diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51877-0.txt | 4228 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51877-0.zip | bin | 97222 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51877-h.zip | bin | 166101 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51877-h/51877-h.htm | 4659 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51877-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 60201 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51877-h/images/titlepageillo.png | bin | 1297 -> 0 bytes |
9 files changed, 17 insertions, 8887 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fd26a92 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #51877 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51877) diff --git a/old/51877-0.txt b/old/51877-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2d8af11..0000000 --- a/old/51877-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4228 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Fraud of Feminism, by Ernest Belfort Bax - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The Fraud of Feminism - - -Author: Ernest Belfort Bax - - - -Release Date: April 27, 2016 [eBook #51877] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FRAUD OF FEMINISM*** - - -E-text prepared by deaurider, Lisa Reigel, and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made -available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/fraudoffeminism00baxerich - - -Transcriber’s note: - - A row of asterisks represents a thought break. - - - - - -THE FRAUD OF FEMINISM - -by - -E. BELFORT BAX - -Author of -“Marat: the People’S Friend,” “Problems of -Man, Mind And Morals,” etc. - - - - - - - -[Illustration] - -London -Grant Richards Ltd. -MDCCCCXIII - -Printed by the Riverside Press Limited -Edinburgh - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - PREFACE 1 - - INTRODUCTION 5 - - CHAPTER - I. HISTORICAL 11 - - II. THE MAIN DOGMA OF MODERN FEMINISM 20 - - III. THE ANTI-MAN CRUSADE 51 - - IV. ALWAYS THE “INJURED INNOCENT” 80 - - V. THE “CHIVALRY” FAKE 98 - - VI. SOME FEMINIST LIES AND FALLACIES 109 - - VII. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MOVEMENT 140 - - VIII. THE INDICTMENT 161 - - - - -_PREFACE_ - - -_The present volume aims at furnishing a succinct exposure of the -pretensions of the Modern Feminist Movement. It aims at presenting -the case against it with an especial view to tracking down and -gibbetting the infamous falsehoods, the conventional statements, which -are not merely perversions of the truth, but which are directly and -categorically contrary to the truth, but which pass muster by sheer -force of uncontradicted repetition. It is by this kind of bluff that -the claims of Feminism are sustained. The following is a fair example -of the statements of Feminist writers:—“As for accusing the world at -large of fatuous indulgence for womanhood in general, the idea is too -preposterous for words. The true ‘legends of the Old Bailey’ tell, not -of women absurdly acquitted, but of miserable girls sent to the gallows -for murders committed in half delirious dread of the ruthlessness of -hypocritical Society.” Now it is this sort of legend that it is one -of the chief objects of the following pages to explode. Of course the -“fatuous indulgence” for “womanhood in general,” practised by the -“world at large,” is precisely one of the most conspicuous features -of our time, and the person who denies it, if he is not deliberately -prevaricating, must be a veritable Rip van Winkle awakening out of a -sleep lasting at least two generations. Similarly the story of the -“miserable girls sent to the gallows,” etc., is, as far as living -memory is concerned, a pure legend. It is well known that in the cases -referred to of the murder of their new-born children by girls, at the -very outside a year or two’s light imprisonment is the only penalty -actually inflicted. The acquittal of women on the most serious charges, -especially where the victims are men, in the teeth of the strongest -evidence, is, on the other hand, an everyday occurrence. Now it is -statements like the above on which, as already said, the Feminist -Movement thrives; its most powerful argumentative weapon with the man -in the street is the legend that woman is oppressed by man. It is -rarely that anyone takes the trouble to refute the legend in general, -or any specific case adduced as an illustration of it. When, however, -the bluff is exposed, when the real facts of the case are laid bare to -public notice, and woman is shown, not only as not oppressed but as -privileged, up to the top of her bent, then the apostles of Feminism, -male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in -reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and, by ignoring what -they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so -dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors -by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known._ - -_For the rest, it must not be supposed that this little book makes any -claim to exhaust the subject or to be a scientific treatise. It is, and -is meant to be, a popular refutation of the current arguments in favour -of Feminism, and a brief statement of the case against Feminism. Sir -Almroth Wright’s short treatise, “The Unexpurgated Case against Woman’s -Suffrage,” which deals with the question from a somewhat different -standpoint, may be consulted with advantage by the reader._ - -_An acknowledgment should be made to the editor of _The New Age_ for -the plucky stand made by that journal in the attempt to dam the onrush -of sentimental slush set free by the self-constituted champions of -womanhood. I have also to thank two eminent medical authorities for -reading the proofs of my second chapter._ - - - - -INTRODUCTION - - -In the following pages it is not intended to furnish a treatise on the -evolution of woman generally or of her place in society, but simply to -offer a criticism on the theory and practice of what is known as Modern -Feminism. - -By Modern Feminism I understand a certain attitude of mind towards -the female sex. This attitude of mind is often self-contradictory and -illogical. While on the one hand it will claim, on the ground of the -intellectual and moral equality of women with men, the concession of -female suffrage, and commonly, in addition thereto, the admission of -women to all professions, offices and functions of public life; on the -other it will strenuously champion the preservation and intensification -of the privileges and immunities before the law, criminal and civil, in -favour of women, which have grown up in the course of the nineteenth -century. - -The above attitude, with all its inconsistencies, has at its back a -strong sex-conscious party, or sex union, as we may term it, among -women, and a floating mass of inconsequent, slushy sentiment among -men. There is more than one popular prejudice which obscures the -meaning and significance of Modern Feminism with many people. There -is a common theory, for instance, based upon what really obtained to -some extent before the prevalence of Modern Feminism, that in any case -of antagonism between the two sexes, women always take the man’s side -against the woman. Now this theory, if it ever represented the true -state of the case, has long ceased to do so. - -The powerful female sex union spoken of, in the present day, exercises -such a strong pressure in the formation of public opinion among -women, that it is rapidly becoming next to impossible, even in the -most flagrant cases, where man is the victim, to get any woman to -acknowledge that another woman has committed a wrong. On the other -hand it may be noted, that the entire absence of any consciousness of -sex antagonism in the attitude of men towards women, combined with -an intensification of the old-world chivalry prescribed by tradition -towards the so-called weaker sex, exercises, if anything, an increasing -sway over male public opinion. Hence the terrific force Feminism has -obtained in the world of the early twentieth century. - -It is again often supposed, and this is also a mistake, that in -individual cases of dispute between the sexes, the verdict, let -us say of a jury of men, in favour of the female prisoner or the -female litigant is solely or even mainly determined by the fact of -the latter’s good looks. This may indeed play a part; but it is easy -to show from records of cases that it is a subordinate one—that, -whatever her looks or her age may be, the verdict is given her not so -much because she is a _pretty_ woman as because she is a _woman_. Here -again the question of attractiveness may have played a more potent part -in determining male verdicts in the days before Feminist sentiment -and Feminist views had reached their present dominance. But now the -question of sex alone, of being a woman, is sufficient to determine -judgment in her favour. - -There is a trick with which votaries of Feminism seek to prejudice the -public mind against its critics, and that is the “fake” that any man -who ventures to criticise the pretensions of Feminism, is actuated by -motives of personal rancour against the female sex, owing to real or -imaginary wrongs suffered by him at the hands of some member or members -of the sex. I suppose it may be possible that there are persons, not -precisely microcephalous idiots, who could be made to believe such -stuff as this in disparagement of him who ventures an independent -judgment on these questions; otherwise the conduct of Feminists in -adopting this line of argument would be incomprehensible. But we -would fain believe that the number of these feeble-minded persons, -who believe there is any connection between a man having independent -judgment enough to refuse to bend the knee to Modern Feminist dogma, -and his having quarrelled with any or all of his female friends or -relations, cannot be very numerous. As a matter of fact there is not -one single prominent exponent of views hostile to the pretensions of -what is called the “Woman’s Movement” of the present day, respecting -whom there is a tittle of evidence of his not having lived all his life -on the best of terms with his womankind. There is only one case known -of indirectly by the present writer, and that not of a prominent writer -or speaker on the subject, that would afford any plausible excuse -whatever for alleging anti-Feminist views to have been influenced by -personal motives of this kind. I am aware, of course, that Feminists, -with their usual mendacity, have made lying statements to this effect -respecting well-nigh every prominent writer on the anti-Feminist side, -in the hope of influencing the aforesaid feeble-minded members of -the public against their opponents. But a very little investigation -suffices to show in every case the impudent baselessness of their -allegations. The contemptible silliness of this method of controversy -should render it unworthy of serious remark, and my only excuse -for alluding to it is the significant sidelight it casts upon the -intellectual calibre of those who resort to it, and of the confidence -or want of confidence they have in the inherent justice of their cause -and the logical strength of their case. - - - - -CHAPTER I - -HISTORICAL - - -The position of women in social life was for a long time a matter -of course. It did not arise as a question, because it was taken for -granted. The dominance of men seemed to derive so obviously from -natural causes, from the possession of faculties physical, moral and -intellectual, in men, which were wanting in women, that no one thought -of questioning the situation. At the same time, the inferiority of -woman was never conceived as so great as to diminish seriously, much -less to eliminate altogether, her responsibility for crimes she might -commit. There were cases, of course, such as that of offences committed -by women under coverture, in which a diminution of responsibility was -recognised and was given effect to in condonation of the offence and -in mitigation of the punishment. But there was no sentiment in general -in favour of a female more than of a male criminal. It entered into -the head of no one to weep tears of pity over the murderess of a lover -or husband rather than over the murderer of a sweetheart or wife. -Similarly, minor offenders, a female blackmailer, a female thief, a -female perpetrator of an assault, was not deemed less guilty or worthy -of more lenient treatment than a male offender in like cases. The law, -it was assumed, and the assumption was acted upon, was the same for -both sexes. The sexes were equal before the law. The laws were harsher -in some respects than now, although not perhaps in all. But there was -no special line of demarcation as regards the punishment of offences -as between men and women. The penalty ordained by the law for crime or -misdemeanour was the same for both and in general applied equally to -both. Likewise in civil suits, proceedings were not specially weighted -against the man and in favour of the woman. There was, as a general -rule, no very noticeable sex partiality in the administration of the -law. - -This state of affairs continued in England till well into the -nineteenth century. Thenceforward a change began to take place. Modern -Feminism rose slowly above the horizon. Modern Feminism has two -distinct sides to it: (1) an articulate political and economic side -embracing demands for so-called rights; and (2) a sentimental side -which insists in an accentuation of the privileges and immunities which -have grown up, not articulately or as the result of definite demands, -but as the consequence of sentimental pleading in particular cases. -In this way, however, a public opinion became established, finding -expression in a sex favouritism in the law and even still more in its -administration, in favour of women as against men. - -These two sides of Modern Feminism are not necessarily combined in the -same person. One may, for example, find opponents of female suffrage -who are strong advocates of sentimental favouritism towards women -in matters of law and its administration. On the other hand you may -find, though this is more rare, strong advocates of political and -other rights for the female sex, who sincerely deprecate the present -inequality of the law in favour of women. As a rule, however, the -two sides go together, the vast bulk of the advocates of “Women’s -Rights” being equally keen on the retention and extension of women’s -privileges. Indeed, it would seem as though the main object of the bulk -of the advocates of the “Woman’s Movement” was to convert the female -sex into the position of a dominant _sexe noblesse_. The two sides -of Feminism have advanced hand in hand for the last two generations, -though it was the purely sentimental side that first appeared as a -factor in public opinion. - -The attempt to paint women in a different light to the traditional -one of physical, intellectual and moral inferiority to men, probably -received its first literary expression in a treatise published in -1532 by Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim entitled _De Nobilitate et -Praecellentia Feminei Sexus_ and dedicated to Margaret, Regent of -the Netherlands, whose favour Agrippa was at that time desirous of -courting. The ancient world has nothing to offer in the shape of -literary forerunners of Modern Feminism, although that industrious -collector of historical odds and ends, Valerius Maximus, relates -the story of one Afrania who, with some of her friends, created -disturbances in the Law Courts of ancient Rome in her attempt to make -women’s voices heard before the tribunals. As regards more recent -ages, after Agrippa, we have to wait till the early years of the -eighteenth century for another instance of Feminism before its time, -in an essay on the subject of woman by Daniel Defoe. But it was not -till the closing years of the eighteenth century that any considerable -expression of opinion in favour of changing the relative positions of -the sexes, by upsetting the view of their respective values, founded on -the general experience of mankind, made itself noticeable. - -The names of Mary Wollstonecraft in English literature and of Condorcet -in French, will hardly fail to occur to the reader in this connection. -During the French Revolution the crazy Olympe de Gouges achieved -ephemeral notoriety by her claim for the intellectual equality of women -with men. - -Up to this time (the close of the eighteenth century) no advance -whatever had been made by legislation in recognising the modern theory -of sex equality. The claims of women and their apologists for entering -upon the functions of men, political, social or otherwise, although -put forward from time to time by isolated individuals, received little -countenance from public opinion, and still less from the law. What -I have called, however, the sentimental aspect of Modern Feminism -undoubtedly did make some headway in public opinion by the end of -the eighteenth century, and grew in volume during the early years -of the nineteenth century. It effectuated in the Act passed in 1820 -by the English Parliament abolishing the punishment of flogging for -female criminals. This was the first beginning of the differentiation -of the sexes in the matter of the criminal law. The parliamentary -debate on the Bill in question shows clearly enough the power that -Sentimental[15:1] Feminism had acquired in public opinion in the -course of a generation, for no proposal was made at the same time -to abolish the punishment of flogging so far as men were concerned. -Up to this time the criminal law of England, as of other countries, -made no distinction whatever between the sexes in the matter of crime -and punishment, or at least no distinction based on the principle or -sentiment of sex privilege. (A slight exception might be made, perhaps, -in the crime of “petty treason,” which distinguished the murder of a -husband by his wife from other cases of homicide.) But from this time -forward, legislation and administration have diverged farther and -farther from the principle of sex equality in this connection in favour -of female immunity, the result being that at the present day, assuming -the punishment meted out to the woman for a given crime to represent a -normal penalty, the man receives an additional increment over and above -that accorded to the crime, _for the offence of having been born a man -and not a woman_. - - [15:1] I should explain that I attach a distinct meaning to - the word _sentimental_; as used by me it does not signify, - as it does with most people, an excess of sentiment over - and above what I feel myself, but a sentiment unequally - distributed. As used in this sense, the repulsion to the - flogging of women while no repulsion is felt to the flogging - of men is _sentimentalism_ pure and simple. On the other hand - the objection to flogging altogether as punishment for men - or women could not be described as sentimentalism, whatever - else it might be. In the same way the anti-vivisectionist’s - aversion to “physiological” experiments on animals, if confined - to household pets and not extended to other animals, might be - justly described as sentimentalism; but one who objected to - such experiments on all animals, no matter whether one agreed - with his point of view or not, could not be justly charged - with sentimentalism (or at least, not unless, while objecting - to vivisection, he or she were prepared to condone other acts - involving an equal amount of cruelty to animals). - -The Original Divorce Law of 1857 in its provisions respecting costs -and alimony, constitutes another landmark in the matter of female -privilege before the law. Other measures of unilateral sex legislation -followed in the years ensuing until the present state of things, by -which the whole power of the State is practically at the disposal of -woman to coerce and oppress men. But this side of the question we -propose to deal with later on. - -The present actual movement of Feminism in political and social life -may be deemed to have begun in the early sixties, in the agitation -which preceded the motion of John Stuart Mill in 1867, on the question -of conferring the parliamentary franchise upon women. This was -coincident with an agitation for the opening of various careers to -women, notably the medical faculty. We are speaking, of course, here -of Great Britain, which was first in the field in Europe, alike in the -theory and practice of Modern Feminism. But the publication by the -great protagonist of the movement, John Stuart Mill, of his book, “The -Subjection of Women,” in 1868, endowed the cause with a literary gospel -which was soon translated into the chief languages of the Continent, -and corresponding movements started in other countries. Strangely -enough, it made considerable headway in Russia, the awakening of Russia -to Western ideas having recently begun to make itself felt at the time -of which we are speaking. The movement henceforth took its place as -a permanent factor in the political and social life of this and other -countries. Bills for female suffrage were introduced every year into -the British House of Commons with, on the whole, yearly diminishing -majorities against these measures, till a few years back the scale -turned on the other side, and the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill passed -every year its second reading until 1912, when for the first time for -many years it was rejected by a small majority. Meanwhile both sides -of the Feminist movement, apart from the question of the franchise, -had been gaining in influence. Municipal franchise “on the same terms -as for men” had been conceded. Women have voted for and sat on School -Boards, Boards of Guardians, and other public bodies. Their claim to -exercise the medical profession has been not merely admitted in law but -recognised in public opinion for long past. All the advantages of an -academic career have been opened to them, with the solitary exception -of the actual conferment of degrees at Oxford and Cambridge. Such has -been the growth of the articulate and political side of the theory of -Modern Feminism. - -The sentimental side of Feminism, with its practical result of the -overweighting of justice in the interests of women in the courts, civil -as well as criminal, and their practical immunity from the operation -of the criminal law when in the dock, has advanced correspondingly; -while at the same time the sword of that same criminal law is sharpened -to a razor edge against the man even accused, let alone convicted, -of any offence against the sacrosanct majesty of “Womanhood.” Such -is the present position of the Woman question in this country, which -we take as typical, in the sense that in Great Britain, to which we -may also add the United States of America and the British Colonies, -where—if possible, the movement is stronger than in the mother country -itself—we see the logical outcome of Feminist theory and sentiment. -It remains to consider the existing facts more in detail, and the -psychological bearings of that large number of persons who have been -in the recent past, and are being at the present time, influenced to -accept the dogmas of Modern Feminism and the statements of alleged -facts made by its votaries. Before doing so it behoves us to examine -the credibility of the dogmas themselves, and the nature of the -arguments used to support them and also the accuracy of the alleged -facts employed by the Feminists to stimulate the indignation of the -popular mind against the pretended wrongs of women. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -THE MAIN DOGMA OF MODERN FEMINISM - - -We have pointed out in the last chapter that Modern Feminism has two -sides, the positive, definite, and articulate side, which ostensibly -claims equality between the sexes, the chief concern of which is -the conferring of all the rights and duties of men upon women, and -the opening up of all careers to them. The justification of these -demands is based upon the dogma, that, notwithstanding appearances -to the contrary, women are endowed by nature with the same capacity -intellectually and morally as men. We have further pointed out that -there is another side in Modern Feminism which in a vague way claims -for women immunity from criminal law and special privileges on the -ground of sex in civil law. The basis of this side of Feminism is a -sentimentalism—_i.e._ an unequally distributed sentiment in favour -of women, traditional and acquired. It is seldom even attempted to -base this sentimental claim for women on argument at all. The utmost -attempts in this direction amount to vague references to physical -weakness, and to the claim for special consideration deriving from -the old theory of the mental and moral weakness of the female sex, so -strenuously combated as out of date, when the first side of Modern -Feminism is being contended for. The more or less inchoate assumptions -of the second or sentimental side of the modern “Woman’s Movement” -amounts practically, as already stated, to a claim for women to be -allowed to commit crimes without incurring the penalties imposed by the -law for similar crimes when committed by men. It should be noted that -in practice the most strenuous advocates of the positive and articulate -side of Feminism are also the sincerest upholders of the unsubstantial -and inarticulate assumptions of the sentimental side of the same creed. -This is noticeable whenever a woman is found guilty of a particularly -atrocious crime. It is somewhat rare for women to be convicted of -such crimes at all, since the influence of sentimental Feminism with -judges and juries is sufficient to procure an acquittal, no matter how -conclusive the evidence to the contrary. Even if women are found guilty -it is usual for a virtually nominal sentence to be passed. Should, -however, a woman by any chance be convicted of a heinous crime, such -as murder or maiming, under specially aggravated circumstances, and a -sentence be passed such as would be unanimously sanctioned by public -opinion in the case of a man, then we find the whole Feminist world -up in arms. The outcry is led by self-styled upholders of equality -between the sexes, the apostles of the positive side of Feminism, who -_bien entendu_ claim the eradication of sex boundaries in political -and social life on the ground of women being of equal capacity with -men, but who, when moral responsibility is in question, conveniently -fall back on a sentiment, the only conceivable ground for which is to -be found in the time-honoured theory of the mental and moral weakness -of the female sex. As illustrations of the truth of the foregoing, the -reader may be referred to the cases of Florence Doughty in 1906, who -shot at and wounded a solicitor with whom she had relations, together -with his son; to Daisy Lord in 1908, for the murder of her new-born -child; to the case of the Italian murderess, Napolitano in Canada, -convicted of the cold-blooded butchery of her husband in his sleep -in 1911, for whose reprieve a successful agitation was got up by the -suffrage societies! - -Let us first of all consider the dogma at the basis of the positive -side of Modern Feminism, which claims rational grounds of fact and -reason for itself, and professes to be able to make good its case -by virtue of such grounds. This dogma consists in the assertion of -equality in intellectual capacity, in spite of appearances to the -contrary, of women with men. I think it will be admitted that the -articulate objects of Modern Feminism, taking them one with another, -rest on this dogma, and on this dogma alone. I know it has been argued -as regards the question of suffrage, that the demand does not rest -solely upon the admission of equality of capacity, since men of a -notoriously inferior mental order are not excluded from voting upon -that ground, but the fallacy of this last argument is obvious. In -all these matters we have to deal with averages. Public opinion has -hitherto recognised the average of women as being intellectually below -the voting standard, and the average man as not. This, if admitted, -is enough to establish the anti-suffrage thesis. The latter is not -affected by the fact that it is possible to find certain individual men -of inferior intelligence and therefore less intrinsically qualified -to form a political judgment than certain specially gifted women. -The pretended absurdity of “George Eliot having no vote, and of her -gardener having one” is really no absurdity at all. In the first place, -given the economic advantages which conferred education upon the -novelist, and not upon the gardener, there is not sufficient evidence -available that his judgment in public affairs might not have been even -superior to that of George Eliot herself. Moreover, the possession -of exceptionally strong imaginative faculty, expressing itself as -literary genius or talent in works of fiction, does not necessarily -imply exceptional power of political judgment. But, be this as it may, -where averages are in question, exceptions obviously do not count. - -The underlying assumption of the suffrage movement may therefore be -taken to be the average equality of the sexes as regards intellectual -value.[24:1] - - [24:1] I believe there are some Feminist fanatics who pretend - to maintain the superiority of the female mind, but I doubt - whether this thesis is taken seriously even by those who put it - forward. In any case there are limits to the patent absurditie - which it is worth while to refute by argument. - -An initial difficulty exists in proving theoretically the intellectual -inferiority of women to men, or even their relative unsuitability for -fulfilling functions involving a special order of judgment. There are -such things as matters of fact which are open to common observation -and which none think of denying or calling in question unless they -have some special reason for doing so. Now it is always possible to -deny a fact, however evident it may be to ordinary perception, and it -is equally impossible to prove that the person calling in question -the aforesaid evident fact is either lying (or shall we say is -“prevaricating”), or even that he is a person hopelessly abnormal in -his organs of sense-perception. - -At the time of writing, the normal person who has no axe to grind in -maintaining the contrary, declares the sun to be shining brightly, -but should it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this obvious fact, -and declare that the day is gloomy and overcast, there is no power of -argument by which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. I may -point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm that he doesn’t see it I -can’t prove that he does. This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely -likely to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar to those -cases of persons (and they are not seldom met with) who, when they -find facts hopelessly destructive of a certain theoretical position -adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot of controversy in -their own favour by boldly denying the inconvenient facts. One often -has experience of this trick of controversy in discussing the question -of the notorious characteristics of the female sex. The Feminist driven -into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters -open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not -Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to -the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, -or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty -in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of -things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a -consequence of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair -play among women in general. The aforesaid peculiarities of women, -as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only -disputed by those persons—to wit Feminists—to whose theoretical -views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if -not fatal. Of course these characterisations refer to averages, and -they do not exclude partial or even occasionally striking exceptions. -It is possible, therefore, although perhaps not very probable, that -individual experience may in the case of certain individuals play a -part in falsifying their general outlook; it is possible—although, -as I before said not perhaps very probable—that any given man’s -experience of the other sex has been limited to a few quite exceptional -women and that hence his particular experience contradicts that of -the general run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal to -admit what to others are self-evident facts would be perfectly _bona -fide_. The above highly improbable contingency is the only refuge for -those who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist’s denials. In -this matter I only deal with the male Feminist. The female Feminist is -usually too biassed a witness in this particular question. - -Now let us consider the whole of the differentiations of the -mental character between man and woman in the light of a further -generalisation which is sufficiently obvious in itself and which has -been formulated with special clearness by the late Otto Weininger in -his remarkable book, “Geschlecht und Charakter” (Sex and Character). I -refer to the observations contained in Section II., Chaps. 2 and 3. The -point has been, of course, previously noted, and the present writer, -among others, has on various occasions called special attention to it. -But its formulation and elaboration by Weininger is the most complete -I know. The truth in question consists in the fact, undeniable to all -those not rendered impervious to facts by preconceived dogma, that, -as I have elsewhere put it, while man _has_ a sex, woman _is_ a sex. -Let us hear Weininger on this point. “Woman is _only_ sexual, man is -_also_ sexual. Alike in time and space this difference may be traced -in man, parts of his body susceptible to sexual excitement are small -in number and strictly localised. In woman sexuality is diffused over -the whole body, every contact on whatever part excites her sexually.” -Weininger points out that while the sexual element in man, owing to -the physiological character of the sexual organs, may be at times more -violent than that in woman, yet that it is spasmodic and occurs in -crises separated by intervals of quiescence. In woman, on the other -hand, while less spasmodic, it is continuous. The sexual instinct with -man being, as he styles it, “an appendix” and no more, he can raise -himself mentally entirely outside of it. “He is conscious of it as -of something which he possesses but which is not inseparate from the -rest of his nature. He can view it objectively. With woman this is -not the case; the sex element is part of her whole nature. Hence, it -is not as with man, clearly recognisable in local manifestations, but -subtly affects the whole life of the organism. For this reason the -man is conscious of the sexual element within him as such, whereas -the woman is unconscious of it as such. It is not for nothing that -in common parlance woman is spoken of as ‘the sex.’ In this sexual -differentiation of the whole life-nature of woman from man, deducible -as it is from physiological and anatomical distinctions, lies the -ground of those differentiations of function which culminate in the -fact that while mankind in its intellectual, moral and technical -development is represented in the main by Man, Woman has continued -to find her chief function in the direct procreation of the race.” -A variety of causes, notably modern economic development, in their -effect on family life, also the illegitimate application of the modern -democratic notion of the equality of classes and races, to that of sex, -has contributed to the modern revolt against natural sex limitations. - -Assuming the substantial accuracy of the above statement of fact, the -absurdity and cheapness of the clap-trap of the modern “social purity” -monger, as to having one and the same sexual morality for both sexes -will be readily seen. The recognition of the necessity of admitting -greater latitude in this respect to men than to women is based clearly -on physiology and common-sense. With men sexual instinct manifests -itself locally, and at intervals its satisfaction is an urgent and -pressing need. With woman this is not so. Hence the recognised -distinction between the sexes in this respect is, as far as it goes, -a thoroughly sound one. Not that I am championing the severity of -the restrictions of the current sexual code as regards women. On the -contrary, I think it ought to be and will be, in a reasonable society -of the future, considerably relaxed. I am only pointing out that the -urgency is not so great in the one case as in the other. And this fact -it is which has led to the toleration of a stringency, originally -arising mainly from economic causes (questions of inheritance and -the like), in the case of women, which would not have been tolerated -in that of men, even had similar reasons for its adoption in their -case obtained. Any successful attempt of social purity mongers to run -counter to physiology in enforcing either by legislation or public -opinion the same stringency on men in this respect as on women could -but have the most disastrous consequences to the health and well-being -of the community. - -It was a saying of the late Dr Henry Maudsley: “_Sex lies deeper than -culture_.” By this we may understand to be meant that sex differences -are organic. All authorities on the physiological question are agreed -that woman is less well-organised, less well-developed, than man. Dr -de Varigny asserts that this fact is traceable throughout the whole -female organism, throughout all its tissues, and all its functions. For -instance, the stature of the human female is less than that of the man -in all races. As regards weight there is a corresponding difference. -The adult woman weighs, on the average, rather more than 11 lbs. less -than the man; moreover as a rule a woman completes her growth some -years earlier than a man. The bones are lighter in the woman than -in the man; not absolutely but in proportion to the weight of the -body. They are, it is stated, not merely thinner but more fragile. -The difference may be traced even to their chemical composition. The -whole muscular development is inferior in woman to that in man by -about one-third. The heart in woman is smaller and lighter than in -man—being about 10½ oz. in man as against slightly over 8 oz. in -woman. In the woman the respiratory organs show less chest and lung -capacity. Again, the blood contains a considerably less proportion of -red to white corpuscles. Finally, we come to the question of the size -and constitution of the brain. (It should be observed that all these -distinctions of sex show themselves more or less from birth onwards.) - -Specialists are agreed that at all ages the size of the brain of woman -is less than that of man. The difference in relative size is greater in -proportion according to the degree of civilisation. This is noteworthy, -as it would seem as though the brain of man grew with the progress of -civilisation, whereas that of woman remains nearly stationary. The -average proportion as regards size of skull between the woman and man -of to-day is as 85 to 100. The weight of brain in woman varies from -38½ oz. to 45½ oz.; in man, from 42 oz. to 49 oz. This represents the -absolute difference in weight, but, according to Dr de Varigny, the -relative weight—_i.e._ the weight in proportion to that of the whole -body—is even more striking in its indication of inferiority. The -weight of the brain in woman is but one-forty-fourth of the weight of -the body, while in man it is one-fortieth. This difference accentuates -itself with age. It is only 7 per cent. in favour of man between twenty -and thirty years; it is 11 per cent. between thirty and forty years. -As regards the substance of the brain itself and its convolutions, -the enormous majority of physiologists are practically unanimous -in declaring that the female brain is simpler and smoother, its -convolutions fewer and more superficial than those of the male brain, -that the frontal lobes, generally associated with the intellectual -faculties, are less developed than the occipital lobes, which are -universally connected with the lower psychological functions. The grey -substance is poorer and less abundant in woman than in man, while -the blood vessels of the occipital region are correspondingly fuller -than those supplying the frontal lobes. In man the case is exactly -the reverse. It cannot be denied by any sane person familiar with -the barest elements of physiology that the whole female organism is -subservient to the functions of child-bearing and lactation, which -explains the inferior development of those organs and faculties which -are not specially connected with this supreme end of Woman. - -It is the fashion of Feminists, ignoring these fundamental -physiological sex differences, to affirm that the actual inferiority -of women, where they have the honesty to admit such an obvious fact, -is accountable by the centuries of oppression in which Woman has been -held by wicked and evil-minded Man. The absurdity of this contention -has been more than once pointed out. Assuming its foundation in fact, -what does it imply? Clearly that the girls inherit only through their -mothers and boys only through their fathers, an hypothesis plainly at -variance with the known facts of heredity. Yet those who maintain that -distinction of intelligence, etc., between the sexes are traceable to -external conditions affecting one sex only and inherited through that -sex alone, cannot evade the above assumption. Those, therefore, who -regard it as an article of their faith that Woman would show herself -not inferior in mental power to man, if only she had the chance of -exercising that power, must find a surer foundation for their opinion -than this theory of the centuries of oppression, under which, as they -allege, the female sex has laboured. - -We now come to the important question of morbid and pathological -mental conditions to which the female sex is liable and which are -usually connected with those constitutional disturbances of the -nervous system which pass under the name of _hysteria_. The word -is, as everyone knows, derived from _hystera_—_the womb_, and was -uniformly regarded by the ancients as directly due to disease of the -_uterus_, this view maintaining itself in modern medicine up till -well-nigh the middle of the nineteenth century. Thus Dr J. Mason Good -(in his “Study of Medicine,” 1822, vol. iii., p. 528, an important -medical text-book during the earlier half of the nineteenth century) -says: “With a morbid condition of this organ, hysteria is in many -instances very closely connected, though it is going too far to say -that it is always dependent upon such condition, for we meet with -instances, occasionally, in which no possible connexion can be traced -between the disease and the organ,” etc. This is perhaps the first -appearance, certainly in English medicine, of doubts being thrown on -the uterine origin of the various symptoms grouped under the general -term, _hysteria_. Towards the latter part of the nineteenth century -the prevalent view tended more and more to dissociate hysteria from -uterine trouble. Lately, however, some eminent pathologists have shown -a tendency to qualify the terms of the latter view. Thus Dr Thomas -Stevenson in 1902 admits that “it [hysteria] frequently accompanies -a morbid state of the uterus,” especially where inflammation and -congestion are present, and it is not an uncommon thing for surgeons at -the present time to remove the ovaries in obstinate cases of hysteria. -On the other hand Dr Thomas Buzzard, in an article on the subject in -Quain’s _Dictionary of Medicine_, 1902, states that hysteria is only -exceptionally found in women suffering from diseases of the genital -organs, and its relation to uterine and ovarian disturbances is -probably neither more nor less than that which pertains to the other -affections of the nervous system which may occur without any obvious -material cause. Dr Thomas Luff (“Text-Book on Forensic Medicine,” -1895) shows that the derangements of the reproductive functions are -undoubtedly the cause of various attacks of insanity in the female. -Dr Savage, in his book “On Neuroses,” says that acute mania in women -occurs most frequently at the period of adult and mature life, and -may occasionally take place at either extreme age. Acute mania -sometimes occurs at the suppression of the _menses_. The same is true -of melancholia and other pathological mental symptoms. Dr Luff states -that acute mania may replace hysteria; that this happens at periods -such as puberty, change of life and menstruation. These patients in the -intervals of their attacks are often morbidly irritable or excitable, -but as time goes on their energies become diminished and their emotions -blunted (“Forensic Medicine,” ii. 307). Such patients are often seized -with a desire to commit violence; they are often very mischievous, -tearing up clothes, breaking windows, etc. In this mental disorder -the patient is driven by a morbid and uncontrollable impulse to such -acts. It is not accompanied by delusions, and frequently no change -will have been noticed in the individual prior to the commission of -the act, and consequently, says Dr Luff, “there is much difference -of opinion as to the responsibility of the individual” (ii. 297). -Among the acts spoken of Dr Luff mentions a propensity to set fire -to furniture, houses, etc. All this, though written in 1895, might -serve as a commentary on the Suffragette agitation of recent years. -The renowned French professor, Dr Paul Janet (“Les Hysteriques,” 1894) -thus defined hysteria: “Hysteria is a mental affection belonging to -the large group of diseases due to cerebral weakness and debility. -Its physical symptoms are somewhat indefinite, consisting chiefly -in a general diminution of nutrition. It is largely characterised -by moral symptoms, chief of which is an impairment of the faculty -of psychological synthesis, an abolition and a contraction of the -field of consciousness. This manifests itself in a peculiar manner -and by a certain number of elementary phenomena. Thus sensations and -images are no longer perceived, and appear to be blotted out from the -individual perception, a tendency which results in their persistent -and complete separation from the personality in some cases and in the -formation of many independent groups. This series of psychological -facts alternate the one with the other or co-exist. Finally this -synthetic defect favours the formation of certain independent ideas, -which develop complete in themselves, and unattached from the control -of the consciousness of the personality. These ideas show themselves -in affections possessing very various and unique characteristics.” -According to Mr A. S. Millar, F.R.C.S.E. (_Encyclopædia Medica_, vol. -v.), “Hysteria is that . . . condition in which there is imagination, -imitation, or exaggeration. . . . It occurs mostly in females and -persons of nervous temperament, and is due to some nervous derangement, -which may or may not be pathological.” Sir James Paget (“Clinical -Lectures on Mimicry”) says also that hysterical patients are mostly -females of nervous temperament. “They think of themselves constantly, -are fond of telling everyone of their troubles and thus court sympathy, -for which they have a morbid craving. Will power is deficient in one -direction, though some have it very strongly where their interests are -concerned.” He thinks the term “hysteria” in the sense now employed -incorrect, and would substitute “mimicry.” “The will should be -controlled by the intellect,” observes Dr G. F. Still of King’s College -Hospital, “rather than by the emotions and the lack of this control -appears to be at the root of some, at least, of the manifestations of -hysteria.” - -Dr Thomas Buzzard, above mentioned, thus summarises the mental -symptoms: “The intelligence may be apparently of good quality, the -patient evincing sometimes remarkable quickness of apprehension; but -carefully tested it is found to be wanting in the essentials of the -highest class of mental power. The memory may be good, but the judgment -is weak and the ability to concentrate the attention for any length -of time upon a subject is absent. So also regard for accuracy, and -the energy necessary to ensure it in any work that is undertaken, is -deficient. The emotions are excited with undue readiness and when -aroused are incapable of control. Tears are occasioned not only by -pathetic ideas but by ridiculous subjects and peals of laughter may -incongruously greet some tragic announcement, or the converse may -take place. The ordinary signs of emotion may be absent and replaced -by an attack of syncope, convulsion, pain or paralysis. Perhaps more -constant than any other phenomenon in hysteria is a pronounced desire -for the sympathy and interest of others. This is evidently only one of -the most characteristic qualities of femininity, uncontrolled by the -action of the higher nervous centres which in a healthy state keep it -in subjection. There is very frequently not only a deficient regard -for truthfulness, but a proneness to active deception and dishonesty. -So common is this, that the various phases of hysteria are often -assumed to be simple examples of voluntary simulation and the title of -disease refused to the condition. But it seems more reasonable to refer -the symptoms to impairment of the highly complex nervous processes -which form the physiological side of the moral faculties” (Quain’s -_Dictionary of Medicine_, 1902). - -“It is not uncommon to find hysteria in females accompanied by an -utter indifference and insensibility to sexual relations. Premature -cessation of ovulation is a frequent determining cause. In cases where -the ovaries are absent the change from girl to woman, which normally -takes place at puberty, does not occur. The girl grows but does not -develop, a masculine appearance supervenes, the voice becomes manly -and harsh, sexual passion is absent, the health remains good. The most -violent instances of hysteria are in young women of the most robust and -masculine constitution” (John Mason Good, M.D., “Study of Medicine,” -1822). Other determining causes are given, as painful impressions, -long fasting, strong emotions, imitation, luxury, ill-directed -education and unhappy surroundings, celibacy, where not of choice -but enforced by circumstances, unfortunate marriages, long-continued -trouble, fright, worry, overwork, disappointment and such like nervous -perturbations, all which causes predispose to hysteria. “It attacks -childless women more frequently than mothers and particularly young -widows,” and, says Dr J. Mason Good, “more especially still those who -are constitutionally inclined to that morbid salacity which has often -been called nymphomania . . . the surest remedy is a happy marriage” -(“Study of Medicine,” 1822, iii. 531). Hysteria is, in common with -other nervous disorders, essentially a hereditary malady, and Briquet -(“Traité de l’hysterie,” 1899) gives statistics to show that in nine -cases out of ten hysterical parents have hysterical children. Dr Paul -Sainton of the Faculty of Medicine, Paris, says: “The appearance of -a symptom of hysteria generally proves that the malady has already -existed for some time though latent. The name of a provocative agent of -hysteria is given to any circumstance which suddenly reveals the malady -but the real cause of the disorder is a hereditary disposition. If the -real cause is unique, the provocative agents are numberless. The moral -emotions, grief, fright, anger and other psychic disturbances are the -most frequent causes of hysterical affections and in every walk of life -subjects are equally liable to attacks.” - -Hysteria may appear at any age. It is common with children, especially -during the five or six years preceding puberty. Of thirty-three cases -under twelve years which came under Dr Still’s notice, twenty-three -were in children over eight years. Hysteria in women is most frequent -between the ages of fifteen and thirty, and most frequently of all -between fifteen and twenty. As a rule there is a tendency to cessation -after the “change.” It frequently happens, however, that the disease is -continued into an advanced period of life. - -“There is a constant change,” says Professor Albert Moll (“Das nervöse -Weib,” p. 165), “from a cheerful to a depressed mood. From being free -and merry the woman in a short time becomes sulky and sad. While a -moment before she was capable of entertaining a whole company without -pause, talking to each member about that which interested him, shortly -afterwards she does not speak a word more. I may mention the well-worn -example of the refusal of a new hat as being capable of converting -the most lively mood into its opposite. The weakness of will shows -itself here in that the nervous woman [by “nervous” Dr Moll means -what is commonly termed “hysterical”] cannot, like the normal one, -command the expression of her emotions. She can laugh uninterruptedly -over the most indifferent matter until she falls into veritable -laughing fits. The crying fits which we sometimes observe belong to -the same category. When the nervous woman is excited about anything -she exhibits outbreaks of fury wanting all the characteristics of -womanhood, and she is not able to prevent these emotional outbursts. -In the same way just as the emotions weaken the will and the woman -cannot suppress this or that action, it is noticeable in many nervous -women that quite independently of these emotions there is a tendency -to continuous alterations in their way of acting. It has been noticed -as characteristic of many nervous persons that their only consistency -lies in their inconsistency. But this must in no way be applied to all -nervous persons. On this disposition, discoverable in the nature of -so many nervous women, rests the craving for change as manifested in -the continual search for new pleasures, theatres, concerts, parties, -tours, and other things (p. 147). Things that to the normal woman are -indifferent or to which she has, in a sense, accustomed herself, are -to the nervous woman a source of constant worry. Although she may -perfectly well know that the circumstances of herself and her husband -are the most brilliant and that it is unnecessary for her to trouble -herself in the least about her material position as regards the future, -nevertheless the idea of financial ruin constantly troubles her. Thus -if she is a millionaire’s wife she never escapes from constant worry. -Similarly the nervous woman creates troubles out of things that are -unavoidable. If in the course of years she gets more wrinkles, and -her attraction for man diminishes, this may easily become a source of -lasting sorrow for the nervous woman.” - -We now have to consider a point which is being continually urged by -Feminists in the present day when confronted with the pathological -mental symptoms so commonly observed in women which are usually -regarded as having their origin in hysteria. We often hear it said by -Feminists in answer to arguments based on the above fact: “Oh, but -men can also suffer from hysteria!” “In England,” says Dr Buzzard, -“hysteria is comparatively rarely met with in males, the female sex -being much more prone to the affection.” The proportion of males -to females in hysteria is, according to Dr Pitrè (“Clinical Essay -on Hysteria,” 1891), 1 to 3; according to Bodensheim, 1 to 10; and -according to Briquet, 1 to 20. The author of the article on Hysteria in -_The Encyclopædia Britannica_ (11th edition, 1911) also gives 1 to 20 -as the numerical proportion between male and female cases. Dr Pitrè, -in the work above cited, gives 82 per cent. of cases of convulsions in -women as against 22 in men. But in all this, under the concept hysteria -are included, and indeed chiefly referred to, various physical symptoms -of a convulsive and epileptic character which are quite distinct from -the mental conditions rightly or wrongly connected, or even identified, -with hysteria in the popular mind, and by many medical authorities. -But even as regards hysteria in the former sense of the word, a sharp -line of distinction based on a diagnosis of cases was long ago drawn -by medical men between _hysteria masculina_ and _hysteria fœminina_, -and in the present day eminent authorities—_e.g._ Dr Bernard -Holländer—would deny that the symptoms occasionally diagnosed as -hysteria in men are identical with or due to the same causes as the -somewhat similar conditions known in women under the name. - -After all, this whole question in its broader bearings is more a -question of common-sense observation than one for medical experts. - -What we are here chiefly concerned with as “hysteria” (in accordance -with popular usage of the term) are certain pathological mental -symptoms in women open to everybody’s observation, and denied by no one -unprejudiced by Feminist views. Every impartial person has only to cast -his eye round his female acquaintance, and to recall the various women, -of all classes, conditions and nationalities, that he may have come in -contact with in the course of his life, to recognise those symptoms -of mental instability commonly called hysterical, as obtaining in at -least a proportion of one to every four or five women he has known, in -a marked and unmistakable degree. The proportion given is, in fact, -stated in an official report to the Prussian Government issued some ten -years back as that noticeable among female clerks, post office servants -and other women employed in the Prussian Civil Service. Certainly as -regards women in general, the observation of the present writer, and -others whom he has questioned on the subject, would seem to indicate -that the proportions given in the Prussian Civil Service report as -regards the number of women afflicted in this way are rather under than -over stated.[44:1] There are many medical men who aver that no woman -is entirely free from such symptoms at least immediately before and -during the menstrual period. The head surgeon at a well-known London -hospital informed a friend of mine that he could always tell when this -period was on or approaching with his nurses, by the mental change -which came over them. - - [44:1] The insanities mentioned above are the extremes. There - are mental disturbances of less severity constantly occurring - which are connected with the regular menstrual period as - well as with disordered menstruation, with pregnancy, with - parturition, with lactation, and especially with the change of - life. - -Now these pathological symptoms noticeable in a slight and more or -less unimportant degree in the vast majority, if not indeed in all -women, and in a marked pathological degree in a large proportion of -women, it is scarcely too much to say do not occur at all in men. I -have indeed known, I think, two men, and only two, in the course of my -life, exhibiting mental symptoms analogous to those commonly called -“hysterical” in women. On the other hand my own experience, and it is -not alone, is that very few women with whom I have come into more or -less frequent contact, socially or otherwise, have not at times shown -the symptoms referred to in a marked degree. If, therefore, we are to -admit the bare possibility of men being afflicted in a similar way it -must be conceded that such cases represent such _raræ aves_ as to be -negligible for practical purposes. - -A curious thing in pronounced examples of this mental instability in -women is that the symptoms are often so very similar in women of quite -different birth, surroundings and nationality. I can recall at the -present moment three cases, each different as regards birth, class, and -in one case nationality, and yet who are liable to develop the same -symptoms under the influence of quite similar _idées fixes_. - -But it seems hardly necessary to labour the point in question at -greater length. The whole experience of mankind since the dawn of -written records confirmed by, as above said, that of every living -person not specially committed to the theories of Modern Feminism, -bears witness alike to the prevalence of what we may term the -hysterical mind in woman and to her general mental frailty. It is not -for nothing that women and children have always been classed together. -This view, based as it is on the unanimous experience of mankind and -confirmed by the observation of all independent persons, has, I repeat, -not been challenged before the appearance of the present Feminist -Movement and hardly by anyone outside the ranks of that movement. - - * * * * * - -It is not proposed here to dilate at length on the fact, often before -insisted upon, of the absence throughout history of the signs of -genius, and, with a few exceptions, of conspicuous talent, in the -human female, in art, science, literature, invention or “affairs.” -The fact is incontestable, and if it be argued that this absence in -women, of genius or even of a high degree of talent, is no proof of -the inferiority of the average woman to the average man the answer is -obvious. - -Apart from conclusive proof, the fact of the existence in all periods -of civilisation, and even under the higher barbarism, of exceptionally -gifted men, and never of a correspondingly gifted woman, does -undoubtedly afford an indication of inferiority of the average woman as -regards the average man. From the height of the mountain peaks we may, -other things equal, undoubtedly conclude the existence of a tableland -beneath them in the same tract of country whence they arise. I have -already, in the present chapter, besides elsewhere, referred to the -fallacy that intellectual or other fundamental inferiority in woman -existing at the present day is traceable to any alleged repression in -the past, since (Weissmann and his denial of transmission of acquired -characteristics apart), assuming for the sake of the argument such -repression to have really attained the extent alleged, and its effects -to have been transmitted to future generations, it is against all -the laws of heredity that such transmission should have taken place -_through the female line alone_, as is contended by the advocates of -this theory. Referring to this point, Herbert Spencer has expressed the -conviction of most scientific thinkers on the subject when he declares -a difference between the mental powers of men and women to result -from “a physiological necessity, and [that] no amount of culture can -obliterate it.” He further observes (the passages occur in a letter of -his to John Stuart Mill) that “the relative deficiency of the female -mind is in just those most complex faculties, intellectual and moral, -which have political action for their sphere.” - -One of the points as regards the inferiority of women which Feminists -are willing and even eager to concede, and it is the only point of -which this can be said, is that of physical weakness. The reason why -they should be particularly anxious to emphasise this deficiency -in the sex is not difficult to discern. It is the only possible -semblance of an argument which can be plausibly brought forward to -justify female privileges in certain directions. It does not really -do so, but it is the sole pretext which they can adduce with any -show of reason at all. Now it may be observed (1) that the general -frailty of woman would militate _coetaris paribus_, against their own -dogma of the intellectual equality between the sexes; (2) that this -physical weakness is more particularly a muscular weakness, since -constitutionally the organism of the human female has enormous power -of resistance and resilience, in general, far greater than that of man -(see below, pp. 125-128). It is a matter of common observation that the -average woman can pass through strains and recover in a way few men -can do. But as we shall have occasion to revert to these two points at -greater length later on, we refrain from saying more here. - -How then, after consideration, shall we judge of the Feminist -thesis, affirmed and reaffirmed, insisted upon by so many as an -incontrovertible axiom, that woman is the equal, intellectually -and morally, if not physically, of man? Surely that it has all the -characteristics of a true dogma. Its votaries might well say with -Tertullian, _credo quia absurdum_. It contradicts the whole experience -of mankind in the past. It is refuted by all impartial observation in -the present. The facts which undermine it are seriously denied by none -save those committed to the dogma in question. Like all dogmas, it is -supported by “bluff.” In this case the “bluff” is to the effect that -it is the “part, mark, business, lot” (as the Latin grammars of our -youth would have had it) of the “advanced” man who considers himself up -to date, and not “Early Victorian,” to regard it as unchallengeable. -Theological dogmas are backed up by the bluff of authority, either -of scriptures or of churches. This dogma of the Feminist cult is not -vouchsafed by the authority of a Communion of saints but by that of -the Communion of advanced persons up to date. Unfortunately dogma does -not sit so well upon the community of advanced persons up to date—who -otherwise profess to, and generally do, bring the tenets they hold -to the bar of reason and critical test—as it does on a church or -community of saints who suppose themselves to be individually or -collectively in communication with wisdom from on high. Be this as -it may, the “advanced man” who would claim to be “up to date” has to -swallow this dogma and digest it as best he can. He may secretly, it is -true, spew it out of his mouth, but in public, at least, he must make a -pretence of accepting it without flinching. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -THE ANTI-MAN CRUSADE - - -We have already pointed out that Modern Feminism has two sides or -aspects. The first formulates definite political, juridical and -economic demands on the grounds of justice, equity, equality and so -forth, as general principles; the second does not formulate in so many -words definite demands as general principles, but seems to exploit -the traditional notions of chivalry based on male sex sentiment, in -favour of according women special privileges on the ground of their -sex, in the law, and still more in the administration of the law. -For the sake of brevity we call the first _Political Feminism_, for, -although its demands are not confined to the political sphere, it is -first and foremost a political movement, and its typical claim at -the present time, the Franchise, is a purely political one; and the -second _Sentimental Feminism_, inasmuch as it commonly does not profess -to be based on any general principle whatever, whether of equity or -otherwise, but relies exclusively on the traditional and conventional -sex sentiment of Man towards Woman. It may be here premised that most -Political Feminists, however much they may refuse to admit it, are at -heart also Sentimental Feminists. Sentimental Feminists, on the other -hand, are not invariably Political Feminists, although the majority of -them undoubtedly are so to a greater or lesser extent. Logically, as we -shall have occasion to insist upon later on, the principles professedly -at the root of Political Feminism are in flagrant contradiction with -any that can justify Sentimental Feminism. - -Now both the orders of Feminism referred to have been active for more -than a generation past in fomenting a crusade against the male sex—an -Anti-Man Crusade. Their efforts have been largely successful owing -to a fact to which attention has, perhaps, not enough been called. -In the case of other classes, or bodies of persons, having community -of interests this common interest invariably interprets itself in a -sense of class, caste, or race solidarity. The class or caste has a -certain _esprit de corps_ in its own interest. The whole of history -largely turns on the conflict of economic classes based on a common -feeling obtaining between members of the respective classes; on a -small scale, we see the same thing in the solidarity of a particular -trade or profession. But it is unnecessary to do more than call -attention here to this fundamental sociological law upon which alike -the class struggles of history, and of modern times, the patriotism -of states from the city-state of the ancient world to the national -state of the modern world, is based. Now note the peculiar manner in -which this law manifests itself in the sex question of the present -day. While Modern Feminism has succeeded in establishing a powerful -sex-solidarity amongst a large section of women as against men, there -is not only no sex-solidarity of men as against women, but, on the -contrary, the prevalence of an altogether opposed sentiment. Men hate -their brother-men in their capacity of male persons. In any conflict -of interests between a man and a woman, male public opinion, often -in defiance of the most obvious considerations of equity, sides with -the woman, and glories in doing so. Here we seem to have a very -flagrant contradiction with, as has already been said, one of the -most fundamental sociological laws. The explanations of the phenomena -in question are, of course, ready to hand:—Tradition of chivalry, -feelings, perhaps inherited, dating possibly back to the prehuman stage -of man’s evolution, derived from the competition of the male with his -fellow-male for the possession of the coveted female, etc. - -These explanations may have a measure of validity, but I must confess -they are to me scarcely adequate to account for the intense hatred -which the large section of men seem to entertain towards their -fellow-males in the world of to-day, and their eagerness to champion -the female in the sex war which the Woman’s “sex union,” as it has been -termed, has declared of recent years. Whatever may be the explanation, -and I confess I cannot find one completely satisfactory, the fact -remains. A Woman’s Movement unassisted by man, still more if opposed -energetically by the public opinion of a solid phalanx of the manhood -of any country, could not possibly make any headway. As it is, we -see the legislature, judges, juries, parsons, specially those of the -nonconformist persuasion, all vie with one another in denouncing the -villainy and baseness of the male person, and ever devising ways and -means to make his life hard for him. To these are joined a host of -literary men and journalists of varying degrees of reputation who -contribute their quota to the stream of anti-manism in the shape of -novels, storiettes, essays, and articles, the design of which is to -paint man as a base, contemptible creature, as at once a knave and an -imbecile, a bird of prey and a sheep in wolf’s clothing, and all as -a foil to the glorious majesty of Womanhood. There are not wanting -artists who are pressed into this service. The picture of the Thames -Embankment at night, of the drowned unfortunate with the angel’s -face, the lady and gentleman in evening dress who have just got out -of their cab—the lady with uplifted hands bending over the dripping -form, and the callous and brutal gentleman turning aside to light a -cigarette—this is a typical specimen of Feminist didactic art. By -these means, which have been carried on with increasing ardour for a -couple of generations past, what we may term the anti-man cultus has -been made to flourish and to bear fruit till we find nowadays all -recent legislation affecting the relations between the sexes carrying -its impress, and the whole of the judiciary and magistracy acting as -its priests and ministrants. - -On the subject of Anti-man legislation, I have already written at -length elsewhere,[55:1] but for the sake of completeness I state the -case briefly here. (1) The marriage laws of England to-day are a -monument of Feminist sex partiality. If I may be excused the paradox, -the partiality of the marriage laws begins with the law relating to -breach of promise, which, as is well known, enables a woman to punish -a man vindictively for refusing to marry her after having once engaged -himself to her. I ought to add, and this, oftentimes, however good -his grounds may be for doing so. Should the woman commit perjury, in -these cases, she is never prosecuted for the offence. Although the -law of breach of promise exists also for the man, it is well known to -be totally ineffective and practically a dead letter. It should be -remarked that, however gross the misrepresentations or undue influences -on the part of the woman may have been to induce the man to marry -her, they do not cause her to lose her right to compensation. As, for -instance, where an experienced woman of the world of thirty or forty -entraps a boy scarcely out of his teens. (2) Again, according to the -law of England, the right to maintenance accrues solely to the woman. -Formerly this privilege was made dependent on her cohabitation with the -man and generally decent behaviour to him. Now even these limitations -cease to be operative, while the man is liable to imprisonment and -confiscation of any property he may have. A wife is now at full liberty -to leave her husband, while she retains her right to get her husband -sent to gaol if he refuses to maintain her—to put the matter shortly, -the law imposes upon the wife no legally enforceable duties whatever -_towards_ her husband. The one thing which it will enforce with iron -vigour is the wife’s right of maintenance _against_ her husband. In -the case of a man of the well-to-do classes, the man’s property is -confiscated by the law in favour of his wife. In the case of a working -man the law compels her husband to do _corvée_ for her, as the feudal -serf had to do for his lord. The wife, on the other hand, however -wealthy, is not compelled to give a farthing towards the support of her -husband, even though disabled by sickness or by accident; the single -exception in the latter case being should he become chargeable to -the parish, in which case the wife would have to pay the authorities -a pauper’s rate for his maintenance. In a word, a wife has complete -possession and control over any property she may possess, as well -as over her earnings; the husband, on the other hand, is liable to -confiscation of capitalised property or earnings at the behest of the -law courts in favour of his wife. A wife may even make her husband -bankrupt on the ground of money she alleges that she lent him; a -husband, on the other hand, has no claim against his wife for any money -advanced, since a husband is supposed to _give_, and not to _lend_, his -wife money, or other valuables. (3) The law affords the wife a right -to commit torts against third parties—_e.g._ libels and slanders—the -husband alone being responsible, and this rule applies even although -the wife is living apart from her husband, who is wholly without -knowledge of her misdeeds. With the exception of murder, a wife is held -by the law to be guiltless of practically any crime committed in the -presence of her husband. (4) No man can obtain a legal separation or -divorce from his wife (save under the Licensing Act of 1902, a Police -Court separation for habitual drunkenness alone) without a costly -process in the High Court. Every wife can obtain, if not a divorce, at -least a legal separation, by going whining to the nearest police court, -for a few shillings, which her husband, of course, has to pay. The -latter, it is needless to say, is mulcted in alimony at the “discretion -of the Court.” This “discretion” is very often of a queer character for -the luckless husband. Thus, a working man earning only twenty shillings -a week may easily find himself in the position of having to pay from -seven to ten shillings a week to a shrew out of his wages. - - [55:1] Cf. _Fortnightly Review_, November 1911, “A Creature of - Privilege,” also a pamphlet (collaboration) entitled “The Legal - Subjection of Men.” Twentieth Century Press, reprinted by New - Age Press, 1908. - -In cases where a wife proceeds to file a petition for divorce, the way -is once more smoothed for her by the law, at the husband’s expense. He -has to advance her money to enable her to fight him. Should the case -come on for hearing the husband finds the scale still more weighted -against him; every slander of his wife is assumed to be true until he -has proved its falsity, the slightest act or a word during a moment of -irritation, even a long time back, being twisted into what is termed -“legal cruelty,” even though such has been provoked by a long course of -ill treatment and neglect on the part of the wife. The husband and his -witnesses can be indicted for perjury for the slightest exaggeration -or inaccuracy in their statements, while the most calculated falsity -in the evidence of the wife and her witnesses is passed over. Not -the grossest allegation on the part of the wife against the husband, -even though proved in court to be false, is sufficient ground for the -husband to refuse to take her back again, or from preventing the court -from confiscating his property if he resists doing so. Knowledge of -the unfairness of the court to the husband, as all lawyers are aware, -prevents a large number of men from defending divorce actions brought -by their wives. A point should here be mentioned as regards the action -of a husband for damages against the seducer of his wife. Such damages -obviously belong to the husband as compensation for his destroyed -home life. Now these damages our modern judges in their feminist zeal -have converted into a fund for endowing the adulteress, depriving the -husband of any compensation whatever for the wrong done him. He may not -touch the income derived from the money awarded him by the jury, which -is handed over by the court to his divorced wife. It would take us too -long to go through all the privileges, direct and indirect, conferred -by statute or created by the rulings of judges and the practice of -the courts, in favour of the wife against the husband. It is the more -unnecessary to go into them here as they may be found in detail with -illustrative cases in the aforesaid pamphlet in which I collaborated, -entitled “The Legal Subjection of Men” (mentioned in the footnote to p. -55). - -At this point it may be well to say a word on the one rule of the -divorce law which Feminists are perennially trotting out as a proof of -the shocking injustice of the marriage law to women: that to obtain her -divorce the woman has to prove cruelty in addition to adultery against -her husband, while in the case of the husband it is sufficient to prove -adultery alone. Now to make of this rule a grievance for the woman is, -I submit, evidence of the destitution of the Feminist case. In default -of any real injustice pressing on the woman the Feminist is constrained -to make as much capital as possible out of the merest semblance of a -grievance he can lay his hand on. The reasons for this distinction -which the law draws between the husband and the wife, it is obvious -enough, are perfectly well grounded. It is based mainly on the simple -fact that while a woman by her adultery may foist upon her husband a -bastard which he will be compelled by law to support as his own child, -in the husband’s case of having an illegitimate child the wife and her -property are not affected. Now in a society such as ours is, based upon -private property-holding, it is only natural, I submit, that the law -should take account of this fact. But not only is this rule of law -almost certainly doomed to repeal in the near future, but in even the -present day, while it still nominally exists, it is practically a dead -letter in the divorce court, since any trivial act of which the wife -chooses to complain is strained by the court into evidence of cruelty -in the legal and technical sense. As the matter stands, the practical -effect of the rule is a much greater injustice to the husband than to -the wife, since the former often finds himself convicted of “cruelty” -which is virtually nothing at all, in order that the wife’s petition -may be granted, and which is often made the excuse by Feminist judges -for depriving the husband of the custody of his children. Misconduct -on the wife’s part, or neglect of husband and children, does not -weigh with the court which will not on that ground grant relief to -the husband from his obligation for maintenance, etc. On the other -hand, neglect of the wife by the husband is made a ground for judicial -separation with the usual consequences—alimony, etc. “Thus,” as it -has been put, “between the upper and the nether millstone, cruelty on -the one hand, neglect on the other, the unhappy husband can be legally -ground to pieces, whether he does anything or whether he does nothing.” -Personal violence on the part of the husband is severely punished; -on the part of a wife she will be let off with impunity. Even if she -should in an extreme case be imprisoned, the husband, if a poor man, -on her release will be compelled to take her back to live with him. -The case came under the notice of the writer a few years ago in which -a humane magistrate was constrained to let off a woman who had nearly -murdered a husband on the condition of her graciously consenting to a -separation, but she had presumably still to be supported by her victim. - -The decision in the notorious Jackson case precluded the husband from -compelling his wife to obey an order of the court for the restitution -of conjugal rights. The persistent Feminist tendency of all case-law is -illustrated by a decision of the House of Lords in 1894 in reference -to the law of Scotland constituting desertion for four years a ground -_ipso facto_ for a divorce with the right of remarriage. Here divorce -was refused to a man whose wife had left him for four years and taken -her child with her. The Law Lords justified their own interpretation -of the law on the ground that the man did not really want her to come -back. But inasmuch as this plea can be started in every case where -it cannot be proved that the husband had absolutely grovelled before -his wife, imploring her to return, and possibly even then—since the -sincerity even of this grovelling might conceivably be called in -question—it is clear that the decision practically rendered this old -Scottish law inoperative for the husband. - -As regards the offence of bigamy, for which a man commonly receives -a heavy sentence of penal servitude, I think I may venture to state, -without risking contradiction, that no woman during recent years has -been imprisoned for this offence. The statute law, while conferring -distinct privileges upon married women as to the control of their -property, and for trading separately and apart from their husbands, -renders them exempt from the ordinary liabilities incurred by a male -trader as regards proceedings under the Debtors Acts and the Bankruptcy -Law. See Acts of 1822 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75); 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. -63), and cases Scott _v._ Morley, 57 L.J.R.Q.B. 43. L.R. 20 Q.B.D. In -_re_ Hannah Lines _exparte_ Lester C.A. (1893), 2. 2. B. 113. - -In the case of Lady Bateman _v._ Faber and others reported in -Chancery Appeal Cases (1898 Law Reports) the Master of the Rolls -(Sir N. Lindley) is reported to have said: “The authorities showed -that a married woman could not by hook or by crook—even by her own -fraud—deprive herself of restraint upon anticipation. He would say -nothing as to the policy of the law, but it had been affirmed by the -Married Woman’s Property Act” (the Act of 1882 above referred to) “and -the result was that a married woman could play fast and loose to an -extent to which no other person could.” (_N.B._—Presumably a male -person.) - -It has indeed been held, to such a length does the law extend its -protection and privileges to the female, that even the concealment -by a wife from the husband at the time of marriage that she was then -pregnant by another man was no ground for declaring the marriage null -and void. - -The above may be taken as a fair all-round, although by no means an -exhaustive, statement of the present one-sided condition of the civil -law as regards the relation of husband and wife. We will now pass on to -the consideration of the relative incidence of the criminal law on the -two sexes. We will begin with the crime of murder. The law of murder is -still ostensibly the same for both sexes, but in effect the application -of its provisions in the two cases is markedly different. As, however, -these differences lie, as just stated, not in the law itself but rather -in its administration, we can only give in this place, where we are -dealing with the principles of law rather than with their application, -a general formula of the mode in which the administration of the -law of murder proceeds, which, briefly stated, is as follows: The -evidence even to secure conviction in the case of a woman must be many -times stronger than that which would suffice to hang a man. Should a -conviction be obtained, the death penalty, though pronounced, is not -given effect to, the female prisoner being almost invariably reprieved. -In most cases where there is conviction at all, it is for manslaughter -and not for murder, when a light or almost nominal sentence is passed. -Cases confirming what is here said will be given later on. There is one -point, however, to be observed here, and that is the crushing incidence -of the law of libel. This means that no case of any woman, however -notoriously guilty on the evidence, can be quoted, after she has been -acquitted by a Feminist jury, as the law holds such to be innocent and -provides them with “a remedy” in a libel action. Now, seeing that most -women accused of murder are acquitted irrespective of the evidence, it -is clear that the writer is fatally handicapped so far as confirmation -of his thesis by cases is concerned. - -Women are to all intents and purposes allowed to harass men, when they -conceive they have a grievance, at their own sweet will, the magistrate -usually telling their victim that he cannot interfere. In the opposite -case, that of a man harassing a woman, the latter has invariably to -find sureties for his future good behaviour, or else go to gaol. - -One of the most infamous enactments indicative of Feminist sex bias -is the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1886. The Act itself was led -up to with the usual effect by an unscrupulous newspaper agitation -in the Feminist and Puritan interest, designed to create a panic in -the public mind, under the influence of which legislation of this -description can generally be rushed through Parliament. The reckless -disregard of the commonest principles of justice and common-sense of -this abominable statute may be seen in the shameless sex privilege it -accords the female in the matter of seduction. Under its provisions a -boy of fourteen years can be prosecuted and sent to gaol for an offence -to which he has been instigated by a girl just under sixteen years, -whom the law, of course, on the basis of the aforesaid sex privilege, -holds guiltless. The outrageous infamy of this provision is especially -apparent when we consider the greater precocity of the average girl as -compared with the average boy of this age. - -We come now to the latest piece of Anti-man legislation, the so-called -_White Slave Trade Act of 1912_ (Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912, 2 -& 3 Geo. V. c. 20). This statute was, as usual, rushed through the -legislature on the wave of factitious public excitement organised -for the purpose, and backed up by the usual faked statements and -exaggerated allegations, the whole matter being three parts bogus -and deliberate lying. The alleged dangers of the unprotected female -were, for the object of the agitation, purposely exaggerated in -the proverbial proportion of the mountain to the molehill. But as -regards many of those most eager in promoting this piece of Anti-man -legislation, there were probably special psychological reasons to -account for their attitude. The special features of the Bill, the Act -in question, are (1) increased powers given to the police in the matter -of arrest on suspicion, and (2) the flogging clauses. - -Up till now the flogging of garrotters was justified against opponents, -by its upholders, on the ground of the peculiarly brutal nature of -the offence of highway robbery with violence. It should be noted that -in the Act in question no such excuse can apply, for it is appointed -to be inflicted for offences which, whatever else they may be, do not -in their nature involve violence, and hence which cannot be described -as brutal in the ordinary sense of the term. The Anti-man nature of -the whole measure, as of the agitation itself which preceded it, is -conclusively evidenced by the fact that while it is well known that the -number of women gaining a living by “procuration” is much greater than -the number of men engaged therein, comparatively little vituperation -was heard against the female delinquents in the matter, and certainly -none of the vitriolic ferocity that was poured out upon the men -alleged to participate in the traffic. A corresponding distinction was -represented in the measure itself by the allocation of the torture of -the lash to men alone. It is clear, therefore, that the zeal for the -suppression of the traffic in question was not the sole motive in the -ardour of the flogging fraternity. Even the Anti-manism at the back of -the whole of this class of legislation seems insufficient to account -for the outbreak of bestial blood-lust, for the tigerish ferocity, -of which the flogging clauses in the Act are the outcome. There is, -I take it, no doubt that psychical sexual aberration plays a not -inconsiderable part in many of those persons—in a word, that they are -labouring under some degree of homo-sexual Sadism. The lustful glee -on the part of the aforesaid persons which greets the notion of the -partial flaying alive, for that is what the “cat” means, of some poor -wretch who has succumbed to the temptation of getting his livelihood by -an improper method, is hardly to be explained on any other hypothesis. -Experts allege that traces of psycho-sexual aberration are latent -in many persons where it would be least expected, and it is, _prima -facie_, likely enough that these latent tendencies in both men and -women should become active under the cover of an agitation in favour -of purity and anti-sexuality, to the point of gratifying itself with -the thought of torture inflicted upon men. A psycho-sexual element -of another kind doubtless also plays a not unimportant rôle in the -agitation of “ladies” in favour of that abomination, “social purity,” -which, being interpreted, generally means lubricity turned upside -down. The fiery zeal manifested by many of those ladies for the -suppression of the male sex is assuredly not without its pathological -significance. - -The monstrosity of the recent _White Slave Traffic_ enactment and -its savage anti-male vindictiveness is shown not merely, as already -observed, in the agitation which preceded it, with its exaggerated -vilification of the male offenders in the matter of procuration and its -passing over with comparative slight censure the more numerous female -offenders, or in the general spirit animating the Act itself, but it -is noticeable in the very preposterous exaggeration of its provisions. -For example, in the section dealing with the _souteneur_, the framers -of this Act, and the previous Criminal Law Amendment Acts to which this -latest one is merely supplementary, are not satisfied with penalising -the man who has no other means of subsistence beyond what he derives -from the wages of some female friend’s prostitution, but they strike -with impartial rigour the man who knowingly lives _wholly or in part_ -from such a source. If, therefore, the clause were taken in its strict -sense, any poor out-at-elbow man who accepted the hospitality of a -woman of doubtful virtue in the matter of a drink, or a dinner, would -put himself within the pale of this clause in the Act, and might -be duly flayed by the “cat” in consequence. The most flagrant case -occurred in a London police court in March 1913, in which a youth of -eighteen years, against whose general character nothing was alleged -and who was known to be in employment as a carman, was sentenced to a -month’s hard labour under the following circumstances:—It was reported -that he had been living with a woman apparently considerably older than -himself, whom admittedly he had supported by his own exertions and, -when this was insufficient, even by the pawning of his clothes, and -whom as soon as he discovered she was earning money by prostitution he -had left. Would it be believed that a prosecution was instituted by the -police against this young man under the iniquitous White Slave Traffic -Act? But what seems still more incredible is that the magistrate, -presumably a sane gentleman, after admitting that the poor fellow was -“more sinned against than sinning,” did not hesitate to pass on him a -sentence of one month’s hard labour!!! Of course the woman, who was -the head and front of the offending, if offending there was, remained -untouched. The above is a mild specimen of “justice” as meted out in -our police courts, “for men only”! Quite recently there was a case in -the north of England of a carter, who admittedly worked at his calling -but who, it was alleged, was assisted by women with whom he had lived. -Now this unfortunate man was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment -plus flogging. For the judges, of course, any extension of their power -over the prisoner in the dock is a godsend. It is quite evident that -they are revelling in their new privilege to inflict torture. One of -them had the shamelessness recently to boast of the satisfaction it -gave him and to sneer at those of his colleagues who did not make full -use of their judicial powers in this direction. - -The bogus nature of the reasons urged in favour of the most atrocious -clauses of this abominable Act came out clearly enough in the speeches -of the official spokesmen of the Government in its favour. For example, -Lord Haldane in the House of Lords besought the assembled peers to -bethink themselves of the unhappy victim of the _souteneur_. He drew -a picture of how a heartless bully might beat, starve and otherwise -ill treat his victim, besides taking away her earnings. He omitted to -explain how the heartless bully in a free country could coerce his -“victim” to remain with him against her will. He ignored the existence -of the police, or of a whole army of social purity busybodies, and -vigilance societies for whom her case would be a tasty morsel only -too eagerly snapped at. If the “victim” does not avail herself of any -of those means of escape, so ready to her hand, the presumption is -that she prefers the company of her alleged brutal tyrant to that of -the chaste Puritan ladies of the vigilance societies. To those who -follow the present state of artificially fomented public opinion in -the matter, Lord Haldane’s suggestion that there was any danger of the -precious “victim” not being sufficiently slobbered over, will seem to -be not without a touch of humour. Furthermore, as illustrating the -utter illogicality of the line taken by the promoters of the Act, for -whom Lord Haldane acted as the mouthpiece, we have only to note the -fact that the measure does not limit the penalties awarded to cases -accompanied by circumstances of aggravation such as Lord Haldane -pictures, which it might easily have done, but extends it impartially -to all cases whether accompanied by cruelty or not. We can hardly -imagine that a man of Lord Haldane’s intellectual power and general -humanity should not have been aware of the hollowness of the case -he had to put as an official advocate, and of the rottenness of the -conventional arguments he had to state in its support. When confronted -with the unquestionably true contention that corporal punishments, -especially such as are of a savage and vindictive kind, are degrading -alike to the inflicters of them and to those who are their victims, -he replied that criminals in the cases in question were already so -degraded that they could not be degraded further. One would imagine -he could hardly have failed to know that he was talking pernicious -twaddle. It is obvious that this argument, in addition to its being -untrue, in fact opens the floodgates to brutal penal legislation all -round, so far at least as the more serious offences are concerned. -One could equally well assert of murder, burglary, even _abus de -confidence_ in some cases, and other offences, that the perpetrators -of them must be so degraded that no amount of brutal punishment could -degrade them further. Everybody can regard the crime to which he has -a pet aversion more than other crimes as indicating the perpetrator -thereof to be outside the pale of humanity. - -But as regards the particular case in point, let us for a moment clear -our minds of cant upon the subject. Procuration and also living on -the proceeds of prostitution may be morally abominable methods of -securing a livelihood, though even here, as in most other offences, -there may be circumstances of palliation in individual cases. But after -all is said and done, it is doubtful whether, apart from any fraud -or misrepresentation, which, of course, places it altogether in a -different category, these ought to be regarded as _criminal_ offences. -To offer facilities or to act as an agent for women who are anxious to -lead a “gay life,” or even to suggest such a course to women, _so long -as prostitution itself is not recognised by the law as crime_, however -reprehensible morally, would scarcely seem to transcend the limits of -legitimate individual liberty. In any case, the constituting of such -an action a crime must surely open out an altogether new principle in -jurisprudence, and one of far-reaching consequences. The same remarks -apply even more forcibly to the question of sharing the earnings of a -prostitute. Prostitution _per se_ is not in the eyes of the law a crime -or even a misdemeanour. The woman who makes her living as a prostitute -is under the protection of the law, and the money she receives from -her customer is recognised as her property. If she, however, in the -exercise of her right of free disposition of that property, gives -some of it to a male friend, that friend, by the mere acceptance of -a free gift, becomes a criminal in the eyes of the law. Anything -more preposterous, judging by all hitherto recognised principles of -jurisprudence, can scarcely be imagined. Even from the moral point of -view of the class of cases coming under the purview of the Act, of men -who in part share in the proceeds of their female friends’ traffic, -must involve many instances in which no sane person—_i.e._ one who is -not bitten by the rabid man-hatred of the Feminist and social purity -monger—must regard the moral obliquity involved as not very serious. -Take, for instance, the case of a man who is out of work, who is -perhaps starving, and receives temporary assistance of this kind. Would -any reasonable person allege that such a man was in the lowest depths -of moral degradation, still less that he merited for this breach, at -most, of fine delicacy of feeling, the flaying alive prescribed by -the Act under consideration. Besides all this, it is well known that -some women, shop assistants and others, gain part of their living by -their reputable avocation and part in another way. Now presumably the -handing over of a portion of her regular salary to her lover would not -constitute the latter a flayable criminal, but the endowment of him -with a portion of any of the “presents” obtained by her pursuit of her -other calling would do so. The process of earmarking the permissible -and the impermissible gift strikes one as very difficult even if -possible. - -The point last referred to leads us on to another reflection. If the -man who “in whole or in part” lives on the proceeds of a woman’s -prostitution is of necessity a degraded wretch outside the pale of all -humanity, as he is represented to be by the flogging fraternity, how -about the employer or employeress of female labour who bases his or -her scale of wages on the assumption that the girls and women he or -she employs, supplement these wages by presents received after working -hours, for their sexual favours—in other words, by prostitution? -Many of these employers of labour are doubtless to be found among the -noble band of advocates of White Slave Traffic Bills, flogging and -social purity. The above persons, of course, are respectable members of -society, while a _souteneur_ is an outcast. - -In addition to the motives before alluded to as actuating the promoters -of the factitious and bogus so-called “White Slave” agitation, there -is one very powerful political and economic motive which must not be -left out of sight. In view of the existing “labour unrest,” it is -highly desirable from the point of view of our possessing and governing -classes that popular attention should be drawn off labour wrongs and -labour grievances on to something less harassing to the capitalist and -official mind. Now the Anti-man agitation forms a capital red herring -for drawing the popular scent off class opposition by substituting sex -antagonism in its place. - -If you can set public opinion off on the question of wicked Man and -down-trodden Woman, you have done a good deal to help capitalistic -enterprise to tide over the present crisis. The insistence of public -opinion on better conditions for the labourer will thus be weakened by -being diverted into urging forward vindictive laws against men, and for -placing as far as may be the whole power of the State at the disposal -of the virago, the shrew and the female sharper, in their designs upon -their male victim. For, be it remembered, it is always the worst type -of woman to whom the advantage of laws passed as the result of the -Anti-man campaign accrues. The real nature of the campaign is crucially -exhibited in some of the concrete demands put forward by its advocates. - -One of the measures proposed in the so-called “Woman’s Charter” drawn -up with the approval of all prominent Feminists by Lady M‘Laren (now -Lady Aberconway) some four or five years back, and which had been -previously advocated by other Feminist writers, was to the effect -that a husband, in addition to his other liabilities, should be -legally compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, ostensibly as -wages for her housekeeping services, no matter whether she performs -the services well, or ill, or not at all. Whatever the woman is, or -does, the husband has to pay all the same. Another of the clauses in -this precious document is to the effect that a wife is to be under no -obligation to follow her husband, compelled probably by the necessity -of earning a livelihood for himself and her, to any place of residence -outside the British Islands. That favourite crank of the Feminist, of -raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number -of victims of the designing young female should speak for itself to -every unbiassed person. One of the proposals which finds most favour -with the Sentimental Feminist is the demand that in the case of the -murder by a woman of her illegitimate child, the putative father should -be placed in the dock as an accessory! In other words, a man should -be punished for a crime of which he is wholly innocent, because the -guilty person was forsooth a woman. That such a suggestion should be -so much as entertained by otherwise sane persons is indeed significant -of the degeneracy of mental and moral fibre induced by the Feminist -movement, for it may be taken as typical. It reminds me of a Feminist -friend of mine who, challenged by me, sought (for long in vain) to find -a case in the courts in which a man was unduly favoured at the expense -of a woman. At last he succeeded in lighting upon the following from -somewhere in Scotland: A man and woman who had been drinking went home -to bed, and the woman caused the death of her baby by “overlaying it.” -Both the man and the woman were brought before the court on the charge -of manslaughter, for causing the death, by culpable negligence, of the -infant. In accordance with the evidence, the woman who had overlaid -the baby was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, and -naturally the man, who had not done so, was released. Now, in the -judgment of my Feminist friend, in other matters sane enough, the fact -that the man who had not committed any offence was let off, while -his female companion, who had, was punished, showed the bias of the -court in favour of the man!! Surely this is a noteworthy illustration, -glaring as it is, of how all judgment is completely overbalanced -and destroyed in otherwise judicial minds—of how such minds are -completely hypnotised by the adoption of the Feminist dogma. As a -matter of fact, of course, the task my friend set himself to do was -hopeless. As against the cases, which daily occur all over the country, -of flagrant injustice to men and partiality to women on the part of -the courts, there is, I venture to assert, not to be found a single -case within the limits of the four seas of a judicial decision in the -contrary sense—_i.e._ of one favouring the man at the expense of the -woman. - -This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men, -which has for its results that “man-made” laws invariably favour the -opposite sex, and that “man-administered justice” follows the same -course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest -attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally. - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -ALWAYS THE “INJURED INNOCENT”! - - -While what we have termed Political Feminism vehemently asserts -its favourite dogma, the intellectual and moral equality of the -sexes—that the woman is as good as the man if not better—Sentimental -Feminism as vehemently seeks to exonerate every female criminal, and -protests against any punishment being meted out to her approaching -in severity that which would be awarded a man in a similar case. It -does so on grounds which presuppose the old theory of the immeasurable -inferiority, mental and moral, of woman, which are so indignantly -spurned by every Political Feminist—_i.e._ in his or her capacity as -such. We might suppose, therefore, that Political Feminism, with its -theory of sex equality based on the assumption of equal sex capacity, -would be in strong opposition in this matter with Sentimental Feminism, -which seeks, as its name implies, to attenuate female responsibility on -grounds which are not distinguishable from the old-fashioned assumption -of inferiority. But does Political Feminism consistently adopt this -logical position? Not one whit. It is quite true that some Feminists, -when hard pressed, may grudgingly concede the untenability on rational -grounds of the Sentimental Feminists’ claims. But taken as a whole, and -in their practical dealings, the Political Feminists are in accord with -the Sentimental Feminists in claiming female immunity on the ground of -sex. This is shown in every case where a female criminal receives more -than a nominal sentence. - -We have already given examples of the fact in question, and they could -be indefinitely extended. At the end of the year 1911, at Birmingham, -in the case of a woman convicted of the murder of her paramour by -deliberately pouring inflammable oil over him while he was asleep, -and then setting it afire, and afterwards not only exulting in the -action but saying she was ready to do it again, the jury brought in -recommendation to mercy with their verdict. And, needless to say, the -influence of Political and Sentimental Feminism was too strong to allow -the capital sentence to be carried out, even with such a fiendish -wretch as this. In the case of the Italian woman in Canada, Napolitano, -before mentioned, the female franchise societies issued a petition -to Mr Borden, the Premier of Canada, in favour of the commutation of -sentence. The usual course was adopted in this case, as in most others -in which a woman murders a man—to wit, the truly “chivalrous” one of -trying to blacken the character of the dead victim in defence of the -action of the murderess. In other cases, more especially, of course, -where the man is guilty of a crime against a woman, when mercy is -asked for the offender, we are pitifully adjured to “think of the poor -victim.” As we have seen, Lord Haldane trotted out this exhortation in -a case where it was absurdly inappropriate, since the much-commiserated -“victim” had only herself to thank for being a “victim,” and still more -for remaining a “victim.” We never hear this plea for the “victim” -urged where the “victim” happens to be a man and the offender a woman. -Compare this with the case of the boy of nineteen, Beal, whom Mr -M‘Kenna hanged for the murder of his sweetheart, and that in the teeth -of an explanation given in the defence which was at least possible, -if not probable, and which certainly, putting it at the very lowest, -introduced an element of doubt into the case. Fancy a girl of nineteen -being convicted, whatever the evidence, of having poisoned her paramour -or even if, _per impossibile_, she were convicted, fancy her being -given more than a short term of imprisonment! A man murdered by a woman -is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just -as surely the angelic victim. Anyone who reads reports of cases with an -unbiassed mind must admit the absolute accuracy of this statement. - -Divine woman is always the “injured innocent,” not only in the graver -crimes, such as murder, but also in the minor offences coming under the -cognisance of the law. At the Ledbury Petty Sessions a woman in the -employment of a draper, who had purloined goods to the amount of £150, -was acquitted on the ground of “kleptomania,” and this notwithstanding -the fact that she had been in the employment of the prosecutor for over -five years, had never complained of illness and had never been absent -from business; also that her landlady gave evidence showing that she -was sound in mind and body. At the very same sessions two men were -sentenced respectively to eight and twelve months’ imprisonment for -stealing goods to the value of £5! (_John Bull_, 12th November 1910). - -At this point I may be permitted to quote from the article formerly -alluded to (_Fortnightly Review_, November 1911, case taken from a -report in _The News of the World_ of 28th February 1909): “A young -woman shot at the local postman with a revolver; the bullet grazed his -face, she having fired point blank at his head. Jury returned a verdict -of not guilty, although the revolver was found on her when arrested, -and the facts were admitted and were as follows:—At noon she left her -house, crossing three fields to the house of the victim, who was at -home and alone; upon his appearing she fired point blank at his head; -he banged to the door, and thus turned off the bullet, which grazed -his face and ‘ploughed a furrow through his hair.’ She had by her when -arrested a revolver cocked and with four chambers undischarged.” - -Let us now take the crime of violent assault with attempt to do bodily -injury. The following cases will serve as illustrative examples:—From -_The News of the World_, 9th May 1909: A nurse in Belfast sued her lost -swain for breach of promise. _She obtained £100 damages although it was -admitted by her counsel that she had thrown vitriol over the defendant, -thereby injuring him, and the defendant had not prosecuted her!_ Also -it was admitted that she had been “carrying on” with another man. -From _The Morning Leader_ of 8th July 1905 I have taken the following -extraordinary facts as to the varied punishment awarded in cases of -vitriol-throwing: That of a woman who threw vitriol over a sergeant at -Aldershot, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment without hard -labour while a man who threw it over a woman at Portsmouth was tried -and convicted at the Hants Assizes, on 7th July 1905, and sentenced -by Mr Justice Bigham to twelve years’ penal servitude! As regards the -first case it will be observed that, (notwithstanding a crime, which in -the case of a man was described by the judge as “cowardly and vile” -and meriting twelve years’ penal servitude) the woman was rewarded by -damages for £100, to be obtained from the very victim whom she had done -her best to maim for life (besides being unfaithful to him) and who had -generously abstained from prosecuting. - -But it is not merely in cases of murder, attempted murder or serious -assault that justice is mocked by the present state of our law and its -administration in the interests of the female sex. The same attitude is -observed, the same farcical sentences on women, whether the crime be -theft, fraud, common assault, criminal slander or other minor offences. -We have the same preposterous excuses admitted, the same preposterous -pleas allowed, and the same farcical sentences passed—if, indeed, any -sentence be passed at all. The following examples I have culled at -random:—From _John Bull_, 26th February 1910: At the London Sessions, -Mr Robert Wallace had to deal with the case of a well-dressed woman -living at Hampstead, who pleaded guilty to obtaining goods to the -amount of £50 by false pretences. In explanation of her crime it was -stated that she was under a mistaken impression that her engagement -would not lead to marriage, that she became depressed, and that she -“did not know what she said or did,” while in mitigation of punishment -it was urged that the money had been repaid, that her fiancé could -not marry her if she were sent to gaol, and that her life would be -irretrievably ruined, and she was discharged! From _The Birmingham -Post_, 4th February 1902: A female clerk (twenty-six) pleaded guilty to -embezzling £5, 1s. 9d. on 16th November, £2, 2s. 4d. on 21st December -and £5, 0s. 9d. on 23rd December last, the moneys of her employer. -Prosecuting counsel said prisoner entered prosecutor’s employ in -1900, and in June last her salary was raised to 27s. 6d. a week. The -defalcations, which began a month before the increase, amounted to -£134. She had falsified the books, and when suspicion fell upon her -destroyed two books, in order, as she thought, to prevent detection. -Her counsel pleaded for leniency on the ground of her previous good -character _and because she was engaged_! The recorder merely bound her -over, stating that her parents and young man were respectable, and so -was the house in which she lodged! A correspondent mentions in _The -Birmingham Post_ of February 1902 a case where a woman had burned her -employer’s outhouses and property, doing £1800 worth of damage, and got -off with a month’s imprisonment. On the other hand, the _same_ judge, -at the _same_ Quarter Sessions, thus dealt with two male embezzlers: -C. C. (twenty-eight), clerk, who pleaded guilty to embezzling two sums -of money from his master in August and September of 1901 (amounts -not given), was sent to gaol for six calendar months; and S. G. -(twenty-four), clerk, pleaded guilty to embezzling 7s. 6d. and 3s. For -the defence it was urged that the prisoner had been poorly paid, and -the recorder, hearing that a gentleman was prepared to employ the man -as soon as released, sentenced him to three months’ hard labour! O -merciful recorder! - -The “injured innocent” theory usually comes into play with magistrates -when a woman is charged with aggravated annoyance and harassing of -men in their business or profession, when, as already stated, the -administrator of the law will usually tell the prosecutor that he -cannot interfere. In the opposite case of a man annoying a woman under -like circumstances he invariably has to find substantial sureties for -his good behaviour or go to gaol. No injured innocence for him! - -There is another case in which it seems probable that, animated by -the same fixed idea, those responsible for the framing of laws have -flagrantly neglected an obvious measure for public safety. We refer to -the unrestricted sale of sulphuric acid (vitriol) which is permitted. -Now here we have a substance subserving only very special purposes -in industry, none in household economy, or in other departments, -save for criminal ends, which is nevertheless procurable without let -or hindrance. Is it possible to believe that this would be the case -if men were in the habit of using this substance in settling their -differences with each other, even still more if they employed it by way -of emphasising their disapproval of the jilting of sweethearts? That it -should be employed by women in wreaking their vengeance on recalcitrant -lovers seems a natural if not precisely a commendable action, in the -eyes of a Sentimental Feminist public opinion, and one which, on the -mildest hypothesis, “doesn’t matter.” Hence a deadly substance may be -freely bought and sold as though it were cod-liver oil. A very nice -thing for dastardly viragoes for whom public opinion has only the -mildest of censures! In any reasonable society the indiscriminate sale -of corrosive substances would in itself be a crime punishable with a -heavy term of imprisonment. - -It is not only by men, and by a morbid public opinion inflamed by -Feminist sentiment in general, that female criminals are surrounded -by a halo of injured innocence. The reader can hardly fail to notice -that such women have the effrontery to pretend to regard themselves in -this light. This is often so in cases of assault, murder or attempted -murder of lovers by their sweethearts. Such is, of course, particularly -noticeable in the senselessly wicked outrages, of which more anon. -The late Otto Weininger, in his book before quoted, “Geschlecht und -Charakter” (Sex and Character), has some noteworthy remarks on this, -remarks which, whether we accept his suggested theory or not, might -well have been written as a comment on recent cases of suffragette -crimes and criminals. “The male criminal,” says Weininger, “has from -his birth the same relation to the idea of value [moral value] as any -other man in whom the criminal tendencies governing himself may be -wholly absent. The female on the other hand often claims to be fully -justified when she has committed the greatest conceivable infamy. While -the genuine criminal is obtusely silent against all reproaches, a woman -will express her astonishment and indignation that anyone can doubt -her perfect right to act as she has done. Women are convinced of their -being in the right without ever having sat in judgment on themselves. -The male criminal, it may be true, does not do so either, but then he -never maintains that he is in the right. He rather goes hastily out -of the way of discussing right and wrong, because it reminds him of -his guilt. In this fact we have a proof that he has a relationship to -the [moral] idea, and that it is unfaithfulness to his better self -of which he is unwilling to be reminded. No male criminal has ever -really believed that injustice has been done him by punishment. The -female criminal on the other hand is convinced of the maliciousness -of her accusers, and if she is unwilling no man can persuade her that -she has done wrong. Should someone admonish her, it is true that she -often bursts into tears, begs for forgiveness and admits her fault; -she may even believe indeed that she really feels this fault. Such is -only the case, however, when she has felt inclined to do so, for this -very dissolving in tears affects her always with a certain voluptuous -pleasure. The male criminal is obstinate, he does not allow himself -to be turned round in a moment as the apparent defiance of a woman -may be converted into an apparent sense of guilt, where, that is, the -accuser understands how to handle her” (“Geschlecht und Charakter,” -pp. 253-254). Weininger’s conclusion is: “Not that woman is naturally -evil or _anti_-moral, but rather that she is merely _a_-moral, in other -words that she is destitute of what is commonly called ‘moral sense.’” -The cases of female penitents and others which seem to contradict this -announcement Weininger explains by the hypothesis that “it is only in -company and under external influence that woman can feel remorse.” - -Be all this as it may, the fact remains that women when most patently -and obviously guilty of vile and criminal actions will, with the most -complete nonchalance, insist that they are in the right. This may be, -and very possibly often is, mere impudent effrontery, relying on the -privilege of the female sex, or it may, in part at least, as Weininger -insists, be traceable to “special deep-lying sex-characteristics.” But -in any case the singular fact is that men, and men even of otherwise -judicial capacity, are to be found who are prepared virtually to accept -the justice of this attitude, and who are ready to condone, if not -directly to defend, any conduct, no matter how vile or how criminal, on -the part of a woman. We have illustrations of this class of judgment -almost every day, but I propose to give two instances of what I should -deem typical, if slightly extreme, perversions of moral judgment on -the part of two men, both of them of social and intellectual standing, -and without any doubt personally of the highest integrity. Dr James -Donaldson, Principal of the University of St Andrews, in his work -entitled “Woman, her Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and -Rome and among the Early Christians,” commenting on the well-known -story attributed to the year 331 B.C., which may or may not -be historical, of the wholesale poisoning of their husbands by Roman -matrons, as well as of subsequent cases of the same crime, concludes -his remarks with these words: “It seems to me that we must regard them -[namely these stories or facts, as we may choose to consider them] as -indicating that the Roman matrons felt sometimes that they were badly -treated, that they ought not to endure the bad treatment, and that -they ought to take the only means that they possessed of expressing -their feelings, and of wreaking vengeance, by employing poison” (p. -92). Now though it may be said that in this passage we have no direct -justification of the atrocious crime attributed to the Roman matrons, -yet it can hardly be denied that we have here a distinct condonation -of the infamous and dastardly act, such a condonation as the worthy -Principal of St Andrews University would hardly have meted out to men -under any circumstances. Probably Professor Donaldson, in writing the -above, felt that his comments would not be resented very strongly, even -if not actually approved, by public opinion, steeped as it is at the -present time in Feminism, political and sentimental. - -Another instance, this time of direct special pleading to prove a woman -guilty of an atrocious crime to be an “injured innocent.” It is taken -from an eminent Swiss alienist in his work on Sex. Dr Forel maintains -a thesis which may or may not be true to the effect that the natural -maternal instinct is either absent or materially weakened in the case -of a woman who has given birth to a child begotten by rape, or under -circumstances bordering upon rape, and indeed more or less in all -cases where the woman is an unwilling participant in the sexual act. -By way of illustration of this theory he cites the case of a barmaid -in St Gallen who was seduced by her employer under such circumstances -as those above mentioned; a child resulted, who was put out to nurse -at an institution until five years of age, when it was handed over to -the care of the mother. Now what does the woman do? Within a few hours -of receiving the little boy into her keeping she took him to a lonely -place and deliberately strangled him, in consequence of which she was -tried and condemned. Now Dr Forel, in his Feminist zeal, feels it -incumbent upon him to try to whitewash this female monster by urging, -on the basis of this theory, the excuse that under the circumstances -of its conception one could not expect the mother to have the ordinary -instincts of maternity as regards her child. The worthy doctor is -apparently so blinded by his Feminist prejudices that (quite apart -from the correctness or otherwise of his theory) he is oblivious of -the absurd irrelevancy of his argument. What, we may justly ask, has -the maternal instinct, or its absence, to do with the guilt of the -murderess of a helpless child committed to her care? Who or what the -child was is immaterial! That a humane and otherwise clear-headed -man like Dr Forel could take a wretch of this description under his -_ægis_, and still more that in doing so he should serve up such utterly -illogical balderdash by way of argument, is only one more instance of -how the most sane-thinking men are rendered fatuous by the glamour of -Sentimental Feminism. - -In the present chapter we have given a few typical instances of the -practice which constitutes one of the most conspicuous features of -Modern Feminism and of the public opinion which it has engendered. -We hear and read, _ad nauseam_, of excuses, and condonation, for -every crime committed by a woman, while a crime of precisely similar -a character and under precisely similar circumstances, where a man -is the perpetrator, meets with nothing but virulent execration from -that truculent ass, British public opinion, as manipulated by the -Feminist fraternity, male and female. This state of public opinion -reacts, of course, upon the tribunals and has the result that women -are practically free to commit any offence they please, with always -a splendid sporting chance of getting acquitted altogether, and a -practical certainty that even if convicted they will receive farcical -sentences, or, should the sentence be in any degree adequate to the -offence, that such sentence will not be carried out. The way in which -criminal law is made a jest and a mockery as regards female prisoners, -the treatment of criminal suffragettes, is there in evidence. The -excuse of health being endangered by their going without their -breakfasts has resulted in the release after a few days of women guilty -of the vilest crimes—_e.g._ the attempt to set fire to the theatre at -Dublin. It may be well to recall the outrageous facts of modern female -immunity and free defiance of the law as illustrated by one quotation -of a description of the merry time of the window-smashers of March 1912 -in Holloway prison given by a correspondent of _The Daily Telegraph_. -The correspondent of that journal describes his visit to the aforesaid -prison, where he said there appeared to have been no punishment of any -kind for any sort of misbehaviour. “All over the place,” he writes, -“is noise—women calling to women everywhere, and the officials seem -powerless to preserve even the semblance of discipline. A suffragist -will call out her name while in a cell, and another one who knows her -will answer, giving her name in return, and a conversation will then -be carried on between the two. This chattering obtains all day and far -into the night. The ‘officials’ as the wardresses prefer themselves -called, have already given the prison the name of ‘the monkey-house.’ -Certain it is that the prisoners are treated with all deference, the -reason being perhaps that the number of officials is insufficient to -establish proper order. While I was waiting yesterday one lady drove up -in a carriage and pair, in which were two policemen and several bundles -of clothes, to enter upon her sentence and this is the note which seems -to dominate the whole of the prison. Seventy-six of the prisoners -are supposed to be serving sentences with hard labour, but none of -them are wearing prison clothes, and in only one or two instances -have any tasks of any description been given, those generally being -a little sewing or knitting.” Again a member of the Women’s Freedom -League at a meeting on 19th May 1912 boasted that the suffragettes had -a wing of their own at Holloway. “They had nice hot water pipes and -all the latest improvements and were able to climb up to the window -and exchange sentiments with their friends.” She had saved money and -enjoyed herself very much!! - -Here we have a picture of the way the modern authorities of the law -recognise the “injured innocence” of female delinquents who claim the -right wantonly to destroy property. Our present society, based as it is -on private property-holding, and which usually punished with the utmost -severity any breach of the sanctity of private property, waives its -claims where women are concerned. Similarly arson under circumstances -directly endangering human life, for which the law prescribes the -maximum sentence of penal servitude for life, is considered adequately -punished by a week or two’s imprisonment when those convicted of the -crime are of the female sex. Oh, but they were acting from political -motives! Good, and have not terrorist anarchists, Fenians and Irish -dynamiters of the Land League days also acted from political motives? -The terrorist anarchist, foolish and indefensible though his tactics -may be, believes honestly enough that he is paving the way for the -abolition of poverty, misery and social injustice, a far more vital -thing than the franchise! The Irish Fenians and dynamiters pursued a -similar policy and there is no reason to doubt their honest belief that -it would further the cause of the freedom and national independence -of Ireland. Yet were these “political” offenders dealt with otherwise -than as ordinary criminals when convicted of acts qualified by the law -as felonies? And their acts, moreover, whatever we may think of them -otherwise, were, in most cases at least, politically logical from their -own point of view, and not senseless injuries to unoffending persons, -as those of the present-day female seekers after the suffrage. - - - - -CHAPTER V - -THE “CHIVALRY” FAKE - - -The justification for the whole movement of Modern Feminism in one of -its main practical aspects—namely, the placing of the female sex in -the position of privilege, advantage and immunity—is concentrated -in the current conception of “chivalry.” It behoves us, therefore, -to devote some consideration to the meaning and implication of this -notion. Now this word chivalry is the _dernier ressort_ of those at -a loss for a justification of the modern privileging of women. But -those who use it seldom give themselves the trouble to analyse the -connotation of this term. Brought to book as to its meaning, most -persons would probably define it as deference to, or consideration for, -weakness, especially bodily weakness. Used in this sense, however, -the term covers a very much wider ground than the “kow-towing” to the -female section of the human race, usually associated with it. Boys, -men whose muscular strength is below the average, domestic animals, -etc., might all claim this special protection as a plea of chivalry, -in their favour. And yet we do not find different criminal laws, or -different rules of prison treatment, say, for men whose stamina is -below the average. Neither do we find such men or boys exempted by law -from corporal punishment in consequence of their weakness, unless as an -exception in individual cases when the weakness amounts to dangerous -physical disability. Neither, again, in the general affairs of life -are we accustomed to see any such deference to men of weaker muscular -or constitutional development as custom exacts in the case of women. -Once more, looking at the question from the other side, do we find the -claim of chivalry dropped in the case of the powerful virago or the -muscularly developed female athlete, the sportswoman who rides, hunts, -plays cricket, football, golf and other masculine games, and who may -even fence or box? Not one whit! - -It would seem then that the definition of the term under consideration, -based on the notion of deference to mere weakness as such, will hardly -hold water, since in its application the question of sex always takes -precedence of that of weakness. Let us try again! Abandoning for the -moment the definition of chivalry as a consideration for weakness, -considered _absolutely_, as we may term it, let us see whether the -definition of consideration for _relative_ defencelessness—_i.e._ -defencelessness in a given situation—will coincide with the current -usage of the word. But here again we are met with the fact that the -man in the hands of the law—to wit, in the grip of the forces of the -State, ay, even the strongest man, were he a very Hercules, is in as -precisely as defenceless and helpless a position relative to those in -whose power he finds himself, as the weakest woman would be in the like -case, neither more nor less! And yet an enlightened and chivalrous -public opinion tolerates the most fiendish barbarities and excogitated -cruelties being perpetrated upon male convicts in our gaols, while it -shudders with horror at the notion of female convicts being accorded -any severity of punishment at all even for the same, or, for that -matter, more heinous offences. A particularly crass and crucial -illustration is that infamous piece of one-sided sex legislation -which has already occupied our attention in the course of the present -volume—to wit, the so-called “White Slave Traffic Act” 1912. - -It is plain then that chivalry as understood in the present day -really spells sex privilege and sex favouritism pure and simple, and -that any attempts to define the term on a larger basis, or to give -it a colourable rationality founded on fact, are simply subterfuges, -conscious or unconscious, on the part of those who put them forward. -The etymology of the word chivalry is well known and obvious enough. -The term meant originally the virtues associated with knighthood -considered as a whole, bravery even to the extent of reckless daring, -loyalty to the chief or feudal superior, generosity to a fallen foe, -general open-handedness, and open-heartedness, including, of course, -the succour of the weak and the oppressed generally, _inter alia_, the -female sex when in difficulties. It would be idle, of course, to insist -upon the historical definition of the term. Language develops and words -in course of time depart widely from their original connotation, so -that etymology alone is seldom of much value in practically determining -the definition of words in their application at the present day. But -the fact is none the less worthy of note that only a fragment of the -original connotation of the word chivalry is covered by the term as -used in our time, and that even that fragment is torn from its original -connection and is made to serve as a scarecrow in the field of public -opinion to intimidate all who refuse to act upon, or who protest -against, the privileges and immunities of the female sex.[101:1] - - [101:1] One among many apposite cases, which has occurred - recently, was protested against in a letter to _The Daily - Telegraph_, 21st March 1913, in which it was pointed out that - while a suffragette got a few months’ imprisonment in the - second division for wilfully setting fire to the pavilion in - Kew Gardens, a few days previously, at the Lewes Assizes, a man - had been sentenced to five years’ penal servitude for burning a - rick!! - -I have said that even that subsidiary element in the old original -notion of chivalry which is now well-nigh the only surviving remnant -of its original connotation is torn from its connection and hence -has necessarily become radically changed in its meaning. From being -part of a general code of manners enjoined upon a particular guild or -profession it has been degraded to mean the exclusive right in one -sex guaranteed by law and custom to certain advantages and exemptions -without any corresponding responsibility. Let us make no mistake about -this. When the limelight of a little plain but critical common-sense is -turned upon this notion of chivalry hitherto regarded as so sacrosanct, -it is seen to be but a poor thing after all; and when men have acquired -the habit of habitually turning the light of such criticism upon it, -the accusation, so terrible in the present state of public opinion, of -being “unchivalrous” will lose its terrors for them. In the so-called -ages of chivalry themselves it never meant, as it does to-day, the -woman right or wrong. It never meant as it does to-day the general -legal and social privilege of sex. It never meant a social defence or -a legal exoneration for the bad and even the criminal woman, simply -because she is a woman. It meant none of these things. All it meant was -a voluntary or gratuitous personal service to the forlorn women which -the members of the Knights’ guild among other such services, many of -them taking precedence of this one, were supposed to perform. - -So far as courage is concerned, which was perhaps the first of the -chivalric virtues in the old days, it certainly requires more courage -in our days to deal severely with a woman when she deserves it (as a -man would be dealt with in like circumstances) than it does to back up -a woman against her wicked male opponent. - -It is a cheap thing, for example, in the case of a man and woman -quarrelling in the street, to play out the stage rôle of the bold and -gallant Englishman “who won’t see a woman maltreated and put upon, -not he!” and this, of course, without any inquiry into the merits of -the quarrel. To swim with the stream, to make a pretence of boldness -and bravery, when all the time you know you have the backing of -conventional public opinion and mob-force behind you, is the cheapest -of mock heroics. - -Chivalry to-day means the woman, right or wrong, just as patriotism -to-day means “my country right or wrong.” In other words, chivalry -to-day is only another name for Sentimental Feminism. Every outrageous -pretension of Sentimental Feminism can be justified by the appeal -to chivalry, which amounts (to use the German expression) to an -“appeal from Pontius to Pilate.” This Sentimental Feminism commonly -called chivalry is sometimes impudently dubbed by its votaries, -“manliness.” It will presumably continue in its practical effects -until a sufficient minority of sensible men will have the moral -courage to beard a Feminist public opinion and shed a little of this -sort of “manliness.” The plucky Welshmen at Llandystwmdwy in their -dealings with the suffragette rowdies on a memorable occasion showed -themselves capable of doing this. In fact one good effect generally -of militant suffragetteism seems to be the weakening of the notion of -chivalry—_i.e._ in its modern sense of Sentimental Feminism—amongst -the populace of this country. - -The combination of Sentimental Feminism with its invocation of the -old-world sentiment of chivalry which was based essentially on the -assumption of the mental, moral and physical inferiority of woman to -man, for its justification, with the pretensions of modern Political -Feminism, is simply grotesque in its inconsistent absurdity. In -this way Modern Feminism would fain achieve the feat of eating its -cake and having it too. When political and economic rights are in -question, _bien entendu_, such as involve gain and social standing, -the assumption of inferiority magically disappears before the strident -assertion of the dogma of the equality of woman with man—her mental -and moral equality certainly! When, however, the question is of a -different character—for example, for the relieving of some vile female -criminal of the penalty of her misdeeds—then Sentimental Feminism -comes into play, then the whole _plaidoyer_ is based on the chivalric -sentiment of deference and consideration for poor, weak woman. I may -point out that here, if it be in the least degree logical, the plea -for mercy or immunity can hardly be based on any other consideration -than that of an intrinsic moral weakness in view of which the -offence is to be condoned. The plea of physical weakness, if such be -entertained, is here in most cases purely irrelevant. Thus, as regards -the commutation of the death sentence, the question of the muscular -strength or weakness of the condemned person does not come in at all. -The same applies, _mutatis mutandis_, to many other forms of criminal -punishment. But it must not be forgotten that there are two aspects of -physical strength or weakness. There is, as we have already pointed -out, the muscular aspect and the constitutional aspect. If we concede -the female sex as essentially and inherently weaker in muscular power -and development than the male, this by no means involves the assumption -that woman is constitutionally weaker than man. On the contrary, it -is a known fact attested, as far as I am aware, by all physiologists, -no less than by common observation, that the constitutional toughness -and power of endurance of woman in general far exceeds that of man, as -explained in an earlier chapter. This resilient power of the system, -its capacity for enduring strain, it may here be remarked in passing, -is by no means necessarily a characteristic of a specially high stage -of organic evolution. We find it indeed in many orders of invertebrate -animals in striking forms. Be this as it may, however, the existence -of this greater constitutional strength or resistant power in the -female than in the male organic system—as crucially instanced by -the markedly greater death-rate of boys than of girls in infancy and -early childhood—should, in respect of severity of punishment, prison -treatment, etc., be a strong counter-argument against the plea for -leniency, or immunity in the case of female criminals, made by the -advocates of Sentimental Feminism. - -But these considerations afford only one more illustration of the utter -irrationality of the whole movement of Sentimental Feminism identified -with the notion of “chivalry.” For the rest, we may find illustrations -of this galore. A very flagrant case is that infamous “rule of the -sea” which came so much into prominence at the time of the _Titanic_ -disaster. According to this preposterous “chivalric” Feminism, in the -case of a ship foundering, it is the unwritten law of the seas, not -that the passengers shall leave the ship and be rescued in their order -as they come, but that the whole female portion shall have the right of -being rescued before any man is allowed to leave the ship. Now this -abominable piece of sex favouritism, on the face of it, cries aloud in -its irrational injustice. Here is no question of bodily strength or -weakness, either muscular or constitutional. In this respect, for the -nonce, all are on a level. But it is a case of life itself. A number of -poor wretches are doomed to a watery grave, simply and solely because -they have not had the luck to be born of the privileged female sex. - -Such is “chivalry” as understood to-day—the deprivation, the robbery -from men of the most elementary personal rights in order to endow women -with privileges at the expense of men. During the ages of chivalry and -for long after it was not so. Law and custom then was the same for -men as for women in its incidence. To quote the familiar proverb in a -slightly altered form, _then_—“what was sauce for the gander was sauce -for the goose.” Not until the nineteenth century did this state of -things change. Then for the first time the law began to respect persons -and to distinguish in favour of sex. - -Even taking the matter on the conventional ground of weakness and -granting, for the sake of argument, the relative muscular weakness -of the female as ground for her being allowed the immunity claimed -by Modern Feminists of the sentimental school, the distinction is -altogether lost sight of between weakness as such and _aggressive_ -weakness. Now I submit there is a very considerable difference between -what is due to weakness that is harmless and unprovocative, and -weakness that is _aggressive_, still more when this aggressive weakness -presumes on itself as weakness, and on the consideration extended to -it, in order to become tyrannical and oppressive. Weakness as such -assuredly deserves all consideration, but aggressive weakness deserves -none save to be crushed beneath the iron heel of strength. Woman at -the present day has been encouraged by a Feminist public opinion to -become meanly aggressive under the protection of her weakness. She has -been encouraged to forge her gift of weakness into a weapon of tyranny -against man, unwitting that in so doing she has deprived her weakness -of all just claim to consideration or even to toleration. - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -SOME FEMINIST LIES AND FALLACIES - - -By Feminist lies I understand false statements put forward by persons, -many of whom should be perfectly well aware that they are false, -apparently with the deliberate intention of misleading public opinion -as to the real position of woman before the law. By fallacies I -understand statements doubtless dictated by Feminist prepossessions or -Feminist bias, but not necessarily suggesting conscious or deliberate -_mala fides_. - -Of the first order, the statements are made apparently with intentional -dishonesty in so far as many of the persons making them are concerned, -since we may reasonably suppose them to have intelligence and knowledge -enough to be aware that they are contrary to fact. The talk about the -wife being a chattel, for example, is so palpably absurd in the face of -the existing law that it is nowadays scarcely worth making (although -we do hear it occasionally even now). But it was not even true under -the old common law of England, which, for certain disabilities on the -one hand, conceded to the wife certain corresponding privileges on -the other. The law of husband and wife, as modified by statute in the -course of the nineteenth century, as I have often enough had occasion -to point out, is a monument of legalised tyranny over the husband in -the interests of the wife. - -If in the face of the facts the word chattel, as applied to the wife, -has become a little too preposterous even for Feminist controversial -methods, there is another falsehood scarcely less brazen that we hear -from Feminist fanatics every day. The wife, we are told, is the only -_unpaid servant_! A more blatant lie could scarcely be imagined. As -every educated person possessing the slightest acquaintance with the -laws of England knows, the law requires the husband to maintain his -wife in a manner according with his own social position; has, in other -words, to feed, clothe and afford her all reasonable luxuries, which -the law, with a view to the economic standing of the husband, regards -as necessaries. This although the husband has no claim on the wife’s -property or income, however wealthy she may be. Furthermore, it need -scarcely be said, a servant who is inefficient, lazy, or otherwise -intolerable, can be dismissed or her wage can be lowered. Not so that -privileged person, the legally wedded wife. It matters not whether -she perform her duties well, badly, indifferently, or not at all, -the husband’s legal obligations remain just the same. It will be -seen, therefore, that the wife in any case receives from the husband -economic advantages compared with which the wages of the most highly -paid servant in existence are a mere pauper’s pittance. This talk we -hear _ad nauseam_, from the Feminist side, of the wife being an “unpaid -servant,” is typical of the whole Feminist agitation. We find the same -deliberate and unscrupulous dishonesty characterising it throughout. -Facts are not merely perverted or exaggerated, they are simply turned -upside down. - -Another statement commonly made is that women’s lower wages as compared -with men’s is the result of not possessing the parliamentary franchise. -Now this statement, though not perhaps bearing on its face the wilful -deception characterising the one just mentioned, is not any the less a -perversion of economic fact, and we can hardly regard it otherwise than -as intentional. It is quite clear that up to date the wages of men have -not been raised by legislation, and yet sections of the working classes -have possessed the franchise at least since 1867. What legislation -has done for the men has been simply to remove obstacles in the way -of industrial organisation on the part of the workman in freeing the -trade unions from disabilities, and even this was begun, owing to -working-class pressure from outside, long before—as long ago as the -twenties of the last century under the auspices of Joseph Hume and -Francis Place. Now women’s unions enjoy precisely the same freedom as -men’s unions, and nothing stands in the way of working women organising -and agitating for higher wages. Those who talk of the franchise as -being necessary for working women in order to obtain equal industrial -and economic advantages with working men must realise perfectly well -that they are performing the oratorical operation colloquially known as -“talking through their hat.” The reasons why the wages of women workers -are lower than those of men, whatever else may be their grounds, and -these are, I think, pretty obvious, clearly are not traceable to -anything which the concession of the franchise would remove. If it be -suggested that a law could be enacted compulsorily enforcing equal -rates of payment for women as for men, what the result would be the -merest tyro in such matters can foresee—to wit, that it would mean the -wholesale displacement of female by male labour over large branches of -industry, and this, we imagine, is not precisely what the advocates of -female suffrage are desirous of effecting. - -Male labour, owing to its greater efficiency and other causes, being -generally preferred by employers to female labour, it is not likely -that, even for the sake of female _beaux yeux_, they are going to -accept female labour in the place of male, on an equal wage basis. -All this, of course, is quite apart from the question referred -to on a previous page, as to the economic responsibilities in the -interests of women, which our Feminist law-makers have saddled on the -man—namely, the responsibility of the husband, and the husband alone, -for the maintenance of his wife and family, obligations from anything -corresponding to which the female sex is wholly free. - -In a leaflet issued by the “Men’s Federation for Women’s Suffrage” -it is affirmed that “many laws are on the statute book which inflict -injustice on Women.” We challenge this statement as an unmitigated -falsehood. Its makers ought to know perfectly well that they cannot -justify it. There are no laws on the statute book inflicting injustice -on women as a Sex, but there are many laws inflicting injustice on -men in the supposed interests of women. The worn-out tag which has so -long done duty with Feminists in this connection—viz. the rule of the -Divorce Court, that in order to procure divorce a wife has to prove -cruelty as well as adultery on the part of a husband, whereas a husband -has to prove adultery alone on the part of a wife—has already been -dealt with and its rottenness as a specimen of a grievance sufficiently -exposed in this work and elsewhere by the present writer. Is what the -authors of the leaflet may possibly have in their mind (if they have -anything at all) when they talk about statutes inflicting injustice -on women, that the law does not carry sex vindictiveness against men -far enough to please them? With all its flogging, penal servitude, -hard labour and the rest, for offences against women, some of them of -a comparatively trivial kind, does the law as regards severity on men -not even yet satisfy the ferocious Feminist souls of the members of the -“Men’s Federation for Women’s Suffrage”? This is the only explanation -of the statement in question other than that it is sheer bald bluff -designed to mislead those ignorant of the law. - -Another flagrant falsehood perpetually being dinned into our ears by -the suffragists is the statement that _women have to obey the same laws -as men_. The conclusion drawn from this false statement is, of course, -that since they have to obey these laws equally with men, they have -an equal claim with men to take part in the making or the modifying -of them. Now without pausing to consider the fallacy underlying the -conclusion, we would point out that it is sufficient for our present -purpose to call attention to the falsity of the initial assumption -itself. It needs only one who follows current events and reads his -newspaper with impartial mind to see that to allege that women _have -to_, in the true sense of the words (_i.e._ are compelled to), obey -the same laws as men is a glaringly mendacious statement. It is -unnecessary in this place to go over once more the mass of evidence -comprised in previous writings of my own—_e.g._ in the pamphlet, “The -Legal Subjection of Man” (Twentieth Century Press), in the article, -“A Creature of Privilege” (_Fortnightly Review_, November 1911), and -elsewhere in the present volume, illustrating the unquestionable fact -that though in theory women may have to obey the law as men have, yet -in practice they are absolved from all the more serious consequences -men have to suffer when they disobey it. The treatment recently -accorded to the suffragettes for crimes such as wilful damage and -arson, not to speak of their previous prison treatment when convicted -for obstruction, disturbance and minor police misdemeanours, is a -proof, writ large, of the mendacity of the statement that women no less -than men have to obey the laws of the country, so far, that is, as any -real meaning is attached to this phrase. - -Another suffragist lie which is invariably allowed to pass muster by -default, save for an occasional protest by the present writer, is the -assumption that the English law draws a distinction as regards prison -treatment, etc., as between political and non-political offenders. -Everyone with even the most elementary legal knowledge is aware that -no such distinction has ever been recognised or suggested by the -English law—at least until the prison ordinance made quite recently, -expressly to please the suffragettes, by Mr Winston Churchill when -Home Secretary. However desirable many may consider such a distinction -to be, nothing is more indubitable than the fact that it has never -previously obtained in the letter or practice of the law of England. -And yet, without a word of contradiction from those who know better, -arguments and protests galore have been fabricated on the suffragist -side, based solely on this impudently false assumption. - -Misdemeanours and crimes at common law, when wilfully committed, -have in all countries always remained misdemeanours and crimes, -whatever motive can be conveniently put forward to account for them. A -political offence has always meant the expression of opinions or the -advocacy of measures or acts (not of the nature of common law crimes) -which are in contravention of the existing law—_e.g._ a “libel” on -the constituted authorities of the State, or the forcible disregard -of a law or police regulation in hindrance of the right of public -speech or meeting. This is what is meant by political offence in any -country recognising such as a special class of offence entitling -those committing it to special treatment. This is so where the matter -refers to the internal legislation of the country. Where the question -of extradition comes in the definition of political offence is, of -course, wider. Take the extreme case, that of the assassination of a -ruler or functionary, especially in a despotic State, where free Press -and the free expression of opinion generally do not exist. This is -undoubtedly a political, not a common law offence, _in so far as other -countries are concerned_, and hence the perpetrator of such a deed has -the right to claim immunity, on this ground, from extradition. The -position assumable is, that under despotic conditions the progressive -man is at war with the despot and those exercising authority under -him; therefore, in killing the despot or the repositories of despotic -authority, he is striking directly at the enemy. It would, however, -be absurd for the agent in a deed of this sort to expect special -political treatment _within the jurisdiction of the State itself -immediately concerned_. As a matter of fact he never does so. Fancy -a Russian Nihilist, when brought to trial, whining that he is a -political offender and hence to be exempted from all harsh treatment! -No, the Nihilist has too much self-respect to make himself ridiculous -in this way. Hardly even the maddest Terrorist Anarchist would make -such a claim. For example, the French law recognises the distinction -between political and common law offences. But for all this the _bande -tragique_, Bonnot and his associates, did not receive any benefit from -the distinction or even claim to do so, though otherwise they were loud -enough in proclaiming the political motives inspiring them. Even as -regards extradition, running amuck at large, setting fire promiscuously -to private buildings or injuring the ordinary non-political citizen, -as a “protest,” would not legally come into the category of political -offences and hence protect their authors from being surrendered as -ordinary criminals. - -The real fact, of course, is that all this talk on the part of -suffragettes and their backers about “political” offences and -“political” prison treatment is only a mean and underhand way of trying -to secure special sex privileges under false pretences. Those who talk -the loudest in the strain in question know this perfectly well. - -These falsehoods are dangerous, in spite of what one would think ought -to be their obvious character as such, by reason of the psychological -fact that you only require to repeat a lie often enough, provided you -are uncontradicted, in order for the aforesaid lie to be received as -established truth by the mass of mankind (“mostly fools,” as Carlyle -had it). - -It is a preposterous claim, I contend, that any misdemeanour and _a -fortiori_ any felony has, law apart, and even from a merely ethical -point of view, any claim to special consideration and leniency on -the bare declaration of the felon or misdemeanant that it had been -dictated by political motive. In no country, at any time, has the mere -assertion of political motive been held to bring an ordinary crime -within the sphere of treatment of political offences. According to the -legal and ethical logic of the suffragettes, it is perfectly open for -them to set on fire theatres, churches and houses, and even to shoot -down the harmless passer-by in the street, and claim the treatment -of first-class misdemeanants on the ground that the act was done as -a protest against some political grievance under which they imagined -themselves to be labouring. The absurdity of the suggestion is evident -on its mere statement. And yet the above preposterous assumption -has been suffered equally with the one last noted to pass virtually -without protest, and what is more serious, it has been acted upon by -the authorities as though it were indubitably sound law as well as -sound ethics! It may be pointed out that what has cost many an Irish -Fenian in the old days, and many a Terrorist Anarchist at a later date, -a sentence of penal servitude for life, can be indulged in by modern -suffragettes at the expense of a few weeks’ imprisonment in the first -or second division. Of course, this whole talk of “political offences,” -when they are, on the face of them, mere common crimes, is purely and -simply a trick designed to shield the cowardly and contemptible female -creatures who perpetrate these senseless and dastardly outrages from -the punishment they deserve and would receive if they had not the good -fortune to be of the privileged sex. In the case of men this impudent -nonsense would, of course, never have been put forward, and, if it -had, would have been summarily laughed out of court. That it should -be necessary to point out these things in so many words is a striking -illustration of the moral and intellectual atrophy produced by Feminism -in the public mind. - -There is another falsehood we often hear by way of condoning the -infamous outrages of the suffragettes. The excuse is often offered when -the illogical pointlessness of the “militant” methods of the modern -suffragette are in question: “Oh! men have also done the same things: -men have used violence to attain political ends!” Now the fallacy -involved in this retort is plain enough. - -It may be perfectly true that men have used violence to attain their -ends on occasion. But to assert this fact in the connection in -question is purely irrelevant. There is violence _and_ violence. It -is absolutely false to say that men have ever adopted purposeless and -inane violence _as a policy_. The violence of men has always had an -intelligible relation to the ends they had in view, either proximate -or ultimate. They pulled down Hyde Park railings in 1866. Good! But -why was this? Because they wanted to hold a meeting, and found the -park closed against them, the destruction of the railings being the -only means of gaining access to the park. Again, the Reform Bill riots -of 1831 were at least all directed against Government property and -governmental persons—that is, the enemy with whom they were at war. -In most cases, as at Bristol and Nottingham, there was (as in that of -the Hyde Park railings) a very definite and immediate object in the -violence and destruction committed—namely, the release of persons -imprisoned for the part they had taken in the Reform movement, by the -destruction of the gaols where they were confined. What conceivable -analogy have these things with a policy of destroying private property, -setting fire to tea pavilions, burning boat-builders’ stock-in-trade, -destroying private houses, poisoning pet dogs, upsetting jockeys, -defacing people’s correspondence, including the postal orders of the -poor, mutilating books in a college library, pictures in a public -gallery, etc., etc.? And all these, _bien entendu_, not openly and -in course of a riot, but furtively, in the pursuit of a deliberately -premeditated policy! Have, I ask, men ever, in the course of the -world’s history, committed mean, futile and dastardly crimes such as -these in pursuit of any political or public end? There can be but -one answer to this question. Every reader must know that there is no -analogy whatever between suffragettes’ “militancy” and the violence and -crimes of which men may have been guilty. Even the Terrorist Anarchist, -however wrong-headed he may be, and however much his deeds may be -deemed morally reprehensible, is at least logical in his actions, -in so far as the latter have always had some definite bearing on his -political ends and were not mere senseless “running amuck.” The utterly -disconnected, meaningless and wanton character signalising the policy -of the “militant” suffragettes would of itself suffice to furnish a -conclusive argument for the incapacity of the female intellect to think -logically or politically, and hence against the concession to women of -public powers, political, judicial or otherwise. - -Another fallacy analogous to the preceding, inasmuch as it seeks to -counterbalance female defects and weaknesses by the false allegation -of corresponding deficiencies in men, is the Feminist retort sometimes -heard when the question of hysteria in women is raised: “Oh! men can -also suffer from hysteria!” This has been already dealt with in an -earlier chapter, but for the sake of completing the list of prominent -Feminist fallacies I restate it concisely here. Now as we have seen it -is exceedingly doubtful whether this statement is true in any sense -whatever. There are eminent authorities who would deny that men ever -have true hysteria. There are others, of course, again, who would -extend the term hysteria so as to include every form of neurasthenic -disturbance. The question is largely, with many persons who discuss the -subject, one of terminology. It suffices here to cut short quibbling on -this score. For the nonce, let us drop the word hysteria and formulate -the matter as follows:—Women are frequently subject to a pathological -mental condition, differing in different cases but offering certain -well-marked features in common, a condition which seldom, if ever, -occurs in men. This I take to be an incontrovertible proposition based -upon experience which will be admitted by every impartial person. - -Now the existence of the so-called hysterical man I have hitherto -found to be attested on personal experience solely by certain Feminist -medical practitioners who allege that they have met with him in their -consulting-rooms. His existence is thus vouchsafed for just as the -reality of the sea-serpent is vouchsafed for by certain sea captains -or other ancient mariners. Far be it from me to impugn the ability, -still less the integrity, of these worthy persons. But in either -case I may have my doubts as to the accuracy of their observation -or of their diagnosis. It may be that the sea-serpent exists and it -may be that hysteria is at times discoverable in male persons. But -while a conclusive proof of the discovery of a single sea-serpent of -the orthodox pattern would go far to justify the yarn of the ancient -mariner, the proof of the occurrence, in an occasional case, of -hysteria in men, would not by far justify the implied contention that -hysteria is not essentially a female malady. If hysterical men are as -common a phenomenon as certain hard-pressed Feminists would make out, -what I want to know is: Where are they? While we come upon symptoms -which would be commonly attributed to hysteria in well-nigh every -second or third woman of whose life we have any intimate knowledge, -how often do we find in men symptoms in any way resembling these? -In my own experience I have come across but two cases of men giving -indications of a temperament in any way analogous to that of the -“hysterical woman.” After all, the experience of the average layman, -and in this I contend my own is more or less typical, is more important -in the case of a malady manifesting itself in symptoms obvious to -common observation, such as the one we are considering, than that of -the medical practitioner, who by reason of his profession would be -especially likely to see cases, if there were any at all, however few -they might be. The possibility, moreover, at least suggests itself, -that the latter may often mistake for hysteria (using the word in the -sense commonly applied to the symptoms presented by women) symptoms -resulting from general neurasthenia or even from purely extraneous -causes, such as alcohol, drugs, etc. That this is sometimes the case is -hardly open to question. That the pathological mental symptoms referred -to as prevalent in the female, whether we attribute them to hysteria -or not, are rarely if ever found in the male sex is an undoubted fact. -The rose, it is said, is as sweet by any other name, and whether -we term these affections symptoms of hysteria, or describe them as -hysteria itself, or deny that they have anything to go with “true -hysteria,” their existence and frequency in the female sex remains -nevertheless a fact. No! whether some of the symptoms of hysteria, -“true” or “so-called,” are occasionally to be found in men or not, -every impartial person must admit that they are extremely rare, whereas -as regards certain pathological mental symptoms, common in women and -popularly identified (rightly or wrongly) with hysteria, there is, I -contend, little evidence of their occurring in men at all. Wriggle and -prevaricate as they may, it is impossible for Suffragists and Feminists -to successfully evade the undoubted truth that the mentality of women -is characterised constitutionally by a general instability, manifesting -itself in pathological symptoms radically differing in nature and in -frequency from any that obtain in men. - -Very conspicuous among the fallacies that have done yeoman service in -the Feminist Movement is the assumption that women are constitutionally -the “weaker sex.” This has also been discussed by us in Chapter II., -but the latter may again be supplemented here by a few further remarks, -so deeply rooted is this fallacy in public opinion. The reason of the -unquestioned acceptance of the assumption is partly due to a confusion -of two things under one name. The terms, “bodily strength” and “bodily -weakness” cover two distinct facts. The attribution of greater bodily -weakness to the female sex than to the male undoubtedly expresses a -truth, but no less does the attribution of greater bodily strength -to the female than to the male sex equally express a truth. In size, -weight and muscular development, average man has an unquestionable, -and in most cases enormous, advantage over average woman. It is in -this sense that the bodily structure of the human female can with some -show of justice be described as frail. On the other hand, as regards -tenacity of life, recuperative power and what we may term toughness of -constitution, woman is without doubt considerably stronger than man. -Now this vigour of constitution may, of course, also be described as -bodily strength, and to this confusion the assumption of the general -frailty of the female bodily organism as compared with the male has -acquired general currency in the popular mind. - -The most carefully controlled and reliable statistics of the -Registrar-General and other sources show the enormously greater -mortality of men than of women at all ages and under all conditions -of life. Under the age of five the evidence shows that 120 boys die -to every 100 girls. In adult life the Registrar-General shows that -diseases of the chest are the cause of nearly 40 per cent. more -deaths among men than among women. That violence and accident should -be the occasion of 150 per cent. more deaths amongst men than women -is accounted for, partly, at least, by the greater exposure of men, -although the enormous disparity would lead one to suspect that here -also the inferior resisting power in the male constitution plays a not -inconsiderable part in the result. The report of the medical officer to -the Local Government Board proves that between the ages of fifty-five -and sixty-five there is a startling difference in numbers between the -deaths of men and those of women. The details for the year 1910 are as -follows:— - - Diseases Males Females - - Nervous system 1614 1240 - Heart 5762 5336 - Blood vessels 3424 3298 - Respiratory system 3110 2473 - Digestive system 1769 1681 - Kidneys, etc. 2241 1488 - Acute infections 2259 1164 - Violent deaths 1624 436 - -Various additional causes, connected with the more active and anxious -life of men, the greater strain to which they are subjected, their -greater exposure alike to infection and to accident, may explain a -certain percentage of the excessive death-rate of the male population -as opposed to the female, yet these explanations, even allowing the -utmost possible latitude to them, really only touch the fringe of the -difference, with the single exception of deaths from violence and -accident above alluded to, where liability and exposure may account -for a somewhat larger percentage. The great cause of the discrepancy -remains, without doubt, the enormously greater potentiality of -resistance, in other words of constitutional strength, in the female -bodily organism as compared with the male. - -We must now deal at some length with a fallacy of some importance, -owing to the apparatus of learning with which it has been set forth, -to be found in Mr Lester F. Ward’s book, entitled “Pure Sociology,” -notwithstanding that its fallacious nature is plain enough when -analysed. Mr Ward terms his speculation the “Gynœcocentric Theory,” -by which he understands apparently the Feminist dogma of the supreme -importance of the female in the scheme of humanity and nature -generally. His arguments are largely drawn from general biology, -especially that of inferior organisms. He traces the various -processes of reproduction in the lower departments of organic nature, -subdivision, germination, budding, etc., up to the earlier forms -of bi-sexuality, culminating in conjugation or true sexual union. -His standpoint he thus states in the terms of biological origins: -“Although reproduction and sex are two distinct things, and although a -creature that reproduces without sex cannot properly be called either -male or female, still so completely have these conceptions become -blended in the popular mind that a creature which actually brings forth -offspring out of its own body, is instinctively classed as female. -The female is the fertile sex, and whatever is fertile is looked upon -as female. Assuredly it would be absurd to look upon an organism -propagating sexually as male. Biologists have proceeded from this -popular standpoint and regularly speak of ‘mother cells,’ and ‘daughter -cells.’ It, therefore, does no violence to language or to science to -say that life begins with the female organism and is carried on a long -distance by means of females alone. In all the different forms of -a-sexual reproduction, from fission to parthenogenesis, the female may -in this sense be said to exist alone and perform all the functions of -life, including reproduction. In a word, life begins as female.” - -In the above remarks it will be seen that Mr Ward, so to say, jumps the -claim of a-sexual organisms to be considered as female. This, in itself -a somewhat questionable proceeding, serves him as a starting-point -for his theory. The a-sexual female (?), he observes, is not only -primarily the original sex, but continues throughout, the main trunk, -though afterwards the male element is added “for the purposes of -fertilisation.” “Among millions of humble creatures,” says Mr Ward, -“the male is simply and solely a fertiliser.” The writer goes on in -his efforts to belittle the male sex in the sphere of biology. “The -gigantic female spider and the tiny male fertiliser, the Mantis insect -with its similarly large and ferocious female, bees, and mosquitoes,” -all are pressed into the service. Even the vegetable kingdom, in so far -as it shows signs of sex differentiation, is brought into the lists in -favour of his theory of female supremacy, or “gynœcocentricism,” as he -terms it. - -This theory may be briefly stated as follows:—In the earliest -organisms displaying sex differentiation, it is the female which -represents the organism proper, the rudimentary male existing solely -for the purpose of the fertilisation of the female. This applies -to most of the lower forms of life in which the differentiation of -sex obtains, and in many insects, the Mantis being one of the cases -specially insisted upon by our author. The process of the development -of the male sex is by means of the sexual selection of the female. -From being a mere fertilising agent, gradually, as evolution proceeds, -it assumes the form and characteristics of an independent organism -like the original female trunk organism. But the latter continues to -maintain its supremacy in the life of the species, by means chiefly -of sexual selection, until the human period, _i.e._ more or less (!), -for Mr Ward is bound to admit signs of male superiority in the higher -vertebrates—viz. birds and mammals. This superiority manifests itself -in size, strength, ornamentation, alertness, etc. But it is with man, -with the advent of the reasoning faculty, and, as a consequence, of -human supremacy, that it becomes first unmistakably manifest. This -superiority, Mr Ward contends, has been developed under the ægis of -the sexual selection of the female, and enabled cruel and wicked man -to subject and enslave down-trodden and oppressed woman, who has thus -been crushed by a Frankenstein of her own creation. Although in various -earlier phases of human organisation woman still maintains her social -supremacy, this state of affairs soon changes. Androcracy establishes -itself, and woman is reduced to the rôle of breeding the race and of -being the servant of man. Thus she has remained throughout the periods -of the higher barbarism and of civilisation. Our author regards the -lowest point of what he terms the degradation of woman to have been -reached in the past, and the last two centuries as having witnessed a -movement in the opposite direction—namely, towards the emancipation of -woman and equality between the sexes. (_Cf._ “Pure Sociology,” chap. -xiv., and especially pp. 290-377.) - -The above is a brief, but, I think, not unfair skeleton statement -of the theory which Mr Lester Ward has elaborated in the work above -referred to, in great detail and with immense wealth of illustration. -But now I ask, granting the correctness of Mr Ward’s biological -premises and the accuracy of his exposition, and I am not specialist -enough to be capable of criticising these in detail: What does it all -amount to? The “business end” (as the Americans would say) of the whole -theory, it is quite evident, is to afford a plausible and scientific -basis for the Modern Feminist Movement, and thus to further its -practical pretensions. What Mr Ward terms the androcentric theory, at -least as regards man and the higher vertebrates, which is on the face -of it supported by the facts of human experience and has been accepted -well-nigh unanimously up to quite recent times, is, according to him, -all wrong. The male element in the universe of living things is not the -element of primary importance, and the female element the secondary, -but the converse is the case. For this contention Mr Ward, as already -pointed out, has, by dint of his biological learning, succeeded at -least in making out a case _in so far as lower forms of life are -concerned_. He has, however, to admit—a fatal admission surely—that -evolution has tended progressively to break down the superiority of -the female (by means, as he contends, of her own sexual selection) -and to transfer sex supremacy to the male, according to Mr Ward, -hitherto a secondary being, and that this tendency becomes very obvious -in most species of birds and mammals. With the rise of man, however, -out of the _pithecanthropos_, the _homosynosis_, or by whatever other -designation we may call the intermediate organism between the purely -animal and the purely human, and the consequent supersession of -instinct as the dominant form of intelligence by reason, the question -of superiority, as Mr Ward candidly admits, is no longer doubtful, and -upon the unquestionable superiority of the male, in due course of time, -follows the unquestioned supremacy. It is clear then that, granting -the biological premises of our author that the lowest sexual organisms -are virtually female and that in the hermaphrodites the female -element predominates; that in the earliest forms of bi-sexuality the -fertilising or male element was merely an offshoot of the female trunk -and that this offshoot develops, mainly by means of sexual selection on -the part of the female, into an organism similar to the latter; that -not until we reach the higher vertebrates, the birds and the mammals, -do we find any traces of male superiority; and that this superiority -only becomes definite and obvious, leading to male domination, in the -human species—granting all this, I say, what argument can be founded -upon it in support of the equal value physically, intellectually and -morally of the female sex in human society, or the desirability of -its possessing equal political power with men in such society? On the -contrary, Mr Ward’s whole exposition, with his biological facts of -illustration, would seem to point rather in the opposite direction. We -seem surely to have here, if Mr Ward’s premises be accepted as to the -primitive insignificance of the male element—at first overshadowed and -dominated by the female stem, but gradually evolving in importance, -character and fruition, till we arrive at man the highest product of -evolution up to date—a powerful argument for anti-Feminism. On Mr -Ward’s own showing, we find that incontestible superiority, both in -size and power of body and brain, has manifested itself in Androcracy, -when the female is relegated, in the natural course of things, to the -function of child-bearing. This, it can hardly be denied, is simply one -more instance of the general process of evolution, whereby the higher -being is evolved from the lower, at first weak and dependent upon its -parent, the latter remaining dominant until the new being reaches -maturity, when in its turn it becomes supreme, while that out of which -it developed, and of which it was first the mere offshoot, falls into -the background and becomes in its turn subordinate to its own product. - -Let us turn now to another scientific fallacy, the result of a good -man struggling with adversity—_i.e._ a sound and honest scientific -investigator, but one who, at the same time, is either himself obsessed -with the principles of Feminism as with a religious dogma, or else is -nervously afraid of offending others who are. His attitude reminds one -of nothing so much as that of the orthodox geologist of the first half -of the nineteenth century, who wrote in mortal fear of incurring the -_odium theologicum_ by his exposition of the facts of geology, and who -was therefore nervously anxious to persuade his readers that the facts -in question did not clash with the Mosaic cosmogony as given in the -Book of Genesis. With Mr Havelock Ellis in his work, “Man and Woman,” -it is not the dogma of Biblical infallibility that he is concerned -to defend, but a more modern dogma, that of female equality, so dear -to the heart of the Modern Feminist. Mr Ellis’s efforts to evade the -consequences of the scientific truths he honestly proclaims are almost -pathetic. One cannot help noticing, after his exposition of some fact -that goes dead against the sex-equality theory as contended for by -Feminists, the eagerness with which he hastens to add some qualifying -statement tending to show that after all it is not so incompatible with -the Feminist dogma as it might appear at first sight. - -The _pièce de résistance_, however, of Mr Havelock Ellis is contained -in his “conclusion.” The author has for his problem to get over -the obvious incompatibility of the truth he has himself abundantly -demonstrated in the course of his book, that the woman-type, in every -respect, physiological and psychological, approaches the child-type, -while the man-type, in its proper progress towards maturity, -increasingly diverges from it. The obvious implication of this fact is -surely plain, on the principle of the development of the individual -being a shorthand reproduction of the evolution of the species, or, -to express it in scientific phraseology, of _ontogeny_ being the -abbreviated recapitulation of the stages presented by _philogeny_. If -we proceed on this well-accredited and otherwise universally accepted -principle of biology, the inference is clear enough—to wit, that woman -is, as Herbert Spencer and others have pointed out, simply “undeveloped -man”—in other words, that Woman represents a lower stage of evolution -than Man. Now this would obviously not at all suit the book of Mr -Ellis’s Feminism. Explained away it has to be in some fashion or other. -So our author is driven to the daring expedient of throwing overboard -one of the best established generalisations of modern biology, and -boldly declaring that the principle contained therein is reversed -(we suppose “for this occasion only”) in the case of Man. In this -way he is enabled to postulate a theory consoling to the Feminist -soul, which affirms that adult man is nearer in point of development -to his pre-human ancestor than either the child or the woman! The -physiological and psychological analogies observable between the child -and the savage, and even, especially in early childhood, between the -child and the lower mammalian types—analogies which, notably in -the life of instinct and passion, are traceable readily also in the -human female—all these count for nothing; they are not dreamt of in -Mr Ellis’s Feminist philosophy. The Modern Feminist dogma requires -that woman should be recognised as equal in every respect (except in -muscular strength) with man, and if possible, as rather superior to -him. If Nature has not worked on Feminist lines, as common observation -and scientific research alike testify on the face of things, naughty -Nature must be “corrected,” in theory, at least, by the ingenuity of -Feminist savants of the degraded male persuasion. To this end we must -square our scientific hypotheses! - -The startling theory of Mr Havelock Ellis, which must seem, one -would think, to all impartial persons, so out of accord with all the -acknowledged laws and facts of biological science, appears to the -present writer, it must be confessed, the very _reductio ad absurdum_ -of Feminist controversial perversity. - -I will conclude this chapter on Feminist Lies and Fallacies with a -fallacy of false analogy or false illustration, according as we -may choose to term it. This quasi-argument was recently put forward -in a defence speech by one of the prisoners in a suffragette trial -and was subsequently repeated by George Bernard Shaw in a letter -to _The Times_. Put briefly, the point attempted to be made is as -follows:—Apostrophising men, it is said: “How would you like it if -the historical relations of the sexes were reversed, if the making and -the administrating of the laws and the whole power of the State were -in the hands of women? Would not you revolt in such a condition of -affairs?” Now to this quasi-argument the reply is sufficiently clear. -The moral intended to be conveyed in the hypothetical question put, is -that women have just as much right to object to men’s domination, as -men would have to object to women’s domination. But it is plain that -the point of the whole question resides in a _petitio principie_—to -wit, in the assumption that those challenged admit equal intellectual -capacity and equal moral stability as between the average woman and the -average man. Failing this assumption the challenge becomes senseless -and futile. If we ignore mental and moral differences it is only a -question of degree as to when we are landed in obvious absurdity. In -“Gulliver’s Travels” we have a picture of society in which horses ruled -the roost, and lorded it over human beings. In this satire Swift in -effect put the question: “How would you humans like to be treated by -horses as inferiors, just as horses are treated by you to-day?” I am, -be it remembered, not instituting any comparison between the two cases, -beyond pointing out that the argument as an argument is intrinsically -the same in both. - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MOVEMENT - - -We have already spoken of two strains in Modern Feminism which, -although commonly found together, are nevertheless intrinsically -distinguishable. The first I have termed Sentimental Feminism and the -second Political Feminism. Sentimental Feminism is in the main an -extension and emotional elaboration of the old notion of chivalry, a -notion which in the period when it was supposed to have been at its -zenith, certainly played a very much smaller part in human affairs -than it does in its extended and metamorphosed form in the present -day. We have already analysed in a former chapter the notion of -chivalry. Taken in its most general and barest form it represents -the consideration for weakness which is very apt to degenerate into -a worship of mere weakness. _La faiblesse prime le droit_ is not -necessarily nearer justice than _la force prime le droit_; although to -hear much of the talk in the present day one would imagine that the -inherent right of the weak to oppress the strong were a first principle -of eternal rectitude. But the theory of chivalry is scarcely invoked -in the present day save in the interests of one particular form of -weakness—viz. the woman as the muscularly weaker sex, and here it has -acquired an utterly different character.[141:1] - - [141:1] As regards this point it should be remarked that - mediæval chivalry tolerated (as Wharton expressed it in his - “History of Poetry”) “the grossest indecencies and obscenities - between the sexes,” such things as modern puritanism would - stigmatise with such words as “unchivalrous,” “unmanly” and - the like. The resemblance between the modern worship of women - and the relations of the mediæval knight to the female sex is - very thin indeed. Modern claims to immunity for women from the - criminal law and mediæval chivalry are quite different things. - -Chivalry, as understood by Modern Sentimental Feminism, means unlimited -licence for women in their relations with men, and unlimited coercion -for men in their relations with women. To men all duties and no rights, -to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying -Modern Feminism, Suffragism, and the bastard chivalry it is so fond of -invoking. The most insistent female shrieker for equality between the -sexes among Political Feminists, it is interesting to observe, will, in -most cases, on occasion be found an equally insistent advocate of the -claims of Sentimental Feminism, based on modern metamorphosed notions -of chivalry. It never seems to strike anyone that the muscular weakness -of woman has been forged by Modern Feminists into an abominable weapon -of tyranny. Under cover of the notion of chivalry, as understood by -Modern Feminism, Political and Sentimental Feminists alike would -deprive men of the most elementary rights of self-defence against women -and would exonerate the latter practically from all punishment for the -most dastardly crimes against men. They know they can rely upon the -support of the sentimental section of public opinion with some such -parrot cry of “What! Hit a woman!” - -Why not, if she molests you? - -“Treat a woman in this way!” “Shame!” responds automatically the crowd -of Sentimental Feminist idiots, oblivious of the fact that the real -shame lies in their endorsement of an iniquitous sex privilege. If the -same crowd were prepared to condemn any special form of punishment -or mode of treatment as inhumane for both sexes alike, there would, -of course, be nothing to be said. But it is not so. The most savage -cruelty and vindictive animosity towards men leaves them comparatively -cold, at most evoking a mild remonstrance as against the inflated -manifestation of sentimental horror and frothy indignation produced by -any slight hardship inflicted by way of punishment (let us say) on a -female offender. - -The psychology of Sentimental Feminism generally is intimately bound up -with the curious phenomenon of the hatred of men by their own sex as -such. With women, in spite of what is sometimes alleged, one does not -find this phenomenon of anti-sex. On the contrary, nowadays we are in -presence of a powerful female sex-solidarity indicating the beginnings -of a strong sex-league of women against men. But with men, as already -said, in all cases of conflict between the sexes, we are met with a -callous indifference, alternating with positive hostility towards -their fellow-men, which seems at times to kill in them all sense of -justice. This is complemented on the other side by an imbecile softness -towards the female sex in general which reminds one of nothing so much -as of the maudlin _bonhomie_ of the amiable drunkard. This besotted -indulgence, as before noted, is proof even against the outraged sense -of injury to property. - -As we all know, offences against property, as a rule, are those the -average bourgeois is least inclined to condone, yet we have recently -seen a campaign of deliberate wanton destruction by arson and other -means, directed expressly against private property, which nevertheless -the respectable propertied bourgeois, the man of law and order, has -taken pretty much “lying down.” Let us suppose another case. Let us -imagine an anarchist agitation, with a known centre and known leaders, -a centre from which daily outrages were deliberately planned by these -leaders and carried out by their emissaries, all, _bien entendu_, of -the male persuasion. - -Now what attitude does the reader suppose “public opinion” of the -propertied classes would adopt towards the miscreants who were -responsible for these acts? Can he not picture to himself the furious -indignation, the rabid diatribes, the advocacy of hanging, flogging, -penal servitude for life, as the minimum punishment, followed by panic -legislation on these lines, which would ensue as a consequence. Yet -of such threatenings and slaughter, where suffragettes who imitate -the policy of the Terrorist Anarchist are concerned, we hear not a -sound. The respectable propertied bourgeois, the man of law and order, -will, it is true, probably condemn these outrages in an academic way, -but there is an undernote of hesitancy which damps down the fire of -his indignation. There is no vindictiveness, no note of atrocity in -his expostulations; nay, he is even prepared, on occasion, to argue -the question, while maintaining the impropriety, the foolishness, -the “unwomanliness” of setting fire to empty houses, cutting up golf -links, destroying correspondence, smashing windows and the like. But -of fiery indignation, of lurid advocacy of barbaric punishments, or of -ferocity in general, we have not a trace. On the contrary, a certain -willingness to admit and even to emphasise the disinterestedness of -these female criminals is observable. As regards this last point, we -must again insist on what was pointed out on a previous page, that -the disinterestedness and unselfishness of many a male bomb-throwing -anarchist who has come in for the righteous bourgeois’ sternest -indignation, are, at least, as unquestionable as those of the female -house-burners and window-smashers. Moreover the anarchist, however -wrong-headed he may have been in his action, as once before remarked, -it must not be forgotten, had at least for the goal of his endeavours, -not merely the acquirement of a vote, but the revolution which he -conceived would abolish human misery and raise humanity to a higher -level. - -In this strange phenomenon, therefore, in which the indignation of -the bourgeois at the wanton and wilful violation of the sacredness of -his idol, is reduced to mild remonstrance and its punitive action to -a playful pretence, we have a crucial instance of the extraordinary -influence of Feminism over the modern mind. That the propertied classes -should take arson and wilful destruction of property in general, -with such comparative equanimity because the culprits are women, -acting in the assumed interest of a cause that aims at increasing the -influence of women in the State, is the most striking illustration we -can have of the power of Feminism. We have here a double phenomenon, -the unreasoning hatred of man as a sex, by men, and their equally -unreasoning indulgence towards the other sex. As we indicated above, -not only is the sense of _esprit de corps_ entirely absent among modern -men as regards their own sex, while strongly present in modern women, -but this negative characteristic has become positive on the other side. -Thus the modern sex problem presents us with a reversal of the ordinary -sociological law of the solidarity of those possessing common interests. - -It remains to consider the psychological explanation of this fact. -Why should men so conspicuously prefer the interests of women before -those of their own sex? That this is the case with modern man the -history of the legislation of the last fifty years shows, and the -undoubted fact may be found further illustrated in the newspaper -reports of well-nigh every trial, whether at civil or criminal law, -quite apart from the ordinary “chivalric” acts of men in the detail of -social life. This question of sex, therefore, as before said, forms -the solitary exception to the general law of the _esprit de corps_ of -those possessing common characteristics and interests. It cannot be -adequately explained by a reference to the evolution of sex functions -and relations from primitive man onwards, since it is at least in -the extreme form we see it to-day, a comparatively recent social -phenomenon. The theory of the sacrosanctity of women by virtue of their -sex, quite apart from their character and conduct as individuals, -scarcely dates back farther than a century, even from its beginnings. -The earlier chivalry, where it obtained at all, applied only to the -woman who presented what were conceived of as the ideal moral feminine -characteristics in some appreciable degree. The mere physical fact of -sex was never for a moment regarded as of itself sufficient to entitle -the woman to any special homage, consideration, or immunity, over and -above the man. No one suggested that the female criminal was less -guilty or more excusable than the male criminal. No one believed that -a woman had a vested right to rob or swindle a man because she had had -sexual relations with him. This notion of the mere fact of sex—of -femality—as of itself constituting a title to special privileges -and immunities, apart from any other consideration, is a product of -very recent times. In treating this question, in so far as it bears -on the criminal law, it is important to distinguish carefully between -the softening of the whole system of punishment due to the general -development of humanitarian tendencies and the special discrimination -made in favour of the female sex. These two things are very often -inadequately distinguished from one another. Punishment may have become -more humane where men are concerned, it may have advanced up to a -certain point in this direction, but its character is not essentially -changed. As regards women, however, the whole conception of criminal -punishment and penal discipline has altered. Sex privilege has been now -definitely established as a principle. - -Now a complete investigation of the psychology of this curious -phenomenon we have been considering—namely, the hatred so common with -men for their fellow-men as a sex—is a task which has never yet been -properly taken in hand. Its obverse side is to be seen on all hands in -the conferring and confirming of sex prerogative on women. Not very -long ago, as we have seen, one of its most striking manifestations -came strongly under public notice—namely, the “rule of the sea,” by -which women, by virtue of their sex, can claim to be saved from a -sinking ship before men. The fact that the laws and practices in which -this man-hatred and woman-preference find expression are contrary to -every elementary sense of justice, in many cases conflict with public -policy, and can obviously be seen to be purely arbitrary, matters not. -The majority of men feel no _sense_ of the injustice although they may -admit the fact of the injustice, when categorically questioned. They -are prepared when it comes to the point to let public policy go by -the board rather than entrench upon the sacred privilege and immunity -of the female; while as to the arbitrary and unreasoning nature of -the aforesaid laws and practices, not being troubled with a logical -conscience, this does not affect them. I must confess to being unequal -to the task of accurately fathoming the psychological condition of the -average man who hates man in general and loves woman in general to the -extent of going contrary to so many apparently basal tendencies of -human nature as we know it otherwise. The reply, of course, will be -an appeal to the power of the sexual instinct. But this, I must again -repeat, will not explain the rise, or, if not the rise, at least the -marked expansion of the sentiment in question during the last three -generations or thereabouts. Even apart from this, while I am well aware -of the power of sexual love to effect anything in the mind of man as -regards its individual object, I submit it is difficult to conceive how -it can influence so strongly men’s attitude towards women they have not -seen, or, even where they have seen them, when there is no question of -sexual attraction, or, again, as regards the collectivity of women—the -abstract category, Woman (in general). - -We have already dealt with the Anti-man campaign in the Press, -especially in modern novels and plays. This, as we have remarked, often -takes the form of direct abuse of husbands and lovers and the attempt -to make them look ridiculous as a foil to the brilliant qualities of -wives and sweethearts. But we sometimes find the mere laudation of -woman herself, apart from any direct anti-manism, assume the character -of an intellectual emetic. A much-admired contemporary novelist, -depicting a wedding ceremony in fashionable society circles, describes -the feelings of his hero, a young man disgusted with the hollowness -and vanity of “Society” and all its ways, as follows:—“The bride was -opposite him now, and by an instinct of common chivalry he turned -away his eyes; it seemed to him a shame to look at that downcast head -above the silver mystery of her perfect raiment; the modest head full, -doubtless, of devotion and pure yearnings; the stately head where no -such thought as ‘How am I looking this day of all days, before all -London?’ had ever entered: the proud head, where no such fear as, ‘How -am I carrying it off?’ could surely be besmirching. . . . He saw below -the surface of this drama played before his eyes; and set his face, as -a man might who found himself assisting at a sacrifice.” Now, I ask, -can it be believed that the writer of the above flamboyant feminist -fustian is a novelist and playwright of established reputation who -undoubtedly has done good work. The obvious criticism must surely -strike every reader that it is somewhat strange that this divinely -innocent creature he glorifies should arise straight out of a _milieu_ -which is shown up as the embodiment of hollowness and conventional -superficiality. If men can lay the butter on thick in their laudation -of womanhood, female idolaters of their own sex can fairly outbid -them. At the time of writing there has just come under my notice a -dithyramb in the journal, _The Clarion_, by Miss Winnifred Blatchford, -on the sacrosanct perfections of womanhood in general, especially -as exemplified in the suicidal exploits of the late lamented Emily -Wilding Davidson of Epsom fame, and a diatribe on the purity, beauty -and unapproachable glory of woman. According to this lady, the glory of -womanhood seems to extend to every part of the female organism, but, we -are told, is especially manifested in the hair (oozing into the roots -apparently). Evidently there is something especially sacred in woman’s -hair! This prose ode to Woman, as exemplified in Emily Davidson, -culminates in the invocation: “Will the day ever come when a woman’s -life will be rated higher . . . than that of a jockey?” Poor jockey! -We will trust not, though present appearances do indicate a strong -tendency to regard a woman as possessing the prerogatives of the sacred -cow of Indian or ancient Egyptian fame! - -It is impossible to read or hear any discussion on, say, the marriage -laws, without it being apparent that the female side of the question is -the one element of the problem which is considered worthy of attention. -The undoubted iniquity of our existing marriage laws is always spoken -of as an injustice to the woman and the changes in the direction of -greater freedom which are advocated as a relief to the wife bound to -a bad or otherwise unendurable husband. That the converse case may -happen, that that reviled and despised thing, a husband, may also have -reason to desire relief from a wife whose angelic qualities and vast -superiority to his own vile male self he fails to appreciate, never -seems to enter into the calculation at all. - -That no satisfactory formulation of the psychology of the movement of -Feminism has yet been offered is undoubtedly true. For the moment, I -take it, all we can do is co-ordinate the fact as a case of what we -may term social hypnotism, of those waves of feeling uninfluenced by -reason which are a phenomenon so common in history—witchcraft manias, -flagellant fanaticisms, religious “revivals,” and similar social -upheavals. The belief that woman is oppressed by man, and that the -need for remedying that oppression at all costs is urgent, partly, at -least, doubtless belongs to this order of phenomena. That this feeling -is widespread and held in various degrees of intensity by large numbers -of persons, men no less than women, is not to be denied. That it is of -the nature of a hypnotic wave of sentiment, uninfluenced by reason, -is shown by the fact that argument does not seem to touch it. You may -show conclusively that facts are opposed to the assumption; that, so -far from women being oppressed, the very contrary is the case; that -the existing law and its administration is in no essential respect -whatever unfavourable to women, but, on the contrary, is, as a whole, -grossly unfair to men—it is all to no purpose. Your remonstrances, -in the main, fall on deaf ears, or, shall we say, they fall off the -mind coated with Feminist sentiment as water falls from the proverbial -duck’s back. The facts are ignored and the sentiment prevails; the same -old catchwords, the same lies and threadbare fallacies are repeated. -The fact that they have been shown to be false counts for nothing. -The hypnotic wave of sentiment sweeps reason aside and compels men to -believe that woman is oppressed and man the oppressor, and believe -it they will. If facts are against the _idée fixe_ of the hypnotic -suggestion, so much the worse for the facts. Thus far the Feminist -dogma of the oppression of the female sex. - -As regards the obverse side of this Sentimental Feminism which issues -in ferocious sex-laws directed against men for offences against -women—laws enacting barbarous tortures, such as the “cat,” and -which are ordered with gusto in all their severity in our criminal -courts—this probably is largely traceable to the influence of Sadic -lusts. An agitation such as that which led to the passing of the -White Slave Traffic Act, so-called, of 1912, is started, an agitation -engineered largely by the inverted libidinousness of social purity -mongers, and on the crest of this agitation the votaries of Sadic -cruelty have their innings. The foolish Sentimental Feminist at large, -whose indignation against wicked man is fanned to fury by bogus -tales and his judgment captured by representations of the severities -requisite to stamp out the evil he is assured is so widespread, lends -his fatuous support to the measures proposed. The judicial Bench -is, of course, delighted at the increase of power given it over the -prisoner in the dock, and should any of the _puisnes_ happen to have -Sadic proclivities they are as happy as horses in clover and the “cat” -flourishes like a green bay tree. - -Let us now turn to the question of the psychology of Political -Feminism. Political Feminism, as regards its immediate demand of female -suffrage, is based directly on the modern conception of democracy. -This is its avowed basis. With modern notions of universal suffrage -it is declared that the exclusion of women from the franchise is -logically incompatible. If you include in the parliamentary voting -lists all sorts and conditions of men, it is said, it is plainly a -violation of the principle of democracy to exclude more than one half -of the adult population from the polls. As Mill used to say in his -advocacy of female suffrage, so long as the franchise was restricted -to a very small section of the population, there may have been nothing -noteworthy in the exclusion of women. But now that the mass of men -are entitled to the vote and the avowed aim of democracy is to extend -it to all men, the refusal to extend it still further to women is an -anomaly and a manifest inconsistency. But in this, Mill, and others -who have used his argument, omitted to consider one very vital point. -The extensions of the suffrage, such as have been demanded and in -part obtained by democracy up to the present agitation, have always -referred to the removal of class barriers, wealth barriers, race -barriers, etc.—in a word, social barriers—but never to the removal -of barriers based on deep-lying organic difference—_i.e._ barriers -determining not sociological but biological distinctions. The case of -sex is unique in this connection, and this fact vitiates any analogy -between the extension of suffrage to women and its extension to fresh -social strata such as democracy has hitherto had in view, terminating -in the manhood suffrage which is the ultimate goal of all political -democrats. Now sex constitutes an organic or biological difference, -just as a species constitutes another and (of course) a stronger -biological difference. Hence I contend the mere fact of this difference -rules out the bare appeal to the principle of democracy _per se_ as an -argument in favour of the extension of the suffrage to women. There is, -I submit, no parity between the principle and practice of democracy as -hitherto understood, and the new extension proposed to be given to -the franchise by the inclusion of women within its pale. And yet there -is no question but that the apparent but delusive demand of logical -consistency in this question, has influenced and still influences many -an honest democrat in his attitude in this matter. - -But although the recognition of the difference of sex as being -an organic difference and therefore radically other than social -differences of caste, class, wealth, or even race, undoubtedly -invalidates the appeal to the democrat on the ground of consistency, to -accept the principle of female suffrage, yet it does not necessarily -dispose of the question. It merely leaves the ground free for the -problem as to whether the organic distinction implied in sex does or -does not involve corresponding intellectual and moral differences in -the female sex which it is proposed to enfranchise; and furthermore -whether such differences, if they exist, involve general inferiority, -or at least an unfitness _ad hoc_ for the exercise of political -functions. These questions we have, I think, sufficiently discussed -already in the present work. The fact of the existence of exceptionally -able women in various departments, does undoubtedly mislead many men -in their judgment as to the capacity of the average woman to “think -politically,” or otherwise to show herself the effective equal of the -average man, morally and intellectually. The reasons for answering -this question in the negative we have already briefly indicated in the -course of our investigations. This renders it unnecessary to discuss -the matter any further here. - -In dealing with the psychological aspects of the Feminist Movement, -the intellectual conditions which paved the way for its acceptance, -it is worth while recalling two or three typical instances of the -class of “argument” to be heard on occasion from the female advocates -for the suffrage. Thus, when the census was taken in 1911 and the -Women’s Political and Social Union conceived, as they thought, the -brilliant idea of annoying the authorities and vitiating the results -of the census by refusing to allow themselves to be enrolled, one -of the leaders, when interviewed on the point, gave her reason for -her refusal to be included, in the following terms:—“I am not a -citizen” (meaning that she did not possess the franchise) “and I am -not going to pretend to be one.” The silliness of this observation -is, of course, obvious, seeing that the franchise or even citizenship -has nothing whatever to do with the census, which includes infants, -besides criminals, lunatics, imbeciles, etc. Again, in a manifesto of -the Women’s Political and Social Union defending window-smashing and -other “militant” outrages, it was pointed out that the coal strike -had caused more injury than the window-smashing and yet the strikers -were not prosecuted as the window-smashers were—in other words, the -exercise of the basal personal right of the free man to withhold his -labour save under the conditions agreed to by him, is paralleled with -criminal outrage against person and property! Again, some three or -four years ago, when the Women’s Suffrage Bill had passed the Commons, -on its being announced by the Government that for the remainder of -the Session no further facilities could be given for private members’ -Bills, save for those of a non-contentious character, one of these -sapient females urged in the Press that, seeing that there were -persons to be found in both the orthodox political camps who were -in favour of female suffrage, therefore the Bill in question must -be regarded as of a non-contentious character! Once more, a lady, -writing a few months ago to one of the weekly journals, remarked that -though deliberate window-breaking, destruction of letters, and arson, -might be illegal acts, yet that the punishing of them by imprisonment -with hard labour, they being political offences, was also an illegal -act, with the conclusion that the “militants” and the authorities, -both alike having committed illegal acts, were “quits”! These choice -specimens of suffragettes’ logic are given as throwing a significant -light on the mental condition of women in the suffragette movement, -and indirectly on female psychology generally. One would presumably -suppose that the women who put them forward must have failed to see -the exhibition they were making of themselves. That any human being -out of an asylum, could have sunk to the depth of fatuous inconsequent -idiocy they indicate would seem scarcely credible. Is the order of -imbecility which the above and many similar utterances reflect, -confined to suffragette intelligence alone, or does it point to radical -inferiority of intellectual fibre, not in degree merely, but in kind, -in the mental constitution of the human female generally? Certainly it -is hard to think that any man, however low his intelligence, would be -capable of making a fool of himself precisely in the way these women -are continually doing in their attempts to defend their cause and their -tactics. - -In the foregoing pages we have endeavoured to trace some of the leading -strands of thought going to make up the Modern Feminist Movement. -Sentimental Feminism clearly has its roots in sexual feeling, and -in the tradition of chivalry, albeit the notion of chivalry has -essentially changed in the course of its evolution. For the rest, -Sentimental Feminism, with its double character of man-antipathy and -woman-sympathy, as we see it to-day, has assumed the character of one -of those psychopathic social phenomena which have so often recurred in -history. It can only be explained, like the latter, as an hypnotic wave -passing over society. - -As for Political Feminism, we have shown that this largely has its -root in a fallacious application of the notion of democracy, partaking -largely of the logical fallacy known technically as _a dicto secundum -quid ad dictum simpliciter_. This logical fallacy of Political Feminism -is, of course, reinforced and urged forward by Sentimental Feminism. -As coming under the head of the psychology of the movement, we have -also called attention to some curious phenomena of logical imbecility, -noticeable in the utterances of educated women in the suffragette -agitation. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -THE INDICTMENT - - -Feminism, or, as it is sometimes called, the emancipation of woman, -as we know it in the present day, may be justifiably indicted as a -gigantic fraud—a fraud in its general aim and a fraud alike in its -methods of controversy and in its practical tactics. It is through -and through disingenuous and dishonest. Modern Feminism has always -professed to be a movement for political and social equality between -the sexes. The claim for this equalising of position and rights in -modern society is logically based upon the assumption of an essential -equality in natural ability between the sexes. As to this, we have -indicated in the preceding pages on broad lines, the grounds for -regarding the foregoing assumption as false. But quite apart from this -question, I contend the fraudulent nature of the present movement can -readily be seen by showing it to be not merely based on false grounds, -but directly and consciously fraudulent in its pretensions. - -It uniformly professes to aim at the placing of the sexes on a footing -of social and political equality. A very little inquiry into its -concrete demands suffices to show that its aim, so far from being -equality, is the very reverse—viz. to bring about, with the aid of -men themselves, as embodied in the forces of the State, a female -ascendancy and a consolidation and extension of already existing female -privileges. That this is so may be seen in general by the constant -conjunction of Political and Sentimental Feminism in the same persons. -It may be seen more particularly in detail, in the specific demands -of Feminists. These demands, as formulated by suffragists as a reason -why the vote is essential to the interests of women, amount to little -if anything else than proposals for laws to enslave and browbeat men -and to admit women to virtual if not actual immunity for all offences -committed against men. It is enough to consult any suggestions for a -woman’s “charter” in order to confirm what is here said. Such proposals -invariably suggest the sacrificing of man at every turn to woman.[162:1] - - [162:1] This is arrived at by the clever trick of appealing - to the modern theory of the equal mental capacity of the - sexes when it is a question of political and economic rights - and advantages for women, and of counterappealing to the - traditional sentiment based on the belief in the inferiority - of the female sex, when it is a question of legal and - administrative privilege and consideration. The Feminist thus - succeeds by his dexterity in the usually difficult feat of - “getting it both ways” for his fair clients. - -In the early eighties of the last century appeared a skit in the form -of a novel from the pen of the late Sir Walter Besant, entitled “The -Revolt of Man,” depicting the oppression of man under a Feminist -régime, an oppression which ended in a revolt and the re-establishment -of male supremacy. The ideas underlying this _jeu d’esprit_ of the -subjection of men would seem to be seriously entertained by the female -leaders of the present woman’s movement. It is many years ago now since -a minister holding one of the highest positions in the present Cabinet -made the remark to me:—“The real object, you know, for which these -women want the vote is simply to get rascally laws passed against men!” -Subsequent Feminist agitation has abundantly proved the truth of this -observation. An illustration of the practical results of the modern -woman’s movement is to be seen in the infamous White Slave Traffic Act -of 1912 rushed through Parliament as a piece of panic legislation by -dint of a campaign of sheer hard lying. The atrocity of this act has -been sufficiently dealt with in a previous chapter.[163:1] - - [163:1] There is one fortunate thing as regards these savage - laws aimed at the suppression of certain crimes, and that is, - as it would seem, they are never effective in achieving their - purpose. As Mr Tighe Hopkins remarks, apropos of the torture - of the “cat” (“Wards of the State,” p. 203):—“The attempt to - correct crime with crime has everywhere repaid us in the old - properly disastrous way.” It would indeed be regrettable if it - could be shown that penal laws of this kind were successful. - Far better is it that the crimes of isolated individuals should - continue than that crimes such as the cold-blooded infliction - of torture and death committed at the behest of the State, as - supposed to represent the whole of society, should attain their - object, even though the object be the suppression of crimes of - another kind perpetrated by the aforesaid individuals within - society. The successful repression of crimes committed by - individuals, by a crime committed by State authority, can only - act as an encouragement to the State to continue its course of - inflicting punishment which is itself a crime. - -Other results of the inequality between the sexes so effectively urged -by present-day Feminism, may be seen in the conduct of magistrates, -judges and juries, in our courts civil and criminal. This has been -already animadverted upon in the course of the present work, and -illustrative cases given, as also in previous writings of the present -author to which allusion has already been made. It is not too much to -say that a man has practically no chance in the present day in a court -of law, civil or criminal, of obtaining justice where a woman is in the -case. The savage vindictiveness exhibited towards men, as displayed -in the eagerness of judges to obtain, and the readiness of juries to -return, convictions against men accused of crimes against women, on -evidence which, in many cases, would not be good enough (to use the -common phrase) to hang a dog on, with the inevitable ferocious sentence -following conviction, may be witnessed on almost every occasion when -such cases are up for trial. I have spoken of the eagerness of judges -to obtain convictions. As an illustration of this sort of thing, the -following may be given:—In the trial of a man for the murder of a -woman, before Mr Justice Bucknill, which took place some time ago, it -came out in evidence that the woman had violently and obscenely abused -and threatened the man immediately before, in the presence of other -persons. The jury were so impressed with the evidence of unusually -strong provocation that they hesitated whether it was not sufficient to -reduce the crime to that of manslaughter, and, unable to agree offhand -on a verdict of murder, asked the judge for further guidance. Their -deliberations were, however, cut short by the judge, who remarked on -the hesitation they had in arriving at their verdict, finally adding: -“Only think, gentlemen, how you would view it had this been your own -wife or sister who was cruelly done to death!” With the habitual -obsequiousness of a British jury towards the occupant of the Bench, the -gentlemen in question swallowed complacently the insult thrown at their -wives and sisters in putting them in the same category with a foul -strumpet, and promptly did what the judge obviously wanted of them—to -wit, brought in a verdict of wilful murder. The cases on the obverse -side, where the judge, by similar sentimental appeal, aims at procuring -the acquittal of female prisoners notoriously guilty on the evidence, -that palladium of rogues, the English law of libel, precludes me from -referring to individually. As regards the disparity in punishment, -however, we have an apt and recent illustration in the execution of -the youth of nineteen, convicted on doubtful evidence of the murder -of his sweetheart, and the reprieve of the woman convicted on her own -admission of the murder of her paramour by soaking him in paraffin -during his sleep and setting him alight! - -Another effect of the influence of Sentimental Feminism, is seen in -crimes of the “unwritten law” description, the _crime passionel_ of -the French. The most atrocious and dastardly murders and other crimes -of violence are condoned and even glorified if they can but be covered -by the excuse that they are dictated by a desire to avenge a woman’s -“honour” or to enable her to obtain the object of her wishes. The -incident in Sir J. M. Barrie’s play of the lady who murders a man by -throwing him out of a railway carriage over a dispute respecting the -opening of a window, and gets acquitted on the excuse that her little -girl had got a cold, represents a not exaggerated picture of “modern -justice”—for women only! The outrageous application of the principles, -if such you may call them, of Sentimental Feminism in this country -in the case of the suffragettes, has made English justice and penal -administration the laughing-stock of the world. But the way in which -the crimes of the suffragettes have been dealt with, is after all only -a slight exaggeration of the immunity from all the severer penalties of -the law enjoyed by female convicts generally. This has been carried in -the case of suffragette criminals to the utmost limits of absurdity. -In fact, the deference exhibited towards these deliberate perpetrators -of crimes of wanton destruction is sometimes comic, as in the case -of the Richmond magistrate who rebuked the policeman-witness in an -arson charge for omitting the “Miss” in referring to one of the female -prisoners in the dock: as well as in the “high character” usually -attributed to the perpetrators of these deeds of outrage and violence -even by certain functionaries of Church and State. They did not speak -in this strain morebetoken, when mere male anarchists or Fenians were -involved in difficulties with the law due to overzeal for their cause! - -The whole movement, it is quite evident, depends for its success, -largely, at least, on the apathy of men. The bulk of men undoubtedly do -not sympathise with the pretensions of the Feminist agitation, but the -bulk of men are indifferent one way or the other. They do not take the -Feminist Movement seriously. The bare notion of women, as such, being -a danger to men as such, strikes them as absurd. They do not realise -that the question is not of the physical strength of women as women, -but of the whole forces of the State being at the disposal of women -to set in motion to gratify their whims and passions. The idea of a -sex war in which women take the field against men, such as represents -the inwardness of the whole Feminist Movement of to-day, seems to -them ridiculous. The feeling at the root of most men’s good-humoured -patronage of, or indifference to, Modern Feminist claims, is roughly -expressed in a remark of the late William Morris in replying to some -animadversions of mine on the subject:—“What does it matter? A man -ought to be always able to deal with a woman if necessary. Why, I could -tackle a half dozen women at once for that matter!” This is a common -attitude of mind on the subject among otherwise sane and sensible men. -The absurdity of it is manifest when one considers that the issue of -man versus woman as units of physical strength respectively, is purely -irrelevant. It is not a question of the man tackling the woman or any -number of women. It is the question of the whole force of the State -tackling the man _in favour_ of the woman. The prevalent idea in many -men’s minds seems to be that of the State drawing a ring-fence around -the disputant man and woman and letting them fight the matter out -between themselves, which, to speak the language of the great geometer -of antiquity—“is absurd.” - -Modern Feminism, tacking itself on to an older tradition which it -travesties beyond all recognition, has succeeded in affecting modern -public opinion with an overpowering sense of the sacrosanctity of human -femality as such. It is not content with respect for the ideal of -_good_ womanhood but it would fain place on a pedestal the mere fact -of femalehood in itself. This is illustrated in a thousand ways. Thus -while public opinion tolerates the most bestial and infamous forms -of corporal punishment for men in gaols, it will regard the slight -chastisement by the medical head of an institution for mental cases, of -a girl who is admittedly obstinate and refractory rather than mentally -afflicted in the ordinary sense of the term, as “degrading.” - -Again, in order to sustain its favourite thesis, the intellectual -equality of woman with man, it resorts, whenever a plausible case -presents itself, to its usual policy of the falsification of fact. Take -the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was first discovered in the -laboratory of the late Professor Curie we were told that the latter -had made the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned that he -possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his laboratory work. We were -afterwards told that the discovery of radium was the joint work of -both, the implication being that the honours were equally divided. Now, -Feminist influence has succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of -as herself the discoverer of radium! I venture to affirm that there -is no evidence whatever for assuming that radium would ever have seen -the light had the late Professor Curie not himself experimented in his -laboratory, not to speak of his predecessor Becquerel. - -We have seen that Feminists are, in this country, at least, zealous in -championing the Puritan view of sexual morality. Many of them, in the -vehemence of their Anti-man crusade, look forward with relish to the -opportunity they anticipate will be afforded them when women get the -vote, of passing laws rigorously enforcing asceticism on men by means -of severe penal enactments. All forms of indulgence (by men), sexual or -otherwise, uncongenial to the puritanic mind, would be equally placed -under the ban of the criminal law! Anyone desirous of testing the truth -of the above statement has only to read the suffragette papers and -other expositions of the gospel of Feminism as held by its most devoted -advocates. - -One point should not be lost sight of, and that is the attitude of the -Press. Almost all journals are ready to publish any argument in favour -of the suffrage or of the other claims of the movement on behalf of -women. In defiance of this fact, a prominent Feminist prelate some time -ago, in a letter to _The Times_, alleged among the other so-called -grievances of women at the present day, and apparently as in some -sort a condonation of “militancy,” that the Press was closed to women -anxious to air their grievances! A statement more directly the reverse -of the truth could hardly have been made. Open any paper of general -circulation—say any of the morning dailies—and you will find letters -galore advocating the Feminist side of the question! According to my -own observation, they are in the proportion of something like three or -four in favour to one against. The fact is useless denying that this -sex-agitation has every favour shown it by current “public opinion,” -including even that of its opponents. Female “militants” of the -suffrage have pleas urged in condonation of their criminal acts, such -as their alleged “high character,” which would be laughed at in the -case of men—and yet they whine at being boycotted. - -The readiness, and almost eagerness, with which certain sections of -British public opinion are ready to view favourably anything urged -on behalf of female suffrage, is aptly illustrated by the well-known -argument we so often hear when the existence of “militancy” is pointed -out as a reason for withholding the suffrage—the argument, namely, as -to the unfairness of refusing the franchise to numbers of peaceable -and law-abiding women who are asking for it, because a relatively -small section of women resort to criminal methods of emphasising -their demand. Now let us examine the real interpretation of the facts. -It is quite true that the majority of the women agitating for the -suffrage at the present day are themselves non-militants. But what -is and has been their attitude towards their militant sisters? Have -they ever repudiated the criminal tactics of the latter with the -decision and even indignation one might reasonably have expected had -they really regarded the campaign of violence and wanton outrage with -strong disapprobation, not to say abhorrence? The answer must be a -decided negative. At the very most they mildly rebuke the unwisdom of -militant methods, blessing them, as it were, with faint blame, while, -as a general rule, they will not go even so far as this, but are -content, while graciously deigning to tell you that, although their own -methods are not those of militancy, yet that they and the militants -are alike working for the same end, notwithstanding they may differ -as to the most effective methods of attaining it. The non-militant -woman suffragist is always careful never to appear an _anti_-militant. -Everyone can see that had the bulk of the so-called “peaceable and -law-abiding” suffragists, to whose claims we are enjoined to give -ear, honestly and resolutely set their faces against, and vigorously -denounced, the criminal campaign, refusing to have anything to do with -it or its authors, the campaign in question would have come to an end -long ago. But no! this would not have suited the book of the “peaceable -and law-abiding” advocates of woman’s suffrage. Their aim has been, and -is still, to run with the “militant” hare and hunt with the “peaceable -and law-abiding” hounds. While themselves abstaining from any unlawful -act they are perfectly willing and desirous that they and their -movement shall reap all the advantages of advertisement and otherwise -that may accrue from the militant policy. That the above is a true -state of the case as regards the “peaceful and law-abiding” elements -in the suffragist movement, which we are assured so largely outnumber -the militant section, one would think must be plain to everyone, -however obtuse, who has followed with attention the course of the -present agitation. And yet there are fools of the male sex who consider -seriously this preposterous plea of the injustice of refusing to -concede the suffrage to a large number of “peaceable and law-abiding” -women who are demanding it, because of the action of a small body of -violent females—with whom, _bien entendu_, the aforesaid large body of -“peaceable and law-abiding” women (while keeping themselves carefully -aloof from active participation in militancy), do not pretend to -conceal their sympathy! - -The whole modern woman’s movement is based, in a measure, at least, -on an assumption which is absolutely unfounded—to wit, that man has -systematically oppressed woman in the past, that the natural tendency -of evil-minded man is always to oppress woman, or, to put it from the -other side, that woman is the victim of man’s egoism! The unsoundness -of this view ought to be apparent to every unbiassed student of -history, anthropology, and physiology. The Feminist prefers to see -evidence of male oppression in the place woman has occupied in social -and political life, rather than the natural consequence of her organic -constitution, her secondary sexual characteristics, and the natural -average inferiority which flows therefrom. As regards the personal -relations between men and women, an impartial view of the case must -inevitably lead to the conclusion that whatever else man in general -may have on his conscience, no reasonable reproach lies to his score -as regards his treatment of woman. The patience, forbearance, and -kindliness, with which, from Socrates downwards, men as a rule have -encountered the whims, the tempers, and the tantrums of their often -unworthy womankind is indeed a marvel. But it is a still greater marvel -that Modern Feminism in this, as in other things, should have succeeded -in hocussing public opinion into the delusion that the exact opposite -of the truth represents the real state of the case. This, however, is a -marvel which runs through the history of the controversial exploits of -the whole Feminist Movement. - -In the foregoing pages we have striven to unmask the shameless -imposture which, in the main, this movement represents. We have tracked -down one dishonest argument after another. We have pointed out how the -thinnest and hollowest of subterfuges are allowed to pass muster, and -even to become current coin, by dint of unrefuted reiteration. The -Feminist trick of reversing the facts of the case, as, for example, the -assertion that man-made law and its administration is unjust to women, -and then raising a howl of indignation at the position of affairs they -picture, such being, of course, the diametrical opposite of the real -facts—all this has been exposed. In conclusion I can only express the -hope that honest, straightforward men who have been bitten by Feminist -wiles will take pause and reconsider their position. Whatever sentiment -or sympathy they may have with the aims of the movement intrinsically, -it ought to be not too much to expect them to view with contempt -and abhorrence the mass of disingenuous falsehood and transparent -subterfuge, which the votaries of Feminism systematically seek to palm -off upon a public opinion—only too easily gullible in this matter—as -true fact and valid argument. - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber’s note: - -Variations in spelling and hyphenation remain as in the original. - -Ellipses match the original. - -The following corrections have been made to the original text: - - Page 28: mankind in its intellectual,[comma missing in - original] moral and technical development - - Page 31: only 7 per cent.[period missing in original] in favour - of man - - Page 32: the occipital lobes, which[original has “whith”] are - universally - - Page 38: side of the moral faculties”[quotation mark missing in - original] - - Page 42: “In England,” says Dr Buzzard,[original has extraneous - quotation mark] “hysteria is - - Page 43: in hysteria is, according to Dr Pitrè[original has - “Pitré”] - - Page 43: authorities—_e.g._[second period missing in original] - Dr Bernard Holländer - - Page 45: represent such raræ[original has œ] aves - - Page 73: But after all is[word “is” missing in original] said - and done, it is doubtful - - Page 111: we hear _ad nauseam_[original has “nauseum”], from - the Feminist side - - Page 127: nearly 40 per cent. [original has extraneous word - “of”] more deaths among men - - Page 134: offshoot, falls into the background[original has - “backgrouud”] - - Page 162: Such proposals invariably[original has “invaribly”] - suggest the sacrificing - - [24:1] even by those who put it[original has “sit”] forward - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FRAUD OF FEMINISM*** - - -******* This file should be named 51877-0.txt or 51877-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/1/8/7/51877 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/51877-0.zip b/old/51877-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1c839d8..0000000 --- a/old/51877-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51877-h.zip b/old/51877-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f342cca..0000000 --- a/old/51877-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51877-h/51877-h.htm b/old/51877-h/51877-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 8ef332a..0000000 --- a/old/51877-h/51877-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4659 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> -<head> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> -<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Fraud of Feminism, by Ernest Belfort Bax</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body - { margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - } - -@media handheld -{ - body { - margin-left: 2%; - margin-right: 2%; - margin-top: 1%; - margin-bottom: 1%; - } -} - -p - { margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1.25em; - } - -@media print, handheld -{ - p { - margin-top: .75em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .75em; - text-indent: 1.25em; - } -} - -h1 - { text-align: center; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: x-large; - clear: both; - padding-top: 2em; - line-height: 1.5em; - page-break-before: always; - } - -h2 - { text-align: center; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: x-large; - line-height: 1.5; - clear: both; - page-break-before: always; - } - -h2 small - { font-size: medium; - font-weight: bold; - } - -h2.nobreak - { page-break-before: avoid; - } /* used with chapter div to prevent double page breaks in epub */ - -hr - { width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; - } - -table - { margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - } - -div.chapter - { page-break-before: always; - } /* forces a chunk break for epub */ - -em - { font-variant: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: italic; - } - -cite - { font-variant: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: italic; - } - -cite.upright - { font-variant: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: normal; - } - -p.tpauthor - { text-align: center; - padding-bottom: 1.25em; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 130%; - text-indent: 0em; - } /* on title page, author is centered, big and bold and in small caps */ - -p.tpother - { text-align: center; - padding-top: 1.25em; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 105%; - text-indent: 0em; - } /* words on title page centered and bold */ - -p.tppublisher - { text-align: center; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 100%; - text-indent: 0em; - } /* publisher info on title page */ - -p.firsttitle - { text-align: center; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: large; - text-indent: 0em; - line-height: 1.5em; - padding-bottom: 1.5em; - } - -p.noindent - { text-indent: 0em; - } - -hr.newchapter - { width: 65%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 17.5%; - margin-right: 17.5%; - clear: both; - } - -@media handheld -{ - hr.newchapter { - margin-top: .1em; - margin-bottom: .1em; - visibility: hidden; - color: white; - display: none; - } -} - -div.title - { margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - } /* block around title */ - -/* table headers */ -th - { text-align: center; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: normal; - padding: .25em .25em; - font-size: 55%; - } - -/* table data */ -td.header - { text-align: center; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: normal; - padding: .25em .25em; - font-size: 100%; - } - -.tdleft - { text-align: left; - padding: .25em .25em; - vertical-align: top; - } - -.tdright - { vertical-align: top; - text-align: right; - padding: .25em .25em; - } - -.tdpage - { text-align: right; - vertical-align: bottom; - padding: .25em .25em; - } /* page number in index right-aligned */ - -.pagenum - { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - right: 3%; - font-size: smaller; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - font-style: normal; - text-align: right; - } /* page numbers */ - -.figcenter - { margin: auto; - border: 0em; - padding-top: 1em; - padding-bottom: 1em; - text-align: center; - } - - -/* header for TN big and bold */ -.tnhead - { text-align: center; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: x-large; - line-height: 1.5; - } - -/* block for corrections in transcriber note */ -.tnblock - { margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 10%; - } - -@media handheld -{ -.tnblock - { margin-left: 4%; - margin-right: 4%; - } -} - -/* footnotes */ -.footnote - { margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - font-size: 0.9em; - } - -.footnote .label - { position: absolute; - right: 84%; - text-align: right; - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - } - -.fnanchor - { vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - } - -.notebox /* makes box around Transcriber's Notes */ - { margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - margin-top: 5%; - margin-bottom: 5%; - padding: 1em; - border: solid black 1px; - } - - h1.pg { font-size: 190%; - padding-top: 0em; - line-height: 1em; } - h4 { text-align: center; - clear: both; } - hr.full { width: 100%; - margin-top: 3em; - margin-bottom: 0em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - height: 4px; - border-width: 4px 0 0 0; /* remove all borders except the top one */ - border-style: solid; - border-color: #000000; - clear: both; } - </style> -</head> -<body> -<h1 class="pg">The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Fraud of Feminism, by Ernest Belfort Bax</h1> -<p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States -and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no -restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it -under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this -eBook or online at <a -href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you are not -located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this ebook.</p> -<p>Title: The Fraud of Feminism</p> -<p>Author: Ernest Belfort Bax</p> -<p>Release Date: April 27, 2016 [eBook #51877]</p> -<p>Language: English</p> -<p>Character set encoding: UTF-8</p> -<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FRAUD OF FEMINISM***</p> -<p> </p> -<h4>E-text prepared by deaurider, Lisa Reigel,<br /> - and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team<br /> - (<a href="http://www.pgdp.net">http://www.pgdp.net</a>)<br /> - from page images generously made available by<br /> - Internet Archive<br /> - (<a href="https://archive.org">https://archive.org</a>)</h4> -<p> </p> -<table border="0" style="background-color: #ccccff;margin: 0 auto;" cellpadding="10"> - <tr> - <td valign="top"> - Note: - </td> - <td> - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - <a href="https://archive.org/details/fraudoffeminism00baxerich"> - https://archive.org/details/fraudoffeminism00baxerich</a> - </td> - </tr> -</table> -<p> </p> -<hr class="full" /> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> - -<p class="firsttitle">THE FRAUD OF<br /> -FEMINISM</p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<div class="title"> -<h1>THE FRAUD OF<br /> -FEMINISM</h1> -</div> - -<p class="tpother">BY</p> - -<p class="tpauthor">E. BELFORT BAX<br /> - -<small>AUTHOR OF<br /> -“MARAT: THE PEOPLE’S FRIEND,” “PROBLEMS OF<br /> -MAN, MIND AND MORALS,” ETC.</small></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/titlepageillo.png" width="23" height="35" alt="Grant Richards Ltd. colophon" /> -</div> - -<p class="tppublisher">LONDON<br /> -GRANT RICHARDS LTD.<br /> -MDCCCCXIII</p> -</div> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p class="tppublisher">PRINTED BY THE RIVERSIDE PRESS LIMITED<br /> -EDINBURGH</p> -</div> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - - -<table summary="Table of Contents" border="0"> - <tr> - <th> </th> - <th> </th> - <th>PAGE</th> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft" colspan="2">PREFACE</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#PREFACE">1</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft" colspan="2">INTRODUCTION</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#INTRODUCTION">5</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <th>CHAPTER</th> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdright">I.</td> - <td class="tdleft">HISTORICAL</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">11</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdright">II.</td> - <td class="tdleft">THE MAIN DOGMA OF MODERN FEMINISM</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">20</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdright">III.</td> - <td class="tdleft">THE ANTI-MAN CRUSADE</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">51</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdright">IV.</td> - <td class="tdleft">ALWAYS THE “INJURED INNOCENT”</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">80</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdright">V.</td> - <td class="tdleft">THE “CHIVALRY” FAKE</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">98</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdright">VI.</td> - <td class="tdleft">SOME FEMINIST LIES AND FALLACIES</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">109</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdright">VII.</td> - <td class="tdleft">THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MOVEMENT</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">140</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdright">VIII.</td> - <td class="tdleft">THE INDICTMENT</td> - <td class="tdpage"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">161</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p><!-- Page 1 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p> -<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a><i>PREFACE</i></h2> -</div> - - -<p><i>The present volume aims at furnishing a succinct exposure of the -pretensions of the Modern Feminist Movement. It aims at presenting -the case against it with an especial view to tracking down and -gibbetting the infamous falsehoods, the conventional statements, which -are not merely perversions of the truth, but which are directly and -categorically contrary to the truth, but which pass muster by sheer -force of uncontradicted repetition. It is by this kind of bluff that -the claims of Feminism are sustained. The following is a fair example -of the statements of Feminist writers:—“As for accusing the world at -large of fatuous indulgence for womanhood in general, the idea is too -preposterous for words. The true ‘legends of the Old Bailey’ tell, not -of women absurdly acquitted, but of miserable girls sent to the gallows -for murders committed in half delirious dread of the ruthlessness of -hypocritical Society.” Now it is this sort of legend that it is one -of the chief objects of the following pages to explode. Of course the -“fatuous indulgence” for “womanhood in general,” practised by the -“world at large,” is precisely one of the most conspicuous features -<!-- Page 2 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span>of our time, and the person who denies it, if he is not deliberately -prevaricating, must be a veritable Rip van Winkle awakening out of a -sleep lasting at least two generations. Similarly the story of the -“miserable girls sent to the gallows,” etc., is, as far as living -memory is concerned, a pure legend. It is well known that in the cases -referred to of the murder of their new-born children by girls, at the -very outside a year or two’s light imprisonment is the only penalty -actually inflicted. The acquittal of women on the most serious charges, -especially where the victims are men, in the teeth of the strongest -evidence, is, on the other hand, an everyday occurrence. Now it is -statements like the above on which, as already said, the Feminist -Movement thrives; its most powerful argumentative weapon with the man -in the street is the legend that woman is oppressed by man. It is -rarely that anyone takes the trouble to refute the legend in general, -or any specific case adduced as an illustration of it. When, however, -the bluff is exposed, when the real facts of the case are laid bare to -public notice, and woman is shown, not only as not oppressed but as -privileged, up to the top of her bent, then the apostles of Feminism, -male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in -reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and, by ignoring what -they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so -<!-- Page 3 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span>dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors -by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.</i></p> - -<p><i>For the rest, it must not be supposed that this little book makes any -claim to exhaust the subject or to be a scientific treatise. It is, and -is meant to be, a popular refutation of the current arguments in favour -of Feminism, and a brief statement of the case against Feminism. Sir -Almroth Wright’s short treatise, “<cite>The Unexpurgated Case against Woman’s -Suffrage</cite>,” which deals with the question from a somewhat different -standpoint, may be consulted with advantage by the reader.</i></p> - -<p><i>An acknowledgment should be made to the editor of <cite class="upright">The New Age</cite> -for the plucky stand made by that journal in the attempt to dam the -onrush of sentimental slush set free by the self-constituted champions -of womanhood. I have also to thank two eminent medical authorities for -reading the proofs of my second chapter.</i></p> - -<p><!-- Page 4 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span></p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p><!-- Page 5 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span></p> -<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a>INTRODUCTION</h2> -</div> - - -<p>In the following pages it is not intended to furnish a treatise on the -evolution of woman generally or of her place in society, but simply to -offer a criticism on the theory and practice of what is known as Modern -Feminism.</p> - -<p>By Modern Feminism I understand a certain attitude of mind towards -the female sex. This attitude of mind is often self-contradictory and -illogical. While on the one hand it will claim, on the ground of the -intellectual and moral equality of women with men, the concession of -female suffrage, and commonly, in addition thereto, the admission of -women to all professions, offices and functions of public life; on the -other it will strenuously champion the preservation and intensification -of the privileges and immunities before the law, criminal and civil, in -favour of women, which have grown up in the course of the nineteenth -century.</p> - -<p>The above attitude, with all its inconsistencies, has at its back a -strong sex-conscious party, <!-- Page 6 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>or sex union, as we may term it, among -women, and a floating mass of inconsequent, slushy sentiment among -men. There is more than one popular prejudice which obscures the -meaning and significance of Modern Feminism with many people. There -is a common theory, for instance, based upon what really obtained to -some extent before the prevalence of Modern Feminism, that in any case -of antagonism between the two sexes, women always take the man’s side -against the woman. Now this theory, if it ever represented the true -state of the case, has long ceased to do so.</p> - -<p>The powerful female sex union spoken of, in the present day, exercises -such a strong pressure in the formation of public opinion among -women, that it is rapidly becoming next to impossible, even in the -most flagrant cases, where man is the victim, to get any woman to -acknowledge that another woman has committed a wrong. On the other -hand it may be noted, that the entire absence of any consciousness of -sex antagonism in the attitude of men towards women, combined with -an intensification of the old-world chivalry prescribed by tradition -towards the so-called weaker sex, exercises, if anything, an increasing -sway over male public opinion. Hence the terrific force Feminism has -obtained in the world of the early twentieth century.</p> - -<p>It is again often supposed, and this is also a mistake, that in -individual cases of dispute between <!-- Page 7 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>the sexes, the verdict, let -us say of a jury of men, in favour of the female prisoner or the -female litigant is solely or even mainly determined by the fact of -the latter’s good looks. This may indeed play a part; but it is easy -to show from records of cases that it is a subordinate one—that, -whatever her looks or her age may be, the verdict is given her not so -much because she is a <em>pretty</em> woman as because she is a <em>woman</em>. Here -again the question of attractiveness may have played a more potent part -in determining male verdicts in the days before Feminist sentiment -and Feminist views had reached their present dominance. But now the -question of sex alone, of being a woman, is sufficient to determine -judgment in her favour.</p> - -<p>There is a trick with which votaries of Feminism seek to prejudice the -public mind against its critics, and that is the “fake” that any man -who ventures to criticise the pretensions of Feminism, is actuated by -motives of personal rancour against the female sex, owing to real or -imaginary wrongs suffered by him at the hands of some member or members -of the sex. I suppose it may be possible that there are persons, not -precisely microcephalous idiots, who could be made to believe such -stuff as this in disparagement of him who ventures an independent -judgment on these questions; otherwise the conduct of Feminists in -adopting this line of argument would be incomprehensible. But we -<!-- Page 8 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>would fain believe that the number of these feeble-minded persons, -who believe there is any connection between a man having independent -judgment enough to refuse to bend the knee to Modern Feminist dogma, -and his having quarrelled with any or all of his female friends or -relations, cannot be very numerous. As a matter of fact there is not -one single prominent exponent of views hostile to the pretensions of -what is called the “Woman’s Movement” of the present day, respecting -whom there is a tittle of evidence of his not having lived all his life -on the best of terms with his womankind. There is only one case known -of indirectly by the present writer, and that not of a prominent writer -or speaker on the subject, that would afford any plausible excuse -whatever for alleging anti-Feminist views to have been influenced by -personal motives of this kind. I am aware, of course, that Feminists, -with their usual mendacity, have made lying statements to this effect -respecting well-nigh every prominent writer on the anti-Feminist side, -in the hope of influencing the aforesaid feeble-minded members of -the public against their opponents. But a very little investigation -suffices to show in every case the impudent baselessness of their -allegations. The contemptible silliness of this method of controversy -should render it unworthy of serious remark, and my only excuse -for alluding to it is the significant sidelight it casts <!-- Page 9 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>upon the -intellectual calibre of those who resort to it, and of the confidence -or want of confidence they have in the inherent justice of their cause -and the logical strength of their case.</p> - -<p><!-- Page 10 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span></p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p><!-- Page 11 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I<br /> - -<small>HISTORICAL</small></h2> -</div> - - -<p>The position of women in social life was for a long time a matter -of course. It did not arise as a question, because it was taken for -granted. The dominance of men seemed to derive so obviously from -natural causes, from the possession of faculties physical, moral and -intellectual, in men, which were wanting in women, that no one thought -of questioning the situation. At the same time, the inferiority of -woman was never conceived as so great as to diminish seriously, much -less to eliminate altogether, her responsibility for crimes she might -commit. There were cases, of course, such as that of offences committed -by women under coverture, in which a diminution of responsibility was -recognised and was given effect to in condonation of the offence and -in mitigation of the punishment. But there was no sentiment in general -in favour of a female more than of a male criminal. It entered into -the head of no one to weep tears of pity over the murderess of a lover -or husband rather than over the murderer of a sweetheart or wife. -<!-- Page 12 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>Similarly, minor offenders, a female blackmailer, a female thief, a -female perpetrator of an assault, was not deemed less guilty or worthy -of more lenient treatment than a male offender in like cases. The law, -it was assumed, and the assumption was acted upon, was the same for -both sexes. The sexes were equal before the law. The laws were harsher -in some respects than now, although not perhaps in all. But there was -no special line of demarcation as regards the punishment of offences -as between men and women. The penalty ordained by the law for crime or -misdemeanour was the same for both and in general applied equally to -both. Likewise in civil suits, proceedings were not specially weighted -against the man and in favour of the woman. There was, as a general -rule, no very noticeable sex partiality in the administration of the -law.</p> - -<p>This state of affairs continued in England till well into the -nineteenth century. Thenceforward a change began to take place. Modern -Feminism rose slowly above the horizon. Modern Feminism has two -distinct sides to it: (1) an articulate political and economic side -embracing demands for so-called rights; and (2) a sentimental side -which insists in an accentuation of the privileges and immunities which -have grown up, not articulately or as the result of definite demands, -but as the consequence of sentimental pleading in particular <!-- Page 13 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>cases. -In this way, however, a public opinion became established, finding -expression in a sex favouritism in the law and even still more in its -administration, in favour of women as against men.</p> - -<p>These two sides of Modern Feminism are not necessarily combined in the -same person. One may, for example, find opponents of female suffrage -who are strong advocates of sentimental favouritism towards women -in matters of law and its administration. On the other hand you may -find, though this is more rare, strong advocates of political and -other rights for the female sex, who sincerely deprecate the present -inequality of the law in favour of women. As a rule, however, the -two sides go together, the vast bulk of the advocates of “Women’s -Rights” being equally keen on the retention and extension of women’s -privileges. Indeed, it would seem as though the main object of the bulk -of the advocates of the “Woman’s Movement” was to convert the female -sex into the position of a dominant <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">sexe noblesse</i>. The two sides -of Feminism have advanced hand in hand for the last two generations, -though it was the purely sentimental side that first appeared as a -factor in public opinion.</p> - -<p>The attempt to paint women in a different light to the traditional -one of physical, intellectual and moral inferiority to men, probably -received its first literary expression in a treatise published in -<!-- Page 14 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>1532 by Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim entitled <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">De Nobilitate et -Praecellentia Feminei Sexus</i> and dedicated to Margaret, Regent of -the Netherlands, whose favour Agrippa was at that time desirous of -courting. The ancient world has nothing to offer in the shape of -literary forerunners of Modern Feminism, although that industrious -collector of historical odds and ends, Valerius Maximus, relates -the story of one Afrania who, with some of her friends, created -disturbances in the Law Courts of ancient Rome in her attempt to make -women’s voices heard before the tribunals. As regards more recent -ages, after Agrippa, we have to wait till the early years of the -eighteenth century for another instance of Feminism before its time, -in an essay on the subject of woman by Daniel Defoe. But it was not -till the closing years of the eighteenth century that any considerable -expression of opinion in favour of changing the relative positions of -the sexes, by upsetting the view of their respective values, founded on -the general experience of mankind, made itself noticeable.</p> - -<p>The names of Mary Wollstonecraft in English literature and of Condorcet -in French, will hardly fail to occur to the reader in this connection. -During the French Revolution the crazy Olympe de Gouges achieved -ephemeral notoriety by her claim for the intellectual equality of women -with men.</p> - -<p><!-- Page 15 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span></p><p>Up to this time (the close of the eighteenth century) no advance -whatever had been made by legislation in recognising the modern theory -of sex equality. The claims of women and their apologists for entering -upon the functions of men, political, social or otherwise, although -put forward from time to time by isolated individuals, received little -countenance from public opinion, and still less from the law. What -I have called, however, the sentimental aspect of Modern Feminism -undoubtedly did make some headway in public opinion by the end of -the eighteenth century, and grew in volume during the early years -of the nineteenth century. It effectuated in the Act passed in 1820 -by the English Parliament abolishing the punishment of flogging for -female criminals. This was the first beginning of the differentiation -of the sexes in the matter of the criminal law. The parliamentary -debate on the Bill in question shows clearly enough the power that -Sentimental<a name="FNanchor_15:1_1" id="FNanchor_15:1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_15:1_1" class="fnanchor">[15:1]</a> Feminism <!-- Page 16 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>had acquired in public opinion in the -course of a generation, for no proposal was made at the same time -to abolish the punishment of flogging so far as men were concerned. -Up to this time the criminal law of England, as of other countries, -made no distinction whatever between the sexes in the matter of crime -and punishment, or at least no distinction based on the principle or -sentiment of sex privilege. (A slight exception might be made, perhaps, -in the crime of “petty treason,” which distinguished the murder of a -husband by his wife from other cases of homicide.) But from this time -forward, legislation and administration have diverged farther and -farther from the principle of sex equality in this connection in favour -of female immunity, the result being that at the present day, assuming -the punishment meted out to the woman for a given crime to represent a -normal penalty, the man receives an additional increment over and above -that accorded to the crime, <em>for the offence of having been born a man -and not a woman</em>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p class="noindent"><a name="Footnote_15:1_1" id="Footnote_15:1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15:1_1"><span class="label">[15:1]</span></a> I should explain that I attach a distinct meaning -to the word <em>sentimental</em>; as used by me it does not signify, as it -does with most people, an excess of sentiment over and above what I -feel myself, but a sentiment unequally distributed. As used in this -sense, the repulsion to the flogging of women while no repulsion is -felt to the flogging of men is <em>sentimentalism</em> pure and simple. On -the other hand the objection to flogging altogether as punishment -for men or women could not be described as sentimentalism, whatever -else it might be. In the same way the anti-vivisectionist’s aversion -to “physiological” experiments on animals, if confined to household -pets and not extended to other animals, might be justly described -as sentimentalism; but one who objected to such experiments on all -animals, no matter whether one agreed with his point of view or not, -could not be justly charged with sentimentalism (or at least, not -unless, while objecting to vivisection, he or she were prepared to -condone other acts involving an equal amount of cruelty to animals).</p> -</div> - -<p>The Original Divorce Law of 1857 in its <!-- Page 17 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>provisions respecting costs -and alimony, constitutes another landmark in the matter of female -privilege before the law. Other measures of unilateral sex legislation -followed in the years ensuing until the present state of things, by -which the whole power of the State is practically at the disposal of -woman to coerce and oppress men. But this side of the question we -propose to deal with later on.</p> - -<p>The present actual movement of Feminism in political and social life -may be deemed to have begun in the early sixties, in the agitation -which preceded the motion of John Stuart Mill in 1867, on the question -of conferring the parliamentary franchise upon women. This was -coincident with an agitation for the opening of various careers to -women, notably the medical faculty. We are speaking, of course, here -of Great Britain, which was first in the field in Europe, alike in the -theory and practice of Modern Feminism. But the publication by the -great protagonist of the movement, John Stuart Mill, of his book, “The -Subjection of Women,” in 1868, endowed the cause with a literary gospel -which was soon translated into the chief languages of the Continent, -and corresponding movements started in other countries. Strangely -enough, it made considerable headway in Russia, the awakening of Russia -to Western ideas having recently begun to make itself felt at the time -of which we are speaking. The movement <!-- Page 18 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>henceforth took its place as -a permanent factor in the political and social life of this and other -countries. Bills for female suffrage were introduced every year into -the British House of Commons with, on the whole, yearly diminishing -majorities against these measures, till a few years back the scale -turned on the other side, and the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill passed -every year its second reading until 1912, when for the first time for -many years it was rejected by a small majority. Meanwhile both sides -of the Feminist movement, apart from the question of the franchise, -had been gaining in influence. Municipal franchise “on the same terms -as for men” had been conceded. Women have voted for and sat on School -Boards, Boards of Guardians, and other public bodies. Their claim to -exercise the medical profession has been not merely admitted in law but -recognised in public opinion for long past. All the advantages of an -academic career have been opened to them, with the solitary exception -of the actual conferment of degrees at Oxford and Cambridge. Such has -been the growth of the articulate and political side of the theory of -Modern Feminism.</p> - -<p>The sentimental side of Feminism, with its practical result of the -overweighting of justice in the interests of women in the courts, civil -as well as criminal, and their practical immunity from the operation -of the criminal law when in the dock, <!-- Page 19 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>has advanced correspondingly; -while at the same time the sword of that same criminal law is sharpened -to a razor edge against the man even accused, let alone convicted, -of any offence against the sacrosanct majesty of “Womanhood.” Such -is the present position of the Woman question in this country, which -we take as typical, in the sense that in Great Britain, to which we -may also add the United States of America and the British Colonies, -where—if possible, the movement is stronger than in the mother country -itself—we see the logical outcome of Feminist theory and sentiment. -It remains to consider the existing facts more in detail, and the -psychological bearings of that large number of persons who have been -in the recent past, and are being at the present time, influenced to -accept the dogmas of Modern Feminism and the statements of alleged -facts made by its votaries. Before doing so it behoves us to examine -the credibility of the dogmas themselves, and the nature of the -arguments used to support them and also the accuracy of the alleged -facts employed by the Feminists to stimulate the indignation of the -popular mind against the pretended wrongs of women.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p><!-- Page 20 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II<br /> - -<small>THE MAIN DOGMA OF MODERN FEMINISM</small></h2> -</div> - - -<p>We have pointed out in the last chapter that Modern Feminism has two -sides, the positive, definite, and articulate side, which ostensibly -claims equality between the sexes, the chief concern of which is -the conferring of all the rights and duties of men upon women, and -the opening up of all careers to them. The justification of these -demands is based upon the dogma, that, notwithstanding appearances -to the contrary, women are endowed by nature with the same capacity -intellectually and morally as men. We have further pointed out that -there is another side in Modern Feminism which in a vague way claims -for women immunity from criminal law and special privileges on the -ground of sex in civil law. The basis of this side of Feminism is a -sentimentalism—<i>i.e.</i> an unequally distributed sentiment in favour -of women, traditional and acquired. It is seldom even attempted to -base this sentimental claim for women on argument at all. The utmost -attempts in this direction amount to vague references to physical -<!-- Page 21 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>weakness, and to the claim for special consideration deriving from -the old theory of the mental and moral weakness of the female sex, so -strenuously combated as out of date, when the first side of Modern -Feminism is being contended for. The more or less inchoate assumptions -of the second or sentimental side of the modern “Woman’s Movement” -amounts practically, as already stated, to a claim for women to be -allowed to commit crimes without incurring the penalties imposed by the -law for similar crimes when committed by men. It should be noted that -in practice the most strenuous advocates of the positive and articulate -side of Feminism are also the sincerest upholders of the unsubstantial -and inarticulate assumptions of the sentimental side of the same creed. -This is noticeable whenever a woman is found guilty of a particularly -atrocious crime. It is somewhat rare for women to be convicted of -such crimes at all, since the influence of sentimental Feminism with -judges and juries is sufficient to procure an acquittal, no matter how -conclusive the evidence to the contrary. Even if women are found guilty -it is usual for a virtually nominal sentence to be passed. Should, -however, a woman by any chance be convicted of a heinous crime, such -as murder or maiming, under specially aggravated circumstances, and a -sentence be passed such as would be unanimously sanctioned by <!-- Page 22 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>public -opinion in the case of a man, then we find the whole Feminist world -up in arms. The outcry is led by self-styled upholders of equality -between the sexes, the apostles of the positive side of Feminism, who -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bien entendu</i> claim the eradication of sex boundaries in political -and social life on the ground of women being of equal capacity with -men, but who, when moral responsibility is in question, conveniently -fall back on a sentiment, the only conceivable ground for which is to -be found in the time-honoured theory of the mental and moral weakness -of the female sex. As illustrations of the truth of the foregoing, the -reader may be referred to the cases of Florence Doughty in 1906, who -shot at and wounded a solicitor with whom she had relations, together -with his son; to Daisy Lord in 1908, for the murder of her new-born -child; to the case of the Italian murderess, Napolitano in Canada, -convicted of the cold-blooded butchery of her husband in his sleep -in 1911, for whose reprieve a successful agitation was got up by the -suffrage societies!</p> - -<p>Let us first of all consider the dogma at the basis of the positive -side of Modern Feminism, which claims rational grounds of fact and -reason for itself, and professes to be able to make good its case -by virtue of such grounds. This dogma consists in the assertion of -equality in intellectual capacity, in spite of appearances to the -contrary, of <!-- Page 23 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>women with men. I think it will be admitted that the -articulate objects of Modern Feminism, taking them one with another, -rest on this dogma, and on this dogma alone. I know it has been argued -as regards the question of suffrage, that the demand does not rest -solely upon the admission of equality of capacity, since men of a -notoriously inferior mental order are not excluded from voting upon -that ground, but the fallacy of this last argument is obvious. In -all these matters we have to deal with averages. Public opinion has -hitherto recognised the average of women as being intellectually below -the voting standard, and the average man as not. This, if admitted, -is enough to establish the anti-suffrage thesis. The latter is not -affected by the fact that it is possible to find certain individual men -of inferior intelligence and therefore less intrinsically qualified -to form a political judgment than certain specially gifted women. -The pretended absurdity of “George Eliot having no vote, and of her -gardener having one” is really no absurdity at all. In the first place, -given the economic advantages which conferred education upon the -novelist, and not upon the gardener, there is not sufficient evidence -available that his judgment in public affairs might not have been even -superior to that of George Eliot herself. Moreover, the possession -of exceptionally strong imaginative faculty, expressing itself as -literary <!-- Page 24 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>genius or talent in works of fiction, does not necessarily -imply exceptional power of political judgment. But, be this as it may, -where averages are in question, exceptions obviously do not count.</p> - -<p>The underlying assumption of the suffrage movement may therefore be -taken to be the average equality of the sexes as regards intellectual -value.<a name="FNanchor_24:1_2" id="FNanchor_24:1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_24:1_2" class="fnanchor">[24:1]</a></p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p class="noindent"><a name="Footnote_24:1_2" id="Footnote_24:1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24:1_2"><span class="label">[24:1]</span></a> I believe there are some Feminist fanatics who pretend -to maintain the superiority of the female mind, but I doubt whether -this thesis is taken seriously even by those who put it forward. In any -case there are limits to the patent absurditie which it is worth while -to refute by argument.</p> -</div> - -<p>An initial difficulty exists in proving theoretically the intellectual -inferiority of women to men, or even their relative unsuitability for -fulfilling functions involving a special order of judgment. There are -such things as matters of fact which are open to common observation -and which none think of denying or calling in question unless they -have some special reason for doing so. Now it is always possible to -deny a fact, however evident it may be to ordinary perception, and it -is equally impossible to prove that the person calling in question -the aforesaid evident fact is either lying (or shall we say is -“prevaricating”), or even that he is a person hopelessly abnormal in -his organs of sense-perception.</p> - -<p>At the time of writing, the normal person who <!-- Page 25 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>has no axe to grind in -maintaining the contrary, declares the sun to be shining brightly, -but should it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this obvious fact, -and declare that the day is gloomy and overcast, there is no power of -argument by which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. I may -point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm that he doesn’t see it I -can’t prove that he does. This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely -likely to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar to those -cases of persons (and they are not seldom met with) who, when they -find facts hopelessly destructive of a certain theoretical position -adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot of controversy in -their own favour by boldly denying the inconvenient facts. One often -has experience of this trick of controversy in discussing the question -of the notorious characteristics of the female sex. The Feminist driven -into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters -open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not -Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to -the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, -or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty -in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of -things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a -consequence <!-- Page 26 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair -play among women in general. The aforesaid peculiarities of women, -as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only -disputed by those persons—to wit Feminists—to whose theoretical -views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if -not fatal. Of course these characterisations refer to averages, and -they do not exclude partial or even occasionally striking exceptions. -It is possible, therefore, although perhaps not very probable, that -individual experience may in the case of certain individuals play a -part in falsifying their general outlook; it is possible—although, -as I before said not perhaps very probable—that any given man’s -experience of the other sex has been limited to a few quite exceptional -women and that hence his particular experience contradicts that of -the general run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal to -admit what to others are self-evident facts would be perfectly <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">bona -fide</i>. The above highly improbable contingency is the only refuge for -those who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist’s denials. In -this matter I only deal with the male Feminist. The female Feminist is -usually too biassed a witness in this particular question.</p> - -<p>Now let us consider the whole of the differentiations of the -mental character between man and woman in the light of a further -generalisation <!-- Page 27 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>which is sufficiently obvious in itself and which has -been formulated with special clearness by the late Otto Weininger in -his remarkable book, “<cite class="upright" lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschlecht und Charakter</cite>” (Sex and Character). I -refer to the observations contained in Section II., Chaps. 2 and 3. The -point has been, of course, previously noted, and the present writer, -among others, has on various occasions called special attention to it. -But its formulation and elaboration by Weininger is the most complete -I know. The truth in question consists in the fact, undeniable to all -those not rendered impervious to facts by preconceived dogma, that, -as I have elsewhere put it, while man <em>has</em> a sex, woman <em>is</em> a sex. -Let us hear Weininger on this point. “Woman is <em>only</em> sexual, man is -<em>also</em> sexual. Alike in time and space this difference may be traced -in man, parts of his body susceptible to sexual excitement are small -in number and strictly localised. In woman sexuality is diffused over -the whole body, every contact on whatever part excites her sexually.” -Weininger points out that while the sexual element in man, owing to -the physiological character of the sexual organs, may be at times more -violent than that in woman, yet that it is spasmodic and occurs in -crises separated by intervals of quiescence. In woman, on the other -hand, while less spasmodic, it is continuous. The sexual instinct with -man being, as he styles it, “an appendix” and no more, he can raise -himself <!-- Page 28 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span>mentally entirely outside of it. “He is conscious of it as -of something which he possesses but which is not inseparate from the -rest of his nature. He can view it objectively. With woman this is -not the case; the sex element is part of her whole nature. Hence, it -is not as with man, clearly recognisable in local manifestations, but -subtly affects the whole life of the organism. For this reason the -man is conscious of the sexual element within him as such, whereas -the woman is unconscious of it as such. It is not for nothing that -in common parlance woman is spoken of as ‘the sex.’ In this sexual -differentiation of the whole life-nature of woman from man, deducible -as it is from physiological and anatomical distinctions, lies the -ground of those differentiations of function which culminate in the -fact that while mankind in its intellectual, moral and technical -development is represented in the main by Man, Woman has continued -to find her chief function in the direct procreation of the race.” -A variety of causes, notably modern economic development, in their -effect on family life, also the illegitimate application of the modern -democratic notion of the equality of classes and races, to that of sex, -has contributed to the modern revolt against natural sex limitations.</p> - -<p>Assuming the substantial accuracy of the above statement of fact, the -absurdity and cheapness of the clap-trap of the modern “social purity” -<!-- Page 29 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>monger, as to having one and the same sexual morality for both sexes -will be readily seen. The recognition of the necessity of admitting -greater latitude in this respect to men than to women is based clearly -on physiology and common-sense. With men sexual instinct manifests -itself locally, and at intervals its satisfaction is an urgent and -pressing need. With woman this is not so. Hence the recognised -distinction between the sexes in this respect is, as far as it goes, -a thoroughly sound one. Not that I am championing the severity of -the restrictions of the current sexual code as regards women. On the -contrary, I think it ought to be and will be, in a reasonable society -of the future, considerably relaxed. I am only pointing out that the -urgency is not so great in the one case as in the other. And this fact -it is which has led to the toleration of a stringency, originally -arising mainly from economic causes (questions of inheritance and -the like), in the case of women, which would not have been tolerated -in that of men, even had similar reasons for its adoption in their -case obtained. Any successful attempt of social purity mongers to run -counter to physiology in enforcing either by legislation or public -opinion the same stringency on men in this respect as on women could -but have the most disastrous consequences to the health and well-being -of the community.</p> - -<p><!-- Page 30 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span></p><p>It was a saying of the late Dr Henry Maudsley: “<em>Sex lies deeper than -culture</em>.” By this we may understand to be meant that sex differences -are organic. All authorities on the physiological question are agreed -that woman is less well-organised, less well-developed, than man. Dr -de Varigny asserts that this fact is traceable throughout the whole -female organism, throughout all its tissues, and all its functions. For -instance, the stature of the human female is less than that of the man -in all races. As regards weight there is a corresponding difference. -The adult woman weighs, on the average, rather more than 11 lbs. less -than the man; moreover as a rule a woman completes her growth some -years earlier than a man. The bones are lighter in the woman than -in the man; not absolutely but in proportion to the weight of the -body. They are, it is stated, not merely thinner but more fragile. -The difference may be traced even to their chemical composition. The -whole muscular development is inferior in woman to that in man by -about one-third. The heart in woman is smaller and lighter than in -man—being about 10½ oz. in man as against slightly over 8 oz. in -woman. In the woman the respiratory organs show less chest and lung -capacity. Again, the blood contains a considerably less proportion of -red to white corpuscles. Finally, we come to <!-- Page 31 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>the question of the size -and constitution of the brain. (It should be observed that all these -distinctions of sex show themselves more or less from birth onwards.)</p> - -<p>Specialists are agreed that at all ages the size of the brain of woman -is less than that of man. The difference in relative size is greater in -proportion according to the degree of civilisation. This is noteworthy, -as it would seem as though the brain of man grew with the progress of -civilisation, whereas that of woman remains nearly stationary. The -average proportion as regards size of skull between the woman and man -of to-day is as 85 to 100. The weight of brain in woman varies from -38½ oz. to 45½ oz.; in man, from 42 oz. to 49 oz. This represents the -absolute difference in weight, but, according to Dr de Varigny, the -relative weight—<i>i.e.</i> the weight in proportion to that of the whole -body—is even more striking in its indication of inferiority. The -weight of the brain in woman is but one-forty-fourth of the weight of -the body, while in man it is one-fortieth. This difference accentuates -itself with age. It is only 7 per cent. in favour of man between twenty -and thirty years; it is 11 per cent. between thirty and forty years. -As regards the substance of the brain itself and its convolutions, -the enormous majority of physiologists are practically unanimous -in declaring that the female brain is simpler and <!-- Page 32 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>smoother, its -convolutions fewer and more superficial than those of the male brain, -that the frontal lobes, generally associated with the intellectual -faculties, are less developed than the occipital lobes, which are -universally connected with the lower psychological functions. The grey -substance is poorer and less abundant in woman than in man, while -the blood vessels of the occipital region are correspondingly fuller -than those supplying the frontal lobes. In man the case is exactly -the reverse. It cannot be denied by any sane person familiar with -the barest elements of physiology that the whole female organism is -subservient to the functions of child-bearing and lactation, which -explains the inferior development of those organs and faculties which -are not specially connected with this supreme end of Woman.</p> - -<p>It is the fashion of Feminists, ignoring these fundamental -physiological sex differences, to affirm that the actual inferiority -of women, where they have the honesty to admit such an obvious fact, -is accountable by the centuries of oppression in which Woman has been -held by wicked and evil-minded Man. The absurdity of this contention -has been more than once pointed out. Assuming its foundation in fact, -what does it imply? Clearly that the girls inherit only through their -mothers and boys only through their fathers, an hypothesis plainly at -variance with the known <!-- Page 33 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>facts of heredity. Yet those who maintain that -distinction of intelligence, etc., between the sexes are traceable to -external conditions affecting one sex only and inherited through that -sex alone, cannot evade the above assumption. Those, therefore, who -regard it as an article of their faith that Woman would show herself -not inferior in mental power to man, if only she had the chance of -exercising that power, must find a surer foundation for their opinion -than this theory of the centuries of oppression, under which, as they -allege, the female sex has laboured.</p> - -<p>We now come to the important question of morbid and pathological -mental conditions to which the female sex is liable and which are -usually connected with those constitutional disturbances of the -nervous system which pass under the name of <em>hysteria</em>. The word -is, as everyone knows, derived from <em>hystera</em>—<em>the womb</em>, and was -uniformly regarded by the ancients as directly due to disease of the -<em>uterus</em>, this view maintaining itself in modern medicine up till -well-nigh the middle of the nineteenth century. Thus Dr J. Mason Good -(in his “<cite class="upright">Study of Medicine</cite>,” 1822, vol. iii., p. 528, an important -medical text-book during the earlier half of the nineteenth century) -says: “With a morbid condition of this organ, hysteria is in many -instances very closely <!-- Page 34 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>connected, though it is going too far to say -that it is always dependent upon such condition, for we meet with -instances, occasionally, in which no possible connexion can be traced -between the disease and the organ,” etc. This is perhaps the first -appearance, certainly in English medicine, of doubts being thrown on -the uterine origin of the various symptoms grouped under the general -term, <em>hysteria</em>. Towards the latter part of the nineteenth century -the prevalent view tended more and more to dissociate hysteria from -uterine trouble. Lately, however, some eminent pathologists have shown -a tendency to qualify the terms of the latter view. Thus Dr Thomas -Stevenson in 1902 admits that “it [hysteria] frequently accompanies -a morbid state of the uterus,” especially where inflammation and -congestion are present, and it is not an uncommon thing for surgeons at -the present time to remove the ovaries in obstinate cases of hysteria. -On the other hand Dr Thomas Buzzard, in an article on the subject in -Quain’s <cite>Dictionary of Medicine</cite>, 1902, states that hysteria is only -exceptionally found in women suffering from diseases of the genital -organs, and its relation to uterine and ovarian disturbances is -probably neither more nor less than that which pertains to the other -affections of the nervous system which may occur without any obvious -material cause. Dr Thomas Luff <!-- Page 35 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>(“<cite class="upright">Text-Book on Forensic Medicine</cite>,” -1895) shows that the derangements of the reproductive functions are -undoubtedly the cause of various attacks of insanity in the female. -Dr Savage, in his book “<cite class="upright">On Neuroses</cite>,” says that acute mania in women -occurs most frequently at the period of adult and mature life, and -may occasionally take place at either extreme age. Acute mania -sometimes occurs at the suppression of the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">menses</i>. The same is true -of melancholia and other pathological mental symptoms. Dr Luff states -that acute mania may replace hysteria; that this happens at periods -such as puberty, change of life and menstruation. These patients in the -intervals of their attacks are often morbidly irritable or excitable, -but as time goes on their energies become diminished and their emotions -blunted (“<cite class="upright">Forensic Medicine</cite>,” ii. 307). Such patients are often seized -with a desire to commit violence; they are often very mischievous, -tearing up clothes, breaking windows, etc. In this mental disorder -the patient is driven by a morbid and uncontrollable impulse to such -acts. It is not accompanied by delusions, and frequently no change -will have been noticed in the individual prior to the commission of -the act, and consequently, says Dr Luff, “there is much difference -of opinion as to the responsibility of the individual” (ii. 297). -Among the acts spoken of Dr Luff mentions a propensity to set fire -to furniture, <!-- Page 36 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>houses, etc. All this, though written in 1895, might -serve as a commentary on the Suffragette agitation of recent years. -The renowned French professor, Dr Paul Janet (“<cite class="upright" lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les Hysteriques</cite>,” 1894) -thus defined hysteria: “Hysteria is a mental affection belonging to -the large group of diseases due to cerebral weakness and debility. -Its physical symptoms are somewhat indefinite, consisting chiefly -in a general diminution of nutrition. It is largely characterised -by moral symptoms, chief of which is an impairment of the faculty -of psychological synthesis, an abolition and a contraction of the -field of consciousness. This manifests itself in a peculiar manner -and by a certain number of elementary phenomena. Thus sensations and -images are no longer perceived, and appear to be blotted out from the -individual perception, a tendency which results in their persistent -and complete separation from the personality in some cases and in the -formation of many independent groups. This series of psychological -facts alternate the one with the other or co-exist. Finally this -synthetic defect favours the formation of certain independent ideas, -which develop complete in themselves, and unattached from the control -of the consciousness of the personality. These ideas show themselves -in affections possessing very various and unique characteristics.” -According to Mr A. S. Millar, F.R.C.S.E. (<cite>Encyclopædia <!-- Page 37 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span>Medica</cite>, vol. -v.), “Hysteria is that . . . condition in which there is imagination, -imitation, or exaggeration. . . . It occurs mostly in females and -persons of nervous temperament, and is due to some nervous derangement, -which may or may not be pathological.” Sir James Paget (“<cite class="upright">Clinical -Lectures on Mimicry</cite>”) says also that hysterical patients are mostly -females of nervous temperament. “They think of themselves constantly, -are fond of telling everyone of their troubles and thus court sympathy, -for which they have a morbid craving. Will power is deficient in one -direction, though some have it very strongly where their interests are -concerned.” He thinks the term “hysteria” in the sense now employed -incorrect, and would substitute “mimicry.” “The will should be -controlled by the intellect,” observes Dr G. F. Still of King’s College -Hospital, “rather than by the emotions and the lack of this control -appears to be at the root of some, at least, of the manifestations of -hysteria.”</p> - -<p>Dr Thomas Buzzard, above mentioned, thus summarises the mental -symptoms: “The intelligence may be apparently of good quality, the -patient evincing sometimes remarkable quickness of apprehension; but -carefully tested it is found to be wanting in the essentials of the -highest class of mental power. The memory may be good, but the judgment -is weak and the ability to concentrate <!-- Page 38 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>the attention for any length -of time upon a subject is absent. So also regard for accuracy, and -the energy necessary to ensure it in any work that is undertaken, is -deficient. The emotions are excited with undue readiness and when -aroused are incapable of control. Tears are occasioned not only by -pathetic ideas but by ridiculous subjects and peals of laughter may -incongruously greet some tragic announcement, or the converse may -take place. The ordinary signs of emotion may be absent and replaced -by an attack of syncope, convulsion, pain or paralysis. Perhaps more -constant than any other phenomenon in hysteria is a pronounced desire -for the sympathy and interest of others. This is evidently only one of -the most characteristic qualities of femininity, uncontrolled by the -action of the higher nervous centres which in a healthy state keep it -in subjection. There is very frequently not only a deficient regard -for truthfulness, but a proneness to active deception and dishonesty. -So common is this, that the various phases of hysteria are often -assumed to be simple examples of voluntary simulation and the title of -disease refused to the condition. But it seems more reasonable to refer -the symptoms to impairment of the highly complex nervous processes -which form the physiological side of the moral faculties” (Quain’s -<cite>Dictionary of Medicine</cite>, 1902).</p> - -<p>“It is not uncommon to find hysteria in females <!-- Page 39 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>accompanied by an -utter indifference and insensibility to sexual relations. Premature -cessation of ovulation is a frequent determining cause. In cases where -the ovaries are absent the change from girl to woman, which normally -takes place at puberty, does not occur. The girl grows but does not -develop, a masculine appearance supervenes, the voice becomes manly -and harsh, sexual passion is absent, the health remains good. The most -violent instances of hysteria are in young women of the most robust and -masculine constitution” (John Mason Good, M.D., “<cite class="upright">Study of Medicine</cite>,” -1822). Other determining causes are given, as painful impressions, -long fasting, strong emotions, imitation, luxury, ill-directed -education and unhappy surroundings, celibacy, where not of choice -but enforced by circumstances, unfortunate marriages, long-continued -trouble, fright, worry, overwork, disappointment and such like nervous -perturbations, all which causes predispose to hysteria. “It attacks -childless women more frequently than mothers and particularly young -widows,” and, says Dr J. Mason Good, “more especially still those who -are constitutionally inclined to that morbid salacity which has often -been called nymphomania . . . the surest remedy is a happy marriage” -(“<cite class="upright">Study of Medicine</cite>,” 1822, iii. 531). Hysteria is, in common with -other nervous disorders, essentially a hereditary malady, and Briquet -(“<cite class="upright" lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Traité de l’hysterie</cite>,” <!-- Page 40 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>1899) gives statistics to show that in nine -cases out of ten hysterical parents have hysterical children. Dr Paul -Sainton of the Faculty of Medicine, Paris, says: “The appearance of -a symptom of hysteria generally proves that the malady has already -existed for some time though latent. The name of a provocative agent of -hysteria is given to any circumstance which suddenly reveals the malady -but the real cause of the disorder is a hereditary disposition. If the -real cause is unique, the provocative agents are numberless. The moral -emotions, grief, fright, anger and other psychic disturbances are the -most frequent causes of hysterical affections and in every walk of life -subjects are equally liable to attacks.”</p> - -<p>Hysteria may appear at any age. It is common with children, especially -during the five or six years preceding puberty. Of thirty-three cases -under twelve years which came under Dr Still’s notice, twenty-three -were in children over eight years. Hysteria in women is most frequent -between the ages of fifteen and thirty, and most frequently of all -between fifteen and twenty. As a rule there is a tendency to cessation -after the “change.” It frequently happens, however, that the disease is -continued into an advanced period of life.</p> - -<p>“There is a constant change,” says Professor Albert Moll (“<cite class="upright" lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das nervöse -Weib</cite>,” p. 165), “from a cheerful to a depressed mood. From <!-- Page 41 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span>being free -and merry the woman in a short time becomes sulky and sad. While a -moment before she was capable of entertaining a whole company without -pause, talking to each member about that which interested him, shortly -afterwards she does not speak a word more. I may mention the well-worn -example of the refusal of a new hat as being capable of converting -the most lively mood into its opposite. The weakness of will shows -itself here in that the nervous woman [by “nervous” Dr Moll means -what is commonly termed “hysterical”] cannot, like the normal one, -command the expression of her emotions. She can laugh uninterruptedly -over the most indifferent matter until she falls into veritable -laughing fits. The crying fits which we sometimes observe belong to -the same category. When the nervous woman is excited about anything -she exhibits outbreaks of fury wanting all the characteristics of -womanhood, and she is not able to prevent these emotional outbursts. -In the same way just as the emotions weaken the will and the woman -cannot suppress this or that action, it is noticeable in many nervous -women that quite independently of these emotions there is a tendency -to continuous alterations in their way of acting. It has been noticed -as characteristic of many nervous persons that their only consistency -lies in their inconsistency. But this must in no way be applied to all -nervous persons. <!-- Page 42 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>On this disposition, discoverable in the nature of -so many nervous women, rests the craving for change as manifested in -the continual search for new pleasures, theatres, concerts, parties, -tours, and other things (p. 147). Things that to the normal woman are -indifferent or to which she has, in a sense, accustomed herself, are -to the nervous woman a source of constant worry. Although she may -perfectly well know that the circumstances of herself and her husband -are the most brilliant and that it is unnecessary for her to trouble -herself in the least about her material position as regards the future, -nevertheless the idea of financial ruin constantly troubles her. Thus -if she is a millionaire’s wife she never escapes from constant worry. -Similarly the nervous woman creates troubles out of things that are -unavoidable. If in the course of years she gets more wrinkles, and -her attraction for man diminishes, this may easily become a source of -lasting sorrow for the nervous woman.”</p> - -<p>We now have to consider a point which is being continually urged by -Feminists in the present day when confronted with the pathological -mental symptoms so commonly observed in women which are usually -regarded as having their origin in hysteria. We often hear it said by -Feminists in answer to arguments based on the above fact: “Oh, but -men can also suffer from hysteria!” “In England,” says Dr Buzzard, -“hysteria is <!-- Page 43 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>comparatively rarely met with in males, the female sex -being much more prone to the affection.” The proportion of males -to females in hysteria is, according to Dr Pitrè (“<cite class="upright">Clinical Essay -on Hysteria</cite>,” 1891), 1 to 3; according to Bodensheim, 1 to 10; and -according to Briquet, 1 to 20. The author of the article on Hysteria in -<cite>The Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> (11th edition, 1911) also gives 1 to 20 -as the numerical proportion between male and female cases. Dr Pitrè, -in the work above cited, gives 82 per cent. of cases of convulsions in -women as against 22 in men. But in all this, under the concept hysteria -are included, and indeed chiefly referred to, various physical symptoms -of a convulsive and epileptic character which are quite distinct from -the mental conditions rightly or wrongly connected, or even identified, -with hysteria in the popular mind, and by many medical authorities. -But even as regards hysteria in the former sense of the word, a sharp -line of distinction based on a diagnosis of cases was long ago drawn -by medical men between <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hysteria masculina</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hysteria fœminina</i>, -and in the present day eminent authorities—<i>e.g.</i> Dr Bernard -Holländer—would deny that the symptoms occasionally diagnosed as -hysteria in men are identical with or due to the same causes as the -somewhat similar conditions known in women under the name.</p> - -<p>After all, this whole question in its broader <!-- Page 44 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>bearings is more a -question of common-sense observation than one for medical experts.</p> - -<p>What we are here chiefly concerned with as “hysteria” (in accordance -with popular usage of the term) are certain pathological mental -symptoms in women open to everybody’s observation, and denied by no one -unprejudiced by Feminist views. Every impartial person has only to cast -his eye round his female acquaintance, and to recall the various women, -of all classes, conditions and nationalities, that he may have come in -contact with in the course of his life, to recognise those symptoms -of mental instability commonly called hysterical, as obtaining in at -least a proportion of one to every four or five women he has known, in -a marked and unmistakable degree. The proportion given is, in fact, -stated in an official report to the Prussian Government issued some ten -years back as that noticeable among female clerks, post office servants -and other women employed in the Prussian Civil Service. Certainly as -regards women in general, the observation of the present writer, and -others whom he has questioned on the subject, would seem to indicate -that the proportions given in the Prussian Civil Service report as -regards the number of women afflicted in this way are rather under than -over stated.<a name="FNanchor_44:1_3" id="FNanchor_44:1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_44:1_3" class="fnanchor">[44:1]</a> There are many medical <!-- Page 45 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>men who aver that no woman -is entirely free from such symptoms at least immediately before and -during the menstrual period. The head surgeon at a well-known London -hospital informed a friend of mine that he could always tell when this -period was on or approaching with his nurses, by the mental change -which came over them.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p class="noindent"><a name="Footnote_44:1_3" id="Footnote_44:1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44:1_3"><span class="label">[44:1]</span></a> The insanities mentioned above are the extremes. There -are mental disturbances of less severity constantly occurring which are -connected with the regular menstrual period as well as with disordered -menstruation, with pregnancy, with parturition, with lactation, and -especially with the change of life.</p> -</div> - -<p>Now these pathological symptoms noticeable in a slight and more or -less unimportant degree in the vast majority, if not indeed in all -women, and in a marked pathological degree in a large proportion of -women, it is scarcely too much to say do not occur at all in men. I -have indeed known, I think, two men, and only two, in the course of my -life, exhibiting mental symptoms analogous to those commonly called -“hysterical” in women. On the other hand my own experience, and it is -not alone, is that very few women with whom I have come into more or -less frequent contact, socially or otherwise, have not at times shown -the symptoms referred to in a marked degree. If, therefore, we are to -admit the bare possibility of men being afflicted in a similar way it -must be conceded that such cases represent such <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">raræ aves</i> as to be -negligible for practical purposes.</p> - -<p>A curious thing in pronounced examples of this <!-- Page 46 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>mental instability in -women is that the symptoms are often so very similar in women of quite -different birth, surroundings and nationality. I can recall at the -present moment three cases, each different as regards birth, class, and -in one case nationality, and yet who are liable to develop the same -symptoms under the influence of quite similar <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">idées fixes</i>.</p> - -<p>But it seems hardly necessary to labour the point in question at -greater length. The whole experience of mankind since the dawn of -written records confirmed by, as above said, that of every living -person not specially committed to the theories of Modern Feminism, -bears witness alike to the prevalence of what we may term the -hysterical mind in woman and to her general mental frailty. It is not -for nothing that women and children have always been classed together. -This view, based as it is on the unanimous experience of mankind and -confirmed by the observation of all independent persons, has, I repeat, -not been challenged before the appearance of the present Feminist -Movement and hardly by anyone outside the ranks of that movement.</p> - -<hr class="thoughtbreak" /> - -<p>It is not proposed here to dilate at length on the fact, often before -insisted upon, of the absence throughout history of the signs of -genius, and, with a few exceptions, of conspicuous talent, in the -human female, in art, science, literature, invention or “affairs.” -The fact is incontestable, and if it be <!-- Page 47 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>argued that this absence in -women, of genius or even of a high degree of talent, is no proof of -the inferiority of the average woman to the average man the answer is -obvious.</p> - -<p>Apart from conclusive proof, the fact of the existence in all periods -of civilisation, and even under the higher barbarism, of exceptionally -gifted men, and never of a correspondingly gifted woman, does -undoubtedly afford an indication of inferiority of the average woman as -regards the average man. From the height of the mountain peaks we may, -other things equal, undoubtedly conclude the existence of a tableland -beneath them in the same tract of country whence they arise. I have -already, in the present chapter, besides elsewhere, referred to the -fallacy that intellectual or other fundamental inferiority in woman -existing at the present day is traceable to any alleged repression in -the past, since (Weissmann and his denial of transmission of acquired -characteristics apart), assuming for the sake of the argument such -repression to have really attained the extent alleged, and its effects -to have been transmitted to future generations, it is against all -the laws of heredity that such transmission should have taken place -<em>through the female line alone</em>, as is contended by the advocates of -this theory. Referring to this point, Herbert Spencer has expressed the -conviction of most scientific thinkers on the subject when he declares -a difference <!-- Page 48 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>between the mental powers of men and women to result -from “a physiological necessity, and [that] no amount of culture can -obliterate it.” He further observes (the passages occur in a letter of -his to John Stuart Mill) that “the relative deficiency of the female -mind is in just those most complex faculties, intellectual and moral, -which have political action for their sphere.”</p> - -<p>One of the points as regards the inferiority of women which Feminists -are willing and even eager to concede, and it is the only point of -which this can be said, is that of physical weakness. The reason why -they should be particularly anxious to emphasise this deficiency -in the sex is not difficult to discern. It is the only possible -semblance of an argument which can be plausibly brought forward to -justify female privileges in certain directions. It does not really -do so, but it is the sole pretext which they can adduce with any -show of reason at all. Now it may be observed (1) that the general -frailty of woman would militate <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">coetaris paribus</i>, against their own -dogma of the intellectual equality between the sexes; (2) that this -physical weakness is more particularly a muscular weakness, since -constitutionally the organism of the human female has enormous power -of resistance and resilience, in general, far greater than that of man -(see below, pp. <a href="#Page_125">125-128</a>). It is a matter of common observation that the -average woman can <!-- Page 49 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>pass through strains and recover in a way few men -can do. But as we shall have occasion to revert to these two points at -greater length later on, we refrain from saying more here.</p> - -<p>How then, after consideration, shall we judge of the Feminist -thesis, affirmed and reaffirmed, insisted upon by so many as an -incontrovertible axiom, that woman is the equal, intellectually -and morally, if not physically, of man? Surely that it has all the -characteristics of a true dogma. Its votaries might well say with -Tertullian, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">credo quia absurdum</i>. It contradicts the whole experience -of mankind in the past. It is refuted by all impartial observation in -the present. The facts which undermine it are seriously denied by none -save those committed to the dogma in question. Like all dogmas, it is -supported by “bluff.” In this case the “bluff” is to the effect that -it is the “part, mark, business, lot” (as the Latin grammars of our -youth would have had it) of the “advanced” man who considers himself up -to date, and not “Early Victorian,” to regard it as unchallengeable. -Theological dogmas are backed up by the bluff of authority, either -of scriptures or of churches. This dogma of the Feminist cult is not -vouchsafed by the authority of a Communion of saints but by that of -the Communion of advanced persons up to date. Unfortunately dogma does -not sit so well upon the community of advanced persons up to date—who -otherwise profess to, and generally <!-- Page 50 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>do, bring the tenets they hold -to the bar of reason and critical test—as it does on a church or -community of saints who suppose themselves to be individually or -collectively in communication with wisdom from on high. Be this as -it may, the “advanced man” who would claim to be “up to date” has to -swallow this dogma and digest it as best he can. He may secretly, it is -true, spew it out of his mouth, but in public, at least, he must make a -pretence of accepting it without flinching.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p><!-- Page 51 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III<br /> - -<small>THE ANTI-MAN CRUSADE</small></h2> -</div> - - -<p>We have already pointed out that Modern Feminism has two sides or -aspects. The first formulates definite political, juridical and -economic demands on the grounds of justice, equity, equality and so -forth, as general principles; the second does not formulate in so many -words definite demands as general principles, but seems to exploit -the traditional notions of chivalry based on male sex sentiment, in -favour of according women special privileges on the ground of their -sex, in the law, and still more in the administration of the law. -For the sake of brevity we call the first <cite>Political Feminism</cite>, for, -although its demands are not confined to the political sphere, it is -first and foremost a political movement, and its typical claim at -the present time, the Franchise, is a purely political one; and the -second <cite>Sentimental Feminism</cite>, inasmuch as it commonly does not profess -to be based on any general principle whatever, whether of equity or -otherwise, but relies exclusively on the traditional and conventional -<!-- Page 52 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>sex sentiment of Man towards Woman. It may be here premised that most -Political Feminists, however much they may refuse to admit it, are at -heart also Sentimental Feminists. Sentimental Feminists, on the other -hand, are not invariably Political Feminists, although the majority of -them undoubtedly are so to a greater or lesser extent. Logically, as we -shall have occasion to insist upon later on, the principles professedly -at the root of Political Feminism are in flagrant contradiction with -any that can justify Sentimental Feminism.</p> - -<p>Now both the orders of Feminism referred to have been active for more -than a generation past in fomenting a crusade against the male sex—an -Anti-Man Crusade. Their efforts have been largely successful owing -to a fact to which attention has, perhaps, not enough been called. -In the case of other classes, or bodies of persons, having community -of interests this common interest invariably interprets itself in a -sense of class, caste, or race solidarity. The class or caste has a -certain <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">esprit de corps</i> in its own interest. The whole of history -largely turns on the conflict of economic classes based on a common -feeling obtaining between members of the respective classes; on a -small scale, we see the same thing in the solidarity of a particular -trade or profession. But it is unnecessary to do more than call -attention here to this fundamental sociological law upon which alike -the class <!-- Page 53 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>struggles of history, and of modern times, the patriotism -of states from the city-state of the ancient world to the national -state of the modern world, is based. Now note the peculiar manner in -which this law manifests itself in the sex question of the present -day. While Modern Feminism has succeeded in establishing a powerful -sex-solidarity amongst a large section of women as against men, there -is not only no sex-solidarity of men as against women, but, on the -contrary, the prevalence of an altogether opposed sentiment. Men hate -their brother-men in their capacity of male persons. In any conflict -of interests between a man and a woman, male public opinion, often -in defiance of the most obvious considerations of equity, sides with -the woman, and glories in doing so. Here we seem to have a very -flagrant contradiction with, as has already been said, one of the -most fundamental sociological laws. The explanations of the phenomena -in question are, of course, ready to hand:—Tradition of chivalry, -feelings, perhaps inherited, dating possibly back to the prehuman stage -of man’s evolution, derived from the competition of the male with his -fellow-male for the possession of the coveted female, etc.</p> - -<p>These explanations may have a measure of validity, but I must confess -they are to me scarcely adequate to account for the intense hatred -which the large section of men seem to entertain towards <!-- Page 54 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span>their -fellow-males in the world of to-day, and their eagerness to champion -the female in the sex war which the Woman’s “sex union,” as it has been -termed, has declared of recent years. Whatever may be the explanation, -and I confess I cannot find one completely satisfactory, the fact -remains. A Woman’s Movement unassisted by man, still more if opposed -energetically by the public opinion of a solid phalanx of the manhood -of any country, could not possibly make any headway. As it is, we -see the legislature, judges, juries, parsons, specially those of the -nonconformist persuasion, all vie with one another in denouncing the -villainy and baseness of the male person, and ever devising ways and -means to make his life hard for him. To these are joined a host of -literary men and journalists of varying degrees of reputation who -contribute their quota to the stream of anti-manism in the shape of -novels, storiettes, essays, and articles, the design of which is to -paint man as a base, contemptible creature, as at once a knave and an -imbecile, a bird of prey and a sheep in wolf’s clothing, and all as -a foil to the glorious majesty of Womanhood. There are not wanting -artists who are pressed into this service. The picture of the Thames -Embankment at night, of the drowned unfortunate with the angel’s -face, the lady and gentleman in evening dress who have just got out -of their cab—the lady <!-- Page 55 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>with uplifted hands bending over the dripping -form, and the callous and brutal gentleman turning aside to light a -cigarette—this is a typical specimen of Feminist didactic art. By -these means, which have been carried on with increasing ardour for a -couple of generations past, what we may term the anti-man cultus has -been made to flourish and to bear fruit till we find nowadays all -recent legislation affecting the relations between the sexes carrying -its impress, and the whole of the judiciary and magistracy acting as -its priests and ministrants.</p> - -<p>On the subject of Anti-man legislation, I have already written at -length elsewhere,<a name="FNanchor_55:1_4" id="FNanchor_55:1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_55:1_4" class="fnanchor">[55:1]</a> but for the sake of completeness I state the -case briefly here. (1) The marriage laws of England to-day are a -monument of Feminist sex partiality. If I may be excused the paradox, -the partiality of the marriage laws begins with the law relating to -breach of promise, which, as is well known, enables a woman to punish -a man vindictively for refusing to marry her after having once engaged -himself to her. I ought to add, and this, oftentimes, however good -his grounds may be for doing so. Should the woman commit perjury, in -these cases, she is never prosecuted for the <!-- Page 56 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>offence. Although the -law of breach of promise exists also for the man, it is well known to -be totally ineffective and practically a dead letter. It should be -remarked that, however gross the misrepresentations or undue influences -on the part of the woman may have been to induce the man to marry -her, they do not cause her to lose her right to compensation. As, for -instance, where an experienced woman of the world of thirty or forty -entraps a boy scarcely out of his teens. (2) Again, according to the -law of England, the right to maintenance accrues solely to the woman. -Formerly this privilege was made dependent on her cohabitation with the -man and generally decent behaviour to him. Now even these limitations -cease to be operative, while the man is liable to imprisonment and -confiscation of any property he may have. A wife is now at full liberty -to leave her husband, while she retains her right to get her husband -sent to gaol if he refuses to maintain her—to put the matter shortly, -the law imposes upon the wife no legally enforceable duties whatever -<em>towards</em> her husband. The one thing which it will enforce with iron -vigour is the wife’s right of maintenance <em>against</em> her husband. In -the case of a man of the well-to-do classes, the man’s property is -confiscated by the law in favour of his wife. In the case of a working -man the law compels her husband to do <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">corvée</i> for her, as the <!-- Page 57 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>feudal -serf had to do for his lord. The wife, on the other hand, however -wealthy, is not compelled to give a farthing towards the support of her -husband, even though disabled by sickness or by accident; the single -exception in the latter case being should he become chargeable to -the parish, in which case the wife would have to pay the authorities -a pauper’s rate for his maintenance. In a word, a wife has complete -possession and control over any property she may possess, as well -as over her earnings; the husband, on the other hand, is liable to -confiscation of capitalised property or earnings at the behest of the -law courts in favour of his wife. A wife may even make her husband -bankrupt on the ground of money she alleges that she lent him; a -husband, on the other hand, has no claim against his wife for any money -advanced, since a husband is supposed to <em>give</em>, and not to <em>lend</em>, his -wife money, or other valuables. (3) The law affords the wife a right -to commit torts against third parties—<i>e.g.</i> libels and slanders—the -husband alone being responsible, and this rule applies even although -the wife is living apart from her husband, who is wholly without -knowledge of her misdeeds. With the exception of murder, a wife is held -by the law to be guiltless of practically any crime committed in the -presence of her husband. (4) No man can obtain a legal separation or -divorce from his wife (save under the Licensing <!-- Page 58 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>Act of 1902, a Police -Court separation for habitual drunkenness alone) without a costly -process in the High Court. Every wife can obtain, if not a divorce, at -least a legal separation, by going whining to the nearest police court, -for a few shillings, which her husband, of course, has to pay. The -latter, it is needless to say, is mulcted in alimony at the “discretion -of the Court.” This “discretion” is very often of a queer character for -the luckless husband. Thus, a working man earning only twenty shillings -a week may easily find himself in the position of having to pay from -seven to ten shillings a week to a shrew out of his wages.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p class="noindent"><a name="Footnote_55:1_4" id="Footnote_55:1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55:1_4"><span class="label">[55:1]</span></a> Cf. <cite>Fortnightly Review</cite>, November 1911, “<cite class="upright">A Creature -of Privilege</cite>,” also a pamphlet (collaboration) entitled “<cite class="upright">The Legal -Subjection of Men</cite>.” Twentieth Century Press, reprinted by New Age -Press, 1908.</p> -</div> - -<p>In cases where a wife proceeds to file a petition for divorce, the way -is once more smoothed for her by the law, at the husband’s expense. He -has to advance her money to enable her to fight him. Should the case -come on for hearing the husband finds the scale still more weighted -against him; every slander of his wife is assumed to be true until he -has proved its falsity, the slightest act or a word during a moment of -irritation, even a long time back, being twisted into what is termed -“legal cruelty,” even though such has been provoked by a long course of -ill treatment and neglect on the part of the wife. The husband and his -witnesses can be indicted for perjury for the slightest exaggeration -or <!-- Page 59 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>inaccuracy in their statements, while the most calculated falsity -in the evidence of the wife and her witnesses is passed over. Not -the grossest allegation on the part of the wife against the husband, -even though proved in court to be false, is sufficient ground for the -husband to refuse to take her back again, or from preventing the court -from confiscating his property if he resists doing so. Knowledge of -the unfairness of the court to the husband, as all lawyers are aware, -prevents a large number of men from defending divorce actions brought -by their wives. A point should here be mentioned as regards the action -of a husband for damages against the seducer of his wife. Such damages -obviously belong to the husband as compensation for his destroyed -home life. Now these damages our modern judges in their feminist zeal -have converted into a fund for endowing the adulteress, depriving the -husband of any compensation whatever for the wrong done him. He may not -touch the income derived from the money awarded him by the jury, which -is handed over by the court to his divorced wife. It would take us too -long to go through all the privileges, direct and indirect, conferred -by statute or created by the rulings of judges and the practice of -the courts, in favour of the wife against the husband. It is the more -unnecessary to go into them here as they may be found in detail with -<!-- Page 60 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>illustrative cases in the aforesaid pamphlet in which I collaborated, -entitled “<cite class="upright">The Legal Subjection of Men</cite>” (mentioned in the <a href="#Footnote_55:1_4">footnote to p. -55</a>).</p> - -<p>At this point it may be well to say a word on the one rule of the -divorce law which Feminists are perennially trotting out as a proof of -the shocking injustice of the marriage law to women: that to obtain her -divorce the woman has to prove cruelty in addition to adultery against -her husband, while in the case of the husband it is sufficient to prove -adultery alone. Now to make of this rule a grievance for the woman is, -I submit, evidence of the destitution of the Feminist case. In default -of any real injustice pressing on the woman the Feminist is constrained -to make as much capital as possible out of the merest semblance of a -grievance he can lay his hand on. The reasons for this distinction -which the law draws between the husband and the wife, it is obvious -enough, are perfectly well grounded. It is based mainly on the simple -fact that while a woman by her adultery may foist upon her husband a -bastard which he will be compelled by law to support as his own child, -in the husband’s case of having an illegitimate child the wife and her -property are not affected. Now in a society such as ours is, based upon -private property-holding, it is only natural, I submit, that the law -should take account of this fact. But not <!-- Page 61 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>only is this rule of law -almost certainly doomed to repeal in the near future, but in even the -present day, while it still nominally exists, it is practically a dead -letter in the divorce court, since any trivial act of which the wife -chooses to complain is strained by the court into evidence of cruelty -in the legal and technical sense. As the matter stands, the practical -effect of the rule is a much greater injustice to the husband than to -the wife, since the former often finds himself convicted of “cruelty” -which is virtually nothing at all, in order that the wife’s petition -may be granted, and which is often made the excuse by Feminist judges -for depriving the husband of the custody of his children. Misconduct -on the wife’s part, or neglect of husband and children, does not -weigh with the court which will not on that ground grant relief to -the husband from his obligation for maintenance, etc. On the other -hand, neglect of the wife by the husband is made a ground for judicial -separation with the usual consequences—alimony, etc. “Thus,” as it -has been put, “between the upper and the nether millstone, cruelty on -the one hand, neglect on the other, the unhappy husband can be legally -ground to pieces, whether he does anything or whether he does nothing.” -Personal violence on the part of the husband is severely punished; -on the part of a wife she will be let off with impunity. Even if she -should in an extreme case be imprisoned, the <!-- Page 62 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>husband, if a poor man, -on her release will be compelled to take her back to live with him. -The case came under the notice of the writer a few years ago in which -a humane magistrate was constrained to let off a woman who had nearly -murdered a husband on the condition of her graciously consenting to a -separation, but she had presumably still to be supported by her victim.</p> - -<p>The decision in the notorious Jackson case precluded the husband from -compelling his wife to obey an order of the court for the restitution -of conjugal rights. The persistent Feminist tendency of all case-law is -illustrated by a decision of the House of Lords in 1894 in reference -to the law of Scotland constituting desertion for four years a ground -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ipso facto</i> for a divorce with the right of remarriage. Here divorce -was refused to a man whose wife had left him for four years and taken -her child with her. The Law Lords justified their own interpretation -of the law on the ground that the man did not really want her to come -back. But inasmuch as this plea can be started in every case where -it cannot be proved that the husband had absolutely grovelled before -his wife, imploring her to return, and possibly even then—since the -sincerity even of this grovelling might conceivably be called in -question—it is clear that the decision practically rendered this old -Scottish law inoperative for the husband.</p> - -<p><!-- Page 63 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span></p><p>As regards the offence of bigamy, for which a man commonly receives -a heavy sentence of penal servitude, I think I may venture to state, -without risking contradiction, that no woman during recent years has -been imprisoned for this offence. The statute law, while conferring -distinct privileges upon married women as to the control of their -property, and for trading separately and apart from their husbands, -renders them exempt from the ordinary liabilities incurred by a male -trader as regards proceedings under the Debtors Acts and the Bankruptcy -Law. See Acts of 1822 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75); 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. -63), and cases Scott <i>v.</i> Morley, 57 L.J.R.Q.B. 43. L.R. 20 Q.B.D. In -<i>re</i> Hannah Lines <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">exparte</i> Lester C.A. (1893), 2. 2. B. 113.</p> - -<p>In the case of Lady Bateman <i>v.</i> Faber and others reported in -Chancery Appeal Cases (1898 Law Reports) the Master of the Rolls -(Sir N. Lindley) is reported to have said: “The authorities showed -that a married woman could not by hook or by crook—even by her own -fraud—deprive herself of restraint upon anticipation. He would say -nothing as to the policy of the law, but it had been affirmed by the -Married Woman’s Property Act” (the Act of 1882 above referred to) “and -the result was that a married woman could play fast and loose to an -extent to which no other person could.” (<i>N.B.</i>—Presumably a male -person.)</p> - -<p><!-- Page 64 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span></p><p>It has indeed been held, to such a length does the law extend its -protection and privileges to the female, that even the concealment -by a wife from the husband at the time of marriage that she was then -pregnant by another man was no ground for declaring the marriage null -and void.</p> - -<p>The above may be taken as a fair all-round, although by no means an -exhaustive, statement of the present one-sided condition of the civil -law as regards the relation of husband and wife. We will now pass on to -the consideration of the relative incidence of the criminal law on the -two sexes. We will begin with the crime of murder. The law of murder is -still ostensibly the same for both sexes, but in effect the application -of its provisions in the two cases is markedly different. As, however, -these differences lie, as just stated, not in the law itself but rather -in its administration, we can only give in this place, where we are -dealing with the principles of law rather than with their application, -a general formula of the mode in which the administration of the -law of murder proceeds, which, briefly stated, is as follows: The -evidence even to secure conviction in the case of a woman must be many -times stronger than that which would suffice to hang a man. Should a -conviction be obtained, the death penalty, though pronounced, is not -given effect to, the female prisoner being almost invariably reprieved. -In <!-- Page 65 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>most cases where there is conviction at all, it is for manslaughter -and not for murder, when a light or almost nominal sentence is passed. -Cases confirming what is here said will be given later on. There is one -point, however, to be observed here, and that is the crushing incidence -of the law of libel. This means that no case of any woman, however -notoriously guilty on the evidence, can be quoted, after she has been -acquitted by a Feminist jury, as the law holds such to be innocent and -provides them with “a remedy” in a libel action. Now, seeing that most -women accused of murder are acquitted irrespective of the evidence, it -is clear that the writer is fatally handicapped so far as confirmation -of his thesis by cases is concerned.</p> - -<p>Women are to all intents and purposes allowed to harass men, when they -conceive they have a grievance, at their own sweet will, the magistrate -usually telling their victim that he cannot interfere. In the opposite -case, that of a man harassing a woman, the latter has invariably to -find sureties for his future good behaviour, or else go to gaol.</p> - -<p>One of the most infamous enactments indicative of Feminist sex bias -is the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1886. The Act itself was led -up to with the usual effect by an unscrupulous newspaper agitation -in the Feminist and Puritan interest, designed to create a panic in -the public mind, <!-- Page 66 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>under the influence of which legislation of this -description can generally be rushed through Parliament. The reckless -disregard of the commonest principles of justice and common-sense of -this abominable statute may be seen in the shameless sex privilege it -accords the female in the matter of seduction. Under its provisions a -boy of fourteen years can be prosecuted and sent to gaol for an offence -to which he has been instigated by a girl just under sixteen years, -whom the law, of course, on the basis of the aforesaid sex privilege, -holds guiltless. The outrageous infamy of this provision is especially -apparent when we consider the greater precocity of the average girl as -compared with the average boy of this age.</p> - -<p>We come now to the latest piece of Anti-man legislation, the so-called -<cite>White Slave Trade Act of 1912</cite> (Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912, 2 -& 3 Geo. V. c. 20). This statute was, as usual, rushed through the -legislature on the wave of factitious public excitement organised -for the purpose, and backed up by the usual faked statements and -exaggerated allegations, the whole matter being three parts bogus -and deliberate lying. The alleged dangers of the unprotected female -were, for the object of the agitation, purposely exaggerated in -the proverbial proportion of the mountain to the molehill. But as -regards many of those most eager in promoting this piece of <!-- Page 67 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>Anti-man -legislation, there were probably special psychological reasons to -account for their attitude. The special features of the Bill, the Act -in question, are (1) increased powers given to the police in the matter -of arrest on suspicion, and (2) the flogging clauses.</p> - -<p>Up till now the flogging of garrotters was justified against opponents, -by its upholders, on the ground of the peculiarly brutal nature of -the offence of highway robbery with violence. It should be noted that -in the Act in question no such excuse can apply, for it is appointed -to be inflicted for offences which, whatever else they may be, do not -in their nature involve violence, and hence which cannot be described -as brutal in the ordinary sense of the term. The Anti-man nature of -the whole measure, as of the agitation itself which preceded it, is -conclusively evidenced by the fact that while it is well known that the -number of women gaining a living by “procuration” is much greater than -the number of men engaged therein, comparatively little vituperation -was heard against the female delinquents in the matter, and certainly -none of the vitriolic ferocity that was poured out upon the men -alleged to participate in the traffic. A corresponding distinction was -represented in the measure itself by the allocation of the torture of -the lash to men alone. It is clear, therefore, that the zeal for the -<!-- Page 68 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>suppression of the traffic in question was not the sole motive in the -ardour of the flogging fraternity. Even the Anti-manism at the back of -the whole of this class of legislation seems insufficient to account -for the outbreak of bestial blood-lust, for the tigerish ferocity, -of which the flogging clauses in the Act are the outcome. There is, -I take it, no doubt that psychical sexual aberration plays a not -inconsiderable part in many of those persons—in a word, that they are -labouring under some degree of homo-sexual Sadism. The lustful glee -on the part of the aforesaid persons which greets the notion of the -partial flaying alive, for that is what the “cat” means, of some poor -wretch who has succumbed to the temptation of getting his livelihood by -an improper method, is hardly to be explained on any other hypothesis. -Experts allege that traces of psycho-sexual aberration are latent -in many persons where it would be least expected, and it is, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">prima -facie</i>, likely enough that these latent tendencies in both men and -women should become active under the cover of an agitation in favour -of purity and anti-sexuality, to the point of gratifying itself with -the thought of torture inflicted upon men. A psycho-sexual element -of another kind doubtless also plays a not unimportant rôle in the -agitation of “ladies” in favour of that abomination, “social purity,” -which, being interpreted, generally means lubricity turned upside -<!-- Page 69 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span>down. The fiery zeal manifested by many of those ladies for the -suppression of the male sex is assuredly not without its pathological -significance.</p> - -<p>The monstrosity of the recent <cite>White Slave Traffic</cite> enactment and -its savage anti-male vindictiveness is shown not merely, as already -observed, in the agitation which preceded it, with its exaggerated -vilification of the male offenders in the matter of procuration and its -passing over with comparative slight censure the more numerous female -offenders, or in the general spirit animating the Act itself, but it -is noticeable in the very preposterous exaggeration of its provisions. -For example, in the section dealing with the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">souteneur</i>, the framers -of this Act, and the previous Criminal Law Amendment Acts to which this -latest one is merely supplementary, are not satisfied with penalising -the man who has no other means of subsistence beyond what he derives -from the wages of some female friend’s prostitution, but they strike -with impartial rigour the man who knowingly lives <em>wholly or in part</em> -from such a source. If, therefore, the clause were taken in its strict -sense, any poor out-at-elbow man who accepted the hospitality of a -woman of doubtful virtue in the matter of a drink, or a dinner, would -put himself within the pale of this clause in the Act, and might -be duly flayed by the “cat” in consequence. The most flagrant case -occurred in a London police court in March 1913, in which <!-- Page 70 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>a youth of -eighteen years, against whose general character nothing was alleged -and who was known to be in employment as a carman, was sentenced to a -month’s hard labour under the following circumstances:—It was reported -that he had been living with a woman apparently considerably older than -himself, whom admittedly he had supported by his own exertions and, -when this was insufficient, even by the pawning of his clothes, and -whom as soon as he discovered she was earning money by prostitution he -had left. Would it be believed that a prosecution was instituted by the -police against this young man under the iniquitous White Slave Traffic -Act? But what seems still more incredible is that the magistrate, -presumably a sane gentleman, after admitting that the poor fellow was -“more sinned against than sinning,” did not hesitate to pass on him a -sentence of one month’s hard labour!!! Of course the woman, who was -the head and front of the offending, if offending there was, remained -untouched. The above is a mild specimen of “justice” as meted out in -our police courts, “for men only”! Quite recently there was a case in -the north of England of a carter, who admittedly worked at his calling -but who, it was alleged, was assisted by women with whom he had lived. -Now this unfortunate man was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment -plus flogging. For <!-- Page 71 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span>the judges, of course, any extension of their power -over the prisoner in the dock is a godsend. It is quite evident that -they are revelling in their new privilege to inflict torture. One of -them had the shamelessness recently to boast of the satisfaction it -gave him and to sneer at those of his colleagues who did not make full -use of their judicial powers in this direction.</p> - -<p>The bogus nature of the reasons urged in favour of the most atrocious -clauses of this abominable Act came out clearly enough in the speeches -of the official spokesmen of the Government in its favour. For example, -Lord Haldane in the House of Lords besought the assembled peers to -bethink themselves of the unhappy victim of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">souteneur</i>. He drew -a picture of how a heartless bully might beat, starve and otherwise -ill treat his victim, besides taking away her earnings. He omitted to -explain how the heartless bully in a free country could coerce his -“victim” to remain with him against her will. He ignored the existence -of the police, or of a whole army of social purity busybodies, and -vigilance societies for whom her case would be a tasty morsel only -too eagerly snapped at. If the “victim” does not avail herself of any -of those means of escape, so ready to her hand, the presumption is -that she prefers the company of her alleged brutal tyrant to that of -the chaste Puritan ladies of the vigilance societies. To those who -follow <!-- Page 72 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>the present state of artificially fomented public opinion in -the matter, Lord Haldane’s suggestion that there was any danger of the -precious “victim” not being sufficiently slobbered over, will seem to -be not without a touch of humour. Furthermore, as illustrating the -utter illogicality of the line taken by the promoters of the Act, for -whom Lord Haldane acted as the mouthpiece, we have only to note the -fact that the measure does not limit the penalties awarded to cases -accompanied by circumstances of aggravation such as Lord Haldane -pictures, which it might easily have done, but extends it impartially -to all cases whether accompanied by cruelty or not. We can hardly -imagine that a man of Lord Haldane’s intellectual power and general -humanity should not have been aware of the hollowness of the case -he had to put as an official advocate, and of the rottenness of the -conventional arguments he had to state in its support. When confronted -with the unquestionably true contention that corporal punishments, -especially such as are of a savage and vindictive kind, are degrading -alike to the inflicters of them and to those who are their victims, -he replied that criminals in the cases in question were already so -degraded that they could not be degraded further. One would imagine -he could hardly have failed to know that he was talking pernicious -twaddle. It is obvious that this argument, in <!-- Page 73 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span>addition to its being -untrue, in fact opens the floodgates to brutal penal legislation all -round, so far at least as the more serious offences are concerned. -One could equally well assert of murder, burglary, even <i>abus de -confidence</i> in some cases, and other offences, that the perpetrators -of them must be so degraded that no amount of brutal punishment could -degrade them further. Everybody can regard the crime to which he has -a pet aversion more than other crimes as indicating the perpetrator -thereof to be outside the pale of humanity.</p> - -<p>But as regards the particular case in point, let us for a moment clear -our minds of cant upon the subject. Procuration and also living on -the proceeds of prostitution may be morally abominable methods of -securing a livelihood, though even here, as in most other offences, -there may be circumstances of palliation in individual cases. But after -all is said and done, it is doubtful whether, apart from any fraud -or misrepresentation, which, of course, places it altogether in a -different category, these ought to be regarded as <em>criminal</em> offences. -To offer facilities or to act as an agent for women who are anxious to -lead a “gay life,” or even to suggest such a course to women, <em>so long -as prostitution itself is not recognised by the law as crime</em>, however -reprehensible morally, would scarcely seem to transcend the limits of -legitimate individual liberty. In any case, the constituting of such -an action a <!-- Page 74 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>crime must surely open out an altogether new principle in -jurisprudence, and one of far-reaching consequences. The same remarks -apply even more forcibly to the question of sharing the earnings of a -prostitute. Prostitution <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">per se</i> is not in the eyes of the law a crime -or even a misdemeanour. The woman who makes her living as a prostitute -is under the protection of the law, and the money she receives from -her customer is recognised as her property. If she, however, in the -exercise of her right of free disposition of that property, gives -some of it to a male friend, that friend, by the mere acceptance of -a free gift, becomes a criminal in the eyes of the law. Anything -more preposterous, judging by all hitherto recognised principles of -jurisprudence, can scarcely be imagined. Even from the moral point of -view of the class of cases coming under the purview of the Act, of men -who in part share in the proceeds of their female friends’ traffic, -must involve many instances in which no sane person—<i>i.e.</i> one who is -not bitten by the rabid man-hatred of the Feminist and social purity -monger—must regard the moral obliquity involved as not very serious. -Take, for instance, the case of a man who is out of work, who is -perhaps starving, and receives temporary assistance of this kind. Would -any reasonable person allege that such a man was in the lowest depths -of moral degradation, still less that he merited for this breach, at -most, of fine <!-- Page 75 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span>delicacy of feeling, the flaying alive prescribed by -the Act under consideration. Besides all this, it is well known that -some women, shop assistants and others, gain part of their living by -their reputable avocation and part in another way. Now presumably the -handing over of a portion of her regular salary to her lover would not -constitute the latter a flayable criminal, but the endowment of him -with a portion of any of the “presents” obtained by her pursuit of her -other calling would do so. The process of earmarking the permissible -and the impermissible gift strikes one as very difficult even if -possible.</p> - -<p>The point last referred to leads us on to another reflection. If the -man who “in whole or in part” lives on the proceeds of a woman’s -prostitution is of necessity a degraded wretch outside the pale of all -humanity, as he is represented to be by the flogging fraternity, how -about the employer or employeress of female labour who bases his or -her scale of wages on the assumption that the girls and women he or -she employs, supplement these wages by presents received after working -hours, for their sexual favours—in other words, by prostitution? -Many of these employers of labour are doubtless to be found among the -noble band of advocates of White Slave Traffic Bills, flogging and -social purity. The above persons, of course, are respectable members of -society, while a <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">souteneur</i> is an outcast.</p> - -<p><!-- Page 76 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span></p><p>In addition to the motives before alluded to as actuating the promoters -of the factitious and bogus so-called “White Slave” agitation, there -is one very powerful political and economic motive which must not be -left out of sight. In view of the existing “labour unrest,” it is -highly desirable from the point of view of our possessing and governing -classes that popular attention should be drawn off labour wrongs and -labour grievances on to something less harassing to the capitalist and -official mind. Now the Anti-man agitation forms a capital red herring -for drawing the popular scent off class opposition by substituting sex -antagonism in its place.</p> - -<p>If you can set public opinion off on the question of wicked Man and -down-trodden Woman, you have done a good deal to help capitalistic -enterprise to tide over the present crisis. The insistence of public -opinion on better conditions for the labourer will thus be weakened by -being diverted into urging forward vindictive laws against men, and for -placing as far as may be the whole power of the State at the disposal -of the virago, the shrew and the female sharper, in their designs upon -their male victim. For, be it remembered, it is always the worst type -of woman to whom the advantage of laws passed as the result of the -Anti-man campaign accrues. The real nature of the campaign is crucially -exhibited in some <!-- Page 77 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>of the concrete demands put forward by its advocates.</p> - -<p>One of the measures proposed in the so-called “Woman’s Charter” drawn -up with the approval of all prominent Feminists by Lady M‘Laren (now -Lady Aberconway) some four or five years back, and which had been -previously advocated by other Feminist writers, was to the effect -that a husband, in addition to his other liabilities, should be -legally compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, ostensibly as -wages for her housekeeping services, no matter whether she performs -the services well, or ill, or not at all. Whatever the woman is, or -does, the husband has to pay all the same. Another of the clauses in -this precious document is to the effect that a wife is to be under no -obligation to follow her husband, compelled probably by the necessity -of earning a livelihood for himself and her, to any place of residence -outside the British Islands. That favourite crank of the Feminist, of -raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number -of victims of the designing young female should speak for itself to -every unbiassed person. One of the proposals which finds most favour -with the Sentimental Feminist is the demand that in the case of the -murder by a woman of her illegitimate child, the putative father should -be placed in the dock as an accessory! In other words, a man should -be punished for a crime of which <!-- Page 78 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span>he is wholly innocent, because the -guilty person was forsooth a woman. That such a suggestion should be -so much as entertained by otherwise sane persons is indeed significant -of the degeneracy of mental and moral fibre induced by the Feminist -movement, for it may be taken as typical. It reminds me of a Feminist -friend of mine who, challenged by me, sought (for long in vain) to find -a case in the courts in which a man was unduly favoured at the expense -of a woman. At last he succeeded in lighting upon the following from -somewhere in Scotland: A man and woman who had been drinking went home -to bed, and the woman caused the death of her baby by “overlaying it.” -Both the man and the woman were brought before the court on the charge -of manslaughter, for causing the death, by culpable negligence, of the -infant. In accordance with the evidence, the woman who had overlaid -the baby was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, and -naturally the man, who had not done so, was released. Now, in the -judgment of my Feminist friend, in other matters sane enough, the fact -that the man who had not committed any offence was let off, while -his female companion, who had, was punished, showed the bias of the -court in favour of the man!! Surely this is a noteworthy illustration, -glaring as it is, of how all judgment is completely overbalanced -and destroyed in otherwise judicial <!-- Page 79 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>minds—of how such minds are -completely hypnotised by the adoption of the Feminist dogma. As a -matter of fact, of course, the task my friend set himself to do was -hopeless. As against the cases, which daily occur all over the country, -of flagrant injustice to men and partiality to women on the part of -the courts, there is, I venture to assert, not to be found a single -case within the limits of the four seas of a judicial decision in the -contrary sense—<i>i.e.</i> of one favouring the man at the expense of the -woman.</p> - -<p>This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men, -which has for its results that “man-made” laws invariably favour the -opposite sex, and that “man-administered justice” follows the same -course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest -attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /><p><!-- Page 80 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV<br /> - -<small>ALWAYS THE “INJURED INNOCENT”!</small></h2> -</div> - - -<p>While what we have termed Political Feminism vehemently asserts -its favourite dogma, the intellectual and moral equality of the -sexes—that the woman is as good as the man if not better—Sentimental -Feminism as vehemently seeks to exonerate every female criminal, and -protests against any punishment being meted out to her approaching -in severity that which would be awarded a man in a similar case. It -does so on grounds which presuppose the old theory of the immeasurable -inferiority, mental and moral, of woman, which are so indignantly -spurned by every Political Feminist—<i>i.e.</i> in his or her capacity as -such. We might suppose, therefore, that Political Feminism, with its -theory of sex equality based on the assumption of equal sex capacity, -would be in strong opposition in this matter with Sentimental Feminism, -which seeks, as its name implies, to attenuate female responsibility on -grounds which are not distinguishable from the old-fashioned assumption -of inferiority. But does Political <!-- Page 81 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span>Feminism consistently adopt this -logical position? Not one whit. It is quite true that some Feminists, -when hard pressed, may grudgingly concede the untenability on rational -grounds of the Sentimental Feminists’ claims. But taken as a whole, and -in their practical dealings, the Political Feminists are in accord with -the Sentimental Feminists in claiming female immunity on the ground of -sex. This is shown in every case where a female criminal receives more -than a nominal sentence.</p> - -<p>We have already given examples of the fact in question, and they could -be indefinitely extended. At the end of the year 1911, at Birmingham, -in the case of a woman convicted of the murder of her paramour by -deliberately pouring inflammable oil over him while he was asleep, -and then setting it afire, and afterwards not only exulting in the -action but saying she was ready to do it again, the jury brought in -recommendation to mercy with their verdict. And, needless to say, the -influence of Political and Sentimental Feminism was too strong to allow -the capital sentence to be carried out, even with such a fiendish -wretch as this. In the case of the Italian woman in Canada, Napolitano, -before mentioned, the female franchise societies issued a petition -to Mr Borden, the Premier of Canada, in favour of the commutation of -sentence. The usual course was adopted in this case, as in most others -in which a woman murders a man—to wit, the truly <!-- Page 82 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>“chivalrous” one of -trying to blacken the character of the dead victim in defence of the -action of the murderess. In other cases, more especially, of course, -where the man is guilty of a crime against a woman, when mercy is -asked for the offender, we are pitifully adjured to “think of the poor -victim.” As we have seen, Lord Haldane trotted out this exhortation in -a case where it was absurdly inappropriate, since the much-commiserated -“victim” had only herself to thank for being a “victim,” and still more -for remaining a “victim.” We never hear this plea for the “victim” -urged where the “victim” happens to be a man and the offender a woman. -Compare this with the case of the boy of nineteen, Beal, whom Mr -M‘Kenna hanged for the murder of his sweetheart, and that in the teeth -of an explanation given in the defence which was at least possible, -if not probable, and which certainly, putting it at the very lowest, -introduced an element of doubt into the case. Fancy a girl of nineteen -being convicted, whatever the evidence, of having poisoned her paramour -or even if, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">per impossibile</i>, she were convicted, fancy her being -given more than a short term of imprisonment! A man murdered by a woman -is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just -as surely the angelic victim. Anyone who reads reports of cases with an -unbiassed mind must admit the absolute accuracy of this statement.</p> - -<p><!-- Page 83 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span></p><p>Divine woman is always the “injured innocent,” not only in the graver -crimes, such as murder, but also in the minor offences coming under the -cognisance of the law. At the Ledbury Petty Sessions a woman in the -employment of a draper, who had purloined goods to the amount of £150, -was acquitted on the ground of “kleptomania,” and this notwithstanding -the fact that she had been in the employment of the prosecutor for over -five years, had never complained of illness and had never been absent -from business; also that her landlady gave evidence showing that she -was sound in mind and body. At the very same sessions two men were -sentenced respectively to eight and twelve months’ imprisonment for -stealing goods to the value of £5! (<cite>John Bull</cite>, 12th November 1910).</p> - -<p>At this point I may be permitted to quote from the article formerly -alluded to (<cite>Fortnightly Review</cite>, November 1911, case taken from a -report in <cite>The News of the World</cite> of 28th February 1909): “A young -woman shot at the local postman with a revolver; the bullet grazed his -face, she having fired point blank at his head. Jury returned a verdict -of not guilty, although the revolver was found on her when arrested, -and the facts were admitted and were as follows:—At noon she left her -house, crossing three fields to the house of the victim, who was at -home and alone; upon his <!-- Page 84 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span>appearing she fired point blank at his head; -he banged to the door, and thus turned off the bullet, which grazed -his face and ‘ploughed a furrow through his hair.’ She had by her when -arrested a revolver cocked and with four chambers undischarged.”</p> - -<p>Let us now take the crime of violent assault with attempt to do bodily -injury. The following cases will serve as illustrative examples:—From -<cite>The News of the World</cite>, 9th May 1909: A nurse in Belfast sued her lost -swain for breach of promise. <em>She obtained £100 damages although it was -admitted by her counsel that she had thrown vitriol over the defendant, -thereby injuring him, and the defendant had not prosecuted her!</em> Also -it was admitted that she had been “carrying on” with another man. -From <cite>The Morning Leader</cite> of 8th July 1905 I have taken the following -extraordinary facts as to the varied punishment awarded in cases of -vitriol-throwing: That of a woman who threw vitriol over a sergeant at -Aldershot, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment without hard -labour while a man who threw it over a woman at Portsmouth was tried -and convicted at the Hants Assizes, on 7th July 1905, and sentenced -by Mr Justice Bigham to twelve years’ penal servitude! As regards the -first case it will be observed that, (notwithstanding a crime, which in -the case of a man was described by the judge as “cowardly <!-- Page 85 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>and vile” -and meriting twelve years’ penal servitude) the woman was rewarded by -damages for £100, to be obtained from the very victim whom she had done -her best to maim for life (besides being unfaithful to him) and who had -generously abstained from prosecuting.</p> - -<p>But it is not merely in cases of murder, attempted murder or serious -assault that justice is mocked by the present state of our law and its -administration in the interests of the female sex. The same attitude is -observed, the same farcical sentences on women, whether the crime be -theft, fraud, common assault, criminal slander or other minor offences. -We have the same preposterous excuses admitted, the same preposterous -pleas allowed, and the same farcical sentences passed—if, indeed, any -sentence be passed at all. The following examples I have culled at -random:—From <cite>John Bull</cite>, 26th February 1910: At the London Sessions, -Mr Robert Wallace had to deal with the case of a well-dressed woman -living at Hampstead, who pleaded guilty to obtaining goods to the -amount of £50 by false pretences. In explanation of her crime it was -stated that she was under a mistaken impression that her engagement -would not lead to marriage, that she became depressed, and that she -“did not know what she said or did,” while in mitigation of punishment -it was urged that the money had been repaid, that <!-- Page 86 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span>her fiancé could -not marry her if she were sent to gaol, and that her life would be -irretrievably ruined, and she was discharged! From <cite>The Birmingham -Post</cite>, 4th February 1902: A female clerk (twenty-six) pleaded guilty to -embezzling £5, 1s. 9d. on 16th November, £2, 2s. 4d. on 21st December -and £5, 0s. 9d. on 23rd December last, the moneys of her employer. -Prosecuting counsel said prisoner entered prosecutor’s employ in -1900, and in June last her salary was raised to 27s. 6d. a week. The -defalcations, which began a month before the increase, amounted to -£134. She had falsified the books, and when suspicion fell upon her -destroyed two books, in order, as she thought, to prevent detection. -Her counsel pleaded for leniency on the ground of her previous good -character <em>and because she was engaged</em>! The recorder merely bound her -over, stating that her parents and young man were respectable, and so -was the house in which she lodged! A correspondent mentions in <cite>The -Birmingham Post</cite> of February 1902 a case where a woman had burned her -employer’s outhouses and property, doing £1800 worth of damage, and got -off with a month’s imprisonment. On the other hand, the <em>same</em> judge, -at the <em>same</em> Quarter Sessions, thus dealt with two male embezzlers: -C. C. (twenty-eight), clerk, who pleaded guilty to embezzling two sums -of money from his master in August and September of 1901 <!-- Page 87 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>(amounts -not given), was sent to gaol for six calendar months; and S. G. -(twenty-four), clerk, pleaded guilty to embezzling 7s. 6d. and 3s. For -the defence it was urged that the prisoner had been poorly paid, and -the recorder, hearing that a gentleman was prepared to employ the man -as soon as released, sentenced him to three months’ hard labour! O -merciful recorder!</p> - -<p>The “injured innocent” theory usually comes into play with magistrates -when a woman is charged with aggravated annoyance and harassing of -men in their business or profession, when, as already stated, the -administrator of the law will usually tell the prosecutor that he -cannot interfere. In the opposite case of a man annoying a woman under -like circumstances he invariably has to find substantial sureties for -his good behaviour or go to gaol. No injured innocence for him!</p> - -<p>There is another case in which it seems probable that, animated by -the same fixed idea, those responsible for the framing of laws have -flagrantly neglected an obvious measure for public safety. We refer to -the unrestricted sale of sulphuric acid (vitriol) which is permitted. -Now here we have a substance subserving only very special purposes -in industry, none in household economy, or in other departments, -save for criminal ends, which is nevertheless procurable without let -or hindrance. Is it possible to believe that this would be the case -if men <!-- Page 88 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span>were in the habit of using this substance in settling their -differences with each other, even still more if they employed it by way -of emphasising their disapproval of the jilting of sweethearts? That it -should be employed by women in wreaking their vengeance on recalcitrant -lovers seems a natural if not precisely a commendable action, in the -eyes of a Sentimental Feminist public opinion, and one which, on the -mildest hypothesis, “doesn’t matter.” Hence a deadly substance may be -freely bought and sold as though it were cod-liver oil. A very nice -thing for dastardly viragoes for whom public opinion has only the -mildest of censures! In any reasonable society the indiscriminate sale -of corrosive substances would in itself be a crime punishable with a -heavy term of imprisonment.</p> - -<p>It is not only by men, and by a morbid public opinion inflamed by -Feminist sentiment in general, that female criminals are surrounded -by a halo of injured innocence. The reader can hardly fail to notice -that such women have the effrontery to pretend to regard themselves in -this light. This is often so in cases of assault, murder or attempted -murder of lovers by their sweethearts. Such is, of course, particularly -noticeable in the senselessly wicked outrages, of which more anon. -The late Otto Weininger, in his book before quoted, “<cite class="upright" lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschlecht und -Charakter</cite>” (Sex and Character), has some noteworthy remarks on this, -remarks which, whether we <!-- Page 89 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>accept his suggested theory or not, might -well have been written as a comment on recent cases of suffragette -crimes and criminals. “The male criminal,” says Weininger, “has from -his birth the same relation to the idea of value [moral value] as any -other man in whom the criminal tendencies governing himself may be -wholly absent. The female on the other hand often claims to be fully -justified when she has committed the greatest conceivable infamy. While -the genuine criminal is obtusely silent against all reproaches, a woman -will express her astonishment and indignation that anyone can doubt -her perfect right to act as she has done. Women are convinced of their -being in the right without ever having sat in judgment on themselves. -The male criminal, it may be true, does not do so either, but then he -never maintains that he is in the right. He rather goes hastily out -of the way of discussing right and wrong, because it reminds him of -his guilt. In this fact we have a proof that he has a relationship to -the [moral] idea, and that it is unfaithfulness to his better self -of which he is unwilling to be reminded. No male criminal has ever -really believed that injustice has been done him by punishment. The -female criminal on the other hand is convinced of the maliciousness -of her accusers, and if she is unwilling no man can persuade her that -she has done wrong. Should someone admonish her, it is true that she -often <!-- Page 90 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>bursts into tears, begs for forgiveness and admits her fault; -she may even believe indeed that she really feels this fault. Such is -only the case, however, when she has felt inclined to do so, for this -very dissolving in tears affects her always with a certain voluptuous -pleasure. The male criminal is obstinate, he does not allow himself -to be turned round in a moment as the apparent defiance of a woman -may be converted into an apparent sense of guilt, where, that is, the -accuser understands how to handle her” (“<cite class="upright" lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschlecht und Charakter</cite>,” -pp. 253-254). Weininger’s conclusion is: “Not that woman is naturally -evil or <em>anti</em>-moral, but rather that she is merely <em>a</em>-moral, in other -words that she is destitute of what is commonly called ‘moral sense.’” -The cases of female penitents and others which seem to contradict this -announcement Weininger explains by the hypothesis that “it is only in -company and under external influence that woman can feel remorse.”</p> - -<p>Be all this as it may, the fact remains that women when most patently -and obviously guilty of vile and criminal actions will, with the most -complete nonchalance, insist that they are in the right. This may be, -and very possibly often is, mere impudent effrontery, relying on the -privilege of the female sex, or it may, in part at least, as Weininger -insists, be traceable to “special deep-lying sex-characteristics.” But -in any case the <!-- Page 91 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>singular fact is that men, and men even of otherwise -judicial capacity, are to be found who are prepared virtually to accept -the justice of this attitude, and who are ready to condone, if not -directly to defend, any conduct, no matter how vile or how criminal, on -the part of a woman. We have illustrations of this class of judgment -almost every day, but I propose to give two instances of what I should -deem typical, if slightly extreme, perversions of moral judgment on -the part of two men, both of them of social and intellectual standing, -and without any doubt personally of the highest integrity. Dr James -Donaldson, Principal of the University of St Andrews, in his work -entitled “<cite class="upright">Woman, her Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and -Rome and among the Early Christians</cite>,” commenting on the well-known -story attributed to the year 331 <small>B.C.</small>, which may or may not -be historical, of the wholesale poisoning of their husbands by Roman -matrons, as well as of subsequent cases of the same crime, concludes -his remarks with these words: “It seems to me that we must regard them -[namely these stories or facts, as we may choose to consider them] as -indicating that the Roman matrons felt sometimes that they were badly -treated, that they ought not to endure the bad treatment, and that -they ought to take the only means that they possessed of expressing -their <!-- Page 92 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span>feelings, and of wreaking vengeance, by employing poison” (p. -92). Now though it may be said that in this passage we have no direct -justification of the atrocious crime attributed to the Roman matrons, -yet it can hardly be denied that we have here a distinct condonation -of the infamous and dastardly act, such a condonation as the worthy -Principal of St Andrews University would hardly have meted out to men -under any circumstances. Probably Professor Donaldson, in writing the -above, felt that his comments would not be resented very strongly, even -if not actually approved, by public opinion, steeped as it is at the -present time in Feminism, political and sentimental.</p> - -<p>Another instance, this time of direct special pleading to prove a woman -guilty of an atrocious crime to be an “injured innocent.” It is taken -from an eminent Swiss alienist in his work on Sex. Dr Forel maintains -a thesis which may or may not be true to the effect that the natural -maternal instinct is either absent or materially weakened in the case -of a woman who has given birth to a child begotten by rape, or under -circumstances bordering upon rape, and indeed more or less in all -cases where the woman is an unwilling participant in the sexual act. -By way of illustration of this theory he cites the case of a barmaid -in St Gallen who was seduced by her employer under such circumstances -as those above mentioned; a child resulted, who was put <!-- Page 93 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span>out to nurse -at an institution until five years of age, when it was handed over to -the care of the mother. Now what does the woman do? Within a few hours -of receiving the little boy into her keeping she took him to a lonely -place and deliberately strangled him, in consequence of which she was -tried and condemned. Now Dr Forel, in his Feminist zeal, feels it -incumbent upon him to try to whitewash this female monster by urging, -on the basis of this theory, the excuse that under the circumstances -of its conception one could not expect the mother to have the ordinary -instincts of maternity as regards her child. The worthy doctor is -apparently so blinded by his Feminist prejudices that (quite apart -from the correctness or otherwise of his theory) he is oblivious of -the absurd irrelevancy of his argument. What, we may justly ask, has -the maternal instinct, or its absence, to do with the guilt of the -murderess of a helpless child committed to her care? Who or what the -child was is immaterial! That a humane and otherwise clear-headed -man like Dr Forel could take a wretch of this description under his -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ægis</i>, and still more that in doing so he should serve up such utterly -illogical balderdash by way of argument, is only one more instance of -how the most sane-thinking men are rendered fatuous by the glamour of -Sentimental Feminism.</p> - -<p>In the present chapter we have given a few <!-- Page 94 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span>typical instances of the -practice which constitutes one of the most conspicuous features of -Modern Feminism and of the public opinion which it has engendered. -We hear and read, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ad nauseam</i>, of excuses, and condonation, for -every crime committed by a woman, while a crime of precisely similar -a character and under precisely similar circumstances, where a man -is the perpetrator, meets with nothing but virulent execration from -that truculent ass, British public opinion, as manipulated by the -Feminist fraternity, male and female. This state of public opinion -reacts, of course, upon the tribunals and has the result that women -are practically free to commit any offence they please, with always -a splendid sporting chance of getting acquitted altogether, and a -practical certainty that even if convicted they will receive farcical -sentences, or, should the sentence be in any degree adequate to the -offence, that such sentence will not be carried out. The way in which -criminal law is made a jest and a mockery as regards female prisoners, -the treatment of criminal suffragettes, is there in evidence. The -excuse of health being endangered by their going without their -breakfasts has resulted in the release after a few days of women guilty -of the vilest crimes—<i>e.g.</i> the attempt to set fire to the theatre at -Dublin. It may be well to recall the outrageous facts of modern female -immunity and free defiance of the <!-- Page 95 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span>law as illustrated by one quotation -of a description of the merry time of the window-smashers of March 1912 -in Holloway prison given by a correspondent of <cite>The Daily Telegraph</cite>. -The correspondent of that journal describes his visit to the aforesaid -prison, where he said there appeared to have been no punishment of any -kind for any sort of misbehaviour. “All over the place,” he writes, -“is noise—women calling to women everywhere, and the officials seem -powerless to preserve even the semblance of discipline. A suffragist -will call out her name while in a cell, and another one who knows her -will answer, giving her name in return, and a conversation will then -be carried on between the two. This chattering obtains all day and far -into the night. The ‘officials’ as the wardresses prefer themselves -called, have already given the prison the name of ‘the monkey-house.’ -Certain it is that the prisoners are treated with all deference, the -reason being perhaps that the number of officials is insufficient to -establish proper order. While I was waiting yesterday one lady drove up -in a carriage and pair, in which were two policemen and several bundles -of clothes, to enter upon her sentence and this is the note which seems -to dominate the whole of the prison. Seventy-six of the prisoners -are supposed to be serving sentences with hard labour, but none of -them are wearing prison clothes, and in only one <!-- Page 96 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>or two instances -have any tasks of any description been given, those generally being -a little sewing or knitting.” Again a member of the Women’s Freedom -League at a meeting on 19th May 1912 boasted that the suffragettes had -a wing of their own at Holloway. “They had nice hot water pipes and -all the latest improvements and were able to climb up to the window -and exchange sentiments with their friends.” She had saved money and -enjoyed herself very much!!</p> - -<p>Here we have a picture of the way the modern authorities of the law -recognise the “injured innocence” of female delinquents who claim the -right wantonly to destroy property. Our present society, based as it is -on private property-holding, and which usually punished with the utmost -severity any breach of the sanctity of private property, waives its -claims where women are concerned. Similarly arson under circumstances -directly endangering human life, for which the law prescribes the -maximum sentence of penal servitude for life, is considered adequately -punished by a week or two’s imprisonment when those convicted of the -crime are of the female sex. Oh, but they were acting from political -motives! Good, and have not terrorist anarchists, Fenians and Irish -dynamiters of the Land League days also acted from political motives? -The terrorist anarchist, foolish and indefensible though his tactics -may be, believes <!-- Page 97 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span>honestly enough that he is paving the way for the -abolition of poverty, misery and social injustice, a far more vital -thing than the franchise! The Irish Fenians and dynamiters pursued a -similar policy and there is no reason to doubt their honest belief that -it would further the cause of the freedom and national independence -of Ireland. Yet were these “political” offenders dealt with otherwise -than as ordinary criminals when convicted of acts qualified by the law -as felonies? And their acts, moreover, whatever we may think of them -otherwise, were, in most cases at least, politically logical from their -own point of view, and not senseless injuries to unoffending persons, -as those of the present-day female seekers after the suffrage.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p><!-- Page 98 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V<br /> - -<small>THE “CHIVALRY” FAKE</small></h2> -</div> - - -<p>The justification for the whole movement of Modern Feminism in one of -its main practical aspects—namely, the placing of the female sex in -the position of privilege, advantage and immunity—is concentrated -in the current conception of “chivalry.” It behoves us, therefore, -to devote some consideration to the meaning and implication of this -notion. Now this word chivalry is the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dernier ressort</i> of those at -a loss for a justification of the modern privileging of women. But -those who use it seldom give themselves the trouble to analyse the -connotation of this term. Brought to book as to its meaning, most -persons would probably define it as deference to, or consideration for, -weakness, especially bodily weakness. Used in this sense, however, -the term covers a very much wider ground than the “kow-towing” to the -female section of the human race, usually associated with it. Boys, -men whose muscular strength is below the average, domestic animals, -etc., might all claim this special protection as a plea of <!-- Page 99 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span>chivalry, -in their favour. And yet we do not find different criminal laws, or -different rules of prison treatment, say, for men whose stamina is -below the average. Neither do we find such men or boys exempted by law -from corporal punishment in consequence of their weakness, unless as an -exception in individual cases when the weakness amounts to dangerous -physical disability. Neither, again, in the general affairs of life -are we accustomed to see any such deference to men of weaker muscular -or constitutional development as custom exacts in the case of women. -Once more, looking at the question from the other side, do we find the -claim of chivalry dropped in the case of the powerful virago or the -muscularly developed female athlete, the sportswoman who rides, hunts, -plays cricket, football, golf and other masculine games, and who may -even fence or box? Not one whit!</p> - -<p>It would seem then that the definition of the term under consideration, -based on the notion of deference to mere weakness as such, will hardly -hold water, since in its application the question of sex always takes -precedence of that of weakness. Let us try again! Abandoning for the -moment the definition of chivalry as a consideration for weakness, -considered <em>absolutely</em>, as we may term it, let us see whether the -definition of consideration for <em>relative</em> defencelessness—<i>i.e.</i> -defencelessness in a given situation—will coincide with the current -<!-- Page 100 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span>usage of the word. But here again we are met with the fact that the -man in the hands of the law—to wit, in the grip of the forces of the -State, ay, even the strongest man, were he a very Hercules, is in as -precisely as defenceless and helpless a position relative to those in -whose power he finds himself, as the weakest woman would be in the like -case, neither more nor less! And yet an enlightened and chivalrous -public opinion tolerates the most fiendish barbarities and excogitated -cruelties being perpetrated upon male convicts in our gaols, while it -shudders with horror at the notion of female convicts being accorded -any severity of punishment at all even for the same, or, for that -matter, more heinous offences. A particularly crass and crucial -illustration is that infamous piece of one-sided sex legislation -which has already occupied our attention in the course of the present -volume—to wit, the so-called “<cite class="upright">White Slave Traffic Act</cite>” 1912.</p> - -<p>It is plain then that chivalry as understood in the present day -really spells sex privilege and sex favouritism pure and simple, and -that any attempts to define the term on a larger basis, or to give -it a colourable rationality founded on fact, are simply subterfuges, -conscious or unconscious, on the part of those who put them forward. -The etymology of the word chivalry is well known and obvious enough. -The term meant originally the virtues associated with knighthood -considered as a whole, <!-- Page 101 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>bravery even to the extent of reckless daring, -loyalty to the chief or feudal superior, generosity to a fallen foe, -general open-handedness, and open-heartedness, including, of course, -the succour of the weak and the oppressed generally, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">inter alia</i>, the -female sex when in difficulties. It would be idle, of course, to insist -upon the historical definition of the term. Language develops and words -in course of time depart widely from their original connotation, so -that etymology alone is seldom of much value in practically determining -the definition of words in their application at the present day. But -the fact is none the less worthy of note that only a fragment of the -original connotation of the word chivalry is covered by the term as -used in our time, and that even that fragment is torn from its original -connection and is made to serve as a scarecrow in the field of public -opinion to intimidate all who refuse to act upon, or who protest -against, the privileges and immunities of the female sex.<a name="FNanchor_101:1_5" id="FNanchor_101:1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_101:1_5" class="fnanchor">[101:1]</a></p> - - -<div class="footnote"> -<p class="noindent"><a name="Footnote_101:1_5" id="Footnote_101:1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101:1_5"><span class="label">[101:1]</span></a> One among many apposite cases, which has occurred -recently, was protested against in a letter to <cite>The Daily Telegraph</cite>, -21st March 1913, in which it was pointed out that while a suffragette -got a few months’ imprisonment in the second division for wilfully -setting fire to the pavilion in Kew Gardens, a few days previously, -at the Lewes Assizes, a man had been sentenced to five years’ penal -servitude for burning a rick!!</p> -</div> - -<p>I have said that even that subsidiary element in the old original -notion of chivalry which is now <!-- Page 102 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span>well-nigh the only surviving remnant -of its original connotation is torn from its connection and hence -has necessarily become radically changed in its meaning. From being -part of a general code of manners enjoined upon a particular guild or -profession it has been degraded to mean the exclusive right in one -sex guaranteed by law and custom to certain advantages and exemptions -without any corresponding responsibility. Let us make no mistake about -this. When the limelight of a little plain but critical common-sense is -turned upon this notion of chivalry hitherto regarded as so sacrosanct, -it is seen to be but a poor thing after all; and when men have acquired -the habit of habitually turning the light of such criticism upon it, -the accusation, so terrible in the present state of public opinion, of -being “unchivalrous” will lose its terrors for them. In the so-called -ages of chivalry themselves it never meant, as it does to-day, the -woman right or wrong. It never meant as it does to-day the general -legal and social privilege of sex. It never meant a social defence or -a legal exoneration for the bad and even the criminal woman, simply -because she is a woman. It meant none of these things. All it meant was -a voluntary or gratuitous personal service to the forlorn women which -the members of the Knights’ guild among other such services, many of -them taking precedence of this one, were supposed to perform.</p> - -<p><!-- Page 103 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span></p><p>So far as courage is concerned, which was perhaps the first of the -chivalric virtues in the old days, it certainly requires more courage -in our days to deal severely with a woman when she deserves it (as a -man would be dealt with in like circumstances) than it does to back up -a woman against her wicked male opponent.</p> - -<p>It is a cheap thing, for example, in the case of a man and woman -quarrelling in the street, to play out the stage rôle of the bold and -gallant Englishman “who won’t see a woman maltreated and put upon, -not he!” and this, of course, without any inquiry into the merits of -the quarrel. To swim with the stream, to make a pretence of boldness -and bravery, when all the time you know you have the backing of -conventional public opinion and mob-force behind you, is the cheapest -of mock heroics.</p> - -<p>Chivalry to-day means the woman, right or wrong, just as patriotism -to-day means “my country right or wrong.” In other words, chivalry -to-day is only another name for Sentimental Feminism. Every outrageous -pretension of Sentimental Feminism can be justified by the appeal -to chivalry, which amounts (to use the German expression) to an -“appeal from Pontius to Pilate.” This Sentimental Feminism commonly -called chivalry is sometimes impudently dubbed by its votaries, -“manliness.” It will presumably continue <!-- Page 104 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span>in its practical effects -until a sufficient minority of sensible men will have the moral -courage to beard a Feminist public opinion and shed a little of this -sort of “manliness.” The plucky Welshmen at Llandystwmdwy in their -dealings with the suffragette rowdies on a memorable occasion showed -themselves capable of doing this. In fact one good effect generally -of militant suffragetteism seems to be the weakening of the notion of -chivalry—<i>i.e.</i> in its modern sense of Sentimental Feminism—amongst -the populace of this country.</p> - -<p>The combination of Sentimental Feminism with its invocation of the -old-world sentiment of chivalry which was based essentially on the -assumption of the mental, moral and physical inferiority of woman to -man, for its justification, with the pretensions of modern Political -Feminism, is simply grotesque in its inconsistent absurdity. In -this way Modern Feminism would fain achieve the feat of eating its -cake and having it too. When political and economic rights are in -question, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bien entendu</i>, such as involve gain and social standing, -the assumption of inferiority magically disappears before the strident -assertion of the dogma of the equality of woman with man—her mental -and moral equality certainly! When, however, the question is of a -different character—for example, for the relieving of some vile female -criminal of the penalty of her misdeeds—then Sentimental Feminism -comes into <!-- Page 105 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span>play, then the whole <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">plaidoyer</i> is based on the chivalric -sentiment of deference and consideration for poor, weak woman. I may -point out that here, if it be in the least degree logical, the plea -for mercy or immunity can hardly be based on any other consideration -than that of an intrinsic moral weakness in view of which the -offence is to be condoned. The plea of physical weakness, if such be -entertained, is here in most cases purely irrelevant. Thus, as regards -the commutation of the death sentence, the question of the muscular -strength or weakness of the condemned person does not come in at all. -The same applies, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mutatis mutandis</i>, to many other forms of criminal -punishment. But it must not be forgotten that there are two aspects of -physical strength or weakness. There is, as we have already pointed -out, the muscular aspect and the constitutional aspect. If we concede -the female sex as essentially and inherently weaker in muscular power -and development than the male, this by no means involves the assumption -that woman is constitutionally weaker than man. On the contrary, it -is a known fact attested, as far as I am aware, by all physiologists, -no less than by common observation, that the constitutional toughness -and power of endurance of woman in general far exceeds that of man, as -explained in an earlier chapter. This resilient power of the system, -its capacity for enduring <!-- Page 106 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span>strain, it may here be remarked in passing, -is by no means necessarily a characteristic of a specially high stage -of organic evolution. We find it indeed in many orders of invertebrate -animals in striking forms. Be this as it may, however, the existence -of this greater constitutional strength or resistant power in the -female than in the male organic system—as crucially instanced by -the markedly greater death-rate of boys than of girls in infancy and -early childhood—should, in respect of severity of punishment, prison -treatment, etc., be a strong counter-argument against the plea for -leniency, or immunity in the case of female criminals, made by the -advocates of Sentimental Feminism.</p> - -<p>But these considerations afford only one more illustration of the utter -irrationality of the whole movement of Sentimental Feminism identified -with the notion of “chivalry.” For the rest, we may find illustrations -of this galore. A very flagrant case is that infamous “rule of the -sea” which came so much into prominence at the time of the <i>Titanic</i> -disaster. According to this preposterous “chivalric” Feminism, in the -case of a ship foundering, it is the unwritten law of the seas, not -that the passengers shall leave the ship and be rescued in their order -as they come, but that the whole female portion shall have the right of -being rescued before any man is allowed to <!-- Page 107 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span>leave the ship. Now this -abominable piece of sex favouritism, on the face of it, cries aloud in -its irrational injustice. Here is no question of bodily strength or -weakness, either muscular or constitutional. In this respect, for the -nonce, all are on a level. But it is a case of life itself. A number of -poor wretches are doomed to a watery grave, simply and solely because -they have not had the luck to be born of the privileged female sex.</p> - -<p>Such is “chivalry” as understood to-day—the deprivation, the robbery -from men of the most elementary personal rights in order to endow women -with privileges at the expense of men. During the ages of chivalry and -for long after it was not so. Law and custom then was the same for -men as for women in its incidence. To quote the familiar proverb in a -slightly altered form, <em>then</em>—“what was sauce for the gander was sauce -for the goose.” Not until the nineteenth century did this state of -things change. Then for the first time the law began to respect persons -and to distinguish in favour of sex.</p> - -<p>Even taking the matter on the conventional ground of weakness and -granting, for the sake of argument, the relative muscular weakness -of the female as ground for her being allowed the immunity claimed -by Modern Feminists of the sentimental school, the distinction is -altogether lost sight of between weakness as such and <em>aggressive</em> -<!-- Page 108 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span>weakness. Now I submit there is a very considerable difference between -what is due to weakness that is harmless and unprovocative, and -weakness that is <em>aggressive</em>, still more when this aggressive weakness -presumes on itself as weakness, and on the consideration extended to -it, in order to become tyrannical and oppressive. Weakness as such -assuredly deserves all consideration, but aggressive weakness deserves -none save to be crushed beneath the iron heel of strength. Woman at -the present day has been encouraged by a Feminist public opinion to -become meanly aggressive under the protection of her weakness. She has -been encouraged to forge her gift of weakness into a weapon of tyranny -against man, unwitting that in so doing she has deprived her weakness -of all just claim to consideration or even to toleration.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /><p><!-- Page 109 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI<br /> - -<small>SOME FEMINIST LIES AND FALLACIES</small></h2> -</div> - - -<p>By Feminist lies I understand false statements put forward by persons, -many of whom should be perfectly well aware that they are false, -apparently with the deliberate intention of misleading public opinion -as to the real position of woman before the law. By fallacies I -understand statements doubtless dictated by Feminist prepossessions or -Feminist bias, but not necessarily suggesting conscious or deliberate -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mala fides</i>.</p> - -<p>Of the first order, the statements are made apparently with intentional -dishonesty in so far as many of the persons making them are concerned, -since we may reasonably suppose them to have intelligence and knowledge -enough to be aware that they are contrary to fact. The talk about the -wife being a chattel, for example, is so palpably absurd in the face of -the existing law that it is nowadays scarcely worth making (although -we do hear it occasionally even now). But it was not even true under -the old common law of England, which, for certain disabilities on the -one hand, conceded <!-- Page 110 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span>to the wife certain corresponding privileges on -the other. The law of husband and wife, as modified by statute in the -course of the nineteenth century, as I have often enough had occasion -to point out, is a monument of legalised tyranny over the husband in -the interests of the wife.</p> - -<p>If in the face of the facts the word chattel, as applied to the wife, -has become a little too preposterous even for Feminist controversial -methods, there is another falsehood scarcely less brazen that we hear -from Feminist fanatics every day. The wife, we are told, is the only -<em>unpaid servant</em>! A more blatant lie could scarcely be imagined. As -every educated person possessing the slightest acquaintance with the -laws of England knows, the law requires the husband to maintain his -wife in a manner according with his own social position; has, in other -words, to feed, clothe and afford her all reasonable luxuries, which -the law, with a view to the economic standing of the husband, regards -as necessaries. This although the husband has no claim on the wife’s -property or income, however wealthy she may be. Furthermore, it need -scarcely be said, a servant who is inefficient, lazy, or otherwise -intolerable, can be dismissed or her wage can be lowered. Not so that -privileged person, the legally wedded wife. It matters not whether -she perform her duties well, badly, indifferently, or not at all, -the husband’s legal <!-- Page 111 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span>obligations remain just the same. It will be -seen, therefore, that the wife in any case receives from the husband -economic advantages compared with which the wages of the most highly -paid servant in existence are a mere pauper’s pittance. This talk we -hear <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ad nauseam</i>, from the Feminist side, of the wife being an “unpaid -servant,” is typical of the whole Feminist agitation. We find the same -deliberate and unscrupulous dishonesty characterising it throughout. -Facts are not merely perverted or exaggerated, they are simply turned -upside down.</p> - -<p>Another statement commonly made is that women’s lower wages as compared -with men’s is the result of not possessing the parliamentary franchise. -Now this statement, though not perhaps bearing on its face the wilful -deception characterising the one just mentioned, is not any the less a -perversion of economic fact, and we can hardly regard it otherwise than -as intentional. It is quite clear that up to date the wages of men have -not been raised by legislation, and yet sections of the working classes -have possessed the franchise at least since 1867. What legislation -has done for the men has been simply to remove obstacles in the way -of industrial organisation on the part of the workman in freeing the -trade unions from disabilities, and even this was begun, owing to -working-class pressure from outside, long before—as long ago as the -twenties of the last century under the <!-- Page 112 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span>auspices of Joseph Hume and -Francis Place. Now women’s unions enjoy precisely the same freedom as -men’s unions, and nothing stands in the way of working women organising -and agitating for higher wages. Those who talk of the franchise as -being necessary for working women in order to obtain equal industrial -and economic advantages with working men must realise perfectly well -that they are performing the oratorical operation colloquially known as -“talking through their hat.” The reasons why the wages of women workers -are lower than those of men, whatever else may be their grounds, and -these are, I think, pretty obvious, clearly are not traceable to -anything which the concession of the franchise would remove. If it be -suggested that a law could be enacted compulsorily enforcing equal -rates of payment for women as for men, what the result would be the -merest tyro in such matters can foresee—to wit, that it would mean the -wholesale displacement of female by male labour over large branches of -industry, and this, we imagine, is not precisely what the advocates of -female suffrage are desirous of effecting.</p> - -<p>Male labour, owing to its greater efficiency and other causes, being -generally preferred by employers to female labour, it is not likely -that, even for the sake of female <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">beaux yeux</i>, they are going to -accept female labour in the place of male, on an equal wage basis. -All this, of course, is quite apart <!-- Page 113 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>from the question referred -to on a previous page, as to the economic responsibilities in the -interests of women, which our Feminist law-makers have saddled on the -man—namely, the responsibility of the husband, and the husband alone, -for the maintenance of his wife and family, obligations from anything -corresponding to which the female sex is wholly free.</p> - -<p>In a leaflet issued by the “<cite class="upright">Men’s Federation for Women’s Suffrage</cite>” -it is affirmed that “many laws are on the statute book which inflict -injustice on Women.” We challenge this statement as an unmitigated -falsehood. Its makers ought to know perfectly well that they cannot -justify it. There are no laws on the statute book inflicting injustice -on women as a Sex, but there are many laws inflicting injustice on -men in the supposed interests of women. The worn-out tag which has so -long done duty with Feminists in this connection—viz. the rule of the -Divorce Court, that in order to procure divorce a wife has to prove -cruelty as well as adultery on the part of a husband, whereas a husband -has to prove adultery alone on the part of a wife—has already been -dealt with and its rottenness as a specimen of a grievance sufficiently -exposed in this work and elsewhere by the present writer. Is what the -authors of the leaflet may possibly have in their mind (if they have -anything at all) when they talk about statutes inflicting <!-- Page 114 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span>injustice -on women, that the law does not carry sex vindictiveness against men -far enough to please them? With all its flogging, penal servitude, -hard labour and the rest, for offences against women, some of them of -a comparatively trivial kind, does the law as regards severity on men -not even yet satisfy the ferocious Feminist souls of the members of the -“Men’s Federation for Women’s Suffrage”? This is the only explanation -of the statement in question other than that it is sheer bald bluff -designed to mislead those ignorant of the law.</p> - -<p>Another flagrant falsehood perpetually being dinned into our ears by -the suffragists is the statement that <em>women have to obey the same laws -as men</em>. The conclusion drawn from this false statement is, of course, -that since they have to obey these laws equally with men, they have -an equal claim with men to take part in the making or the modifying -of them. Now without pausing to consider the fallacy underlying the -conclusion, we would point out that it is sufficient for our present -purpose to call attention to the falsity of the initial assumption -itself. It needs only one who follows current events and reads his -newspaper with impartial mind to see that to allege that women <em>have -to</em>, in the true sense of the words (<i>i.e.</i> are compelled to), obey -the same laws as men is a glaringly mendacious statement. It is -unnecessary in this place to go over once more the mass of evidence -<!-- Page 115 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>comprised in previous writings of my own—<i>e.g.</i> in the pamphlet, “<cite class="upright">The -Legal Subjection of Man</cite>” (Twentieth Century Press), in the article, -“<cite class="upright">A Creature of Privilege</cite>” (<cite>Fortnightly Review</cite>, November 1911), and -elsewhere in the present volume, illustrating the unquestionable fact -that though in theory women may have to obey the law as men have, yet -in practice they are absolved from all the more serious consequences -men have to suffer when they disobey it. The treatment recently -accorded to the suffragettes for crimes such as wilful damage and -arson, not to speak of their previous prison treatment when convicted -for obstruction, disturbance and minor police misdemeanours, is a -proof, writ large, of the mendacity of the statement that women no less -than men have to obey the laws of the country, so far, that is, as any -real meaning is attached to this phrase.</p> - -<p>Another suffragist lie which is invariably allowed to pass muster by -default, save for an occasional protest by the present writer, is the -assumption that the English law draws a distinction as regards prison -treatment, etc., as between political and non-political offenders. -Everyone with even the most elementary legal knowledge is aware that -no such distinction has ever been recognised or suggested by the -English law—at least until the prison ordinance made quite recently, -expressly to please the suffragettes, by Mr Winston Churchill when -Home <!-- Page 116 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span>Secretary. However desirable many may consider such a distinction -to be, nothing is more indubitable than the fact that it has never -previously obtained in the letter or practice of the law of England. -And yet, without a word of contradiction from those who know better, -arguments and protests galore have been fabricated on the suffragist -side, based solely on this impudently false assumption.</p> - -<p>Misdemeanours and crimes at common law, when wilfully committed, -have in all countries always remained misdemeanours and crimes, -whatever motive can be conveniently put forward to account for them. A -political offence has always meant the expression of opinions or the -advocacy of measures or acts (not of the nature of common law crimes) -which are in contravention of the existing law—<i>e.g.</i> a “libel” on -the constituted authorities of the State, or the forcible disregard -of a law or police regulation in hindrance of the right of public -speech or meeting. This is what is meant by political offence in any -country recognising such as a special class of offence entitling -those committing it to special treatment. This is so where the matter -refers to the internal legislation of the country. Where the question -of extradition comes in the definition of political offence is, of -course, wider. Take the extreme case, that of the assassination of a -ruler or functionary, especially in a despotic State, where free Press -and the free <!-- Page 117 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span>expression of opinion generally do not exist. This is -undoubtedly a political, not a common law offence, <em>in so far as other -countries are concerned</em>, and hence the perpetrator of such a deed has -the right to claim immunity, on this ground, from extradition. The -position assumable is, that under despotic conditions the progressive -man is at war with the despot and those exercising authority under -him; therefore, in killing the despot or the repositories of despotic -authority, he is striking directly at the enemy. It would, however, -be absurd for the agent in a deed of this sort to expect special -political treatment <em>within the jurisdiction of the State itself -immediately concerned</em>. As a matter of fact he never does so. Fancy -a Russian Nihilist, when brought to trial, whining that he is a -political offender and hence to be exempted from all harsh treatment! -No, the Nihilist has too much self-respect to make himself ridiculous -in this way. Hardly even the maddest Terrorist Anarchist would make -such a claim. For example, the French law recognises the distinction -between political and common law offences. But for all this the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bande -tragique</i>, Bonnot and his associates, did not receive any benefit from -the distinction or even claim to do so, though otherwise they were loud -enough in proclaiming the political motives inspiring them. Even as -regards extradition, running amuck at large, setting fire promiscuously -to private buildings or <!-- Page 118 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span>injuring the ordinary non-political citizen, -as a “protest,” would not legally come into the category of political -offences and hence protect their authors from being surrendered as -ordinary criminals.</p> - -<p>The real fact, of course, is that all this talk on the part of -suffragettes and their backers about “political” offences and -“political” prison treatment is only a mean and underhand way of trying -to secure special sex privileges under false pretences. Those who talk -the loudest in the strain in question know this perfectly well.</p> - -<p>These falsehoods are dangerous, in spite of what one would think ought -to be their obvious character as such, by reason of the psychological -fact that you only require to repeat a lie often enough, provided you -are uncontradicted, in order for the aforesaid lie to be received as -established truth by the mass of mankind (“mostly fools,” as Carlyle -had it).</p> - -<p>It is a preposterous claim, I contend, that any misdemeanour and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">a -fortiori</i> any felony has, law apart, and even from a merely ethical -point of view, any claim to special consideration and leniency on -the bare declaration of the felon or misdemeanant that it had been -dictated by political motive. In no country, at any time, has the mere -assertion of political motive been held to bring an ordinary crime -within the sphere of treatment of political offences. According to the -legal and ethical logic <!-- Page 119 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span>of the suffragettes, it is perfectly open for -them to set on fire theatres, churches and houses, and even to shoot -down the harmless passer-by in the street, and claim the treatment -of first-class misdemeanants on the ground that the act was done as -a protest against some political grievance under which they imagined -themselves to be labouring. The absurdity of the suggestion is evident -on its mere statement. And yet the above preposterous assumption -has been suffered equally with the one last noted to pass virtually -without protest, and what is more serious, it has been acted upon by -the authorities as though it were indubitably sound law as well as -sound ethics! It may be pointed out that what has cost many an Irish -Fenian in the old days, and many a Terrorist Anarchist at a later date, -a sentence of penal servitude for life, can be indulged in by modern -suffragettes at the expense of a few weeks’ imprisonment in the first -or second division. Of course, this whole talk of “political offences,” -when they are, on the face of them, mere common crimes, is purely and -simply a trick designed to shield the cowardly and contemptible female -creatures who perpetrate these senseless and dastardly outrages from -the punishment they deserve and would receive if they had not the good -fortune to be of the privileged sex. In the case of men this impudent -nonsense would, of course, never have been put forward, and, if it -had, <!-- Page 120 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span>would have been summarily laughed out of court. That it should -be necessary to point out these things in so many words is a striking -illustration of the moral and intellectual atrophy produced by Feminism -in the public mind.</p> - -<p>There is another falsehood we often hear by way of condoning the -infamous outrages of the suffragettes. The excuse is often offered when -the illogical pointlessness of the “militant” methods of the modern -suffragette are in question: “Oh! men have also done the same things: -men have used violence to attain political ends!” Now the fallacy -involved in this retort is plain enough.</p> - -<p>It may be perfectly true that men have used violence to attain their -ends on occasion. But to assert this fact in the connection in -question is purely irrelevant. There is violence <em>and</em> violence. It -is absolutely false to say that men have ever adopted purposeless and -inane violence <em>as a policy</em>. The violence of men has always had an -intelligible relation to the ends they had in view, either proximate -or ultimate. They pulled down Hyde Park railings in 1866. Good! But -why was this? Because they wanted to hold a meeting, and found the -park closed against them, the destruction of the railings being the -only means of gaining access to the park. Again, the Reform Bill riots -of 1831 were at least all directed against Government property and -governmental persons—that is, the <!-- Page 121 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span>enemy with whom they were at war. -In most cases, as at Bristol and Nottingham, there was (as in that of -the Hyde Park railings) a very definite and immediate object in the -violence and destruction committed—namely, the release of persons -imprisoned for the part they had taken in the Reform movement, by the -destruction of the gaols where they were confined. What conceivable -analogy have these things with a policy of destroying private property, -setting fire to tea pavilions, burning boat-builders’ stock-in-trade, -destroying private houses, poisoning pet dogs, upsetting jockeys, -defacing people’s correspondence, including the postal orders of the -poor, mutilating books in a college library, pictures in a public -gallery, etc., etc.? And all these, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bien entendu</i>, not openly and -in course of a riot, but furtively, in the pursuit of a deliberately -premeditated policy! Have, I ask, men ever, in the course of the -world’s history, committed mean, futile and dastardly crimes such as -these in pursuit of any political or public end? There can be but -one answer to this question. Every reader must know that there is no -analogy whatever between suffragettes’ “militancy” and the violence and -crimes of which men may have been guilty. Even the Terrorist Anarchist, -however wrong-headed he may be, and however much his deeds may be -deemed morally reprehensible, is at least logical in his actions, -<!-- Page 122 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span>in so far as the latter have always had some definite bearing on his -political ends and were not mere senseless “running amuck.” The utterly -disconnected, meaningless and wanton character signalising the policy -of the “militant” suffragettes would of itself suffice to furnish a -conclusive argument for the incapacity of the female intellect to think -logically or politically, and hence against the concession to women of -public powers, political, judicial or otherwise.</p> - -<p>Another fallacy analogous to the preceding, inasmuch as it seeks to -counterbalance female defects and weaknesses by the false allegation -of corresponding deficiencies in men, is the Feminist retort sometimes -heard when the question of hysteria in women is raised: “Oh! men can -also suffer from hysteria!” This has been already dealt with in an -earlier chapter, but for the sake of completing the list of prominent -Feminist fallacies I restate it concisely here. Now as we have seen it -is exceedingly doubtful whether this statement is true in any sense -whatever. There are eminent authorities who would deny that men ever -have true hysteria. There are others, of course, again, who would -extend the term hysteria so as to include every form of neurasthenic -disturbance. The question is largely, with many persons who discuss the -subject, one of terminology. It suffices here to cut short quibbling on -this score. <!-- Page 123 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span>For the nonce, let us drop the word hysteria and formulate -the matter as follows:—Women are frequently subject to a pathological -mental condition, differing in different cases but offering certain -well-marked features in common, a condition which seldom, if ever, -occurs in men. This I take to be an incontrovertible proposition based -upon experience which will be admitted by every impartial person.</p> - -<p>Now the existence of the so-called hysterical man I have hitherto -found to be attested on personal experience solely by certain Feminist -medical practitioners who allege that they have met with him in their -consulting-rooms. His existence is thus vouchsafed for just as the -reality of the sea-serpent is vouchsafed for by certain sea captains -or other ancient mariners. Far be it from me to impugn the ability, -still less the integrity, of these worthy persons. But in either -case I may have my doubts as to the accuracy of their observation -or of their diagnosis. It may be that the sea-serpent exists and it -may be that hysteria is at times discoverable in male persons. But -while a conclusive proof of the discovery of a single sea-serpent of -the orthodox pattern would go far to justify the yarn of the ancient -mariner, the proof of the occurrence, in an occasional case, of -hysteria in men, would not by far justify the implied contention that -hysteria is not essentially <!-- Page 124 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span>a female malady. If hysterical men are as -common a phenomenon as certain hard-pressed Feminists would make out, -what I want to know is: Where are they? While we come upon symptoms -which would be commonly attributed to hysteria in well-nigh every -second or third woman of whose life we have any intimate knowledge, -how often do we find in men symptoms in any way resembling these? -In my own experience I have come across but two cases of men giving -indications of a temperament in any way analogous to that of the -“hysterical woman.” After all, the experience of the average layman, -and in this I contend my own is more or less typical, is more important -in the case of a malady manifesting itself in symptoms obvious to -common observation, such as the one we are considering, than that of -the medical practitioner, who by reason of his profession would be -especially likely to see cases, if there were any at all, however few -they might be. The possibility, moreover, at least suggests itself, -that the latter may often mistake for hysteria (using the word in the -sense commonly applied to the symptoms presented by women) symptoms -resulting from general neurasthenia or even from purely extraneous -causes, such as alcohol, drugs, etc. That this is sometimes the case is -hardly open to question. That the pathological mental symptoms referred -to as prevalent in the female, whether <!-- Page 125 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span>we attribute them to hysteria -or not, are rarely if ever found in the male sex is an undoubted fact. -The rose, it is said, is as sweet by any other name, and whether -we term these affections symptoms of hysteria, or describe them as -hysteria itself, or deny that they have anything to go with “true -hysteria,” their existence and frequency in the female sex remains -nevertheless a fact. No! whether some of the symptoms of hysteria, -“true” or “so-called,” are occasionally to be found in men or not, -every impartial person must admit that they are extremely rare, whereas -as regards certain pathological mental symptoms, common in women and -popularly identified (rightly or wrongly) with hysteria, there is, I -contend, little evidence of their occurring in men at all. Wriggle and -prevaricate as they may, it is impossible for Suffragists and Feminists -to successfully evade the undoubted truth that the mentality of women -is characterised constitutionally by a general instability, manifesting -itself in pathological symptoms radically differing in nature and in -frequency from any that obtain in men.</p> - -<p>Very conspicuous among the fallacies that have done yeoman service in -the Feminist Movement is the assumption that women are constitutionally -the “weaker sex.” This has also been discussed by us in <a href="#CHAPTER_II">Chapter II.</a>, -but the latter may again be supplemented here by a few further remarks, -so deeply <!-- Page 126 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span>rooted is this fallacy in public opinion. The reason of the -unquestioned acceptance of the assumption is partly due to a confusion -of two things under one name. The terms, “bodily strength” and “bodily -weakness” cover two distinct facts. The attribution of greater bodily -weakness to the female sex than to the male undoubtedly expresses a -truth, but no less does the attribution of greater bodily strength -to the female than to the male sex equally express a truth. In size, -weight and muscular development, average man has an unquestionable, -and in most cases enormous, advantage over average woman. It is in -this sense that the bodily structure of the human female can with some -show of justice be described as frail. On the other hand, as regards -tenacity of life, recuperative power and what we may term toughness of -constitution, woman is without doubt considerably stronger than man. -Now this vigour of constitution may, of course, also be described as -bodily strength, and to this confusion the assumption of the general -frailty of the female bodily organism as compared with the male has -acquired general currency in the popular mind.</p> - -<p>The most carefully controlled and reliable statistics of the -Registrar-General and other sources show the enormously greater -mortality of men than of women at all ages and under all conditions -of life. Under the age of five the evidence shows that 120 boys die -to every 100 girls. In adult life the <!-- Page 127 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span>Registrar-General shows that -diseases of the chest are the cause of nearly 40 per cent. more -deaths among men than among women. That violence and accident should -be the occasion of 150 per cent. more deaths amongst men than women -is accounted for, partly, at least, by the greater exposure of men, -although the enormous disparity would lead one to suspect that here -also the inferior resisting power in the male constitution plays a not -inconsiderable part in the result. The report of the medical officer to -the Local Government Board proves that between the ages of fifty-five -and sixty-five there is a startling difference in numbers between the -deaths of men and those of women. The details for the year 1910 are as -follows:—</p> - -<table summary="1910 causes of death for males and females" border="0"> - <tr> - <td class="header">Diseases</td> - <td class="header">Males</td> - <td class="header">Females</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft">Nervous system</td> - <td class="tdright">1614</td> - <td class="tdright">1240</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft">Heart</td> - <td class="tdright">5762</td> - <td class="tdright">5336</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft">Blood vessels</td> - <td class="tdright">3424</td> - <td class="tdright">3298</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft">Respiratory system</td> - <td class="tdright">3110</td> - <td class="tdright">2473</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft">Digestive system</td> - <td class="tdright">1769</td> - <td class="tdright">1681</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft">Kidneys, etc.</td> - <td class="tdright">2241</td> - <td class="tdright">1488</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft">Acute infections</td> - <td class="tdright">2259</td> - <td class="tdright">1164</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdleft">Violent deaths</td> - <td class="tdright">1624</td> - <td class="tdright">436</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">Various additional causes, connected with the more active and anxious -life of men, the greater strain to which they are subjected, their -greater exposure alike to infection and to accident, may explain a -<!-- Page 128 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span>certain percentage of the excessive death-rate of the male population -as opposed to the female, yet these explanations, even allowing the -utmost possible latitude to them, really only touch the fringe of the -difference, with the single exception of deaths from violence and -accident above alluded to, where liability and exposure may account -for a somewhat larger percentage. The great cause of the discrepancy -remains, without doubt, the enormously greater potentiality of -resistance, in other words of constitutional strength, in the female -bodily organism as compared with the male.</p> - -<p>We must now deal at some length with a fallacy of some importance, -owing to the apparatus of learning with which it has been set forth, -to be found in Mr Lester F. Ward’s book, entitled “<cite class="upright">Pure Sociology</cite>,” -notwithstanding that its fallacious nature is plain enough when -analysed. Mr Ward terms his speculation the “Gynœcocentric Theory,” -by which he understands apparently the Feminist dogma of the supreme -importance of the female in the scheme of humanity and nature -generally. His arguments are largely drawn from general biology, -especially that of inferior organisms. He traces the various -processes of reproduction in the lower departments of organic nature, -subdivision, germination, budding, etc., up to the earlier forms -of bi-sexuality, culminating in conjugation or true sexual union. -His standpoint <!-- Page 129 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>he thus states in the terms of biological origins: -“Although reproduction and sex are two distinct things, and although a -creature that reproduces without sex cannot properly be called either -male or female, still so completely have these conceptions become -blended in the popular mind that a creature which actually brings forth -offspring out of its own body, is instinctively classed as female. -The female is the fertile sex, and whatever is fertile is looked upon -as female. Assuredly it would be absurd to look upon an organism -propagating sexually as male. Biologists have proceeded from this -popular standpoint and regularly speak of ‘mother cells,’ and ‘daughter -cells.’ It, therefore, does no violence to language or to science to -say that life begins with the female organism and is carried on a long -distance by means of females alone. In all the different forms of -a-sexual reproduction, from fission to parthenogenesis, the female may -in this sense be said to exist alone and perform all the functions of -life, including reproduction. In a word, life begins as female.”</p> - -<p>In the above remarks it will be seen that Mr Ward, so to say, jumps the -claim of a-sexual organisms to be considered as female. This, in itself -a somewhat questionable proceeding, serves him as a starting-point -for his theory. The a-sexual female (?), he observes, is not only -primarily the <!-- Page 130 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span>original sex, but continues throughout, the main trunk, -though afterwards the male element is added “for the purposes of -fertilisation.” “Among millions of humble creatures,” says Mr Ward, -“the male is simply and solely a fertiliser.” The writer goes on in -his efforts to belittle the male sex in the sphere of biology. “The -gigantic female spider and the tiny male fertiliser, the Mantis insect -with its similarly large and ferocious female, bees, and mosquitoes,” -all are pressed into the service. Even the vegetable kingdom, in so far -as it shows signs of sex differentiation, is brought into the lists in -favour of his theory of female supremacy, or “gynœcocentricism,” as he -terms it.</p> - -<p>This theory may be briefly stated as follows:—In the earliest -organisms displaying sex differentiation, it is the female which -represents the organism proper, the rudimentary male existing solely -for the purpose of the fertilisation of the female. This applies -to most of the lower forms of life in which the differentiation of -sex obtains, and in many insects, the Mantis being one of the cases -specially insisted upon by our author. The process of the development -of the male sex is by means of the sexual selection of the female. -From being a mere fertilising agent, gradually, as evolution proceeds, -it assumes the form and characteristics of an independent organism -like the original female trunk organism. But the latter continues to -maintain <!-- Page 131 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span>its supremacy in the life of the species, by means chiefly -of sexual selection, until the human period, <i>i.e.</i> more or less (!), -for Mr Ward is bound to admit signs of male superiority in the higher -vertebrates—viz. birds and mammals. This superiority manifests itself -in size, strength, ornamentation, alertness, etc. But it is with man, -with the advent of the reasoning faculty, and, as a consequence, of -human supremacy, that it becomes first unmistakably manifest. This -superiority, Mr Ward contends, has been developed under the ægis of -the sexual selection of the female, and enabled cruel and wicked man -to subject and enslave down-trodden and oppressed woman, who has thus -been crushed by a Frankenstein of her own creation. Although in various -earlier phases of human organisation woman still maintains her social -supremacy, this state of affairs soon changes. Androcracy establishes -itself, and woman is reduced to the rôle of breeding the race and of -being the servant of man. Thus she has remained throughout the periods -of the higher barbarism and of civilisation. Our author regards the -lowest point of what he terms the degradation of woman to have been -reached in the past, and the last two centuries as having witnessed a -movement in the opposite direction—namely, towards the emancipation of -woman and equality between the sexes. (<i>Cf.</i> “<cite class="upright">Pure Sociology</cite>,” chap. -xiv., and especially pp. 290-377.)</p> - -<p><!-- Page 132 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span></p><p>The above is a brief, but, I think, not unfair skeleton statement -of the theory which Mr Lester Ward has elaborated in the work above -referred to, in great detail and with immense wealth of illustration. -But now I ask, granting the correctness of Mr Ward’s biological -premises and the accuracy of his exposition, and I am not specialist -enough to be capable of criticising these in detail: What does it all -amount to? The “business end” (as the Americans would say) of the whole -theory, it is quite evident, is to afford a plausible and scientific -basis for the Modern Feminist Movement, and thus to further its -practical pretensions. What Mr Ward terms the androcentric theory, at -least as regards man and the higher vertebrates, which is on the face -of it supported by the facts of human experience and has been accepted -well-nigh unanimously up to quite recent times, is, according to him, -all wrong. The male element in the universe of living things is not the -element of primary importance, and the female element the secondary, -but the converse is the case. For this contention Mr Ward, as already -pointed out, has, by dint of his biological learning, succeeded at -least in making out a case <em>in so far as lower forms of life are -concerned</em>. He has, however, to admit—a fatal admission surely—that -evolution has tended progressively to break down the superiority of -the female (by means, as he contends, of her own <!-- Page 133 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span>sexual selection) -and to transfer sex supremacy to the male, according to Mr Ward, -hitherto a secondary being, and that this tendency becomes very obvious -in most species of birds and mammals. With the rise of man, however, -out of the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pithecanthropos</i>, the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">homosynosis</i>, or by whatever other -designation we may call the intermediate organism between the purely -animal and the purely human, and the consequent supersession of -instinct as the dominant form of intelligence by reason, the question -of superiority, as Mr Ward candidly admits, is no longer doubtful, and -upon the unquestionable superiority of the male, in due course of time, -follows the unquestioned supremacy. It is clear then that, granting -the biological premises of our author that the lowest sexual organisms -are virtually female and that in the hermaphrodites the female -element predominates; that in the earliest forms of bi-sexuality the -fertilising or male element was merely an offshoot of the female trunk -and that this offshoot develops, mainly by means of sexual selection on -the part of the female, into an organism similar to the latter; that -not until we reach the higher vertebrates, the birds and the mammals, -do we find any traces of male superiority; and that this superiority -only becomes definite and obvious, leading to male domination, in the -human species—granting all this, I say, what argument can be founded -upon it in support of the <!-- Page 134 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span>equal value physically, intellectually and -morally of the female sex in human society, or the desirability of -its possessing equal political power with men in such society? On the -contrary, Mr Ward’s whole exposition, with his biological facts of -illustration, would seem to point rather in the opposite direction. We -seem surely to have here, if Mr Ward’s premises be accepted as to the -primitive insignificance of the male element—at first overshadowed and -dominated by the female stem, but gradually evolving in importance, -character and fruition, till we arrive at man the highest product of -evolution up to date—a powerful argument for anti-Feminism. On Mr -Ward’s own showing, we find that incontestible superiority, both in -size and power of body and brain, has manifested itself in Androcracy, -when the female is relegated, in the natural course of things, to the -function of child-bearing. This, it can hardly be denied, is simply one -more instance of the general process of evolution, whereby the higher -being is evolved from the lower, at first weak and dependent upon its -parent, the latter remaining dominant until the new being reaches -maturity, when in its turn it becomes supreme, while that out of which -it developed, and of which it was first the mere offshoot, falls into -the background and becomes in its turn subordinate to its own product.</p> - -<p>Let us turn now to another scientific fallacy, the <!-- Page 135 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span>result of a good -man struggling with adversity—<i>i.e.</i> a sound and honest scientific -investigator, but one who, at the same time, is either himself obsessed -with the principles of Feminism as with a religious dogma, or else is -nervously afraid of offending others who are. His attitude reminds one -of nothing so much as that of the orthodox geologist of the first half -of the nineteenth century, who wrote in mortal fear of incurring the -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">odium theologicum</i> by his exposition of the facts of geology, and who -was therefore nervously anxious to persuade his readers that the facts -in question did not clash with the Mosaic cosmogony as given in the -Book of Genesis. With Mr Havelock Ellis in his work, “<cite class="upright">Man and Woman</cite>,” -it is not the dogma of Biblical infallibility that he is concerned -to defend, but a more modern dogma, that of female equality, so dear -to the heart of the Modern Feminist. Mr Ellis’s efforts to evade the -consequences of the scientific truths he honestly proclaims are almost -pathetic. One cannot help noticing, after his exposition of some fact -that goes dead against the sex-equality theory as contended for by -Feminists, the eagerness with which he hastens to add some qualifying -statement tending to show that after all it is not so incompatible with -the Feminist dogma as it might appear at first sight.</p> - -<p>The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pièce de résistance</i>, however, of Mr Havelock Ellis is contained -in his “conclusion.” The author <!-- Page 136 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span>has for his problem to get over -the obvious incompatibility of the truth he has himself abundantly -demonstrated in the course of his book, that the woman-type, in every -respect, physiological and psychological, approaches the child-type, -while the man-type, in its proper progress towards maturity, -increasingly diverges from it. The obvious implication of this fact is -surely plain, on the principle of the development of the individual -being a shorthand reproduction of the evolution of the species, or, -to express it in scientific phraseology, of <i>ontogeny</i> being the -abbreviated recapitulation of the stages presented by <i>philogeny</i>. If -we proceed on this well-accredited and otherwise universally accepted -principle of biology, the inference is clear enough—to wit, that woman -is, as Herbert Spencer and others have pointed out, simply “undeveloped -man”—in other words, that Woman represents a lower stage of evolution -than Man. Now this would obviously not at all suit the book of Mr -Ellis’s Feminism. Explained away it has to be in some fashion or other. -So our author is driven to the daring expedient of throwing overboard -one of the best established generalisations of modern biology, and -boldly declaring that the principle contained therein is reversed -(we suppose “for this occasion only”) in the case of Man. In this -way he is enabled to postulate a theory consoling to the Feminist -soul, which affirms that adult man <!-- Page 137 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span>is nearer in point of development -to his pre-human ancestor than either the child or the woman! The -physiological and psychological analogies observable between the child -and the savage, and even, especially in early childhood, between the -child and the lower mammalian types—analogies which, notably in -the life of instinct and passion, are traceable readily also in the -human female—all these count for nothing; they are not dreamt of in -Mr Ellis’s Feminist philosophy. The Modern Feminist dogma requires -that woman should be recognised as equal in every respect (except in -muscular strength) with man, and if possible, as rather superior to -him. If Nature has not worked on Feminist lines, as common observation -and scientific research alike testify on the face of things, naughty -Nature must be “corrected,” in theory, at least, by the ingenuity of -Feminist savants of the degraded male persuasion. To this end we must -square our scientific hypotheses!</p> - -<p>The startling theory of Mr Havelock Ellis, which must seem, one -would think, to all impartial persons, so out of accord with all the -acknowledged laws and facts of biological science, appears to the -present writer, it must be confessed, the very <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">reductio ad absurdum</i> -of Feminist controversial perversity.</p> - -<p>I will conclude this chapter on Feminist Lies and Fallacies with a -fallacy of false analogy or false <!-- Page 138 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span>illustration, according as we -may choose to term it. This quasi-argument was recently put forward -in a defence speech by one of the prisoners in a suffragette trial -and was subsequently repeated by George Bernard Shaw in a letter -to <cite>The Times</cite>. Put briefly, the point attempted to be made is as -follows:—Apostrophising men, it is said: “How would you like it if -the historical relations of the sexes were reversed, if the making and -the administrating of the laws and the whole power of the State were -in the hands of women? Would not you revolt in such a condition of -affairs?” Now to this quasi-argument the reply is sufficiently clear. -The moral intended to be conveyed in the hypothetical question put, is -that women have just as much right to object to men’s domination, as -men would have to object to women’s domination. But it is plain that -the point of the whole question resides in a <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">petitio principie</i>—to -wit, in the assumption that those challenged admit equal intellectual -capacity and equal moral stability as between the average woman and the -average man. Failing this assumption the challenge becomes senseless -and futile. If we ignore mental and moral differences it is only a -question of degree as to when we are landed in obvious absurdity. In -“<cite class="upright">Gulliver’s Travels</cite>” we have a picture of society in which horses ruled -the roost, and lorded it over human beings. In this satire Swift in -effect put the <!-- Page 139 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span>question: “How would you humans like to be treated by -horses as inferiors, just as horses are treated by you to-day?” I am, -be it remembered, not instituting any comparison between the two cases, -beyond pointing out that the argument as an argument is intrinsically -the same in both.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p><!-- Page 140 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII<br /> - -<small>THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MOVEMENT</small></h2> -</div> - - -<p>We have already spoken of two strains in Modern Feminism which, -although commonly found together, are nevertheless intrinsically -distinguishable. The first I have termed Sentimental Feminism and the -second Political Feminism. Sentimental Feminism is in the main an -extension and emotional elaboration of the old notion of chivalry, a -notion which in the period when it was supposed to have been at its -zenith, certainly played a very much smaller part in human affairs -than it does in its extended and metamorphosed form in the present -day. We have already analysed in a former chapter the notion of -chivalry. Taken in its most general and barest form it represents -the consideration for weakness which is very apt to degenerate into -a worship of mere weakness. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">La faiblesse prime le droit</i> is not -necessarily nearer justice than <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">la force prime le droit</i>; although to -hear much of the talk in the present day one would imagine that the -inherent right of the weak to oppress the strong were a first principle -of eternal rectitude. But the <!-- Page 141 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span>theory of chivalry is scarcely invoked -in the present day save in the interests of one particular form of -weakness—viz. the woman as the muscularly weaker sex, and here it has -acquired an utterly different character.<a name="FNanchor_141:1_6" id="FNanchor_141:1_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_141:1_6" class="fnanchor">[141:1]</a></p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p class="noindent"><a name="Footnote_141:1_6" id="Footnote_141:1_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141:1_6"><span class="label">[141:1]</span></a> As regards this point it should be remarked that -mediæval chivalry tolerated (as Wharton expressed it in his “<cite class="upright">History of -Poetry</cite>”) “the grossest indecencies and obscenities between the sexes,” -such things as modern puritanism would stigmatise with such words as -“unchivalrous,” “unmanly” and the like. The resemblance between the -modern worship of women and the relations of the mediæval knight to the -female sex is very thin indeed. Modern claims to immunity for women -from the criminal law and mediæval chivalry are quite different things.</p> -</div> - -<p>Chivalry, as understood by Modern Sentimental Feminism, means unlimited -licence for women in their relations with men, and unlimited coercion -for men in their relations with women. To men all duties and no rights, -to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying -Modern Feminism, Suffragism, and the bastard chivalry it is so fond of -invoking. The most insistent female shrieker for equality between the -sexes among Political Feminists, it is interesting to observe, will, in -most cases, on occasion be found an equally insistent advocate of the -claims of Sentimental Feminism, based on modern metamorphosed notions -of chivalry. It never seems to strike anyone that the muscular weakness -of woman has been forged by Modern Feminists into <!-- Page 142 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span>an abominable weapon -of tyranny. Under cover of the notion of chivalry, as understood by -Modern Feminism, Political and Sentimental Feminists alike would -deprive men of the most elementary rights of self-defence against women -and would exonerate the latter practically from all punishment for the -most dastardly crimes against men. They know they can rely upon the -support of the sentimental section of public opinion with some such -parrot cry of “What! Hit a woman!”</p> - -<p>Why not, if she molests you?</p> - -<p>“Treat a woman in this way!” “Shame!” responds automatically the crowd -of Sentimental Feminist idiots, oblivious of the fact that the real -shame lies in their endorsement of an iniquitous sex privilege. If the -same crowd were prepared to condemn any special form of punishment -or mode of treatment as inhumane for both sexes alike, there would, -of course, be nothing to be said. But it is not so. The most savage -cruelty and vindictive animosity towards men leaves them comparatively -cold, at most evoking a mild remonstrance as against the inflated -manifestation of sentimental horror and frothy indignation produced by -any slight hardship inflicted by way of punishment (let us say) on a -female offender.</p> - -<p>The psychology of Sentimental Feminism generally is intimately bound up -with the curious phenomenon of the hatred of men by their own <!-- Page 143 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span>sex as -such. With women, in spite of what is sometimes alleged, one does not -find this phenomenon of anti-sex. On the contrary, nowadays we are in -presence of a powerful female sex-solidarity indicating the beginnings -of a strong sex-league of women against men. But with men, as already -said, in all cases of conflict between the sexes, we are met with a -callous indifference, alternating with positive hostility towards -their fellow-men, which seems at times to kill in them all sense of -justice. This is complemented on the other side by an imbecile softness -towards the female sex in general which reminds one of nothing so much -as of the maudlin <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bonhomie</i> of the amiable drunkard. This besotted -indulgence, as before noted, is proof even against the outraged sense -of injury to property.</p> - -<p>As we all know, offences against property, as a rule, are those the -average bourgeois is least inclined to condone, yet we have recently -seen a campaign of deliberate wanton destruction by arson and other -means, directed expressly against private property, which nevertheless -the respectable propertied bourgeois, the man of law and order, has -taken pretty much “lying down.” Let us suppose another case. Let us -imagine an anarchist agitation, with a known centre and known leaders, -a centre from which daily outrages were deliberately planned by these -leaders and <!-- Page 144 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span>carried out by their emissaries, all, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bien entendu</i>, of -the male persuasion.</p> - -<p>Now what attitude does the reader suppose “public opinion” of the -propertied classes would adopt towards the miscreants who were -responsible for these acts? Can he not picture to himself the furious -indignation, the rabid diatribes, the advocacy of hanging, flogging, -penal servitude for life, as the minimum punishment, followed by panic -legislation on these lines, which would ensue as a consequence. Yet -of such threatenings and slaughter, where suffragettes who imitate -the policy of the Terrorist Anarchist are concerned, we hear not a -sound. The respectable propertied bourgeois, the man of law and order, -will, it is true, probably condemn these outrages in an academic way, -but there is an undernote of hesitancy which damps down the fire of -his indignation. There is no vindictiveness, no note of atrocity in -his expostulations; nay, he is even prepared, on occasion, to argue -the question, while maintaining the impropriety, the foolishness, -the “unwomanliness” of setting fire to empty houses, cutting up golf -links, destroying correspondence, smashing windows and the like. But -of fiery indignation, of lurid advocacy of barbaric punishments, or of -ferocity in general, we have not a trace. On the contrary, a certain -willingness to admit and even to emphasise the disinterestedness <!-- Page 145 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span>of -these female criminals is observable. As regards this last point, we -must again insist on what was pointed out on a previous page, that -the disinterestedness and unselfishness of many a male bomb-throwing -anarchist who has come in for the righteous bourgeois’ sternest -indignation, are, at least, as unquestionable as those of the female -house-burners and window-smashers. Moreover the anarchist, however -wrong-headed he may have been in his action, as once before remarked, -it must not be forgotten, had at least for the goal of his endeavours, -not merely the acquirement of a vote, but the revolution which he -conceived would abolish human misery and raise humanity to a higher -level.</p> - -<p>In this strange phenomenon, therefore, in which the indignation of -the bourgeois at the wanton and wilful violation of the sacredness of -his idol, is reduced to mild remonstrance and its punitive action to -a playful pretence, we have a crucial instance of the extraordinary -influence of Feminism over the modern mind. That the propertied classes -should take arson and wilful destruction of property in general, -with such comparative equanimity because the culprits are women, -acting in the assumed interest of a cause that aims at increasing the -influence of women in the State, is the most striking illustration we -can have of the power of Feminism. We have here a double phenomenon, -the unreasoning hatred of man as a sex, by men, <!-- Page 146 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span>and their equally -unreasoning indulgence towards the other sex. As we indicated above, -not only is the sense of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">esprit de corps</i> entirely absent among modern -men as regards their own sex, while strongly present in modern women, -but this negative characteristic has become positive on the other side. -Thus the modern sex problem presents us with a reversal of the ordinary -sociological law of the solidarity of those possessing common interests.</p> - -<p>It remains to consider the psychological explanation of this fact. -Why should men so conspicuously prefer the interests of women before -those of their own sex? That this is the case with modern man the -history of the legislation of the last fifty years shows, and the -undoubted fact may be found further illustrated in the newspaper -reports of well-nigh every trial, whether at civil or criminal law, -quite apart from the ordinary “chivalric” acts of men in the detail of -social life. This question of sex, therefore, as before said, forms -the solitary exception to the general law of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">esprit de corps</i> of -those possessing common characteristics and interests. It cannot be -adequately explained by a reference to the evolution of sex functions -and relations from primitive man onwards, since it is at least in -the extreme form we see it to-day, a comparatively recent social -phenomenon. The theory of the sacrosanctity of women by virtue of their -sex, quite <!-- Page 147 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span>apart from their character and conduct as individuals, -scarcely dates back farther than a century, even from its beginnings. -The earlier chivalry, where it obtained at all, applied only to the -woman who presented what were conceived of as the ideal moral feminine -characteristics in some appreciable degree. The mere physical fact of -sex was never for a moment regarded as of itself sufficient to entitle -the woman to any special homage, consideration, or immunity, over and -above the man. No one suggested that the female criminal was less -guilty or more excusable than the male criminal. No one believed that -a woman had a vested right to rob or swindle a man because she had had -sexual relations with him. This notion of the mere fact of sex—of -femality—as of itself constituting a title to special privileges -and immunities, apart from any other consideration, is a product of -very recent times. In treating this question, in so far as it bears -on the criminal law, it is important to distinguish carefully between -the softening of the whole system of punishment due to the general -development of humanitarian tendencies and the special discrimination -made in favour of the female sex. These two things are very often -inadequately distinguished from one another. Punishment may have become -more humane where men are concerned, it may have advanced up to a -certain point in this direction, but its character <!-- Page 148 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span>is not essentially -changed. As regards women, however, the whole conception of criminal -punishment and penal discipline has altered. Sex privilege has been now -definitely established as a principle.</p> - -<p>Now a complete investigation of the psychology of this curious -phenomenon we have been considering—namely, the hatred so common with -men for their fellow-men as a sex—is a task which has never yet been -properly taken in hand. Its obverse side is to be seen on all hands in -the conferring and confirming of sex prerogative on women. Not very -long ago, as we have seen, one of its most striking manifestations -came strongly under public notice—namely, the “rule of the sea,” by -which women, by virtue of their sex, can claim to be saved from a -sinking ship before men. The fact that the laws and practices in which -this man-hatred and woman-preference find expression are contrary to -every elementary sense of justice, in many cases conflict with public -policy, and can obviously be seen to be purely arbitrary, matters not. -The majority of men feel no <em>sense</em> of the injustice although they may -admit the fact of the injustice, when categorically questioned. They -are prepared when it comes to the point to let public policy go by -the board rather than entrench upon the sacred privilege and immunity -of the female; while as to the arbitrary and unreasoning nature of -the aforesaid laws and practices, not being troubled with a <!-- Page 149 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span>logical -conscience, this does not affect them. I must confess to being unequal -to the task of accurately fathoming the psychological condition of the -average man who hates man in general and loves woman in general to the -extent of going contrary to so many apparently basal tendencies of -human nature as we know it otherwise. The reply, of course, will be -an appeal to the power of the sexual instinct. But this, I must again -repeat, will not explain the rise, or, if not the rise, at least the -marked expansion of the sentiment in question during the last three -generations or thereabouts. Even apart from this, while I am well aware -of the power of sexual love to effect anything in the mind of man as -regards its individual object, I submit it is difficult to conceive how -it can influence so strongly men’s attitude towards women they have not -seen, or, even where they have seen them, when there is no question of -sexual attraction, or, again, as regards the collectivity of women—the -abstract category, Woman (in general).</p> - -<p>We have already dealt with the Anti-man campaign in the Press, -especially in modern novels and plays. This, as we have remarked, often -takes the form of direct abuse of husbands and lovers and the attempt -to make them look ridiculous as a foil to the brilliant qualities of -wives and sweethearts. But we sometimes find the mere laudation of -woman herself, apart from any direct <!-- Page 150 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span>anti-manism, assume the character -of an intellectual emetic. A much-admired contemporary novelist, -depicting a wedding ceremony in fashionable society circles, describes -the feelings of his hero, a young man disgusted with the hollowness -and vanity of “Society” and all its ways, as follows:—“The bride was -opposite him now, and by an instinct of common chivalry he turned -away his eyes; it seemed to him a shame to look at that downcast head -above the silver mystery of her perfect raiment; the modest head full, -doubtless, of devotion and pure yearnings; the stately head where no -such thought as ‘How am I looking this day of all days, before all -London?’ had ever entered: the proud head, where no such fear as, ‘How -am I carrying it off?’ could surely be besmirching. . . . He saw below -the surface of this drama played before his eyes; and set his face, as -a man might who found himself assisting at a sacrifice.” Now, I ask, -can it be believed that the writer of the above flamboyant feminist -fustian is a novelist and playwright of established reputation who -undoubtedly has done good work. The obvious criticism must surely -strike every reader that it is somewhat strange that this divinely -innocent creature he glorifies should arise straight out of a _milieu_ -which is shown up as the embodiment of hollowness and conventional -superficiality. If men can lay the butter on thick in their laudation -<!-- Page 151 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span>of womanhood, female idolaters of their own sex can fairly outbid -them. At the time of writing there has just come under my notice a -dithyramb in the journal, _The Clarion_, by Miss Winnifred Blatchford, -on the sacrosanct perfections of womanhood in general, especially -as exemplified in the suicidal exploits of the late lamented Emily -Wilding Davidson of Epsom fame, and a diatribe on the purity, beauty -and unapproachable glory of woman. According to this lady, the glory of -womanhood seems to extend to every part of the female organism, but, we -are told, is especially manifested in the hair (oozing into the roots -apparently). Evidently there is something especially sacred in woman’s -hair! This prose ode to Woman, as exemplified in Emily Davidson, -culminates in the invocation: “Will the day ever come when a woman’s -life will be rated higher . . . than that of a jockey?” Poor jockey! -We will trust not, though present appearances do indicate a strong -tendency to regard a woman as possessing the prerogatives of the sacred -cow of Indian or ancient Egyptian fame!</p> - -<p>It is impossible to read or hear any discussion on, say, the marriage -laws, without it being apparent that the female side of the question is -the one element of the problem which is considered worthy of attention. -The undoubted iniquity of our existing marriage laws is always spoken -of as an injustice to the woman and the <!-- Page 152 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span>changes in the direction of -greater freedom which are advocated as a relief to the wife bound to -a bad or otherwise unendurable husband. That the converse case may -happen, that that reviled and despised thing, a husband, may also have -reason to desire relief from a wife whose angelic qualities and vast -superiority to his own vile male self he fails to appreciate, never -seems to enter into the calculation at all.</p> - -<p>That no satisfactory formulation of the psychology of the movement of -Feminism has yet been offered is undoubtedly true. For the moment, I -take it, all we can do is co-ordinate the fact as a case of what we -may term social hypnotism, of those waves of feeling uninfluenced by -reason which are a phenomenon so common in history—witchcraft manias, -flagellant fanaticisms, religious “revivals,” and similar social -upheavals. The belief that woman is oppressed by man, and that the -need for remedying that oppression at all costs is urgent, partly, at -least, doubtless belongs to this order of phenomena. That this feeling -is widespread and held in various degrees of intensity by large numbers -of persons, men no less than women, is not to be denied. That it is of -the nature of a hypnotic wave of sentiment, uninfluenced by reason, -is shown by the fact that argument does not seem to touch it. You may -show conclusively that facts are opposed to the assumption; that, so -far from women being oppressed, the <!-- Page 153 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span>very contrary is the case; that -the existing law and its administration is in no essential respect -whatever unfavourable to women, but, on the contrary, is, as a whole, -grossly unfair to men—it is all to no purpose. Your remonstrances, -in the main, fall on deaf ears, or, shall we say, they fall off the -mind coated with Feminist sentiment as water falls from the proverbial -duck’s back. The facts are ignored and the sentiment prevails; the same -old catchwords, the same lies and threadbare fallacies are repeated. -The fact that they have been shown to be false counts for nothing. -The hypnotic wave of sentiment sweeps reason aside and compels men to -believe that woman is oppressed and man the oppressor, and believe -it they will. If facts are against the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">idée fixe</i> of the hypnotic -suggestion, so much the worse for the facts. Thus far the Feminist -dogma of the oppression of the female sex.</p> - -<p>As regards the obverse side of this Sentimental Feminism which issues -in ferocious sex-laws directed against men for offences against -women—laws enacting barbarous tortures, such as the “cat,” and -which are ordered with gusto in all their severity in our criminal -courts—this probably is largely traceable to the influence of Sadic -lusts. An agitation such as that which led to the passing of the -White Slave Traffic Act, so-called, of 1912, is started, an agitation -engineered largely by the inverted libidinousness of social purity -mongers, and on the crest of this agitation <!-- Page 154 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span>the votaries of Sadic -cruelty have their innings. The foolish Sentimental Feminist at large, -whose indignation against wicked man is fanned to fury by bogus -tales and his judgment captured by representations of the severities -requisite to stamp out the evil he is assured is so widespread, lends -his fatuous support to the measures proposed. The judicial Bench -is, of course, delighted at the increase of power given it over the -prisoner in the dock, and should any of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">puisnes</i> happen to have -Sadic proclivities they are as happy as horses in clover and the “cat” -flourishes like a green bay tree.</p> - -<p>Let us now turn to the question of the psychology of Political -Feminism. Political Feminism, as regards its immediate demand of female -suffrage, is based directly on the modern conception of democracy. -This is its avowed basis. With modern notions of universal suffrage -it is declared that the exclusion of women from the franchise is -logically incompatible. If you include in the parliamentary voting -lists all sorts and conditions of men, it is said, it is plainly a -violation of the principle of democracy to exclude more than one half -of the adult population from the polls. As Mill used to say in his -advocacy of female suffrage, so long as the franchise was restricted -to a very small section of the population, there may have been nothing -noteworthy in the exclusion of women. But now <!-- Page 155 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span>that the mass of men -are entitled to the vote and the avowed aim of democracy is to extend -it to all men, the refusal to extend it still further to women is an -anomaly and a manifest inconsistency. But in this, Mill, and others -who have used his argument, omitted to consider one very vital point. -The extensions of the suffrage, such as have been demanded and in -part obtained by democracy up to the present agitation, have always -referred to the removal of class barriers, wealth barriers, race -barriers, etc.—in a word, social barriers—but never to the removal -of barriers based on deep-lying organic difference—<i>i.e.</i> barriers -determining not sociological but biological distinctions. The case of -sex is unique in this connection, and this fact vitiates any analogy -between the extension of suffrage to women and its extension to fresh -social strata such as democracy has hitherto had in view, terminating -in the manhood suffrage which is the ultimate goal of all political -democrats. Now sex constitutes an organic or biological difference, -just as a species constitutes another and (of course) a stronger -biological difference. Hence I contend the mere fact of this difference -rules out the bare appeal to the principle of democracy <i>per se</i> as an -argument in favour of the extension of the suffrage to women. There is, -I submit, no parity between the principle and practice of democracy as -hitherto understood, and the new extension proposed to be <!-- Page 156 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span>given to -the franchise by the inclusion of women within its pale. And yet there -is no question but that the apparent but delusive demand of logical -consistency in this question, has influenced and still influences many -an honest democrat in his attitude in this matter.</p> - -<p>But although the recognition of the difference of sex as being -an organic difference and therefore radically other than social -differences of caste, class, wealth, or even race, undoubtedly -invalidates the appeal to the democrat on the ground of consistency, to -accept the principle of female suffrage, yet it does not necessarily -dispose of the question. It merely leaves the ground free for the -problem as to whether the organic distinction implied in sex does or -does not involve corresponding intellectual and moral differences in -the female sex which it is proposed to enfranchise; and furthermore -whether such differences, if they exist, involve general inferiority, -or at least an unfitness <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ad hoc</i> for the exercise of political -functions. These questions we have, I think, sufficiently discussed -already in the present work. The fact of the existence of exceptionally -able women in various departments, does undoubtedly mislead many men -in their judgment as to the capacity of the average woman to “think -politically,” or otherwise to show herself the effective equal of the -average man, morally and intellectually. <!-- Page 157 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span>The reasons for answering -this question in the negative we have already briefly indicated in the -course of our investigations. This renders it unnecessary to discuss -the matter any further here.</p> - -<p>In dealing with the psychological aspects of the Feminist Movement, -the intellectual conditions which paved the way for its acceptance, -it is worth while recalling two or three typical instances of the -class of “argument” to be heard on occasion from the female advocates -for the suffrage. Thus, when the census was taken in 1911 and the -Women’s Political and Social Union conceived, as they thought, the -brilliant idea of annoying the authorities and vitiating the results -of the census by refusing to allow themselves to be enrolled, one -of the leaders, when interviewed on the point, gave her reason for -her refusal to be included, in the following terms:—“I am not a -citizen” (meaning that she did not possess the franchise) “and I am -not going to pretend to be one.” The silliness of this observation -is, of course, obvious, seeing that the franchise or even citizenship -has nothing whatever to do with the census, which includes infants, -besides criminals, lunatics, imbeciles, etc. Again, in a manifesto of -the Women’s Political and Social Union defending window-smashing and -other “militant” outrages, it was pointed out that the coal strike -had caused more injury than the window-smashing and yet the <!-- Page 158 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span>strikers -were not prosecuted as the window-smashers were—in other words, the -exercise of the basal personal right of the free man to withhold his -labour save under the conditions agreed to by him, is paralleled with -criminal outrage against person and property! Again, some three or -four years ago, when the Women’s Suffrage Bill had passed the Commons, -on its being announced by the Government that for the remainder of -the Session no further facilities could be given for private members’ -Bills, save for those of a non-contentious character, one of these -sapient females urged in the Press that, seeing that there were -persons to be found in both the orthodox political camps who were -in favour of female suffrage, therefore the Bill in question must -be regarded as of a non-contentious character! Once more, a lady, -writing a few months ago to one of the weekly journals, remarked that -though deliberate window-breaking, destruction of letters, and arson, -might be illegal acts, yet that the punishing of them by imprisonment -with hard labour, they being political offences, was also an illegal -act, with the conclusion that the “militants” and the authorities, -both alike having committed illegal acts, were “quits”! These choice -specimens of suffragettes’ logic are given as throwing a significant -light on the mental condition of women in the suffragette movement, -and indirectly on <!-- Page 159 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span>female psychology generally. One would presumably -suppose that the women who put them forward must have failed to see -the exhibition they were making of themselves. That any human being -out of an asylum, could have sunk to the depth of fatuous inconsequent -idiocy they indicate would seem scarcely credible. Is the order of -imbecility which the above and many similar utterances reflect, -confined to suffragette intelligence alone, or does it point to radical -inferiority of intellectual fibre, not in degree merely, but in kind, -in the mental constitution of the human female generally? Certainly it -is hard to think that any man, however low his intelligence, would be -capable of making a fool of himself precisely in the way these women -are continually doing in their attempts to defend their cause and their -tactics.</p> - -<p>In the foregoing pages we have endeavoured to trace some of the leading -strands of thought going to make up the Modern Feminist Movement. -Sentimental Feminism clearly has its roots in sexual feeling, and -in the tradition of chivalry, albeit the notion of chivalry has -essentially changed in the course of its evolution. For the rest, -Sentimental Feminism, with its double character of man-antipathy and -woman-sympathy, as we see it to-day, has assumed the character of one -of those psychopathic social phenomena which have so <!-- Page 160 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span>often recurred in -history. It can only be explained, like the latter, as an hypnotic wave -passing over society.</p> - -<p>As for Political Feminism, we have shown that this largely has its -root in a fallacious application of the notion of democracy, partaking -largely of the logical fallacy known technically as <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">a dicto secundum -quid ad dictum simpliciter</i>. This logical fallacy of Political Feminism -is, of course, reinforced and urged forward by Sentimental Feminism. -As coming under the head of the psychology of the movement, we have -also called attention to some curious phenomena of logical imbecility, -noticeable in the utterances of educated women in the suffragette -agitation.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p><!-- Page 161 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></a>CHAPTER VIII<br /> - -<small>THE INDICTMENT</small></h2> -</div> - - -<p>Feminism, or, as it is sometimes called, the emancipation of woman, -as we know it in the present day, may be justifiably indicted as a -gigantic fraud—a fraud in its general aim and a fraud alike in its -methods of controversy and in its practical tactics. It is through -and through disingenuous and dishonest. Modern Feminism has always -professed to be a movement for political and social equality between -the sexes. The claim for this equalising of position and rights in -modern society is logically based upon the assumption of an essential -equality in natural ability between the sexes. As to this, we have -indicated in the preceding pages on broad lines, the grounds for -regarding the foregoing assumption as false. But quite apart from this -question, I contend the fraudulent nature of the present movement can -readily be seen by showing it to be not merely based on false grounds, -but directly and consciously fraudulent in its pretensions.</p> - -<p>It uniformly professes to aim at the placing of the sexes on a footing -of social and political <!-- Page 162 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span>equality. A very little inquiry into its -concrete demands suffices to show that its aim, so far from being -equality, is the very reverse—viz. to bring about, with the aid of -men themselves, as embodied in the forces of the State, a female -ascendancy and a consolidation and extension of already existing female -privileges. That this is so may be seen in general by the constant -conjunction of Political and Sentimental Feminism in the same persons. -It may be seen more particularly in detail, in the specific demands -of Feminists. These demands, as formulated by suffragists as a reason -why the vote is essential to the interests of women, amount to little -if anything else than proposals for laws to enslave and browbeat men -and to admit women to virtual if not actual immunity for all offences -committed against men. It is enough to consult any suggestions for a -woman’s “charter” in order to confirm what is here said. Such proposals -invariably suggest the sacrificing of man at every turn to woman.<a name="FNanchor_162:1_7" id="FNanchor_162:1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_162:1_7" class="fnanchor">[162:1]</a></p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p class="noindent"><a name="Footnote_162:1_7" id="Footnote_162:1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162:1_7"><span class="label">[162:1]</span></a> This is arrived at by the clever trick of appealing to -the modern theory of the equal mental capacity of the sexes when it is -a question of political and economic rights and advantages for women, -and of counterappealing to the traditional sentiment based on the -belief in the inferiority of the female sex, when it is a question of -legal and administrative privilege and consideration. The Feminist thus -succeeds by his dexterity in the usually difficult feat of “getting it -both ways” for his fair clients.</p> -</div> - -<p><!-- Page 163 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span></p><p>In the early eighties of the last century appeared a skit in the form -of a novel from the pen of the late Sir Walter Besant, entitled “<cite class="upright">The -Revolt of Man</cite>,” depicting the oppression of man under a Feminist -régime, an oppression which ended in a revolt and the re-establishment -of male supremacy. The ideas underlying this <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">jeu d’esprit</i> of the -subjection of men would seem to be seriously entertained by the female -leaders of the present woman’s movement. It is many years ago now since -a minister holding one of the highest positions in the present Cabinet -made the remark to me:—“The real object, you know, for which these -women want the vote is simply to get rascally laws passed against men!” -Subsequent Feminist agitation has abundantly proved the truth of this -observation. An illustration of the practical results of the modern -woman’s movement is to be seen in the infamous White Slave Traffic Act -of 1912 rushed through Parliament as a piece of panic legislation by -dint of a campaign of sheer hard lying. The atrocity of this act has -been sufficiently dealt with in a previous chapter.<a name="FNanchor_163:1_8" id="FNanchor_163:1_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_163:1_8" class="fnanchor">[163:1]</a></p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p class="noindent"><a name="Footnote_163:1_8" id="Footnote_163:1_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163:1_8"><span class="label">[163:1]</span></a> There is one fortunate thing as regards these savage -laws aimed at the suppression of certain crimes, and that is, as it -would seem, they are never effective in achieving their purpose. As -Mr Tighe Hopkins remarks, apropos of the torture of the “cat” (“<cite class="upright">Wards -of the State</cite>,” p. 203):—“The attempt to correct crime with crime has -everywhere repaid us in the old properly disastrous way.” It would -indeed be regrettable if it could be shown that penal laws of this -kind were successful. Far better is it that the crimes of isolated -individuals should continue than that crimes such as the cold-blooded -infliction of torture and death committed at the behest of the State, -as supposed to represent the whole of society, should attain their -object, even though the object be the suppression of crimes of another -kind perpetrated by the aforesaid individuals within society. The -successful repression of crimes committed by individuals, by a crime -committed by State authority, can only act as an encouragement to the -State to continue its course of inflicting punishment which is itself a -crime.</p> -</div> - -<p><!-- Page 164 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span></p><p>Other results of the inequality between the sexes so effectively urged -by present-day Feminism, may be seen in the conduct of magistrates, -judges and juries, in our courts civil and criminal. This has been -already animadverted upon in the course of the present work, and -illustrative cases given, as also in previous writings of the present -author to which allusion has already been made. It is not too much to -say that a man has practically no chance in the present day in a court -of law, civil or criminal, of obtaining justice where a woman is in the -case. The savage vindictiveness exhibited towards men, as displayed -in the eagerness of judges to obtain, and the readiness of juries to -return, convictions against men accused of crimes against women, on -evidence which, in many cases, would not be good enough (to use the -common phrase) to hang a dog on, with the inevitable ferocious sentence -following conviction, may be witnessed on almost every occasion when -such cases are up for trial. I have spoken of <!-- Page 165 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span>the eagerness of judges -to obtain convictions. As an illustration of this sort of thing, the -following may be given:—In the trial of a man for the murder of a -woman, before Mr Justice Bucknill, which took place some time ago, it -came out in evidence that the woman had violently and obscenely abused -and threatened the man immediately before, in the presence of other -persons. The jury were so impressed with the evidence of unusually -strong provocation that they hesitated whether it was not sufficient to -reduce the crime to that of manslaughter, and, unable to agree offhand -on a verdict of murder, asked the judge for further guidance. Their -deliberations were, however, cut short by the judge, who remarked on -the hesitation they had in arriving at their verdict, finally adding: -“Only think, gentlemen, how you would view it had this been your own -wife or sister who was cruelly done to death!” With the habitual -obsequiousness of a British jury towards the occupant of the Bench, the -gentlemen in question swallowed complacently the insult thrown at their -wives and sisters in putting them in the same category with a foul -strumpet, and promptly did what the judge obviously wanted of them—to -wit, brought in a verdict of wilful murder. The cases on the obverse -side, where the judge, by similar sentimental appeal, aims at procuring -the acquittal of female prisoners notoriously guilty on the evidence, -that palladium <!-- Page 166 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span>of rogues, the English law of libel, precludes me from -referring to individually. As regards the disparity in punishment, -however, we have an apt and recent illustration in the execution of -the youth of nineteen, convicted on doubtful evidence of the murder -of his sweetheart, and the reprieve of the woman convicted on her own -admission of the murder of her paramour by soaking him in paraffin -during his sleep and setting him alight!</p> - -<p>Another effect of the influence of Sentimental Feminism, is seen in -crimes of the “unwritten law” description, the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">crime passionel</i> of -the French. The most atrocious and dastardly murders and other crimes -of violence are condoned and even glorified if they can but be covered -by the excuse that they are dictated by a desire to avenge a woman’s -“honour” or to enable her to obtain the object of her wishes. The -incident in Sir J. M. Barrie’s play of the lady who murders a man by -throwing him out of a railway carriage over a dispute respecting the -opening of a window, and gets acquitted on the excuse that her little -girl had got a cold, represents a not exaggerated picture of “modern -justice”—for women only! The outrageous application of the principles, -if such you may call them, of Sentimental Feminism in this country -in the case of the suffragettes, has made English justice and penal -administration the laughing-stock of the world. But the way in which -the crimes of the suffragettes <!-- Page 167 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span>have been dealt with, is after all only -a slight exaggeration of the immunity from all the severer penalties of -the law enjoyed by female convicts generally. This has been carried in -the case of suffragette criminals to the utmost limits of absurdity. -In fact, the deference exhibited towards these deliberate perpetrators -of crimes of wanton destruction is sometimes comic, as in the case -of the Richmond magistrate who rebuked the policeman-witness in an -arson charge for omitting the “Miss” in referring to one of the female -prisoners in the dock: as well as in the “high character” usually -attributed to the perpetrators of these deeds of outrage and violence -even by certain functionaries of Church and State. They did not speak -in this strain morebetoken, when mere male anarchists or Fenians were -involved in difficulties with the law due to overzeal for their cause!</p> - -<p>The whole movement, it is quite evident, depends for its success, -largely, at least, on the apathy of men. The bulk of men undoubtedly do -not sympathise with the pretensions of the Feminist agitation, but the -bulk of men are indifferent one way or the other. They do not take the -Feminist Movement seriously. The bare notion of women, as such, being -a danger to men as such, strikes them as absurd. They do not realise -that the question is not of the physical strength of women as women, -but of the whole forces of the State <!-- Page 168 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span>being at the disposal of women -to set in motion to gratify their whims and passions. The idea of a -sex war in which women take the field against men, such as represents -the inwardness of the whole Feminist Movement of to-day, seems to -them ridiculous. The feeling at the root of most men’s good-humoured -patronage of, or indifference to, Modern Feminist claims, is roughly -expressed in a remark of the late William Morris in replying to some -animadversions of mine on the subject:—“What does it matter? A man -ought to be always able to deal with a woman if necessary. Why, I could -tackle a half dozen women at once for that matter!” This is a common -attitude of mind on the subject among otherwise sane and sensible men. -The absurdity of it is manifest when one considers that the issue of -man versus woman as units of physical strength respectively, is purely -irrelevant. It is not a question of the man tackling the woman or any -number of women. It is the question of the whole force of the State -tackling the man <em>in favour</em> of the woman. The prevalent idea in many -men’s minds seems to be that of the State drawing a ring-fence around -the disputant man and woman and letting them fight the matter out -between themselves, which, to speak the language of the great geometer -of antiquity—“is absurd.”</p> - -<p>Modern Feminism, tacking itself on to an older <!-- Page 169 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span>tradition which it -travesties beyond all recognition, has succeeded in affecting modern -public opinion with an overpowering sense of the sacrosanctity of human -femality as such. It is not content with respect for the ideal of -<em>good</em> womanhood but it would fain place on a pedestal the mere fact -of femalehood in itself. This is illustrated in a thousand ways. Thus -while public opinion tolerates the most bestial and infamous forms -of corporal punishment for men in gaols, it will regard the slight -chastisement by the medical head of an institution for mental cases, of -a girl who is admittedly obstinate and refractory rather than mentally -afflicted in the ordinary sense of the term, as “degrading.”</p> - -<p>Again, in order to sustain its favourite thesis, the intellectual -equality of woman with man, it resorts, whenever a plausible case -presents itself, to its usual policy of the falsification of fact. Take -the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was first discovered in the -laboratory of the late Professor Curie we were told that the latter -had made the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned that he -possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his laboratory work. We were -afterwards told that the discovery of radium was the joint work of -both, the implication being that the honours were equally divided. Now, -Feminist influence has succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of -<!-- Page 170 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span>as herself the discoverer of radium! I venture to affirm that there -is no evidence whatever for assuming that radium would ever have seen -the light had the late Professor Curie not himself experimented in his -laboratory, not to speak of his predecessor Becquerel.</p> - -<p>We have seen that Feminists are, in this country, at least, zealous in -championing the Puritan view of sexual morality. Many of them, in the -vehemence of their Anti-man crusade, look forward with relish to the -opportunity they anticipate will be afforded them when women get the -vote, of passing laws rigorously enforcing asceticism on men by means -of severe penal enactments. All forms of indulgence (by men), sexual or -otherwise, uncongenial to the puritanic mind, would be equally placed -under the ban of the criminal law! Anyone desirous of testing the truth -of the above statement has only to read the suffragette papers and -other expositions of the gospel of Feminism as held by its most devoted -advocates.</p> - -<p>One point should not be lost sight of, and that is the attitude of the -Press. Almost all journals are ready to publish any argument in favour -of the suffrage or of the other claims of the movement on behalf of -women. In defiance of this fact, a prominent Feminist prelate some time -ago, in a letter to <cite>The Times</cite>, alleged among the other so-called -grievances of women at the present day, <!-- Page 171 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span>and apparently as in some -sort a condonation of “militancy,” that the Press was closed to women -anxious to air their grievances! A statement more directly the reverse -of the truth could hardly have been made. Open any paper of general -circulation—say any of the morning dailies—and you will find letters -galore advocating the Feminist side of the question! According to my -own observation, they are in the proportion of something like three or -four in favour to one against. The fact is useless denying that this -sex-agitation has every favour shown it by current “public opinion,” -including even that of its opponents. Female “militants” of the -suffrage have pleas urged in condonation of their criminal acts, such -as their alleged “high character,” which would be laughed at in the -case of men—and yet they whine at being boycotted.</p> - -<p>The readiness, and almost eagerness, with which certain sections of -British public opinion are ready to view favourably anything urged -on behalf of female suffrage, is aptly illustrated by the well-known -argument we so often hear when the existence of “militancy” is pointed -out as a reason for withholding the suffrage—the argument, namely, as -to the unfairness of refusing the franchise to numbers of peaceable -and law-abiding women who are asking for it, because a relatively -small section of women resort to criminal methods of emphasising -<!-- Page 172 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span>their demand. Now let us examine the real interpretation of the facts. -It is quite true that the majority of the women agitating for the -suffrage at the present day are themselves non-militants. But what -is and has been their attitude towards their militant sisters? Have -they ever repudiated the criminal tactics of the latter with the -decision and even indignation one might reasonably have expected had -they really regarded the campaign of violence and wanton outrage with -strong disapprobation, not to say abhorrence? The answer must be a -decided negative. At the very most they mildly rebuke the unwisdom of -militant methods, blessing them, as it were, with faint blame, while, -as a general rule, they will not go even so far as this, but are -content, while graciously deigning to tell you that, although their own -methods are not those of militancy, yet that they and the militants -are alike working for the same end, notwithstanding they may differ -as to the most effective methods of attaining it. The non-militant -woman suffragist is always careful never to appear an <em>anti</em>-militant. -Everyone can see that had the bulk of the so-called “peaceable and -law-abiding” suffragists, to whose claims we are enjoined to give -ear, honestly and resolutely set their faces against, and vigorously -denounced, the criminal campaign, refusing to have anything to do with -it or its authors, the campaign in question would <!-- Page 173 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span>have come to an end -long ago. But no! this would not have suited the book of the “peaceable -and law-abiding” advocates of woman’s suffrage. Their aim has been, and -is still, to run with the “militant” hare and hunt with the “peaceable -and law-abiding” hounds. While themselves abstaining from any unlawful -act they are perfectly willing and desirous that they and their -movement shall reap all the advantages of advertisement and otherwise -that may accrue from the militant policy. That the above is a true -state of the case as regards the “peaceful and law-abiding” elements -in the suffragist movement, which we are assured so largely outnumber -the militant section, one would think must be plain to everyone, -however obtuse, who has followed with attention the course of the -present agitation. And yet there are fools of the male sex who consider -seriously this preposterous plea of the injustice of refusing to -concede the suffrage to a large number of “peaceable and law-abiding” -women who are demanding it, because of the action of a small body of -violent females—with whom, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bien entendu</i>, the aforesaid large body of -“peaceable and law-abiding” women (while keeping themselves carefully -aloof from active participation in militancy), do not pretend to -conceal their sympathy!</p> - -<p>The whole modern woman’s movement is based, in a measure, at least, -on an assumption which is absolutely unfounded—to wit, that man has -<!-- Page 174 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span>systematically oppressed woman in the past, that the natural tendency -of evil-minded man is always to oppress woman, or, to put it from the -other side, that woman is the victim of man’s egoism! The unsoundness -of this view ought to be apparent to every unbiassed student of -history, anthropology, and physiology. The Feminist prefers to see -evidence of male oppression in the place woman has occupied in social -and political life, rather than the natural consequence of her organic -constitution, her secondary sexual characteristics, and the natural -average inferiority which flows therefrom. As regards the personal -relations between men and women, an impartial view of the case must -inevitably lead to the conclusion that whatever else man in general -may have on his conscience, no reasonable reproach lies to his score -as regards his treatment of woman. The patience, forbearance, and -kindliness, with which, from Socrates downwards, men as a rule have -encountered the whims, the tempers, and the tantrums of their often -unworthy womankind is indeed a marvel. But it is a still greater marvel -that Modern Feminism in this, as in other things, should have succeeded -in hocussing public opinion into the delusion that the exact opposite -of the truth represents the real state of the case. This, however, is a -marvel which runs through the history of the controversial exploits of -the whole Feminist Movement.</p> - -<p><!-- Page 175 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span></p><p>In the foregoing pages we have striven to unmask the shameless -imposture which, in the main, this movement represents. We have tracked -down one dishonest argument after another. We have pointed out how the -thinnest and hollowest of subterfuges are allowed to pass muster, and -even to become current coin, by dint of unrefuted reiteration. The -Feminist trick of reversing the facts of the case, as, for example, the -assertion that man-made law and its administration is unjust to women, -and then raising a howl of indignation at the position of affairs they -picture, such being, of course, the diametrical opposite of the real -facts—all this has been exposed. In conclusion I can only express the -hope that honest, straightforward men who have been bitten by Feminist -wiles will take pause and reconsider their position. Whatever sentiment -or sympathy they may have with the aims of the movement intrinsically, -it ought to be not too much to expect them to view with contempt -and abhorrence the mass of disingenuous falsehood and transparent -subterfuge, which the votaries of Feminism systematically seek to palm -off upon a public opinion—only too easily gullible in this matter—as -true fact and valid argument.</p> - -<p> </p> -<hr class="newchapter" /> -<p> </p> -<div class="notebox"> -<p class="tnhead">TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE:</p> - -<p>Pages 4 and 10 are blank in the original.</p> - -<p>Variations in spelling and hyphenation remain as in the original.</p> - -<p>Ellipses match the original.</p> - -<p>The following corrections have been made to the original text:</p> - -<div class="tnblock"> -<p>Page 28: mankind in its intellectual,[comma missing in -original] moral and technical development</p> - -<p>Page 31: only 7 per cent.[period missing in original] in favour -of man</p> - -<p>Page 32: the occipital lobes, which[original has “whith”] are -universally</p> - -<p>Page 38: side of the moral faculties”[quotation mark missing in -original]</p> - -<p>Page 42: “In England,” says Dr Buzzard,[original has extraneous -quotation mark] “hysteria is</p> - -<p>Page 43: in hysteria is, according to Dr Pitrè[original has -“Pitré”]</p> - -<p>Page 43: authorities—<i>e.g.</i>[second period missing in original] -Dr Bernard Holländer</p> - -<p>Page 45: represent such raræ[original has œ] aves</p> - -<p>Page 73: But after all is[word “is” missing in original] said -and done, it is doubtful</p> - -<p>Page 111: we hear <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ad nauseam</i>[original has “nauseum”], from -the Feminist side</p> - -<p>Page 127: nearly 40 per cent. [original has extraneous word -“of”] more deaths among men</p> - -<p>Page 134: offshoot, falls into the background[original has -“backgrouud”]</p> - -<p>Page 162: Such proposals invariably[original has “invaribly”] -suggest the sacrificing</p> - -<p>[24:1] even by those who put it[original has “sit”] forward</p> -</div> -</div> - -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<hr class="full" /> -<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FRAUD OF FEMINISM***</p> -<p>******* This file should be named 51877-h.htm or 51877-h.zip *******</p> -<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br /> -<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/1/8/7/51877">http://www.gutenberg.org/5/1/8/7/51877</a></p> -<p> -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed.</p> - -<p>Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. -</p> - -<h2>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<br /> -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</h2> - -<p>To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license.</p> - -<h3>Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works</h3> - -<p>1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8.</p> - -<p>1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.</p> - -<p>1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others.</p> - -<p>1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States.</p> - -<p>1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p> - -<p>1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed:</p> - -<blockquote><p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United - States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost - no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use - it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with - this eBook or online - at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this - ebook.</p></blockquote> - -<p>1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work.</p> - -<p>1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.</p> - -<p>1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License.</p> - -<p>1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.</p> - -<p>1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that</p> - -<ul> -<li>You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation."</li> - -<li>You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works.</li> - -<li>You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work.</li> - -<li>You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li> -</ul> - -<p>1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.</p> - -<p>1.F.</p> - -<p>1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment.</p> - -<p>1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE.</p> - -<p>1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem.</p> - -<p>1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p> - -<p>1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions.</p> - -<p>1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. </p> - -<h3>Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life.</p> - -<p>Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org.</p> - -<h3>Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.</p> - -<p>The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact</p> - -<p>For additional contact information:</p> - -<p> Dr. Gregory B. Newby<br /> - Chief Executive and Director<br /> - gbnewby@pglaf.org</p> - -<h3>Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS.</p> - -<p>The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>.</p> - -<p>While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate.</p> - -<p>International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.</p> - -<p>Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate</p> - -<h3>Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.</h3> - -<p>Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support.</p> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition.</p> - -<p>Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org</p> - -<p>This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.</p> - -</body> -</html> - diff --git a/old/51877-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/51877-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 2ad8a02..0000000 --- a/old/51877-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51877-h/images/titlepageillo.png b/old/51877-h/images/titlepageillo.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 2de28d1..0000000 --- a/old/51877-h/images/titlepageillo.png +++ /dev/null |
