diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 02:44:14 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 02:44:14 -0800 |
| commit | c65aab9250f1084101b5142b37fce12bb06c1e02 (patch) | |
| tree | c37c5eed86a7eca6273d25a4fd2e9d8d3e946d7a /old/67662-0.txt | |
| parent | b3549ef4cf9bbfcba294a981e29c3d213e5d3651 (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/67662-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67662-0.txt | 4630 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4630 deletions
diff --git a/old/67662-0.txt b/old/67662-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index e9918fe..0000000 --- a/old/67662-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4630 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Our Changing Morality, by Various - -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 -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Our Changing Morality - A Symposium - -Author: Various - -Editor: Freda Kirchwey - -Release Date: March 20, 2022 [eBook #67662] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at - https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive/American - Libraries.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OUR CHANGING MORALITY *** - - - - - - OUR - CHANGING MORALITY - _A SYMPOSIUM_ - - EDITED BY - FREDA KIRCHWEY - - - ALBERT & CHARLES BONI - NEW YORK 1924 - - - - - COPYRIGHT, 1924, BY ALBERT & CHARLES BONI, INC. - - _Printed in the United States of America by_ - J. J. LITTLE AND IVES COMPANY, NEW YORK - - - - -INTRODUCTION - -BY FREDA KIRCHWEY - - -The subject of sex has been treated in this generation with a strange, -rather panic-stricken lack of balance. Obscenity hawks its old wares -at one end of the road and dogmatic piety shouts warnings at the -other--while between is chaos. And the chaos extends beyond ideas and -talk, beyond novels and scenarios and Sunday feature stories, into the -realm of actual conduct. Religion has indeed found substantial matter -for its words of caution and disapproval: never in recent generations -have human beings so floundered about outside the ropes of social and -religious sanctions. - -But while John Roach Straton and Billy Sunday point a pleasant way -toward hell, while sensationalism finds in new manners of life subject -for five-inch headlines, and while modern novelists make their modern -characters stumble through pages of inner conflict to ends of darkness -and desperation, a few people are at work quietly sorting out the -elements of chaos and holding fragments of conduct up in the sun and -air to find what they really are made of. - -No one seeks to argue chaos away. Certainly Mr. Straton and Mr. Sunday -are right: Men and women are ignoring old laws. In their relations -with each other they are living according to tangled, conflicting -codes. Remnants of early admonitions and relationships, the dictates of -custom, the behavior of their friends, their own tastes and desires, -elusive dreams of a loveliness not provided for by rules--all these are -scrambling to fill the gap that was left when Right and Wrong finally -followed the other absolute monarchs to an empty, nominal existence -somewhere in exile. But the traditional, ministerial method with chaos -was not Jehovah’s method. He brought order and light into the world; -but the way of our current moralists has been to clamp down the hatches -even though “sin” bubbled beneath. A few courageous, matter-of-fact -glances into the depths have been embodied in the articles in this -volume. The men and women who have written them have approached the -subject variously; the fragments they have brought up to examine do -not necessarily fit together. But none of these writers is afraid to -saunter up to the edge and see what moral disorder looks like. - -Some of them find it thoroughly disagreeable. They believe that old -laws were born of old desires and find their sanctions in the emotions -of men. They seek for new and rational ways back to the sort of -stability provided by the traditional relationships of men and women. -Others find in contemporary manners merely the disorder incident to -reconstruction; they find there tentative beginnings rather than -ruinous endings. They see chaos as an interesting laboratory, filled -with strange ferments and the pungent odors of new compounds. None of -these writers offers dogmatic conclusions--and in this they differ -delightfully from our most popular novelists and preachers. They -present facts, they analyze and interpret; they suggest directions, -they even prophesy. But they never announce or warn or reprove. When -these chapters first appeared as articles in _The Nation_ it became -evident that this exercise of thought was itself commonly held to be -a simple blasphemy. Letters from readers came in scores charging the -articles with the sin of intelligence where only faith and conformity -were tolerable. Dogma is so deep in the bone of even the more -enlightened and adult members of our modern world that the most modest -doubt regarding the success of monogamy or the virtue of chastity -becomes in some way an insult to Moses or Saint Paul. - -It is interesting to see how many of the authors of this group of -articles find a connection between the changing standards of sex -behavior and the increasing freedom of women. Are women forcing this -change? Or does freedom itself make change inevitable? Possibly only -the woman in the isolation of the home is able to sustain the double -load of her own virtue and her husband’s ideals. Out in the world, -in contact and competition with men, she is forced to discriminate; -questions are thrust upon her. The old rules fail to work; bewildering -inconsistencies confront her. Things that were sure become unsure. And -slowly, clumsily, she is trying to construct a way out to a new sort of -certainty in life; she is seeking something to take the place of the -burden of solemn ideals and reverential attitudes that rolled off her -shoulders when she emerged. That some such process may be going on is -hinted at in more than one of these articles. Certainly, of the factors -involved in modern sex relations, women and economic conditions are the -two that have suffered the most revolutionary change; and men’s morals -must largely shape themselves to the patterns laid down by these two -masters of life. - -Much has been said about sex--and everything remains to be said. -Largely, new conclusions will be reached through new processes of -living. People will act--and then a new code will grow up. But along -the way guidance and interpretation are deeply needed, if only to take -the place of the pious imprecations of those who fear life and hate the -dangers and uncertainties of thought and emotion. - - - - -CONTENTS - - PAGE - - INTRODUCTION v - _By Freda Kirchwey_ - - STYLES IN ETHICS 3 - _By Bertrand Russell_ - - MODERN MARRIAGE 19 - _By Arthur Garfield Hays_ - - CHANGES IN SEX RELATIONS 37 - _By Elsie Clews Parsons_ - - TOWARD MONOGAMY 53 - _By Charlotte Perkins Gilman_ - - WOMEN--FREE FOR WHAT? 69 - _By Edwin Muir_ - - VIRTUE AND WOMEN 85 - _By Isabel Leavenworth_ - - WHERE ARE THE FEMALE GENIUSES? 107 - _By Sylvia Kopald_ - - MAN AND WOMAN AS CREATORS 129 - _By Alexander Goldenweiser_ - - DOMINANT SEXES 147 - _By M. Vaerting_ - - MODERN LOVE AND MODERN FICTION 167 - _By J. W. Krutch_ - - CAN MEN AND WOMEN BE FRIENDS? 183 - _By Floyd Dell_ - - LOVE AND MARRIAGE 197 - _By Ludwig Lewisohn_ - - COMMUNIST PURITANS 207 - _By Louis Fischer_ - - STEREOTYPES 219 - _By Florence Guy Seabury_ - - WOMEN AND THE NEW MORALITY 235 - _By Beatrice M. Hinkle_ - - - - - Styles in Ethics - By Bertrand Russell - - - - -Hon. Bertrand Arthur William Russell - -_is a mathematician, writer, and lecturer on international affairs and -problems of government. Born at Trellech, England, May 18th, 1872. -F.R.S. 1908; Late Lecturer and Fellow Trinity College, Cambridge. Heir -presumptive to 2nd Earl Russell. Author of “German Social Democracy,” -1896; “Essay on the Foundation of Geometry,” 1897; “Philosophy of -Leibnitz,” 1900; “Principles of Mathematics,” 1903; with D. A. N. -Whitehead, “Principia Mathematica,” 1910; “Our Knowledge of the -External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy,” 1914; -“Principles of Social Reconstruction,” 1917; “Why Men Fight,” 1917; -“Mysticism and Logic,” 1918; “Roads to Freedom,” 1918; “Introduction -to Mathematical Philosophy,” 1919; “The Practice and Theory of -Bolshevism,” 1920; “The Analysis of the Mind,” 1921; “The Problem of -China,” 1922; “The A. B. C. of Atoms,” 1923; “Icarus, or the Future of -Science,” 1924._ - - - - -OUR CHANGING MORALITY - - - - -STYLES IN ETHICS - -BY BERTRAND RUSSELL - - -In all ages and nations positive morality has consisted almost wholly -of prohibitions of various classes of actions, with the addition -of a small number of commands to perform certain other actions. -The Jews, for example, prohibited murder and theft, adultery and -incest, the eating of pork and seething the kid in its mother’s -milk. To us the last two precepts may seem less important than the -others, but religious Jews have observed them far more scrupulously -than what seem to us fundamental principles of morality. South Sea -Islanders could imagine nothing more utterly wicked than eating -out of a vessel reserved for the use of the chief. My friend Dr. -Brogan made a statistical investigation into the ethical valuations -of undergraduates in certain American colleges. Most considered -Sabbath-breaking more wicked than lying, and extra-conjugal sexual -relations more wicked than murder. The Japanese consider disobedience -to parents the most atrocious of crimes. I was once at a charming spot -on the outskirts of Kioto with several Japanese socialists, men who -were among the most advanced thinkers in the country. They told me that -a certain well beside which we were standing was a favorite spot for -suicides, which were very frequent. When I asked why so many occurred -they replied that most were those of young people in love whose parents -had forbidden them to marry. To my suggestion that perhaps it would -be better if parents had less power they all returned an emphatic -negative. To Dr. Brogan’s undergraduates this power of Japanese parents -to forbid love would seem monstrous, but the similar power of husbands -or wives would seem a matter of course. Neither they nor the Japanese -would examine the question rationally; both would decide unthinkingly -on the basis of moral precepts learned in youth. - -When we study in the works of anthropologists the moral precepts which -men have considered binding in different times and places we find the -most bewildering variety. It is quite obvious to any modern reader -that most of these customs are absurd. The Aztecs held that it was a -duty to sacrifice and eat enemies captured in war, since otherwise -the light of the sun would go out. The Book of Leviticus enjoins that -when a married man dies without children his brother shall marry the -widow, and the first son born shall count as the dead man’s son. The -Romans, the Chinese, and many other nations secured a similar result by -adoption. This custom originated in ancestor-worship; it was thought -that the ghost would make himself a nuisance unless he had descendants -(real or putative) to worship him. In India the remarriage of widows -is traditionally considered something too horrible to contemplate. -Many primitive races feel horror at the thought of marrying any one -belonging to one’s own totem, though there may be only the most distant -blood-relationship. After studying these various customs it begins at -last to occur to the reader that possibly the customs of his own age -and nation are not eternal, divine ordinances, but are susceptible -of change, and even, in some respects, of improvement. Books such as -Westermarck’s “History of Human Marriage” or Müller-Lyer’s “Phasen -der Liebe,” which relate in a scientific spirit the marriage customs -that have existed and the reasons which have led to their growth and -decay, produce evidence which must convince any rational mind that -our own customs are sure to change and that there is no reason to -expect a change to be harmful. It thus becomes impossible to cling to -the position of many who are earnest advocates of _political_ reform -and yet hold that reform in our moral precepts is not needed. Moral -precepts, like everything else, can be improved, and the true reformer -will be as open-minded in regard to them as in regard to other matters. - -Müller-Lyer, from the point of view of family institutions, divides -the history of civilization into three periods--the clan period, the -family period, and the personal period. Of these the last is only now -beginning; the other two are each divided into three stages--early, -middle, and late. He shows that sexual and family ethics have at all -times been dominated by economic considerations; hunting, pastoral, -agricultural, and industrial tribes or nations have each their own -special kinds of institutions. Economic causes determine whether a -tribe will practice polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, or monogamy, -and whether monogamy will be lifelong or dissoluble. Whatever the -prevailing practice in a tribe it is thought to be the only one -compatible with virtue, and all departures from it are regarded with -moral horror. Owing to the force of custom it may take a long time for -institutions to adapt themselves to economic circumstances; the process -of adaptation may take centuries. Christian sexual ethics, according to -this author, belong to the middle-family period; the personal period, -now beginning, has not yet been embodied in the laws of most Christian -countries, and even the late-family period, since it admits divorce -under certain circumstances, involves an ethic to which the church is -usually opposed. - -Müller-Lyer suggests a general law to the effect that where the state -is strong the family is weak and the position of women is good, -whereas where the state is weak the family is strong and the position -of women is bad. It is of course obvious that where the family is -strong the position of women must be bad, and vice versa, but the -connection of these with the strength or weakness of the state is less -obvious, though probably in the main no less true. Traditional China -and Japan afforded good instances. In both the state was much weaker -than in modern Europe, the family much stronger, and the position of -women much worse. It is true that in modern Japan the state is very -strong, yet the family also is strong and the position of women is -bad; but this is a transitional condition. The whole tendency in Japan -is for the family to grow weaker and the position of women to grow -better. This tendency encounters grave difficulties. I met in Japan -only one woman who appeared to be what we should consider emancipated -in the West--she was charming, beautiful, high-minded, and prepared to -make any sacrifice for her principles. After the earthquake in Tokio -the officer in charge of the forces concerned in keeping order in the -district where she lived seized her and the man with whom she lived -in a free union and her twelve-year-old nephew, whom he believed to be -her son; he took them to the police station and there murdered them -by slow strangulation, taking about ten minutes over each except the -boy. In his account of the matter he stated that he had not had much -difficulty with the boy, because he had succeeded in making friends -with him on the way to the police station. The boy was an American -citizen. At the funeral, the remains of all three were seized by armed -reactionaries and destroyed, with the passive acquiescence of the -police. The question whether the murderer deserved well of his country -is now set in schools, half the children answering affirmatively. -We have here a dramatic confrontation of middle-family ethics with -personal ethics. The officer’s views were those of feudalism, which is -a middle-family system; his victims’ views were those of the nascent -personal period. The Japanese state, which belongs to the late-family -period, disapproved of both. - -The middle-family system involves cruelty and persecution. The -indissolubility of marriage results in appalling misery for the wives -of drunkards, sadists, and brutes of all kinds, as well as great -unhappiness for many men and the unedifying spectacle of daily quarrels -for the unfortunate children of ill-assorted couples. It involves also -an immense amount of prostitution, with its inevitable consequence of -widespread venereal disease. It makes marriage, in most cases, a matter -of financial bargain between parents, and virtually proscribes love. -It considers sexual intercourse always justifiable within marriage, -even if no mutual affection exists. It is impossible to be too thankful -that this system is nearly extinct in the Western nations (except -France). But it is foolish to pretend that this ideal held by the -Catholic church and in some degree by most Protestant churches is a -lofty one. It is intolerant, gross, cruel, and hostile to all the best -potentialities of human nature. Nothing is gained by continuing to pay -lip-service to this musty Moloch. - -The American attitude on marriage is curious. America, in the main, -does not object to easy divorce laws, and is tolerant of those who -avail themselves of them. But it holds that those who live in -countries where divorce is difficult or impossible ought to submit to -hardships from which Americans are exempt, and deserve to be held up to -obloquy if they do not do so. An interesting example of this attitude -was afforded by the treatment of Gorki when he visited the United -States. - -There are two different lines of argument by which it is possible to -attack the general belief that there are universal absolute rules of -moral conduct, and that any one who infringes them is wicked. One -line of argument emerges from the anthropological facts which we have -already considered. Broadly speaking the views of the average man on -sexual ethics are those appropriate to the economic system existing -in the time of his great-grandfather. Morality has varied as economic -systems have varied, lagging always about three generations behind. As -soon as people realize this they find it impossible to suppose that -the particular brand of marriage customs prevailing in their own age -and nation represents eternal verities, whereas all earlier and later -marriage customs, and all those prevailing in other latitudes and -longitudes, are vicious and degraded. This shows that we ought to be -prepared for changes in marriage customs, but does not tell us what -changes we ought to desire. - -The second line of argument is more positive and more important. -Popular morality--including that of the churches, though not that of -the great mystics--lays down rules of conduct rather than ends of life. -The morality that ought to exist would lay down ends of life rather -than rules of conduct. Christ says: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as -thyself”; this lays down one of the ends of life. The Decalogue says: -“Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath Day”; this lays down a rule -of action. Christ’s conduct to the woman taken in adultery showed the -conflict between love and moral rules. All his priests, down to our own -day, have gone directly contrary to his teachings on this point, and -have shown themselves invariably willing to cast the first stone. The -belief in the importance of rules of conduct is superstitious; what -is important is to care for good ends. A good man is a man who cares -for the happiness of his relations and friends, and, if possible, for -that of mankind in general, or, again, a man who cares for art and -science. Whether such a man obeys the moral rules laid down by the Jews -thousands of years ago is quite unimportant. Moreover a man may obey -all these rules and yet be extremely bad. - -Let us take some illustrations. I have a friend, a high-minded man, -who has taken part in arduous and dangerous enterprises of great -public importance and is almost unbelievably kind in all his private -relations. This man has a wife who is a dipsomaniac, who has become -imbecile, and has to be kept in an institution. She cannot divorce him -because she is imbecile; he cannot divorce her because she affords -him no ground for divorce. He does not consider himself morally bound -to her and is therefore, from a conventional point of view, a wicked -man. On the other hand a man who is perpetually drunk, who kicks his -wife when she is pregnant, and begets ten imbecile children, is not -generally regarded as particularly wicked. A business man who is -generous to all his employees but falls in love with his stenographer -is wicked; another who bullies his employees but is faithful to his -wife is virtuous. This attitude is rank superstition, and it is high -time that it was got rid of. - -Sexual morality, freed from superstition, is a simple matter. Fraud and -deceit, assault, seduction of persons under age, are proper matters for -the criminal law. Relations between adults who are free agents are a -private matter, and should not be interfered with either by the law or -by public opinion, because no outsider can know whether they are good -or bad. When children are involved the state becomes interested to the -extent of seeing that they are properly educated and cared for, and it -ought to insure that the father does his duty by them in the way of -maintenance. But neither the state nor public opinion ought to insist -on the parents living together if they are incompatible; the spectacle -of parents’ quarrels is far worse for children than the separation of -the parents could possibly be. - -The ideal to be aimed at is not life-long monogamy enforced by legal -or social penalties. The ideal to be aimed at is that all sexual -intercourse should spring from the free impulse of both parties, based -upon mutual inclination and nothing else. At present a woman who sells -herself successively to different men is branded as a prostitute, -whereas a woman who sells herself for life to one rich man whom she -does not love becomes a respected society leader. The one is exactly -as bad as the other. The individual should not be condemned in either -case; but the institutions producing the individual’s action should be -condemned equally in both cases. The cramping of love by institutions -is one of the major evils of the world. Every person who allows himself -to think that an adulterer must be wicked adds his stone to the prison -in which the source of poetry and beauty and life is incarcerated by -“priests in black gowns.” - -Perhaps there is not, strictly speaking, any such thing as “scientific” -ethics. It is not the province of science to decide on the ends of -life. Science can show that an ethic is unscientific, in the sense that -it does not minister to any desired end. Science also can show how to -bring the interest of the individual into harmony with that of society. -We make laws against theft, in order that theft may become contrary to -self-interest. We might, on the same ground, make laws to diminish the -number of imbecile children born into the world. There is no evidence -that existing marriage laws, particularly where they are very strict, -serve any social purpose; in this sense we may say that they are -unscientific. But to proclaim the ends of life, and make men conscious -of their value, is not the business of science; it is the business of -the mystic, the artist, and the poet. - - - - -Modern Marriage and Ancient Laws - -By Arthur Garfield Hays - - -Arthur Garfield Hays - -_is an attorney practicing in New York City. He was manager of the New -York State La Follette campaign, 1924._ - - - - -MODERN MARRIAGE AND ANCIENT LAWS - -BY ARTHUR GARFIELD HAYS - - -“Are we married?” This was a query recently put to a New York lawyer. -The woman wanted to have been married, but wished not to be married -any longer; at the same time she rather objected to a divorce. The man -did not care much about it, so long as he could marry, or marry again, -without too much inconvenience arising from the earlier entanglement. -The lawyer’s answer was so obvious that it might have been made by a -layman: “How do I know?” - -The two had been living together, had called each other husband and -wife, and had in general passed as such, but at the beginning of the -relationship each had felt that if one wanted to be free the other -would not hold him or her; it was agreed that they should have no -financial responsibility for each other and that there should be -nothing about the arrangement which would make it last “till death -do us part.” In speaking of themselves as “husband and wife” they had -intended the words to represent merely a formula of their own. - -Now common-law marriage as recognized in New York State consists in a -meeting of the minds--a contract. Thus, if two people live together -as husband and wife this may be evidence of a common-law marriage. No -formal agreement is necessary. But if there has not been even a private -agreement of marriage their living together would be unimportant. If -they wished to separate they would need no divorce, for they would -never have been married. By passing as husband and wife they might -gain the social advantages that come from a recognized relationship, -and, since there had been no definite agreement, they might save the -inconvenience of divorce if they wished to separate. Difficulty arises -only when both parties do not agree that there was no agreement. -Sometimes one party claims there was and the other that there was not. -Then the very indefiniteness of the tie means added difficulty and -publicity in breaking it. - -In order to avoid future disagreement one couple made a contract in -which they stated that they lived as husband and wife in order to avoid -social stigma, but that as between themselves there was no agreement -of marriage. The situation was trying because they always felt they -were living a lie. Their answer was that society foolishly demanded -either a penalty or a form and they preferred to provide the form. -Fortunately, neither ever had to swear to the status and they felt that -this contract--which provided for future maintenance of the wife and -custody of the children--solved the problem or doubt of a life-long -relationship. To those who made ethical objection, they answered that -they were willing to contract on matters which concerned their wills, -but knew it was contrary to human nature to contract on matters which -concerned their emotions. - -Not long ago in New York City a young woman who had scruples about -promising to love a man forever expressed to the city clerk her -unwillingness to use the form of marriage ceremony which he had -produced committing her to love, honor, and cherish the man for the -rest of his or her life. She said she was in good faith willing to -contract to marry, and that she would do the best she could to make the -marriage successful, but that was all; to which the clerk answered that -if she were entering marriage in that spirit she should not be married -at all. He was finally persuaded that the parties could be tied merely -by agreement on her part to become the man’s wife and on his part to -become her husband. - -If the law seems full of vagaries on the problem of entering marriage -it is still more perplexing and technical when it concerns the question -whether or not two people are still legally married when one has -obtained a supposed divorce--so much so that it is not at all uncommon -for a lawyer to be faced by a client asking whether or not he, or she, -is really married. Some years ago a man was married in Philadelphia -and later, having separated from his wife, went to New York. She -obtained a decree of divorce in Pennsylvania, the papers having been -served on him in New York. He married again and died a generation -later, leaving a considerable fortune and three children by his second -marriage. The first wife, or her attorneys, then discovered that the -original divorce was not legal, since the Pennsylvania courts had not -acquired a jurisdiction which would be recognized in New York. Since -the man had left the estate to his “wife,” there were complications. -As the question involved the meaning of a will, the matter was one of -intention and it was not difficult to prove that the deceased intended -as his beneficiary the woman whom he regarded as his wife. But had -he owned real estate at the time of his divorce the first wife might -have had a dower interest, and had his status become one of public -importance his enemies might successfully have charged him with bigamy. - -Ordinarily, people are satisfied with a decree of divorce. It gives -them the desired social status. Its technical legality becomes of -importance only in connection with estates or the legitimacy of -children. But a difficult question arises in case of remarriage. -Legality depends upon the jurisdiction of the court. This can be -acquired by personal service of papers upon the defendant within the -State or a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction by appearing -in the case personally or by attorney. But State courts claim and -recognize their own jurisdiction even though papers are served outside -the State. Under these latter circumstances, suppose a divorce granted -a man in Utah is not recognized in New York. If he remarries in Utah he -will have one wife there, while in New York another woman would be his -wife and he would be obliged to support her there. If his wife in New -York married again, she would be guilty of bigamy. In Utah it would be -his duty to live with one woman. New York would attempt to make it his -pleasure to live with another, and this on the ground of morality, for, -although, ordinarily, the law of the place of the new marriage (in this -case, Utah) would apply, yet this would result in his having two wives -in New York. So on legal grounds we disregard the divorce, and on moral -grounds we negative the second marriage. - -Foreign divorces raise the question not only of jurisdiction but -of recognition by treaty of a judgment of the particular foreign -country. For instance, judgments of French courts are not absolutely -binding upon the courts of this country, as are the judgments of -sister-States. In the case of Russia, where any two parties by -agreement or a single person by request may become divorced, there is -no treaty whatever. Occasionally, cases arise where persons abroad have -obtained a decree for a rabbinical divorce. Under the old Jewish custom -a rabbi could pronounce a divorce and the law of the state permitted a -decree to be entered upon his pronouncement. Some states and countries -make bids for the divorce business; not long ago an advertisement -appeared announcing that a divorce might be had in Yucatan for $25, -not, of course, including the expense of travel. Questions of the -effect of interlocutory and final judgments, of the provisions of -a divorce decree forbidding remarriage within a certain period, of -the _bona fides_ of residence, of the jurisdiction of the court, of -treaties with foreign countries may make it difficult to answer the -question whether or not two people are legally married. - -All this confusion represents a beating of wings against a cage--an -endeavor to obtain a legal paper with a red seal which will avoid a -situation which two people find intolerable. We are tending toward a -new moral conception of the marriage relationship, well expressed by -Premier Zahle of Denmark when submitting a new liberal divorce law: “It -is based on the fundamental conception that it is morally indefensible -to maintain a marriage relation by legal statute where all the real -bonds between the parties are broken. This is a measure which certainly -means a great step forward in the recognition of marriage as a moral -relation.” - -Marriage is a status resulting from a civil contract, but very few -people who enter into it know what this contract is. It assumes -certain rights and obligations. What are they? That the wage-earner -will provide. This is enforcible, at least theoretically. What else? -That the parties live in an emotional and mental state designated by -an agreement “to love, honor, and cherish,” and, sometimes, “obey.” -This is obviously unenforcible. (I make this assertion despite the -recent Texas case in which a husband obtained an injunction restraining -his wife’s employer from flirting with her.) The contract continues -for life, subject to termination for causes which depend chiefly -upon the place of residence, actual or acquired. If they live in -South Carolina and stay there, the contract is indissoluble. In New -York the contract may be terminated for adultery, unless the other -party has likewise sought refuge outside of marriage; in Alabama, for -habitual drunkenness; in Nevada, for neglect to provide for one year; -in Kentucky and New Hampshire, for joining a religious sect which -believes marriages unlawful; in New Jersey, for extreme cruelty; in -Wisconsin, if the parties have voluntarily lived separately for five -years; in Massachusetts and a host of other States, for desertion; in -Pennsylvania and Oregon, for personal indignities or conduct rendering -life burdensome; in Vermont, for intolerable severity; in France, if -the parties have other emotional interests; in Denmark, by consent; -in Russia, by request. Of course, in most of these states there are -other grounds, but the result is that either party can bring about a -situation which permits divorce or can make life so intolerable for -the other that he or she consents to it. But these grounds must arise -subsequent to marriage; the agreement cannot be made in advance. - -In life the duration of marriage depends upon the desires or consent -of individuals. In law it is perpetual, subject to termination not -by agreement made at the outset, or by later consent, but by court -decree. At the time of entering into marriage people usually know -merely that somehow, somewhere, some time there is a way out if the -situation becomes too strained. Technically, since the contract is -for life, a divorce is granted for a breach. Thus there is an implied -term, as there is in every contract, that relief is granted for a -breach--but what constitutes a breach depends not upon the terms of the -contract or the law of the place where the contract is made but upon -the jurisdiction where relief is sought--a matter of which the parties -ordinarily know nothing when they make the contract. Convention seems -to demand that the parties know not what they do. - -Modern society, this summary seems to show, has been moving toward -freedom of contract in marriage. Those phases which concern the state, -such as economic provision and children, must be conserved. But time -was--and still is in some places--when marriage itself was a tribal -or a state matter. Then it became a family matter, determined by -the parents, and property and family rights and interests were the -important considerations. But parents, knowing by experience that -there can be no happiness without security--although there might -be unhappiness with it--failed to take into sufficient account the -emotional content, and, particularly in the Western World, there -developed a certain freedom of contract in making a choice. To-day, -when people have come to recognize the necessity of sexual and social -compatibility, which cannot be determined in advance, there has come -a demand for a further freedom of contract, to which society has -responded by more liberal divorce laws. The laws which permit a divorce -where parties have not lived together for a certain length of time make -the duration of the marriage relation really a matter of consent. They -mean in effect that a contract of marriage contains an implied term -that it is to continue until the parties consent to its end, and in -human relations this means until one party demands its end. - -If a person proposed that the law recognize a marriage contract which -was to continue until either party desired its termination, he would -be regarded as a wrecker of our institutions; but society is doing -this very thing--obscurely, perhaps, as an after-effect, not as a -preconceived design; blindly, and not with intelligent forethought. -Many have suggested that marriages be made harder and divorces easier. -But how revolutionary would seem a suggestion that marriage contracts -be made in advance, conforming to the teachings of experience, -providing for maintenance and custody of children and limited by the -understanding of the parties; that those who, for religious or ethical -reasons, wished to enter into a life contract be permitted to do so; -that those who wished to enter into a contract to terminate by joint -consent or at the option of either party likewise be permitted to do -so? An objection that this would be dangerous assumes that people -choose the present form only because compelled to do so. Individuals -are breaking from the old conventions, and the law, usually a laggard -by a generation, is following them. In forty-three States desertion is -a ground for divorce; in twenty of them, desertion for one year. In -seven States, failure or neglect to provide is a ground; in four of -them, the period is one year. In some States, if the parties live apart -for a certain length of time--in three of them for five years--that -is ground for divorce. Is not this divorce by agreement? And by -implication, since living together requires the willingness of two -parties, the result is a contract which may be ended by either of the -parties at any time he or she sees fit--after an intervening cooling -period. Thus does freedom creep in by the back door. - -Does this work harm to society? There is little difference in the -marital or social conditions or in the welfare of children in Norway -and Sweden, where there are liberal laws, and in England, where divorce -is a long, complicated, and expensive process. No one could discover -that he had crossed the State line from New York to Pennsylvania by -observation of the state of society, the happiness or apparent duration -of marriage, the welfare of children, or the social conventions of -the people. Yet in Pennsylvania there was one divorce for every 10.2 -marriages in 1922 and only one for every 22.6 in New York. In South -Carolina there are no divorces; in Oregon, the number of marriages -to one divorce was 2.6; in Wyoming, 3.9; in California, 5.1. In the -District of Columbia, the banner section, there were 35.8 marriages -to one divorce. There, as in New York, the only ground is adultery. -Yet San Francisco society seems as stable as that of Washington. Of -course, the figures do not mean that seven times as many Washington -couples as California couples, and four times as many New York couples, -make a success of marriage or live together when it has ceased to be a -success; but rather, that New Yorkers and Washingtonians solve their -marital troubles elsewhere than at home. Thus, in Nevada in 1922 there -were more divorces than marriages, because people married in other -States repented in Nevada. - -Whatever effect it may have on society, the extension of grounds for -divorce which has taken place in the last decade, and the modern -improvement in communication and travel, which opens other States or -foreign countries to an increasing number, brings about a situation -by which people, though not free to contract, do avail themselves -of means which have the same effect. Revolutionary changes occur -unnoticed, while our delusions persist and our sense of conservatism is -gratified. - - - - -Changes in Sex Relations - -By Elsie Clews Parsons - - - - -Elsie Clews Parsons - -_is widely known as an anthropologist and writer. She has contributed -largely to scientific journals and in 1922 edited the volume on -American Indian Life by various students of the subject. Graduated -from Barnard 1896; Ph.D. Columbia 1899. Fellow and Lecturer in -Sociology at Barnard; Lecturer in Anthropology in New School for -Social Research. She is editor of the_ Journal of American Folklore; -_Treasurer of American Ethnological Society; President of Folk Lore -Society. Is author of “The Family”; “The Old-Fashioned Woman”; “Fear -and Conventionality”; “Social Freedom” and “Social Rule.”_ - - - - -CHANGES IN SEX RELATIONS - -BY ELSIE CLEWS PARSONS - - -The other day I listened to a conversation on marriage and divorce -between a well-known feminist, her daughter, and an Episcopal -clergyman. The celibate cleric and the younger woman were in fair -accord: the institution of marriage was invaluable to society and had -to be protected. Let there be no divorce, said the cleric, on any -ground, at least within the church; children should be cared for by -both parents, divorce being sought only as an ultimate recourse, said -the girl, who was two years married and had a son. - -The feminist was biding her time. Finally she said: “So much for the -institution. What of the actual sex life? No divorce and continence or -no divorce and intimacy with another?” - -“The first, of course,” said the cleric. - -“Not at all; the second,” said the girl. “And you, mother?” - -“Oh, on the whole I’m for the brittle marriage as against the lax, the -American way against the European. But most of all I am for tolerance -in sex relations and for respecting privacy. Why not all kinds of -relations for all kinds of persons? Just as there are now, but with -respect or tolerance for the individual and without hypocrisy.” - -“Even if we did not agree,” the cleric said later to the feminist, “we -could talk about it as twenty years ago we could not. So much to the -good.” - -“So much to the bad,” said the girl’s father, still later; “better for -all of us the old reserve.” The speaker was a lawyer with divorce cases -in his practice. - -Had we not here a mingling of currents from law, the church, feminism, -and the younger generation which illustrates what divergency of -attitude on sex and sex institutions or practices may exist to-day, -even within the same cultural and local circle? Include circles of -different education and locality and although the range of difference -would be no larger the expressions of opinion would vary. Is the -variation in opinion due to variation in experience or is it due -to that contemporaneous lifting of the taboo on discussion which -characterizes not only our talk about sex but about other interests as -well? A remarkable and indisputable change of attitude, this release -from verbal taboo, which often gives us a sense of change in general -greater perhaps than the facts themselves warrant. - -In the conversation I quoted the women were on the whole the radicals, -the men on the whole the conservatives. This alignment was far from -typical, I think, and yet in contemporaneous life, whether or not -in opinion, women have been the exponents of cultural change in sex -relations. The increase in the divorce rate, it seems probable, has -been effected predominantly by women; about two-thirds of the total -number of divorces are granted to women. (Of course the tradition that -it is decent for the man to let the woman get the divorce must not be -ignored in this connection.) This increase in divorce may indicate a -changing attitude toward the criteria of marriage on the part of women. -Women may be demanding more of marriage than in the day when they had -little to expect but marriage. In other words, marriage standards mount -as marriage has other relations to compete with. At any rate in the -talk of women it seems to me that desire for integral satisfaction -in marriage is more consciously or realistically expressed than ever -before. Emotional and sexual appeasements are considered as well as -social or economic advantage. What of the part played by women in -changes in sex relations outside marriage? - -Unfortunately, we have no dependable statistics of prostitution, but -whatever decrease there has been in prostitution, and opinion is that -with the passing of segregated districts there has been a decrease, -may be, on the whole, put down to women, if only indirectly through an -increase in illicit relations. Illicit relations are not subject to -statistics, but that there has been an increase in them in this country -in this century will be generally accepted, likewise that in this, too, -the increase is due to women, alike more willing to participate in such -relations and more tolerant of them in others. Again those curious -suits for alienation of affection appear to be brought against women -as much as against men; and theories of seduction by men have long -since been sounding archaic to our ears. Even on the screen, the great -present vehicle of traditional manners and morals, although rape is -always in order, seduction is infrequent. Seduction with its complement -of marital honor has been rendered an anachronism, through women. - -The theory of seduction is affiliated with the proprietary theory of -woman and, needless to say, this general theory has been undergoing -considerable change for several decades. To-day women are not only not -property, they are property holders, and property holding has become a -significant factor in the social independence of women. Of this social -independence, independence in mating is the most recent expression, -more recent even than political independence, and less fully realized -or accomplished. Indeed it would be rash to predict how this type of -independence may be expected to come about; apart from the gesture, -sometimes gay, sometimes merely comic, of keeping one’s name in -marriage, there is no conscious feministic movement, in this country at -least, toward freedom in sex. The political emancipation of women came -to us as a reflex from abroad, largely through England. Whatever the -political effect of militancy in England, without the advertisement -of the British suffragette American women would be voteless to-day. -Quite likely the direction of emancipation in mating may be determined -likewise from abroad, perhaps from innovating Scandinavia or from -Soviet Russia, where the last legal word has been said on sex equality. - -In the soviet laws on marriage and domestic relations there is no -mention of suit for breach of promise or for alimony whereby woman -proclaims herself a chattel, and according to the soviet code husband -as well as wife is entitled to support if incapacitated for work. -Incapacity for work is the sole condition which entitles either spouse -to support. In other words, the Russian state has interested itself -not in maintaining the proprietary theory of woman; but in providing -for the care of man or woman in distress. Of such clear distinction -American law is innocent. In American law the husband is still the -provider and in this law lags but little behind current opinion, which -holds that a married woman should work only when she has to. Dr. -Herskowits tells me that this American attitude is so well represented -in the Negro population of Harlem that in gathering statistics of -employment as soon as he learns the occupation of the husband he can -predict whether or not the wife is at work. Low-paid employment for -the husband means wage-earning by the wife, and highly paid employment -means that the woman is not a wage-earner. Surveys in other parts of -the country have shown the same condition. These surveys have been -made among wage-earners, and concerned primarily with the margin of -subsistence; but familiar enough is the record in other economic -classes of the persuasion that marriage exempts a woman from industry -or professional activity. The standing controversies about married -women as school-teachers are fully documented instances. The Harvard -prize play acted last year on Broadway hinged on the rigidity of the -alternative of a man marrying and sacrificing his career or pursuing -his career and sacrificing his love. There was not the faintest -suggestion that the woman might contribute to the family income and so -render marriage and career economically compatible. The young couple, -to be sure, belonged to smart Suburbia, economically a conservative -circle; but there was no indication in the play that the university -intelligentsia did not hold to the theory of wifely parasitism, nor -that audiences might question the theory. And I incline to think that -few in those Broadway audiences, although drawn as they were from -fairly composite circles, did question. Wifely parasitism is holding -its own. - -In less invidious terms, where income permits, the wife continues to -be the consumer, the husband the producer. Conjugal partnership in -production, familiar in Europe, remains by and large unfamiliar in -this country. Outside of marriage, on the other hand, the last years -have seen considerable lessening in our American forms of segregating -the sexes. Not only has there been an increase of women in gainful -occupations together with an increase of occupations open to women, but -between men and women in business and in the professions relations are -increasingly less restricted, influenced less by sex taboo. There is -more coöperation, more goodwill, more companionship. - -Possibly this companionship between the sexes at large will have a -reflex upon marriage, and marriage will become a more comprehensive -partnership. The question of the married woman in gainful occupations -is related, however, to a larger economic issue. Our capitalistic and -competitive economy not only suffers parasites and drones, it compels -them by reason of its inelasticity in providing for part-time labor. -The whole workday or no work at all is the notice given to women who -would be part-day home-keepers, either in their child-bearing years or -because of other family exigency, as well as to men who are aging or -invalid. For this economic waste and loss to personal happiness and -welfare there seems to be no promise of relief in prospect. Just the -opposite, in fact, for women, since, given the increasing mechanization -of housekeeping and the ramifying organization of hospital, nursery, -and school, women at home may have a larger and larger part of the day -on their hands and their functions become less and less significant. -In this connection birth control has been for some time an important -factor. As knowledge of contraception becomes surer and more widespread -and births more spaced, even during her child-bearing period the -home-staying woman will have less and less call on her vitality and -energy. - -Discussion of contraception has been active in the last decade or -so; but curiously enough its significance aside from contributing -to directly saner ways of life[1] has been little realized. Birth -control makes possible such clear-cut distinctions between mating and -parenthood that it might be expected to produce radical changes in -theories of sex attitude or relationship, forcing the discard of many -an argument for personal suppression for the good of children or the -honor of the family, and forcing redefinition of concepts of honor -and sincerity between the sexes. In such redefinition reciprocity in -passion, emotional integrity, and mutual enhancement of life might -share in the approval once confined to constancy, fidelity, and duty, -virtues that are obviously suggested by the hit or miss system of -mating and reproducing our social organization has favored. With little -or no self-knowledge or knowledge of men, a girl often marries in -order to find out how much she cares or whether or not she qualifies, -and then when her experience has but begun she finds herself an -expectant mother, and maternity begins to supersede other interests. -She may become a parent without the assurance of being well-mated, if -not, more tragically, with the certainty of being mismated. Advocates -of the monogamous family would do well to consider how essential to -an enduring union, at least in our society, experience in love may -be, together with restraint from child-bearing before experience is -achieved. - -That neither such considerations nor other changes in the theory of sex -morality have yet come to the fore in current discussion is perhaps -because the technique of contraception is still in the experimental -stage, perhaps because in popular consciousness the morality of -contraception in itself is not fully established. How is it going -to be established? I doubt if through rationalism or rationalistic -propaganda. Social changes, we begin to know, are rarely due to -deliberation, in any society. In our society they are due mainly to -economic causes. Housing congestion in New York will in time affect -birth-control legislation in Albany; and fear of an overpopulated -world will drive church as well as state into a new attitude toward -multiplying to the glory of God. - -As in birth control so in other matters of sex intimacy the growth -of cities and the complexity of our economy may be the more potent -factors of change. In very large communities there is an ignorance -of the personal relations of others, an inevitable ignoring which -contributes unconsciously to tolerance toward experiment and variation -in sex relations. Indifference to the private life of others is almost -an exigency of our economic organization. Attention is directed to the -efficiency of the personality encountered and away from the individual -means taken to induce that efficiency. What difference does it make -to an employer how clerk or stenographer lives after hours provided -he or she is competent, alert, and responsive to the business need? -In office or in factory one may be but a cog in the machine and yet -left larger personal freedom than in a more independent job in a small -place or than in a household. Out of such urban influences--negatively, -of indifference, and positively, of attention to personality _per -se_--come opportunities for personal freedom that will set men and -women to ordering their sex life to please themselves rather than to -please society. That is, ordinary men and women; certain outstanding -figures will have to continue to forego freedom. The President of the -United States, presidents of banks or colleges, cinematograph stars, -“society ladies,” now and again a clergyman or a prize-fighter--all -these will continue to be observed closely in their private life, and, -like the gods and goddesses of other cultures or times, will have to -conform to popular preconceptions of marriage or celibacy, chastity or -libertinism. For them, as for other personages in folk-lore, individual -adjustment or variation would be out of the picture. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Dr. Ogburn informs me that his recent and still unpublished -analysis of the census of 1920 shows that in localities where birth -control is presumedly practiced the marriage rate mounts. He states -also that in the country at large there has been a higher marriage rate -in the last census decade and that the age at marriage is earlier. - - - - -Toward Monogamy - -By Charlotte Perkins Gilman - - - - -Charlotte Perkins Gilman - -_feminist, philosopher, writer was born at Hartford, Conn., July 3rd, -1860. Editor of the_ Forerunner _1909-1916; Author of “Women and -Economics,” 1898; “In This, Our World,” 1898; “The Yellow Wall-Paper,” -1899; “Concerning Children,” 1900; “The Home, Its Work and Influence,” -1903; “Human Work,” 1904; “What Diantha Did,” 1910; “The Man-Made -World,” 1910; “The Crux,” 1911; “Moving the Mountain,” 1911; “His -Religion and Hers,” 1923._ - - - - -TOWARD MONOGAMY - -BY CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILMAN - - -Physiologists tell us that in all our long ages of animal evolution -we have not yet completed the physical changes incident to assuming -an erect posture. Psychologists may as plainly see that in the short -centuries of social evolution we have naturally failed to complete -the changes incident to our growth from tribal to national and -international relationships. - -Since we remained savages for some 90 per cent of the period of human -life on earth, it is to be expected that the long-practiced tribal -morals should have modified our characters more deeply than those -evolved in the recent, varied, and fluctuating relationship of larger -range. Yet we see, during the short period of progressive civilization, -such swift and amazing development in some lines, such achievement in -knowledge, in wealth, in ability, in breadth of thought, and nobility -of feeling that our coincident stupidity and senseless misbehavior -call for explanation. - -The main reason for this peculiar delay and irregularity in social -evolution is that it has been limited to half the race, the other half -being restricted to domestic industry and to the still lower level of -misused sex. Our specialized knowledge, power, and skill are developed -through the organic relationships of the social group; as are also -those characteristics of mutual loyalty and love, of truth, honor, and -courage which are as natural to a human society as the distinctive -virtues of ants or beavers to their groups. - -Humanity’s major error, the exploitation of the female by the male, -has not only kept her at the lowest step in social progress--solitary -hand-labor in and for the family--but has resulted in excessive -sex-development through prolonged misuse. This has made her -ultra-feminine, to a degree often injurious to motherhood; and him -ultra-masculine, his social advance confused, impeded, and repeatedly -destroyed by his excessive emotions. In social morals he has of course -outdistanced her, as he alone has entered into the relationships -which develop them; but he has carefully exempted his essentially male -activities from this elevating influence, maintaining that “all’s fair -in love and war.” Of her, domestic morality demanded but one virtue, -sex-loyalty; her mate or master taking it upon himself to be both judge -and executioner in case of failure. She might be a liar and a coward, -lazy, selfish, extravagant, or cruel, but if chaste these traits were -overlooked. If unchaste, no array of other virtues was enough to save -her. In her household labors she developed minor virtues natural to -the position; a tireless industry, an instinct for cleanliness and -order, with great capacity for self-denial and petty economy. Speaking -broadly, of a race where the young, though necessarily inheriting -from both parents, yet are divided almost from birth in training and -experience, it may be said that the social virtues have belonged to -men, the domestic virtues to women. - -Our present age, counting the incredible advance of the last century -and the swift fruition of these immediate years, shows among its -newly distinguishing social movements one of supreme importance. -Within a hundred years women, in most civilized countries, have moved -from domestic into social relationship. Such a sudden and enormous -change, while inherently for the improvement of society, is naturally -accompanied by much local and immediate dislocation in previously -accepted conditions. Many are alarmed at what is considered “the danger -to the home” resultant from the refusal of an increasing number of -women to spend their lives as house-servants; they fear “the menace to -the family” due to similarly increasing numbers of women who refuse -compulsory motherhood; they are shocked at a looseness, even grossness, -of behavior between the sexes which seems to threaten marriage -itself. Few seem able to look beyond the present inconveniences to a -specialized efficiency in household management which will raise the -standard of public health and private comfort, with large reduction -in the cost of living; to such general improvement in child-culture -as will lift the average of citizenship and lower the death-rate -appreciably; and to a rational and permanent basis for our monogamous -marriage. - -To understand rightly this trying period, to be patient with its -unavoidable reactions and excesses, to know what tendencies to approve -and promote and what to condemn and oppose, requires some practical -knowledge of biology and sociology. Men, though as yet beyond women -in social morality, are unreliable judges in this time of change -because their ox is gored--they are the ones who are losing a cherished -possession. The overdeveloped sex instinct of men, requiring more -than women were willing to give, has previously backed its demands -by an imposing array of civil and religious laws requiring feminine -submission, has not scrupled to use force or falsehood, and held final -power through the economic dependence of women. It is easy to see that -if women had been equally willing no such tremendous machinery of -compulsion need have been evolved. - -But now that the woman no longer admits that “he shall rule over her,” -and is able to modify the laws; now that she has become braver, and -above all is attaining financial freedom, her previous master has no -hold upon her beyond natural attraction and--persuasion. Toward this -end he manifests an instant and vigorous activity. Whereas in the past -women were taught that they had no such “imperative instincts” as men, -and the wooer, even the husband, sought to preserve this impression, -now it is quite otherwise. All that elaborate theory of feminine -chastity, that worship of virginity, goes by the board, and women are -given a reversed theory--that they are just the same as men, if not -more so; our “double standard” is undoubled and ironed flat--to the -level of masculine desire. - -Clothed in the solemn, newly invented terms of psychoanalysis, a theory -of sex is urged upon us which bases all our activities upon this one -function. It is exalted as not only an imperative instinct, but as -_the_ imperative instinct, no others being recognized save the demands -of the stomach. Surely never was a more physical theory disguised in -the technical verbiage of “psychology.” We should not too harshly blame -the ingenious mind of man for thinking up a new theory to retain what -the old ones no longer assured him; nor too severely criticize the -subject class, so newly freed, for committing the same excesses, the -same eager imitations of the previous master, which history shows -in any recently enfranchised people. Just as women have imitated the -drug-habits of men, without the faintest excuse or reason, merely -to show that they can, so are they imitating men’s sex habits, in -large measure. Those who go too far in such excesses will presumably -die without issue, doing no permanent harm to the stock. This wild -excitement over sex, as if it were a new discovery peculiar to our -time, will be allayed by further knowledge. Even a little study of the -common facts of nature has a cooling and heartening influence. - -The essential facts are these: That all living forms show the tendency -to maintain and to reproduce themselves; that some, in differing -degree, show tendencies to vary and to improve; that after an immense -period of reproduction without it (showing that as the “life force” -it was quite unnecessary) the distinction of sex appeared as a means -to freer variation and improvement; that the male characteristics of -intense desire for the female, personal display, and intermasculine -combat, as well as the female’s instinct of selection, are visible -contributions to the major purpose of improvement; that in the higher -and later life-forms further and more rapid improvement has been made -through the development in the female of new organs and functions -for the benefit of the young; through her alone have come the upward -steps of viviparous birth, the marsupial pouch, and that crowning -advantage, the mammary glands; the female solely is responsible for the -development of nature’s aristocracy, Order Mammalia. - -In the human species she adds to her previous contributions to racial -progress the invention of our primitive industries, which were evolved -by her in service to the young, and later carried out by men into the -trades and crafts which support human life. In the developing care -and nurture of her children she laid the foundation for those social -functions of government, education, and coöperative industry which are -so vitally important to social progress that we have called the family -“the unit of the state.” - -This is an error. The family is the prototype of the state, a tiny -primitive state in itself, often quite inimical to the interests of -the larger state which has developed through the wider interaction of -individuals. The state does not elect families, tax families, punish -families, nor thrive where physical inheritance is made the basis of -authority. Where the family persists too powerfully, as in China, there -is a commensurate lack in the vitality and efficiency of the state. By -restricting women to the family relationship, with its compulsory woman -service and domestic morality, we have checked and perverted social -growth by keeping out of it the most effective factor in that growth, -the mother. - -The world having been for so long dominated by the individualistic -and combative male, with that vast increment of masculine thought and -emotion embodied in our literature, our religion, our art, modifying -all our ideals, it is not to be wondered at that the newly freed women -are as yet unable to see their opportunity, their power, and their -long-prevented sex duty--race improvement. - -The collapse of the arbitrary and unjust domestic morality of the past -will presently be followed by recognition of the social morality of -the future. Rightly discarding artificial standards of virtue based -on the pleasure of men, we shall establish new ones based on natural -law. Repudiating their duty to an owner and master, women have yet -to accept and fulfill their duty to society, to the human race. This -is not generally clear to them. In their legitimate rebellion against -domestic service and compulsory sex-service they almost inevitably -confuse these things with marriage, with which indeed they have been -long synonymous. Some of our most valuable women, as well as many of -negligible importance, speak of marriage as if it were an invention -of Queen Victoria. Surely no excessive education is needed to learn -that monogamy, among many of the higher carnivora and birds, is as -natural a form of sex union as the polygamy of the grass eaters or -the promiscuity among insects, reptiles, and fish. Monogamy appears -when it is to the advantage of the young to have the continued care -of both parents. This means that the parents share in the activities -of supporting the family; it does not mean that the female becomes -the servant of the male. Because of the united activities and mutual -services of the pair love is developed, and stays. Such profound -affection is found in some of these natural “marriages” that if one -of a pair is killed the other will not mate again. Mated leopards -or ostriches do not remain together because they are “Victorian” or -“puritanical,” but because they like to. They could form as many and as -variegated “free unions” as Greenwich Villagers if they choose; there -is nothing to stop them. - -But natural monogamy is as free from sex service as from domestic -service. The pairing species adhere to their mating season as do the -polygamous ones, or even the promiscuous. Man is the only animal using -this function out of season and apart from its essential purpose. -These natural monogamists are not “ascetics.” They are not dominated -by religious doctrine or civil law. They fulfill their natural desires -with the utmost freedom, but these desires do not move them out of -season. - -The human species, with all its immense advantages, has made many -conspicuous missteps. Its eating habits are such as to have induced a -wide assortment of wholly unnecessary diseases; its drinking habits -are glaringly injurious; and its excessive indulgence in sex-waste has -imperiled the life of the race. - -Domestic morality vaguely recognized some duty to society and sought -through religion to limit masculine desires or at least to restrict -their indulgence to marriage. But the desires of a vigorous polygamist -are not easily restricted to one wife; and our polygamous period was -far longer than that of the recently established monogamy. It is a most -reassuring fact in social evolution that monogamy, naturally belonging -to our species, has persisted among the common people and in popular -ideals: even in “The Arabian Nights” the love story is always about -one man and one woman, never of the mad passion for a harem! So with -the accelerated progress of recent centuries monogamous union becomes -accepted, and is carefully buttressed by the law, while religion, with -commandments and ceremonies, does its best to establish “the sanctity -of marriage.” But as religion, law, and family authority were all in -the hands of men, they naturally interpreted that sanctity to suit -themselves, ignored the religious restrictions, and so handled the law -as to apply its penalties to but one party in a dual offense. - -Social morality requires the promotion of such lines of conduct as are -beneficial to the maintenance and improvement of society. It will -demand of both man and woman the full development of personal health -and vigor, careful selection of the best mate by both, with recognition -on her side of special responsibility as the natural arbiter. It -will encourage such sex relations as are proved advantageous both to -individual happiness and to the race. We are as yet so hag-ridden -by domestic morality, with its arbitrary restrictions, and by the -threats and punishments of law and religion, that we shrink from the -broader biological judgment as if it involved blame, punishment, -compulsory reform. Not at all. Men and women are no more to blame for -being oversexed than a prize hog for being over-fat. The portly pig -is not sick or wicked, he is merely overdeveloped in adipose tissue. -Our condition does not call for condemnation, nor can we expect any -sudden and violent change in our behavior resting on foolish ideals of -celibacy, of self-denial, or of “sublimated sex.” It will take several -generations of progressive selection, with widely different cultural -influences, to reëstablish a normal sex development in _genus homo_, -with its consequences in happier marriage, better children, and wide -improvement in the public health. - -It is to this end, with all its widening range of racial progress, that -social morality tends. - - - - -Women--Free for What? - -By Edwin Muir - - - - -Edwin Muir, - -_poet and essayist, has been assistant editor of the_ New Age -(_London_) _as well as dramatic critic for the_ Scotsman _and the_ -Athenæum. _He was a frequent contributor to_ The Freeman. - - - - -WOMEN--FREE FOR WHAT? - -BY EDWIN MUIR - - -In the beginning of the Scottish Shorter Catechism there is a beautiful -affirmation. “The chief end of man,” it says, “is to glorify God and -enjoy Him forever.” - -To any one nourished on the literature and thought of the last -half-century that sentence, which defines the chief purpose of life as -praise and enjoyment, comes like an audacious blasphemy, a blasphemy, -however, bringing light and freedom. The terms of the dogma are a -little antiquated now, but it would be easy to restate them in modern -language. For “God” we might substitute “nature and man” or, if we -were metaphysically inclined, “God in nature and man.” The authors of -the Shorter Catechism, entangled as they were in a gloomy theology, -recognized that the significance of life cannot reside in the labor by -which men maintain it, but in some kind of realization of ourselves -and of the world which is the highest enjoyment conceivable of both. - -Let us go back for a few decades and see if we can catch the values of -our time confusedly shaping themselves within the framework of human -life. I say shaping themselves, for as Nietzsche said fifty years ago, -the time of the conscious valuers has passed; our values for a century -have not been created, they have happened. They happened because men -had become skeptical not merely of God, or of the existence of a moral -order, but of life itself, and could not set before themselves any -purpose justifying life, but only its bare mechanism, work, duty, -the preservation of society. It has been, thus, one of the main -achievements of modern thought to banish from the world the notion -of enjoyment. This was begun first in a philosophical way by the -utilitarians, who were reasonably convinced that, factories existing -for the first time as far as they knew in history, it was incumbent -on men to work in them. A fine philosophy, truly; yet men believed in -it. After the utilitarians came the advocates of self-help, who showed -that the utilitarian policy might not be without individual advantage; -that if one cut off one’s pleasures, or at least those which cost -money, one might win a bizarre, undreamed-of success. The anchorites of -wealth arose, the great men who, when they had acquired riches which -might have built a new Florence, if scarcely a new Jerusalem, could -make no use of them, preferring to teach in Sunday-schools and endow -universities. In the eyes of these men wealth was justified only if -it could not be enjoyed, for enjoyment was the one thing which went -against all their ideas, all those instincts which had set them where -they stood. Wealth, thus, could not be enjoyed, could not be used, for -when they had reached their end the means still remained means. - -The disciples of Smiles have disappeared; men get rich in other ways -now; nevertheless a whole view of life has been left behind which we -have not fundamentally questioned. The Victorians established the basis -of morals in utility; we have come to the stage when we imagine that -the basis of life itself is utility. For recreation as an end in itself -we have so little appreciation that even sport has become a kind of -duty, and nothing is more devastating than the scorn of a conscientious -athlete for those who, enjoying perfectly good health, do not go -to the trouble of keeping themselves fit. A little unpremeditated -pleasure still persists in our common lives, in fox-trotting, drinking, -and revues, but it is without either taste or resource; it is not -expression but simply relaxation, an amusing way of being tired. -The one thing that people will not pardon is the taking of pleasure -seriously as an end in itself. The æsthete, at the Renaissance a type -of the opulence of life, and quite a common, indeed an expected type, -is in our day an aberration demanding our satire when once we have -overcome our indignation. Nothing shows more disastrously how incapable -we are of entertaining the conviction that life in itself, apart from -the labor necessary to make it possible, is a thing worth living. Even -art has justified itself for several decades chiefly by its social -utility, and only now, against strong opposition, is it escaping from -the barriers set up by the generation overawed by Mr. Shaw and Mr. -Wells. The notion that men may be on the earth for something else than -sweating is dead. We have arrived at an amazing incapacity for joy; -and life is to us always less worth living than it should be. - -This exaltation of means has brought about a general -instrumentalization of life. It weighs heavily upon men; but upon women -its weight is crushing, for women have not such a ready capacity as -men for transforming themselves to the image of their functions, and -they disfigure themselves more in the attempt. Consequently, as woman -has taken a large and larger part in our tentative and unsatisfactory -civilization she has undergone, in fact and in people’s minds, a -distorting process. It is true, woman, lovely woman, the fair charmer, -has passed away; but we are hardly better off now when she has become -a term like economics. After the economic man has come the economic -woman; that is, an entity almost as useful as machinery, and for the -inner culture of mankind almost as uninteresting. - -How, in striving for emancipation, woman has reached such a dismal -stage in her development is one of the saddest stories of our time. -The age is an age of work; woman desires freedom, the right of every -human being; and freedom in such an age can only mean the freedom to -work. But to work, except in a few vocations such as art, is in our -time to specialize oneself, and the freedom of women has necessarily -resolved itself into a permission to do little things which can give -them no final satisfaction. Their freedom is bounded by the slavery -under which men, too, suffer; and in changing their occupations they -have not escaped from the cage, but only out of one compartment of -it into another, a little more cheerless than the first. They have -achieved a little more liberty than they had before; but this liberty -is disenchanting because it leaves them as far away as ever from the -full liberty of their spirit. Perhaps in no other age has woman been, -in a deep, instinctive sense, so skeptical as she is at present. - -And for all this the age--an age in which labor has a fantastic -prominence--is responsible; for it is in a time when everybody works, -and when there is nothing conceivable that one can do but work, that -the cantankerous question of inequality arises. Only in a race can one -be slower than another; only then does the necessity to become as good -a runner as the fastest come home poignantly to every one. But if it -should happen that life is not a race at all? Where leisure is regarded -as a more important thing than work and work falls into its proper, -subordinate place as the mere means to leisure one does not think very -much about inequality, for it has no longer any urgent importance. -Nor does one set much value, except in superficials, on uniformity. -Among people free from crushing labor (as the whole human race may -some time be) there has always been delight in diversity and scorn -for uniformity; for, to people enjoying their spirit and the world, -diversity even when it is exasperating is of infinite interest, giving -a satisfying sense of the richness of life. - -Comedy--and comedy is idleness tolerantly enjoying itself--is founded, -it has been said, upon a recognition of the equality of the sexes; but -it would be more just to say that it is founded upon a view of life -into which the notions of equality and inequality do not enter at all, -because they are unnecessary. To Congreve and Stendhal women were not -the inferior sex, for, in spite of the conventions in which ostensibly -they moved, they were free, and therefore interesting. And remote -as these figures are from us, they demonstrate a very useful truth, -that the way to get over our stupid obsession with inequality is to -reach a stage where diversity will be the norm, involving disadvantage -to no one. Toward that stage, which can only be made possible by a -more general leisure, we are moving, if what the reformers and the -scientists tell us is true. It will be a stage in which rules will have -more importance than laws and spontaneous actions than obligations; -and most of the things we do will be regarded as play rather than -duty. Conduct will probably be about a fourth of life, instead of the -three-fourths postulated by Matthew Arnold. And although this state -has not come yet and may not come for a long time, it would be as -sensible to found a philosophy upon it as upon a period of transition -as dismal and impermanent as ours. Moreover the values of the past are -against us as well as those of the future which we imagine. There is a -certain ignobility in the dispute over human inequality, a failure to -rise to the human level. It is not a question but a misunderstanding, -which the accumulated imaginative culture of the world might have made -impossible. A little sense of the richness of life would disperse -it. Who would be so fantastic as to say that Falstaff is greater or -less than Ophelia, or whether Uncle Toby is the exact equal of Anna -Karenina? To ask the question is to evoke at once an image of the -diverse riches of human nature and of the poverty of mind which can -reduce it to such terms, destroying all interest and all nuance. - -But where our instrumental philosophy has had the most grotesque -effect has been upon our conception of love. People have come to -regard love as merely a device for propagating the race. Now this view -of love is not new; it has always been dear to the bourgeoisie, who -have always thought it a matter of immense moment that they should -have sons to carry on their businesses when they were dead. It is the -immemorial philistine conception of love: the strange thing is that it -has been taken over by the intelligentsia and glorified. This is in -the strictest sense a revolution in thought. No one who has written -beautifully of love has thought of it as the intellectuals think. To -Plato and Dante the essence of love did not reside in procreation; -nor has procreation been anything but a divine accident to the poets. -And that is in the human tradition, and probably in the natural order -of things; for it is possible that both love and procreation are most -perfect when they are unpremeditated, and the child comes as a gift and -a surprise; for in the fruits of joy there is a principle of exuberance -which distinguishes them from the fruits of duty. - -The intellectuals have destroyed the humanistic conception of love -as pure spontaneity, as expression, by setting its justification not -within itself, but in the child. In “Man and Superman” Mr. Shaw makes -Tanner say that if our love did not produce another human being to -serve the community, the community would have the sacred right of -killing us off, just as the hive kills off the drones who do not attain -the queen bee. But what does that mean? It means that happiness is of -no importance, that it is a matter of the slightest moment whether, in -a life which will never be given to us again, we realize some of the -potentialities of our being or pass through it blind to the end. If it -is worth while living at all, this must needs be the precise opposite -of the truth. The child, like everything else, is justified; but it is -not justified because it adds to the potential wealth of society, but -because it adds to our present delight, and moreover lives a life as -valid as our own. The truth is that we dare not admit that any pleasure -whatever has a right to exist without serving society, and serving it -deliberately. The joys of other generations have become our duties; and -it is significant that Mr. Shaw and the bulk of the intelligentsia are -at one on the birth-rate with the Roman Catholic Church, that church -which has on many occasions through its theologians affirmed its belief -that sensual love is a guilty thing, and, using its own kind of logic, -has exhorted man to multiply and replenish the earth. - -“The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever”; and -that being so, it is the task of those who are a little more serious -than the serious to set about discovering the principles of glory -and enjoyment in life. And--I am setting down a truism--the main -principle of enjoyment for the human race is not art, nor thought, nor -the practice of virtue, but for man, woman, and for woman, man. The -exchange of happiness between the sexes is not only the creative agent -in human life, perpetuating it; it is also the thing which gives the -perpetuation of life its chief meaning. People have always felt this -vaguely; it has made labor endurable to them; but hardly ever have they -recognized it clearly, and to the poets and artists who know it they -have always responded a little skeptically. They have thought of love -as a justification a little too materialistic for life; but love is -only materialistic when it is regarded as a means. - -To accept men and women as ends in themselves, to enter into their -life as one of them, is to partake of absolute life, that life which -at every moment realizes itself, existing for its own sake. We cannot -live in that life continuously; for the accomplishment of the intricate -purposes of society we must at certain times and with part of our -minds regard our fellow-creatures as instruments; but the more we tend -to do so the more we banish joy from life. Life does not consist, -whatever the utilitarians may say, in functioning, but in living; and -life comes into being where men and women, not as functions, but -as self-constituted entities, intersect. This is the state which in -religion as well as art has been called life; this is the final life -of the earth, beyond which there is no other. We may accept it or pass -it by; but whatever we may do with it, it is our chief end, giving -meaning to the multitudinous pains of humanity. This commerce between -men and women is not merely sexual, in the narrow sense which we have -given the word; it involves every human joy, all the thoughts and -aspirations of mankind stretching into infinity. It is the thing which -has inspired all great artists, mystical as well as earthy. It is the -point of reference for any morality which is not a disguised kind of -adaptation; for virtue consists in the capacity to partake freely of -human happiness. All reform, all economic and political theory has a -meaning in so far as it makes for this; and that was recognized by the -first reformers, the utopians who had not yet become mere specialists -in reform. - -The libertarian movement has been such a dismal affair, thus, not -because it has been too free, but because it has not been free enough. -The democracies and the women of the world have been potentially -liberated; but not so very long ago they were slaves, and they have -still a slave’s idea of freedom. Instead of equal joys they have -asked for equal obligations; and the whole world is in the grip of -a psychological incapacity to escape from the idea of obligation. -Against the unreasonable solemnity which this has imposed on everything -there is little left for us except a deliberate and reasonable -light-heartedness; this, and the faith that the human race will some -time attain the only kind of freedom worth striving for, a freedom in -joy. - - - - -Virtue for Women - -By Isabel Leavenworth - - -Isabel Leavenworth - -_is an instructor in philosophy at Barnard College_. - - - - -VIRTUE FOR WOMEN - -BY ISABEL LEAVENWORTH - - -In the turmoil of discussion regarding present modes of sex life one -can discern a pretty general approval of just one element in the whole -situation: the ideal by which the good woman has for so long been -controlled. It is commonly held that if changes are to be made they -should be in the direction of persuading men, and also the few women -who have been at fault, to be just as good as our good women have -always been. Thus the young girl of to-day is criticized on the ground -that instead of raising men to her level she is descending to theirs. -Even those who are inclined to belittle the damage which she is doing -to the social structure accompany their mild defense with the consoling -reminder that human nature does not change and that in the end the girl -of to-day will turn out as well as did the girls of yesterday; that is, -she will finally come around to the good old feminine way of doing -things. - -It seems to me most unfortunate that the majority of people hope to -improve matters through an extension of the feminine ideals of the -past. In the established scheme of things one finds a peculiarly gross -form of immorality, an immorality incommensurably greater than the -dreaded evil of promiscuity; and it is only as an element in this total -scheme that woman’s ideals have any significance. The fact that they -have always constituted one side of a “double standard” is not merely -something which may be said about their relation to other elements -after their essential characteristics have been considered. These -characteristics can be described only in terms of the double standard -and of its attendant evils. It would be as impossible, then, to destroy -the double standard and still keep the feminine ideal intact as it -would be to preserve the convex nature of a mathematical curve while -destroying the concave. According to the present system there is a -standard of conduct set up for women which is to constitute virtue. -This standard is a combination of specific positive commands and, more -especially, of specific prohibitions. There are certain things which -no nice woman will do--a great many things, in fact. She must learn -them by heart and accept them on faith as the Pythagoreans must have -had to learn their curious list of taboos, a list running from the -taboo against eating beans to that against sitting on a quart measure. -This ideal of virtue does not apply with equal rigidity to men; quite -different things are expected of them and accepted for them. It is -obvious that two such conflicting ideals by the very nature of their -combination will produce a class of women who do not live up to the -standard of virtue set them as members of their sex. This class is not -merely an excrescence but an integral part of the situation created by -the total sex ideal of society. The function of women of this class is -to make possible for men the way of life commonly considered as suited -to their sex and to make possible a virtuous life for the remainder of -womankind. In fulfilling this function such women lose, in the eyes of -society, their moral nature and forfeit the right to live within the -pale of social morality. They are considered unfit for normal social -intercourse and are denied those relationships and responsibilities -which ordinarily serve as the basis for moral growth. From all normal -responsibility toward them society regards itself as released. That -which is personal, the inner life, the character, the soul--whatever -one prefers to call it--having been sacrificed in the service of the -social scheme, one is to treat what is left as of no value in itself, -but merely as an instrument to be used in the service of man’s pleasure -or woman’s virtue. The prostitute is to society that one thing, defined -by the purpose which she serves, and that is all she is, all she is -allowed to be. The depersonalization, the moral non-existence, one -might call it, of a large number of women is, then, implicit in the -social system currently accepted. It is not a punishment meted out to -those who fail to act in accordance with the social scheme (though -it is as such, of course, that society defends it) but is itself an -absolutely essential element in the social scheme, an element woven in -and out through the entire fabric of current sex morality. - -It is curious how many people feel that a choice between the present -system and any other is reducible to a choice between different -degrees of promiscuity. Promiscuity would be an evil, but it does -not in itself involve this particular immorality. The worst evils in -the present situation are due not to the “lower” half of the double -standard but to the doubleness itself. - -It is true that the ideal of womanly virtue is only one element in the -conventional system of sex morality. But, like a Leibnitzian monad, it -reflects the whole universe within itself--the universe of sex mores. -It is in no real sense any “higher” than the ideal by which men have -lived. They are warp and woof of the same fabric. According to this -ideal it is woman’s prime duty to keep aloof from evil. This sounds -commendable enough. And it would be at least innocuous if one could -interpret it as meaning that woman should hold herself aloof from some -imagined evil that would become existent were she to embrace it. This -is not, however, a possible interpretation of the varied collection of -prohibitions which it is her duty to respect. Their import is clearly -enough that she is to keep aloof from evil which is already existent, -which is an acknowledged part of her background. She is to shun all -of those vulgarities, coarsenesses, and immoralities which are to -enter into the lives of men and for which, one is forced to conclude, -the “other” women are to provide. And from this other class of women -she is, of course, to keep herself absolutely separate, distinct. I -recently heard an elderly Boston lady make a remark which expresses the -horror commonly aroused by any conduct which endangers the distinction -between the two classes. “Do you know,” she said, “I heard that a young -man of our set said he and his friends no longer had to go to girls of -another kind for their enjoyment. They can get all they want from girls -of their own class.” This was the outrage. The nice girls were allowing -the classes to become confused. Much the same attitude is revealed in -the frequent remark that the young girl of to-day appears like “any -chorus girl” or like any “common woman.” The horrid picture is usually -rounded off with the comment that you simply can’t tell the difference -any more between the nice girl and the other kind. One can imagine that -this might cause considerable inconvenience. Each of the two classes -of women has served a special purpose and it is, to say the least, -disconcerting for a person not to know which way to turn when he knows -very well which purpose he wants fulfilled. - -The precautions which a good woman takes to preserve her purity are -indeed legion. There are places where no nice woman will go, situations -with which she must have no immediate acquaintance, people with whom -she must not associate; there are various embodiments of evil, in -short, to which she must not expose herself. That these evils should -exist, that they should be tolerated as meeting certain needs in the -lives of men and be made possible by other women--all this the average -good woman swallows without repulsion, or, more commonly, ignores. -She is aroused to a state of true indignation only when her own moral -exclusiveness, or that of her kind, is threatened. The same woman who -accepts with a good deal of equanimity the fact that men she associates -with also associate with “gay” women would be considerably upset if -these men were to attempt to associate with both kinds of women at -the same time. Why is the average woman so upset if a man of her -acquaintance makes “improper advances”? Is it that she is horrified to -find that he is willing to indulge his irregular sex desires? No. She -is outraged because he thinks she is willing to indulge hers, because -he holds her virtue too lightly. Sex evils, coarsenesses are then to be -part of the good woman’s environment in the intimate sense that they -often enter into the lives of the men she accepts as friends, even of -the men with whom she is to have the most personal and supposedly ideal -relationships. Her sole function is to turn her back on these evils. -The point of prime importance to her is that they should not pollute -her; and the first demand which she makes upon men is that they shall -show their respect for this ideal by keeping her apart. - -The acceptance of this situation is implied in the ideals which are -passed down to girls by the good old-fashioned parent. Do the mothers -who insist that their daughters shall not go with boys on certain -occasions and at certain hours unchaperoned expect boys to refrain -from seeing any girls except on occasions thus carefully timed and -adequately supervised? I doubt it. Whatever their expectations may be, -it is certain that they would rather that the good girl should cling -to protection, letting the man seek gayety where he may, than that she -should take the chance involved in seeking gayety by his side. They -would rather have what they consider the evil sex element taken care -of by men and by a class of women devoted by society to that purpose -than to risk any slip in conduct on the part of their own daughters. -Purity purchased at such a price may be purity in some magical sense, -similar to that secured in the ancient mysteries by passing through -fire or going in bathing with sacred pigs. Purity in any moral sense -it certainly is not. It is simply a social asset, like physical beauty -or pleasing accomplishments, so tremendously valuable to woman that -for it she has been willing to pay any moral price, however degrading. -Its non-moral character is revealed in the common assumption that any -man can, without injury to himself, pass through experiences or be -placed in situations from which, since they would pollute her, every -good woman must be guarded. This assumption, so obviously insulting to -women, is at present complacently accepted by them as something of a -compliment. - -William Graham Sumner in his remarkably unemotional and objective -treatment of social customs devotes some pages to a description of the -houses of prostitution established and run by the cities of medieval -Europe “in the interest of virtuous women.” In this connection Mr. -Sumner for once indulges in terms of opprobrium, judging the custom -as “the most incredible case” illustrating “the power of the mores -to extend toleration and sanction to an evil thing.” The inmates of -these houses were dedicated entirely to this special function, wore -distinctive dress, and were taboo to all “good” women whose virtue, -according to the scheme of things, they made possible. Authority for -such a custom can be found, as Sumner points out, in Saint Augustine, -the reformed rake. “The bishop,” writes Sumner, “has laid down the -proposition that evil things in human society, under the great orderly -scheme of things which he was trying to expound, are overruled to -produce good.” Is not this the position taken by people who hold -that it is better to have prostitution in order to provide for the -assumed sex irregularity of men than to risk the loss of a woman’s -“virtue” through the removal of those conventions and taboos which -prevent her from coping with the situation herself and making her own -moral decisions? I can see no difference. Has man at any period of -his checkered moral career devised a more unpleasant method of saving -his own soul? The good woman sits serenely on the structure upheld -for her by prostitutes and occasionally even commits the absurdity of -attempting to “reform” these women, the necessity for whose existence -is implied by the beliefs according to which she herself lives. - -It is hard to follow the mental processes of those persons who, while -deploring the increased freedom allowed women and the tendency to judge -them less severely, still claim belief in a single standard for both -sexes. In so far as woman’s virtue consists in aloofness from the evils -which the double standard implies it quite obviously cannot be adopted -as the single standard by which all members of society are to live. -Even aside from this consideration it would seem to be as undesirable -as it is impossible to extend to men the traditions and restrictions -which have for so long governed women. Does any one really wish to -have grown boys constantly accompanied and watched over by their -elders? Does any one wish that the goings and comings of men should be -as specifically determined as those of women have always been? Should -we look forward to a day when a man will be judged as good or bad on -the sole basis of whether or not he has ever had any irregular sex -relation? - -One would think that the suspicions of even the most uncritical might -be aroused by the rigidly absolute and impersonal nature of women’s -sex ideals. The notion of purity as lying in the abstention from a -particular act except under carefully prescribed circumstances has -all the marks of a primitive taboo and none of the characteristics of -a rational moral principle. The ideals of woman’s honor and chastity -have without doubt been built up in answer to human wants--the defense -which is invariably given of customs, good or bad. Probably those -sociologists are not far wrong who hold that they have developed as -a response, in early times, to the sentiments of man as a property -owner; later, in response to masculine vanity and jealousy, though -these motives have, of course, been idealized beyond all recognition. -We need not be surprised, then, to find that they bear no relation -to an interest in woman’s spiritual welfare and growth, an interest -to which society is only now giving birth with pitiable pains of -labor. To follow an ideal which almost entirely excludes sex interest -as something evil is to condemn one of the richest elements in -personal experience. And this ideal has regulated not only woman’s -sex experience but has demanded and received incalculable sacrifices -in all the phases of her life, mercilessly limiting the sphere of her -activities, smothering interests of value and nourishing others to an -unnatural state of development, and warping her character to satisfy -its most exacting demands. Because she must first of all conform -to an unpolluted archetype, and because society must be secure in -the knowledge that she is indeed so conforming, she has never been -able to meet life freely, to make what experience she could out of -circumstances, to poke about here and there in the nooks and crannies -of her surroundings better to understand the world in which she lives. -We find here a more subtle but more deadly limitation than exclusion -from institutions of learning or from political privileges. And under -this limitation woman has labored in the service of a paltry ideal. - -Not only is it undesirable that men should attempt to follow such -an ideal but it is quite obvious that as long as they accept it -as adequate for women they are prevented in innumerable ways from -developing intelligent principles for their own guidance. For one -thing, they will come to look upon the sex element in most of its forms -as a moral evil. Experience tells them, however, that it is, in their -own case, a natural good. Thus they are led to accept a distinction -fatal to moral integrity and progress. The sex element is admitted to -the life of the average man by the back door; once within, it has fair -run of the establishment though it is always looked on askance by the -other members of the household. Sex interests are to be recognized and -indulged but divorced from all that is “fine” and “ideal.” They are -considered desirable though immoral and so are to be tolerated just to -the extent that they are divorced from those elements in society--the -family, the home, and good women--which are supposed to embody virtue. -It is not realized that virtue, far from being a rival of the other -good things of life, is to be attained only through an intelligent -interest in good things, and that to divorce moral from natural good -is to deal a death blow to both. We cannot wonder that at present sex -interest so often expresses itself in the form of dubious stories, -coarse revues, and degrading physical relations. While the “good” woman -who considers sex somehow lowering is apt to develop a personality -which is anemic and immature, the man who accepts the conventional -scheme of life develops a personality coarse and uncoördinated. - -I do not mean to say that there have been no elements of value in the -ideal of purity by which some women have lived. It is undoubtedly true -that unregulated and impersonal sex desires and activities quarrel with -more stable and fruitful interests in life. But while the most valuable -experiences of love are, in general, to be found in more lasting -relations, it does not follow that society should prescribe for every -one of its members a particular line of sex conduct and attempt to see, -through constant supervision, that its prescriptions are carried out. -The sacrifice in terms of freedom of activity and experience is too -great and the living flower of personal purity cannot be manufactured -by any such artificial methods. - -The sex relations of an individual should no more be subjected to -social regulation than his friendships. There is indeed a closely -related matter for which he is immediately responsible to society--that -is the welfare of any children resulting from such relations. The two -matters are, however, quite distinguishable and no one could hold that -the effort which society makes to control sex relations is to any -extent based upon concern for the welfare of possible offspring. If -this were so, one would not hear so much condemnation of birth-control -measures on the ground that they “encourage immorality.” No. It is -personal experience which society would like to prescribe for its -members, personal virtue that it would like to mold for them. But -virtue is not a predetermined result, a kind of spiritual dessert that -any one can cook up who will follow with due care the proper ethical -receipt. It is, on the contrary, something which is never twice alike; -something which appears in ever new and lovely forms as the fruit -of harmoniously developed elements in a unique character complex. -Experience cannot be defined in terms of external circumstances and -bodily acts and thus judged as absolutely good or bad. Sex experiences, -like other experiences, can be judged of only on the basis of the part -which they play in the creative drama of the individual soul. There -are as many possibilities for successful sex life as there are men and -women in the world. A significant single standard can be attained only -through the habit of judging every case, man or woman, in the light of -the character of the individual and of the particular circumstances in -which he or she is placed. - -From the changes taking place in sex morality we may, with sufficient -wisdom and courage, win inestimable gains. Certainly we should be -grateful that young people are forming the habit of meeting this old -problem in a quite new way--that is, with the coöperation of the two -sexes. In the interest of this newer approach we should accord to -girls as much freedom from immediate supervision as we have always -given to boys. The old restrictions, imposed upon girls alone, imply, -of course, the double standard with all its attendant evils; imply the -placid acceptance of two essentially different systems of value; imply -the preference for physical purity over personal responsibility and -true moral development. We should encourage the daughters of to-day -in their fast developing scorn for the “respect” which our feminine -predecessors thought was their due--a respect which man was expected -to reveal in the habit of keeping the nice woman untouched by certain -rather conspicuous elements, interests, and activities in his own life. -In so far as there is something truly gay in these aspects of life, -something which men know at the bottom of their hearts they should not -be called on to forego, there is much that women can learn. Most people -to-day hold in their minds an image of two worlds--one of gayety and -freedom, the other of morality. It is because gayety and morality are -thus divorced that gayety becomes sordidness, morality dreariness. -Not until men and women develop together the legitimate interests -which both of these worlds satisfy will the present inconsistency and -hypocrisy be done away with and both men and women be free to achieve, -if they can, rich and unified personal lives. - - - - -Where Are the Female Geniuses? - -By Sylvia Kopald - - - - -Sylvia Kopald - -_is primarily a specialist in labor and the author of a recent study of -outlaw strikes, “Rebellion in Labor Unions.”_ - - - - -WHERE ARE THE FEMALE GENIUSES? - -BY SYLVIA KOPALD - - -Many years ago, Voltaire was initiated into the mysteries of Newton by -Mme. du Châtelet. Finishing her translation and her rich commentary -upon the _Principles_, in a glow he extended to her the greatest -tribute which man has yet found for exceptional women. He said, “A -woman who has translated and illuminated Newton is, in short, a very -great man.” Genius has long been a masculine characteristic, although -some more generous authors admit its possession by certain “depraved” -women. Only the courtesans of classical antiquity could be women and -individuals at once, and, therefore, Jean Finot found it necessary to -remind us emphatically even in 1913 that “women of genius and talent -are not necessarily depraved.” Not necessarily, mind you. No, the -great woman may be, in short, a great man, but she is not necessarily -depraved. - -As the twentieth century progresses and women capture the outposts of -individuality one after the other, the old questions lose much of their -old malignancy. Women battle with the problem of how to combine a home -and a career and men become less sure (especially in these days of high -living costs) that woman’s place is in the home. As women enter the -trades and the arts and the professions, men begin to discover comrades -where there were only girls and wives and mothers before. It is an -exciting century, this women’s century, and even though prejudices -crumble slowly, they crumble. Yet one of the old questions remains, -stalwart and unyielding as ever: Where are the female geniuses? - -Even a pessimist may find cause for rejoicing in this final wording -of the “woman question.” Man’s search for the female genius is more -consoling than his sorrowful quest for the snows of yesteryear. For -snows, like all beauty, have a way of melting with time; a mind ripens -and mellows with age. Granted a mind which it is no longer a shame or a -battle to develop, women can look upon the passing of the years with at -least as great an equanimity as does man. She remains in the picture -of life long after the Maker’s paints have begun to dry. And that is -good. But as long as the female geniuses remain undiscovered, it must -be also a bit insecure. Women may have minds--every average man will -now grant that. But (he will quickly ask) have they ever much more than -average minds? Look at history, which this time really does prove what -you want it to. Every high peak in the historic landscape is masculine. -Point them out just as they occur to you: Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, -Virgil, Horace, Catullus, Plato, Socrates, Newton, Darwin, Pasteur, -Watt, Edison, Steinmetz, Heine, Shelley, Keats, Beethoven, Wagner, -Bach, Tolstoi.... - -Where are the _female_ geniuses? - -It has really become much more than a question of feminist -conversation. Science has attempted to put its seal of approval upon -the implied answer to this rhetorical question. It has sought to put -the notion that “a woman is only a woman, but a genius is a man,” into -impressively scientific lingo. The argument goes something like this: -In regard to practically all anatomical, physiological, and psychic -characteristics, the male exhibits a greater variability (i.e. a -greater range of spreading down from and up above the average) than -the female. The male is the agent of variation; the female is the -agent of type conservation. This sex difference operates in the realm -of mental ability as everywhere. In any comparable group of men and -women, the distribution of intelligence will tend to follow the law of -chances (Gaussian Curve). But female intelligence will cluster far more -about its average than male. There will be more imbeciles and idiots -among men, but there will also be more geniuses. It is really very -simple, as the following arbitrary example will show. Supposing you -take comparable sample groups of 1000 men and 1000 women from a given -population. After testing them for grade of intelligence, you classify -them according to previously accepted “intelligence classes.” Your -results would tend to read a little like this: - - _Number_ _Number_ - _Intelligence Class_ _Men_ _Women_ - Idiots 10 3 - Inferior 100 50 - Slow 200 150 - Average 380 595 - Able 200 150 - Highly Talented 100 52 - Geniuses 10 .. - -Of course none of the proponents of this theory would state the alleged -facts of man’s greater variability in such bald terms. But all of them -would agree that men do vary more than women and in some such fashion. -In this greater variability they see the explanation of men’s monopoly -of genius. - -According to Karl Pearson this “law of the greater variability of the -male” was first stated by Darwin. Somewhat earlier, the anatomist -Meckel had concluded that the female is more variable than the male. -It is interesting to note in passing that he consequently judged -“variation a sign of inferiority.” By the time Burdach, Darwin, and -others had declared the male more variable, however, variation had -become an advantage and the basis and hope of all progress. To-day -great social significance is attached to the comparative variability -of the sexes, especially in its application to the questions of -sex differences in mental achievement. Probably the outstanding -English-speaking supporters of the theory in its modern form have been -Havelock Ellis and Dr. G. Stanley Hall. But even so cautious a student -as Dr. E. L. Thorndike has granted it his guarded support. And Dr. -James McKeen Cattell has explained the results of his study of 1000 -eminent characters of history by means of it. Indeed many others hold -the theory in one form or another--e.g. Münsterburg, Patrick. What is -most important, of course, is that its supporters do not stop with the -mere statement of the theory. They ascribe to it tremendous effects -in the past and ask for it a large influence in the shaping of our -policies in the present. - -For Havelock Ellis, the greater variability of the male “has social -and practical consequences of the widest significance. The whole of -our human civilization would have been a different thing if in early -zoölogical epochs the male had not acquired a greater variational -tendency than the female.” (“Man and Woman,” p. 387.) Professor Hall -builds up upon it a scheme of gushingly paradisaical (and properly -boring) education for the adolescent girl, which “keeps the purely -mental back” and develops the soul, the body, and the intuitions. -(“The Psychology of Adolescence,” Vol. II, Chap. 17.) Just because -Professor Thorndike is so careful in his statements, his practical -deductions from the theory are most interesting: “Thus the function of -education for women, though not necessarily differentiated by the small -differences in average capacity, is differentiated by the difference -in range of ability. Not only the probability and desirability of -marriage and the training of children as an essential feature of -women’s career but also the restriction of women to the mediocre grades -of ability and achievement should be reckoned with by our educational -systems. The education of women for such professions as administration, -statesmanship, philosophy, or scientific research, where a few very -gifted individuals are what society requires, is far less needed -than education for such professions as nursing, teaching, medicine, -or architecture, where the average level is essential. Elementary -education is probably an even better investment for the community in -the case of girls than in the case of boys; for almost all girls profit -by it, whereas the extremely low grade boy may not be up to his school -education in zeal or capacity and the extremely high grade boy may get -on better without it. So also with high school education. On the other -hand, post graduate instruction to which women are flocking in great -numbers is, at least in its higher reaches, a far more remunerative -social investment in the case of men.” (“Sex in Education,” _Bookman_, -Vol. XXIII, April, 1906, p. 213.) - -Before we begin the revision of our educational systems in accordance -with this theory, we must make sure that it really explains away -the “female geniuses.” For although the theory is still widely held -by biologists and psychologists, it requires only a short study to -discover how tenuous is the evidence adduced in support of it--in -all its phases, but especially in regard to mental traits. Darwin -apparently gave no statistical evidence to support “the principle,” -as he called it, and those who have followed him have done little to -fill the lack. Professor Hall offers evidence that is almost entirely -empirical; Havelock Ellis has been attacked by Karl Pearson for -doing much “to perpetuate some of the worst of the pseudo-scientific -superstitions to which he [Ellis] refers, notably that of the greater -variability of the male human being.” Professor Thorndike, in spite -of his conclusions, admits that it “is unfortunate that so little -information is available for a study of sex differences in the -variability of mental traits in the case of individuals over fifteen.” -And while the overwhelming majority of Professor Cattell’s 1000 eminent -characters are men, he merely states without proving his explanation -that “woman departs less from the normal than man.” - -Wise feminists to-day are concentrating their forces upon this theory. -Women have won the right to an acknowledged mind; they want now the -right to draw for genius and high talents in the “curve of chance.” -And this is no merely academic question. For while genius may overcome -the sternest physical barriers of environment, it is nourished and -developed by tolerant expectancy. Men may accomplish anything, -popular thought tells them, and so some men do. But if women are -scientifically excluded from the popular expectation of big things, if -their educations are toned down to preparation for “the average level,” -if motherhood remains the _only_ respected career for _all_ women, -then the female geniuses will remain few and far between. And, more -important still, all thinking women will continue restless over the -problem of how to secure the chance to vary in interests and abilities -from the average of their sex, and at the same time to be wives and -mothers. - -In this fight for a full chance to compete, woman may do one (or all) -of three things. She may merely ignore the theory and go on “working -and living,” trusting that as environmental barriers fall one after -the other, this final question, too, will lose its meaning. She can -point out in support of this attitude that the past does contain its -female geniuses, however few; and certainly if all the barriers that -have been set up against woman’s entry into the larger world have not -entirely stifled female genius, we may at least look forward hopefully -to a kinder future. Something of this attitude, of this demand for free -experimentation, must make part of every woman’s armor against the -implications of this theory. But taken alone, it becomes more merely -defensive than the status of the theory deserves. For it is really the -theory that must defend itself. It must not only bring forward more -affirmative evidence, but it must also meet the contrary findings of -such investigation as has been made. It must, again, prove its title -to _the cause_ of the scarcity of female geniuses when so many other -more eradicable causes may be at its bottom. - -The actual evidence that has been gathered on this question is still -uncertain and fragmentary. While it does not yet establish anything -definitely, it points to rather surprising conclusions. In all cases -investigated the discovered differences in variability have been -very slight, and if they balance either way tend to prove a greater -variability among women. Neither sex need have a monopoly of either -imbeciles or geniuses, but women may yet be found to be slightly more -favored with both! - -The first painstaking investigation in this field was made by Dr. Karl -Pearson who published his interesting results as one essay in his -_Chances of Death and Other Studies in Evolution_ in 1897. Under the -heading “Variation in Man and Woman” (Vol. I, pp. 256-377), written -as a polemical attack upon Havelock Ellis’s stand in this theory, he -set forth results of measurements upon men and women in seventeen -anatomical characteristics. He obtained his data from statistics -already collected, from measurements of living men and women, and -from post-mortem and archeological examinations. Female variability -(coefficients of variation) proved greater in eleven of these seventeen -characteristics, male in six. He concluded among other things that -“there is ... no evidence of greater male variability, but rather -of a slightly greater female variability. Accordingly the principle -that man is more variable than woman must be put on one side as a -pseudo-scientific superstition until it has been demonstrated in a more -scientific manner than has hitherto been attempted.” - -To round out this evidence Doctors Leta Hollingworth and Helen Montague -measured 20,000 infants at their birth in the maternity wards of the -New York Infirmary for Women and Children. They sought to discover -whether environmental influences played any determining rôle in -producing the results obtained by Pearson from measurements upon -adults. From the ten anatomical measurements made upon these babies -they found that “in all cases the differences in variability are very -slight. In only two cases does the percentile variation differ in the -first decimal place. In these two cases the variability is once greater -for males and once greater for females.” (“The Comparative Variability -of the Sexes at Birth,” _American Journal of Sociology_, Vol. XX, -1914-1915, pp. 335-370.) - -The findings on anatomical variability do not, of course, necessarily -prove anything about differences in the range of mental ability. They -do, however, suggest the probability of parallel results and such -studies as have been made tend, on the whole, to bear this out. All -the recent work in this field (and it is still fragmentary) seems to -point at least to equal mental variability among men and women. In -1917, Terman and others in their “Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon -Scale for Measuring Intelligence” investigated this problem among -school children from five to fourteen years old. They obtained the -Intelligence Quotients of 457 boys and 448 girls and compared these -I.Q.’s with teachers’ estimates and judgments of intelligence and work -and with the age grade distribution of the sexes for the ages of 7 to -14. After making all necessary qualifications, they concluded that -the tests revealed a small superiority in the intelligence of the -girls that “probably rests upon a real superiority in intelligence, -age for age.” But “apart from the small superiority of the girls, the -distribution of intelligence shows no significant differences in the -sexes. The data offer no support to the wide-spread belief that girls -group themselves more closely about the median or that extremes of -intelligence are more common among boys” (p. 83). - -Dr. Hollingworth, again, has made a study of mental differences -for adults. She has summarized the results of recent studies in -sex differences in mental variability and in tastes, perceptions, -interests, etc. Her conclusions on this score are interesting: “(1) The -greater variability of males in anatomical traits is not established, -but is debated by authorities of perhaps equal competence. (2) But even -if it were established, it would only suggest, not prove, that men are -more variable in mental traits also. The empirical data at present -available on this point are inadequate and contradictory, and if they -point either way, actually indicate greater female variability....” -(“Variability as Related to Sex Differences in Achievement,” _American -Journal of Sociology_, Vol. XIX, pp. 510-530, Jan., 1914.) - -It seems hardly safe scientifically, therefore, to restrict women to -the average levels in education and work and profession on the ground -that eminence is beyond their range. But if the female geniuses have -not been cut off by a comparatively narrowed range of mental ability, -where are they? Certainly history does not reveal them in anything like -satisfactory number. And it is now that women may bring forward their -third weapon of attack. The female geniuses may have been missing not -because of an inherent lack in the make-up of the sex, but because of -the oppressive, restrictive cultural conditions under which women have -been forced to live. - -The important rôle played by cultural conditions in the cultural -achievement of various nations and races has been noted with increasing -emphasis by the newer schools of sociology and anthropology. No scholar -can now defend unchallenged a thesis of “lower or higher races” by -urging the achievements of any race as an index of its range of mental -ability. Culture grows by its own laws and the high position of the -white race may be as much a product of favorable circumstances as -of exceptional innate capacities. Similarly the expression taken by -the genius of various nations appears to vary strikingly. This is -especially impressive in the realm of music. The Anglo-Saxon peoples -are singularly lacking in great musical composers. Neither Britain nor -America, nor indeed any of the northern countries have contributed -one composer worthy of mention beside the Beethovens and Wagners and -Chopins of this art. Indeed the great names in music are generally of -German, Latin or Slavic origin. Yet no one thinks of urging this fact -as evidence of an Anglo-Saxon failure of major creativeness. Instead -we point to achievements in other fields or at most attempt to explain -this peculiar lack by some external causation. Similarly all our -impatience with the un-artistic approaches of the American people does -not lead us to frame a theory of their lack of genius. There are many -cultural factors to be considered first. - -But as soon as we approach the problem of female genius, too many of us -are apt to bring forward an entirely different kind of interpretation. -We pass over the undoubted female geniuses lightly--granting Sappho and -Bonheur and Brunn and Eliot and Brontë and Amster and Madame Curie and -Caroline Herschel and perhaps even Chaminade and Clara Schumann and -several others. We admit the undoubtedly significant parts women are -playing in modern literature. But the question always remains. - -Yet in no national or racial group have cultural influences exercised -so restrictive an influence as among the entire female sex. Not only -has the larger world been closed to them, not only has popular opinion -assumed that “no woman has it in her,” but the bearing and rearing -of children has carried with it in the past the inescapable drudgery -of housework. And this is “a field,” as Dr. Hollingworth points out, -“where eminence is not possible.” - -It was Prudhon who sneered in response to a similar argument that -“women could not even invent their distaff.” But we now know enough -about the laws of invention to realize how unfair such sneering -is. Professor Franz Boas and his school have long demonstrated -that cultural achievement and mental ability are not necessarily -correlated. For material culture, once it begins, tends to grow by -accumulation and diffusion. Each generation adds to the existing stock -of knowledge, and as the stock grows the harvests necessarily become -greater. Modern man need have no greater mental ability than the -men of the ice ages to explain why his improvements upon the myriad -machines and tools that are his yield so much larger a harvest than -the Paleolithic hunters’ improvements upon their few flint weapons -and industrial processes. For, as Professor Ogburn has well shown (in -“Social Change,” Part III) all invention contains two elements--a -growing cultural base and inventive genius to work with the materials -it furnishes. The number of new inventions necessarily grows with the -cultural base. Even 50 times 100 make only 5000, but 2 times 1,000,000 -make 2,000,000. Countless generations have added their share to the -total material culture which is ours and which we shall hand down still -more enriched to posterity. - -It must be at once obvious that there has been no such cultural -growth in housework. Housework has long remained an individualized, -non-cumulative industry, where daughter learns from mother the old -ways of doing things. The small improvements and ingenuities which -most housewives devise seldom find their way into the whole stream of -culture. Thus it is that the recent great inventions which are slowly -revolutionizing this last stronghold of petty individualism have come -from the man-made world. Workers in electricity could more easily -devise the vacuum cleaner than the solitary housewife; the electric -washer, parquet floors, the tin can, quantity production of stockings, -wool, clothing, bread, butter, and all the other instruments that have -really made possible women’s emancipation have naturally come not from -women’s minds (any more than from men’s) but from the growth of culture -and the minds that utilize that growth for further expansion. - -Consequently, as women participate in the work of the world and win -the right to acquire the results of past achievement in science and -technique and art, we may expect their contributions to the social -advance to appear in ever greater numbers. Until we give them this -full chance to contribute, we have no right to explain the paucity of -their gifts to society by inherent lacks. And it seems reasonable to -expect that such a chance will render the old quest for female geniuses -properly old-fashioned. For they will be there, these women--the able -and talented and geniuses--working side by side with men, not as “very -great men” nor as necessarily “depraved” nor in any way unusual. They -will be there as human beings and as women. - - - - -Man and Woman as Creators - -By Alexander Goldenweiser - - - - -Alexander Goldenweiser, - -_psychologist and anthropologist, is a lecturer at the New School for -Social Research in New York_. - - - - -MAN AND WOMAN AS CREATORS - -BY ALEXANDER GOLDENWEISER - - -“A hen is no bird, a woman--no human,” says a Russian proverb. In this -drastic formulation stands written the history of centuries. Woman’s -claim to “human”ness was at times accepted with reservations, at other -times it was boldly challenged and even to-day when woman’s legal, -social, economic and political disabilities have been largely removed, -woman’s acceptance in society as man’s equal remains dependent on a -definition of the “equal.” - -As in the case of the mental capacity of races, the question of woman’s -intellectual status was never judged on its merits. Rather, it was -accepted as a practical social postulate, then rationalized into the -likeness of an inductive conclusion. The problem seems so replete with -temptations for special pleading that a thoroughly impartial attitude -becomes well-nigh impossible. However, let us attempt it! - -Is woman psychologically identical with man? or, if there is a -difference, is it one of superiority and inferiority? And of what -practical significance is this issue to society? - -Two ways of approach are open: subject men and women to psychological -tests, or observe performance in life and, exercising due critical -care, infer capacity. - -Both methods have been tried. The first enjoys to-day a certain vogue: -it is the method of science, of experimental psychology. Unfortunately, -the findings of science in this field have to date resulted in -precisely nothing. It was feasible to assume that woman was man’s -equal in elementary sensory capacity, in memory, types and varieties -of associations, attention, sensitiveness to pain, heat and cold, etc. -Experimental psychology has confirmed these assumptions. But what of -it? What can we make of it? Precisely nothing. What we are interested -in is whether woman can think “as logically” as man, whether she is -more intuitive, more emotional, less imaginative, more practical, less -honest, more sensitive, a better judge of human nature. These, among -many other interesting issues cannot even be broached by experimental -psychology “within the present state of our knowledge.” - -Remains the second method, to observe performance and infer capacity. - -To examine in this fashion all the issues involved would require a -small library. I select only one, creativeness. Is woman man’s equal -in creativeness? The choice is justified by the highly controversial -character of the issue as well as its practical bearings. - -Two periods in the history of civilization lend themselves admirably -for our purpose, the primitive and the modern. - -The primitive world was not innocent of discrimination against woman. -In social and political leadership, in the ownership and disposition of -property, in religion and ceremonialism, woman was subjected to more -or less drastic restrictions. It would, therefore, be obviously unfair -to expect her creativeness in these fields to have equaled or even -approximated that of man. Not so in industry and art, where division of -labor prevailed, but no sex disability. As one surveys the technical -and artistic pursuits of primitive tribes, woman’s participation is -everywhere in evidence. The baskets of California, the painted pots of -the Pueblos, the beaded embroideries of the Plains, the famous Chilkat -blankets, the tapa cloth of Polynesia, all of these were woman’s -handiwork. Almost everywhere she plans and cuts and sews and decorates -the garments worn by women as well as men. Also, in all primitive -communities she gathers the wild products of vegetation and transforms -them into palatable foods. More than this, in societies that know not -the plow woman is, with few exceptions, the agriculturist. It follows -that the observations, skills, techniques and inventions involved in -these pursuits must also be credited to woman. - -It will be conceded that in primitive society woman’s record is -impressive: wherever she is permitted to apply her creativeness she -makes good, and the excellence of her achievement is equal to that of -man, certainly not conspicuously inferior to his. - -In evaluating these findings, however, it is important to take -cognizance of the submergence of individual initiative by the tribal -pattern, a feature characteristic of primitive life. This applies -to men and women, to artisans and artists. Imaginative flights being -cut short by traditional norms, the individualism and subjectivism of -modern art are here conspicuous by their absence. - -How does this record compare with a survey of the modern period? - -Here again woman’s disabilities in the social, political and religious -realms were so marked that creative participation was impossible. -The same is true of architecture. Then come philosophy, mathematics, -science, and sculpture, painting, literature, music and the drama. In -philosophy and mathematics there is no woman in the ranks of supreme -excellence. Even Sonya Kovalevsky, though a talent, was not a great -mathematician. In science also, where women have done fine things, none -are found among the brightest luminaries. It must be added, moreover, -that the few women who have made their mark in the scientific field, -notably Mme. Curie, have done so in the laboratory, not in the more -abstract and imaginative domain of theoretical science. - -At this point some may protest that the period during which women -have had a chance to test their talents in philosophy, mathematics and -science was too short, their number too small, and that here once more -performance cannot fairly be used as a measure of possible achievement. -We must heed this protest. - -As to sculpture, painting, literature, music and the drama, I claim -that woman’s protracted disabilities cannot in any way be held -accountable for whatever her performance may be found to be. Women -artists, musicians, writers and, of course, actresses, have been with -us for a long time. Their number is large and on the increase. Whether -married or single, they devote their energies to these pursuits quite -unhampered by social taboos. There are in this field no taboos against -women. In the United States, in fact, these occupations are held to be -more suitable for women than for men. - -But what do we find? - -In painting and sculpture, no women among the best, although -considerable numbers among the second best and below. There is no woman -Rodin or Meunier or Klinger or Renoir or Picasso. - -In literature the case for woman stands better. Here women have -performed wonderfully, both in poetry and prose. If they have fallen -short, it is only of supreme achievement.[2] - -Finally we come to music and the stage. The case of music is admirably -suited for our purpose, is really a perfect test case. What do we find? -As performers, where minor creativeness suffices, women have equaled -the best among men. As composers, where creativeness of the highest -order is essential, they have failed. We have a Carreño or Novaes to -match a Hofmann or Levitski, a Melba or Sembrich to match a Caruso -or deReszke, a Morini or Powell or Parlow to match a Heifetz or Elman -or Kreisler; but there is no woman to match a Beethoven or Wagner or -Strauss or Mahler or Stravinsky, or Rachmaninoff--a composer-performer. - -The situation in drama is almost equally illuminating. Here women -have reached the top, have done it so frequently and persistently, in -fact, as to challenge men, some think successfully so. But as dramatic -writers the few women who tried have never succeeded to rise above -moderate excellence. A Rachel or Duse can hold her own as against a -Possart or Orlenyev, a Bernhardt looms as high as an Irving, Booth or -Salvini; but there is no woman to compare with a Molière or Ostrovski -or Rostand or Hauptmann or Chekhov or Kapek. - -If now we glance once more at the primitive record the conclusion -suggested by an analysis of music and the drama is greatly reënforced. -In primitive society woman, whenever opportunity was given her, equaled -man in creativeness; in modern society she has uniformly failed in -the highest ranges. The results are not incompatible. As indicated -before, in early days cultural conditions precluded the exercise of -creativeness on the part of the individual except on a minor scale, in -modern society major creativeness is possible and has been realized. -Woman’s creative achievement reaches the top when the top is relatively -low; when the top itself rises, she falls behind. - -To analyze this fact further is no easy task. We may not assume, as -some do, that the difference between major and minor creativeness -lies in degrees of rationality. This is certainly erroneous. The true -creator is what he is, not because of his rationality but because of -what he does with it. The differentia, as I see them, are two: boldness -of imagination and tremendous concentration on self. The creator, when -he creates, is spiritually alone; he dominates his material by drawing -it into the self and he permits his imagination, for once torn off the -moorings of tradition and precedent, to indulge in flights of gigantic -sweep. Imagination and personality exalted to the _n_th power--not -rationality--are the marks of the highest creativeness. - -In the possession of these traits, then, as here understood, woman is -somehow restricted. She has them, of course, and exercises them, but -not on the very highest level. - -We might stop right here, but it is hard to suppress at least a -tentative interpretation. - -If the personality-imagination complex is where woman fails at the -top, then it becomes _a priori_ probable that this difference between -man and woman constitutes a remote sex characteristic. And if this -is so, then it may prove worth our while to look for a corresponding -difference on a level more directly connected with sex life. No sooner -is this done than a difference does indeed appear, and it meets -our expectations, for it lies in the direction of personality or -self-concentration as well as of imagination. Woman is never so much “a -part of” as when she loves, man never so “whole”; her self dissolves, -his crystallizes. Also, woman’s love is less imaginative than man’s: -man is more like what woman’s love makes him out to be than woman is -like what man’s love makes her out to be. Relatively speaking, his love -is romantic, hers realistic. - -This difference in the diagnostic features of man’s love and woman’s -love confirms our suspicion that the discrepancy in performance, where -the personality-imagination complex is involved, constitutes a remote -sex characteristic. - -We must now turn once more to woman’s achievement in the different -fields of cultural creativeness, for the variation in the degree of -excellence reached by her provides a valuable clue as to where her -strength lies. In an ascending series of woman’s achievements musical -composition is at the bottom of the list, then come sculpture and -painting, then literature (with a strange drop in dramatic writing), -then instrumental and vocal performance; acting, finally, heads the -list. - -This order is most illuminating. The relative excellence of woman’s -achievement is seen to rise with the concreteness of the task and -the prominence of the technical and human elements. Creativeness is -more abstract in music than in the plastic and graphic arts, more -abstract in these than in literature; and in each case woman’s relative -achievement increases as abstractness decreases. Even the peculiar drop -in dramatic writing when compared with other forms of literature is -explicable in terms of a more abstract sort of creativeness required -by the formal elements of dramatic art. Again, the high position -in the list of musical performers and actresses, must in part be -ascribed to the importance of the technical element in these arts. The -preeminence of the musical performers is probably entirely due to this -factor, although the intrusion of the human element (performing for an -audience) may also have a share in the result. - -In the case of acting the human element is the most important factor, -for here there is not only an audience to act to but the human content -of the acting itself. The human orientation also accounts for the -relatively high position of literature in the list when compared -to sculpture and painting and to musical composition. Finally, the -creativeness of musical performance and acting--two fields in which -woman excels--is concrete when compared to that of literature, the arts -and musical composition. Incidentally, a sidelight is thus thrown on -the case of science where woman’s relative preeminence is found in the -concrete and technical domain of the laboratory. - -The preceding analysis leads to the conclusion that woman’s strength -lies in the concrete as contrasted with the abstract, the technical -as contrasted with the ideational, the human as contrasted with the -universal and detached. This conclusion, it may be of interest to -note, harmonizes perfectly with the general consensus of mankind, as -expressed in lay opinion and the judgments of literary men. - -To summarize: in all fields of cultural activity opened to her, woman -has shown creative ability, but since cultural conditions have made -major creativeness possible, she has failed, in comparison with man, in -the highest ranges of abstract creativeness. On the other hand, woman -has shown in her psychic disposition affinities for the concrete, the -technical and the human. - -Before closing, these findings may be utilized for a prognostication of -woman’s activities in the immediate and more remote future. - -The present tendency toward equalizing the cultural opportunities -of man and woman will no doubt persist. Thus the range of woman’s -cultural contributions will expand and the excellence of her creative -achievement will rise, especially in the fields in which she has so far -had but little chance to try her hand. It is to be expected, however, -that in the highest ranges of abstract creativeness in philosophy, -science, art, music, and perhaps literature, she will fail as she -has hitherto failed to equal man. Her concrete-mindedness will ever -continue to provide a useful counterpoise to the more imaginative -and abstract leanings of her male companion. Her technical talents -will shine more brilliantly in a world in which the crafts will again -occupy the prominent place which was theirs once before. But her unique -contributions will come in the range of the human element. - -In this respect, woman’s principal affinity is calculated to bear -its choicest fruits in a world better than the one we live in. When -formalism recedes from the field of education, as indeed it has already -begun to do, and gives room for more individual and psychologically -refined processes, woman’s share in education will grow in scope and -creativeness. When the family has left behind the agonies of its -present readjustments, the reconstruction of a freer and happier family -life will largely rest on the shoulders of woman. When prisons will -be turned into hospitals and criminals will be treated as patients, -woman’s sensitiveness, insight and tact will bring her leadership in -this field. When a return of leisure and the reduction of economic -pressure will permit a revival of the more intimate forms of social -intercourse, woman’s social talents will find new fields to conquer. -When the world of nations will sheathe its sword forever--an event -toward the realization of which woman will probably contribute more -than man--woman, to whom nothing human is foreign, will at last be free -to show the world what she can accomplish as the mother of the family -of man. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2] We need not mention a Dante, Shakespeare, Cervantes or -Milton. Perhaps these are too far back. Not so Tolstoi, Dostoyevski, -Turgenev, Goethe, Heine, Balzac, Maupassant, the Goncourts, Flaubert, -Byron, Browning, Shelley, Emerson, Walt Whitman. Where are their equals -among women? And coming down to the modern period, when literature is -flooded with feminine figures, is there one who can be placed beside -Anatole France or d’Annunzio or Proust or Gorki or even Bernard Shaw -(not to mention Ibsen)? The feminine names that might be cited in -comparison are obvious enough, but would any of them measure up to -these--quite? However, let me mention Katherine Mansfield, Edith -Wharton, Edna St. Vincent Millay. And I may add Sheila Kaye-Smith, -Willa Cather, Selma Lagerlöf and Marguérite Audou. - -I realize, of course, that such comparisons, except in a most sweeping -statement, are invidious. A better picture could be obtained by -juxtaposing, one to one, writers of similar type and literary form--but -this is a task for a volume. - - - - -Dominant Sexes - -By M. Vaerting - - - - -M. Vaerting, - -_one of a group of German anthropologists whose lectures and articles -have attracted much attention in Europe; is also part author of “The -Dominant Sex,” recently published in the United States._ - - - - -DOMINANT SEXES - -BY M. VAERTING - - -Certain peculiarities of physical form are to-day considered typical -feminine sex characters. Thus roundness and fullness of figure are -generally regarded as characteristic of women; larger size and strength -among men are accepted as a sex difference, biologically determined. - -But this theory, like the entire doctrine of secondary sex characters, -stands upon a doubtful basis. It has grown up out of a comparison of -men and women in very unequal situations. The bodies of men and women -whose field of work and type of occupation differ widely have been -compared. The man attends to the extra-domestic activities, while the -woman is chiefly occupied at home. Bachofen writes: “If a man sits at a -spinning-wheel a weakening of body and of soul will inevitably follow.” -Charles de Coster in his “Wedding Journey” makes the significant -remark: “Work in the fields had given Liska hips like a robust man’s.” -Certain of the physical differences between men and women may therefore -be sociologically determined rather than due to inborn differences. - -One may object that the division of labor between the sexes, in which -the woman takes the domestic and the man the extra-domestic sphere, is -itself determined by inborn sex differences. Even in Socrates’s time -it was believed that the nature of the sexes fixed their fields of -activity. Man was unquestionably intended for matters which must be -attended to outside the house, “while the weak and timid woman was by -divine order assigned to the inner work of the home.” After thorough -investigation it appears that this hoary theory, which still persists, -is false. The division of labor between man and woman corresponds not -to an innate difference but to their power-relation. If man dominates -he says that woman’s place is the home, and that work outside the home -is fit only for men. If woman is dominant then she has the opposite -opinion, takes care of business outside the home, and leaves the man to -take care of the family and the housekeeping. The ruling sex, whether -male or female, always puts the domestic duties on the subordinate -sex and takes to itself work outside the home. To-day man is dominant, -but there have been many peoples among whom woman was dominant and the -rôle of man and woman was the reverse of that common to-day. In ancient -Egypt there was a period when women ruled. Herodotus reports that they -unnaturally performed “masculine” activities, carried on commerce in -the market-place, while the men stayed at home, sewed, and attended to -domestic difficulties. To Herodotus, who came from a state where men -were dominant, the work of the Egyptian women naturally seemed “male.” -In the Talmud Herodotus’s report is confirmed. The children of Israel, -it tells us, were disturbed because their men were forced to do women’s -work and their women men’s work. In Sophocles’s “Œdipus Kolonos” -Œdipus says to his two daughters: “Ha, how they imitate the Egyptians -in the manner and meaning of life. There the men stay home and sit at -the spinning-wheel, and the women go out to meet the needs of life.” -Œdipus also mentions the fact reported also by Herodotus, that only -the daughters, not the sons, were compelled in Egypt to support their -parents. The sons could not fulfill that duty, Sophocles says, because, -like the Greek girls, they stayed at home and had no income from their -labor. Furthermore, they had only a limited right to own property. - -One might cite many other peoples where the woman was dominant. Among -the Kamchadales the men, in the days of female dominance, were such -complete housewives that they cooked, sewed, washed, and were never -allowed to stay away from home for more than a day. Similarly among -the Lapps there was a period when the men did the housework while the -women fished and sailed the sea. Under such circumstances the men also -took care of the children. Strabo and Humboldt both report of the -Vasko-Iberian races that the women worked in the fields; after child -birth they turned the child over to the man and themselves resumed -their work in the fields. A similar arrangement prevailed in the days -when women ruled Lybia, which bordered upon Egypt. - -When one sex is dominant there is always a division of labor. - -This differentiation of occupation is one of the chief causes of -certain differences in physical form between men and women. It changes -the fundamental conditions of development--among others the course -of the inner secretions. Where man rules he does the active outside -work and is accordingly larger and stronger; where woman rules and -does the same “man’s work” her body assumes what are to-day regarded -as typically male proportions, whereas the man develops what we call -feminine characteristics. We have a few definite proofs of this from -states dominated by women. - -When woman ruled among the Gauls, and worked outside the home, we are -told by Strabo that the female was the larger and stronger sex. - -Among the Adombies on the Congo women were in power and did all the -hard work. According to Ellis they were stronger and better developed -than the men. The same was true of the Wateita in East Africa. Fritsch -and Hellwald report that the woman is larger than the man among the -Bushmen. Female and male pelvises show no differences, but are alike -“male” in our sense of the word. - -The Spartan women in the days of their rule had a reputation for -enormous strength. Aristophanes says that a Spartan woman could -strangle an ox bare-handed. The Egyptian women at the height of their -power were called by their neighbors the “lionesses of the Nile,” -and they seemed to like the name. When Heracles visited the Lybians, -whose state bordered on Egypt and of whose rule by women we have many -witnesses, he had to work, like the other men of the country, with the -distaff. His wife Omphale, however, wandered about clad in a lionskin -and armed with a club, and won respect for her strength. - -A very striking report comes from near New Guinea, where the woman -was stronger than the man. There it was a common sight to see a woman -spanking her husband with a paddle. Through the brute force of superior -strength she oppressed the man just as men oppress women where the -woman is weaker. - -Thus through legend and the records of travelers we have clear -testimony that man is not larger and stronger than woman because of -innate differences, as is generally supposed, but that physical -superiority is a characteristic of the dominant sex, regardless whether -that be male or female. - -Similarly those secondary physical characteristics which are to-day -regarded as female are found among males when they occupy the -subordinate position in which woman lives to-day. Woman is inclined -to-day to full, rounded curves and even to stoutness. Among the Celts -the woman dominated, and according to Strabo the men of that people -were inclined to be fat and heavy-paunched. The same was true of -the Kamchadales in the days of woman rule. The men were strikingly -voluptuous and well rounded. The male Eskimos too were inclined -to fatness in the days when they did the housekeeping. The more -subordinate the fatter. - -In this connection the Oriental women are typical; their exuberance -of figure is as well known as their absolute subordination and their -confinement to the home. They may be contrasted with the fat and -subordinate male Kamchadales, whose wives were slim and firm breasted -into old age. - -Equal rights do away with this division of labor. There are no longer -male and female jobs; not sex but inclination and fitness now begin -to determine the individual’s occupation. In late Egypt, when the -domination of woman was merging into a period of equal rights, there -are many indications that both sexes did the same work without any -differentiation of occupation. In the marriage contract in the time of -Darius, the woman--who then made the contract alone--says, “All, which -you and I may together earn....” Victor Marx has studied the position -of woman in Babylon in the period 604-485 B.C., and finds a similar -situation. In an inheritance case of that period a woman recites that -“I and my husband carried on business with my dowry and together -bought a piece of land.” Such common businesses by man and woman are -frequently mentioned. Under such circumstances it was natural that -neither man nor woman bound themselves at marriage to live in the same -house, for both went to work outside the home. - -To-day, when we are passing from male domination to equal rights it -is natural that the woman should be seeking more and more to get out -of the home. The greater her power the more she seeks to level the -lines between male and female work. This effort is strongest in the -subordinate sex--in this case the feminine--because it seeks naturally -to better its position. In this transition period, therefore, women -are pressing into male pursuits much faster than men into domestic -occupations. Yet even in Germany a beginning has been made. For -women the male professions seem higher and better, because they have -hitherto belonged to the dominant sex, while for the men feminine -occupations seem to have about them something degrading; but the more -women approach equality the less odium attaches to what has been their -sphere, and the more men tend to enter it. - -The same phenomenon may be observed in periods of transition from -female to male domination. Among the Batta, for instance, both sexes -worked in the fields, but the man alone cared for the children. This -was obviously a step toward equal rights. The men already shared the -extra-domestic occupations of the women, but the women still refused to -share the work of the hitherto subordinate men. - -When equal rights put an end to the differentiation of occupation -the physical differences between men and women also disappear. We are -to-day still far enough away from equality of the sexes, but there -have been people where equal rights prevailed, and among such people -the physical form of the two sexes was so like that they could hardly -be distinguished. In Tacitus’s day, when equality was probably general -among the Germans, men and women are reported to have had exactly the -same weight and strength. Albert Friedenthal says of the Cingalese -that a stranger could not distinguish the sexes. Men and women were so -alike among the Botocudos that one had to count their tresses to tell -them apart. Lallemant found among this people “a swarm of men-women and -women-men, not a single man or a single woman in the whole tribe.” This -good man came from a state where men dominated and did not suspect that -when the power-relation of the sexes changed their physical appearance -changed too. If a Botocudo had come to Europe in those days he would -presumably have judged by his own standards and noted with equal horror -the outer differences of European men and women. - -Every age holds its own standards absolute. The domination of one sex -depends upon the artificial development of as many and as striking -bodily differences as possible, and therefore approves them and insists -upon emphasizing them. Equal rights tend to develop the natural -similarity of the sexes and considering that the norm, regards it as -ideal. - -There is ample opportunity to observe to-day that equality of the sexes -coincides with a tendency slowly to do away with artificial physical -differences. The disappearance of the so-called feminine figure was -so striking in America, where the sexes are more nearly equal than in -Europe, that Sargent and Alexander prophesied in 1910 that soon men -and women could hardly be distinguished from one another. A comparison -with pictures of thirty or forty years ago makes it plain that even -in Europe male and female figures are coming closer to each other. -The narrow waists and full bosoms of the women and the full beards of -the men have disappeared. And, as a result of our investigation, we -may prophesy that the coming equality will still more completely iron -out those differences which hitherto have been regarded as genuine -secondary sex characters. - -Whenever one sex is dominant there is a tendency to differentiate male -and female costume. The more completely one sex dominates the greater -will be the differences in clothes, and as the sexes become equal the -differences disappear. When the two sexes are really equal they will -wear the same clothing. - -The clothing of the dominant sex usually tends to be uniform and -tasteless, that of the subordinate to be varied and richly ornamented. -To-day man is still dominant, and his clothes are monotonous, dull, -and less subject to shifts of fashion. Especially in formal dress he -wears a sort of uniform. All men, of whatever age or position, wear -dress clothes of the same cut and color. A grandfather wears a dinner -coat exactly like that of his eighteen-year-old grandson. This seems -natural, but the situation is reversed with the subordinate sex, most -completely when the subordination is most complete. Only twenty or -thirty years ago it was a crime in Germany for a mother to dress as -“youthfully” as her unmarried daughter. A grandmother who dared to -dress like her eighteen-year-old granddaughter would have been laughed -to scorn. As woman’s power has grown, this has changed. Custom no -longer requires a grandmother to emphasize her age by her clothes. - -Where woman dominates she tends to wear darker and plainer clothing and -the man dresses himself more richly and variously. Erman writes of the -old Egyptians: - - While according to our conceptions it befits the woman to love finery - and ornament, the Egyptians of the old Empire seem to have had an - opposite opinion. Beside the elaborate costumes of the men the women’s - clothing seems very monotonous, for, from the fourth to the eighteenth - dynasty, all, from the king’s daughter to the peasant woman, wore the - same garb--a simple garment without folds. - -Herodotus, indeed, reported that Egyptian men had two suits, women -only one. Erman naturally cannot explain the simplicity of the women’s -clothes and the eagerness of the men for color and ornament, because it -contradicted current theories of the character of the two sexes. To-day -the view is current which Runge expressed when he said that “Women’s -desire to please and love of ornament is dependent upon her sex life.” -This view, though still common, is fundamentally false. The inclination -to bright and ornamental clothing is dependent not upon sex but upon -the power-relation of the sexes. The subordinate sex, whether male or -female, seeks ornament. Strabo tells of the love of finery and cult of -the body among Lybian men. They curled their hair, even their beards, -wore gold ornaments, diligently brushed their teeth and polished their -finger-nails. “They arrange their hair so tenderly,” he writes, “that -when walking they never touch one another, in order not to disturb it.” -It is usual in states where women are dominant for the men to wear long -hair and pay particular attention to their barbering. The men of Tana, -in the Hebrides, wore their hair 18 to 20 inches long, divided into six -or seven hundred tiny locks, in the days when women ruled. Among the -Latuka the men wore their hair so elaborately that it took ten years to -arrange it. The Konds also wore very long hair, elaborately arranged. - -The stronger tendency of the subordinate sex to ornamentation -apparently is closely related to the division of labor. The subordinate -sex, working at home, has more leisure and opportunity for ornament -than the dominant. Furthermore, leisure stimulates the erotic feelings. -Since the partner does not share the leisure the lonely erotic often -seeks a way out in self-ornamentation. At the same time the ornament is -intended for the partner, for the stimulated eroticism increases the -desire to please the other sex. - -When the sexes are equal the clothes of the two sexes tend to be alike. -We have noted that the Cingalese were physically similar; their clothes -were exactly the same. The only difference was that the men wore a -mother-of-pearl comb in the hair, the women none. Among the Lepka the -sexes can be distinguished only by the fact that the men wear their -hair in two braids, the women in one. Tacitus reports that the old -Germans wore the same clothes and wore their hair alike. - -We can observe the tendency to similarity of costume in this transition -period. Many such attempts fail the first time, but finally succeed. -More than a decade ago Paris attempted to establish a fashion of -knickerbockers and bobbed hair. The attempt failed, but to-day the -bobbed head has invaded every civilized country, almost in direct -proportion to the degree in which women have acquired equal rights. -It is reported from England that English women can already go to -their work in trousers, heavy shoes, and short hair without exciting -attention. The reader may judge of the accuracy of these reports. In -Germany the police forbid one sex to wear the clothes of the other, but -during the war when German women had to enter male trades they usually -wore men’s clothing. - -Among men too the tendency to similarity is evident. Thirty years ago -the beard was a generally accepted sign of manhood; it has fallen out -of fashion. In the Youth Movement there is a tendency to leave the -shirt open at the neck and to adopt a hair-cut like a bobbed girl’s. A -note in Jean Paul’s “Levana,” which appeared in 1806, is interesting. -He writes: “A few years ago it was fashionable in Russia for the men to -fill out their clothing with high false bosoms.” That was in the days -following the French Revolution, when a short wave of freedom, even for -women, swept across the earth. It showed also in the women’s fashion -which Jean Paul mentions: - - A fortunate accident for daughters is the Grecian costume of the - present Gymnosophists (naked female runners), which, it is true, - injures the mothers but hardens the daughters; for as age and custom - should avoid every fresh cold so youth exercises itself on it as on - every hardship until it can bear greater.... So, likewise, the present - naked manner of dressing is a cold bath into which the daughters are - dipped, who are exhilarated by it. - - - - -Modern Love and Modern Fiction - -By J. W. Krutch - - -Joseph Wood Krutch - -_has been Professor of English at the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, -and is now dramatic editor and regular critic of fiction of_ The Nation. - - - - -MODERN LOVE AND MODERN FICTION - -BY J. W. KRUTCH - - -Seeing upon the jacket of a recent book the legend “Solves the Sex -Problem,” my first reaction was a fervent hope that it did nothing -of the sort, for I had no desire that fiction should be rendered -supererogatory or, what is the same thing, that life should be made a -less difficult art. Problems of housing, wages, taxation, militarism, -and the like may be solved, temporarily at least, but what a -contemporary writer has called “the irony of being two” is a sufficient -guaranty of one never-to-be-resolved complexity. Until each individual -of the human species becomes a complete biological entity, until, that -is to say, hermaphrodism is universal, there can be no fear lest we -should cease to live dangerously. - -Were I speaking of happiness I should be compelled to argue that -the attitude of society and the individual toward sex is the most -important thing in the world, but speaking as I am of life as -material for art I must maintain, on the contrary, that it is much -less important. As long as they have an attitude and as long as that -attitude remains, as it has always remained, an inadequate one, those -unresolved discords which make living and reading interesting will -continue to arise. As a critic I “view with alarm” nothing except -the possibility that the problem should be solved to everybody’s -satisfaction, but that calamity does not seem at all likely to occur -since I have never heard of a saint in the desert or a debauché in a -brothel who was not sufficiently maladjusted to be a fruitful subject -for fiction. - -After all, the things we do are both more significant and less changing -than our attitude toward our acts. We burn men at the stake to light -a Roman garden, to save the world from the horror of heresy, or to -protect the sanctity of female virtue and assure the supremacy of -the white race, but we burn them always; we fight because arms are -glorious, because the service of God demands the rescue of His holy -sepulcher from the infidel, or because we must make the world safe -for peace, but always we fight; and the most important thing is the -insistent lust of cruelty or the impulse to fight rather than the -rationalization of these motives. So, too, with love. Paphnutius is -harried out of apathy into a state in which he sees visions because of -the temptations of the devil, Milton because God gave Eve to Adam as a -comforter, Shelley because woman is the symbol of the unutterable, and -Shaw (presumably) because only by the process of reproduction can the -Life Force perform its perfectionist experiments; but the resultant -impulses are not so very different. Mr. F. W. Myers once referred to -the procreation of children in these lines: - - Lo! When a man magnanimous and tender, - Lo! When a woman desperate and true, - Make the inevitable sweet surrender, - Show one another what the Lord can do,... - -but I doubt if the states of mind which called forth these lines and, -say, Swinburne’s Dolores were as different as the verses would suggest -or as the authors imagined. Without going so far as to say that the two -poems are of equal literary merit, one can at least say that they are -almost equally interesting and delightful to the observer of life or -art and that as long as the mystical, the ascetic, the sentimental, and -the biological attitudes toward love continue to exist side by side or -to follow one another in succeeding epochs, the critic will not find -literature either dull or monotonous. - -If at the end of a period of twenty-five years during which fiction -has frankly concerned itself to an unusual degree with sex the problem -seems more complicated than ever before, there is no cause for -surprise. Even the specious pretense that a solution has been found -can only be maintained when, as during the Victorian era, the mass of -men agree to assume that no difficulties exist which are not solvable -by that rule of thumb known as the social and moral code, and insist -that sexual battles shall be fought out behind closed doors in life and -between the chapters in books. By dragging them out into public view we -have been able, no doubt, to palliate some of the commoner tragedies -of stupidity. But chiefly we have been upon a voyage of discovery, -and it ought to be evident now, if it has never been evident before, -that we cannot possibly solve the problem because its most important -aspects are not social but human. They have their roots in man’s -ironic predicament between gorilla and angel, a predicament perfectly -typified by the fact that as he grows critical he realizes that love -is at once sublime and obscene and that only by walking a spiritual -tight-rope above the abysses can he be said to live at all in any true -sense. The very fact that the social aspects can to a certain extent -be worked out makes them less interesting and explains the fact that -those novels intended to prove, for example, that the mother of an -illegitimate child may still be within the human pale have come to seem -so unutterably dull. No doubt they “did good,” but like all forms of -useful literature their life was short. By far the most interesting -contemporary writers who deal chiefly with sex are largely concerned -with the individual problem. - -Thanks partially to modern fiction we have attained a certain measure -of freedom. But freedom, as everybody who understands either the -meaning of the word or the value of the thing knows, raises problems -instead of settling them. It is true that our attitude has changed. -There is hardly a serious contemporary novel which does not take for -granted things which would have outraged even liberal thinkers of -the past century, and the changes have been mostly in the direction -of clarification. It would be impossible for any one to-day to fail -to see, as George Eliot failed to see, that the natural working of -the “inevitable moral law” which punished Hetty Sorrel was neither -inevitable nor natural. The things which happened to her came entirely -from society and not at all from nature, so that the story which -the author meant to be a tragedy of the ineluctable becomes merely -a description of human stupidity. So, too, we are clearer on other -things; we are not quite so hopelessly at sea as we once were when it -comes to distinguishing between frigidity and chastity or purity and -prudishness. But these things mean only that more choices are open to -us, that we have come to see that sexual conduct cannot be guided or -judged by a few outwardly applied standards, and that, accordingly, the -conduct of life has been made more thrillingly difficult. - -Most sex novels of the past have been concerned chiefly with what might -be called the right to love. They have combated an extremely old idea -which Christianity found congenial and embodied in the conception of -love as a part of the curse pronounced upon man at the Fall, and hence -at best a necessary evil. They have been compelled solemnly to assure -us that the early Christian Fathers were wrong in assuming that the -human race would have been better off if it had been able to propagate -itself by means of some harmless system of vegetation, and they have -had to fly in the face of all laws and social customs which are seen, -if examined closely, to rest upon the assumption that desire is merely -a dangerous nuisance, fatal to efficiency and order, and hence to be -regimented at any cost. It is now pretty generally admitted among the -educated class that love is legitimate, even that it has an æsthetic as -well as a utilitarian function. We have got back to the point which -Ovid had reached some two thousand years ago of realizing that there is -an art of love. During the next quarter of a century fiction will be -concerned, I think, more with the failure or success of individuals to -attain this art than with the exposition of theses which most accept. - -No doubt some of the more naïvely enthusiastic crusaders really -believed that as soon as man was freed from the more grossly stupid -restrictions from without and from the artificially cultivated -inhibitions within, love would become simple and idyllic, but one -needs look only at the books of D. H. Lawrence or Aldous Huxley to -be relieved of this stupid delusion. The characters of both of these -authors have long ago ceased to care what law or society thinks and -they are surely untroubled by traditional asceticism, but their -problems are not less acute. Indeed it is just because these novelists -are so completely concerned with love as a personal matter that they -are the freshest of those contemporary writers with whom sex is the -dominant interest. Each is concerned with something fundamental--the -one with the problem of the adjustment of personalities and the other -with the evaluation of sexual love. - -If by “immoral” is meant “tending to excite lubricity,” then nothing -could be more absurd than the opinion, apparently held by some, that -the books of these men are immoral. They are so completely unable to -lose themselves carelessly in passion and so insistent upon the need of -adjusting it somehow to the other interests of life that they strike -one as more like saints than like gallants, and their books are far -more chilling than inflammatory. Huxley and Joyce try to laugh sex -away, but their scorn of the flesh suggests Erasmus more than Rabelais, -and, as for Lawrence, his novels constitute so solemn a warning that -one imagines him as thoroughly bored with the exigencies of passion and -more likely to make his disciples celibates than debauchés. - -In Lawrence’s morbidly sensitive and exaggeratedly individualistic -characters one sees as through a magnifying-glass the thousand -impingements of personality upon personality which make love more and -more difficult as it becomes more intimate and personal. His people, -like Schopenhauer’s porcupines, are continually coming together for -warmth only to find themselves pricked by one another’s quills and to -part snarling, so that his perpetual prayer is a “Lord deliver us from -this need which can be neither stilled nor satisfied.” And abnormal -though he is, his abnormality is one of degree only, for when sexual -love is developed beyond the impulse of the animal and desires the -contact of spirit as well as body that contact is bound to be both -incomplete and painful. - -Nor is the even more fundamental problem with which Aldous Huxley is -concerned likely ever to receive a permanent or a general solution. -He is in search of love, but he can find only ridiculous and obscene -biological facts, for love, like God and the other most important human -possessions, does not exist. It is an illusion created by the effort of -the imagination to transform the unsatisfactory materials which life -has furnished it into something acceptable to the soul; but being an -illusion, it is unstable and perpetually tending, if not created anew, -to dissolve into its elements. The racial need for the continuation -of the species and the individual need for the satisfaction of a -physiological impulse exist, but they are hard, unsatisfying realities, -and the struggle of mankind is to create some fiction which will as far -as possible include and at the same time transcend them. - -And nothing derogatory is, of course, meant by the word “fiction.” All -that distinguishes man from nature is such a fiction, and it is by his -insistent belief in these imaginary things that civilization has been -created. All of Mr. Huxley’s books are confessions, first cynically -triumphant and then despairing, of his inability to be poet or mystic -or ironist enough to achieve this transcendence and find in his -animal heritage a satisfaction for his spiritual needs. Like everyone -else, he is compelled to love, and love implies a certain amount of -idealization. How, he asks in effect, is he to poetize this ridiculous -function, which he shares with the beasts, and concerning which science -is constantly presenting us with an increasing amount of disillusioning -knowledge? Exercising the most perverse ingenuity in confronting -romance with biology and in establishing the identity (in the realm of -fact) of love and lust, he has continually tracked the trail of the -beast into the holy of holies--but only because it hurt him so much to -find it there. The obscenities in which he seems to revel are defiances -of the inner idealist who has dared to assimilate the loathsome -trivialities of sex into something capable of satisfying spiritual -desires. When he sings one of his philosopher’s songs or when, in -“Antic Hay,” he describes some particularly revolting orgy there is -nothing new in the psychological state which provokes his obscenity. -His attitude is a result of failure to reconcile physical fact with -spiritual feeling. He is not far from Huysmans, who ended “A Rebours” -with the words: “For the man who has written such a book there are only -two alternatives--a pistol or the foot of the cross.” Only of course -Huysmans was wrong. Anatole France and James Branch Cabell are not less -sophisticated, but through the perfection of sophistication they have -achieved a peaceful irony in which they can worship a non-existent -God and believe again in the illusions they create. Huxley, too -sophisticated for simple faith and too downright for ironic worship, is -lost. - -When the conception of love is, as it has tended to be in modern -times, legalistic, these problems are submerged. As long as marriage -is a matter of contract, the importance of the inward harmony of -personalities is of the slightest, for children may be begotten -and reared whether the parents love or hate. As long as passion is -generally conceded to be but a shameful concession to unregenerate -humanity, the average man is not likely to be concerned if he finds -that the ideal of the poets is not realized in his own nuptial couch. -But when love is free and unashamed then it is made ten times more -difficult, for lives are recognized as frank failures which once would -have seemed useful and satisfactory. Fiction, too, becomes, not more -interesting, but more important. It ceases completely to be what it -always tends to be when opinion is fixed, namely, a mere illustration -of the working out of social or moral “laws”; it becomes frankly the -record of individual souls in search of a successful way of life. It -records, no doubt, more failures than successes, but it furnishes the -best and perhaps only really important material for the study of that -art of life which grows ever more complicated as we demand that it be -more complete and beautiful. - - - - -Can Men and Women Be Friends? - -By Floyd Dell - - - - -Floyd Dell - -_was born at Barry, Illinois, June 28th, 1887. Is the author of several -novels and collections of essays including “Janet March,” a story of -a young woman and her adjustment to modern standards. His latest book -is “Looking at Life.” Other books are “Women as World Builders,” 1913; -“Were You Ever a Child?” 1919; “Moon Calf,” 1920; “The Briary Bush,” -1921._ - - - - -CAN MEN AND WOMEN BE FRIENDS? - -BY FLOYD DELL - - -Friendship between men and women is rather a new thing in the history -of the world. Friendship depends upon equality and choice, and there -has been very little of either in the relations of the sexes, up -to the present. A woman does not choose her male relatives, nor is -she according to archaic family laws their equal; motives other -than personal choice might lead her to become a man’s wife; wholly -impersonal reasons might place her in the relationship of kept -mistress. Only in her rôle of paramour was there any implication of -free choice; and even here there was no full equality, not even of -danger. None of these customary relationships of the past can be said -to have fostered friendship between men and women. Doubtless it did -exist, but under difficulties. - -Family bonds, however, are being more and more relaxed, women are no -longer the wards of their male relatives, and friendship with a father -or brother is more than ever possible. Further, the free personal -choice which marked only the romantic amours of the age of chivalry is -now popularly regarded in America as essential to any decent marriage, -while the possibility of divorce tends to make free choice something -besides a mere youthful illusion. More than ever before, husbands and -wives are friends. - -At the same time the intensity of friendships between people of the -same sex appears to be diminishing. This intensity, in its classic -instances, as in Greece, we now regard as an artificial product, the -result of the segregation of the sexes and the low social position -of women. As women become free and equal with men such romantic -intensity of emotion finds a more biologically appropriate expression. -Friendships between people of the same sex must to-day compete on the -one hand with romantic love and on the other with the more fascinating -though often less enduring friendships which can now be enjoyed between -men and women. Neglect of these latter opportunities is coming to be -regarded as a kind of spiritual cowardice, or at least as a failure in -enterprise. - -The influences of the machine age, so destructive to fixed -authoritarian relationships, appear to foster the growth of friendship -between the sexes; so much so that we may expect it to become, in its -further developments, a characteristic social feature of the age that -lies immediately before us. - -Friendship will become a more and more important aspect of marriage -itself; but, except in the effects of its wider spread, this will -hardly be a new thing--we have friendships between husbands and -wives now. Nor will extra-marital friendships between men and women -be precisely a new thing. What will be new, furnishing us with an -interesting theme for sociological speculation, are the conventions -which will gradually come into existence to give social protection and -dignity to extra-marital friendships. - -Conventions are, doubtless, always rather ridiculous, inevitably a -shackle upon the free motions of the soul, being imposed by fear. -But it will be remembered that we, in America, with a vast amount -of freedom of intersexual association, have thus far only begun to -dispense with the locks and bars and whippings and chaperons which -were the appurtenances of a physical segregation of the sexes; the -vast paraphernalia of psychic segregation, including sexual taboos -which hark back to the primeval darkness, are with us still. Our minds -are habituated to unreasonable fears in all matters concerning the -relations of the sexes. For a long time, extra-marital friendships -of men and women may be expected to be hedged about with elaborate -and specific permissions, for the sake of keeping them under social -control. Yet these conventions may be very convenient; and however -irksome they may seem to the free spirits of a future day, they may -still be such as would appear to us generously libertarian. - -To-day, in the absence of such conventions, it does not suffice that -a man and woman, too well married to be afraid of extra-marital -friendships, grant them to each other by private treaty; relatives, -friends, and neighbors do not fail to be duly alarmed. Extra-marital -friendship exists in an atmosphere of social suspicion which a few -conventions would go far to alleviate. - -As an example in a different field, the convention with regard to -dancing may be adduced. If dancing were not a general custom, if it -were the enlightened practice of an advanced few, how peculiar and -suspicious would seem the desire of Mr. X and Mrs. Y to embrace each -other to music; and how scandalized the neighbors would be to hear that -they _did_! No one would rest until the pair had been driven into an -elopement. - -We build huge palaces for the kind of happy communion which dancing -furnishes; we tend more and more to behave like civilized beings -about the impulses which are thus given scope. We are less socially -hospitable to the impulses of friendship between men and women. - -In friendship there are many moods; but the universal rite of -friendship is _talk_. Talk needs no palaces for its encouragement; -it is not an expensive affair; it would seem to be well within the -reach of all. Yet it isn’t. For the talk of friendship requires -privacy--though the privacy of a table for two in a crowded and noisy -restaurant will suffice; and it requires time. Such talk does not -readily adjust itself to the limitations of the dinner hour. It is a -flower slow in unfolding; and it seems to come to its most perfect -bloom only after midnight. But, unfortunately, not every restaurant -keeps open all night. It is satisfied with two comfortable chairs; -a table to lean elbows on is good, too; in winter an open fire, -where friendly eyes may stare dreamily into the glowing coals--that -is very good; hot or cold drinks according to the season, and a -cigarette--these are almost the height of friendship’s luxury. These -seem not too much to ask. Yet the desire for privacy and uncounted -hours of time together is, when considered from that point of view, -scandalous in its implications; quite as much so as the desire of Mr. -X and Mrs. Y to embrace each other to music. However, Mr. X and Mrs. Y -do, under the ægis of a convention, indulge their desire and embrace -each other to their heart’s content with the full approval of civilized -society; and it seems as though another convention might grow up, under -the protection of which Mr. X and Mrs. Y might sit up and talk all -night without its seeming queer of them. - -Queer, at the least, it does seem nowadays, except under the -conventions of courtship; friends who happen to be married to each -other can of course talk comfortably in bed. These bare facts are -sufficient to explain why so many men and women who really want to -be friends and sit up all night occasionally and talk find it easy -to believe that they are in love with each other. They find it all -the easier to believe this, because friendship between the sexes is -usually spiced with some degree of sexual attraction. But a degree of -sexual attraction which might have kept a friendship forever sweet -may prove unequal to the requirements of a more serious and intimate -relationship. Disillusionment is the penalty, at the very least. -Society could well afford to grant more freedom to friendship between -men and women, and save the expense of a large number of broken hearts. - -It is worth while to wonder if a good deal of “romance” is not, after -all, friendship mistaking itself for something else; or rather, finding -its only opportunity for expression in that mistake. Among civilized -people, after the romance has ended, the friendship remains. It may -perhaps have been worth while to imagine oneself in love, in order to -enjoy a friendship; but it seems rather a wasteful proceeding. - -Yet those who, taking a merely economical view of the situation, -attempt to enjoy such friendships without becoming involved or -involving others in such waste, may with some embarrassment -discover--what Mrs. Grundy could have told them all along--that -friendship and sexual romance may sometimes be difficult to relegate -to previously determined boundaries. Friendship between the sexes may, -if only for a moment, seem to demand the same tokens of sincerity -as romantic love. Does not this fact threaten the traditional, -jealously-guarded dignity of marriage? - -Perhaps it does. At present, in any conflict of claims between a -marriage and a friendship, there is “nothing to arbitrate”; marriage -has all the rights, friendship none. If the rights of friendship are -to be at all considered and protected, marriage may have to yield -something. It may not be good manners for husbands and wives to be -jealous of the quite possible momentary exuberances of each other’s -friendships; it may be that such incidents will be regarded as being -within the discretion of the persons immediately concerned, and not -quite proper subjects for inquiry, speculation, or comment by anybody -else. - -And this might have an effect unsuspected by those whom such a prospect -of liberty would most alarm to-day. When a moment’s rashness does not -necessarily imply red ruin and the breaking up of homes, when sex is -freed to a degree from the sense of overwhelming social consequences, -it may well become a matter of more profound personal consequence; and -with nothing to fear except the spoiling of their friendship, men and -women in an ardent friendship may yet prefer talk to kisses. - -“But what if they don’t?” A complete answer to that question, from the -Utopian point of view, would take us far afield from the subject of -friendship; yet some further answer may seem to be required, if only by -way of confessing to Mrs. Grundy that the problem is not so simple as -it may seem. Well, then, out of many possibilities which the future -holds, I offer this one for what it may be worth. Such friendships, -let us agree, tend to merge insensibly into romantic sexual love. -But if marriage may be conceived as yielding some of its traditional -rights, extra-marital romance may well be called upon for similar -concessions. The first thing that extra-marital romance might be asked -to surrender would be its intolerable and fatuous airs of _holiness_. -Yes, “holiness” is the word--a holiness all the more asserted by such -extra-marital lovers because their relations are likely to be taken -disrespectfully by a stupid world. Oh, unquestionably, if you ask -them, never was any legal and conventional love so high and holy as -this romantic passion of theirs! Its transcendental holiness calls -for sacrifices. So they sacrifice themselves--and, incidentally, -others--to it. Anything less, they feel, would be cowardly. They must -not palter with these sacred emotions--not even by the exercise of -their dormant sense of humor!--So it is to-day: but perhaps in a future -where extra-marital romance is made room for with a tender and humorous -courtesy, it may give up these preposterous and solemn airs, and -actually learn to smile at its illusions--illusions which will still -give the zest of ultimate danger to relationships of merely happy and -light-hearted play. Thus life will continue to be interesting. - -As for the talk of friendship, my Utopian speculations uncover for -me no respect in which the thing itself can be improved upon. The -circumstances can be made happier, the attitude of society can -foster it; but the talk of friendship has already reached a splendid -perfection beyond which my imagination is unable to soar. At its best -it has, despite its personal aspect, an impersonal beauty; it is a -poignant fulfillment of those profound impulses which we call curiosity -and candor; it serves human needs as deep as those which poetry and -music serve, and is in some sense an art like them. The art exists, and -it remains only for the future to give it an adequate hospitality. - - - - -Love and Marriage - -By Ludwig Lewisohn - - - - -Ludwig Lewisohn - -_author of “Up Stream,” “Don Juan” and other books and contributing -editor of_ The Nation, _is now studying conditions in Eastern Europe -and Palestine. Was born May 30th, 1882, in Berlin--came to America -in 1890--B.A. and M.A. College of Charleston, S. C., 1901--M. A. -Columbia, 1903--Editorial staff, Doubleday, Page & Co., 1910-1911. -Instructor in German, University of Wisconsin, and Literature at -Ohio State University. Dramatic Editor_, Nation, _1919. Author of -“The Broken Snare,” 1908;--“A Night in Alexandria,” 1909; “German -Style--an Introduction to the Study of German Prose,”--1910; “The -Modern Drama,” 1915; “The Spirit of Modern German Literature,” 1916; -“The Poets of Modern France,” 1918; Editor with W. P. Trent of “Letters -of an American Farmer,” 1909; “A Book of Modern Criticism,” 1909. -Translator--Feuchlersleben’s “Health & Suggestion,” 1910; Sudermann’s -“Judean City,” 1911; Halbe’s “Youth,” Hirschfeld’s “The Mothers,” -1916; Latzko’s “The Judgment of Peace,” 1919; Wassermann’s “World’s -Illusion.” Editor and chief translator of Gerhardt Hauptmann’s Dramatic -Works, 1916, 1917; Contributing Editor, Warner’s Library of World’s -Best Literature. His latest book is “The Creative Life,” 1924._ - - - - -LOVE AND MARRIAGE - -BY LUDWIG LEWISOHN - - -Utopia is the loveliest of all countries; it is also the farthest away. -One may make magnificent generalizations concerning the future of the -relations of the sexes; one may set down truths that are theoretically -unanswerable. Only one will change nothing, help not a single soul. Let -me cling to a few humble facts.... - -So far as any one can see the habit of one man living with one woman -will persist. The young will hear of nothing else, since they are -under the sway of romantic passion which is, subjectively, exclusive -and final; those who are older will hear of nothing else because -experience has shown this method of life capable of securing the -healthiest freedom from preoccupation with sex and the maximum amount -of ordered activity. To be a rake or even a fastidious “varietist” is -the costliest of occupations. Rational monogamy is in no danger. The -trouble lies elsewhere; it lies in the fact that current notions of -monogamy are, I use the word advisedly, insane. - -Local bill-board advertisements of moving pictures have recently shown -a ball-room in which an irate gentleman in evening-dress grasped the -shoulder of another gentleman who looked crushed and crest-fallen. With -an inimitable gesture of moral indignation the first gentleman pointed -to a quivering female on the other side of the room. The caption of -this stirring lithograph was “His Forgotten Wife.” The exquisite -absurdity of this picture is clear. It is significant of the way in -which we are all brow-beaten by the sodden nonsense of the tribe that -it took me some minutes of reflection to come upon the unreason of the -thing. If the crushed looking gentleman had forgotten the lady, she was -not, of course, his wife and could never have truly been. If we are -dealing with a euphemism and are to understand that he wanted to forget -her, she may once have been his wife, but had, quite obviously, ceased -to be. - -In this moving picture there is illustrated what I call the insane -view of monogamic marriage, namely, that it is put on like a shirt or -a coat and must be kept on however ill-fitting, comfortless, unclean, -or dangerous, and that in this mere keeping on there is virtue. There -is the further implication that marriage has nothing to do with good -behavior, which is rewarded even in penitentiaries, or with ill; that -it is, indeed, an abstract kind of fate, a magical or infernal machine, -a metaphysical trap. Once you are caught in it, you must stay caught. -To wriggle is sin. - -Do I seem to be discussing the matter on too low a plane? I wish I -were. The truth is that cultivated and liberal people have not yet -freed their minds from the concepts with which that amusing picture -deals. It is in action, not in fireside talk that these things are -tested. And it is true that even such people will pay an uninhibited -respect to a depraved character, cruel, treacherous, stupid, who -practices that moving-picture theory of marriage which, in ways no -less real for being subtle and but half-conscious, they will be -tempted to withhold from a person of the utmost spiritual grace and -charm who practices that kind of marriage of which, theoretically and -outspokenly, they so eloquently approve. - -This very tentative argument, then, is not directed against marriage. I -am not even ready to plead--that would be Utopian--that the relations -of the sexes be withdrawn from social control. Our first step, at -least in America, must be an attempt to sanitate marriage. This can be -done--if it can be done at all--by relating marriage and its practice -to certain notions of good and decency and honor that already have a -tenure, however feeble, upon the public consciousness. Marriage, in -brief, should be held to be created by love and sustained by love. I -shall, of course, be accused of meaning passion. I mean that precise -blending of passion and spiritual harmony and solid friendship without -which, as even those who will not admit it know, the close association -of a man and a woman is as disgusting as it is degrading. And marriage -should be dependent, though this matter is included in the first, on -good behavior. I will not keep a man or a woman as my friend whom I -discover to be a liar, slanderer, thief. Much less ought one to keep -such a person as husband or wife. Who is to judge, it will be asked? -No objective judgment is needed. A subjective conviction of this sort -suffices to reduce the union in question to dust and ashes. - -Here is the one practical point; here the one possibility of hope. To -frame a rational theory of the relations of men and women is easy and -agreeable. The very fashioners of such theories, being human, will be -brought, under the discomforts of social pressure, to _seem_ to assent -to all that their minds most passionately deny. A man or a woman of -the highest philosophic insight will struggle through the ignominy -of the divorce courts not so much in order to dissolve a meaningless -legal bond as to save some one whom he or she loves and reveres from -the criticism of the vulgar. For we live in a vulgar world. There is no -safe and ultimate escape; its vulgarity in precisely these matters will -often affront us where we least expected it. To mitigate that vulgarity -must be our first task. - -I do not know whether it can be done at all. But if so, then it must -be done by making an unhappy union disgraceful. People who are always -bickering with each other, who are obviously unhappy in each other’s -presence, who always hold opinions acridly opposed, who are always -trying either subtly or obviously to escape from each other--such -couples must fall under social disapproval. And this disapproval -must apply even though one of the two prefers possessiveness to -either happiness or decency or self-respect. Similarly those who are -deliberately unfaithful should be disgraced--not for the act of unfaith -but for the hypocrisy of remaining in a union which that very act, -which the temptation to that very act, shows to have lost its purpose -and its meaning. - -This sort of social control is not my ideal. Love is like religion, -a matter for the individual soul. To change partners in love is very -much like changing one’s opinion on some deep and vital matter. The -spirit must bear its own inherent witness. But I promised myself not -to be Utopian. And may it not conceivably be brought home to a few -people to begin with that the men who laugh so spontaneously when -the song-and-dance man sings “My wife’s gone to the country, hurray, -hurray!” are leading immoral lives and reducing their partners to the -rôle of disagreeable prostitutes and unsatisfactory servants? - -I am not prepared to stress the point unendurably. True marriage, -the true and lovely union of a man and a woman, body and spirit, is -rare. But to-day it is not even an ideal, not even something admired -and striven for. Love in itself is rare and married love is perhaps -as rare as beauty or genius. Happiness, too, is rare, happiness in -any relation. But even as a man or a woman has made an obvious and -shattering mistake if his or her chosen work does not produce a -reasonable minimum of lasting inner satisfaction, so may marriage also -be tested by a reasonable minimum of lasting--let us say, preference -and blessedness. To fall below that minimum is to cheat both the self -and society, both the present and posterity, to sacrifice honor to a -fetish and vitality to decay. - - - - -Communist Puritans - -By Louis Fischer - - - - -Louis Fischer - -_is Moscow correspondent of the New York_ Nation. - - - - -COMMUNIST PURITANS - -BY LOUIS FISCHER - - -The Soviet state is omnipotent and omnipresent. Bukharin, the -arch-theorist, contends that this is a transitional phase in the -development of Communism toward perfection. The Bolsheviks’ professed -aim is the _reductio ad administratum_ of the functions of the state; -they would make government the traffic cop of the nation but not the -all-pervading busybody and touch-everybody-everywhere which it is -now in Russia. The transitional period, however, may last long. In -default of a world revolution it may project itself beyond the present -generation and even beyond the next. And in the meantime it is good -Communist doctrine to maintain an Argus-eyed, Herculanean-clubbed -state. The Soviet Government is alike an administrator, politician, -statesman, merchant, manufacturer, banker, shipbuilder, newspaper -publisher, school-teacher, and preacher. - -Such a state is the highest expression of the anti-individualism of -socialist philosophy. The single _simian erectus_ is nothing; it is the -class, the nation which counts. - -The citizen lives for the state. Mind and muscle must ever be at its -service. A Communist who is a loose liver is an anomaly. There is -virtue even in a grain of asceticism and in “morality,” not, it is -important to note, because luxury and license are sinful and lead to -damnation and hell but because the excessive gratification of physical -desires, be they for sex or for alcohol, and any over-indulgence of -one’s selfish mental weaknesses reduce the energy and attention which -the individual can offer to the state and to society. - -The Bolsheviks do not believe in evolution in the realm of politics; -they are revolutionists. Eighteenth and nineteenth-century liberalism -tended toward the survival of the fittest. But the essence of the -Russian revolution is the protection of the under dog, of the -proletarian and peasant who, unaided, would not survive in the unequal -struggle with the capitalist and landowner. The function of the Soviet -state is to support the oppressed majority against the vested and -acquired interests of the economically powerful minority. - -The doctrine of the survival of the fittest, translated into every-day -life, permits freedom of action, as little restraint as possible, the -freest play for nature and human nature. Communist doctrine involves -the negation of individual freedom; human nature is discounted in the -socialist scale of weights and measures; laissez-faire is replaced by -discipline, if need be, by force. Only once did the Communists reveal -a liberal vein. It was in their treatment of conscientious objectors -during the civil wars. Russia has many sects such as the Dukhobors who -are opposed to violence on grounds of conscience. Though the Government -was engaged in a death struggle, it respected these sentiments. But in -all else, whenever its own interests have been at stake, the state has -disregarded the wishes and inclinations of the human unit. Liberty of -the individual is not as sacred an ikon as it is in the West. To give -economic freedom to the mass is a nobler aim. Thus the Communists would -explain and justify (but in my opinion this does not justify) the -absence of a free press in Russia and the activities of the G. P. U. - -The aim of the Bolsheviks was not merely to overthrow one government -and to establish their own. This was a means toward creating a new -society. To that extent the Bolsheviks are as presumptuous as most -reformers. In 1917 they must have argued to themselves much to this -effect: “We are a minority. The majority has not invited us to rule -it. But we know better than the majority what is good for it.” In the -interest of the new society a powerful state was set up. The powerful -state was privileged to ride roughshod over the individual. The -Bolsheviks presume to tell the individual how to act and how to live. -This is the “superiority complex” which is one of the most essential -characteristics of puritanism. “I am perfect. Watch me. Go thou and do -likewise.” The Russian Communists are puritans without religion. - -In matters of morals the Communists advocate and agitate but do not -use force. Only in the case of members of the Communist Party do -they interfere if the individual’s actions are likely “directly or -indirectly to discredit the party.” (Such a phrase permits of the -widest interpretation and misinterpretation.) Thus in an article in -the _Pravda_ on The Party and Personal Life, O. Zortzeva, an official -of the Central Control Committee, writes that “not long ago one of -the representatives of the Control Committee in the South asked for -instructions to combat the evil of divorce.” She cites an instance (and -there must be many more such instances) where a Communist was required -to explain why he left his wife. He replied he could not live with -her because she was unfit to mingle in the society of his new friends -and acquaintances. The reply was regarded as unsatisfactory. The -Soviet state enforces a most liberal divorce law. But the Communists -discourage divorce. Within the party it is looked upon with disfavor. - -The war, the revolution, the civil wars have worked havoc with the -Russian family. It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that family -life is crumbling. Trotzky, who has given more active attention to -these questions of personal behavior than any other Communist leader, -seeks to reënforce the collapsing buttresses of the family. (It -will be recalled that Engels, the author with Marx of the “Communist -Manifesto,” wrote the “Origin of the Family” to prove that the family -was a new, unnecessary, and reactionary institution.) Trotzky urges the -“communalization of the family household” so as to “disencumber the -family of kitchen and laundry.” Take the burden of washing, cooking, -sewing, child-raising from the family and “the relation between husband -and wife will be cleansed of all that is external, foreign, forced, -accidental. Each would cease to spoil the life of the other....” - -The family life of most Communist leaders would probably find favor -in the eyes of the Bishop of New York, and we can imagine that Cotton -Mather, if he returned to the flesh and visited Moscow, would hurry to -Trotzky, slap him untheologically on the back, and say, “Thou art a -man.” There was something ascetic and impersonal in the way Lenin used -to live. There is something reminiscent of Christian self-abnegation -in Chicherin’s, Bukharin’s, Radek’s disdain for good clothes. A -Communist is required to contribute to the party treasury all the -salary he earns above $95 a month. And even if his writings bring him a -supplementary income he must not spend it for luxuries. The Communists -are the shock troops of the Soviet régime. They must be like athletes -in training. They must not consume mental and spiritual ice creams and -pastries. - -Alexandra Kollontai, now Soviet ambassador in Christiania, stands for -the utmost freedom in sexual relations. But a review in the official -press of her book, “Love Among Laboring Bees,” stigmatizes her views -on the subject as “prostitution” and “intellectual tomfoolery.” “It -is imperative,” reads the last sentence of the criticism, “to guard -against the harmful influence of Comrade Kollontai.” This is the -attitude which in other countries leads to the appointment of vice -censors. Russia, fortunately, is too advanced to subject itself to such -a humiliation. Only the lives of Communists are censored. In respect -to the great mass of the people the Bolsheviks content themselves with -preaching. - -Trotzky’s sermons will certainly do the people no harm. Russians -have barely a trace of puritanism. Take the instance of their -famous, many-ply “mother” oaths. Beside them the worst product of the -British navvy looks pale. Says Trotzky: “One would have to consult -philologists, linguists, and folk-lore experts to find out whether -any other people has such unrestrained, filthy, and disgusting oaths -as we have. As far as I know, there is no other.” The Communists have -initiated an anti-swearing campaign. In some factories the workers -themselves decided to fine any one who used an “expression.” Wherever -one goes, in industrial plants, in beer saloons, in clubs, one sees the -colored “Don’t Swear” poster. Even in the army, where curses once found -their most fertile field, they are becoming increasingly rare. - -A Communist should not play cards. A member of the party will not, if -he is a good Communist, enter a gambling casino. (The Moscow gambling -casinos, incidentally, have been closed by order of the Government.) -Newly initiated Communists ask their instructors whether they are to -permit their wives to powder their faces. A Communist would hardly come -to her office with her lips rouged and even non-Communist workers in -many Soviet commissariats feel that it is bad form to use the lipstick. -Certainly very few if any women Communists dress to fashion. Most of -them dress badly. There are more serious things to do than to mind the -clothes on one’s back. It is unworthy of a Communist, and Communists -think it is unworthy of all Russians, to give too much thought to the -flesh. I know a non-Communist Soviet official who likes to carry a -cane, but he leaves it home when he goes to work. - -There can be no let-up, says Trotzky, in the war against alcohol. -The Government has abolished vodka, but the bootleg “samogonka” has -replaced it. The police arrest men and women (in Russia most of -the apprehended bootleggers are women) but force removes as little -of the evil here as it does in the United States. So strong is the -drink tradition in Russia that even many Communists indulge in the -permissible wines and light beers. But the party reminds its members -that they must inhibit such desires. It will not do for the best -soldiers of the state and the master-builders of a new society to -become inebriated, or lose their heads and time in the pursuit of -women, or play cards, or stop to adjust their neckties while the -foundations of the structure are being laid. - - - - -Stereotypes - -By Florence Guy Seabury - - - - -Florence Guy Seabury - -_is a frequent contributor to the_ New Republic _and to various popular -magazines._ - - - - -STEREOTYPES - -BY FLORENCE GUY SEABURY - - -If Clarissa Harlow could have stepped out of her pre-Victorian world -to witness some of the women stevedores and “longshoremen” now at work -along the New York water front, she would certainly have fainted so -abruptly that no masculine aid could have restored consciousness. If -we can believe the 1920 census, a goodly number of Clarissa’s timid -and delicate sex are toiling gloriously in the most dangerous and -violent occupations. Nor are they only engaged in handling steel beams -and freight, running trucks and donkey engines, but as miners and -steeplejacks, aviators and divers, sheriffs and explorers--everything, -in fact that man ever did or thought of doing. They have proved, -moreover, as successful in such a new occupation as capturing jungle -tigers as in the old one of hunting husbands, as deft in managing big -business as in running a little household. - -But the census bureau, compiling all the facts of feminine industry, -forgot to note that woman might perform these amazingly varied -operations, outside the home, without changing in any measurable degree -the rooted conception of her nature and activities. She may step out -of skirts into knickers, cut her hair in a dozen short shapes and -even beat a man in a prize fight, but old ideas as to her place and -qualities endure. She changes nothing as set as the stereotyped image -of her sex which has persisted since Eve. - -The Inquiring Reporter of the New York _Sun_ recently asked five -persons whether they would prefer to be tried by a jury of men or -women. “Of men,” cried they all--two women and three men. “Women would -be too likely to overlook the technical points of the law.” “Women are -too sentimental.” “They are too easily swayed by an eloquent address.” -“Women are by nature sentimental.” Almost anybody could complete the -list. Ancient opinions of women’s characteristics have been so widely -advertised that the youngest child in the kindergarten can chirp the -whole story. Billy, aged ten, hopes fervently that this country may -never have a woman president. “Women haven’t the brains--it’s a -man’s job.” A. S. M. Hutchinson, considerably older than Billy, has -equally juvenile fears: that the new freedom for women may endanger her -functions in the home. Whatever and wherever the debate, the status -and attributes of women are settled by neat and handy generalizations, -passed down from father to son, and mother to daughter. For so far, -most women accept the patterns made for them and are as likely as not -to consider themselves the weaker vessel, the more emotional sex, a lay -figure of biological functioning. - -Optimists are heralding a changed state in the relationship of men and -women. They point to modern activities and interests as evidence of a -different position in the world. They say that customs and traditions -of past days are yielding to something freer and finer. The old order, -as far as home life is concerned, has been turned topsy-turvy. Out of -this chaos, interpreters of the coming morality declare that already -better and happier ways have been established between man and maid. - -It sounds plausible enough, but the trouble remains, that, so far, it -isn’t true. The intimate relationship of men and women is about as it -was in the days of Cleopatra or Xanthippe. The most brawny stevedorette -leaves her freight in the air when the whistle blows and rushes home -to husband as if she were his most sheltered possession. Following the -tradition of the centuries, the business woman, whose salary may double -that of her mate, hands him her pay envelope and asks permission to -buy a new hat. Busts and bustles are out, flat chests and orthopedic -shoes are in, while the waist line moves steadily toward the thigh--but -what of it? Actualities of present days leave the ancient phantasies -unchanged. - -Current patterns for women, as formulated by the man in the street, by -the movies, in the women’s clubs and lecture halls can be boiled down -to one general cut. Whatever she actually is or does, in the stereotype -she is a creature specialized to function. The girl on the magazine -cover is her symbol. She holds a mirror, a fan, a flower and--at -Christmas--a baby. Without variety, activity, or individuality her -sugary smile pictures satisfying femininity. Men are allowed diversity. -Some are libertines, others are husbands; a few are lawyers, many are -clerks. They wear no insignia of masculinity or badge of paternity and -they are never expected to live up to being Man or Mankind. But every -woman has the whole weight of formulated Womanhood upon her shoulders. -Even in new times, she must carry forward the design of the ages. - -One of the quaint hang-overs of the past is that men are the chief -interpreters of even the modern woman. It may be that the conquest of -varied fields and the strain of establishing the right to individuality -has taken all her time and energy. Or it may be that the habit of -vicarious expression has left her inarticulate. Whatever it is, in the -voluminous literature of the changing order, from the earnest tracts on -“How It Feels to Be a Woman,” by a leading male educator to the tawdry -and flippant syndicated views of W. L. George, masculine understanders -take the lead. And the strange part of their interpretations is that -they run true to ancient form. Old adages are put in a more racy -vernacular, the X-ray is turned on with less delicacy, but when the -froth of their engaging frankness disappears, hoary old ideas remain -thickly in the tumbler. - -Take the intimate life story of a girl of the younger -generation--Janet March--written by that good friend of women, Floyd -Dell. The blurb on the jacket of the book announces that she moves -toward “not a happy ending but an intelligent one.” And the end? Janet -finds her mate and the curtain falls to the soft music of maternity. -“One has to risk something,” Janet cries. “All my life I’ve wanted to -_do_ something with myself. Something exciting. And this is the one -thing I can do. I can”--she hesitated. “I can create a breed of fierce -and athletic girls, new artists, musicians, and singers.” - -As a conclusion this is acceptable to any one with a heart, but wherein -is it intellectual and not happy? Queen Victoria, the Honorable Herbert -Asquith, or the Reverend Lyman Abbott would be equally pleased by its -one hundred per cent womanliness. And how does it differ from our -cherished slogan, “Woman’s place is in the home”? Only because Floyd -Dell cuts Janet in a large, free-hand design. The advance pattern calls -for a wealth of biological and gynecological explanation, pictures the -girl as a healthy young animal who “smoked but drew the line on grounds -of health at inhaling,” and, following the fashion of peasants in -foreign countries, consummated the marriage before it was celebrated. -Yet Janet, who claimed her right to all experience and experiment, -finally raises her banner on the platform of fireside and nursery. - -Despite its unquestionable orthodoxy, Janet March was retired from -circulation. But no one has successfully dammed the flowing tide of W. -L. George. He draws with somewhat futuristic effect, at times, but his -conclusions are those of the old masters. “No woman,” he enunciates -authoritatively, “values her freedom until she is married and then she -is proud to surrender it to the man she has won.” Or take this: “All -women are courtesans at heart, living only to please the other sex.” -Wherein does this differ from the sentiment of Alexander Pope who, -one hundred and fifty or more years before the birth of W. L. George, -declared: - - Men, some to business, some to pleasures take, - But every woman is at heart a rake. - -H. L. Mencken, stirred by debates about the intelligence of woman and -her newer activities, essayed “In Defense of Women,” to put his old -wine in a fancy bottle, but it was the same home brew. Generously -conceding brains to women, he proves his point on the evidence that -they are used to ensnare men, who weak-minded and feeble in flight are -usually bowled over in the battle of wits. “Marriage,” he says, “is -the best career a woman can reasonably aspire to--and in the case of -very many women, the only one that actually offers a livelihood.”... -“A childless woman remains more than a little ridiculous and ill at -ease.”... “No sane woman has ever actually muffed a chance.”... “The -majority of inflammatory suffragettes of the sex hygiene and birth -control species are simply those who have done their best to snare a -man and failed.” - -In H. L. Mencken’s favor is his absence of the usual gush about -feminine beauty. He declares with refreshing honesty that in contrast -to the female body a milk jug or even a cuspidor is a thing of -intelligent and gratifying design. Of woman’s superior mental ability -he says, “A cave man is all muscle and mush. Without a woman to think -for him, he is truly a lamentable spectacle, a baby with whiskers, -a rabbit with the frame of an aurochs, a feeble and preposterous -caricature of God.” What a pity that women use all these advantages of -superior mentality and ability only in the age-old game of man-hunting. -But do they? - -D. H. Lawrence shares this philosophy of the chief business of women, -and he is much more gloomy about it. In fact, he is decidedly neurotic -in his fear of the ultimate absorption of man. Woman he describes -perpetually as a great, magnetic womb, fecund, powerful, drawing, -engulfing. Man he sees as a pitiful, struggling creature, ultimately -devoured by fierce maternal force. “You absorb, absorb,” cries Paul -to Miriam in “Sons and Lovers,” “as if you must fill yourself up with -love because you’ve got a shortage somewhere.” The Lawrence model, -madly, fiercely possessive, differs from older forms in the abundance -of physiological and pathological trimming. His conclusion, as voiced -again by Paul to Miriam is, “A woman only works with part of herself; -the real and vital part is covered up.” And this hidden reality is her -terrific, destructive, fervid determination to drown man in her embrace. - -So it goes. To Floyd Dell woman is a Mother, to H. L. Mencken a Wife, -to W. L. George a Courtesan, and to D. H. Lawrence a Matrix--always -specialized to sex. There may be men who are able to think of woman -apart from the pattern of function, but they are inarticulate. Most of -them spend their lives associating with a symbol. The set pieces they -call Mary, Martha, Elaine, or Marguerite may follow the standardized -design of grandmother, mother, or aunt. Or in more advanced circles, -the pattern may call for bobbed hair, knickers, and cigarette case. -Under any form of radicalism or conservatism the stereotype remains. - -The old morality was built upon this body of folk-lore about women. -Whether pictured as a chaste and beautiful angel, remote and untainted -by life’s realities, or more cynically regarded as a devil and the -source of sin, the notion was always according to pattern. Naturally, -the relationship of men and women has been built upon the design, -and a great many of our social ideals and customs follow it. The -angel concept led, of course, to the so-called double standard which -provides for a class of Victorian dolls who personify goodness, while -their sisters, the prostitutes, serve as sacrificial offerings to -the wicked ways of men. The new morality, as yet rather nebulous and -somewhat mythical, has fewer class distinctions. The angel picture, -for instance, has had some rude blows. As portrayed by the vanguard of -radicals and interpreters, however, the changing conventions have their -roots in the old generalizations and phantasies. - -Perhaps this is only to be expected, for the man or woman does not -exist whose mind has not become so filled with accepted ideas of human -beings and relationships before maturity, or even adolescence, that -what is seen thereafter is chiefly a fog of creeds and patterns. If -several hundred babies, children of good inherited backgrounds, could -be brought up on an isolated island, without a taint of superimposed -custom and never hearing generalizations about themselves--never -having standardized characteristics laid heavily upon their shoulders, -perhaps a different type of relationship founded upon actualities, -would be evolved. Without a mythology of attributes, based chiefly upon -biological functions, real human beings might discover each other and -create new and honest ways of comradeship and association. As it is -to-day, we do not know what the pristine reactions of individuals, free -from the modifications of stereotype, would be like. - -It was the development of means by which beliefs could be separated -from actual facts which brought modern science into being and freed -the world from the quaint superstitions of the ages. Not until the -nature of substance could be proved and classified in contrast with the -mass of ignorant notions which clogged ancient thought was the amazing -mechanical, economic, and scientific advance of the last century -possible. The world of antiquity had standardized life and tied thought -down to speculative creeds. Empirical science discarded all supposition -and centered itself upon building up another picture--life as an -examination of its actual nature proved it to be. - -In the creating of a new order which will bring with it a different -type of social and personal contact, something similar must take place. -For most of our ideas, even those classified as liberal and advanced, -are built upon the reactions of an alleged, not an actual human being. -Men have suffered from pattern-making, but never have they been -burdened with the mass of generalizations that are heaped upon women -from birth. Nobody knows what women are really like because our minds -are so filled with the stereotype of Woman. And this picture, even in -the interpretations of those who claim to understand the modern woman, -is chiefly of function, not character. It is impossible to create a -satisfying relationship between a red-blooded individual and a symbol. -A changed morality cannot successfully emerge when half of those who -participate are regarded not as people but functions. As long as women -are pictured chiefly as wife, mother, courtesan--or what not--defining -merely a relationship to men--nothing new or strange or interesting is -likely to happen. The old order is safe. - - - - -Women and the New Morality - -By Beatrice M. Hinkle - - - - -Beatrice M. Hinkle - -_is a physician and psycho-analyst who follows in general the beliefs -of Jung. She is the author of “Recreating the Individual.”_ - - - - -WOMEN AND THE NEW MORALITY - -BY BEATRICE M. HINKLE, M.D. - - -In the general discussions of morality which are the fashion just now, -sex morality seems to occupy the chief place. Indeed, judging from -the amount of talk on this subject one would be inclined to think it -the outstanding problem of our time. Certainly the whole of humanity -is concerned in and vitally affected by the sexual aspect of life. -Sexuality in its capacity as an agent of transformation is the source -of power underlying the creativeness of man. In its direct expression, -including its influence upon human relationships in general, it is -woman’s particular concern. The position of importance it is assuming -seems, therefore, to be justified, regardless of the protests of the -intellect and the wish of the ego to minimize its significance. - -A general weakening of traditional standards of ethics and morals and -their gradual loss of control over the conduct of individuals have -long been observed in other activities--in business affairs and in -the world of men’s relations with each other. This has taken place so -quietly and with so much specious rationalizing that sharp practices -and shady conduct which formerly would have produced scandals, shame, -and social taboos now scarcely cause a protest from society. These -aspects of morality belong to the masculine world in particular and -produce little agitation, while the upheaval in sex morals particularly -affects the feminine world and by many people can scarcely be -considered calmly enough for an examination. The changes in this field -are the most recent and are being produced by women; they are taking -place in full view of all with no apologies and with little hesitation. -They appear, therefore, most striking and disturbing. It can be said -that in the general disintegration of old standards, women are the -active agents in the field of sexual morality and men the passive, -almost bewildered accessories to the overthrow of their long and firmly -organized control of women’s sexual conduct. - -The old sex morality, with its double standard, has for years been -criticized and attacked by fair-minded persons of both sexes. It -has been recognized that this unequal condition produced effects -as unfortunate for the favored sex as for the restricted one, and -that because of this it could not be maintained indefinitely by a -psychologically developing people. As a matter of course, whenever -the single standard was mentioned, the standard governing women was -invariably meant, and the fact was ignored that it is easier to break -down restrictions than to force them upon those who have hitherto -enjoyed comparative freedom. Furthermore, it was not realized that a -sex morality imposed by repression and the power of custom creates -artificial conceptions and will eventually break down. - -This forced morality is in fact at the present time quite obviously -disintegrating. We see women assuming the right to act as their -impulses dictate with much the same freedom that men have enjoyed for -so long. The single standard is rapidly becoming a _fait accompli_, but -instead of the standard identified with women it is nearer the standard -associated with men. According to a universal psychological law, -actual reality eventually overtakes and replaces the cultural ideal. - -Although this overthrow of old customs and sex ideals must be chiefly -attributed to the economic independence of women brought about through -the industrialism of our age, it is safe to say that no man thought -ahead far enough or understood the psychology of women sufficiently -to anticipate the fruit of this economic emancipation. As long as -women were dependent upon men for the support of themselves and their -children there could be no development of a real morality, for the -love and feelings of the woman were so intermingled with her economic -necessities that the higher love impulse was largely undifferentiated -from the impulse of self-preservation. True morality can only develop -when the object or situation is considered for itself, not when it is -bound up with ulterior and extraneous elements which vitiate the whole. -The old morality has failed and is disintegrating fast, because it was -imposed from without instead of evolving from within. - -A morality which has value for all time and is not dependent upon -custom or external cultural fashions can arise only from a high -development of the psychological functions of thinking and feeling, -with the developed individual as the determiner of values instead of -general custom or some one else’s opinion. The function of feeling and -the realm of the emotions have been universally regarded as woman’s -special province; therefore it is women who are specially concerned -with testing out moral values involving sexual behavior. Women have -been reproached by men again and again as being only sexual creatures, -and they have meekly accepted the reproach. Now, instead of examining -the statement, they have accepted the sexual problem of men as though -it were their own, and with it the weight of man’s conflict and his -articulateness. For sexuality as a problem and a conflict definitely -belongs to man’s psychology; it is he primarily who has been ashamed -of his domination by this power and has struggled valiantly to free -himself; his egotistic and sexual impulses have always been at war with -each other. But whoever heard of women being ashamed of yielding to the -power of love? Instead they gloried in the surrender of themselves and -counted themselves blessed when love ruled. It is this need of man to -escape from the power of the sensual appeal that has made him scorn sex -and look upon the great creative power of life as something shameful -and inferior, and in modern days treat it as a joke or with the -indifferent superficiality which betrays emasculation and inadequacy. - -One has only to “listen in” where any large group of men, young or -old, are gathered together in easy familiarity (the army camps were -recent examples on a large scale) to discover the degree to which -sexuality still dominates the minds of men, even though its expression -is confined so largely to the jocose and the obscene. Many men can -corroborate this report from a military camp--“we have sexuality in -all its dirty and infantile forms served daily for breakfast, lunch, -and dinner.” It is the inferior and inadequate aspect of masculine -sexuality that has made it necessary for man to conceive it as -something shameful and unclean, and to insist that woman must carry his -purity for him and live the restrictions and suppression that rightly -belonged to him. Woman on her part became an easy victim of his ideas -and convictions, because of the very fact that the function of feeling -and the emotions so largely dominate her psychology. The translation -of feeling into thought-forms has been slow and difficult. About -herself woman has been quite inarticulate and largely unconscious. -This inarticulateness inevitably made her accept man’s standards and -values for her, for little directed thinking is achieved without form -and words. Because of her sexual fertility and fruitfulness woman had -no sexual conflict; therefore, man easily unloaded his psychological -burden upon her, and claimed freedom for the satisfaction of his own -desires. - -Thus, woman was made a symbol or personification of man’s morality. She -had to live for him that which he was unable to live for himself. This -was the reason for his indignation at moral transgressions on her part. -She had injured the symbol and revealed his weakness to him. However, -with the discovery by women that they could be economically independent -of men, they commenced to find themselves interesting. As they have -gradually come to think for themselves about fundamental questions, -there has begun a tremendous activity and busyness in regard to the -very subject which was previously taboo. - -A recent writer boasts that men have changed their attitude regarding -sexual problems very little and are not much concerned in the new -interest of women. This is probably true, for man has contributed -all he has to give to the subject. He has laid down his taboos and -externalized his restrictions, chiefly applicable to the other sex, -and he is finished with the subject--bored by having it thrust forward -as an unfinished problem needing reconsideration. All of his knowledge -or understanding of the sexual aspect of life--the aspect underlying -human creativeness, the faulty development of which is responsible -for a large part of his woes, “can be told in two hours to any -intelligent sixteen year old boy,” another writer recently stated. It -is this youthful ignorance and assurance that the last word has been -spoken on this subject that has awakened women, no longer dependent -economically, to the fact that they must also become independent of men -intellectually if they wish to gain expression for their knowledge -or to form their own rules of conduct based on their psychology. In -the true scientific spirit of the age they are now experimenting and -using nature’s method of trial and error to find out for themselves by -conscious living experience what feeling has vaguely told them. This is -the first step towards objectifying and clarifying woman’s intuitive -knowledge. - -With the revolt of women against the old restrictions and the demand -for freedom to experience for themselves, there has appeared a most -significant phase of the changed morality--the new relation of women -toward each other. The significance of this enormous change which -has been taking place very quietly and yet very rapidly is scarcely -appreciated. However, when one realizes that only a generation ago the -newspapers were still publishing their funny paragraphs at the expense -of women (“The dear creatures; how they love one another”), the great -difference in their relations today becomes evident. The generally -accepted distinction between the personal loyalties of the sexes can be -summed up in the statement that women are loyal in love and disloyal -in friendship, while men are loyal in friendship and disloyal in love. -It is this attitude of women that is gradually disappearing with the -awakening of a new sense of themselves as individuals. Their changed -attitude towards each other--the recognition of their own values, and -the growing realization that only in solidarity can any permanent -impression be made on the old conception of woman as an inferior, -dependent creature, useful for one purpose only--constitutes the most -marked difference between their present social condition and that of -the past. - -As long as women remained psychologically unawakened, their individual -values were swallowed up in their biological value for the race. They -were under the unconscious domination of their sexual fruitfulness -and an enemy of themselves as individuals. Weininger gives as the -chief difference between the masculine and feminine creeds that “Man’s -religion consists in a supreme belief in himself--woman’s in a supreme -belief in other people.” These other people being men, the sex rivalry -among women that has so long stood in the way of their further -development is easily understood. It has been a vicious circle which -could only be broken by women’s gaining another significance in the -eyes of the world and in their own eyes. This other significance is the -economic importance which they have acquired in the world of men. - -It makes little difference within the social structure how many -individual women exist who have forged a position for themselves and -have won a freedom and independence equal to that possessed by the -ordinary man, so long as they are isolated phenomena having little -understanding of the peculiar difficulties and problems of women as a -whole, and no relation with each other. These women have always existed -in all culture periods, but they have produced little effect upon the -social condition or psychology of women in general. There was no group -action because the majority of women were inarticulate. The woman who -was different became abnormal in the eyes of the world. - -This lack of an adequate self-consciousness among women, their -general inability to translate feeling into form capable of being -understood by the masculine mind, accounts for their acceptance of the -statements made about them by men in an effort to understand creatures -apparently so different from themselves. There is no doubt that woman’s -inarticulateness about herself, even when her feelings were very -different from those she was told were normal, has been responsible for -a vast amount of the nonsense written about her. - -This passive acceptance of the opinions of others has been most -disastrous for woman’s development. Her superior psychological -processes consist of feelings and intuitions, and when these are -stultified or violated by being forced into a false relation, or are -inhibited from development, the entire personality is crippled. The -inadequate development of the function of thought and the dominating -rôle played by the function of feeling in the psychology of woman have -produced an obviously one-sided effect and have caused men to postulate -theories about her, which are given forth as though they were the last -word to be said--fixed and unchangeable. Indeed the statement that -women are incapable of change and that no growth is possible for them -is one of the favorite assertions of the masculine writers upon the -subject of women’s psychology. As the present is the first time in our -historical period in which there has been any general opportunity for -women as a whole to think for themselves and to develop in new ways, -the basis for this assertion does not exist, and it obviously conceals -an unconscious wish that women should not change. - -The effect of collective ideas and cultural traditions upon the -personality is immeasurable. The greatest general change that is -taking place today is the weakening of these ideas and the refusal -of women to be bound by them. Women are for the first time demanding -to live the forbidden experiences directly and draw conclusions on -this basis. I do not mean to imply that traditional moral standards -controlling woman’s sexual conduct have never been transgressed in the -past. They have very frequently been transgressed, but secretly and -without inner justification. The great difference today lies in the -open defiance of these customs with feelings of entire justification, -or even a non-recognition of a necessity for justification. In other -words, there has arisen a feeling of moral rightness in the present -conduct, and wrongness in the former morality. Actually the condition -is one in which natural, long-restrained desire is being substituted -for collective moral rules, and individuals are largely becoming a law -unto themselves. It is difficult to predict what will be the result -of the revolt, but it is certain that this is the preceding condition -which renders it possible for a new morality in the real sense to be -born within the individual. It has already produced the first condition -of all conscious psychic development--a moral conflict--and woman has -gained a problem. - -In the general chaos of conflicting feelings she is losing her -instinctive adaptation to her biological rôle as race bearer, and is -attempting adaptation to man’s reality. She is making the effort to win -for herself some differentiation and development of the ego function -apart from her instinctive processes. This is the great problem -confronting woman today; how can she gain a relation to both racial and -individual obligations, instead of possessing one to the exclusion of -the other? Must she lose that which has been and still is her greatest -strength and value? I for one do not think so, although I am fully -conscious of the tremendous psychic effort and responsibility involved -in the changing standards. It is necessary that women learn to accept -themselves and to value themselves as beings possessing a worth at -least equal to that of the other sex, instead of unthinkingly accepting -standards based on masculine psychology. Then women will recognize -the necessity of developing their total psychic capacities just as -it is necessary for men to do, but they will see that this does not -involve imitation of men or repudiation of their most valuable psychic -functioning. The real truth is that it has at last become apparent to -many women that men cannot redeem them. - -It is not the purpose of this article to deal with the practical -issues involved in the new moral freedom. One thing however is clearly -evident: Women are demanding a reality in their relations with men -that heretofore has been lacking, and they refuse longer to cater to -the traditional notions of them created by men, in which their true -feelings and personalities were disregarded and denied. This is the -first result of the new morality. - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - -A few minor errors in punctuation have been corrected. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OUR CHANGING MORALITY *** - -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 an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks 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 other than 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 will 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 website -(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 the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager 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 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 website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread 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 website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website 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. |