The conditions described above have lead to a number of traits of character peculiar to women, that are more fully developed from generation to generation. Men seem to find satisfaction in ridiculing these traits, but they forget that they themselves are to blame for them. The following are some of these frequently condemned female traits of character: talkativeness and scandal-mongering; the inclination to discuss the most insignificant things at the greatest length; the exaggerated interest in outward display; the love of dress and coquetry; envy and jealousy toward the members of her sex, and the tendency of being dishonest and hypocritical. These traits of character usually manifest themselves with the female sex at an early age; they are general and only differ in degree. These traits have developed under the pressure of social conditions, and they have been further developed by heredity, example and education. One who has been brought up unwisely is not likely to bring up others wisely.
In order to understand the origin and development of traits of character common to an entire sex or to an entire people, we must follow the same method that modern scientists apply to understand the origin and development of living beings and their characteristics. The material conditions of life to a great extent imprint upon every living being its traits of character. It is compelled to adapt itself to these existing material conditions, until the adaptation becomes its nature.
Human beings form no exception to that which holds true for all living beings throughout nature. Man is not exempt from natural laws. Viewed physiologically, he is merely the most highly developed animal. Of course, many persons refuse to admit this. Thousands of years ago ancient peoples, although they knew nothing of modern science, held more rational views in regard to many human problems, than a great many of our contemporaries, and, what is more noteworthy still, their views that were based on experience, were put into practice. We praise and admire the strength and beauty of the men and women of ancient Greece; but we forget that it was not the climate of this beautiful country that had such a favorable influence upon the nature and development of its population, but the educational maxims that were consistently carried out by the state, and that were destined to combine beauty, strength and skill with mental sharpness and vigor. Indeed the mental development of woman was neglected even then, but not so her physical development.[66] In Sparta where physical culture of both sexes was most extensively practiced, boys and girls went about naked until the age of puberty, and together they joined in physical exercises, games and wrestling-matches. The display of the nude human body, the natural treatment of natural things, prevented the extreme sexual irritation that is mainly caused by an artificial separation of the sexes from childhood on. The body of one sex was no mystery to the other. No dallying with ambiguities could arise. Nature was regarded as such. Each sex took pleasure in the beauty of the other.
To a natural, untrammeled relation of the sexes must mankind return; we must cast aside the unsound spiritualistic conceptions concerning human affairs and create methods of education that shall bring about a physical and mental regeneration. The prevailing conceptions in regard to education, especially the education of women, are still exceedingly reactionary. That a woman should possess such qualities of character as strength, courage and determination, is decried as unwomanly, and yet no one can deny that by means of such qualities she will be better enabled to protect herself. But her physical development is hampered, just like her mental development. This is due in no small degree to the irrational mode of dress. Woman’s dress not only interferes with her physical development, it frequently does her direct bodily harm; and yet there are few, even among physicians, who dare to oppose it. Fear of displeasing the patient causes them to be silent or even to flatter her follies. The modern style of dress prevents women from freely exercising their strength, hampers their physical development, and creates a feeling of helplessness in them. Moreover, woman’s dress endangers the health of her environment, for at home and on the street she is a walking generator of dust.
The physical and intellectual development of women is furthermore severely hampered by a rigorous separation of the sexes in school and in social intercourse, that is quite in accordance with the spiritualistic conceptions implanted by Christianity, and is still sadly prevalent among us. The woman who is given no opportunity to develop her abilities and talents, who is maintained within a narrow sphere of ideas, and rarely permitted to associate with members of the other sex, cannot rise above the commonplace and trivial. For her ideas are centered in the occurrences of her immediate environment. Verbose conversations over a mere nothingness and the tendency to gossip are fostered by this narrow life, since the mental activities that reside in every human being must find expression somewhere. Men are frequently grievously annoyed and driven to despair by these qualities which they roundly condemn, without pausing to consider that they, “the lords of creation,” are chiefly to blame for them. During recent years numerous attempts have been made to introduce more rational conceptions of life; but they are merely a beginning, and until now have been confined to a very small portion of society.
[66] Plato, in “The State”, demands that women should be given an education similar to men, and Aristoteles in “Politics” declares as a fundamental principle of education: “first let the body be developed and then the mind.”
[4.—The Misery of Present Day Marriages.]
As a result of our social and sexual relations, woman is directed toward marriage by every fibre of her existence, and naturally marriage constitutes a chief topic of her conversation and thought. As woman is physically weaker than man, and is subjected to him by custom and law, her tongue is her chief weapon to be used against him, and she naturally makes a liberal use of this weapon. In the same way her much berated love of dress and personal adornment can be explained, that leads to increasingly eccentric follies of fashion and often causes financial troubles and unpleasantness to fathers and husbands. To man, woman has chiefly been an object of enjoyment. Being socially and economically dependent, she must regard marriage as a means of support, and thus becomes subservient to man, becomes his property. Her position is rendered more unfavorable still by the fact that the number of women usually exceeds the number of men; we will return to this phase of the question later on.—This disproportion increases the competition of women among themselves, all the more so because, for numerous reasons, many men fail to marry. Woman is therefore compelled to enhance her personal charms, in order to compete with the members of her own sex in the struggle for the possession of a man. When we consider that this disproportion has existed through many generations, it is not to be wondered at that these characteristics have gradually assumed their present, extreme form. We must consider moreover that at no time the competition among women for the possession of man was as severe as it is at present, owing to causes, some of which have already been, and others that still are to be enumerated. The increasing difficulty of obtaining a decent livelihood also directs woman more than ever to marriage as a means of support.
Men do not object to these conditions, since they are favorable to them. It flatters their vanity and serves their interest to play the part of the ruler, and as all rulers they are not easily accessible to reason. It is all the more important therefore that women themselves should strive to bring about conditions that will liberate them from their present, degraded position. Women can no more rely upon the aid of men, than the workers can rely upon the aid of the bourgeoisie.