drawing their profit, their life\u2019s blood from it.\nTheir untutored minds, guided by local clerical influence, actively\nstudy every means by which they can throw a cloak over the glaring\nsuperfluousness and nothingness of their lives. Deeply conscious, as\nthe best of them are, of being cut off from the main stream of Life,\nand perhaps a trifle piqued by the thought that, besides being severed\nfrom it, their presence there, in the best house for miles around, is\nreally only a means of impeding the machinery facilitating the flow of\nthe stream, a means of causing friction in its movements, they make\nfrantic and resolute efforts to demonstrate their \u201cimportance\u201d to those\naround.\n\nWhat their self-esteem, their very self-respect imposes as a duty\nupon them, is to make a dramatic and incessant exhibition of being\n_important_, to make a very deceptive pretence of belonging to the\nmain stream of Life itself. Hence the untiring energy with which they\nenter into all the village or town festivities which have a public\ncharity for their object; hence the zeal which they show at all Church\nfestivals, and the regularity with which they contribute to religious\nand charitable institutions both local and distant.\n\nFor all this they are looked upon, even by the ignorant villagers\nthemselves, as delightful and exceedingly valuable members of the\ncommunity. Nobody seems to peep beneath the elaborate man\u0153uvres by\nwhich they contrive to \u201ccut a prominent figure.\u201d Nobody seems to see in\ntheir concern about other people\u2019s business and welfare the conclusive\nproof that they are straining every nerve to justify an existence\nwhich, on final analysis, they know in their heart of hearts to be\nutterly and criminally unjustifiable.\n\nGeorge Meredith is one of the few thoughtful and non-socialistic\nwriters who have had the courage to say what they felt about this\nclass of parasites on the community. In Chapter XXIII of _One of our\nConquerors_ he speaks of these \u201ccomfortable annuitants under clerical\nshepherding, close upon outnumbering the labourers they paralyse at\nhome and stultify abroad.\u201d[135] But since his references to them occur\nin a work of fiction they are hardly elaborate enough to be telling, or\nfrequent enough to have aroused comment or to have formed the basis of\na doctrine.\n\nCertainly one does not require to be infected with socialistic or\ncommunistic views to feel that the vast number of these spinsters\u2019\nmansions all over the country is a bane rather than a boon. From no\npolitical point of view, whether monarchic, aristocratic, oligarchic,\ndemocratic or socialistic, is it possible to justify them, and since\nthe very energy which they devote to their humanitarian form of\nsex-compensation is frequently as misguided as it is only a partial\nremedy for the harm they themselves are doing, they constitute a\nportion of the community that must be honestly and utterly condemned by\nevery far-seeing thinker on the subject.\n\nTo reply to this by a shrug of the shoulders and the question, \u201cWhat\nwould you do with them?\u201d is simply foolish. The first great reform\nconsists in getting them to be regarded no longer as a harmless or\nbeneficent section of the community, but as a dangerous and intolerable\nbane. Once this transmutation of public opinion has been achieved, it\nis not a difficult matter to decide what should be done with them.\n\nI invite any reader to take a walking tour through this country of\nEngland, and to count the number of such parasitic females he can\nfind in a month\u2019s tour. I invite him to note the grandeur of their\nestablishments compared with the meanness and poverty of those about\nthem who really belong to Life\u2019s main stream, or are directly assisting\nit; and if that experience does not convince him of the dangerous\nfutility of the class as a whole, he must be possessed of very singular\nviews concerning the proper organization of social life.\n\nEven on their death-beds these creatures do not cease to scourge the\ncommunity to which they belong; for in the very agony of death they\nbequeath their wealth and dispose of their other property in a manner\nwhich, while it is usually thoroughly ill-advised, constitutes but one\nlast fierce effort to stamp the belief in their importance for ever on\nthe minds of those who survive them.\n\nYou are entitled to pity these women for their virgin lives, for the\nserious unadaptedness of their condition, and for their lifelong and\nsecret conviction that they are useless; but to defend their existence\nas if it were _not_ a burden, as if it were not a dangerous scourge in\nour midst, would be to refuse to recognize the truth about the matter,\nand this truth, however unpleasant and disturbing, can be dealt with\nonly if it is honestly recognized and faced.\n\nThe less wealthy among them, right down the scale to the level of those\nwho have only \u00a3300 a year of their own, are certainly less baneful and\nonerous, seeing that they dam up less of this world\u2019s goods in their\nparticular cul-de-sac; but the ultimate cumulative effect of their\ncombined existences constitutes an imposition not much more tolerable\nthan that of their wealthier sisters.\n\nNor should it be forgotten that a not inconsiderable portion of the\nharm resulting from this peculiarly British scourge consists in the\namount of false opinion, perniciously erroneous judgments on all\nthings, and distorted spiritual influences, which annually emanate from\nthese spinsters\u2019 homes, and which, backed as they frequently are by the\npower of wealth, are spread abroad with all the prestige and pomp that\nopulence can impart.\n\nThe English outlook, and English opinion generally, are to a great\nextent contaminated by this spinster influence. Our politics are\nno longer immune from it; our policy both at home and abroad is\nlargely infected by our atmosphere surcharged both with the breath\nand the ideas of spinsters. Our literature is to no small extent\ngoverned by their taste,[136] our newspapers are obviously designed\nto offer no affront to their morbid sensibilities, and our stage is\nentirely governed by their criticism. Feminism, with all its worst\nconsequences, is largely their creation\u2014the child of their idleness and\ntheir superfluous wealth; and if Feminism has spread so far, and become\na creed so universally and almost unconsciously accepted, it is due\nlargely to this large class of powerful, misguided and idle unattached\nfemales.\n\nThey constitute a malignant power, because they are a body bound by\nno responsibilities; they pursue an erratic course directed entirely\nby their abnormal emotions and crazy outlook on life, because in the\nfirst place they are abnormal, secondly because they are unguided\nexcept by those whose advantage it is to mislead them, thirdly because\nthey are limited by no close family ties in the expenditure of their\nwealth during life or in its disposal after death; and finally they\nare a wasteful and squandering body because in their frantic efforts\nto coerce their contemporaries into believing they are important,\nthey shrink from no extremes and no excesses in order to take up as\nconspicuous and prominent a place as possible in their small world.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nIf we have correctly stated the peculiar mental attitude and physical\ncondition of the unmarried woman in our midst, and from this statement\nhave drawn the correct inferences concerning her influence upon\nthe community, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that permanently\nunmarried females are on the whole an element in society which cannot\nbe regarded as very desirable.\n\nFor it is above all important to remember this\u2014that even if we have\nbeen wrong in our enumeration of the occupations that spinsters can\nproperly and usefully fill, and even if the list we have given may be\nmaterially increased, the fact that the spinster is usefully occupied\ndoes not remove the principal feature of her condition which exerts\nan abnormal influence on society, that is to say, her radical and\ninevitable abnormality both of mind and body.\n\nEven if we have been wrong in our deductions concerning the heightening\nof the economic struggle through the presence of spinsters in excessive\nnumbers in the professions, commerce, industry and trade, this\nprincipal objection still stands, and it leaves us no alternative but\nto consider means and ways of mitigating it.\n\nThe fact that in Great Britain the number of surplus females\u2014that\nis to say, of women who, all things being equal, cannot possibly\nmarry\u2014amounts to 2,000,000 or about 5 per cent. of the population,\nmakes the problem of the old maid so acute, for this nation at least,\nthat it is impossible not to regard it as perhaps the gravest with\nwhich legislators have to deal. For, on this basis alone, that it\nis the business of every government to secure the maximum amount of\nsuccessful adaptation to the governed, the question appears to be one\nwhich legislators can hardly shelve with impunity.\n\nOf these 2,000,000 surplus women, it may be only just\u2014humiliating as\nthe argument may be to our national pride\u2014to argue that possibly half\nare negative; that is to say, that 1,000,000 are so constituted as to\nbe undisturbed by their semi-moribund sex-instincts, and that a sexless\nlife is not merely tolerable but actually necessary to them. These\nmay possibly achieve contentedness by means of suitable work combined\nwith strong Christian influence. It is conceivable that they may even\nsucceed in wholly sublimating their reproductive instincts. There\nstill remain, however, the 1,000,000 spinsters, or 2\u00bd per cent. of the\npopulation, whose resistance to sublimating influences is likely to be\nstubborn, and whose misery is likely to be proportionately greater\u2014not\nto mention the unhappiness they must inevitably bring, directly upon\nthose about them, and indirectly upon the nation at large.\n\nThe Holy Catholic Church in the Middle Ages wisely offered asylums to\nthis section of the population, and even more wisely organized these\nasylums on lines which enabled the spinsters taking refuge in them to\nfind a natural vent for their surging desire for sex-compensation, in\nall kinds of sentimental and humanitarian work among the sick, the\naged, the poor, etc., in which they were able to exercise power over\nprecisely that kind of person over whom sway is most easily obtained.\n\nBut what was peculiarly beneficial in the Catholic system was that by\nthis means it acquired a hold upon these women. It was able to direct\nboth their energies and their opinions, and thus act as a lightning\nconductor protecting society from the fury of their sex-compensatory\nefforts, both in their activities and in the expression and imposition\nof their views. In cases where it took charge of their money, this\nwealth became an instrument in the hands of a powerful and wise\norganization, instead of being simply a weapon for a spinster\u2019s whim.\n\nBut what has modern society to offer of a similar kind?\n\nThe hospitals can absorb only a small fraction of the 2,000,000 surplus\nwomen, and domestic service can do little more. For, even if we take\nthese two classes of occupation as accounting for 1,335,368 unmarried\nwomen[137] in England and Wales alone, we must remember that a very\nlarge proportion of these do not remain in the work permanently, but\nleave it for marriage at a comparatively early age. In either case\nwe could not affirm that either nursing or domestic service offers\nany special chances for sex-sublimation. There is certainly a greater\nchance of sublimation in hospital nursing, but the profession is\novercrowded as it is, and no attempt has been made to bring it wholly\nunder the wing of the Church.\n\nThe truth is that modern life, while it certainly offers occupations in\nabundance to women and girls, makes no provision, or very little, for\nthose women whose work ought at once to keep them busy, and give them a\nfull life\u2014that is, effectually transmute their sex-instincts.\n\nWhat course should we recommend in order that the nation\u2019s life might\nabsorb greater numbers of these unmarried women with the view of\nproperly adapting them?\n\nIn the first place it seems eminently desirable to emphasize more than\nwe have emphasized in the past the ideal of matrimony for every woman\nup to a certain age, and to bring home to parents that marriage is\nwhat they must seek for their daughters and what they must train them\nfor.[138]\n\nThis would have the beneficial effect of introducing a more resolute\neffort towards marriage as an end, both in the activity of parents and\ntheir children, which would lead to more restless endeavours being\nmade, than are made at present, to find suitable mates for eligible\ndaughters[139]\u2014endeavours that should be prompted by sufficient\nenergy not to halt even at the shores of the native land.[140] These\nendeavours, assisted by a Government service and the consular system,\nwould allow of an incessant flow of girls of fair fame to our colonies\nand dependencies, and might be coupled with legislative measures for\nthe prevention of too heavy a flow of foreign virgins into this country.\n\nThe Government ought to keep as keen an eye on the marriage as upon\nthe labour market, and just as it now protects the native workman from\nunfair competition resulting from excessive immigration, so it ought\nto protect the unmarried females. The higher the percentage of females\nin the country, the more stringent should the regulations become\nforbidding young female immigrants of what class soever.\n\nSecondly, all work, such as teaching, the practice of medicine and\nlaw, etc., in which, according to the most reliable psychologists of\nthe day, the presence of unmarried women, far from being helpful (as\noffering a new and essential contribution to the knowledge on the\nquestion), only complicates the existing difficulties, and, as in the\ncase of teaching, is directly harmful to the children taught, should\nbe exclusively reserved for men, poor married women, or middle-aged\nwidows, as might also with advantage many occupations both in industry,\ncommerce and the Civil Service. This would have the effect of relieving\neconomic pressure, and of facilitating early marriages.\n\nThirdly, the Government should be carefully advised concerning those\ncallings which are best calculated to offer unmarried women complete\nadaptation\u2014that is to say, occupation and sublimation of the sex\ninstinct\u2014and the legislature should do all in their power to encourage\nwomen, particularly of a special type, to enter these callings.\n\nFourthly, when once public opinion had become convinced (which it\nis very far from being to-day) that the \u201cannuitant\u201d spinster is at\nall events, and in any circumstances, a bane, legislation might be\nintroduced to limit her powers and discourage her excesses, which would\ngo an appreciable way towards mitigating the harm she does.\n\nFifthly and finally, everything should be done to revive the medi\u00e6val\nsystem of respectable and honourable sequestration for old maids,\nin institutions whose functions would be at once religious and of a\nkind to provide an outlet for the sex-compensatory impulses of the\npositive and negative spinster. By this means they might be not only\nthoroughly adapted, but also in a position to have their activities,\ntheir opinions, and (in cases of wealthy people) their wealth, wisely\ncontrolled by a broad policy beneficent to the nation as a whole.\n\nIt is, however, very doubtful indeed whether anything whatsoever will\nbe done to relieve the nation of what, in the mildest language, can be\nregarded as little less than a spiritual and material scourge.\n\nModern society is so thoroughly and deeply saturated with feminist\nprejudices and ideas, and the sentiments which most promote feminine\npower and feminine tastes are so universally popular both in the Press\nand in modern literature generally, that anyone who speaks on the sex\nquestion with an honest regard for reality, and with a non-romantic\nunderstanding of its fundamental features, is not only foredoomed to\na cold and even hostile reception, but every year finds it more and\nmore difficult to obtain a fair and exhaustive hearing. For, as we have\nalready said, the growth of Feminism has been so steady and insidious,\nthat thousands of men and women to-day are Feminists without knowing\nit, without ever having questioned it.\n\nA cold feverless appreciation of the radical principles underlying\nthe relations and the nature of the sexes, whether in fiction or in a\ntextbook, is now practically certain to be decried, and to be regarded\nas a literary _faux pas_, and while in Byron\u2019s days it brought a man\ninto evil odour, at present, after one hundred years of Progress, it\ncompletely discredits him.[141]\n\nIt is not probable, therefore, that anything contained in this chapter\nis likely to be read with sympathy or with comprehension by the\nmodern world; but if it conveys to a few isolated and lonely spirits\nthe message that they have been waiting for, and makes them feel\nperhaps that, although they may not be on the eve of a deep national\nantifeminist (_not_ anti-feminine) movement, they are at least not\nentirely alone, it will have accomplished all that its author can\npossibly expect.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[102] In the _Laws of Manu_ (Bk. IX, 89) there is a passage which seems\nto show that spinsterhood of this kind is specially recommended by the\nreligious Founder of Brahmanism. In Bk. IX, verse 89, we read: \u201cBut the\nmaiden, though marriageable, should rather stop in her father\u2019s house\nuntil death, than that he should ever give her to a man destitute of\ngood qualities.\u201d\n\n[103] See p. 248.\n\n[104] See Arabella Kenealy (Op. cit., p. 105), where, referring to the\nvital impulses of woman, she says: \u201cWhen these are not expended, as\nis normal, in the creation of and ministration to living and beloved\nthings, they generate warped, erratic and chaotic aberrations.\u201d\n\n[105] \u201cWith reference to the marked predominance of female suicides\n[in England] over male suicides in the 15-20 age period, Ogle remarks\nthat this is also \u2018the only period in which the general death rates,\nas shown in the Registrar-General\u2019s returns, is higher in the female\nsex, and also is marked, as the census returns for 1881 show, by an\nexceptionally higher rate of lunacy (exclusive of idiocy or imbecility)\nfor females than for males.\u2019... In France, the chief age at which men\ncommit suicide is from 40 to 50, while for women it is between 15 to\n20.\u201d (Havelock Ellis, _Man and Woman_, pp. 382-383.) The census of 1911\nalso gives higher figures for female than for male lunacy\u2014a difference\nof 10,000, and these are chiefly unmarried women. The unmarried\nnumbered 54,223, the married 21,299, widowed 9,229.\n\n[106] H. Ellis, Op. cit., p. 388: \u201cThere are some who believe (Dr. H.\nCampbell amongst them) that although the number of women of all ages\nwho commit suicide is less than the number of men, many more women than\nmen contemplate suicide habitually, i.e. many more women than men are\nsuicidal, although they may not always carry it into practice.\u201d\n\n[107] The facts collected by the psycho-analysts, Freud and Dr. E.\nJones, on this phenomenon were not new to me. I had already observed\nthem in numerous cases, and my observations on the point were but\nconfirmed by the psycho-analysts\u2019 theory of the transference of\norgastic sensations from the genitalia to other parts of the body.\n\n[108] See Martial, III, 82, 9; also _Senecae Dialogorum Liber_ XII, 10,\n3. While Hugo Bl\u00fcmner in his _R\u00f6mischen Privataltert\u00fcmer_ (1922), p.\n399, gives a brief description of this practice.\n\n[109] See _Papers on Psycho-Analysis_ (London, 1918), p. 599. In regard\nto this question parents are also entitled to ask what influence the\nspinster\u2019s outlook on life has upon their children, particularly upon\ntheir daughters. It is impossible entirely to divorce from one\u2019s\nmoral influence upon children the prejudices and prepossessions of\none\u2019s particular position in life, and one\u2019s general attitude towards\nfundamental problems. Now, since the spinster\u2019s particular position in\nlife is an abnormal one, it is questionable whether she can help her\ninfluence from imparting something of her own abnormality. When we bear\nin mind that, according to the census of 1911 there were 187,283 female\nteachers in England and Wales, 171,480 of whom were unmarried, the\ngravity of this aspect alone of spinsterhood cannot be denied.\n\n[110] And neurosis in later life.\n\n[111] \u201cThe most serious manifestation of disordered conduct in hysteria\nis, however, the development of the appetite for teasing\u2014for giving\npain and annoyance to others\u201d (see Charles Mercier, M.B., _Sanity and\nInsanity_, London, 1890, p. 215). Long after Mercier wrote this his\nviews were confirmed by the school of psycho-analysts. I give the\nreference to Mercier to show that the fact was observed before the\npsycho-analysts, so much detested in certain quarters, had come to the\nfore.\n\n[112] See Dr. Wrench\u2019s _Grammar of Life_ (Heinemann, 1908), p. 76.\n\n[113] Freud deals with this point in many places in his works. See\nparticularly his _Sammlung Kleiner Schriften zur Neurosenlehre, Vierte\nFolge_ (1918), Chapter III (_Die Disposition zur Zwangsneurose_), p.\n117.\n\n[114] The harm, however, does not cease with the work of the spinsters\nthemselves. Their influence in this direction has become a national\nevil. Volumes could be filled with examples of this false and\nshort-sighted humanitarianism, but the following case, taken from _The\nNews of the World_ on Jan. 1, 1922, at a time when rates in almost\nall parishes in and around London were anything between 17_s._ and\n20_s._ in the \u00a3, is typical of thousands of others. \u201cRochford Board of\nGuardians, Essex, are confronted with the problem of dealing with a man\nwho is both a leper and insane. The patient is a native of Mauritius.\nIt was stated at a Board meeting that the man lived for some time in a\ncottage in a rural parish, and his wife looked after him, but she was\nunable to do so any longer. Formerly the man was in the Leper Colony at\nBicknacre, Essex\u2014an institution carried on by the Society of the Divine\nCompassion, assisted by the Sisterhood of St. Giles\u2014but his mental\nstate was such that he could not remain there. Asylum authorities who\nwere approached refused to accept the case, and the Board of Control\nsupported them in their attitude. It was also stated that the Ministry\nof Health would not deal with the matter. Consequently the man had to\nbe cared for by the Guardians. A building was prepared for him, and\nefforts made to secure three male nurses, though only two have been\nobtained. The cost of three nurses is twelve guineas a week. Eventually\nthe Board decided to send a deputation to the Ministry of Health.\u201d The\ninfluence of the spinster\u2019s frantic and unthinking humanitarianism is\nrecognizable here.\n\n[115] See Mercier, Op. cit., p. 220. The author continues: \u201cThey\n[the feelings in question] take the shape of religious emotion,\nand expression for them is found in observance of ceremonial and\nin devotion to a ritual.\u201d The fact that the first initiation into\nreligious fervour of this kind frequently starts by the young\ngirl\u2019s wild adoration for an older woman\u2014her school mistress or her\nSunday-school teacher\u2014is not mentioned by Mercier, but it is important.\n\n[116] Large numbers of the women in the Suffrage movement were of\nthis type. Nor is it possible to exonerate such women entirely from a\ncharge of jealousy of the young girl, when their efforts are obviously\ndirected towards making her, like themselves, ill-adapted, discontented\nand physiologically miserable.\n\n[117] See _The Collected Works of Thomas de Quincey_, Vol. VIII, p.\n349. The author proceeds: \u201cAccordingly it is amongst the young men and\nwomen of this body that the most afflicting cases under this eccentric\ntype occur. Even for children, however, the systematic repression of\nall ebullient feeling must be perilous\u201d ... etc.\n\n[118] For an interesting discourse, uninfluenced by the recent\npsychoanalytical school, on the connexion between sexual and religious\nemotion, see Mercier, Op. cit., pp. 220-223.\n\n[119] Thus Dr. E. Jones argues (Op. cit., p. 217), \u201cCivilization has\nreached, or is on the point of reaching, the limit, beyond which\nunguided sublimation can no longer be successfully maintained.\u201d\n\n[120] See Byron\u2019s letter to John Murray, Feb. 7, 1821: \u201cThe truth is\nthat in these days the grand \u2018_primum mobile_\u2019 of England is _cant_;\ncant political, cant poetical, cant religious, cant moral; but always\ncant, multiplied through all the varieties of life. This is the\nfashion, and while it lasts will be too powerful for those who can\nonly exist by taking the tone of the time. I say _cant_ because it is\na thing of words, without the smallest influence upon human actions;\nthe English being no wiser, no better, and much poorer and more divided\namongst themselves, as well as far less moral, than they were before\nthe prevalence of this verbal decorum.\u201d This was written a hundred\nyears ago, and is still true to-day.\n\n[121] Dr. Vintras and Parent Duchatelet both concur in representing\nEnglish prostitution as about the most degraded and at the same time\nthe most irrevocable.\n\n[122] Throughout this discussion I mean by prostitution not any form\nof illicit hetero-sexual relations but commercial and promiscuous\nunchastity.\n\n[123] Speaking of the prostitute Lecky says: \u201cBut for her, the\nunchallenged purity of countless happy homes would be polluted, and not\na few who, in their pride of untempted chastity, think of her with an\nindignant shudder, would have known the agony of remorse and despair.\nOn that one degraded and ignoble form are concentrated the passions\nthat might have filled the world with shame\u201d (_History of European\nMorals_, London, 1899, Vol. II, p. 283).\n\n[124] Let all who doubt this consult the literature on the subject\n(even our own _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, 9th and 11th editions), and\nalso consult people who have been engaged in rescue work.\n\n[125] It is for this reason that a man who gives a girl an illegitimate\nchild is really more kind and merciful than the man who seduces her\nwhile taking precautions to prevent issue. But it will take some time\nbefore the world can possibly be expected to see the matter in this\nlight.\n\n[126] Those who, like Lombroso and Ferrero, argue that prostitutes\nare born, and that there is a specific class of women, which may be\ncalled potentially whorish from birth, will naturally join issue with\nme, and deny that the childless fate of the prostitute is her severest\npenalty. I cannot accept the evidence that I have read, however, in\n_La Femme Criminelle et la Prostitu\u00e9e_, to show that prostitutes are a\nclass of women apart (as regards primary and secondary characteristics\nand instincts). I feel very much more inclined to agree with Emile\nFaguet, who thinks that all prostitutes start their illicit amours\nwith a strong monogamic bias, and that it is only subsequently that\ncircumstances drive them to promiscuity. See _Le Feminisme_ (Paris,\n1910), p. 254: \u201cLa v\u00e9rit\u00e9 est que la prostitu\u00e9e n\u00e9e est excessivement\nrare.... Les autres prostitu\u00e9es sont des femmes qui out commenc\u00e9 par\n\u00eatre monogames comme leurs s\u0153urs, et qu\u2019une premi\u00e8re d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance a jet\u00e9es\ndans la classe des femmes pour tous.\u201d Thus Faguet concludes (p. 255):\n\u201cLa prostitu\u00e9e, j\u2019ai cru le montrer, est un \u00eatre d\u00e9natur\u00e9.\u201d This I\nbelieve to be much nearer the point than Lombroso\u2019s elaborate thesis.\n\n[127] John ii. 15, 16.\n\n[128] Rom. viii. 6, 10, 13.\n\n[129] Rom. viii. 6-8.\n\n[130] Her behaviour in this respect will be dictated not only by an\ninstinctive desire to spread a negative doctrine broadcast as an end\nin itself, but also by a feeling of very real and very stubborn envy\ntowards all those who can enjoy a side of life from which she is\ncompletely shut off. This envy may extend even to her attitude towards\nyoung women of all classes, so that she will do everything in her\npower, under the cover of philanthropic motives, to keep them from such\npastimes as flirtation, from actually falling in love, or from spending\nwhat she believes to be \u201ctoo much time\u201d in the company of the other\nsex. See also p. 246 _ante_.\n\n[131] It is true that the negative spinster was not alone in this\nsupport of the war from secret sex motives. The old men of all nations\nalso saw in the war a golden opportunity of expressing their natural\nsecret hatred and jealousy of the young males of their circle, and,\nwhether consciously or unconsciously, seized on the patriotic motive in\norder to vent these passions. The flood of letters that poured into the\n_Times_ office from sexagenarians, septuagenarians and octogenarians,\nimploring the authorities to continue the war at the time when there\nwas some talk of peace, was an expression of this unconscious but\nradical loathing of young men by the old.\n\n[132] See, however, the exceptions mentioned on p. 248 _ante_. For a\nwoman\u2019s confirmation of the fact that negative women are increasing in\nEngland, see Arabella Kenealy (Op. cit.), pp. 82-85, and many other\npassages.\n\n[133] The number of women workers (married and unmarried) in 1911\nwas 4,830,734. Of these about 1,500,000 were employed as domestic\nservants and hospital nurses. In 1917 the total was 5,889,734. About\n173,000 of this increase came from domestic service, so that the total\nfor domestic servants and nurses in 1917 would appear to have been\n1,827,000.\n\n[134] It should also be borne in mind that work outside home\nnecessarily throws men and girls constantly into each other\u2019s company.\nUnless, therefore, a certain degree of subnormality in the sexual and\nemotional nature of each sex be presupposed, they cannot work side by\nside without having their attention diverted and their nerves harassed,\nby the constant provocation of sex stimuli to which they cannot and\nmust not respond. To assume indifference and callousness here, as\nmodern business, commercial and official employers do, is, however,\nto take for granted that the modern generation of young men and girls\nare sufficiently below par to be able to resist being thrown together\nconstantly without being distracted by each other\u2019s presence. But this\nis not only an insult to the best among the young people, but it is\nalso placing a premium on the subnormal; because the latter alone are\nable to overcome the difficulty with ease; and thus happy survival or\nsuccess is reserved nowadays to those types which are least desirable\nfrom every point of view except that of the Puritan.\n\n[135] Later on in the chapter he even comes very close to my own view\nof the matter, and of the fatal detachment of these females from the\nstream of Life when he asks \u201cwhether the yearly increasing army of the\norderly annuitants and their parasites does not demonstrate the proud\nold country as a sheath for pith rather than of the vital run of the\nsap.\u201d\n\n[136] Let anyone attempt to write a novel or any kind of popular work\nthat does not pander to their sentimentality and their distorted views\nof life, and see how much success he will have. They have established\ntheir ascendancy in England by such steady and insidious means, that\nthree-quarters of our population, including our leading critics and\npublicists, are not even aware that Feminism is their ruling creed.\nThey reveal it, however, in every word they write on the sex question.\n\n[137] According to the last Census there were in 1911 55,286 unmarried\nwomen engaged in nursing (including midwives), 57,952 engaged in\ndomestic service in hotels, 1,172,449 engaged in domestic service in\nprivate houses, 22,789 engaged as day girls, and 26,900 engaged as\ncharwomen in England and Wales alone.\n\n[138] On this point also the wisdom of the ancient Hindus should be\nan example to us. In the _Laws of Manu_ (Book IX, verse 4) we read:\n\u201cReprehensible is the father who gives not his daughter in marriage at\nthe proper time.\u201d\n\n[139] Now, the dread lest a daughter should not be self-supporting\nat twenty-one leads parents in all poorer middle-class families to\nsink all thoughts of marriage and making her fit for marriage beneath\nthe consideration of providing her with a calling. The ideal of\nindependence for women, from being pursued for purely economic reasons,\nhas come to be pursued for its own sake, as if independence were in\nitself a desirable condition for the female. But even if we concede\nthe point that dependence on certain modern men amounts to ignominy,\nwe should not allow the argument to assume a shape which must identify\nwoman\u2019s chief source of happiness with her relation to the man to whom\nshe becomes related; and we ought always to correct it by considering\nthat, in the long run, man is only a means to an end where woman\nis concerned, and that independence which is achieved without the\nexperience of motherhood, even if such independence saves the woman\nfrom association with a third or fourth-rate man, is only equivalent to\nclutching at the shadow to let the substance go.\n\n[140] See Arabella Kenealy (Op. cit., p. 126): \u201cFeminist leaders have\nshown themselves deplorably indifferent alike to biological and to\nsociological law. Losing sight of the truth that the intrinsic and\neternal function of Humanity is Parenthood\u2014and more particularly\nMotherhood\u2014they have made, all along the line, not for the true\nemancipation of woman but for her commercialization, merely.\u201d\n\n[141] Speaking of the hostile attitude of most women towards his Don\nJuan, Byron wrote to Mr. Murray on October 12, 1820, as follows:\n\u201cThe truth is that it is _too true_, and the women hate everything\nwhich strips off the tinsel of _sentiment_; and they are right, as it\nwould rob them of their weapons.\u201d Again writing of Madame Guiccioli\u2019s\ndislike of Don Juan, he says (July 6, 1821): \u201cIt arises from the wish\nof all women to exalt the sentiment of the passions, and to keep up\nthe illusion which is their empire. Now Don Juan strips off this\nillusion.... I never knew a woman who did not protect Rousseau, nor one\nwho did not dislike De Gramont, Gil Blas, and all the comedy of the\npassions, when brought out naturally.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nThe Virtues and Vices of Women\n\n\nWhether we appeal to folklore, to the proverbs of the nations, or\nto the earliest legends of mankind, we invariably encounter in the\ntraditional wisdom of humanity judgments upon woman which are more\nor less unanimous in condemning her bad temper, her disloyalty, her\ndishonesty, her vanity, her malice and her indolence. The very attitude\nof the common people towards witchcraft, after the Reformation, points\nto a curious popular readiness to believe in the evil influences\nof the female; for the fact that aged women and not aged men were\nthe suspected parties in the persecutions against supposed cases of\nnecromancy, is significant, even if we deny the validity of the charges\nthat were brought against these unfortunate wretches. In another\nwork[142] I have dealt with the two principal legends of antiquity\u2014that\nof Pandora and that of Eve\u2014in which woman is specifically identified\nwith the introduction of evil on earth, and I shall have to return to\nthis subject here; for it cannot be merely a coincidence that in these\noldest of human myths there is this connexion between woman and evil.\nIn the _Law Book of Manu_, which represents ancient Hindu opinion, the\ncharacter of women meets again with the same charges. We read:\n\n\u201cThrough their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through\ntheir natural heartlessness, they become disloyal to their husbands,\nhowever carefully they may be guarded in this world.\n\n\u201cKnowing their disposition, which the Lord of creatures laid in them\nat the creation, to be such, (even) man must strenuously exert himself\nto guard them.\n\n\u201cWhen creating them, Manu allotted to woman (love of their) bed, (of\ntheir) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wroth, dishonesty,\nmalice and bad conduct.\u201d[143]\n\nLombroso and Ferrero actually regard deception as being \u201cphysiological\u201d\nin women. They ascribe it to her weakness (which makes it necessary for\nher to rely on craft to achieve her ends), to her periodical functional\ndisturbances, to her modesty, to the pretences necessary to acquiring\nan ascendancy over man, to the duties of maternity, and to one or two\nother inevitable circumstances in her life.[144] In Chapter VII of\ntheir work, they adduce the testimony of such acute psychologists as\nFlaubert, Balzac, Zola, Schopenhauer, Weininger, Moli\u00e8re, to support\ntheir contention that in woman lying is instinctive. We might add\nShakespeare, Luther, Byron, Nietzsche, La Bruy\u00e8re, and many others\nto the list. No matter where we turn, or to whom we refer, we find,\nmore or less, the same verdict. It lies recorded even in an Arab\nproverb,[145] just as it lies, though perhaps more obscurely, in most\nof that \u201ctinsel of sentiment\u201d with which, utterly false as it is, woman\ninsists upon veiling the natural relations of the sexes; while we\nmust not forget that for hundreds of years a great and very profound\npeople\u2014the Mussulmans of Europe and Asia\u2014have denied woman a soul.\n\nThe evidence of profound psychologists, the substance of myths, the\ncontent of national proverbs, the personal experience, in short, of\nall those who have learnt to know women generation after generation,\nall point to this conclusion, that there is a certain duplicity and\nunscrupulousness in their nature, against which it is only a matter of\nordinary caution for man to be on his guard.\n\nOn the other hand, in all countries with a modern, democratic outlook,\nwhere woman\u2019s influence is in the ascendant, and where men are inclined\nto a pronounced romanticism of thought, there is no quality, no jewel\nof human virtue, too priceless for woman to be thought worthy of it.\n\nPerhaps the most radical attempt to contradict the tradition of ages,\nconcerning woman, and to cast suspicion for ever upon all those who\nmight venture to criticize her adversely, was made by that gallant\nbut, alas! henpecked English \u201cphilosopher,\u201d John Stuart Mill, than\nwhom no writer is perhaps more responsible for the sudden access of\nstrength that the Feminist movement acquired in the latter half of\nthe nineteenth century in England. And, before proceeding with our\ninquiry, it will be necessary to pause in order to deal with his views\nand to dispose of them; for, since they represent the _maximum_ that\ncan be said on the other side, in accomplishing this, we shall have\ndealt vicariously with most of what has been advanced as scientific\nargumentation against the verdict of the rest of mankind.\n\nJohn Stuart Mill admitted that all his writings, except his Logic, were\nas much his own work as that of the lady, Mrs. Taylor, who ultimately\nbecame his wife. He was not ashamed to acknowledge that Mrs. John\nTaylor was \u201cin part the author of all that is best\u201d in his writings;\nand speaking of his treatise on _Liberty_, Mr. W. L. Courtney says it\n\u201cwas written especially under her authority and encouragement.\u201d The\nsame author referring to the famous work _The Subjection of Women_,\nwhich is going to occupy our attention, writes: \u201cMill\u2019s share was the\nresult of discussions and conversations with his wife.\u201d[146]\n\nNow, quite early in this book on women, the following important remark\noccurs: \u201cWhat is now called the nature of women is an eminently\nartificial thing\u2014the result of forced repression in some directions,\nunnatural stimulation in others.\u201d[147]\n\nThe ingenuity of this sentence, its plausibility in the eyes of\nignorant and prejudiced people, and its dark innuendo, make it one of\nthe most astonishing utterances that ever issued from the lips of an\nalleged philosopher. If it be more than an insincere attempt to quash\nall discussion and inquiry regarding the subject for ever, it can mean\nonly two things.\n\n(1) The word \u201cnow\u201d definitely restricts the allegations concerning the\nnature of women to the present age. \u201cWhat is _now_ called the nature\nof women,\u201d therefore is implicitly contrasted with what was _once_\ncalled the nature of women. The first possible meaning of the sentence\nis therefore as follows: \u201cAs compared with what used to be called\nthe nature of women, what is _now_ called the nature of woman is an\nentirely artificial thing.\u201d\n\nIn order to dispose of this first possible meaning, we have only to\nreply to Mrs. Taylor (for it is obvious that Mill would only have\nreferred us to her if we had addressed ourselves to him), that, as\nthe present view of woman\u2019s nature does not differ entirely from\nthe traditional and ancient view\u2014where there exists no difference\nbetween the two, we may presumably postulate eternities, or constant\nfactors. And, so long as we abide by those characteristics, in which\nthe testimony of the present age concurs with tradition and hoary\nantiquity, we escape, even if we do not respect, her ruling.\n\n(2) The words, \u201can eminently artificial thing,\u201d are surely a begging\nof the question. Everybody, even the most be-Taylorized thinker,\nought to be able to see this. For, it may be asked, what at present\ncan be called natural and what can be called artificial in civilized\nman and woman? Is it natural to wear clothes, or is it artificial?\nIs it natural to use implements instead of our fingers at meals? Is\nit natural to speak English? Two thousand years ago no one on earth\nspoke English. In the days of Caractacus, if anyone had stood up to\naddress a crowd in English, he would have been suspected not only of\nartificiality, but of dangerous insanity. Is the speaking of English\nnow artificial? This is not quibbling. We are bound to suspect\ninsincerity in anyone who, at this late hour, uses the distinctions\n\u201cartificial\u201d and \u201cnatural\u201d of civilized man or woman\u2014particularly\nwhen they do so without giving us exact definitions of these words.\nMany thousands of years ago in Egypt, a certain woman, the wife of\nPotiphar, Pharaoh\u2019s captain of the guard, cruelly betrayed a man who\nflouted her advances. Similar cases have happened since. We are all\nfamiliar with the saying: \u201cHell has no fury like a woman scorned.\u201d[148]\nIs this tendency in woman to retaliate upon him who scorns her,\nthe mortification she feels at his rebuff, artificial or natural?\nPopular tradition in many countries tells us that women are habitual\nliars. Lombroso points out that their weakness, relative to man, has\ninduced them to use craft and deceit to achieve their ends. Is woman\u2019s\nweakness relative to man natural or artificial? If it is natural, is\nher tendency to use craft and deceit also natural? If her weakness\nis artificial, when and how did it become so, and when and how did\nprevarication come to her support?\n\nThose who are acquainted with _The Subjection of Women_ will probably\nreply that Mrs. Taylor, or Miss Helen,[149] did feel it incumbent upon\nthem to state a little more precisely what they meant by the use of\nthe word artificial; for Mill proceeds to write as follows: \u201cIt may be\nasserted, without scruple [fine scruples these!!!], that no other class\nof dependents have had their character so entirely distorted from its\nnatural proportions by their relations with their masters.\u201d[150] This\nmeans that a \u201ctrue,\u201d a \u201cnatural\u201d woman once fell into man\u2019s hands, and\nthat since that time she has been distorted out of all recognition.\n\nBut we may very relevantly ask Mesdames Taylor, how, when and where\nthey have had the unique privilege of coming across this wholly \u201ctrue\u201d\nand \u201cnatural\u201d woman? Presumably, she was not only a \u201ctrue\u201d woman, but\nalso a \u201ctruthful\u201d woman; she was not only a \u201cnatural\u201d woman, but a\nguileless, honest woman, devoid of all malice and vanity\u2014in fact quite\nunlike the woman Manu knew, or the woman Adam knew. At what period in\nhistory did she appear and fall into the distorting hands of man? By\nwhat scientific process have Mesdames Taylor acquired any knowledge\nof her? We only know of woman as she is seen to-day, in history, in\nthe literary remains of antiquity, and in savage tribes. Whence comes\nthis alleged \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cnatural\u201d woman, beside whom the woman we know\nis only a distorted caricature? To postulate a norm that is wholly\nhypothetical, and then to argue that by the side of that gratuitous\ncreation, the woman that we know, and have seen mirrored in history, in\nthe tradition of mankind, and in the work of our acutest psychologists,\nis a monstrous distortion, may prove a useful means of clouding the\nissue, but can hardly be allowed to pass as an argument. And the\nfact that Mill, the logician, the critic of Spencer and Sir William\nHamilton, wrote this, and the whole of the remaining paragraph, surely\ndemonstrates how very far he was from being himself when he wrote this\nparticular book.[151]\n\nWe therefore deny the possibility of any second meaning to Mesdames\nTaylor\u2019s sentence, except this, that, like \u201ctrue\u201d women in argument,\nthey are trying to foist a spurious distinction upon their opponents,\nwith their two words \u201cartificial\u201d and \u201cnatural,\u201d so that henceforth\nall those who allege anything but pleasant things about women, may be\npromptly gagged with the retort \u201cArtificial!\u201d\n\nA little later on in his _Subjection of Women_ we read the following:\n\u201cFor, however great and apparently ineradicable the moral and\nintellectual differences between men and women might be, the evidence\nof their being natural differences could only be negative. Those\nonly could be inferred to be natural which could not possibly be\nartificial\u2014the residuum, after deducting every characteristic of either\nsex, which can admit of being explained from education or external\ncircumstances.\u201d[152]\n\nIn this sentence it is difficult not to discern the voice of the\nfemale collaborator in two distinct vibrations: the general sentiment\nand the irrational argument; for, apart from the fact that it amounts\npractically to a drastic and final veto against all such discussions as\nthe one I am engaging in at the present moment, it relies upon wholly\nspecious but plausible biological phraseology for its persuasiveness.\nIn it, moreover, we not only find a reiteration of the counterfeit\nargument, but also an attempt to dress it in a delusively scientific\ngarb.\n\nAccording to the evolutionary hypothesis, about which Mrs. and Miss\nTaylor must have known (for they moved in circles where these matters\nwere discussed, and _The Subjection of Women_ appeared eight to ten\nyears after _The Origin of Species_) it is impossible to say precisely\nwhat is and what is not the outcome of external circumstances in\nwomen. In fact it is ridiculous to speak of a possible residuum\nafter the influence of external circumstances has been deducted. The\nevolutionary hypothesis postulates a method according to which it is\nconceivable that biological transformations have occurred in the past.\nThis method can be summed up in the following words: The survival of\nthe fittest (the best adapted to life\u2019s circumstances) through the\noperation of natural selection. But this very law presupposes the\naction of environment on the organism. It may make every allowance\npossible for an innate power in the organism to evolve along certain\nlines (Darwin gave some weight to this factor), but it must reckon\nwith the influence of external circumstances notwithstanding. In fact,\n\u201cadapted to environment\u201d is exactly what is meant by \u201cfit,\u201d and no\nmore. In the light of this theory\u2014and this is the only accepted theory\nwith which they could have been familiar\u2014what becomes of Mesdames Mill\nand Taylor\u2019s supposed \u201cresiduum,\u201d when once the results of external\ncircumstances have been deducted? It may mean nothing at all. It may\nmean the original protoplasm from which all life is supposed to have\nsprung. It may mean a remote member of the anthropoid ape class, or an\nantediluvian squirrel.\n\nIt was, however, never intended that it should undergo so severe an\ninspection. It is simply one example, flagrant but instructive, of a\nwoman\u2019s \u201cnatural\u201d duplicity or dishonesty. If accepted, it makes all\ninquiry into the nature of man and woman, even on the broadest lines,\nutterly impossible. If taken seriously, it renders every conclusion you\ncan possibly draw concerning that nature utterly invalid. \u2014And this,\nindeed, is its precise intention. This is exactly the function it was\nexpected to perform. Mrs. Taylor and her daughter could hope to achieve\nno more by it.\n\nAdvance any opinion on woman\u2019s nature, consonant or not with a sane\nview of the women of to-day, the women of history, the women of myth,\nand the women of tradition, and immediately Mrs. Taylor would shoot\nup from behind her neatly framed and quasi-learned sentence, and\ndeclare that your opinion was quite incompatible with her alleged and\nhypothetical \u201cresiduum.\u201d[153] All argument was thus stifled for ever,\nall discussion, all inquiry, all belief! But what did Mrs. Taylor\ncare? With all those who were susceptible of being duped by her verbal\nconjuring, she had achieved this remarkable success, that she had\nsilenced them on the subject of her sex\u2019s vices and virtues.\n\nThese sentences, and many more like them, constitute the burden of the\nargument in _The Subjection of Women_, and make it not only valueless,\nbut also dangerously misleading. The pamphlet remains the most unhappy\nrecord of Mill\u2019s character as a thinker.\n\nIt is impossible here to examine this hermaphrodite pamphlet line\nby line; but the fact which makes the disingenuousness of these\nearly lines so monstrous is that the remainder of the book depends\nupon them, evolves necessarily from them, and falls entirely to the\nground if it be deprived of them. When, therefore, it is remembered\nthat this book has exercised a potent influence over half a century\nof English life,[154] and that its principles have formed the basis\nof many hundreds of books of the same kind, and of a movement\nwhich ultimately fixed the coping-stone into the arch of stupidity\nsupporting our political life, we cannot too severely condemn, not\nonly the carelessness of a man who could so imperfectly distinguish\nsenile sentimentality from his duty to the public, but also the\nunscrupulousness of two full-grown females who could take advantage\nof an old man\u2019s blind infatuation in order to mar books, written under\nhis own signature, with the dialectical tactics of contentious and\nindignant housewives.[155]\n\nEven if we examine the historical value of the ostensibly historic\nbasis of Mill\u2019s contention, we find it entirely unsubstantiated by\nfact. Mill says: \u201cWhat is now called the nature of women is an entirely\nartificial thing\u2014_the result of forced regression in some directions,\nunnatural stimulation in others_.\u201d\n\nTaken up by a thousand angry female voices, this came to mean\nat the end of the nineteenth century that, if women were _as\nthey were_\u2014inferior to man in intellectual power, in honesty, in\nreliability, in social instincts, in taste, etc.\u2014it was because\nthroughout their history as a sex they had been oppressed and deprived\nof the opportunities of improvement.\n\nNow, even if the first part of the sentence were true (and we have\nalready shown how false it is), the latter part remains utterly\nuntenable.\n\nThe fact that women throughout their history have had to play the part\nof mothers, and therefore to stay very much at home, cannot be meant as\nthe artificial factor in their evolution. We cannot therefore conceive\nof Mrs. Taylor\u2019s having been so palpably foolish as to suppose that\nit was their motherhood that constituted this \u201cforced repression\u201d\nand \u201cunnatural stimulation.\u201d Have there been \u201cforced repression\u201d and\n\u201cunnatural stimulation\u201d in other respects\u2014at least in the history of\nour race?\n\nMen of the J. S. Mill school say that you can trace women\u2019s bondage\nthroughout the ages, that you can see how they have been withheld both\nfrom places of responsibility and from opportunities for intellectual\ndevelopment ever since the dawn of history. But is this a fact? Is the\nevidence in favour of this view? Personally, I am convinced that the\nevidence is entirely against it.\n\nWithin the limits naturally described by their destiny as mothers,\nwe can, on the contrary, positively assert that, at least in England\nand France, nothing\u2014no obstacle, no restriction and no harsh measure\nwhatsoever have stood in the way of women\u2019s development.\n\nThroughout the whole of its history, our people have been careful to\nplace no barrier in the path of women\u2019s advancement. It is rather the\nother way; everything has been done to enhance and to promote their\nimportance.\n\nSpeaking of the early Teutonic tribes, from which we partly sprang,\nTacitus emphasizes the prominent r\u00f4le that was allowed to the women\nfor generations. \u201cThey neither scorn to consult them, nor slight their\nanswers,\u201d said Tacitus. \u201cThey even believe that a certain sanctity\nand prescience characterize the female sex. We have seen Veleda ...\nlong revered as a deity by many. Aurima, besides, and many more,\nwere formerly treated with the same veneration, but not with slavish\nadulation, nor as if they were goddesses.\u201d[156] Speaking of the\nneighbours of the Suiones, the Sitones, Tacitus says, they \u201cdiffer in\nsubmitting to a female ruler; so far have they degenerated, not only\nfrom liberty, but even from slavery.\u201d[157] Gibbon, after referring\nmore particularly to those women in the early Teutonic tribes who\nwere revered as goddesses, goes on to say: \u201cThe rest of the sex,\nwithout being adored as goddesses, were respected as the free and equal\ncompanions of soldiers; associated even by the marriage ceremony to a\nlife of toil, of danger and of glory.\u201d[158]\n\n\u201cEven more marked than among the Teutonic and Frisian races,\u201d says Dr.\nBrowne, \u201cwas the recognition of women in the early Celtic races, whose\nblood\u2014somewhat diluted\u2014is in our veins.\u201d[159] Two hundred years before\nthe coming of Christ, in the league between Hannibal and the Celts,\nthere was the following clause: \u201cIf the Celtae have complaints against\nthe Carthaginians the Carthaginian commander in Spain shall judge it.\nBut if the Carthaginians have anything to lay to the charge of the\nCeltae, it shall be brought before the Celtic women.\u201d[160]\n\nAs regards the women of Anglo-Saxon England, the evidence of their\nfreedom and high cultivation is so voluminous that it would be\nimpossible to quote it in detail. We have only to mention such names\nas Rowena, Guiniver, Bertha, Ethelburga, Eanfled, Redburga and\nOsburga[161] the mother of Alfred the Great. Editha, the consort of\nEdward the Confessor, appears to have been a remarkable woman. The\nSaxon historian, Ingulphus, speaks highly of her learning and her\ndomestic gifts, while Edith, or Alfgith, Harold\u2019s wife, seems to have\nbeen at least a creature of refined sentiments. We also know that\nall mixed monasteries in Anglo-Saxon times were ruled over by able\nwomen.[162] \u201cIn 694 five Kentish abbesses were present at the Council\nof Beckenham and signed the decrees above all the presbyters,\u201d[163] and\nAnglo-Saxon women also became the heads of monastic institutions in\nThuringia. Dr. Browne tells us, moreover, that 1250 years ago those of\nour English ancestors who could afford it sent their daughters to Paris\nto be educated.[164]\n\nWith the arrival of the Normans, the already important position of\nwomen could but be still further enhanced; for, the Normans having\nattained to an even higher grade of civilization, brought with them\nthe notion, created and taught by the troubadours and minstrels of\nFrance and Italy, that the softer sex was entitled, not only to\nthe protection and tenderness, but also to the homage and service\nof all true knights.[165] Certainly if Emma, wife of Ethelred, and\nsubsequently of Canute, represented the type of Norman women, they\nmust have been a remarkable breed. I do not attach as much blame to\nher, as some are inclined to do, for sacrificing the interests of her\nchildren by her first husband to those by her second marriage with the\nDanish conqueror\u2014and this seems the gravamen of the charges brought\nagainst her, even by Edward the Confessor; for we have to remember two\ncircumstances in mitigation of this charge: (1) Her possible greater\nlove for her second husband; (2) His ascendancy over her, to which it\nis a credit to her to have yielded, and consequently the likelihood of\nhis having been himself responsible for her attitude to the children\nof the first bed. In any case, the fact that Edward the Confessor\nhimself fell at her feet imploring her pardon with tears, after she had\nsuccessfully passed through the ordeal of walking barefoot unscathed\nover nine red-hot ploughshares in Winchester cathedral, in order to\nclear herself of the charges brought against her by her foes; and the\nfact that he submitted to the discipline at the high altar, as a\npenance for having exposed her to such a test of her innocence, are, to\nmy mind, overwhelming evidence in her favour. On this score, alone, I\nfeel safe in concluding that she must have been a remarkable woman not\nonly for her own time, but for all time.[166]\n\nIn the Middle Ages, therefore, women may be said to have enjoyed\na position, not only of untrammelled freedom, but of exceptional\nhonour. Matilda of Scotland, Adelicia of Louvaine, the third Matilda,\nBerengaria, Eleanor of Castille, were creatures who could only have\ndeployed the qualities they did deploy, in an age in which every\nopportunity was afforded for female education and development. And,\nindeed, Mill himself sees an objection to his argument here;[167] for\nall historians are unanimous. Women were voting in municipal elections\nin France as early as 1316 and 1331. Guizot, writing of the women\nof the Middle Ages, says: \u201c_Quand le possesseur de fief d\u2019ailleurs\nsortait de son ch\u00e2teau pour aller chercher la guerre et les aventures,\nsa femme y restait, et dans une situation toute diff\u00e9rente de celle\nque jusque\u2019l\u00e0 les femmes avaient presque toujours eue. Elle y restait\nma\u00eetresse, ch\u00e2telaine repr\u00e9sentant son mari, charg\u00e9e en son absence de\nla d\u00e9fense et de l\u2019honneur du fief. Cette situation \u00e9lev\u00e9e et presque\nsouveraine, au sein m\u00eame de la vie domestique, a souvent donn\u00e9 aux\nfemmes de l\u2019\u00e9poque f\u00e9odale une dignit\u00e9, un courage, des vertus, un\n\u00e9clat qu\u2019elles n\u2019avaient point d\u00e9ploy\u00e9s ailleurs, et elle a, sans nul\ndoute, puissamment contribu\u00e9 \u00e0 leur d\u00e9veloppement moral et au progr\u00e8s\ng\u00e9n\u00e9ral de leur condition._\u201d[168]\n\nWe know that women surgeons were quite common in the Middle Ages;[169]\nQueen Philippa had one, Cecilia of Oxford[170]; the Middle Ages also\nproduced many women writers; while there is even reason to believe that\nthe ordinary duties of motherhood\u2014which presumably Mill and his female\nauthority would have regarded as part of the factors making for women\u2019s\nsubjection\u2014were evaded by certain medi\u00e6val mothers.[171]\n\nWhen we come to more recent times, with the more plentiful material\nthat lies to hand, we are able to demonstrate beyond a doubt that, if\never women had limitations forcibly imposed upon the development of\ntheir intellect or character, it was certainly not in the sixteenth\nand seventeenth centuries. In France in 1576 they were voting for the\nelections of the States-general, and in the same century they held\nseats in the States Assembly of Franche-Cont\u00e9. As regards protection of\nthe female in France in this and the following two centuries, it was\nrigorous to the point of being inhuman. In 1579 there was a law that\nmade rape a capital offence.[172] In 1709 a certain Sieur La Gravigne\nwas condemned to capital punishment for having seduced a girl with whom\nhe had eloped; in 1712 a member of the Paris Parliament was ordered to\npay 60,000 livres damages (or 200,000 francs) for breach of promise,\nand in 1738 the Parliament at Dijon condemned the Marquis de Tavannes\nto death for having eloped with a Demoiselle de Bron.[173]\n\nMiss Alice Clark has gone to great pains to collect some of the\nevidence that may be adduced on this subject, in so far as England of\nthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is concerned, and speaking\nof the women of the sixteenth century she says: \u201cThe ladies of the\nElizabethan period possessed courage, initiative, resourcefulness and\nwit in a high degree. Society expected them to play a great part in the\nnational life and they rose to the occasion; perhaps it was partly the\ncomradeship with their husbands in the struggle for existence which\ndeveloped in them qualities which had otherwise been atrophied.\u201d[174]\nOf the women of the seventeenth century, she has shown how many\nwere their opportunities of becoming self-reliant, versatile and\nresourceful. \u201cAt the beginning of the seventeenth century,\u201d she tells\nus, \u201cit was usual for the women of the aristocracy to be very busy\nwith affairs\u2014affairs which concerned their household, their estates,\nand even the Government.... Among the nobility the management of the\nestate was often left for months in the wife\u2019s care.... In addition to\nthe household accounts, those of the whole of Judge Fell\u2019s estate at\nSwarthmore, Lancashire [_circa_ 1670-1680] were kept by his daughter\nSarah.\u201d These accounts \u201cshow that the family affairs included a farm,\na forge, mines, some interest in shipping and something of the nature\nof a bank.... A granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell, the wife of Thos.\nBendish, was also interested in the salt business, having property in\nsalt works at Yarmouth in the management of which she was actively\nconcerned,\u201d[175] etc., etc.\n\n\u201cA book might be wholly filled with the story of the part taken by\nwomen in the political and religious struggles of the period,\u201d says\nMiss Clark. \u201cThey were also active among the crowd who perpetually\nbesieged the Court for grants of wardships and monopolies or\npatents.\u201d[176]\n\n\u201cFrom the women who begged for monopolies which if granted must have\ninvolved much worry and labour if they were to be made profitable,\u201d\ncontinues Miss Clark, \u201cwe pass naturally to women who actually owned\nand managed businesses requiring a considerable amount of capital.\nThey not infrequently acted as pawn-brokers and money-lenders.... The\nnames of women often occur in connexion with the shipping trade and\nwith contracts.... Women\u2019s names appear in lists of contractors to the\nArmy and Navy,\u201d[177] etc., etc. In short, I cannot do better than refer\nthe reader to Miss Clark\u2019s excellent treatise; and should he leave it\nstill thinking, with Mesdames Taylor, that the _Subjection of Women_ is\nclearly demonstrated at least by the life of the seventeenth century,\nhe will have formed an opinion strangely at variance with the facts\nadduced.\n\nNow, in the face of all this evidence\u2014and I do not pretend to know,\nmuch less to have adduced, a hundredth part of it\u2014in view, moreover, of\nthe prominent part that women, even of the most obscure origin, played\nin the literature of the eighteenth century, and the independence with\nwhich they moved in society, how can it any longer be maintained,\nwith any semblance of honesty, that there has been, as if from malice\naforethought, a male conspiracy to achieve the subjection of women?\n\nIn trying to explain away certain female characteristics, which are\nas unanimously testified to to-day as they have been in all ages of\nhistory, by ascribing them to a distortion of \u201ctrue\u201d or \u201cnatural\u201d\nwoman\u2014whoever or wherever she may be\u2014as if woman were only just at this\nmoment coming into her own, as if in fact she were only just emerging\nfrom a dark and stifling obscurity that had stunted her, Mill and his\nfollowers are guilty of a deliberate lie. They imply that which it is\nincumbent upon them to prove, and they do so with the full-throated\nsentimentality of romanticists, who cannot be quite sensible, who\nmust have a tear in their eye, and a lump in their throat, when they\npronounce the word \u201cWoman.\u201d\n\nBut the falsehood, palpable as it was, succeeded by means of its\nflattering innuendo, in convincing every woman in Great Britain,\nwho had reasons for being discontented and disgruntled. Indeed, so\nflattering was the innuendo, that even if the alleged subjection was\nnot a historical fact, it was felt that at least it ought to have been.\nAnd what was this flattering innuendo in Mrs. Taylor\u2019s falsehood?\u2014It\nwas this: That if hitherto women had produced no outstanding work,\nno epoch-making masterpiece in the arts or in the sciences, if, in\nfact, European women had not been so very different from the women of\ntradition and antiquity, it was not because men were specially gifted,\nor radically different from them, but simply because European women had\nbeen stunted by oppression!\n\nThis was much too fascinating a lie ever to be suspected or distrusted\nby the overweening champions of Women\u2019s Rights, either in the late\nnineteenth or the early twentieth century; hence the eager speed with\nwhich it was swallowed down\u2014hence too Mill\u2019s inordinate popularity! A\nlarge majority of women, it is true, were a little too thoughtful, or\na little too well informed, to be duped by it; but the disgruntled and\narrogant minority won the day.[178]\n\nIt is perfectly true, of course\u2014indeed nothing could be plainer\u2014that\nman, throughout the ages, even of European history, has been unable\nto relieve woman of those duties which, as a mother, and therefore as\na homekeeper, have necessarily devolved upon her;[179] but neither\nhas he been able to relieve himself of the duties of the soldier, the\nsailor, the hewer of wood, and the drawer of water. Nobody in his\nsenses, however (unless he were infatuated with a second Mrs. Taylor),\nwould argue that because man has been unable to relieve woman of those\nduties, therefore he has distorted her \u201ctrue\u201d nature.\n\nFor the truth is, the fact remains (securely as Mill was blinded to\nit) that even in those departments of social life which for centuries,\nalmost from time immemorial, have constituted practically the\nundisputed domain of woman\u2014woman\u2019s Empire, woman\u2019s peculiar field for\nenterprise and initiative, where her independence and supremacy have\nbeen unchallenged\u2014in cooking, clothing and child-care, such ineptitude,\nsuch inability to improve, such gross and stubborn stupidity have been\nshown, that only when men took over these departments of knowledge, as\nspecial branches of study, was there any sign, any hope, any certainty\nof progress being made.\n\nEven if we were so easily hoodwinked as to be led to admit that\nwoman\u2019s relative intellectual inferiority, her lack of creative and\ninventive ability in other spheres, did not constitute a natural\nsexual characteristic, but were the outcome of a deliberate attempt\non our part to withhold from her the opportunities of acquiring\nability in those spheres, how are we to explain the marked deficiency\nof intelligence and initiative which she has shown as a sex in the\nelaboration and perfection of those arts or sciences, such as cooking,\nclothing, and child-care, which have practically been her exclusive\ndomain for ages? Here she was supreme. Here she was entirely free and\nuntrammelled. By now she could have converted each of these pursuits\ninto an exact science. She has had the time, the hereditary bias, and\nthe accumulated knowledge of tradition, all on her side. And yet, as\nwe know, it was only when men took these departments in hand, that\nthey began to wear the aspect of properly regulated and scientific\noccupations.\n\nTo-day the high authorities, the only authorities, on cooking are all\nmen. To-day, if a woman for some reason or other is unable to nurse\nher new-born child, she cannot turn to the traditional wisdom of her\nsex,[180] she cannot even turn to a classical work on child welfare\nwritten by _one_ member of her sex, she must turn to man; for the\nhigh authorities on this subject, at the time of writing, are all men\nlike Dr. Eric Pritchard, or else women who have learnt all they know\ndirectly from them. To-day, every fashion, whether of men\u2019s or of\nwomen\u2019s clothing, is entirely the creation of the male mind. A group\nof men in England direct the former, and a group of men in France\nautocratically prescribe the latter.\n\nThe only circumstance that could possibly make me regret the death of\na woman like Mrs. Taylor, many years before my own birth, is that it\nhas rendered me unable to confront her with these facts, and to ask\nher how she accounts, or how she would have made poor Mill account,\nfor this colossal, incurable and wellnigh incredible lack of ability\nin thousands of generations of women, in occupations where they had\neverything their own way for centuries.\n\nIn England, in the Middle Ages, a proverb was current to the effect\nthat \u201cGod sent us meat and the devil ordained the cooking of\nit.\u201d[181] The cooking of food, which has remained in the hands of\nwomen for a longer period in England than in France, is, in England,\nnotoriously atrocious. The clothing of women, which in England is\nmore remote from the male focus of inspiration than in France, is in\nEngland proverbially inferior\u2014despite fashion-books and a constant\ncross-Channel stream of British fashion-spies. While the fact that\nchild-welfare centres are being opened up everywhere (inspired\noriginally by male doctors, and the results of male research), in order\nto teach women how to take care of their babies, is surely proof enough\nof the abysmal ignorance into which the traditional mother of history\nhas sunk, regarding a calling which has been her own exclusive field\nfrom the beginning of time, and which she ought to have perfected at\nthe very dawn of history.\n\nIf Mill had, with one masterly shake of his muddled head, removed\nthose soft pink fingers from his brow, he might possibly have seen\nall this, and have left his MS. in some conspicuous place where his\nwise housemaid (who consigned Carlyle\u2019s _French Revolution_ to the\nflames) might have done the same by his own _Subjection of Women_. But\nwith characteristic confusion he mistook erotic vividness for mental\nvision, and thus added one great intellectual blunder to the many which\ncontributed towards forming late nineteenth-century opinion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nUnlike man, whose nature is more variegated and more subject to\nvariation, woman is possessed of a _primum mobile_ that we can\nrecognize\u2014that is to say, she is actuated by a mainspring, a ruling\nmotive, that we can observe in operation. As we have seen, this _primum\nmobile_ constitutes her the chief custodian and preserver of Life,\nand the chief promoter of Life\u2019s multiplication. In fact, these two\nfunctions constitute her principal importance, and endow her with\nher great power and her great value. Everything else in woman is of\nminor significance. If, therefore, we assume at this stage in our\ntreatise\u2014for the point has been demonstrated often enough\u2014that the\npositive woman\u2019s incessant and unconscious impetus is in the direction\nof Life and its multiplication, we may expect to find in woman all the\nvirtues that guarantee the survival of the species, and all the vices\nwhich Life itself reveals in the pursuit of this same object.\n\nSeeing that the pursuit of Life and its multiplication is in Nature an\nactivity that is untrammelled by any moral consideration whatsoever, we\nmay ask ourselves, whether in view of the difficulty of improving upon\nNature\u2019s methods in this respect, and in view, moreover, of the fact\nthat woman is a child of Nature, we are not justified in recognizing in\nwoman a _primum mobile_ that is also completely a-moral.\n\nIf we are so justified, then it follows that all woman\u2019s deeper\ncharacteristics, as Nature\u2019s characteristics, are not moral but\nimmoral, not social but unsocial, not lawful but lawless.[182]\n\nLet us proceed to examine this statement more narrowly. A woman\u2019s\ndeepest characteristics are termed by us unmoral. What does that\nprecisely mean? We have admitted that what constitutes woman\u2019s greatest\nvalue and her greatest power is that she is the chief supporter of\nthe vital functions\u2014the promotion and preservation of Life. If,\ntherefore, she is also immoral, it must mean that, in the fulfilment\nof her destiny, she has often to run counter, as Nature does, to our\nstandard of moral integrity. Therefore, that if she were moral, this\nwould be a hindrance and an obstacle in the way of her destiny. But how\nwill she reveal this immorality, or a-morality?\u2014My reply is, in being\nlike Nature utterly unscrupulous in the means she adopts to achieve\nher vital end\u2014that is to say, more intent on the vital end than on\nanything else, such as truth, honour, justice, fair-play, etc., etc.\nFor morality means scruples, it involves the necessity of regarding\nscruples as obstacles in the way of certain actions. If, therefore, we\ncan show that woman, like Nature, is unscrupulous in her promotion and\npreservation of Life, we will have gone some way towards establishing\nthe fact of her immorality.\n\nBefore, however, we proceed with this inquiry, we should like to remind\nall readers, who at this point may begin to feel their cheeks mantling\nwith indignation, that, since from the optimist\u2019s point of view it is\ndesirable for the human species to survive, a very high sanction indeed\nprevails over woman\u2019s vital unscrupulousness, however surprising and\nunexpected its consequences may prove to be.[183] For instance, if, as\nwe hope we have already abundantly shown, woman\u2019s chief and deepest\nconcern is the multiplication and preservation of life, it is obvious\nthat, when confronted by a situation in which a lie will secure her\nvital end, and one in which truth will defeat it, she will naturally\nand instinctively choose to lie\u2014not because she necessarily prefers\nto lie, but because _she is more concerned about the end in view than\nthe means she adopts to achieve it_, and every lie to her is a \u201cwhite\u201d\nlie that secures her vital end. If then from a vital indifference to\ntruth she ultimately reveals an ordinary indifference to truth in the\ncommon and less vital circumstances of everyday life, we must blame,\nnot a fundamental perversity of her nature, which would seem to suggest\nthat moral obliquity is a deep-rooted and ineradicable element of her\npsyche, but a self-preservative characteristic of the race which,\nthough manifesting itself, as it were, unnecessarily and provokingly\nin everyday affairs, nevertheless, if absent altogether, would prove\nthe most serious menace to the survival of humanity. In the form of a\nsimile we might say that, just as the good army marksman annoys us\nwhen, in peace-time, he disturbs our quiet moments with his incessant\nrevolver or rifle practice, and his insatiable desire to \u201cpot\u201d anything\nand everything, yet we applaud and defend his love of his fire-arm and\nhis skill with it, when, in time of war, he and his like defend our\nhomes and ourselves by \u201caccounting\u201d for numbers of the enemy.\n\nIs that clear? In plain English, to take an extreme case, if a girl\nis to be equipped with that ability for wiles and small deceptions\nwhich, despite adverse circumstances, are to enable her to secure a\nlover and a husband and a large family early in life; if, moreover,\nshe is to be prepared to go to extreme lengths to defend and promote\nthe welfare of her children (as all good mothers are), and also to\nsecure their survival and success over the heads of other and possibly\nmore deserving or better children (as all good mothers are prepared\nto do[184]); if, moreover, in her relations with her husband and her\nchildren, she is to display that tact and diplomacy which always secure\nher the victory in domestic negotiations; then, it seems to me, we have\na creature whose special gifts will extend beyond her family and its\nvital concerns, and invade all the other circumstances of her life,\nand who will inevitably practise wiles and small deceptions in those\nconditions where life, its multiplication and preservation are not\nnecessarily in question.\n\nThe fact, however, that such a creature may be detected again and again\nin some act of unscrupulousness, not necessarily concerned directly\nwith Life, or some vital interest, does not mean that she is perverse\nor depraved for the sake of perversity and depravity, as ends in\nthemselves, but simply that her vital unscrupulousness cannot well be\nconfined to the business of Life and its multiplication, and cannot\nexist as a useful characteristic of her being, without manifesting\nitself in conditions and circumstances where no vital consideration is\nat stake. In other words, if you are to have a good house-dog, who will\nprotect you from burglars at night, you must warn your milkman and your\ndustman, although they have no dishonest intention in entering your\ngarden, not to go too near him, for his useful characteristic is bound\nto manifest itself in circumstances and conditions where its usefulness\nis not vital.\n\nWhen from folklore and myth, from national proverbs and tradition,\nand from the text-books of the oldest religions, therefore, we learn\nthat woman is two-faced, or false, or treacherous, or disloyal, while\nwe cannot expect these sources of information to give us also their\nreasons for their verdict, we have at least a hint that something\ndeeper is in question than an obliquity of mind. For one would have\nthought that centuries of schooling would have eradicated these\ncharacteristics from women, and that if they have failed to do so,\nsomething more essential to woman\u2019s nature than a mere perversion of\nmind may be suspected. Neither is it enough to point, as Lombroso\ndoes, to woman\u2019s relative weakness, to her periodical functional\ndisturbances, to her modesty, etc., to account for a trait so\nuniversally attested.[185]\n\nThe positive woman who is disloyal to her absent husband is not\ndisloyal from weakness, she is disloyal owing to the vital impulse\nof her large and important reproductive organs, which, after a spell\nof idleness, clamorously demand employment. The woman who lies about\nher age, or about her antecedents, or about any other circumstance\nof her life, in order to secure a husband or a lover, does not do so\nbecause she is relatively weaker than the man she wishes to secure, but\nbecause, again, her unconscious mind urges her to procure fertilization\nat all costs.\n\nThe unfairness of the attitude of most psychologists and other men to\nthe phenomenon of unreliability and deception in woman, consists in\nthe fact that they condemn it without understanding it; while those\nwho neither condemn it nor understand it stubbornly, stupidly, and\nsentimentally deny it in the face of all the overwhelming evidence\nin proof of its existence. But when once you admit that duplicity\nand disloyalty in women are part of a vital principle making for the\nmultiplication and preservation of life, and serving the best interests\nof the species, you are no longer even entitled to condemn those same\ncharacteristics when they happen to operate in circumstances and\nconditions inconvenient to yourself. You cannot always expect to have\nit both ways, and if the species profits by a certain principle in the\nfemale, it must expect to pay for that principle somewhere, somewhen.\n\nTo attempt to make woman perfectly honest and upright would therefore\nbe to attack the most vital impulse within her[186]\u2014that impulse which\ncauses her to be eager to the point of unscrupulousness in securing\nand preserving a multiplication of life. And yet there are many wise\nfools, both men and women, who have solemnly set themselves that\nobject, and are striving to achieve it by every means in their power.\n\nIf we observe Nature herself engaged upon the same task that\nconstitutes woman\u2019s principal concern in life, we observe the same\nunscrupulousness. Nature stops at nothing to achieve this end. All\nmeans are good to her: rapine, deception, falsehood, usurpation of\nrights, bullying, stealth, robbery, invasion, and complete indifference\nto quality and desirability.\n\nLife in Nature is a continuous process of inter-racial and intra-racial\nstruggles for power and supremacy, with no principle, except the one of\n\u201cmore life\u201d in each race or species, governing the whole. Every species\nbehaves as if it alone had the right to exist on earth, irrespective\nof all other claims. The fact that there are more species of parasites\nthan of any other kind of organism shows that this universal process of\nrapine and deception is pursued without any natural exercise of favour\nfor what, from the human standpoint, can be called desirability. The\nparasite kills the human genius just as readily as it kills the cow,\nand the locusts devour the food which is the only sustenance of the\newe and her lamb. Without scruple, and without favour, Nature\u2019s one\ncry is \u201cLife!\u201d and evermore \u201cLife!\u201d and whether the success of the\nstruggle falls to what we should call the \u201cnobler\u201d species, or to the\n\u201cinferior,\u201d is a matter of utter indifference to her.\n\nWhen men like Weininger, Lombroso, Havelock Ellis, and many others,\ninveigh against Nature turned woman, and see the same unscrupulousness\nconcentrated on one form of survival\u2014human survival\u2014the fact that\nthey do not trace this characteristic to a positive and vital source\nmakes their moral condemnation of women worthless and unworthy of a\nscientific thinker.[187]\n\nIn woman I recognize some of the principal virtues that make for a\ncontinuance of the human species on earth: (1) Unreflecting constancy\nto the demands of Life;[188] (2) Untiring interest in the processes of\nLife and its multiplication (which in its minor ramifications lead to\nthat intense concern about all human affairs, which, in opprobrious\nlanguage, is called \u201ca love of scandal-mongering\u201d); (3) A capacity\nfor desperate bravery in defending or succouring human life; (4) A\ncapacity for single-minded devotion to her own offspring (which in its\nminor ramifications often manifests itself in the virgin, and in the\nspinster of all ages, as a single-minded devotion to a purpose, to an\nidea, or to a cause); (5) A capacity for bodily purity, or chastity,\nwhich in the more passionate type of woman is based upon an instinct\nto withhold herself until her heart and her affections are captured\n(this in its spiritual ramifications leads to intellectual obstinacy,\nconservatism, or fanaticism. Thus a woman\u2019s citadel of opinions, like\nher bodily citadel, is only liable to capitulation when her heart and\nher affections are engaged).\n\nThese five cardinal virtues of woman constitute her eternal claim to\nglory and to respect; in each of them she is a natural mistress, a\ngifted virtuosa. They are of so much value, of so much moment, to the\nhuman species, that they overshadow every catalogue of foibles and\nvices that has ever been drawn up against her by a Weininger or a\nSchopenhauer, and she who possesses them can afford even to forgive\na Weininger or a Schopenhauer. Noble as they are in themselves, they\ncan claim in addition the highest possible sanction and testimonial\nthat it is possible for a human character to receive\u2014the sanction and\ntestimonial of Human Survival itself, without which no virtue on earth\ncan hope to last or to prevail, and by the side of which the mere\napplause and approval of one or many generations of men is but as a\npair of bellows puffing in the wind.\n\nTo appreciate these virtues of woman at their proper worth, however,\na stronger and more vital generation of people is needed than any\nthat has appeared, in England at least, for the last 250 years. The\nvery fact that, at the present day, the general concensus of opinion\namong men would accord to women quite a different set of virtues, is a\nsufficient sign of the degeneracy that has occurred.\n\nTo-day, for instance, a Parliament of Englishmen or Anglo-Saxons\nwould, in enumerating woman\u2019s virtues, speak about\u2014(1) Her moralizing\ninfluence on Society;[189] (2) Her unselfishness (whatever that may\nmean!); (3) Her powers of self-sacrifice (this is the result of sick\nvalues and a confusion of thought\u2014see pp. 77-79); (4) Her intuition\n(a great myth, the outcome of woman\u2019s habit of saying the first thing\nthat enters her head, and which, according to the laws of chance,\nmust be right sometimes); (5) Her humanitarianism (a mischievous\nmisunderstanding)\u2014all weak, or at least, fictitious qualities, that no\nfull-blooded woman would ever do anything more than pretend to possess,\nand which made Huxley say \u201cthat woman\u2019s virtue was man\u2019s most poetic\nfiction!\u201d\n\nIf, however, we choose to dwell on the five cardinal virtues that\nderive directly from the great vital impulse within her, and to think\nof the many useful minor virtues that spring from them, we have a list\nwhich, if it is less goody-goody than the above, is both hardier and\nmore compatible with reality.\n\nFrom (1), which we call the _Unreflecting constancy to the demands\nof Life_, we can see the following as derivatives: (_a_) Woman\u2019s\nconstancy to the circumstances (and therefore to the man) who\nenables her to meet the demands of Life. (_b_) Her intensely keen\nsense of self-preservation, when the danger threatening her is\nnot life-promoting. This accounts for her caution, her sagacity\nin suspecting the unfamiliar, and her over-anxiousness in public\nthoroughfares, or on railway platforms, on board ship, and in the\nneighbourhood of restive horses, etc. (_c_) Her quick recognition\nof the fact that a given environment cannot procure the demands of\nLife\u2014hence her mobility, tractableness, docility, amenability, and\nreadiness to follow at great personal risk, until such time as she\nhas found the environment that can procure her the demands of Life.\nIn all communities where marriage is difficult owing to a superfluity\nof women, girls thus show a tendency frequently to change their\nenvironment, and are quite unconscious that in so doing they are\npursuing tactics which are calculated to enable them to meet Life\u2019s\ndemands. Thus, they will leave home to study Political Economy, or\nSculpture, and when that fails they will change over to child-welfare,\nor to nursing, and if that fails they will try secretarial work\u2014giving\nas their reason at each change, that the previous work \u201cdid not satisfy\nthem.\u201d If economic pressure compels, they will of course be forced to\nremain in one occupation, whether it satisfies the demands of Life or\nnot; but those who can afford it, will, as a rule, be restless until\nthey find an environment which promises them fertilization. (_d_) Her\nability to put up with any number of inconveniences and discomforts,\nprovided that the demands of Life are procured for her\u2014hence her\nstoicism in poverty, or any other kind of distress, despite the fact\nthat her children share it; hence her cheerful courage in those vital\ninconveniences connected with an existence in which the demands of\nLife are being met\u2014illness, the incessant clatter of many children,\nthe hard work that a number of children imposes upon a poor female\nparent, etc., etc. (_e_) Her ability to treat all life emotionally.\nThe very quality of unreasoning or unreflecting constancy to the\ndemands of Life, involves an impulsive attitude towards them. I used\nthe word \u201cunreflecting\u201d purposely. It is because woman does not pause\nto reflect whether it is proper, or expedient, or right, that she\nshould perform a certain action to meet the demands of Life, that she\ncan be so thoroughly relied upon to perform it punctually. If she\nreflected, it would presuppose hesitation, therefore delay, therefore\npossibly inaction. But it should be remembered that this attitude is a\npurely emotional one, and since the business of Life, with the various\nrelationships the family creates, is largely a matter of the emotions\ntoo, and not of the reflective or reasoning faculties, it follows that\nthe tradition or history of woman\u2019s mental life is largely confined to\nthe play and the exercise of the emotions. Life, as far as normal woman\nis concerned, is a matter of affection, of attachment and devotion,\nfirst to the man of her heart, and lastly to the children of her blood.\nWhere she may be expected to be practised, gifted and versatile,\ntherefore, is precisely in this sphere of the emotions; for they alone\nare capable of directing that unreflecting form of action that the\ndemands of Life impose upon her. A mistress of feeling, therefore, we\ncannot expect her to be so perfect at reflection.[190]\n\nFrom (2), which we call the _Untiring interest in the processes of\nLife and its multiplication_, we can see the following derivations:\n(_a_) Woman\u2019s helpfulness and readiness to be of use in all those\ncircumstances in a neighbour\u2019s, friend\u2019s, or relative\u2019s home, in which\nshe comes in close contact with Life\u2019s most serious business, at\nmoments of child-birth, serious illness, and death, and particularly\nat moments of great domestic upheavals, such as times of serious\ndisagreement, and all tragic occurrences, between couples. The\nfact that these virtues necessarily involve such an all-embracing\ninterest in human affairs, that a love of scandal is an almost\ninevitable counterpart of them, is not difficult to see. The evils of\nscandal-mongering, however, are grossly exaggerated. All decent, humane\nand humanity-loving people revel in scandal, and I have never yet met a\nwoman who was worth knowing who was not an inveterate scandal-monger.\n\u201cThe proper study of mankind is Man,\u201d said Pope, and he was entirely\nright. But what is scandal-mongering, and the exhaustive discussion\nof one\u2019s acquaintances, relatives and friends, but an essential\ndescription of that \u201cproper study\u201d? Husbands who do not sympathize\nwith their wives\u2019 love of scandal, and who refuse to join with them in\nexpatiating on tittle-tattle, are usually inhuman and narrow men, such\nmen as make good engineers, good mathematicians, good chemists, and\ngood sailors or explorers. These men will expect their wives to listen\nbreathlessly when they discuss sport or some other futile subject as\nremote as possible from humanity, and yet will show impatience if their\nwives discuss the marital relations of their next-door neighbour. (_b_)\nThis virtue makes women very observant of little odd characteristics\nin their fellow-creatures. And if women are, as a rule, such good\nmimics and imitators, it is due partly to the earnestness with which\nthey observe other men and women (the other reason for their power of\nimitation I shall give under (5)). Women will frequently draw wrong\nconclusions from the traits they have observed\u2014this I do not deny\u2014but\nthe interesting point is that they usually observe the traits.\n\nFrom (3), which we called _Desperate bravery in defending and\nsuccouring human life_, we can see the following derivatives: (_a_) The\nreadiness to incur mortal risk for a child of their own (quite common);\nfor a husband (very rare, except in early days of marriage when\nchildren have not yet arrived); for a loved human creature of any kind.\n(_b_) A certain foolhardy and reckless daring in engaging overwhelming\nodds for the sake of achieving a vital purpose (a woman will assault\na man twice her size and three or four times her strength at such\nmoments). (_c_) A capacity for a fierce unrelenting hatred towards\nenemies, deceivers, or betrayers of those she loves. (_d_) In the\nrealm of the spirit, a readiness to perform a mad feat of intrepidity\nto defend or promote an idea (Miss Emily Davison in that marvellous\nrush at the King\u2019s horse in the Derby of 1913.[191] We loathed the\ncause for which she fought, but we honoured and admired the fierce\nsingle-mindedness with which she and the other militant suffragettes\nfought for it).\n\nFrom (4), which we call _A capacity for single-minded devotion to her\nown offspring_, we can see the following derivatives: (_a_) Woman\u2019s\nunswerving tenacity of purpose in serving and ministering to those she\nloves. (_b_) Her indefatigable industry on behalf of those who depend\non her, so that she is able, like a horse, to work herself to death,\nprovided she loves and knows she is loved. (_c_) In the spiritual\nrealm, her capacity for fanatical adherence to a cause, to a belief,\nto a faith, and her corresponding fierce antagonism to those who\noppose that cause or faith. (_d_) Her pride in her own offspring and\nher consequent tendency to undervalue or to dislike the offspring of\nothers. When this sentiment is stimulated to its zenith by the fact\nthat the offspring of others happen to be the offspring of the former\npossessor of her man\u2019s love, you get the staggering cruelties of the\nstepmother. Thus in woman\u2019s nature does good merge into evil, and evil\nmerge into good.[192]\n\nIt is certainly in this _capacity for single-minded devotion to her\nown offspring_ that, generally speaking, the greatest beauty of\nwoman\u2019s character is revealed; and to one who has experienced it in\nall its perfection and intensity, there is perhaps some pardonable\ndifficulty in speaking about it either with calm or with moderation.\nThe very effort of seeking, in writing, a suitable expression for his\nfeelings in this matter may well seem to a man to subject them to a\nlimitation and temperateness which he can hardly regard as sincere;\nand, ultimately, in the coldness of the printed page, he can perceive,\nat best, but a poor travesty of the sentiments he wished to convey.\n\nEverything connected with this virtue is at once so useful to the race,\nand so unique and unforgettable as an individual experience, that\nit seems only fitting to pause for a moment here to dwell on one or\ntwo of its most stirring features. Passing over the first months and\nyears when the only force between helpless, pitiably dependent life,\nand death\u2014or at least neglect\u2014is precisely this mother\u2019s instinct,\nthis jealous care, when inarticulate infancy can neither acknowledge,\nreturn thanks for, nor, what is perhaps more perplexing, realize all\nthe thousand and one services that are cheerfully performed in order to\npromote its growth and its comfort; passing over, too, those moments\nof the silent watcher, of the sleepless sentry, in which, during\ntimes of danger, every breath is a prayer, and every smile a song\nof thanksgiving; we would like more particularly to concentrate upon\nthat period of early childhood, on that age of babbling tongue and\nunsteady gait, when most of that which is to be of use in life, and\nindeed most of that which is never to be forgotten in life, is learnt\nat the mother\u2019s side. Not that we would wish to reduce by one iota the\nimportance of the former period, the most wonderful aspect of which\nis, perhaps, the joy that is felt by either side in simply playing its\nappointed r\u00f4le; but rather because in the latter period both parties\nare conscious of this same joy, and are in a position to prolong it,\ntransmute it and preserve it, until long after that age when the\npositions become reversed, and dependence has begun on the side of the\nonce protecting mother.\n\nThere is in the child of a good mother, a spirit so confiding, so\nreceptive, so perfectly trustful, that possibly at no other age are\nthe pre-requisites for sound education more completely present than in\nthose first years of life at the dawn of which a fold of the mother\u2019s\nskirt still offers a substantial amount of support to legs that are\nlearning both bearing power and balance. What happens then, and how it\nhappens, will, of course, never be properly recorded; for lessons are\ngiven and lessons are learnt without sufficient conscious effort on\neither side for the method to be made a subject of exact knowledge. But\nthe result is gradually made manifest by the marvellous transformation\nof an inarticulate little animal, whose whole horizon is bounded by\nfood, sleep and apparently purposeless limb-exercises, into a creature\nthat can express its wishes, demand explanations of the things about\nit, learn to recognize the first rules of decent behaviour, and, what\nis more, shed its own fresh light on the problems of existence; and, if\nwhat it learns later on may, from the standpoint of material utility,\nbear a more imposing and less chaotic aspect, certainly nothing it has\nfailed to learn at this period will ever be acquired at any subsequent\nstage of its existence. It cannot be said that it has mastered any\ndefinite system of thought, or that it has memorized any particularly\nstriking fact; it may not even have learnt the very patience and\ngentleness which its mother has constantly exhibited in her care of it.\nNevertheless, it has learnt things which, in solemn truth, can be said\nto be little short of priceless.\n\nLet it not be suspected, however, because we can find only vague\nphraseology for our purpose, that we wish to claim for this early\neducation an indispensable character that it really does not possess.\nWhat is it then that makes it almost impossible to give a more\nnarrow description of it without losing all grasp of its magnitude\nand importance?\u2014It is the fact that, from this education are derived\nthose qualities of heart and mind which, though hardly ever referred\nto at critical moments in a man\u2019s life, are nevertheless among the\nmost serviceable and powerful of life\u2019s weapons. The man who has had\na good mother has learnt to feel a certain confidence in his own\nunaided efforts, because the best in him has been diligently sought,\nencouraged, and brought to the fore; he has acquired a certain vigorous\nsanguineness and courage because, having started life so well, in such\na glorious morning of sunshine, he is conscious of stored-up warmth\nwithin him, upon which he can fall back in his moments of loneliness,\ngloom and trouble; but, above all, he has been launched forth into the\nworld with at least one solid experience, one ineffaceable impression\nof human kindness and human beauty, and this, while it gives him a\nperpetual criterion of value and criticism, shielding him from the\nspecious and the base, also prevents him from ever feeling that despair\nand doubt about himself and his fellows which in moments of deep\ntribulation paralyses effort and precludes the possibility of hope.\n\nThis is what the equipment amounts to, with which a loving mother\ncan endow her son. Quite apart from the joys that are derived from\ndeep filial emotions, and from that unique relationship of a mother\nto her son, these are among the chief benefits that the relationship\nnecessarily involves. Most of the great men in history owe their\ngreatness partly to this equipment; most of the great men in\nhistory\u2014Schopenhauer, Byron, de Quincey\u2014whose relationship to their\nmothers was not ideal, reveal in their works the effects of this\ndeficiency; and he who ventures to question that here, indeed, I have\nlaid my finger on what is quintessential in the education that a good\nmother gives to her child, and incapable of satisfactory substitution\nby any other means in her absence, is one of those unfortunates from\nwhom life has withheld this most precious of all her blessings.\n\nIt is here that woman excels; it is here that she can defy all\ncompetition, and it is in this r\u00f4le that the best in herself, and some\nof the best in mankind, is developed and sustained. Anything else\nthat she may do must be always second best to this; and those who, by\nmisrepresentation and appeals to vanity, persuade her while she is yet\nquite young that there are callings better than, or at least as good\nas, motherhood for her, are enemies not only of woman, but also of the\nspecies.\n\nFrom (5), which we call _A capacity for bodily purity or chastity_,\nwhich is based upon an instinct to resist fertilization until heart\nand affection are engaged, we can see the following derivatives:[193]\n(_a_) Woman\u2019s tendency to a certain rather becoming dignity and\npride, which come to their zenith at the moment of the most heated\nappeal made by the lover who has failed to engage her heart and\naffection. This on the spiritual side leads to a power of renitency\nagainst conviction and persuasion, which frequently makes of woman\na most powerful and reliable ally in a secret movement, or in a\nsecret intrigue. (_b_) Since the demands of Life make it necessary,\nwhen once woman has abandoned her attitude of chaste resistance, to\nyield wholly and unreservedly to the male, there is in all women a\ncertain sequaciousness, a certain docility, a marked predilection in\nfavour of subservience and subordination to those who have engaged\ntheir affections, which makes of woman the most naturally constituted\nfollower, disciple, servant, that it is possible to find. On the\nspiritual side, it makes her acutely subject to guidance and direction,\nto receptivity, to suggestion[194] and to imitation. But seeing that\nsequaciousness, imitation, whether in regard to opinion, mannerism or\nfashion, is the reverse of original production, and involves an absence\nor a weakness of the initiating power of personality, we are bound to\nrecognize in woman, as a direct consequence of her necessary physical\nand psychological surrender, when once the attitude of chastity has\nbeen abandoned, a lack of originating power, a lack of that prehensile\nattitude of mind which seizes and does not wait to be seized, and\nwhich is behind all male emancipation, aggression, originality and\ninventiveness. This, indeed, is the other reason which under (1)\nwe said we had yet to give for woman\u2019s power of imitation.[195]\nThus Arabella Kenealy calls the sex-instinct \u201cin the normal girl,\n_responsive_ rather than _initiative_.\u201d[196]\n\nFrom this fifth virtue, which, when the attitude of chastity is\nabandoned, becomes converted into subjection and submission, are\nthus derived woman\u2019s suppleness, her plasticity, her promptness to\nassimilate and to form herself according to another\u2019s pattern, and her\nability to adapt herself to circumstances.\n\nIn all these derivatives of the five cardinal virtues of woman we\ncan trace the indirect but certain connexion with the vital _primum\nmobile_ in her nature, which is her deep concern about Life and its\nmultiplication. On the same principle, therefore, it ought to be\npossible to enumerate the cardinal vices of woman and their auxiliary\nmanifestations. For if a creature\u2019s virtues are the outcome of its\ninstincts, its bodily formation and the functions it has to perform,\nits vices must surely have a similar origin.\n\nIn the positive woman[197] only those vices may be recognized which are\ninseparable from her functions as a promoter and preserver of life, for\nall the other vices she may or may not have in common with man.[198]\nThose that are constantly characteristic of her are:\u2014\n\n(1) Duplicity and an indifference to truth; (2) Lack of Taste; (3)\nVulgarity; (4) Love of petty power; (5) Vanity; and (6) Sensuality.\n\nThese six cardinal vices have been recognized in her in all ages; they\nhave been censured and deplored; but no one so far, to the best of my\nknowledge, has ever traced them to a basic vital principle within her.\nNo one has ever said of them, for instance, what I say of them\u2014that to\nattempt to eradicate them from her nature would amount to an attack on\nthe most solid guarantee we possess of human survival.\n\nWhile discussing the derivative and minor vices that descend from these\nsix cardinal vices, I shall, however, also show the connexion of the\nlatter with woman\u2019s innate vital principle, as in some cases this is\nnot obvious at first sight.\n\nNo. 1\u2014Duplicity and an indifference to truth\u2014has already been discussed\nabove, and its relation to the will to Life abundantly demonstrated.\nLet it suffice, therefore, to point out that an additional proof of its\ninveteracy in woman is to be found in the tinsel of false sentiment\nthat women particularly have drawn over the natural relations of the\nsexes\u2014a tinsel which not only promotes marriage and parenthood by\nconcealing their sordid and tiresome side from the young male, but\nwhich also prevents both sexes in most nations from detecting this\nless prepossessing side of matrimony throughout their whole lifetime.\nIf the reader wishes to test which sex really values this tinsel of\nfalse sentiment as its own, as its most powerful weapon, let him\nattempt to tear it away from the relations of the sexes in the presence\nof both women and men, and then he will see from the unreasoning\nfury he provokes in the former which sex is most to blame for its\nexistence.[199]\n\nAgain, women are notorious for their tact and presence of mind in\nembarrassing situations;[200] indeed, the tactfulness or \u201cdiplomacy\u201d\nof women is so well known in France that it has become proverbial. \u201c_On\narrive par la femme_,\u201d say French \u201cclimbers,\u201d whose ambitions exceed\ntheir gifts and who have to rely on diplomacy to achieve their ends.\nBut the presence of mind which is but the necessary mental condition\nfor saying the right word, for turning away wrath, suspicion, or\nenvy, for assuaging mortified vanity, and for making people forget\ntheir shortcomings, is in reality only an essential pre-requisite of\nsuccessful falsehood. Let the \u201clying\u201d be as white as you choose in\ntactfulness and diplomacy, it matters little; what is important is to\nremember that neither tactfulness nor diplomacy is possible without the\nessential equipment of the born and resourceful liar\u2014this equipment\nbeing an ability to say something, at a moment\u2019s notice, which is not\nthe natural or obvious reaction to a given stimulus or provocation.\nLittle girls show this ability quite early, and easily outclass boys\nin the celerity with which they discover a plausible and innocent\nexplanation for a reprehensible act in which they have been caught\nred-handed.[201] The fact that women are difficult to deal with under\ncross-examination is well known among lawyers, and their skill in\ndrawing red-herrings across the path of any enquiry directed against\nthemselves, makes them stubborn and evasive witnesses at all times when\nthey have anything to conceal.[202]\n\nNo. 2. Woman\u2019s fundamental lack of taste is the fact to which, in my\n_Man\u2019s Descent from the Gods_, I ascribed the two myths of Pandora\nand Eve, in which woman is depicted as being the cause of the fall of\nman, and of the introduction of evil on earth.[203] I demonstrated\nthis fundamental bad taste by pointing to women\u2019s inability to select\nand recognize the best men, and their general preference for inferior\nmen\u2014the reason of this preference being the greater facility with\nwhich the latter are ruled and made amenable to women\u2019s love of petty\npower. I also showed that this bad taste is rooted in the attitude\nof the mother to her child, which, consisting as it does, chiefly in\na delight in the exercise of petty power over a helpless creature,\ncauses women not only to prefer the baby in long clothes before the\nfull-grown child, but also frequently to prefer the crippled or the\nphysiologically-botched child before the hale and hearty one, because\nof the former\u2019s more permanent helplessness. I showed also how women\nprefer lap-dogs before large dogs for the same reason, and reminded\nthe reader that the Romans wisely left it to the father to decide\nwhich of his children should survive and which should be suppressed,\nbecause they knew that women, having no taste, and being guided only\nby what most gratified their lust of petty power, could not be trusted\nto make such a decision wisely. I also ascribed to the prevalence and\nascendancy of women\u2019s views and sentiments nowadays the fact that the\nworld was growing so ugly and degenerate (physically); for only if we\nassume the woman\u2019s attitude of irrational tenderness to cripples and\nthe physiologically botched, can we regard them with anything else than\nloathing and impatience.\n\nWhat I did not do, however, in _Man\u2019s Descent from the Gods_, was to\nshow the connexion between woman\u2019s fundamental bad taste, or lack of\ntaste, with the vital principle within her, and this I shall proceed to\ndo now. This, however, will not prove difficult, for it amounts simply\nto emphasizing woman\u2019s profound likeness to Nature, in blindly pursuing\nLife and its multiplication, at all costs.\n\nIf we think of the immensely precarious situation of the new-born\ninfant or animal, its lack of all means of protection, of mobility,\nand of procuring nourishment independently, its lack of warmth, and\nfrequently of the very equipment for preserving warmth (clothing in\nthe human infant, and fur and feathers in the young animal and bird\nrespectively), we realize at once the immense importance to the species\nof an instinct in the mother which makes the provision of all these\ndeficiencies a joy, a passionate need, in fact a delight worth fighting\nfor. If the new-born creature is to be preserved, and the species\nis to survive, there must be no possible loophole, no conceivable\ncrevice or chink, in the armour of the natural instinct, through which\nany doubt, any hesitation whatever, may enter, as to the immediate\nurgency and desirability of succouring it. The moment in the life of\nthe young creature is too critical, the situation is too precarious.\nHere you have pitiable helplessness, pathetic dependence, extreme\nvulnerability. The future of the species depends upon these unreliable\nqualities being turned into reliable ones by the only creature in the\nyoung one\u2019s neighbourhood who, while being necessarily present at its\nbirth, is in a position to offer first aid. If then there were any\nexcuse or pretext for indecision, any humming and ha-ing over the\nquestion of desirability, the \u201cbest of the brood,\u201d the \u201cmost promising\nof the litter,\u201d etc., life\u2019s very future would be in the balance, the\nprecious instinct which secures the safety and the survival of the\nyoung creature would be undermined, or at least no longer impelled\nunreflectingly to do the right thing in the right way. There must be\nan uncritical unreasoning impulse to succour, to warm, to protect, and\nto feed, otherwise the speed, the precision and the earnestness with\nwhich these functions have to be performed would be fatally impaired,\ndisastrously hampered. Let the struggle for existence be ever so\nsevere subsequently, one thing must remain assured and inviolable, and\nthat is that the mother\u2019s instinct must not have any excuse to fail,\nit must not even be able to pause to question, to pick or to choose.\nDiscernment, at this moment, would make survival doubtful; but there\ncannot be, there must not be, any doubt.\n\nBesides, if organic evolution be true, it depends upon the operation\nof three factors: (1) The survival of the fittest through the action\nof (2) Natural Selection, with (3) occasional appearance of variations\nfrom type.\n\nNow, if the female of the species is to exercise discernment before\nshe succours her young, if her action is to be deliberative and not\nimpulsive, what becomes of those variations which, when happy, lead\nto a new development of the species, or actually to a new variety\nof species? Happy variations are just as odd\u2014_qua_ type\u2014as unhappy\nvariations. But if the female\u2019s instinct is to preserve life, it will\npreserve one just as passionately as the other. Discrimination would\nprove fatal to both. The very process of organic evolution, if it be a\nfact, therefore depends upon the lack of discrimination in the motherly\ninstinct, and the hypothesis of organic evolution certainly assumes it.\n\nThis instinct in the female to succour young life of any kind,\ntherefore, is useful to Nature\u2019s scheme. It is an indispensable factor\nin Nature\u2019s plan. In the lower animals it is demonstrated by the ease\nwith which a female of one species can be made to act as foster-mother\nto the young of another. Books on natural history mention many such\ncases: cats that have reared leverets and young squirrels,[204] hens\nthat rear ducklings, and the classical natural instance of birds\nlike the Pipit, the Water Wagtail, etc., rearing the young of the\ncuckoo.[205] The latter, of course, is a parasitic abuse in Nature,\nof the female\u2019s undiscriminating instinct to succour; but it is\nnevertheless, an excellent example of the fact I have been trying to\nestablish.\n\nIt is true that in the human species this lack of discrimination in\nthe female operates as a preserver both of desirable and undesirable\nvarieties; but, as in all modern civilizations, the father is no longer\nallowed, as he was by ancient Sparta or Rome, to override the female\u2019s\nlack of taste in this matter, and unsuccessful variations from type are\nmore common than geniuses, it follows that the female\u2019s point of view,\nnow that it is supported by the State and public opinion, must lead to\nthe survival of a vast number of undesirable human beings in our midst.\n\nThus, although the human female\u2019s instinct is seen to be a vital\none, and though her lack of taste must be regarded as part of the\ngeneral scheme of life, it must tend nowadays to an enormous amount of\ndegeneration.\n\nThis, however, is not precisely our point. The facts we wish to\nestablish are, in the first place, that in woman\u2019s r\u00f4le of mother, the\nblind instinct to succour, to protect, and to preserve the helpless\ncreature that she bears is of vital importance to the race; and,\nsecondly, that this blind instinct necessarily involves a deep-seated\nand incorrigible lack of taste. The fact that subsequently\u2014that is to\nsay, when the undesirable offspring, be it cripple, cretin or idiot,\ngrows up\u2014it is frequently cherished by the mother more than her whole\nand hearty children, is but a confirmation of the point I am attempting\nto make; for it shows that what appeals to the true mother, and what\naccording to our whole argument must and ought to appeal, is not the\nparticular excellence of a given child, not its claim to any particular\nform of desirability, but simply its _helplessness_. And, since in\nthe cripple, the cretin and the idiot helplessness is prolonged to a\nmuch later age than in the healthy child, it is the former to which\nunsophisticated and simple-minded motherhood naturally inclines.\n\nThe consequences of this fundamental and vital lack of taste in women\nare, of course, considerable.\n\nWhen we read in Manu\u2019s _Book of Laws_ that \u201cwomen do not care for\nbeauty,\u201d[206] when Lombroso and Ferrero, in discussing woman\u2019s taste\nstate that \u201c_en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, la beaut\u00e9 et l\u2019intelligence la laissent\nindiff\u00e9rente_,\u201d[207] and when we find Rousseau saying \u201c_les femmes en\ng\u00e9n\u00e9ral n\u2019aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent \u00e0 aucun_,\u201d[208] we feel\ninclined to object, because we know of individual instances of women\nwho have shown a marked feeling for beauty. Neither Lombroso, Manu nor\nRousseau tells us, however, that their respective statements only refer\nto a specific and superficial manifestation of a deep and unalterable\nlaw. When once we realize that law, we see that these men must be\nright\u2014not, however, because individual women have shown an indifference\nto beauty, but because the sex as a whole has no taste, and that,\nwherever discernment for beauty is pronounced in a woman, she either\ndiverges from type or has undergone some special educating influence.\n\nWe are better able to understand now why the forms of art have all\nbeen man\u2019s invention, although they have sometimes been successfully\nimitated by women (in the novel),[209] and why clothes, even those\nthat fill the wardrobes of women, are all derived from an original\nmasculine designing centre in London or Paris. We can also see why\nwomen are so prone to select and to associate with the worst and most\nunpromising type of men,[210] why they have no _flair_ (except on the\nsexual side, and even that is by no means infallible) where men are\nconcerned, and why even their palates and their stomachs have never\nassisted them in the development of the culinary art, when they had it\nentirely in their own hands. But let us remember again that we cannot\nhave it both ways, and that if we educated tastelessness away in women,\nwe should be undermining one of the most valuable and fundamental of\nfemale instincts, the consequences of which alone can we safely hope to\ncorrect, without attempting to eliminate their cause.\n\nNo. 3. Woman\u2019s _Vulgarity_ might be supposed to arise from her natural\nabsence of taste. But, truth to tell, it is the outcome of a different\nbasic principle in her. Many men have been conscious of it, but none,\nas far as I have been able to discover, has shown how essential it is,\nand how necessarily it derives from the vital functions of the female\nnature. Besides, there is a substantial difference between a lack of\ntaste and vulgarity. The former is a defect, a _minus_. The latter is a\ndefinite quality which operates as a determined bias in an unrefined,\nrude and low direction. A person lacking taste may by a fluke select a\ntasteful thing. A vulgar person can in no circumstances be refined. It\nis not necessarily low, or rude, or unrefined in the mother to prefer\nthe crippled or cretin child before the healthy one\u2014that is simply\ntasteless. We could not call the mother vulgar because she prefers her\nchild in long clothes before her grown-up child in knickerbockers. The\ngrown-up child makes a stronger appeal to taste, owing to the greater\nharmony of his proportions, his articulateness, his intelligence,\nand his greater command over his body and its movements; but as the\nmother is chiefly attracted by helplessness, it is the child in long\nclothes that she prefers. The appeals to taste do not affect her. It\nis tastelessness, therefore, and not vulgarity, that elects the child\nin long clothes. Thus we see there is a distinct difference between\nthe two, and the one cannot derive from the other. It can aggravate\nthe other, add to its seriousness as a social evil, complicate and\nmultiply its errors, but it cannot spring from it. We call that person\nvulgar who constantly and consciously avoids those things that bear the\nhall-mark of cultivation, or refinement, or careful selection, in order\ndeliberately to pursue, select, value, and cherish those that bear the\nstamp of coarseness, brutality and baseness.\n\nNow woman constantly overlooks and avoids the former and as constantly\npursues the latter, and we hope to show that she cannot help acting in\nthis way\u2014in fact, that in so doing she is obeying a vital instinct.\n\nThe records of the lives of artists reveal one singular fact most\nimpressively, and that is the frequency with which they have had to\nassociate with immoral women, or women of the working classes: Heine,\nG\u0153the, Rodin, Van Gogh, Wagner, etc.; they are all alike in this; so\nmuch so, indeed, that Weininger, with his customary superficiality,\nthought fit to assert that \u201cgreat men have always preferred women of\nthe prostitute type.\u201d[211] Weininger is wrong\u2014great men have not always\npreferred women of this type. The point is, however, that women of the\nprostitute type, or women of the proletariat, are the only women who\nwill, as a rule, have anything to do with great men when, as in the\ncase of Wagner, Heine, Van Gogh, and Rodin, their beginnings are poor,\ninconspicuous, and uncertain. These artists at the outset, like many\nhundreds of other great men, were _unsuccessful_. That is the important\nfact as far as the sexual side of their life is concerned. Unsuccessful\nmen find it quite difficult enough to prevail upon women of their own\nstation in life to associate with them, but to get them as wives is\nout of the question. This accounts for the fact that great men are so\nfrequently thrown upon the company of courtesans and women of lower\nrank.[212]\n\nWoman has no primary interest in a great or artistic man, she does not\nprefer him to a successful and rich soap-boiler, and what is more, she\nnever knows he is great until the world acknowledges him as such. In\nfact she is not in the least concerned with refinement of interests or\nwith cultivation of mind in her mate. She is only deeply fascinated\nby the great man and the artist when he is a material success.\nOtherwise, not only does his extra refinement and cultivation leave her\nindifferent, but his very poverty repels her.\n\nWoman, by her very nature, is bound to take this attitude. She is\ncompelled, therefore, to be vulgar. What is the rationale of her\nconduct?\n\nIt is obviously as follows: Woman, like the female butterfly, the\nfemale house-fly, or the female horse-fly, has the very vital and\nuseful instinct to deposit her eggs only there where there is a sound\npromise of food, and ample quantities of it, for the support of the\nlarv\u00e6 that are to be reared from them. To consider other matters here\nwould obviously imperil not so much the mother herself as her future\noffspring. \u00c6sthetic considerations must therefore be barred. It is not\nthe best-looking repository, or the most refined, or the most learned,\nor the most artistic, that is sought, but that repository which\npromises the richest food-supply for the coming brood. In the insect it\nis the leafy tree,[213] the towering dung-heap; in the human female it\nis the man who shows some substantial promise of being able to support\nthe family that will come, and support it, moreover, in circumstances\nsimilar to those in which the wife herself has been reared. Thus the\nstruggling artist, the struggling scientist, and the ambitious but\npenniless politician\u2014though each may be a genius in his way\u2014repels the\ntrue and normal woman of his own class. Their spiritual gifts count as\nnothing, and since woman has no _flair_ for greatness, and cannot with\ncertainty pick out the great man before the world has applauded him to\nthe echo, it is only when they have become a material success that the\nfemale of their own or a superior station in life will look at them.\n\nNow this is obviously a very useful and a very vital instinct in woman.\nFrom the standpoint of the species nothing could be more laudable\nthan this anxious preoccupation with the future of the offspring. But\nit amounts to this, that by their nature women can have no primary\nconcern about those things that bear the hallmarks of cultivation, of\nrefinement and of greatness, and that, therefore, they are essentially\n_vulgar_.[214]\n\nIf in the Europe of to-day, and in all countries like Europe, it is\nmaterial success alone that is regarded as of the highest value, and\nif money is the principal hall-mark of power and prestige, it is due\nto the ascendancy of women in our midst. Women cannot take any other\npoint of view, and where their influence tends to prevail, as it does\nparticularly in England and America, there you will find the worship\nof cash the principal religion of the community. It is true that women\nfall at the feet of great men and artists when they become famous. When\nI was private secretary to Auguste Rodin, the great sculptor, at a time\nwhen he was making anything from fifteen to twenty thousand pounds a\nyear, women were his principal visitors. They flocked to his studio\nand to his private house at Meudon as to an Oxford Street drapery\nsale. But, as he used to say, they left him in peace in his dirty\nlittle studio in La Rue des Fourneaux at the time when he was poor and\nstruggling.\n\nIt is indeed one of the most pernicious results of woman\u2019s ascendancy\nin any society, that this vulgar pursuit of mere material success\n(because it provides the surest provision for the offspring) tends to\nbecome general,[215] and it is a sign of woman\u2019s subordination in the\nHindu community, for instance, that there the most respected caste is\nthe poorest caste.\n\nTo-day this vulgarity can be detected in every aspect of our lives.\nEverything, every consideration of refinement, is overlooked, provided\nthat money be present. And the man who kills most female hearts is\nhe who can throw a rich fur round his capture and whirl her off in\na sumptuous Rolls-Royce. This to the normal decent woman is simply\nirresistible. She will abandon any mere artist for this experience. And\nthough in later years, when the latter has become great in a worldly\nsense, she may deplore her error of judgment, she has no gifts that\nenable her immediately to gauge his worth, and thus to foretell his\nultimate position.\n\nIt is interesting to note that neither Heine, Nietzsche nor Van Gogh\never became a material success until long after his death. But Heine,\nNietzsche and Van Gogh were singularly free from the sort of female\npersecution that harassed Rodin and Wagner in later life, and certainly\nnot one of them ever had a successful association with a woman of his\nown station or class.\n\nIndeed, so deeply rooted is this love of material success in women that\nit manifests itself in those who have long ceased to be able to bear\nchildren. Thus wives who have passionately loved their husbands will\nlearn to dislike and despise them intensely if owing to some unhappy\nturn in their fortunes they become material failures. Daughters will\nalso manifest a pronounced dislike towards fathers who, for their\nstation in life, have been inadequate material successes. I once heard\na daughter of a peer talk most bitterly about her father, because he\nwas a failure from the financial point of view. A woman will forgive\nanything in her man\u2014adultery, cruelty, obesity, and stupidity,\u2014but she\ncannot and will not forgive material failure.\n\nThe ramifications of this fundamental and vital vulgarity in woman\nare, of course, manifold. We have only to think of the ostentation of\nwealth, of the insistence upon the insignia of wealth and material\nsuccess by women (diamonds, pearls, furs, fine external domestic\nappointments, etc.), and of the stampede for wealth and success in\nmodern, women-ridden society. We have only to think of the commercial,\nindustrial and financial immorality of modern societies, all of which\nare the direct outcome of the maniacal struggle for that hall-mark\nwhich alone means power and prestige in an effeminate community.\nIndividually this vulgarity ramifies in woman as an inability to pursue\nrefinement, unassisted or undirected; as a readiness to sacrifice\nrefinement or else the fruits of cultivation, to any other sordid end,\nand as an inaccessibility to the finer nuances of thought. That is why\nthe notion \u201cLady\u201d is such absurd nonsense. It is the grossest and most\npalpable fiction. No \u201clady\u201d has ever existed or will ever exist. As\nNapoleon said, \u201cWomen have no rank\u201d;\u2014we have seen why this must be\nso.[216]\n\nNo. 4. Woman\u2019s _love of petty power_ is obvious and hardly requires\ndemonstrating. It arises from the species\u2019 urgent need of some adult\nanimal which, when the offspring is born, will take an instinctive\ndelight in looking after it. Apart from the pleasant sensations that\nthe healthy female\u2014whether animal or human\u2014derives from suckling,[217]\nthere must also be an instinct which makes it a pleasure to nurse, to\nfondle, and to tend the infant of the species. This instinct can be\nexamined under its two aspects, either as a love of petty power or as\na love of dealing with something pathetically helpless. And, indeed,\nif some of the deepest chords in the female\u2019s being were not moved by\nhelplessness, where on earth should we be? What would become of our\nbabies and our children?\n\nAs far as her relation to the child is concerned, therefore, there can\nbe no doubt whatsoever concerning the utility to the species of woman\u2019s\nlove of petty power, and away from the child it is revealed in a\nhundred different ways: woman\u2019s pronounced preference for lap-dogs, her\nfondness for teaching (when children play at school it is invariably\na little girl of the party who plays the part of teacher),[218] her\n_conscious_ preference for the grown-up schoolboy as a husband (that\nis to say, the man who is easily led by the nose), her tendency to\ndesire to give advice to relatives and friends, in everything, so\nthat virtually she directs their lives (this is admirably depicted by\nGeorge Eliot in her descriptions of Maggie\u2019s aunts in the _Mill on the\nFloss_), and finally her tendency to excessive self-assertion and to\ninterference with other people\u2019s concerns.\n\nIt is only in its ramifications that this vital instinct in woman has\na deleterious influence if it is not kept in check; for her desire\nfor petty power is always out of all proportion to her capacity for\nwielding any power whatsoever. For instance, in its tendency to make\nher favour the grown-up schoolboy type of man as a husband, it acts as\na distinct drawback to the race. Because, although he proves an easy\nman to rule, he is by no means a desirable type from the standpoint of\nvirile virtue. He is the type called \u201cPromethean\u201d in my _Man\u2019s Descent\nfrom the Gods_\u2014that is to say, a man who has no mastery of life, very\nlittle depth or understanding, and who is gifted with the qualities\nof the lackey rather than of the leader. The prevalence of this type\nof man to-day, together with the paucity of men of the masculine and\nleader type, is another sign of the extent to which women are having\ntheir own way. He is a man who knows nothing about women, but he is\nusually athletic, breezy and fond of games\u2014i.e. he is harmless. The\nfact that he now stands as the pattern of the \u201cmanly\u201d man reveals the\ninfluence of the female standpoint in our modern communities, as does\nalso the fact that the other type of man (the masculine and manly type\nwho understands woman, and who shows that he does) is now vilified\neverywhere as the \u201cprig.\u201d\n\nTruth to tell, woman is less happy with the grown-up schoolboy type\nthan with the latter type, but this she only finds out later. Her\nconscious choice, supported by the values of the age, inclines her\nto the type over which she can exercise petty power, and this man,\nwho believes in \u201cchivalry,\u201d who believes in playing \u201ccricket\u201d (or\n\u201cplaying the game\u201d) with his womenfolk, and who accepts the whole of\nthe tinsel of false sentiment that women have succeeded in drawing\nover the natural relations of the sexes, has become the beau ideal of\nAnglo-Saxon society.\n\nUltimately, of course, woman suffers excruciatingly, not only as\nan individual, but also as a whole sex, when this type of man\nbecomes supreme; because, since he has no mastery over life, and no\nunderstanding of life\u2019s problems (the sex problem is only one of the\nmany he actually creates), the societies in which he prevails gradually\nget into such an appalling muddle, and reveal in all their aspects such\na tragic absence of the master mind, that life in all its departments\nbecomes ever more and more difficult. A century in England of the\nprevalence of this type of man has brought us to our present hopeless\nplight, and yet there are very few men, and no women, who seem to be\naware of the fact that it is the prevalence of this alleged \u201cmanly\u201d man\nthat is to blame.\n\nA moment\u2019s thought, of course, reveals at once how ridiculous even the\nterminology of this womanly ideal of man really is; for truly \u201cmanly\u201d\nmen are not ruled by their women. And yet, in the most successful\nnovels of the day, in the most exalted circles of the land, and in the\nhearts of all unsuspecting virgins, he continues to be upheld as the\nparagon for all times and climes.\n\nThis is what we have had to pay for woman\u2019s point of view becoming\nparamount.\n\nDo not let it be thought, however, that the cure would consist in\ncurbing, uprooting or correcting woman\u2019s love of petty power. This\nshould not be attempted for one instant, even if it were possible.\nWoman\u2019s love of petty power is much too valuable to the species to be\ntampered with. The only practical cure would be the breeding of a type\nof masculine men over whom woman\u2019s love of petty power could not avail.\n\nThus woman\u2019s lack of taste on the one hand, her vulgarity and her\nlove of petty power on the other,[219] are all seen to be exercising\na deleterious and dangerous influence on modern society. They are\nharmful because they exert a continuous pull downwards against the\naspiring efforts of the age; they are dangerous because they may\nlead to a degree of degeneration from which it may prove impossible\nultimately to recover, and they are difficult and delicate to handle\nbecause, while they are persistent and incorrigible, they are, as we\nhave seen, too vital to be tampered with without jeopardizing the\nsurvival of the species.\n\nWhat in the circumstances is the solution?\n\nThe only advisable solution lies in the direction, not of changing\nwoman\u2014that would be suicidal to the species\u2014but in limiting her power,\nin controlling her influence. Feminism, therefore, which aims at the\nopposite ideal, is wrong\u2014wrong to the root. There must be a revulsion\nof feeling, or we perish. Woman must be re-defined. Her sphere must\nonce again be delimited and circumscribed, if her vital and precious\ninstincts are not, in their effort to extend \u201cout of bounds,\u201d to drag\nus steadily down into the abyss.\n\nIf woman were happier as she is, than with her influence controlled,\nif Feminism had brought bliss instead of anguish to millions of women,\nthere might be at least one remaining argument\u2014a purely hedonistic\none\u2014in favour of this nineteenth-century madness. But seeing that\nthis is not so; in view of what every one now knows and can see and\nfeel with his own unassisted senses, that woman has grown every day\nmore wretched, more neurotic, and more sick, with every advance that\nFeminism has made, the last and only possible word remaining in its\nfavour, the plea even of hedonism, is shown to be as inadmissible as\nthe rest.\n\nWhen, therefore, we read in the old canon of the Brahmins, \u201cHe who\ncarefully guards his wife, preserves the purity of his offspring,\nvirtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his means of acquiring\nmerit\u201d[220]; when we read \u201cDay and night women must be kept in\ndependence by the males of their families ... her father protects\nher in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and her sons\nprotect her in old age, a woman is never fit for independence\u201d;[221]\nwe shall surely be taking a very heavy onus of responsibility upon our\nshoulders if we declare this policy madness and our own wisdom. Is\nthere anything beyond our own prejudice to show that we are more wise\nthan the Brahmins were? Is there anything in the organization of our\nsociety to show that it is more successful than that of the Brahmins?\nIf we choose to interpret these texts merely as the unjust doctrines\nof a race \u201chostile\u201d to women, it should be incumbent upon us to prove\nthat, in point of fact, our women are happier in their anarchy than\nthose women are or were in their Brahministic order. But, truth to\ntell, the Brahmins were a very wise race, a race that meant to last\nlonger than we mean to last, and which, in fact, has achieved a degree\nof permanence far exceeding that which any European race has achieved,\nor can hope to achieve, unless it make a rapid _volte-face_ in almost\nall its most cherished beliefs.\n\nNo. 5. Woman\u2019s _Vanity_, I take it, is not open to question. If no\nother proof of its pre-eminence in her were available, we should find\none in her universally reported modesty; for, who says modest, says\nalso vain.[222] Since, therefore, no one has yet contested the modesty\nof women, I may take it that her vanity is by implication generally\naccepted too.\n\nThe ramifications of this vice in her are to be found in her tendency\nto inordinate jealousy (which arises from her incessant desire to be\nthe centre of attraction and her intolerance of rivals in this desire);\nin her love of honours, titles, badges, etc. (hence her incessant\nspurring on of her mate to obtain them, and her impatience with him\nif he fails); in her tendency to adopt only showy or conspicuous\ncallings in which tangible and visible results, and speedy applause,\nare sure to be obtained. (Thus Havelock Ellis says: \u201cIt is difficult\nto recall examples of women who have patiently and slowly fought\ntheir way at once to perfection and to fame in the face of complete\nindifference, like, for instance, Balzac.... It is still more difficult\nto recall a woman who for any abstract and intellectual end has fought\nher way to success through obloquy and contempt, or without reaching\nsuccess, like a Roger Bacon, or a Galileo, a Wagner or an Ibsen\u201d);[223]\nfinally, in her constant and deep concern about her appearance, her\nclothes, her hair, and her neighbour\u2019s clothes and hair, and her love\nof flattery. This latter derivative of her basic vanity is perhaps\nthe worst of all, because it means that women, as a rule, are always\ngoverned in their likes and dislikes, and in their appreciation of\ntheir fellow-creatures, not by a recognition of the latter\u2019s intrinsic\nworth, which they sum up once and for all, but by the manner in which\ntheir fellow-creatures treat them. A woman does not ask herself, what\nis the precise character of So-and-so, and value him accordingly. Her\ninstinctive question is, how did So-and-so treat me? He may be an\ninferior man who dances attendance upon her and treats her well, he may\nbe a knave; she will always prefer him before the worthy man who treats\nher with indifference. Madame de Sta\u00ebl\u2019s adverse opinion of Napoleon\nwas not formed until Napoleon had systematically and thoroughly snubbed\nher. But Madame de Sta\u00ebl\u2019s adverse opinion of Napoleon is not valuable\nas an index to Napoleon\u2019s true character; it is only valuable as an\nindex to the way Napoleon treated her. Likewise with our \u201cgood Queen\nBess,\u201d it was not Leicester\u2019s desirable qualities that so much endeared\nhim to her; for he was a bigamist, a murderer, an incompetent and\ncowardly general, and a bad governor of men, as his experiences in the\nNetherlands proved; but the fact that he was an arch-flatterer. Even\nthe ingenuity he displayed in designing his presents to his sovereign\nand lady love, reveal an unusual knowledge of woman\u2019s weaknesses.\nElizabeth\u2019s treatment of Admiral Lord Seymour, whom she made a Privy\nCouncillor, was also not based upon an estimate of his true worth,\nbut upon the way in which he treated her; for the man was a convicted\ndefaulter. See also her ridiculous behaviour with Sir James Melville\nin 1564 (recorded by himself) and her humiliating victimization by Dr.\nDee, the alchemist.\n\nThe most cursory study of any woman\u2019s opinion about her\nfellow-creatures will always reveal the same fact, that they are not\nbased at all upon the intrinsic value of people, but on the way people\ntreat her. This is a comparatively harmless trait so long as woman\nhas no power; the moment, however, that she is placed in a position\nof wielding power, her errors of judgment affect public life, and she\nonly accepts those men as her ministers, advisers or directors who\ncan prostrate themselves with the best grace at her feet, and appeal\nmost irresistibly to her vanity. Her choice of a fellow-creature may\nof course be right by a fluke, as for instance when he combines with\ngeneral ability the power for fulsome flattery (Benjamin Disraeli); but\notherwise it is almost sure to be wrong.[224]\n\nThese ramifications of the fundamental vice of vanity in woman are, I\npresume, disputed by no one. It only remains, therefore, to show that\nhere again we are concerned with a vital instinct which, while it may\nrequire curbing by man, is too precious to be uprooted or suppressed.\nFor what, after all, is this vanity in woman but the outcome of her\nnatural impulse to attract the notice of the male\u2014to speed up, that is\nto say, or to make certain of, the act of fertilization, which can only\nbe consummated when a male has been captivated? If the female played\nthe aggressive and prehensile r\u00f4le in the sexual act, she would only\nneed to pursue and to overpower as the male does. Since, however, she\nplays the passive, receptive and submissive r\u00f4le, her only means of\nsecuring and expediting fertilization is to draw the male to her; and\nthis instinct in the human female naturally manifests itself as a deep\nconcern about her own personal appearance and its powers of provoking\nflattering attention. If intellectual brightness can add to the power\nshe is thus able to exercise, and she has the gift for developing\nintellectual power, she will do so in order to add to the glamour\nof her person. That is why it is never safe to argue from a woman\u2019s\nintellectual pursuits that she is truly interested in the subjects\nshe is studying. It is far wiser to wait until she has given some\nunmistakable proof of the purity of her motives. This, however, rarely,\nif ever, happens.[225]\n\nSince, however, in a contest between attractions, native beauty and\nnative endowments generally play a greater part than dress or acquired\nintellectual smartness, it will generally be found that women are more\nbitterly jealous of each other\u2019s bodily gifts than of each other\u2019s\nwardrobes, wealth or wisdom. But woman does not consciously consider\nthe benefit of the species, although she is constantly working for it.\nThus when she is vying with other women in the business of attraction,\nshe realizes the enormous advantage enjoyed by the rival who has the\nbest physical endowments, and since it is her own fertilization that\nis alone important to her, her jealousy of the other woman or women\nmay quite easily drive her to homicide, if she can hope to achieve a\nspeedier triumph by this means.\n\nApart from sexual matters, this characteristic in the female manifests\nitself generally as a desire to shine, or to outshine, and to be the\ncentre of an admiring or, at least, attentive group. Tiresome as this\npropensity is, particularly when a wife shows it to a marked degree,\nit should never be forgotten that it has a vital origin, and therefore\nthat it should be treated with patience and toleration. A little kindly\nand timely explanation to a woman of one\u2019s own circle will generally\nenable her to realize how foolish she has been making herself appear;\nand the moment she realizes this, and begins, with the aid of your\nexplanation, to notice the self-assertiveness of other women, and its\nreasons, she will be on the high road to understanding the wisdom of\nyour rebuke.\n\nAs a general rule it is best to teach women through the example of\nother women; because their natural loathing and contempt of other women\nis such, that if you can once convince your wife, or your daughter,\nthat she is behaving, or has behaved, like a certain other woman, whom\nshe has had opportunities of observing with disapproval, the chances\nare that you will have cured her spontaneously of the objectionable\ntrait which it was your desire to suppress.\n\nThis fact, however, should be carefully noted in regard to female\nvanity, and that is that _normally_ it is only a means of luring the\nmale. When once the male has been lured, and the woman is passionate\nand positive, vanity is flung to the four winds, and passion will\ninduce the woman to accept even insults from the man she loves without\nceasing from loving him. The negative woman, on the other hand,\nwhose vanity is never smothered by passion, cannot accept an insult\nfrom anyone. She hates the lover who does not keep up to the mark\nin worshipping her. Since she is never carried away by passion, she\nnever forgets to ask herself the constant question\u2014what sort of figure\n_she_ is cutting in the affair; and this makes her very sensitive to\nadulation, neglect and insults.\n\nNo. 6. Woman\u2019s _Sensuality_ will be stoutly denied, not only by women\nthemselves, but by all sentimental and women-ridden men. Owing to\nthe lies told by the writers of the J. S. Mill type, most modern\nAnglo-Saxons have got it into their heads that woman has acted as a\nmoralizing influence on man, and has thus led to a curbing and taming\nof the sensual impulses of humanity; in fact that civilization is\nlargely her work.[226] With such false doctrines in their minds, it is\nnaturally difficult to convince such people that woman is sensual; for,\nwith cerulean-eyed innocence they exclaim: \u201cHow can sensuality moralize\nmankind?\u201d True enough, it cannot; but the mistake is to suppose\nanything so fatuous and absurd as that women ever advanced morality\nby a hair\u2019s breadth. I think I have shown sufficiently cogently that\nwhen they do exercise any influence \u201cout of their proper bounds\u201d it is\nonly in order to spread their bad taste and their vulgarity. How then\ncould their effect on humanity\u2019s civilization and cultivation have\nbeen anything but a retarding one? The truth is that woman\u2019s direct\ninfluence in most civilizations has been but small, and where this\ndirect influence has been felt, whether acutely or insignificantly, it\nis always unfavourable.\n\nBut let us not suppose that on that account sensuality is an evil.\u2014On\nthe contrary, it is one of the greatest mainstays of life. Without\nsensuality we could not advance from one generation to another; without\na love of the flesh and its joys human nature and the animal creation\nwould come to an end in half a century. In this sense, seeing that\nto-day we are all Puritans\u2014if not in deed, at least in thought\u2014I have\nthe best possible proof of how little woman has influenced civilization\nfor the good. For woman is chiefly sensual. If then she had influenced\ncivilization for the good, she must have checked Puritanism. Because\neven if we admit, as we must, that her sensuality must be kept within\nproper bounds by man, we are forced to inquire how it is that the\nwhole of Western Europe, and all countries like it, are Puritan to-day,\nif woman has exercised any influence on the evolution of society, and\nthat influence has been a good influence.\n\nThe reader may reply that this proves that woman is _not_ sensual.\nBut I invite him to consider the process of bearing and rearing\nchildren. Surely it is from start to finish\u2014from the coitus to the\nweaning\u2014a sensuous process; and in that sense woman\u2019s sensuality is\nentirely laudable. When once this sensuous process ceases from being\npleasant in all its stages, disease is present, and the species is in\ndanger of extermination.[227] This danger may be remote, but it must\nbe recognized. Now, how can we expect a creature to find pleasure in\na sensuous process lasting over such a long period of time unless\nsensuality plays a great part in her constitution?\n\nThe only point we have to settle here (since we have placed sensuality\namong woman\u2019s vices) is at what point does her sensuality become\nvicious. Now let it be thoroughly understood that two-thirds of our\nmiddle-class and certainly three-quarters of our wealthiest classes can\nhardly produce a positive woman among them, and, therefore, that there\ncan be no question of sensuality in the women of these sections of the\ncommunity. To be sensual a woman must at least be positive; she must at\nleast have healthy and tonic organs, both of alimentation, etc., and\nof sex; hence, we shall not be thinking of the bulk of British women\nwhen we proceed to show how the natural and laudable sensuality of the\npositive woman becomes a vice.\n\nLike all the other vital qualities of woman\u2014her tastelessness, her\nvulgarity, her love of petty power, and her vanity\u2014sensuality only\nbecomes a vice when it is out of hand. It is, therefore, in greatest\ndanger of becoming a vice when men have conceded overmuch liberty to\ntheir womenfolk, and where woman, by having her own way, can indulge\nher proclivities without limitation. But this is the state in which we\nfind ourselves in England to-day, and if it were not for the fact that\nthree-quarters of our women are negative (that is to say, too unhealthy\nand too atonic in their alimentary, sexual and other organs to derive\nany pleasure from their functions), sensuality would be one of the\nworst vices of the times.\n\nHow does it operate harmfully when once it has become a vice through\npositive women having their own way? It operates as a vice by breaking\nup the family unit, by unduly exhausting the menfolk of the nation,\nby leading to promiscuity and thence to disease, by making woman the\nonly subject whether of agreement or disagreement among men, and by\nelevating to the first place among the virtues a caprine degree of\nmasculine potency.\n\nThe way of arresting this vice, however, is not, as our ancestors\nof the seventeenth century thought (and did), to eradicate woman\u2019s\nsensuality and to make her negative; for that is tantamount to\ndestroying a portion of her vitality, and of her valuable vital\nimpulses. The only remedy, here again, is to circumscribe woman\u2019s\npowers, and to place each woman under the tutelage of some responsible\nman. But in order to do this successfully you must have the men who\ncan undertake the charge. Besides, is it not too late to speak of this\nnow? Has not the wrong remedy, the rearing of negative and non-sexual\nwomen, gone too far? I doubt whether, in view of humanity\u2019s infinite\npossibilities, anything could have gone too far. But the revulsion\nof feeling that would be required to alter our present condition in\nsuchwise as (1) to rear a majority of positive women once more, and\n(2) to rear the men who could take charge of them and account for\ntheir actions appears, as things are, to be so remote that, although\neverything is possible, it is doubtful whether precisely this thing is\nprobable.\n\nCertainly the choice taken by our ancestors cannot have been the\nright one.[228] It cannot be right to suppress a vice by eradicating\nor detoning the vital principle that causes it[229]; and now that we\nhave the fruits of this method about us, in our millions of negative\nwomen, it may reasonably be asked whether we do not see the necessity\nof starting a counter movement which, while it will increase the\nproportion of positive women in our midst, will also and concurrently\nrear the men who can take charge of them.\n\n\u201cDay and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males of their\nfamilies,\u201d says Manu, \u201cand if they attach themselves to sensual\nenjoyments, they must be kept under one\u2019s control.\u201d[230]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThus we have seen that both in her virtues and her vices woman is\nentirely the creature of _vital_ impulses. Her virtues, like her vices,\narise from principles within her that are valuable\u2014nay indispensable,\nto the species. Furthermore, we have seen that her vices are not vices\nin their origin, but only become so when certain vital principles\nwithin her get out of hand, or find expression in a way they were not\nintended to adopt. To attempt to correct these vices by extirpation\nis dangerous, seeing that to do so is to ruin instincts upon which\nthe race depends for its survival.[231] If therefore society is to\nbe protected from women\u2019s vices, and the future of mankind guaranteed\nagainst the deteriorating effect of woman\u2019s spiritual influence, the\nonly practical remedy that does not menace the species is to emulate\nthe great wisdom of the Orient, and to place woman once more under\nman\u2019s charge. To attempt any other method, such as the one advocated by\nthe Feminists for instance, is, as we have seen, to involve one of two\ndifficulties: either the need of eradicating some of woman\u2019s most vital\nprinciples in order to make her liberty innocuous to society (this we\nhave already partially done with regard to her sensuality), or else\nthe necessity of suffering the gradual deterioration of life through\nher influence, if she remain uncontrolled. Either alternative is bad;\nbecause in either event the ruin of civilization is a mathematical\ncertainty. You cannot eradicate woman\u2019s most vital principles\nwithout destroying her usefulness, and yet you cannot tolerate her\ndeteriorating influence if her vital principles are allowed to get out\nof hand. There remains, therefore, but the alternative of restoring\nwomen to the charge of men\u2014an alternative which involves the denial,\nthe overthrow, and the rout of Feminism.\n\nThe only difficulty we can see in the way of this desirable reform, is\nthe absence of the men who would be capable of carrying it out. For\nwomen themselves are already half-convinced that Feminism is wrong, and\nthat J. S. Mill is actually the pernicious liar I have shown him to be.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[142] See _Man\u2019s Descent from the Gods_, chapter VIII.\n\n[143] Book IX, verses 15, 16, 17.\n\n[144] Op. cit. p. 135. \u201c_Mais si le mensonge est un vice tr\u00e8s r\u00e9pandu\ndans toute l\u2019humanit\u00e9, c\u2019est surtout chez les femmes qu\u2019il atteint\nson maximum d\u2019intensit\u00e9. Demontrer que le mensonge est habituel,\nphysiologique chez la femme, serait inutile: cela est consacr\u00e9 par la\ncroyance populaire._\u201d\n\n[145] \u201cThere are three things that cannot be trusted: a king, a\nhorse, and a woman; the king tyrannizes, a horse escapes, a woman is\nperfidious.\u201d\n\n[146] See _Life of John Stuart Mill_, p. 162.\n\n[147] See _The Subjection of Women_, chap. I, section 7.\n\n[148] The observation occurs in Congreve\u2019s _Mourning Bride_, at the\nend of the 3rd Act, and is put in the mouth of Queen Zara. The precise\nwords are:\u2014\n\n    \u201cHeaven has no rage, like love to hatred turn\u2019d,\n     Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn\u2019d.\u201d\n\n\n[149] W. L. Courtney (Op. cit.) tells us that portions of the\n_Subjection of Women_ were written by Miss Helen Taylor (Mill\u2019s\nstep-daughter).\n\n[150] Op. cit., section 18.\n\n[151] See Sir Almroth E. Wright (Op. cit., p. 32), footnote: \u201cThis is\na question on which Mill has endeavoured to confuse the issue for his\nreader, first, by representing that by no possibility can man know\nanything of the \u2018nature,\u2019 i.e. of the \u2018secondary sexual characters\u2019\nof woman; and secondly, by distracting attention from the fact that\n\u2018acquired characteristics\u2019 may produce unfitness for the suffrage.\u201d\n\n[152] J. S. Mill, section 20.\n\n[153] Cp. Sir Almroth E. Wright, who, in speaking of Mill\u2019s\nhypothetical natural woman, says (Op. cit., p. 5): \u201cInstead of dealing\nwith woman as she is, and with woman placed in a setting of actually\nsubsisting conditions, Mill takes as his theme a woman who is a\ncreature of his imagination. This woman is, _by assumption_, in mental\nendowment a replica of man. She lives in a world which is, _by tacit\nassumption_, free from the complications of sex.... It is in connexion\nwith this fictitious woman that Mill sets himself to work out the\nbenefit which women would derive from co-partnership with men in the\ngovernment of the State, and those which such co-partnership would\nconfer on the community.\u201d\n\n[154] The Rev. E. Cobham Brewer, LL.D., calls Mill\u2019s _Subjection of\nWomen_ \u201cadmirable.\u201d\n\n[155] A certain French writer, despite a wholly mistaken admiration\nfor J. S. Mill, is nevertheless bound to admit, in reference to\nMill\u2019s _Subjection of Women_ and his strangely wild and unreasoning\ninfatuation for Mrs. Taylor, that: \u201c_Il n\u2019en est pas moins curieux et\nremarquable que, sous l\u2019aiguillon de ce sentiment, cet esprit froid, si\nfort, si durement logique, ait pris sans h\u00e9siter cette attitude._\u201d See\n_Psychologie de la Femme_, by Henri Marion, (Paris, 1903, p. 257). In\nhis _Criticisms on Contemporary Thought and Thinkers_ the Rev. R. H.\nHutton, M.A., writes as follows on Mill\u2019s relation to Mrs. Taylor; \u201cHis\npassionate reverence for his wife\u2019s memory and genius\u2014in his own words\n\u2018a religion\u2019\u2014was one which, as he must have been perfectly sensible, he\ncould not possibly make to appear otherwise than extravagant, not to\nsay an hallucination, in the eyes of the rest of mankind.\u201d (See Vol. I,\np. 173.) See the same work for some sharp and well-deserved criticism\nof Mill\u2019s _Utilitarianism_.\n\n[156] _Germania_, chap. IX.\n\n[157] _Ibid._, chap. XLV.\n\n[158] See _Decline and Fall_, chap. IX.\n\n[159] _The Importance of Women in Anglo-Saxon Times_, by the Rt. Rev.\nG. F. Browne, D.D., p. 12.\n\n[160] Browne (Op. cit.), p. 12. The women of the ruling class in\nBritain at the time of the Roman subjugation of the island, were\nalso distinguished for their cultivation; such women, I mean, as\nCartismandua, the earliest British queen to be mentioned in history,\nBoadicea, and Martia, surnamed Proba, whose laws were ultimately\nconfirmed, and partly adopted, by King Alfred and Edward the Confessor.\n\n[161] The only reason why these last two did not share the honours of\nroyalty with their husbands was because of the crimes of the Queen\nEdburga who had poisoned her husband.\n\n[162] Browne (Op. cit.), p. 23.\n\n[163] _Ibid._, p. 23.\n\n[164] _Ibid._, p. 23.\n\n[165] See _Lives of the Queens of England_, by Agnes Strickland. Vol.\nI. Introduction.\n\n[166] We have only to think of the enormous amount of faith and intense\ninward conviction that the successful survival of such an ordeal must\nmean, in order to realize that Emma of Normandy must have possessed\nqualities that are extremely rare even among the women of to-day.\n\n[167] _Subjection of Women_, chap. I, section 9. Henry III\u2019s wife and\nmother of Edward I, although perhaps extravagant and reckless, enjoyed\nan excellent education.\n\n[168] _Histoire de la Civilisation en France_ (Paris 1846), Vol. III,\npp. 332-333.\n\n[169] See Lacroix, _Science et Lettres au Moyen Age et \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque\nde la Renaissance_ (2nd Ed.), p. 169, where the author, speaking of\nthe beginning of the fourteenth century, says: \u201c_Bien des femmes ne\ndonnaient confiance qu\u2019\u00e0 des personnes de leur sexe pour des op\u00e9rations\nd\u2019une nature d\u00e9licate._\u201d\n\n[170] See Mary Bateson, _Medi\u00e6val England_, p. 286.\n\n[171] See G. S. Coulson, M.A., _A Medi\u00e6val Garner_, p. 58.\n\n[172] See Emile Faguet, _Le F\u00e9minisme_, p. 173: \u201c_Quand on songe que\nla co\u00fbtume de Bretagne et que l\u2019Ordonnance de Blois de 1579 (executive\ndans tout le Royaume) condamnaient \u00e0 la peine de mort, les hommes\ncoupables de rapt!_\u201d As to the spiritual side of the seventeenth\ncentury, on the other hand, we have only to think of Moli\u00e8re\u2019s\n_Pr\u00e9cieuses Ridicules_ and _Les Femmes Savantes_, each of which plays\ncaricatures the then existing phenomenon of the learned woman.\n\n[173] Faguet, Op. cit.\n\n[174] See _Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century_, p. 41.\n\n[175] Alice Clark, Op. cit., pp. 14-18.\n\n[176] _Ibid._, Op. cit., p. 25.\n\n[177] Alice Clark, pp. 28-31.\n\n[178] Weininger agrees that it is wholly erroneous to suggest that\nhitherto women have had no opportunity for the undisturbed development\nof their mental powers (see Op. cit., p. 72), but, as usual, the\nsupport of his contention is feeble and unconvincing.\n\n[179] Miss Clark is of the opinion that even in these domestic duties\nshe was not altogether unassisted by men in former times, as the\nfollowing passage shows: \u201cOn the other hand it may be urged that,\nif women were on the whole more actively engaged in industrial work\nduring the seventeenth century than they were in the first decade\nof the twentieth century, men were much more occupied with domestic\naffairs than they are now. Men in all classes gave time and care to the\neducation of their children, and the young unmarried men, who generally\noccupied positions as apprentices and servants, were partly employed\nover domestic work. Therefore, though it is now taken for granted that\ndomestic work will be done by women, a considerable proportion of it in\nformer days fell to the share of the men.\u201d (Op. cit., p. 5.)\n\n[180] If she does so, it only means disaster. As late as a generation\nago, if she happened to be in India, she was put to no trouble\nwhatsoever; for the custom there, in such circumstances, was for the\nEuropean mother to seek out a native mother who could act as wet-nurse.\nThe fact that this almost invariably meant\u2014as every Anglo-Indian will\ntell you\u2014the death of the native woman\u2019s own child, was cynically\noverlooked by the British occupiers of India.\n\n[181] Paul Lecroix, Op. cit., pp. 370-371.\n\n[182] Weininger comes to the same conclusion. See Op. cit., pp. 150-151\nand 196. But he does not give the same reasons as I do. His conclusion\nis much more of a guess than mine is, and therefore makes one suspect\nthat he was actuated by strong prejudice.\n\n[183] Weininger (Op. cit., p. 346), who maintained that \u201cit cannot be a\nmoral duty to provide for the continuance of the race,\u201d was an avowed\npessimist, and, being unable therefore to find a higher sanction for\nwoman\u2019s immorality, perforce condemned it. We who believe that there\nis no duty more sacred than to provide for the continuance of the\nrace, naturally take the other view, and though recognizing woman\u2019s\nunscrupulousness in furthering the survival of the race, recognize the\nhigh sanction which her immorality thus acquires.\n\n[184] Cp. Sir Almroth E. Wright (Op. cit., p. 46): \u201cIt would be\ndifficult to find anyone who would trust a woman to be just to the\nrights of others in the case where the material interests of her\nchildren, or of a devoted husband, were involved. And even to consider\nthe question of being in such a case intellectually just to anyone who\ncame into competition with personal belongings like husband and child\nwould, of course, lie quite beyond the moral horizon of ordinary woman.\u201d\n\n[185] Schopenhauer in one of his Essays (see the _Parerga und\nParalipomena_, Vol. II, Chap. XXVII) also speaks of women\u2019s\n\u201cinstinctive cunning\u201d and \u201cher ineradicable tendency to falsehood,\u201d\nas the outcome of her weakness, but never hints at any deeper, or\nmore positive cause. Speaking of woman\u2019s character as being given to\ninjustice, he says: \u201c_Er entsteht zun\u00e4chst aus dem dargelegten Mangel\nan Vern\u00fcnftigkeit und Ueberlegung, wird zudem aber noch dardurch\nunterst\u00fctzt, dass sie, als die schw\u00e4cheren, von der Natur nicht auf die\nKraft, sondern auf die List angewiesen sind: daher ihre instinktartige\nVerschlagenheit und ihr unvertilgbarer Hang zum L\u00fcgen._\u201d\n\n[186] Not a little even of our \u201cGood\u201d Queen Bess\u2019s success as a\nruler was due to her unlimited capacity for lies. Speaking of Queen\nElizabeth, J. R. Green in his _Short History of the English People_,\nsays: \u201cIgnoble, inexpressibly wearisome as the Queen\u2019s diplomacy\nseems to us now, tracing it as we do through a thousand despatches,\nit succeeded in its main end. It gained time, and every year that\nwas gained doubled Elizabeth\u2019s strength. Nothing is more revolting\nin the Queen, but nothing is more characteristic, than her shameless\nmendacity. It was an age of political lying, but in the profusion\nand recklessness of her lies Elizabeth stood without a peer in\nChristendom.\u201d (Chap. VII. Section III.) And later on in the same\nchapter he says: \u201cAs we track Elizabeth through her tortuous mazes\nof lying and intrigue, the sense of her greatness is almost lost in\na sense of contempt.\u201d Even her most distinguished minister, William\nCecil, Lord Burleigh, was a most incorrigible liar and rascal.\n\n[187] It is true that Havelock Ellis, when discussing woman\u2019s tendency\nto ruse and deception, is careful to say that \u201cto regard the caution\nand indirectness of women as due to innate wickedness, it need hardly\nbe said, would be utterly irrational. It is inevitable, and results\nfrom the constitution of women, acting in conditions under which they\nare generally placed.\u201d (Op. cit., p. 196.) But this is a very long\nway from my position, according to which woman\u2019s tendency to ruse and\ndeception is a constant, positive and life-promoting instinct.\n\n[188] As I have shown in Chap. VIII, this constancy supersedes, and\nfrequently defeats, her constancy to man.\n\n[189] See Lecky, _The History of European Morals_; Buckle, _The\nInfluence of Women on the Progress of Knowledge_; Herbert Spencer,\n_Sociology_; etc. Emerson asks, \u201cWhat is civilization?\u201d and replies,\n\u201cIt is the influence of good women.\u201d\n\n[190] See Arabella Kenealy (Op. cit., p. 105): \u201cNo matter to what\ndegree she may acquire masculine characteristics and aptitudes, she\nremains, at core, a creature of instinct; not of reason. As a creature\nof instinct she is invaluable to life\u2014because Life is moulded upon\ninstinct.\u201d\n\n[191] This occurred on the 4th of June, and Miss Davison died, as the\nresult of her action, on the 8th of June at 4.50 p.m. at Epsom.\n\n[192] This is not generally understood. The cruel stepmother is\nuniversally reviled in fable, in fiction, and in real life; but truth\nto tell, the very fact that she is a bad stepmother shows how deep her\nmother\u2019s instincts must be. I have known one or two such stepmothers,\nand have always found them the most excellent mothers. In fact a good\nstepmother may always be taken to mean a bad or indifferent mother.\nThis is so little realized by most people, that I believe I am the\nfirst person in history who has ventured to defend the bad stepmother\non these lines. On the contrary, the whole tendency of the modern world\nis to deprecate the bad stepmother and to honour the good stepmother.\nIn this way are woman\u2019s best virtues being undermined.\n\n[193] This is in addition to the derivatives already given in the first\nmention of this virtue.\n\n[194] See Baudouin\u2019s confirmation of this in his interesting work\n_Suggestion and Auto-Suggestion_. (George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.)\n\n[195] See Henri Marion (Op cit., p. 79). \u201c_Les filles sont aussi plus\nimitatrices que les gar\u00e7ons, quoique l\u2019instinct d\u2019imitation soit\nremarquable chez tous \u00e9galement. Selon Mlle Lauriol \u2018les filles imitent\net singent mieux que les gar\u00e7ons.\u2019 Il semble qu\u2019elles remarquent\nmieux ce qu\u2019on dit et fait devant elles et qu\u2019elles y prennent plus\nd\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat; le r\u00e9p\u00e9ter et l\u2019imiter est un de leurs plaisirs les plus\nvifs. Elles y excellent d\u2019autant plus qu\u2019elles cr\u00e9ent, inventent et\ninnovent moins._\u201d\n\n[196] Op. cit., p. 234. See also p. 177: \u201cThe sex-instinct in woman\nhaving had its origin in surrender, retains much still of this primal\nelement.\u201d\n\n[197] It is naturally impossible to discuss or enumerate the many vices\nthat may or may not fall to the share of the negative woman; for they\nwould consist of all the positive woman\u2019s vices, _plus_ those vices\nthat come with subnormal health, and _minus_, of course, sensuality.\nNegative women can at least pride themselves on this _minus_.\n\n[198] No reference will be made to those vices that result from a\nthwarting of her natural instincts\u2014such vices as cruelty, gluttony, and\ndrunkenness; for most of these were discussed in the Chapter on the Old\nMaid.\n\n[199] Byron has already been mentioned in this volume as one who also\ndetected women as the creators of this tinsel of false sentiment.\nMichelet and Alphonse Daudet were among the Frenchmen who saw eye to\neye with Byron on this point. Daudet said: \u201c_La femme deteste l\u2019ironie\nqui la d\u00e9concerte et qu\u2019elle sent \u00eatre l\u2019antagoniste des enthusiasmes\net des r\u00eaveries de l\u2019amour._\u201d\n\n[200] See Havelock Ellis, Op. cit., p. 196: \u201cWhenever a man or a woman\nare found under compromising circumstances, it is nearly always the\nwoman who with ready wit audaciously retrieves the situation. Every\none is acquainted with instances from life or from history of women\nwhose quick and cunning ruses have saved lover or husband or child. It\nis unnecessary to insist on this quality, which in its finest forms is\ncalled tactfulness.\u201d See also Lecky, _History of European Morals_, Vol.\nII., p. 358. See as a magnificent poetic representation of this power\nin women Byron\u2019s _Don Juan_, Canto I, stanzas CXLII to CLXXVIII. The\nlatter stanza is worth quoting in full. It is as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cA hint, in tender cases is enough;\n     Silence is best; besides, there is a _tact_\u2014\n     (That modern phrase appears to me sad stuff,\n     But it will serve to keep my verse compact)\u2014\n     Which keeps, when push\u2019d by questions rather rough,\n     A lady always distant from the fact:\n     The charming creatures lie with such a grace,\n     There\u2019s nothing so becoming to the face.\u201d\n\n\n[201] Speaking of little girls Henri Marion says: \u201c_De m\u00eame les\nobservateurs n\u2019h\u00e9sitent pas \u00e0 d\u00e9clarer les petites filles moins\nparfaitement droites que les gar\u00e7ons, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, plus compliqu\u00e9es,\nplus diplomates, plus fertiles en petites roueries, plus inclin\u00e9es \u00e0\nbiaiser, \u00e0 broder, \u00e0 inventer, tout au moins \u00e0 aranger et amplifier....\nSurtout quand elles veulent mentir, elles sont plus habiles que les\npetits gar\u00e7ons, se troublent moins, ont plus de pr\u00e9sence d\u2019esprit\npour soutenir un premier mensonge._\u201d Op. cit., p. 86. Monsieur Marion\nadduces Mgr Dupanloup and Mlle Lauriol as his authorities for this view.\n\n[202] Finally among the great thinkers of Europe who have held the\nview that women are indifferent to truth, and incapable of rectitude,\nI would further mention Rousseau, Diderot, La Bruy\u00e8re, and that great\ngenius Kant, who, in his _Ueber P\u00e4dagogik_ coldly conjures fathers to\nenforce truthfulness in their children because \u201cmothers have a tendency\nto attach but little importance to it.\u201d His exact words are (p. 108 of\nthe K\u00f6nigsberg 1813 Edition), speaking of children\u2019s habit of lying,\n\u201c_Des Vaters Sache ist es, darauf zu sehen, dass sich die Kinder dessen\nentw\u00f6hnen; denn die M\u00fctter achten es gemeiniglich f\u00fcr eine Sache von\nkeiner, oder doch nur geringer Bedeutung._\u201d\n\n[203] See Chapter VIII of that work.\n\n[204] See White\u2019s _Natural History of Selborne_. Letters LXXVI and\n\u201cObservations on Quadrupeds.\u201d\n\n[205] The researches of ornithologists during recent years sufficiently\nprove that the female cuckoo lays her egg upon the ground, and then\ndeposits it in the nest of a bird whose egg resembles the one she has\njust laid.\n\n[206] See chap. IX, verse 14.\n\n[207] Op. cit., p. 121. See also Weininger, Op. cit., p. 250.\n\n[208] Letter to d\u2019Alembert.\n\n[209] Among other reasons accounting for woman\u2019s dependence on man for\nart-forms is her lack of originality.\n\n[210] See my _Man\u2019s Descent from the Gods_, chap. VIII.\n\n[211] Op. cit., p. 226.\n\n[212] One or two exceptions will occur to the reader\u2019s mind, such as\nMahommed and Benjamin Disraeli; but these are not really exceptions,\nbecause in each case the woman was rich enough to compensate for her\nhusband\u2019s impecunious and unsuccessful condition.\n\n[213] See W. S. Coleman, M.E.S., _British Butterflies_, p. 4: \u201cPrompted\nby a most remarkable instinct, and one that could not have originated\nin any experience of personal advantage, the female butterfly, when\nseeking a depository for her eggs, selects with unerring certainty the\nvery plant which, of all others, is best fitted for the support of her\noffspring, who, when hatched, find themselves surrounded by an abundant\nstore of their proper food.\u201d\n\n[214] The reader is probably aware that celibacy was not always the\nrule among the clergy of the Holy Catholic Church. It was only enforced\nby law during the fourth century A.D. Now, it is my theory that it\nwas this instinctive vulgar predilection of the female in favour\nof material success that was partly responsible for compelling the\nauthorities of the Church ultimately to make celibacy a duty among\nthe clergy. Because as the bulk of them were, by virtue of their\nprofession, poor, it was impossible for them to find women of their\nown station to marry them, and in consequence they were thrown on the\nlowest women, or the prostitutes, of the time. To avoid the abasement\nof the ecclesiastical body by this inevitable law, the authorities\ntherefore prescribed celibacy. H. H. Milman, D.D., in his _History of\nLatin Christianity_, admits that celibacy was enforced among the clergy\nto save the Church from degeneration, but he gives as a reason that\necclesiastical matrimony would have led to the holy office passing from\nfather to son, and thus to grandson and great-grandson. Why this should\nnecessarily have led to degeneration is not clear, unless he assumes,\nas I do, that the clergy would have had to marry beneath them. See Vol.\nIV (Ed. London, 1864), pp. 17-18.\n\n[215] That acute thinker, Schopenhauer, realized this, and spoke of the\nharm that women do to modern society by stimulating the most sordid and\nignoble ambitions of men. See Essay, _Ueber die Weiber_, in the 2nd\nVol. of the _Parerga und Paralipomena_, chap. XXVII, para. 369.\n\n[216] An intelligent working man once said in my presence, \u201cAlmighty\nGod made woman, and money made ladies.\u201d I have wondered ever since\nwhether the deep wisdom in this remark was original, or whether there\nis any national saw embodying this sentiment.\n\n[217] In White\u2019s _Natural History of Selborne_ there are some\ninteresting and illuminating remarks on this point. See Edward Jesse\u2019s\nedition (London, 1898), pp. 223 (Footnote) and 333.\n\n[218] See the Chapter on the Old Maid.\n\n[219] This, by the by, was recognized by Pope. See his _Moral Essays_\n(Epistle II, To a Lady):\u2014\n\n    \u201cIn men, we various passions find;\n     In women, two almost divide the kind;\n     Those, only fixed, they first and last obey,\n     The love of pleasure, and the love of sway.\u201d\n\n\n[220] _The Book of Manu_, chap. IX, verse 7.\n\n[221] _The Book of Manu_, verses 2 and 3.\n\n[222] For the necessary relationship of vanity and modesty, see Chapter\non Divorce, pp. 223-225 _ante_.\n\n[223] Op. cit., p. 211.\n\n[224] A vain man is just as dangerous when he has power; because he too\njudges his fellows only according to how they treat him.\n\n[225] This tendency to add to personal attractions by cultivating\nintellectual interests is more particularly suspicious in the mature\nvirgin, and in the young married woman who is either childless or has\nceased to bear children. In both the waxing unconscious desire for\nfertilization calls forth the instinct to use every possible weapon to\ndraw attention.\n\n[226] See, for instance, Lecky, _History of European Morals_, Vol. II,\np. 379: \u201cMorally the general superiority of women over men is, I think,\nunquestionable ... they are more chaste both in thought and act\u201d [!!!].\nSee also Vol. I, p. 145: \u201cSensuality is the vice of young men.\u201d There\nis scarcely an English book on this subject that does not reiterate\nthis insane legend. See also footnote on p. 308 _ante_.\n\n[227] Nature evidently intended it to be pleasant in all its stages:\nfor all bodily functions, when healthy, are pleasant; their very\npleasantness seems to be part of the design of preserving life on\nearth. He who has watched a female cat, as I have often done, from the\nmoment of fertilization to the day when the kittens are weaned, can no\nlonger entertain any doubt that the enormous amount of unpleasantness\nthat civilized women have to undergo, in the process of child-bearing,\nis all the result of degeneration and disease. A female cat purrs even\nwhile the kittens are being born.\n\n[228] For a description of how our ancestors deliberately created\na majority of negative women, see Chapter V of my _Defence of\nAristocracy_.\n\n[229] This method of going to work, which is the method of amputation,\nis always the first adopted by weak and stupid people. It is easier to\namputate and suppress than it is to master and to organize. Hence there\nis an element of impotence and dull-wittedness in the counsel, \u201cAnd if\nthy right eye offend thee pluck it out and cast it from thee\u201d (Matthew\nv. 29, 30); \u201cAnd if thy right hand offend thee\u201d do ditto.\n\n[230] _Book of Laws_, IX, 2.\n\n[231] Rousseau was groping towards this truth when in _Emile_, Book V,\nhe said: \u201c_Vous dites sans cesse, les femmes out un tel et tel d\u00e9faut\nque nous n\u2019avons pas. Votre orgueil vous trompe; ce seroint des d\u00e9fauts\npour vous, ce sont des qualit\u00e9s pour elles; tout iroit moins bien si\nelles ne les avoient pas. Emp\u00eachez ces pr\u00e9tendus d\u00e9fauts de d\u00e9g\u00e9nerer,\nmais gardez-vous de les d\u00e9truire._\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nWomen in Art, Philosophy and Science. The Outlook. Conclusion\n\n\nFrom what has been laid down in the previous chapter, it will have been\nseen that, in the economy of Nature, the female of the species has been\nendowed with very special qualities which, while they are indispensable\nto the survival of life, also give her a very definite character,\ndifferent from that of the male and susceptible of alteration only at\nthe peril of the species.\n\nWoman, at her best, has been revealed as a creature, who, without\nexaggeration or fulsomeness, may be called the Custodian and Promoter\nof Life. If this is the r\u00f4le in which she is at her best, it therefore\nfollows that, in any other r\u00f4le she undertakes, she will display her\nsecond best, or her subordinate, side. A creature cannot wantonly do\nviolence to her nature and proceed along lines foreign to the strongest\nforces that have been evolved in her, and yet hope to achieve the same\nvirtuosity as when she had nature and the tradition of her line both on\nher side. To repeat the simile already used in this work, as well might\nyou expect a fly to walk with the same facility on its antenn\u00e6 as on\nits legs.\n\n_A priori_, without examining the evidence for or against our\ncontention, we should expect to find that in Art, Philosophy and\nScience, which are pursuits exacting qualities frequently antagonistic\nto the natural pre-requisites of woman\u2019s r\u00f4le as a Custodian and\nPromoter of Life, woman can at best only make an inferior display, even\nif she make any display at all.\n\nThis, as the reader will agree, is surely not a matter of opinion, it\nis one of facts, and the facts can be verified. What would the logic of\nthe most carefully argued thesis signify, if all about us we possessed\nthe evidences of women\u2019s unquestioned mastery in Arts, in Philosophy,\nand in Science?\n\nThis is true enough, and in this respect, the verdict of facts is\nfinal. In science and philosophy, says Havelock Ellis, \u201cit is not\nsimply that women are more ready than men to accept what is already\naccepted and what is most in accordance with appearance\u2014and that it\nis inconceivable, for instance, that a woman should have devised\nthe Copernican system\u2014but they are less able than men to stand\nalone.\u201d[232] Whether we turn to metaphysics, epistemology, and\nthe other departments of abstract thought, astronomy, physics, or\nmechanics; whether we turn to medicine, chemistry, philology, geology,\nphysiology or any other of the more modern sciences, or whether we\nturn to architecture, sculpture, poetry, or painting, the names that\nreally count, the figures _that are milestones_ in the history of these\nhuman pursuits\u2014and this is the ultimate criterion\u2014are all names of male\nperformers. There should be no need to elaborate this point. Anyone\nacquainted even slightly with the history of any art or science, is in\na position to accept it without demur. Think what we embrace in the\nsubjects mentioned, when we pronounce the names of Aristotle, Bacon,\nHobbes, Kant, Nietzsche, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Harvey, Pasteur,\nLyell, Grimm, Pheidias, Michelangelo, Titian!\n\nIt is not legitimate, as we have seen, to argue that men have\ndistinguished themselves more than women in all these fields\n_because_ women have been suppressed and wilfully stunted. In this\nrespect the Feminists have wished to prove too much, and in doing\nso have overreached the truth. Specialization of function must be\naccompanied by specialization of instinct, impulse, and outlook. The\nhighly specialized functions of woman in the long line of evolution,\ntherefore, must be taken into account, in any inquiry into the striking\ndisparity existing between her performances and man\u2019s, in such\nimportant departments of life as Art, Philosophy and Science. And if,\nby taking the said specialization into account, we are able to explain\nthis disparity, what need is there of a hypothesis so very much at\nvariance with historical fact, according to which it is claimed that\nthe difference between the intellectual capacities of man and woman are\nthe outcome of a warping or of a stultification of the female mind,\nsomewhere and somewhen, in the development of the race?\n\nIn connexion with this differentiation of the sexes from the standpoint\nof their respective capacity in matters of artistic production, it\nshould, however, always be borne in mind that the positive man is\ndistinguished from the positive woman (_vide_ Chapter IV) by the\npossession of a developed social instinct which, in itself, is a\nsufficient basis for all his powers of order and arrangement. The\nrelative importance of the social instinct in man\u2014that instinct\nto which everything in the nature of civilization and ordered\nhuman society is to be traced\u2014its power in him to act freely and\nindependently of the reproductive and self-preservative instincts, and\nsometimes even to act against them (as in its control of male lust and\nits recognition of the responsibilities of that lust) is certainly an\nimportant factor in man\u2019s superiority over woman in the matter of art\nproduction. For Art is not only a social function in the sense that it\nis an expression of one man\u2019s feelings to another, it also partakes,\nin the forms it adopts, of those elements of order and arrangement\nwhich reach their highest manifestation in the ordering and arranging\nof society.[233] Men, as social animals, are therefore possessed of\nthe necessary sex tradition to produce great artists; whereas women,\nas pointed out in Chapter IV, not only have no sex tradition in the\nforming of society, i.e. in the creative aspect of the social instinct,\nto which order, form and arrangement belong, but they are also too\nmuch overpowered by one instinct (the reproductive) to allow their\nrudimentary social instinct free play. As I have already shown, woman\nonly inclines to art, therefore, when (_a_) her reproductive instinct\nis prepared to stand aside, because it is not as strong as it might\nbe, owing to some flaw in her ancestry or in the tone or correlation\nof her bodily parts; or (_b_) she wishes to wield an extra weapon in\nattracting the other sex.\n\nIn the first case, she turns to art at the bidding of a genuine impulse\nto it, arising from a real whisper coming direct from her rudimentary\nsocial instinct, in which case her reproductive instinct may be\nconsidered as imperfect, suspect, lacking in vigour. In the second\ncase, she turns to art at the bidding of her reproductive instinct,\nwhich urges her unconsciously to adopt one of the arts temporarily as\nan extra feather with which to distinguish her from the ordinary crowd\nof females about her.\n\nIt is, however, probable that to woman\u2019s lack of a strong sex tradition\nin the free exercise of a social instinct, the unimportance of her\nperformances in the arts is largely due; and seeing that a more perfect\nequipment in this direction must mean the disturbance of her instincts\u2019\nbalance, and the suppression of her reproductive in favour of her\nsocial impulses, it is not likely that, if the human species is to\nsurvive, we shall ever witness such a readjustment of woman\u2019s instincts\nas to render great female artists a possibility.\n\nThe reader may wish to point out that the acceptance of the theory of\norganic evolution hardly allows us to deny that some transformation of\nwoman along lines that would make her able to become a great artist,\nphilosopher or scientist is surely possible. According to this theory\nthere can be no limit to the possible metamorphoses which a deliberate\nand consistent change in environment and in habit might produce in a\nnumber of generations; and, given the will thereto, the end is probably\nnot beyond human achievement. There is some plausibility in this\nobjection; but, as in the matter of the virtues and vices of women, it\nmay well be asked: (1) Whether it is a desirable end, (2) whether the\nprice paid for its achievement\u2014the volatilizing of women\u2019s subservience\nto a concern about the concrete demands of life\u2014can be afforded by a\nrace already somewhat exhausted from the standpoint of vital instincts,\nand (3) whether the experiment could possibly be made on a sufficiently\nlarge scale, for a sufficient number of generations, to bring about a\nmodification of the sex as a whole.\n\nTo transform the whole of the female sex in civilized countries in\nthe hope of bringing forth a female Michelangelo or a female Kant,\nwould seem a hazardous and very laborious experiment, with but a\ndoubtful reward as its object; and seeing that the experiment might\nand very probably would involve a dangerous depreciation of woman\u2019s\nvital instincts, the endeavour to philosophize with women might quite\nconceivably end in racial and social suicide.\n\nThere is, however, a grave difficulty in the way of any such\nexperiment, a difficulty that would probably foredoom it to failure\nfrom the start; and that is the probability that the appearance of\nsuch minds as Michelangelo\u2019s or Kant\u2019s in the male sex is due to\na male characteristic which can by no human means, selectional,\neducational or otherwise, be transferred to woman. I refer to masculine\nvariability. It is probable that the appearance of all great men is\nto be ascribed to the law of the greater variability of males than\nfemales, and that it never will be possible to achieve in woman that\nlarge gamut of endowments which separate, say, a Newton from an average\nsuburban-dwelling newspaper-and-cabbage-fed clerk. The fact that while\nthis greater male variability produces geniuses superior in every way\nto the highest woman, it also produces male fools whose standard of\nstupidity is far and away higher than any that woman has ever reached,\nis not denied; but we are bound to reckon with it notwithstanding.\nAnd if, as biologists assure us, the extreme variability of man is\nthe ultimate cause of the genius, then it seems unlikely that in the\nexperiment above outlined, anything more could be achieved than the\ndeterioration of woman as woman.\n\nApart from woman\u2019s natural lack of originality, and her absence of\ninitiative, or of that spirit of bold and confident conviction\u2014all of\nwhich derive from her necessary r\u00f4le in the relation of the sexes\u2014her\nindifference to truth is what chiefly incapacitates her for scientific\npursuits, as it does for all undertakings where truthfulness is of\npre-eminent importance; while her constant subjection to her emotions\nmakes her an untrustworthy judge of all those facts or questions, to\nwhich she may be inclined to bear an emotional relation.\n\nAnyone who has an extensive knowledge of women\u2014even of the most\ncultivated among them\u2014is aware of how constantly they are guided in\ntheir conclusions concerning what is true by hedonistic considerations.\nIndeed, it is the most difficult thing to persuade a woman, even of the\nmost obvious truth, if that truth strikes her as being too unpleasant\nto be comfortably assimilated to her previous stock of knowledge.\nIn addition to her vital indifference to truth, therefore, woman\u2019s\nemotions add a further disability to her nature in this department.\nHer convictions are so intimately and unconsciously interwoven with\nher deepest interests and long-cherished beliefs, that if, to accept a\ncertain truth, these convictions have to be outraged, she prefers to\nreject that truth as unacceptable. In this sense, woman\u2019s thinking is\nlargely feeling, and her thoughts are largely sensations.[234] The\nmore emphatic and stubborn a woman is in any belief, the more strongly\nyou may suspect that she has not facts, but emotional reasons for\nholding it.[235] That is why women are so notoriously bad at giving\nreasons for their opinions, and why they are so untrustworthy as judges\nof matters of fact, where impartiality is a pre-requisite. A woman\nFeminist, for instance, will emphatically claim (I have actually heard\na body of them claim this) that the music of Dame Ethel Smyth is equal\nto any that has been composed by the best male musicians, and she will\nreiterate this claim and press it the more aggressively and stubbornly\nthe more you try to appeal to her reason with the view of showing her\nthe absurdity of her position. Now the cause of this is not the female\nFeminist\u2019s _intellectual_ conviction that Dame Ethel Smyth\u2019s music\nis actually equal to the best male music, but her strong emotional\ndesire that it should be so; and this strong emotional desire makes\nher utterly unfit to express an impartial opinion upon it. The truth,\nwhich is that Dame Ethel Smyth\u2019s music is by no means equal to the\nmost superior male music, is too unpleasant to be accepted: therefore,\nwithout any further ado, it is rejected as untrue.\n\nIt is enormously difficult for a woman to divorce her wishes, her likes\nand dislikes, from her beliefs and from her conclusions; and this, in\naddition to her natural indifference to the truth, and her lack of\noriginality, is enough to explain the fundamental unsuitability of her\nsex for any scientific pursuit.[236]\n\nThese characteristics of woman\u2019s mind ought, of course, to exclude her\nfrom any function in which impartiality and unemotional judgments are\npre-requisite. We ought not to dream, therefore, of placing women on\njuries, or of making them judges of anything except the most trivial\nand impersonal questions; and consequently it is perhaps the best proof\nof our stupidity, or rather of our subjection to female influence,\nas a nation, that women are not only allowed to sit in our principal\ngoverning bodies, but also on our juries. That gross miscarriages\nof justice are bound to follow, is a prophecy that anyone can make\nnow, and with absolute confidence that he will prove right. In fact,\nalthough at the time of writing, it is hardly more than a twelvemonth\nsince women have been sitting on juries, a gross miscarriage of justice\nhas already occurred.[237]\n\nWhen, therefore, we hear that on February 24, 1922, Mr. Justice\nColeridge, in welcoming four women on the Grand Jury at the Surrey\nAssizes, said he was satisfied that the administration of justice\nwould be strengthened by women on Grand Juries, we can only shrug our\nshoulders at the vagaries of the senile\u2014or anile?\u2014judicial mind. (He\nwas apparently seventy-one when he expressed this view.) We should\nhave liked to ask him, on what evidence he, as a judge, based this\nutterly unwarrantable opinion. Had he any evidence? If he had none,\nwhy did he, as an expert trained in the sifting of half-truths and\nuntruths from Truth, ever allow himself to make such a wild statement?\nIf he had evidence, where did he get it from? We can condone his\nsenile slobbering over four strange ladies in his court and under his\nimmediate patronage, but he might at least have confined the expression\nof his sentiments to less harmful amenities than the remark he actually\nmade.\n\nVerily the emotionalism of our bench of High Court judges is one of the\nmany dangers menacing our civilization; for it furnishes a proof that\nFeminism and effeminacy are invading the very quarters where they do\nmost harm\u2014that is to say, those quarters on which the nation depends\nfor impartiality and coolness of judgment.\n\nIt is perfectly possible so to change a woman as to convert her\ninto a creature who might be as impartial as a slot machine or a\nready-reckoner; but, before this could be achieved, so many of her\nvital characteristics would have to be destroyed, that the process of\neducation would amount to a training in degeneration, dangerous both to\nthe species and to human life in general.[238]\n\nTo employ her, however, in functions demanding characteristics the\nvery opposite of those which are the most vital in her; to place her\nin a position in which she has to display a love of truth, a lack of\nemotion, and a capacity for thinking as apart from feelings of desire,\nlike or dislike, is to anticipate this training in degeneration before\nit has effected its results, and thus to make justice, and every other\npublic function in which she takes part, a pure and unadulterated farce.\n\nIn opposition to the sentimental septuagenarian of the Surrey\nAssizes, therefore, we prophesy with even more conviction than he\ncould possibly feel, that the administration of justice will only be\n_weakened_ by women on Grand and all other juries.\n\nIn reply to those Feminists who are inclined angrily to dismiss all the\nabove as the outcome of prejudice, or whatever else they may imagine\nhas animated me in writing it, it would be interesting to ask them\nhow _they_ propose to account for woman\u2019s inconspicuous part in Art,\nPhilosophy and Science, unless they are prepared to accept as real some\nof the disabilities which I have shown to be derived from the most\nvital elements in female nature.\n\nThey cannot now argue that it is due to the systematic repression of\nwomen\u2019s capacities by men, because this _canard_ is no longer believed\nby anybody. They can hardly argue that it is due to the frequently\nadverse conditions of women\u2019s life; because we know that some of\nthe greatest geniuses of history were not only born in conditions\nunfavourable to high achievements, but also produced some of their\nfinest work while still struggling with adversity. If they are not\nprepared to ascribe the fact to a natural difference between the sexes,\nwhich, in view of its being part of the economy of life, it would be\ndangerous to disturb, _what_ is their position?\n\nThe fact that women possess certain powers of mind peculiar to\nthemselves alone, which enable them frequently to hit at a truth\nbeneath its many disguises, and to appear to guess when they really\nonly _see_ or _feel_ the correct answer to the question, has been\nasserted and claimed too often to be passed over here without some\ncomment. And we are the less inclined to leave it unnoticed, seeing\nthat both tradition and the wisdom of antiquity take it for granted.\n\nThis power is usually called intuition. It is an immediate road to\nknowledge, instead of a mediate one. Without reasoning or analysis, the\nintuitive person _perceives_ the truth.\n\nIn the sense of its being an _immediate road to knowledge_, however, I\nshould doubt very much whether it could be proved that woman possesses\nintuition. The number of her guesses being infinite, it is only natural\nthat occasionally they should be right.[239] But, in any case, even if\nwe did grant that woman possessed intuition in this sense, we could\nnot claim that she is alone in this possession. All great male poets\nhave possessed it: Heraclitus, Theognis, Shakespeare, G\u0153the! When G\u0153the\nperceived the true morphology of the human cranium, after looking at\na skull, he saw intuitively a fact which the science of a subsequent\nAge was only able to prove at the cost of much labour and research.\nLikewise, when the poet responsible for the opening chapter of Genesis\nwrote down the order in which the organic world appeared on earth, he\nperceived intuitively a fact which thousands of years afterwards the\nanalysis and reasoning of science confirmed. We have not on record\nany such profound scientific fact that was originally discovered\nintuitively by woman. If, however, women really possessed intuition, in\nthe sense of a power that enabled them immediately to perceive a hidden\nor hitherto undiscovered truth, the records of the sciences would\nsurely be full of such cases; and we should expect to find the history\nof every science to consist of an early _intuitional_ period in which\nall the fundamental great truths were discovered by women, and a later\n_substantiating_ period, in which these female discoveries were proved\nand confirmed by the analytical and rational faculties of the male.\n\nThis, however, is not what the history of any science reveals. It\nfrequently records cases of correct guesses on the part of male poets\nand thinkers, which subsequent generations of male scientists have\nconfirmed; but, to my knowledge, not one such case of a woman.\n\nNevertheless, we are bound to treat with some respect a tradition\nof such hoary antiquity as is this one concerning woman\u2019s peculiar\nmental powers, and although we may doubt whether they may be truly\ncharacterized by the one word intuition, it is at least incumbent upon\nus to find a better word, or to explain how the tradition arose, and on\nwhat feature of the female psyche it is based.\n\nThe most striking instance of the recognition by the ancients of\nspecial spiritual powers in woman, is the employment of virgins as the\nvoices of oracles. The Oracle of Delphi, for example, which was the\nmost celebrated of all the oracles of Apollo, employed a virgin in this\nway, and she was known as the Pythia of the Temple. Whenever the oracle\nwas consulted she was led by the _prophetes_ to her seat on the tripod,\nand then, under the influence of the vapour arising from the chasm\nunder her feet, she would fall into a state of delirious intoxication,\nand utter the sounds which contained the revelations of Apollo. Until\nabout the end of the third century B.C. this virgin was usually a\nyoung girl taken from some family of poor country people. About this\ntime, however, a certain Thessalonian named Echecrates is supposed to\nhave seduced her, and thereafter she was replaced by a woman of fifty\nor over. Three such virgins were constantly employed at Delphi in the\nheyday of Hellenic civilization, and the pronouncements of the oracle,\nalthough they frequently contained prophecies of a very definite kind,\nwere so consistently wise and true, that it is impossible to deny at\nleast some mysterious power behind their inspiration.\n\nModern rationalists, like the Greek rationalists of old, have scoffed\nat the supposed mysterious power that resided in these virgin mediums,\nbut it is easier to scoff than to explain, and the task of dismissing\nthem as a fraud is simpler than that of explaining how a wise people\nlike the ancient Greeks could have maintained their faith in them for\ngenerations, if there had not been a genuine element of divination in\ntheir many pronouncements.\n\nOther oracles were served by women, in addition to that at Delphi, and\namong these we may mention the Oracle of Apollo at Tegyra, the Oracle\nof Apollo at Argos, the Oracle at Deiradiotes, and the Oracle at Patara\nin Lycia.\n\nWhatever the powers were that the mediums used, I, at all events, feel\ndisinclined to doubt their truly mysterious quality, nor do I believe\nthat this mysterious quality was in the nature of a fraud engineered\nand practised by the priesthood. If the mediums and their peculiar\nfunctions were the only instance we had of occult powers being used\nfor prophecy and divination, through the instrumentality of virgins,\nI should feel more inclined to side with the sceptics. But, seeing\nthat we have in the medi\u00e6val belief in the magic of witchcraft further\nevidence of a popular traditional notion that occult powers of a sort\ncan reside in woman; seeing, moreover, that we have such staggering\ncases of mysterious virginal inspiration and second sight as that which\nis typified in the history of Joan of Arc, we can but maintain a humble\nattitude of mind, and until such time as greater knowledge is given\nus, readily admit that here there is something outside our philosophy\nwhich, while it cannot be denied, is yet akin to what, for lack of a\nbetter term, we may call the Unknown.\n\nWhen we are told by psychologists, therefore, that in the matter of\npsycho-therapeutics women reveal greater suggestibility than men;\nwhen Baudouin tells us[240] that in applying his system of cure by\nauto-suggestion, Cou\u00e9 has met with speedier results among women than\nmen, the most we can do, at the present state of our knowledge, is\nperhaps to suppose that there exists in woman an easier and readier\ncontact with the unconscious mind, that women are therefore able\nto communicate with greater success than men with that mysterious\nreservoir of strength and life, now designated vaguely as the\nUnconscious, and it is in this power that we must seek an explanation\nof the miraculous phenomena with which, for millenniums, women have\nbeen traditionally associated.\n\nIn any case, it must now be obvious that it would be a mistake to\ncall this power _intuition_, i.e. an immediate perception of objective\nscientific truth; because tradition and history alike give us no record\nof objective scientific facts that have been discovered by women in\nthis way. It would be more accurate, for the present, to regard it as\na sort of _clairvoyance_, a power of presaging an event, by _feeling_\ncorrectly the significance of antecedent circumstances or perturbations\npreceding the event. Presumably every event in history is but the\ninevitable bursting of a mine, the various trains of gunpowder to which\nmay be accurately located and recognized some time before the explosion\ntakes place. Given a degree of sensitiveness that feels one or more of\nthe existing trains, before their presence is even suspected by the\nremainder of mankind, and correctly traces their course to an ultimate\ngoal, and the presentiment that a perturbation will sooner or later\noccur at that goal, must follow with more or less intensity.\n\nHow this presentiment or feeling becomes conscious, how the virgin\nPythia of Delphi _felt_, for instance, that the Persians would one\nday plunder and burn the Temple of Didyma, and accurately prophesied\nthe event some time before it happened, it is impossible to say; as\nwell might we try to explain the accurate weather prognostications of\nsnails, of swallows, or of the monkeys on the rocks of Gibraltar. This,\nhowever, is certain, that a kind of second sight is frequently given to\nwomen, particularly to young virgins (probably owing to their condition\nof acute apprehensive-and sensitive-ness); but whether it will ever be\nexplained as a sort of feeling intelligence of the periphery of their\nbodies, or of their sight, or of their ears, or definitely located in\na peculiar function of their psyche, it is at present impossible to\nsay.[241]\n\nIn conclusion, however, I must, for the sake of the reader unacquainted\nwith the history of this aspect of the human mind, call attention to\nthe fact that men, too, have been known to possess these very powers.\nIt is in no spirit of hostility to women that I here add this reminder\nof a well-known fact, but simply with a view to saving myself from\nmisinterpretation.\n\nThe feminist reader, who will imagine that the bulk of this book,\ninstead of having been dictated by a feeling of deep friendliness\nto women, is really the work of prejudice, will halt here, and feel\nperhaps a certain disappointment. Here was I, at last, generously\naccording a unique psychical power to woman, and lo! I now proceed to\nadd that even this peculiar gift is not peculiar, and that she shares\nit with man.\n\nAlas, yes! The truth must be admitted. The most we can say is, that\nwomen perhaps possess it more frequently, more normally than men; but\nthat men have possessed it, and will continue to possess it, cannot, I\nfear, be denied.\n\nThe ancients, whose wisdom in these matters is our first hint of the\nexistence of such occult powers in humanity, were perfectly well aware\nof this fact. The oracles at the Hill of Ptoon, at Claros, at Olympia,\nand in the Oasis of Lybia (Zeus Ammon), and many others, were all\nconducted by men, while that of Zeus at Dodona, was conducted by men at\nfirst, and only in later times by women.\n\nThe records of the Jewish race and of the Middle Ages are full of\ninstances of men whose \u201cclairvoyance\u201d was well known, while in the\nEast, the employment of men in functions where powers of divination and\nclairvoyance are essential, is almost universal.\n\nWhether these facts justify the ultimate conclusion that, while man\nincludes woman, woman does not include man\u2014that while all that is woman\nis man, all that is man is not woman, it is perhaps a little difficult\nto say. At all events, it is my belief that the truth resides very\nnear, if not actually in, this statement of the relation of the sexes;\nand although I claim no originality for it as it stands, I think it\nhelpful in explaining briefly much that will probably be eternally true\nabout this relation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races have little of the seer in their\nconstitution. They are better at meeting and enduring disaster than at\nforeseeing and forestalling it. They are suspicious of prophets and\nprophecy, because they have none of the gifts that would enable them\nto indulge in vaticinations themselves. Not being possessed of any\ncapacity for divining the ultimate bourne of current tendencies, they\ndoubt very much whether it is possible for any man to foretell that\nbourne, or to describe it in anticipation. They are completely wedded\nto the doctrine of experience. \u201cWhat you have not experienced you\ncannot possibly know,\u201d\u2014this is the ultimate epistemological doctrine of\nthese two races. The consequence of this is that they are constantly\nin the precarious position of him who, knowing nothing of poisons, and\nbeing quite unable to predict their possible effect, has to wait for\nthe consequence of having partaken of strange drugs before he can know\nwhether they are good for him or not.\n\nSuch an attitude would be excusable at the dawn of history, at the\nbeginning of human life, or in the Garden of Eden. It seems quite\ninexcusable in the present Age. And yet, although the Anglo-Saxon and\nTeutonic races have the whole of the accumulated history of civilized\nmankind, and the whole of the tradition of humanity, at their command,\nthey still persist in demanding individual experience of everything,\nbefore they will pronounce upon it.\n\nThe fact that in such circumstances one may quite easily _die_ of\nexperience, or at least fall into a hopeless decline as the result\nof it, never seems to occur to them. They go blundering on, refusing\nto learn from the lessons of previous civilizations, and determined\nto allow every possible experience of mankind to work its worst\nconsequences upon them, as if these consequences had never been heard\nof in the world before.\n\nIt is so with Democracy, and it will be so with Ochlocracy. These\nthings have been tried before. They are known, and have proved fatal\nto the civilization that tried them. But what is that to the Teuton\nand Anglo-Saxon? He has no personal experience of their evils, and is\ntherefore determined to stake the fate of his civilization on trying\nthem.\n\nEven without actual experience of their evils, either in the present or\nthe past, it would be simple for anyone, equipped with only a little\ninsight and wisdom, to foresee exactly whither democracy will lead,\nwhither it must lead, whither it cannot help leading; for you cannot\nconduct any institution with a committee consisting of everybody,\nwithout condemning that institution to immediate or ultimate disaster.\nDemocracy has only to be thought about for a few hours, in order to be\ndismissed as the most stupid of all forms of government. Even if other\ncivilizations had failed to try it, even if democracy were a hitherto\nunexplored field, a moment\u2019s reflection would be sufficient to enable\none to condemn it as utterly hopeless.\n\nSuch, however, is the constitution of the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon\nmind, that the people of these races will require to see their\ncivilization in ruins about them, as the result of their experiment\nwith democracy, before they will be prepared to alter their opinion\non the subject of democratic institutions, and agree to label them\n\u201cPoison\u201d for all time.\n\nWhat is true of democracy in Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon countries, is\nalso true of Feminism. It is possible to say now quite positively that\nFeminism is stupid and wrong. It is possible to prophesy with complete\ncertainty that Feminism will only aggravate the disasters already\novertaking civilization. To anyone who feels that the arguments\nadvanced in this book cannot be cavalierly dismissed as negligible,\nit must be plain that modern humanity\u2019s experiment with Feminism, by\nstriking nearer to the roots of Life, is perhaps even more dangerous\nto civilization and to the race, than Democracy itself. But let no\none who feels disposed to take this view imagine for one moment that\nthe Anglo-Saxon or Teuton will therefore stop the experiment of\nFeminism here and now. To the Anglo-Saxon and the Teuton, Feminism is\nan unexplored experience. However mad, however dangerous, and however\nmortal it may be, it will therefore be allowed to proceed until its\ndanger and its deadliness are apparent to all. The fact that, by that\ntime, it may be too late to reverse the engine, too late to repair the\nhavoc wrought, does not disturb the Teuton or Anglo-Saxon mind for one\nminute. To lock the stable door after the horse has gone, to label\n\u201cPoison\u201d an emptied phial, are practices so common, so habitual in\nEngland, and in all countries like England, that it would be romantic\nto hope that any halt will be called in the modern stampede in favour\nof Democracy and Feminism until long after their worst consequences\nhave become plain to the meanest intelligence. This fact, however,\nwould not be sufficient to exonerate anyone like myself from all blame,\nif he omitted to raise his voice above the roar of the stampede, to\ntry at last to call attention to its dangers. For, even if I may fail\nto gain the ear of my own countrymen and all those who resemble them,\nI may at least have the satisfaction of warning off those who have not\nyet become involved in the colossal errors of Western and particularly\nAnglo-Saxon civilization.\n\nThe outlook, then, is decidedly depressing. It seems almost certain\nthat the experiment of Feminism, far from being arrested, will be\npursued further and further. Not until its worst consequences begin to\nbe understood by the dullest inhabitants in Great Britain, is it in the\nleast likely to be regarded as a possible mistake; and, seeing that\nEngland and America\u2014not to speak of France and the northern countries\nof Europe\u2014have it in their power to set an example to the rest of the\nworld, it is probable that the harm it will do will be world wide and\ndeep seated before anything in the nature of a revulsion of feeling\nbegins to make itself felt.\n\nThe prospects of an immediate revulsion of feeling in this country are\nnot very hopeful. There are indeed signs of such a movement; but, in\nmy opinion, it is too feeble, too sporadic, and too unreasoning to be\neffective.[242] It is very much more likely that Feminism will enjoy\na fresh access of power and popularity in the near future, than that\nit will meet with any serious reverse; for almost everybody to-day is\nan unconscious feminist. Every journalist, novelist, poet and public\nman, with but few exceptions, takes the first principles of Feminism\nfor granted. No one seriously doubts, for instance, that woman has\nexercised a beneficent influence over civilization; the absurd idealism\nwhich represents woman as the unselfish, self-sacrificing, partner in\nhuman life, is almost universally accepted. Everybody is inclined to\nregard man as the unmoral (non-social or anti-social) and woman as\nthe moral (social) sex, and to hold the sexes as otherwise perfectly\nequal. And as long as these false ideas prevail, it cannot be a matter\nof surprise that modern man should have come to the conclusion that\nthe more women\u2019s influence is made to prevail, the better the world\nwill be. It is true that there are still a number of intelligent and\nhealthy people who are prepared to enlighten the world on the danger of\nthis tendency; but their voice can hardly be heard above the clamour\nof the other side. In fact, the victory of the Feminist standpoint is\nso complete, that success in any field to-day presupposes a certain\ndeep and sometimes quite unconscious sympathy with Feminist ideals.\nAll those who fail to confirm this tendency, all those who attempt\nto tear away the tinsel of dangerous sentiment and sentimentality\nthat now adorns the female of the species, and to raise a masculine\nvoice of protest against the absurd idealization that disfigures and\ndistorts and will ultimately ruin her, finds the whole front of modern\ncriticism, modern prejudice, and even modern philosophy against him.\n\nThe chances are, then, that before another century dawns, we shall\nsee women as judges, women in holy orders, and even women as Cabinet\nMinisters. But by the time this comes about, if it should come about,\nit is to be hoped that the influence of Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic\ncountries will have sufficiently declined in the world, for their\nexample to be no more than a sign-board, a warning and a danger-signal,\nto inform other nations of the fatal peril of following in their wake.\n\nThe reforms suggested in this work, for the purpose of curtailing\nthe power of women and of instituting saner and healthier views of\nmarriage, are hardly likely to be adopted while the influence of\nFeminists remains in the ascendant; for the possibility of greater\nhappiness and greater health resulting from such reforms could hardly\nbe admitted by a public which, through being largely under the\ndirection of Feminist sentiments on the subject, must take a romantic\nrather than a realistic view of the relation of the sexes. Indeed,\nthe probability is that the views regarding marriage, and the laws\nregulating it, will grow steadily more and more insane as the century\nadvances and the more deeply we sink into Feminism; for the increasing\ninfluence of women in every sphere, including particularly politics,\ncan only tend to falsify and destroy every natural relation and every\nsound institution of social life. With perfect confidence, therefore,\nwe can prophesy an increasing degeneracy of life in England, that will\nreach its lowest point with the zenith of feminine influence; but\nwhether at the end of this tragic cycle there will remain sufficient\nhealth and sanity in the population to help towards a recovery of its\nformer greatness, and towards a reaction that will prove salutary, is\na question that we should require a Pythia of Delphi to answer for us.\n\nThe same remarks apply to the reforms suggested in the chapter on the\nOld Maid. Not until England has suffered very much more cruelly than\nshe has suffered hitherto, can we hope to see reforms introduced which,\nfor their initiation, would require not only the defeat of Feminism,\nbut also a state of mind entirely purged of feminine, romantic, and\nanti-male influences. But this moment is still a very long way off. The\nfibre of the nation will require to be very substantially stiffened\nbefore these happenings will be descried even on the most distant\nhorizon, and it is feared that this stiffening process will be achieved\nonly by the fierce lesson of a cruel disaster. Nothing else will\nconvince people that the road has been a wrong one.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have now come to the end of my undertaking. I have called my work\n_A Vindication_, because I sincerely meant it as a book friendly in\nspirit to the female sex, and one in which the worst that can be said\nabout them is shown to be but the outcome of their best, or at least\nbut the result of a misuse or abuse of their best. I have attempted\nto show that their virtues, like their vices, are all derived from\nthe unalterable vital instincts which their evolutionary r\u00f4le, as the\nmothers of the race, have gradually implanted in them and fixed in them\nfor ever. Not the smallest suspicion of hostility or bitterness towards\nwomen has animated me in writing one line of the preceding pages. It is\nmy conviction that those who misunderstand women, who wish to make them\nmore negative, and who flatter them into the belief that their present\nand traditional inferiority to man is not natural but \u201cartificial,\u201d\nare the true enemies of womankind. It is they who are now contriving\nwoman\u2019s unhappiness, and who, in conspiring to rob her of the greatest\njoys of which her body and spirit are heirs, distract her attention\nfrom their nefarious scheme by holding before her prizes which, in the\nripeness of time, she herself recognizes as mere baubles.\n\nThe possibilities of human nature are so incalculable, and the freaks\nof adaptation so manifold, that it is by no means impossible to\ndestroy the woman in woman and to convert her into a creature in which\nmasculine instincts and aspirations come into constant conflict with\na non-masculine physique and a non-masculine racial history. As an\nideal achievement this is not impossible. The only question humanity\nhas to decide is whether such a metamorphosis is desirable; whether\nin the interests both of woman herself and the species in general,\nsuch a transformation will be for the good. It is true, as we have\nseen, that it will never be possible to rear female geniuses equal\nto male geniuses, because these extremes in men seem to be due to a\npurely masculine tendency to greater variability; but a more modest\nprogramme of masculinization is certainly not impossible. Make woman\nhonest, upright, straightforward, however; make her impartial; make\nher scrupulous; make her the reverse of vulgar; destroy her love of\npetty power, her vanity and her sensuality; and what, in sooth, will\nyou have achieved? You will have undermined the very instincts that\nNature has implanted in her to secure the survival of the species at\nall costs, and in the face of everything. If that is desirable, if\nthat is an ideal worthy of our aspirations, then certainly let us\ndo all in our power to realize it. If, however, it is possible to\nentertain the smallest shadow of doubt concerning the wisdom of this\ncourse; if by the exercise of a little humility we can question whether\nour nineteenth-century or our twentieth-century ideals can possibly\nbe more profound and more far-sighted than the eternal sagacity of\nNature; if there are still reasons for feeling that it is not woman as\nI have described her in these pages, but man himself\u2014man as we know\nhim in this post-war Europe of 1922\u2014who is really in direst need of\ntransformation; then, it seems to me, that it is above all important\nto pause and carefully to take our bearings before we make this daring\nplunge; for we cannot now with any pretence of honesty or good faith\nclaim that it is a plunge into the unknown.\n\n\nTHE END\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[232] Op. cit., pp. 210, 211.\n\n[233] For a detailed discussion of the relationship of the painter,\nsculptor, poet, architect and musician to the great social builder and\nartist, see my Introduction to _Van Gogh\u2019s Letters_ (Constable & Co.,\nLondon).\n\n[234] See Lecky (Op. cit., vol. II, p. 360). Speaking of women he says:\n\u201cThey are little capable of impartiality or of doubt; their thinking is\nchiefly a mode of feeling.\u201d See also Buckle (_The Influence of Women on\nthe_ _Progress of Knowledge_), the whole argument of which is to the\neffect that woman\u2019s thinking is emotional. Weininger also says (Op.\ncit., p. 100): \u201cWith the woman, thinking and feeling are identical,\u201d\nbut this testimony is not nearly as valuable as that of the two former\nwriters, who can in no way be suspected of misogyny.\n\n[235] On this whole question cp. Sir Almroth E. Wright (Op. cit., p.\n35): \u201cWoman\u2019s mind attends in appraising a statement primarily to the\nmental images which it evokes, and only secondarily\u2014and sometimes not\nat all\u2014to what is predicated in the statement ... accepts the congenial\nas true, and rejects the uncongenial as false; takes the imaginary\nwhich is desired for reality, and treats the undesired reality which is\nout of sight as non-existent.\u201d\n\n[236] With the softening of men in an effeminate civilization, women\nare, of course, not alone in holding this attitude to truth. Many\nmen, even among the most cultivated, are unable to-day to separate\npleasantness from truth; for to do so implies a control of emotion by\nreason which is not the forte of modern mankind. Not only men writers\nduring the war, but also politicians, proved beyond doubt their own and\ntheir male audiences\u2019 inability to regard truth rationally; and at the\npresent time you are quite as likely to be flatly contradicted by a man\nas by a woman, if you enunciate an unpleasant truth before an ordinary\ncrowd.\n\n[237] _Vide_ Press reports of the William Harkness case, particularly\nthe comments published, after Harkness\u2019s execution, in _The News of the\nWorld_ for February 26, 1922.\n\n[238] Arabella Kenealy was tending towards this conclusion when she\nwrote (Op. cit., p. 155): \u201cThe woman of average brain, however, attains\nthe intellectual standards of the man of average brain at cost of her\nhealth, of her emotions, or of her morale.\u201d I would suggest \u201cand\u201d\ninstead of \u201cor\u201d in the latter part of the sentence.\n\n[239] Anyone who attempts to keep a record of his wife\u2019s, mother\u2019s or\nsister\u2019s so-called \u201cintuitive\u201d statements, will soon realize how few of\nthem reveal an accurate power of immediately perceiving truth.\n\n[240] See several passages in his _Suggestion and Auto-Suggestion_.\n\n[241] The fact that certain organisms in the animal kingdom use senses\nwhich, as far as we can tell, have neither sight, taste, smell,\nhearing, nor touch, for their basis, is shown by W. S. Coleman in his\n_British Butterflies_. The manner in which the males of the Kentish\nGlory Moth, for instance, are attracted to the female, when she is\nsometimes more than a mile away from them, is utterly unknown, and\nColeman is compelled to refer it to a sort of clairvoyance. (See pp.\n28-29.)\n\n[242] It is largely animated by commercial and industrial rivalry, and\nthis sort of opposition to Feminism is too contemptible to inspire much\nenthusiasm.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  ACTORS, the, in modern society, 214\n\n  ADULTERY, committed by the artist when he marries, 89;\n    in case of positive woman due to long absence of husband, 189;\n    caused by vanity, 189 _n._, 219;\n    during war-time misunderstood by fools, 190, 191;\n    of the woman owing to her husband\u2019s impotence, 194;\n    in positive woman due to childlessness, 202\n\n  AFFECTATION, a sign of misery in spinsters, 240\n\n  ALCOHOL, a sublimator of sex, 248\n\n  ALFRED THE GREAT, the masculinity of his mother, 158\n\n  AN\u00c6MIA, pernicious effects of, in the positive girl, 116, 117\n\n  ANGLO-SAXONS, their lack of insight, 361-3\n\n  ARISTOTLE, his doctrine of catharsis, 247\n\n  ART, only a weapon in the hands of positive women, 65, 66;\n    all forms of, man\u2019s invention, 325;\n    why women turn to, 349\n\n  ARTIST, the, often ruined by his success with women, 85;\n    commits adultery when he marries, 89\n\n  ATHLETICS, pernicious effect of, on the positive girl, 113-5\n\n\n  BIRTHS, table of legitimate and illegitimate, 128 _n._\n\n  BODY, the, thrilled by sexual union and also by order, 58-60;\n    the joys of the healthy, never pall, 87;\n    care of the, in positive girls essential, 117;\n    the, ruined by Puritanism in both rich and poor, 118;\n    the joys of the, most important in life, 149\n\n  BYRON, unhappy married life of, 143;\n    the masculinity of his mother, 158;\n    on cant, 250 _n._;\n    attitude of women towards his Don Juan, 279 _n._;\n    his unfortunate relationship to his mother, 316;\n    on women and false sentiment, 319 _n._\n\n\n  CALVIN, hostile to life, 11;\n    altogether negative, 13 _n._\n\n  CANT, _see_ Introduction.\n    The inevitable ingredient in every movement in England, 250;\n    Byron on, 250 _n._\n\n  CARLYLE, unhappy married life of, 143\n\n  CATHOLIC CHURCH, honest and practical regarding superfluous women, 32;\n    its wise organization of spinsters, 274, 275.\n\n  CELIBACY, in the Catholic Church enforced by poverty, 329 _n._\n\n  CHANGE, a necessary tonic in life, 140\n\n  CHARLES I ruled by social instinct, 45\n\n  CHILDLESSNESS, as an end destructive of conjugal happiness, 204;\n    its bad effect on the husband, 205, 206;\n    a cause of divorce, 207-10;\n    longer endured by the negative than the positive woman, 215\n\n  CHILDREN, positive if healthy, 13, 14;\n    healthy, the best pattern for the positive man, 15;\n    the seriousness of positive, 15, 16;\n    positive to everything, 18-20;\n    their restless energy, 37;\n    their misrepresentation of their restlessness, 38;\n    their unconscious motives, 39;\n    the object of woman\u2019s eternal gratitude, 42;\n    their healthy contempt of sickness and deformity, 101;\n    their taste should be guided along healthy lines, 101, 102 _n._;\n    the regulation of the procreation of, the object of marriage, 138;\n    a consolation to the wife for decline in her husband\u2019s\n      affection, 148, 149;\n    a separating force in marriage, 149;\n    no bodily consolation to the father, 149;\n    during regular bearing of, a woman rarely tempted to leave her\n      husband, 179;\n    years do not necessarily increase love between the parents, 180-4;\n    frequently a source of friction, 183;\n    much more important to the wife than the husband is, 185;\n    not consciously desired by the dissatisfied wife, 201 _n._;\n    necessary to introduce variety into the home, 205;\n    the pernicious relations of spinsters with, 241\n\n  CHRISTIANITY, logically condemns sex and advocates eternal life, 4, 5;\n    responsible for decadent doctrines, 102 _n._;\n    teaches nonsensical doctrine of \u201cunion of souls\u201d in marriage, 137;\n      and thus responsible for degeneration, 139;\n    responsible for degeneration, 176 _n._;\n    a sublimator of sex, 248;\n    attractive to the negative spinster, 258\n\n  CLEANMINDEDNESS, destroyed by sexual abstinence, 173;\n    only obtained by healthy gratification, 174\n\n  CLEVERNESS, exaggerated value attached to, nowadays often leads to\n      unhappy marriages, 85\n\n  COHABITATION, pernicious during gestation and suckling, 163-5\n\n  COLBERT, ruled by social instinct, 45\n\n  COMPANIONSHIP, impossible in marriage, 147\n\n  CONCUBINE, necessary for positive young man, 172\n\n  CONSCIENCE, a guilty, merely costive, 18;\n    woman tries to rule man by giving him a guilty, 197 _n._\n\n  CONSTIPATION, bad effects of, 115\n\n  CONTEMPT, inevitable in modern love-matches, 143, 144\n\n  CONTRACEPTIVES, unknown to the body, 75;\n    because they cause sterility lead to adultery in the woman, 195,\n        196;\n    deleterious effect of, 203, 205 _n._, 211\n\n  CO-RESPONDENT, the, a vain fool, 191, 193;\n    the, always vain, 200;\n    his vanity, 211;\n    far too lightly treated in England, 223\n\n  COURTSHIP, should be an adventure, but to-day is not, 142\n\n  CRIMINALS, the vanity of, 226 _n._\n\n\n  DAVISON, Emily, her marvellous rush at the Derby, 312\n\n  DEATH, the necessary counterpart of sex, 3\n\n  DEGENERATION, of modern man, 161 (_see also_ Introduction);\n    the object of society to-day, 166\n\n  DEMOCRACY, has been proved fatal to civilization, 362\n\n  DE QUINCEY, on the evil effects of repression, 246;\n    his unfortunate relationship to his mother, 316\n\n  DESIRE, killed by gratification, 141\n\n  DICKENS, CHARLES, unhappy married life of, 143\n\n  DISCIPLINE, of healthy children most difficult, 20;\n    the object of, 21\n\n  DISRAELI, ruled by social instinct, 45;\n    an able man capable of fulsome flattery, 338\n\n  DIVORCE, rarer where there are many children, 180;\n    high figures for, in cases of small families, 202;\n    majority of petitions made by men, 207;\n    some statistics of, 208;\n    childlessness a cause of, 207-10;\n    chart of, according to professions, 211;\n    higher percentage of, in professional classes, 212;\n    of the negative couple, 216\n\n  DOMESTIC work, value of, 266\n\n  DON JUAN, the cold, 222\n\n  DOSTOIEWSKY, on the vanity of criminals, 226 _n._\n\n\n  EDUCATION, in England produces womanly men, 175\n\n  ELIZABETH, Queen, her vanity, 337, 338;\n    her success as a ruler largely due to her unlimited capacity for\n      lies, 315 _n._\n\n  EMMA OF NORMANDY, a remarkable woman, 292, 293\n\n  ENGLAND, full of negative and asexual women, 53;\n    lacking in positive men, 97;\n    disregard of the body in, 112, 113;\n    men made negative in, for 270 years, 119;\n    her \u201ctrousered women,\u201d 156 _n._, 162;\n    large proportion of negative women in, account for adultery out of\n      vanity, 189 _n._;\n    public opinion in, chiefly ruled by Puritanical old ladies, 190;\n    co-respondents treated too lightly in, 223;\n    marriage in, often peaceful through negativism, 227;\n    women less positive in, 247;\n    cheerful spinsters in, a bad sign, 248;\n    prostitution most degraded in, 251;\n    hypocritical attitude towards prostitution in, 252;\n    more misery and disorder in, connected with sex, than anywhere\n      else, 260;\n    full of homes owned by wealthy spinsters, 269, 271;\n    cooking in, atrocious, 299;\n    and clothing inferior, 300\n\n  ENGLISHMAN, less positive than the Frenchman, 92;\n    has less social instinct than the Frenchman, 92, 94;\n    increasingly negative, 94;\n    his negativism, 119;\n    his erroneous views of woman\u2019s virtues, 308\n\n  ETERNAL LIFE, doctrine of, hostile to sex, 4\n\n  EXUBERANCE, high sexual, often accompanies superior spiritual\n      gifts, 84;\n    lack of, makes both men and women unhappy, 96;\n    sexual, not required in modern industrial slaves, 96\n\n\n  FAMILY, the, created by monogamy, 135\n\n  FATHER, the reasons of his attachment to the family, 186, 187\n\n  FEMALE, the positiveness of the, almost unbreakable, 22\n\n  FEMALENESS, in the male due to snubbed sex and broken spirit, 156\n\n  FEMINISM, a phenomenon of male degeneration, 35 (_see also_\n      Introduction);\n    the ruling creed of English journalists and writers, 272 _n._;\n    largely the creation of wealthy spinsters, 273;\n    the creed of the age, 278;\n    to be condemned even from the hedonistic point of view, 335;\n    rout of, essential, 345;\n    stupid and wrong, 362;\n    bound to be given a trial in Anglo-Saxon countries, 363, 364;\n    likely to grow stronger, 365\n\n  FLAPPER, the courage of the healthy English, 105;\n    helped by her vanity, 106\n\n  FOOD, joking over, a sign of negativeness, 15\n\n  FOOTBALL, bad for men, barbarous for women, 114\n\n  FRANCE, old maids in, always unbearable, 112\n\n  FRANCIS, ST., of Assisi, ruled by social instinct, 45\n\n  FRIENDSHIP, requires change and separation, 140;\n    affords recreation, 146, 147\n\n\n  GIBBON, on the importance of women among the Teutons, 280, 291\n\n  GIRL, the first meeting of the positive, with a possible\n      mate, 80, 81;\n    her disappointment to-day, 81;\n    foolish prejudices that mislead the positive, in the choice of a\n      mate, 82;\n    the French, always watched, 92;\n    the English, less positive than the French, 93, 94;\n    the positive, often disappointed in marriage, 95;\n    tragic plight of the positive English, 97;\n    the conflict between her body and modern ideals in the positive\n      English, 104;\n    her self-contempt and pessimism, 105;\n    only the positive, makes the hateful spinster, 111;\n    the negative, makes a cheerful old maid, 112;\n    the positive, often ruined by athletics, 113;\n    care of her body imperative, 117;\n    the positive, converted to negativism by her husband, 118, 121, 122\n\n  GOOD, definition of, in a positive sense, 10-12, 53\n\n  GREECE, schools for initiation into sex in, 253\n\n  GREEKS, schools for initiation into sex among the, 172\n\n\n  HEALTH, means pleasurable functioning, 151\n\n  HERMAPHRODITISM in both sexes, 155\n\n  HINDUS, their healthy teaching about marriage, 102 _n._;\n    their wise regulations for wives separated from their\n      husbands, 189 _n._;\n    their provision for women childless through husband\u2019s\n      fault, 194 _n._;\n    destined their daughters for marriage only, 276 _n._;\n    description of woman in their sacred book, 280, 281;\n    on woman\u2019s disregard for beauty, 325;\n    the poorest caste the most respected among the, 330;\n    their wisdom in controlling their women, 325, 336, 344\n\n  HOMOSEXUALITY, admired by Weininger but condemned by the author, 53\n\n  HUMANITARIANISM, an outlet for the spinster\u2019s love of power, 242;\n    merely inverted sadism, 243;\n    the harm done by, 244\n\n  HUSBAND, the saviour of his wife\u2019s body, 107\n\n  HUXLEY, on woman\u2019s virtue, 308\n\n\n  ILL-HEALTH, in girls due to waiting for marriage, 110\n\n  IMPUDENCE, the, of those who imagine they are capable of feeling and\n      inspiring undying love, 145\n\n  INDIAN women, cynical treatment of by British, 299 _n._\n\n  INFERTILITY, danger of, to married life, 195-203\n\n  INSTINCT, defined, 43, 44;\n    the three fundamental instincts, 44;\n    the social, rules men like Napoleon, Charles I, Nietzsche, etc., 45;\n    the self-preservative, rules cowards, anarchists, unscrupulous\n      plutocrats, etc., 45;\n    the reproductive, rules Woman, 46;\n    the self-preservative, suspended during courtship, 89-91;\n    the social, keeps reproductive, in control, 91\n\n  INSTINCTS, sound, necessary for positiveness, 14\n\n  INTUITION, in women and great men, 356\n\n\n  JOAN OF ARC, her mysterious powers, 358\n\n  JOHN THE BAPTIST, ruled by social instinct, 45\n\n  JUDGES, effeminacy of present-day, 354\n\n\n  LADY, no such thing has ever existed, 331\n\n  LAUGHTER, not a characteristic of positiveness, 16;\n    shrill, the social noise of Puritan countries, 17;\n    the only positive form of, defined, 17\n\n  LEUCORRH\u0152A, bad effects of, 115-7\n\n  LIFE in Nature quite tasteless, 306\n\n  LOVE, illicit, some penalties of, 128;\n    defined, 128;\n    society\u2019s lie regarding permanence of, 129;\n    permanent only in very rare cases, 130;\n    may be an excuse for an illicit union but not for marriage, 139;\n    only lasts if it is unconsummated, 141 _n._;\n    the delusion of lasting, 142;\n    not necessarily deeper between parents of a large family, 180, 181\n\n  LUNACY, in females chiefly among the unmarried, 238 _n._\n\n  LUVV, the right spelling for the maudlin modern idea of the nobler\n      sentiment, 143;\n    the corrosive of monogamic marriages, 143;\n    as described in modern novels, 214\n\n  LYING, \u201cphysiological\u201d in women, 281;\n    in women vital and essential to life, 302-5\n\n  LYTTON, Lord, his unhealthy influence, 101 _n._\n\n\n  MALE, the, naturally prehensile, 120\n\n  MAN, cannot mould woman, 27;\n    but can make her miserable and ill, 29;\n    modern, less positive than woman, 23;\n    a means unconsciously exploited by woman, 42;\n    not generally ruled by reproductive instinct, 46;\n    an amputation from Life, 55;\n    reproductive instinct not universally predominant in, 55;\n    social instinct most important in his life, 56;\n    woman a temptation to the positive, 67, 69;\n    practically asexual after performing the sexual act, 68;\n    guided by social instinct to support woman and child, 68;\n    the modern public school athlete a torture machine for\n      women, 82, 83;\n    guided by values in his choice of a mate, 98, 99;\n    the positive, ruined by Puritanism, 152, 153;\n    the positive, misled by Puritan values, 100, 102;\n    duty of the positive, to give woman a clean conscience in regard\n      to sex, 107;\n    degeneration of, 161 (_see also_ Introduction);\n    the rarity of the male, in England, 161, 162;\n    school of initiation into sex for, 172;\n    effect of childlessness upon the positive, 205, 206;\n    games, hobbies, and religion the substitutes for sexual variety for\n      the positive, 207;\n    the negative, guided by vanity, 222;\n    the proud, disliked to-day, 224 _n._, 225;\n    the modern, very much below even a modest idea of what man should\n      be, 230;\n    ruined and devitalized by commercialism, 265 (_see also_\n      Introduction);\n    the creative intelligence even in woman\u2019s sphere, 299;\n    the Promethean type of, and the misery he creates, 333, 334;\n    geniuses and unmitigated fools produced by the extreme variability\n      of, 350, 351;\n    his psychic powers, 360;\n    his great variability, 367;\n    most in need of transformation, 368\n\n  MANLINESS, absurd modern conception of, 82\n\n  MANU, Laws of, _see_ HINDUS\n\n  MARITAL fidelity, due to ill-health, 151\n\n  MARK ANTHONY, ruled by reproductive instinct, 45, 55\n\n  MARRIAGE, erroneous to regard it is a sacrifice for women, 79;\n    often a disappointment to the positive girl, 90;\n    a social contrivance, 125;\n    not a natural state, 126;\n    hedonistic view of, reprehensible, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137;\n    its utility, 133;\n    in a chaotic condition in Europe owing to Christianity, 139;\n    unhappy in most cases of men of genius, 143;\n    modern, now on the rocks, 168;\n    should be utilitarian, 169;\n    points to be considered in, 169;\n    right teaching regarding, 170;\n    reform of, essential, 176;\n    the fifth to the tenth the most critical years for, 210, 211;\n    entered upon from vanity, 218;\n    in England often peaceful owing to negativism, 227;\n    should be the only calling for women, 276\n\n  MATERNITY, the pains of, exaggerated by modern women to give man a\n      guilty conscience, 77;\n    only intolerably painful in disease, 78;\n    only \u201cunselfish\u201d in the case of a sick or badly formed woman, 78;\n    increasing number of women suffering from, to-day, 79;\n    only self-sacrifice in the case of sick females, 148 _n._\n\n  MEMORY, ancestral, in women, 234\n\n  MEREDITH, George, on wealthy spinsters, 270\n\n  MILL, John Stuart, a henpecked philosopher, 282;\n    inspired by his wife, 282;\n    his foolish remarks on the nature of woman, 283-7;\n    his false assumptions regarding woman, 289;\n    a sentimental liar concerning women, 296;\n    a pernicious liar, 345\n\n  MODESTY defined, 224\n\n  MONOGAMY, natural to some animals but unnatural for man, 126;\n    advantages of, chiefly social, 134-7;\n    regulates the procreation of children, 138;\n    disadvantages of, 139-67;\n    precludes all change and respite, 140, 141;\n    more satisfactory to the female than to the male, 148, 149, 150;\n    may inflict sexual abstinence on the male during pregnancy of the\n      wife, 165;\n    productive of ill-health and degeneracy, 165\n\n  MORTAL Life, desirable together with sex and other means\n      thereto, 6-8, 12, 13;\n    includes pain, 10;\n    intellectual justification required for constant attacks upon, 12;\n    to be called Life, as being the only kind of Life we know, 13\n\n  MOTHER, the, loved by the true artist, 71;\n    the positive, consciously desires her full sexual cycle, 77;\n    importance of the early training of the child by the, 314, 315\n\n  MOTHER\u2019S milk, abominable substitutes for, 164\n\n\n  NAPOLEON, ruled by social instinct, 45;\n    his dictum that women have no rank, 331, 332;\n    and Madame de Sta\u00ebl, 337\n\n  NEGATIVENESS, defined, 13;\n    noisy laughter a sign of, 17;\n    the attitude of, towards childhood, 22;\n    in woman, the outcome of sickness or degeneracy, 35\n\n  NEGATIVISM, responsible for chastity in England, 96;\n    excellent from the Puritan point of view, 96;\n    causes of deterioration to, 108-11;\n    physical disorders due to, 112;\n    positive girl converted to, by her husband, 118;\n    in women through lack of mastery in men, 121, 122;\n    incapable of lasting emotion, 130;\n    impossible to calculate the vagaries of, 213;\n    due to an atonic condition of the body, 215;\n    confounds motherhood with martyrdom, 215;\n    never guided by passion, 227\n\n  NIETZSCHE, ruled by social instinct, 45\n\n\n  OLD MAID, the, less enthusiastic about \u201cWoman\u2019s Cause\u201d than the\n      negative wife, 218 (_see also_ SPINSTER)\n\n  OLD TESTAMENT, honest in its attitude to disease, 101\n\n  ORDER, means greater happiness and security, 60\n\n  ORGASM, the, alone unsatisfying for the woman, 195\n\n\n  PAIN, to be accepted because necessary to Mortal Life, 13;\n    the depth and distinction gained by, 107\n\n  PARENTS, should destine their daughters for marriage only, 276\n\n  PASSION, does not grin and grimace, 221;\n    never directs negative people, 227;\n    euphemisms for lack of, 228\n\n  PAUL, ST., hostile to Life, 9, 11;\n    altogether negative, 13;\n    immoral because hostile to Life, 62\n\n  PENELOPE, her undesirability probably the cause of her\n      fidelity, 190 _n._;\n    admiration of, 192 _n._\n\n  PESSIMISM, the, of the positive English girl, 105\n\n  PHILOSOPHER, the positive, deeply interested in the child, 14, 15\n\n  POSITIVENESS, defined, 13;\n    the seriousness of, 16, 17;\n    forgets all that mars interest in life, 17;\n    rarely has a guilty conscience, 18;\n    has no fear of pain, 18\n\n  PRAYER BOOK, its wisdom in the Marriage Service, 107;\n    its teaching regarding marriage, 138\n\n  PREHENSION, a male quality, 120;\n    modern Englishman lacking in, 121\n\n  PRIG, woman\u2019s epithet for the man of insight, 217\n\n  PROCREATION, improper and impious for cold-blooded Puritans, 34\n\n  PROFESSIONAL classes, reasons for high percentage of divorce in\n      the, 212\n\n  PROSTITUTE, the, loved by degenerates and anarchists, 71;\n    the only kind of woman to whom man is everything, 73;\n    driven by unfortunate circumstances to misunderstand her true\n      needs, 76;\n    the sadness of her lot not due to its moral turpitude, 254;\n    her childless fate her severest penalty, 255 _n._;\n    not so by nature but made so by circumstances, 255\n\n  PROSTITUTION, an evil in Western civilization because it is made\n      so, 249;\n    sexual, not necessarily the worst, 250;\n    most degraded in England, 251;\n    hypocritical attitude towards, in England, 252;\n    Lecky on, 252 _n._;\n    as a school of initiation into sex, 253;\n    necessity of placing, on a sound and more humane basis, 254\n\n  PURITAN, the, his implacable loathing of sex, 5;\n    and of all bodily matters, 8;\n    immoral because hostile to Life, 62;\n    by associating sexual pleasure with marriage only, responsible for\n      _m\u00e9salliances_, 134;\n    his outcry against wise marital infidelity, 166\n\n  PURITANISM, has reduced men to nincompoops, 33;\n    claims of, now heard because of increase in repulsive and botched\n      people, 35;\n    vitality impaired by depressing foods and drinks introduced by, 53;\n    affected men more deeply than women in England, 94, 95;\n    ruins the sexual life of the positive couple, 153;\n    has destroyed the male man in England, 161\n\n  PURITY, true and false, 100;\n    the only true, is the outcome of fire, 100\n\n\n  RELIGION, as a compensation for sex, 245\n\n  REPRESSION, De Quincey and Aristotle on bad effects of, 246, 247\n\n  REYNOLDS, JOSHUA, his bodiless child angels the ideal of the negative\n      mind, 22\n\n\n  SADISM, in little girls, spinsters, and old women, 156;\n    unconscious, in women, 157;\n    humanitarianism an inverted form of, 243\n\n  SAVOURINESS, a pre-requisite in marriage, 87\n\n  SCANDAL, loved by all decent, humane people, 311\n\n  SCHOPENHAUER, hostile to Life, 11;\n    the masculinity of his mother, 158;\n    on woman as the voice of the species, 178;\n    his conclusions vitiated by his failure to distinguish between\n      healthy and unhealthy, 213 _n._;\n    on woman\u2019s cunning, 304 _n._;\n    his unfortunate relationship to his mother, 316;\n    on harm done to modern society by woman\u2019s influence, 330 _n._\n\n  SEDUCER, the, who gives a girl a child more merciful than he who does\n      not, 254 _n._\n\n  SELF-CONTROL, that, which arises from strength, 70;\n    the so-called, of the negative young man, 91;\n    not responsible for the chastity of English courting couples, 95;\n    a euphemistic name for lack of virility, 167;\n    in sex a counsel for wax figures, 175;\n    the vain boast of negative spinster, 257\n\n  SELFISH, a meaningless term, 197\n\n  SENSUALITY, necessary in woman, 340-4;\n    but should be controlled, 343\n\n  SEX, the necessary counterpart of death, 3;\n    incompatible with Eternal Life, 4, 5;\n    necessary for Mortal Life, 6, 8\n\n  SEXUAL ACT, man\u2019s attitude towards the, 70, 71;\n    alone insufficient for woman, 76\n\n  SOCIAL instinct, creates society, 62;\n    positiveness towards, in woman denotes decline of woman, 66;\n    leads man to support woman and children, 68;\n    keeps sexual instinct in control, 70\n\n  SOCRATES, unhappy married life of, 143\n\n  SOUL, the pernicious doctrine of the pure, 101, 102 _n._\n\n  SPENCER, HERBERT, right regarding children of large families, 21;\n    ruled by social instinct, 45\n\n  SPINSTER, the hateful, only made by the snubbed positive girl, 111;\n    the cheerful, made by the negative girl, 112;\n    her advice about girls to be suspected, 114 _n._;\n    her outcry against wise marital infidelity, 166;\n    the, always abnormal, 229-31;\n    exercises an abnormal influence on society, 231-3;\n    her \u201cuseful work\u201d should be suspected, 232, 233;\n    the positive and negative defined, 234, 235;\n    the positive, a great conscious sufferer, 235-7;\n    profound physiological disappointment of the Positive, 238;\n    tendency to suicide in the very positive, 238, 239;\n    neuropathic symptoms in the, 239, 240;\n    affectation a sign of misery in the, 240;\n    the various ways in which she seeks compensation, 240, 246;\n    reason of her frequent choice of the teaching profession, 241;\n    her jealousy of young girls, 246;\n    the embittered, more common on the Continent than in England, 247;\n    the negative, not a great conscious sufferer, 255;\n    misinterpretations of the lack of sexual vigour in the\n      negative, 256, 257;\n    the danger of these misinterpretations, 257;\n    will gravitate almost automatically to Christianity, 258;\n    her love of the weak and the poor, 260;\n    her hatred of men, 261;\n    the negative becoming more prevalent in England, 262;\n    increases economic difficulties, 263;\n    the wealthy, inevitably a burden on society, 268-71;\n    her good works a means of making herself important, 270;\n    George Meredith on, 270;\n    contaminates English opinion, 272;\n    largely responsible for Feminism, 273;\n    an abnormal influence, 273, 274;\n    wisely provided for by the Catholic Church, 274, 275;\n    the \u201cannuitant\u201d always a bane, 278;\n    benevolent sequestration of the, desirable, 278\n\n  SPIRIT, the things of the, pall quickly, 86\n\n  STEPMOTHER, the bad, a good mother, 312, 313 _n._\n\n  STRAFFORD, ruled by social instinct, 45\n\n  SUBLIMATION of sex possible but undesirable outside a Church, 174;\n    of sex may be accomplished through Christianity or alcohol, 248\n\n  SUICIDE, through disappointed love more common among women than\n      men, 42 _n._;\n    tendency to, in the positive spinster, 238, 239\n\n\n  TACITUS, emphasizes the important r\u00f4le of women among the Teutons, 290\n\n  TEACHER, pernicious influence of the unmarried, 241\n\n  TEUTONS, importance of women among the, 290\n\n\n  UNCONSCIOUS motives, actuating action, 40, 41;\n    misunderstood by women, 43, 47-9\n\n  UNHEALTHINESS, defined, 50;\n    the unhealthy woman approaches maleness, 51;\n    makes woman an infidel towards Life, 52\n\n  UNSELFISH, a meaningless term, 197\n\n  UNSELFISHNESS, the, of motherhood one of the greatest lies produced\n      by Western civilization, 79\n\n\n  VALUES, guide a man in his choice of a mate, 98, 99\n\n  VANITY, helps to save the young girl\u2019s body, 106;\n    makes the sick girl desire marriage, 111;\n    as cause of adultery, 189 _n._;\n    of the old man, 193 _n._;\n    mistaken for passion, 214;\n    leading to imitation of passion, 218;\n    leading to marriage, 218;\n    leading to adultery, 219;\n    courtship the time of the strongest appeal to, 220;\n    guiding the negative woman, 218-22;\n    guiding the negative man, 222, 223;\n    always found in conjunction with modesty, 223-5;\n    the tragedy of mortified, 226;\n    of criminals, 226 _n._;\n    judgments based on, unreliable, 226 _n._\n\n  VIRGIN, the, does not sincerely crave for children, 75;\n    the \u201cpure\u201d defined, 258;\n    as the voice of oracles, 357\n\n  VIRGINITY, idiotic demand for, in men before marriage, 155\n\n  VULGARITY, vital, of women, 326-30\n\n\n  WAR, the Great, supported by negative spinsters and old men from\n      secret sex motives, 261 (_see also_ Introduction)\n\n  WARTS, children positive even to, 19\n\n  WEALTH, desired by positive woman, 84\n\n  WEININGER, his logical hostility to Sex and Mortal Life, 8, 9, 11;\n    his misunderstanding of the unconscious in woman, 47;\n    makes no classification into healthy and unhealthy, 50;\n    admired sterility, 52;\n    admired homosexuality, 52 _n._;\n    his contradictory statements about the prostitute, 71 _n._;\n    his view of \u201cmaleness\u201d in women, 155;\n    this view proved false, 161 _n._;\n    his conclusions vitiated by his failing to distinguish between\n      healthy and unhealthy, 213 _n._;\n    agrees that there has been no subjection of women, 297;\n    on woman\u2019s natural lawlessness, 301 _n._;\n    his pessimism, 302 _n._;\n    on great men preferring the prostitute, 327\n\n  WILL defined, 44\n\n  WOMAN, more positive than modern man, 23;\n    wretched and desperate to-day, 25;\n    an unchanging individuality not fashioned by man, 25, 27;\n    her primary adaptation to man and the child, 28;\n    is Life\u2019s uninterrupted stream, 29;\n    to-day deprived of her primary adaptations, 30;\n    rightly dissatisfied with modern man, 30;\n    modern attitude towards superfluous women insulting and\n      dishonest, 31, 32;\n    the Catholic Church more honest towards them, 32;\n    as Life\u2019s custodian inevitably miserable and in pain to-day, 35;\n    not equipped for ordering Life, 35;\n    her cry of warning must be respected but her remedies rejected, 36;\n    her action guided by her bodily structure, 41;\n    is above all wedded to Life and sins in its service, 42;\n    unconsciously exploits man, 42;\n    does not know her unconscious motives, 43;\n    ruled by reproductive instinct, 46;\n    misinterprets promptings of reproductive instinct, 47;\n    unconscious of her motives, 49, 50;\n    approaches maleness when unhealthy, 51;\n    an infidel towards Life when unhealthy, 52;\n    for woman positiveness to sex and Life is the same thing, 55;\n    the asexual, hostile to Life, 56;\n    will follow man if he understands her, 56;\n    positive to order, 61;\n    feels no confidence in men lacking in social instinct, 62;\n    the positive, all sex, 63;\n    the positive, timid in the presence of men, 64;\n    the positive, does not continue to practise the arts when once they\n      have helped her to secure a man, 65;\n    modern, losing faith in man because of the decline of his social\n      instinct, 67;\n    attitude of the positive, to sexual act, 72;\n    sexual union alone insufficient for, 72, 76;\n    her love for man a romantic ideal, 73;\n    the positive, unconscious of what is necessary for full sexual\n      experience, 73, 74;\n    positive in the first place to man, 74;\n    the positive, unconsciously desires full sexual cycle, 75, 76;\n    the modern European, exaggerates pains of maternity in order to\n      give man a guilty conscience, 77;\n    increasing number of women suffering from maternity to-day, 79;\n    the positive, desires wealth for the protection of her offspring,\n        84;\n    the positive, not impressed by spiritual gifts alone, 88;\n    guided by Life in choice of a mate, 98, 99;\n    the negative, content without children, 149 _n._;\n    sadism in, 156, 157;\n    the \u201cmale\u201d desirable, 157-9 (_see also_ Introduction);\n    cases in which the \u201cmale\u201d is undesirable, 159;\n    maleness in, only made recessive by superior maleness in the\n      man, 160, 161, 174, 175;\n    misery of the \u201cmale\u201d woman in England, 162;\n    her demand for the sexual cycle the voice of the Will of the\n      Species, 178;\n    rarely tempted to leave her husband if regularly bearing\n      children, 179;\n    the positive, grows more indifferent to her husband as the family\n      grows, 181, 182;\n    the positive, unconsciously desires to employ her reproductive\n      machinery, 188;\n    the positive, commits adultery owing to long absence of husband,\n        189;\n    the best, faithful to Life before all else, 192;\n    her adultery owing to husband\u2019s impotence, 194;\n    the childless, often takes up a Cause, 196 _n._;\n    tries to rule man by giving him a guilty conscience, 197 _n._;\n    more likely to go wrong in marriage through childlessness than the\n      man, 205;\n    the negative, endures childlessness much longer than the\n      positive, 215;\n    the negative, cultivates a taste for soulful literature and\n      Christianity, 216;\n    calls man who sees through her \u201cprig,\u201d 217;\n    difference between positive and negative, in an illicit love\n      affair, 220, 221;\n    the negative, notoriously _grimaci\u00e8re_, 221;\n    the surplus, and work outside the home, 267;\n    being besotted by entering the work market, 267, 268;\n    the number of surplus women in England, 274;\n    should be destined for marriage alone by her parents, 276;\n    suggested ways of dealing with the problem of the surplus, 276, 277;\n    connected with evil from time immemorial, 280;\n    lying \u201cphysiological\u201d in, 281;\n    her bondage an illusion, 289, 290, 296;\n    her importance among the Teutons, Celts, and Early English, 290-2;\n    in the Middle Ages, 293, 294;\n    in the 16th and 17th centuries, 294-6;\n    has consistently shown crass stupidity in her own peculiar\n      domain, 298, 299;\n    Life\u2019s custodian, 300;\n    her _primum mobile_ completely a-moral, 301;\n    her lies vital, 302, 305;\n    her lying necessarily extended to non-vital matters, 302-4;\n    her five cardinal virtues, 307;\n    modern Englishman\u2019s erroneous view of her virtues, 308;\n    her derivative virtues, 309-19;\n    her laudable love of scandal, 311;\n    her six cardinal vices, 318-43;\n    her tact, 320;\n    her lack of taste of vital necessity, 326-32;\n    her incapacity to appreciate great men, 327-9;\n    cannot forgive material failure in her men, 331;\n    has no rank, 331, 332;\n    her love of petty power, 332-6;\n    must be controlled, 335, 336;\n    her vanity, 336-40;\n    danger of her vanity, 338;\n    her vanity vital, 339, 340;\n    vanity overcome by passion in the positive, 340;\n    her sensuality, 340-4;\n    her sensuality vital, 341, 342;\n    the custodian of Life, 346;\n    negligible in Art, Philosophy and Science, 346, 347;\n    reasons for her turning to Science or Art, 349;\n    cannot be changed without danger to the species, 350, 351;\n    her thinking largely feeling, 351, 352;\n    incompetent to act in any judicial capacity, 353, 355;\n    her intuition, 355, 356;\n    her psychic powers, 358, 359\n\n  WOMANHOOD, ideal of \u201ctrue womanhood\u201d cruel nonsense, 26, 27\n\n  WOMEN workers, their number, 263 _n._\n\n  WORKING-MAN, the, more gifted at love-making than his social\n      superior, 154 _n._\n\n\n_Printed in Great Britain by_ Butler & Tanner, _Frome and London_.\n\n\n\n\n  Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n  pg 8 Changed: and, finally\u2014this gem of negativness:\n            to: and, finally\u2014this gem of negativeness:\n\n  pg 102 Changed: The danger at persent\n              to: The danger at present\n\n  pg 137 Changed: that pictire of it that dwells\n              to: that picture of it that dwells\n\n  pg 145 Changed: and that B has delieved him\n              to: and that B has believed him\n\n  pg 186 Changed: passion qiu soit bon\n              to: passion qui soit bon\n\n  pg 207 Changed: practise in their lesiure hours\n              to: practise in their leisure hours\n\n  pg 217 Added footnote marker after: analysing the true nature\n           of woman.\n\n  pg 223 Changed: grotesquely lenient to corespondents\n              to: grotesquely lenient to correspondents\n\n  pg 226 Changed: perspicacious, knowledgable, etc., etc.\n              to: perspicacious, knowledgeable, etc., etc.\n\n  pg 237 Changed: the passion, the disapppointment, the hardships\n              to: the passion, the disappointment, the hardships\n\n  pg 266 Changed: and perfer to pay even the price\n              to: and prefer to pay even the price\n\n  pg 302 Changed: immorality, preforce condemned it.\n              to: immorality, perforce condemned it.\n\n  pg 303 (footnote) Changed: or of a dovoted husband\n                         to: or of a devoted husband\n\n  pg 319 Changed: unreasonng fury he provokes\n              to: unreasoning fury he provokes\n\n  pg 335 Changed: we read in the old cannon\n              to: we read in the old canon\n\n  pg 347 Changed: devised the Copernician system\n              to: devised the Copernican system","title":"Woman : $b a vindication","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":133004}