be thrown open to woman; she is to receive
everywhere the same wages as man; male and
female are to work side by side; and they are
indiscriminately to be put in command the one
over the other. Furthermore, legal rights are
to be secured to the wife over her husband's
property and earnings. The programme is,
in fact, to give to woman an economic inde-
pendence out of the earnings and taxes of
man.
Nor does feminist ambition stop short here.
It demands that women shall be included in
every advisory committee, every governing
board, every jury, every judicial bench, every
electorate, every parliament, and every minis-
terial cabinet; further, that every masculine
foundation, university, school of learning,
academy, trade union, professional corpora-
tion and scientific society shall be converted
into an epicene institution--until we shall have
everywhere one vast cock-and-hen show.
The proposal to bring man and woman
together everywhere into extremely intimate 138
relationships raises very grave questions. It
brings up, first, the question of sexual compli-
cations; secondly, the question as to whether
the tradition of modesty and reticence between
the sexes is to be definitely sacrificed; and,
most important of all, the question as to
whether epicene conditions would place ob-
stacles in the way of intellectual work.
Of these issues the feminist puts the first two
quite out of account. I have already else-
where said my say upon these matters.1 With
regard to the third, the feminist either fails to
realise that purely intellectual intercourse--as
distinguished from an intercommunion of men-
tal images--with woman is to a large section
of men repugnant; or else, perceiving this,
she makes up her mind that, this notwithstand-
ing, she will get her way by denouncing the
man who does not welcome her as selfish; and
by insisting that under feminism (the quota-
tion is from Mill, the italics which question his
sincerity are mine) "the mass of mental facul-
1 Vide Appendix, pp. 169-173. 139
ties available for the higher service of man-
kind would be doubled."
The matter cannot so lightly be disposed of.
It will be necessary for us to find out whether
really intimate association with woman on the
purely intellectual plane is realisable. And if
it is, in fact, unrealisable, it will be necessary to
consider whether it is the exclusion of women
from masculine corporations; or the perpetual
attempt of women to force their way into these,
which would deserve to be characterised as
selfish.
In connexion with the former of these issues,
we have to consider here not whether that form
of intellectual co-operation in which the man
plays the game, and the woman moves the
pawns under his orders, is possible. That
form of co-operation is of course possible, and
it has, doubtless, certain utilities.
Nor yet have we to consider whether quite
intimate and purely intellectual association on
an equal footing between a particular man and
a selected woman may or may not be possible. 140
It will suffice to note that the feminist alleges
that this also is possible; but everybody knows
that the woman very often marries the man.
What we have to ask is whether--even if
we leave out of regard the whole system of at-
tractions or, as the case may be, repulsions
which come into operation when the sexes are
thrown together--purely intellectual inter-
course between man and the typical unselected
woman is not barred by the intellectual im-
moralities and limitations which appear to be
secondary sexual characters of woman.
With regard to this issue, there would seem
to be very little real difference of opinion
among men. But there are great differences
in the matter of candour. There are men who
speak out, and who enunciate like Nietzsche
that "man and woman are alien--never yet
has any one conceived how alien."
There are men who, from motives of delicacy
or policy, do not speak out--averse to saying
anything that might be unflattering to woman.
And there are men who are by their pro- 141
fession of the feminist faith debarred from
speaking out, but who upon occasion give
themselves away.
Of such is the man who in the House of
Commons champions the cause of woman's
suffrage, impassionately appealing to Justice;
and then betrays himself by announcing that
he would shake off from his feet the dust of its
purlieus if ever women were admitted as mem-
bers--i.e. if ever women were forced upon him
as close intellectual associates.
Wherever we look we find aversion to com-
pulsory intellectual co-operation with woman.
We see it in the sullen attitude which the or-
dinary male student takes up towards the pres-
ence of women students in his classes. We see
it in the fact that the older English universi-
ties, which have conceded everything else to
women, have made a strong stand against mak-
ing them actual members of the university;
for this would impose them on men as intellec-
tual associates. Again we see the aversion in
the opposition to the admission of women to 142
the bar. But we need not look so far afield.
Practically every man feels that there is in
woman--patent, or hidden away--an element
of unreason which, when you come upon it,
summarily puts an end to purely intellectual
intercourse. One may reflect, for example,
upon the way the woman's suffrage contro-
versy has been conducted.
Proceeding now on the assumption that
these things are so, and that man feels that he
and woman belong to different intellectual
castes, we come now to the question as to
whether it is man who is selfish when he ex-
cludes women from his institutions, or woman
when she unceasingly importunes for admit-
tance. And we may define as selfish all such
conduct as pursues the advantage of the agent
at the cost of the happiness and welfare of
the general body of mankind.
We shall be in a better position to pronounce
judgment on this question of ethics when we
have considered the following series of analo-
gies: 143
When a group of earnest and devout be-
lievers meet together for special intercession
and worship, we do not tax them with selfish-
ness if they exclude unbelievers.
Nor do we call people who are really de-
voted to music selfish if, coming together for
this, they make a special point of excluding
the unmusical.
Nor again would the imputation of selfish-
ness lie against members of a club for black-
balling a candidate who would, they feel, be
uncongenial.
Nor should we regard it as an act of selfish-
ness if the members of a family circle, or of
the same nation, or of any social circle, desired
to come together quite by themselves.
Nor yet would the term selfish apply to an
East End music hall audience when they eject
any one who belongs to a different social class
to themselves and wears good clothes.
And the like would hold true of servants re-
senting their employers intruding upon them
in their hours of leisure or entertainments. 144
If we do not characterise such exclusions as
selfish, but rather respect and sympathise with
them, it is because we recognise that the whole
object and raison d' être of association would
in each case be nullified by the weak-minded
admission of the incompatible intruder.
We recognise that if any charge of selfish-
ness would lie, it would lie against that in-
truder.
Now if this holds in the case where the in-
terests of religious worship or music, or family,
national, or social life, or recreation and relax-
ation after labour are in question, it will hold
true even more emphatically where the inter-
ests of intellectual work are involved.
But the feminist will want to argue. She
will--taking it as always for granted that
woman has a right to all that men's hands or
brains have fashioned--argue that it is very
important for the intellectual development of
woman that she should have exactly the same
opportunities as man. And she will, scouting [rejecting with contempt]
the idea of any differences between the intelli- 145
gences of man and woman, discourse to you of
their intimate affinity.
It will, perhaps, be well to clear up these
points.
The importance of the higher development
of woman is unquestionable.
But after all it is the intellect of man which
really comes into account in connexion with
"the mass of mental faculties available for the
higher service of mankind."
The maintenance of the conditions which
allow of man's doing his best intellectual work
is therefore an interest which is superior to
that of the intellectual development of woman.
And woman might quite properly be referred
for her intellectual development to instruc-
tional institutions which should be special to
herself.
Coming to the question of the intimate re-
semblances between the masculine and the
feminine intelligence, no man would be ven-
turesome enough to dispute these, but he may 146
be pardoned if he thinks--one would hope in
no spirit of exaltation--also of the differences.
We have an instructive analogy in connexion
with the learned societies.
It is uncontrovertible that every candidate
for election into such a society will have, and
will feel that he has, affinities with the members
of that association. And he is invited to set
these forth in his application. But there may
also be differences of which he is not sensible.
On that question the electors are the judges;
and they are the final court of appeal.
There would seem to be here a moral which
the feminist would do well to lay to heart.
There is also another lesson which she might
very profitably consider. A quite small dif-
ference will often constitute as effective a bar
to a useful and congenial co-operation as a
more fundamental difference.
In the case of a body of intellectual workers
one might at first sight suppose that so small
a distinction as that of belonging to a different 147
nationality--sex, of course, is an infinitely pro-
founder difference--would not be a bar to un-
restricted intellectual co-operation.
But in point of fact it is in every country,
in every learned society, a uniform rule that
when foreign scientists or scholars are admitted
they are placed not on the ordinary list of
working members, but on a special list.
One discerns that there is justification for
this in the fact that a foreigner would in cer-
tain eventualities be an incompatible person.
One may think of the eventuality of the
learned society deciding to recognise a national
service, or to take part in a national movement.
And one is not sure that a foreigner might not
be an incompatible person in the eventuality
of a scientist or scholar belonging to a national-
ity with which the foreigner's country was at
feud being brought forward for election.
And he would, of course, be an impossible
person in a society if he were, in a spirit of
chauvinism, to press for a larger representa-
tion of his own fellow-countrymen. 148
Now this is precisely the kind of way man
feels about woman. He recognises that she is
by virtue of her sex for certain purposes an in-
compatible person; and that, quite apart from
this, her secondary sexual characters might in
certain eventualities make her an impossible
person.
We may note, before passing on, that these
considerations would seem to prescribe that
woman should be admitted to masculine insti-
tutions only when real humanitarian grounds
demand it; that she should--following here the
analogy of what is done in the learned societies
with respect to foreigners--be invited to co-
operate with men only when she is quite spe-
cially eminent, or beyond all question useful
for the particular purpose in hand; and lastly,
that when co-opted into any masculine institu-
tion woman should always be placed upon a
special list, to show that it was proposed to con-
fine her co-operation within certain specified
limits.
From these general questions, which affect 149
only the woman with intellectual aspirations,
we pass to consider what would be the effect
of feminism upon the rank and file of women
if it made of these co-partners with man in
work. They would suffer not only because
woman's physiological disabilities and the re-
strictions which arise out of her sex place
her at a great disadvantage when she has to
enter into competition with man, but also be-
cause under feminism man would be less and
less disposed to take off woman's shoulders a
part of her burden.
And there can be no dispute that the most
valuable financial asset of the ordinary woman
is the possibility that a man may be willing--
and may, if only woman is disposed to fulfil her
part of the bargain, be not only willing but
anxious--to support her and to secure for her,
if he can, a measure of that freedom which
comes from the possession of money.
In view of this every one who has a real fel-
low-feeling for woman, and who is concerned
for her material welfare, as a father is con- 150
cerned for his daughter's, will above every-
thing else desire to nurture and encourage in
man the sentiment of chivalry, and in woman
that disposition of mind that makes chivalry
possible.
And the woman workers who have to fight
the battle of life for themselves would indi-
rectly profit from this fostering of chivalry;
for those women who are supported by men do
not compete in the limited labour market which
is open to the woman worker.
From every point of view, therefore, except
perhaps that of the exceptional woman who
would be able to hold her own against mas-
culine competition--and men always issue in-
formal letters of naturalisation to such an ex-
ceptional woman--the woman suffrage which
leads up to feminism would be a social disaster. 151
PART III
IS THERE, IF THE SUFFRAGE IS BARRED, ANY
PALLIATIVE OF CORRECTIVE FOR THE
DISCONTENTS OF WOMAN?
I
PALLIATIVES OR CORRECTIVES FOR THE
DISCONTENTS OF WOMAN
What are the Suffragist's Grievances?--Economic and
Physiological Difficulties of Woman--Intellectual
Grievances of Suffragist and Corrective.
Is there then, let us ask ourselves, if the suf-
frage with its programme of feminism is
barred as leading to social disaster, any pallia-
tive or corrective that can be applied to the
present discontents of woman?
If such is to be found, it is to be found only
by placing clearly before us the suffragist's
grievances.
These grievances are, first, the economic
difficulties of the woman who seeks to earn her
living by work other than unskilled manual
labour; secondly, the difficult physiological
conditions in which woman is placed by the 155
excess of the female over the male population
and by her diminished chances of marriage 1 ;
and thirdly, the tedium which obsesses the life
of the woman who is not forced, and cannot
force herself, to work. On the top of these
grievances comes the fact that the suffragist
conceives herself to be harshly and unfairly
treated by man. This last is the fire which
sets a light to all the inflammable material.
It would be quite out of question to discuss
here the economic and physiological difficulties
of woman. Only this may be said: it is impos-
sible, in view of the procession of starved and
frustrated lives which is continuously filing
past, to close one's eyes to the urgency of this
woman's problem.
After all, the primary object of all civilisa-
tion is to provide for every member of the
community food and shelter and fulfilment of
natural cravings. And when, in what passes
as a civilised community, a whole class is called
upon to go without any one of these our hu-
1 Vide footnote, p. 138.