"Wie Du mit den kleinen Kindern, Will ich alles mit ihr tun, Und sie soll in ihrer Wiege Neben meinem Bette ruhn. Schläft sie, werd' ich von ihr träumen, Schreit sie auf, erwach' ich gleich,— Mein himmlisch gute Mutter, O, wie bin ich dock so reich!" "All you do for your children, For my Doll I do instead, And in her little cradle She lies beside my bed. When she sleeps, I dream about her, When she cries, I wake up too. My own, dear, darling Mother, I'm just as rich as you!"
Once I saw a little girl of seven running up and down the room, carrying all kinds of things as fast as she could to her doll. When I asked her what was the matter, she told me that her doll had the measles, and she was taking care of her. In all kinds of ways, we see the little girl occupying herself in the activities and inclinations of her future existence. She practises housework; she has a little kitchen, in which she cooks for herself and her doll. She is fond of needlework. The care of her own person, and more especially its adornment, are not forgotten. I remember seeing a girl of three who kept on interrupting her elders' conversation by crying out "New clothes!" and would not keep quiet until these latter had been duly admired. The love of self-adornment is almost peculiar to female children; boys, on the other hand, prefer rough outdoor games, in which their muscles are actively employed, robber-games, soldier-games, and the like. And whereas, in early childhood, both sexes are fond of very noisy games, the fondness for these disappears earlier in girls than in boys.
Differences between the sexes have been established also by means of experimental psychology, based upon the examination of a very large number of instances. Although it must be admitted that some of the acquirements of this school are still open to dispute, the data of these collective investigations must not be ignored. Berthold Hartmann has studied the childish circle of thought, by means of a series of experiments which are commonly spoken of as the Annaberg experiments. Schoolboys to the number of 660 and schoolgirls to the number of 652, at ages between 5¾ and 6¾ years, were subjected to examination. It was very remarkable to see how in respect of certain ideas, such as those of the triangle, cube, and circle, the girls greatly excelled the boys; whereas in respect of animals, minerals and social ideas, the boys were better informed than the girls. Characteristic of the differences between the sexes, according to Meumann,[16] from whom I take these details, and some of those that follow, is the fact that the idea of "marriage" was known to only 70 boys, as compared to 227 girls; whilst the idea of "infant baptism" was known to 180 boys as compared to 220 girls. The idea of "pleasure" was also much better understood by girls than by boys. Examination of the memory has also established the existence of differences between the sexes in childhood. In boys the memory for objects appears to be at first the best developed; to this succeeds the memory for words with a visual content: in the case of girls, the reverse of this was observed. In respect of numerous details, however, the authorities conflict. According to Lobsien, boys have a better memory for numbers, words, and sounds. The same investigator informs us that in girls the visual memory is distinctly better than it is in boys, this indicating that girls' memory for objects is also better; but Netschajeff, on the other hand, maintains that boys have a better memory for objects perceptible by the senses. It is interesting to note that certain variations have been shown to exist at different ages. During the first years of school-life, boys' memories are in general better than girls', this advantage persisting up to the age of ten; from this time onwards until the end of the years spent in primary schools, girls excel boys in the matter of memory, but especially at ages of eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen. Later than this, the boys become equal to the girls, and still later surpass them. Very striking is the fact, one upon which a very large number of investigators are agreed, that girls have a superior knowledge of colours. Experimental investigations made by means of Holmgren's test have shown that the superiority of girls in this respect is remarkable, and these experiments are confirmed by other lines of study.
There are additional psychological data relating to the differences between the sexes in childhood. I may recall Stern's investigations concerning the psychology of evidence, which showed that girls were much more inaccurate than boys. I may also refer, on the other hand, in relation to sexual differentiation, to the experiences obtained by Hans Gross by means of observations on practical life, although his results are not entirely free from certain sources of fallacy, and moreover have been disputed by other observers as not generally applicable. Hans Gross, however, found a notable difference between boys and girls, of which I shall later give a detailed description. Here, I shall merely quote the comprehensive summary given in his Criminal Psychology: "My results show that the boy who has passed his first years of childhood is, if well trained, the best observer and witness that can possibly be found, because he watches with interest all that goes on around him, stores it impartially in his memory, and reproduces it faithfully; whereas the girl of like age is often an untrustworthy, and even a dangerous witness. She is inevitably this when, after traversing the stages of talent, ardour, reverie, romanticism, and enthusiasm, she has passed into a condition of Weltschmerz, tinged with tedium vitæ. This emotional mental atmosphere is entered at an earlier age than is commonly imagined; and when such a girl's own personal interests are in any way affected by the occurrences under examination, we are never secure from gross exaggeration and misstatement. Petty larceny becomes robbery with violence; a trifling incivility, a serious assault; a harmless pleasantry, an interesting proposal for elopement; and the foolish prattle of children becomes a dangerous conspiracy."
I shall subsequently discuss in detail a psychical difference which is the most important of all those connected with the sexual life, namely, the direction of the sexual impulse, which attracts the man to the woman, and the woman to the man. We shall see to what a considerable degree this phenomenon manifests itself even in childhood.
It has been widely assumed that these psychical differences between the sexes result from education, and are not inborn. To avoid misunderstanding, we must, in our consideration of this question of education, distinguish between two distinct classes of phenomena, those which are individual and those which have existed for a number of generations. The sexually differentiated qualities in any individual may be regarded as inborn, and yet we may admit that the differentiation was originally the result of education, if we suppose that in earlier generations in either sex certain qualities were developed, and that gradually, by monosexual inheritance, the differences became confirmed, until finally they became inborn. Others, however, assume that the psychical characteristics by which the sexes are differentiated result solely from individual differences in education. Stern believes that in the case of one differential character, at least, he can prove that for many centuries there has been no difference between the sexes in the matter of education; this character is the capacity for drawing. Kerschensteiner has studied the development of this gift, and considers that his results have established beyond dispute that girls are greatly inferior in this respect to boys of like age. Stern[17] points out that there can be no question here of cultivation leading to a sexual differentiation of faculty, since there is no attempt at a general and systematic teaching of draughtsmanship to the members of one sex to the exclusion of members of the other.
Without further discussing the question, to what extent in earlier generations there has been any cultivation of psychical differences, I believe that we are justified in asserting that at the present time the sexual differentiation manifested in respect of quite a number of psychical qualities is the result of direct inheritance. It would be quite wrong to assume that all these differences arise in each individual in consequence of education. It does, indeed, appear to me to be true that inherited tendencies may be increased or diminished by individual education; and further, that when the inherited tendency is not a very powerful one, it may in this way even be suppressed. Observations on animals which exhibit sexual differentiation very early in life, also support the notion of the inherited character of certain tendencies; for instance, the movements of male animals often differ from those of the females of the same species.
We must not forget the frequent intimate association between structure and function. This well-proved connexion would lead us a priori, from the more powerful muscular development of boys, to infer the different inclinations of the two sexes. Rough outdoor games and wrestling thus correspond to the physical constitution of the boy. So, also, it is by no means improbable that the little girl, whose pelvis and hips have already begun to indicate by their development their adaptation for the supreme functions of the sexually mature woman, should experience obscurely a certain impulsion towards her predestined maternal occupation, and that her inclinations and amusements should in this way be determined. Many, indeed, and above all the extreme advocates of women's rights, prefer to maintain that such sexually differentiated inclinations result solely from differences in individual education: if the boy has no enduring taste for dolls and cooking, this is because his mother and others have told him, perhaps with mockery, that such amusements are unsuited to a boy; whilst in a similar way the girl is dissuaded from the rough sports of boyhood. Such an assumption is the expression of that general psychological and educational tendency, which ascribes to the activity of the will an overwhelmingly powerful influence upon the development of the organs subserving the intellect, and secondarily also upon that of the other organs of the body. By the influence of the will, it is supposed by this school, certain association-tracts in the brain are developed; or at least certain tracts hitherto functionally inactive are rendered functionally active. We cannot dispute the fact that in such a way the activity of the will may, within certain limits, be effective, especially in cases in which the inherited tendency thus counteracted is comparatively weak; but only within certain limits. Thus we can understand how it is that in some cases, by means of education, a child is impressed with characteristics normally foreign to its sex; qualities and tendencies are thus developed which ordinarily appear only in a child of the opposite sex. But even though we must admit that the activity of the individual may operate in this way, none the less are we compelled to assume that certain tendencies are inborn. The failure of innumerable attempts to counteract such inborn tendencies by means of education throws a strong light upon the limitations of the activity of the individual will; and the same must be said of a large number of other experiences.
It is, moreover, established beyond dispute that in certain cases, in consequence of an inborn predisposition, contrary sexual inclinations make their appearance, and that these represent a divergency from the proper sexual characters. It is with these mental sexual differential characters just as it is with the physical secondary sexual characters, any of which may, on occasion, make their appearance in the wrong sex, or may be wanting in the right one. We know that there exist women with beards, masculine larynges, and a masculine type of thorax; and, on the other hand, men with feminine mammæ, feminine larynges, and a feminine type of pelvis. Because we meet with such atypical instances, we are not therefore justified in inferring that it is by a mere arbitrary sport of nature that in the woman a great mammary development is normally associated with the development of the ovaries, and that in man the growth of the beard is associated with the development of the testicles. But just as in these respects there are certain exceptions, whose origin we are not always in a position to explain, so also are there exceptional sexual associations in respect of the secondary psychical sexual characters. Thus it comes to pass that many women exhibit masculine tendencies, and many men exhibit feminine tendencies. Unquestionably, the fact that psychical qualities, just as much as physical characters, may occasionally make their appearance in the wrong sex, does not invalidate the general truth of the statement that sexually differentiated psychical tendencies are inborn.
Occasionally, indeed, even in late childhood, this psychical differentiation is still but little marked. We must also bear in mind the fact that in many instances the bodily development of the girl—apart, of course, from the actual reproductive organs—differs but little, even during the second period of childhood, from that of the boy; and that in such cases the specific differentiation makes its first appearance later than is usual. We find boys also who have entered upon the period of youth (see p. [1]) without exhibiting any trace of downy growth upon the upper lip or the chin; in some, the first definite growth of hair on the face may not occur until several years later. I remember also that I have seen boys in whom during the period of puberal development an enlargement of the mammæ took place, going so far that it was possible by pressure on the glands to expel fluid from the mammillary ducts; at a more advanced age, however, this mammary growth was arrested, and subsequently atrophy ensued.