The Truth About Woman

by C. Gasquoine Hartley

We must go back to the position we left, some time back, of the differences between the secondary sexual characters of the male and the female. We have followed the development of the male, under the action of love's selection, from his first insignificant position in the reproductive process; we have seen him becoming larger than the female, strong, jealous and masterful—in fact, a kind of fighting specialisation, with special weapons of defence for sex-battles. This is the general condition among mammals. Among birds another set of secondary character, that may be classed as beauty-tests, are more frequent. Now two questions must be answered. Can it be proved that all these acquired developments of strength and of beauty belong exclusively to the males—that they must be regarded as proof of the greater tendency to diversity in the male, which has carried him further in the evolution process than the female? Can it also be proved that such highly-marked differentiation between the sexes is in all cases necessary to reproduction—that this heightened male attractiveness is a progressive force in the service of the race? If so, examples will surely point in the direction of finding that among those species where the sexual characters of the male, whether of strength or of beauty, are most different from the female, sexual love will find its most perfect expression; and further, that the males in such case will be the most highly developed—the best parents and the most social in their habits. The whole question, I think it must be evident, turns upon this being proved.

But in the face of the facts before us this is just what we do not find. Among birds (who in erotic development far excel all other animals, not, indeed, excepting the human species, and thus must be accepted as affording the most perfect examples of sexual development) we have seen that the cases are not few in which the female equals, or even exceeds the male in size and in strength. This is so with the curlew, the merlin, the dunlin, the black-tailed goodwit, which is considerably larger than the male, and the osprey, where the female is also more spotted on the breast: these examples must be added to those I have already given (page 58).

If we turn now to the beauty-test of brilliancy of plumage, we may observe an even larger number of examples of almost identical likeness between the sexes. Among British birds alone there are no fewer than 382 species, or sub-species,[83] in which the female closely resembles the male. In some few of these examples, it is true, the colours of the female are slightly duller, and in others the female is rather smaller than the male, but the difference in each case is very slight. It is specially significant to note that this similarity of plumage occurs in some of the most beautiful of our birds, as, for instance, the kingfisher and the jay, where the brilliant dresses of the sexes are practically alike; the female robin shares the beauty of the male; in all the families of the charming tits the sexes are alike; this is also the case with the roller-bird with its gaily-coloured plumage; and there is no difference between the white elegance of the female and the male swan.

In the presence of such examples it seems to me impossible to refrain from thinking that there is a mistake somewhere, and that less importance is to be attached to the secondary sexual characters of the male than is generally imagined. Grant that these cases are exceptional; but if we once admit that among many species—and these highly developed in sex—the female shows no evidence of retarded development, we shall be forced also to break once for all with many beliefs and trite theories which have inspired on this subject of the sexual differences between the female and the male so much dogmatic statement and so many unproved assumptions.

I am not forgetting the gorgeous plumage of some male birds, and the contrast they afford with the plain females. What I wish to show is that such adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary adjunct to the male—an expression, in fact, of the male constitution. Nor are they, as we shall find later, necessary, or even beneficial in the highest degree, to the reproductive process.[84] I have an even more interesting case to bring forward, which to me seems to point very conclusively to what I am trying to prove. The phalaropes, both the grey and red-necked species, have a peculiarity unique among British birds, although shared by several other groups in different parts of the world.[85] Among these birds the rôle of the sexes is reversed. The duties of incubation and rearing the young are conducted entirely by the male bird, and in correlation with this habit the female does all the courting, is stronger and more pugnacious than the male, and is also brighter in plumage. In colour they are a pale olive very thickly spotted and streaked with black. The male is the psychical mother, the female taking no notice of the nest after laying the eggs. Frequently at the beginning of the breeding season she is accompanied by more than one male, so that it is evident that polyandry is practised.[86]

Now, if such an example of the reversal of the sexes has any meaning at all, it seems to me that we find the conclusion forced upon us that the secondary sexual characters are not necessarily different in the male and the female, but depend on the form of the union or marriage and the conditions of the family. Professor Lester Ward, in connection with his Gynæocratic theory, fully discusses this question. His conclusion is that this superiority of the males in strength and size among mammals and in beauty of plumage (which is also a symbol of force) among birds, instead of indicating an arrested development in the females indicates an over-development in the males. "Male efflorescence" is the apt term by which Professor Ward designates it. He says—

"The whole phenomena of so-called male superiority bears a certain stamp of spuriousness and sham. It is to natural history what chivalry was to human history; ... a sort of make-believe, play, or sport of nature of an airy unsubstantial character. The male side of nature shot up and blossomed out in an unnatural, fantastic way, cutting loose from the real business of life, and attracting a share of attention wholly disproportionate to its real importance."[87]

This may, I think, be regarded as a picturesque over-statement of what is in the main true. Male efflorescence has drawn upon itself an excessive importance, through what we may call its dramatic insistence upon our notice. It is plain, too, that the more we examine the question the more we are forced to the one conclusion. It is certainly very suggestive, as Professor Ward points out, that those mammals and birds in which the process of male differentiation has gone farthest, such as lions, buffaloes, stags and sheep among mammals, and peacocks, pheasants, turkey-cocks and barn-door-cocks among birds, do practically nothing for their families. Among the gallinaceæ it is the female who undertakes the whole burden of incubation, and feeding and caring for the young; during this time the male is running after adventures, in some cases he returns when his offspring are old enough to follow him and form a docile band under his government.[88] The conduct of the male turkey is much worse, and he often devours the eggs, which have to be hidden by the mother, while later the offspring are only saved from his attacks by large numbers of females and the young uniting in troops led by the mothers.[89] The polygamous families of monkeys are always subject to patriarchal rule. The father is the tyrant of the band—an egoist. Any protection he affords to the family is in his own interest, frequently he expels the young males as soon as they are old enough to give him trouble, the daughters, in some cases, he adds to his harem; only when old age has rendered him powerless are the tables turned, and the young, for so long oppressed, rebel and sometimes assassinate their tyrannous father. There is very little evidence of paternal affection among mammals. Even among monogamous species, where the male keeps with the female, he does so more as chief than as father. At times he is much inclined to commit infanticides and to destroy the offspring, which, by absorbing the attention of his partner, thwart his amours. Thus among the large felines the mother is obliged to hide her young ones from the male during the first few days after birth to prevent his devouring them.[90]

It is important to note that among birds the fathers devoid of affection generally belong to the less intelligent species. We may, therefore, see that these violent polygamous amours of the male, which result in the development of the more extravagant of the second sexual characters, are not really favourable to the development of the species. They belong to a lower grade of sexual evolution. And a further proof, it seems to me, is furnished as we note that, in spite of this tyranny, the females show considerable affection for these tyrant males—the chimpanzee, for example, proving this by zealously plucking the lice from her master's coat, which with monkeys is a mark of very special attention.[91] The most oppressed females are, as a rule, the most faithful wives. Thus the females of the guanaco lamas, if their master chances to be wounded or killed, do not run away; they hasten to his side, bleating and offering themselves to the shots of the hunter in order to shield him, while, in sharp contrast, if a female is killed, the male makes off with all his troop—he thinks only of himself.[92] Must we say, then, that the female animal likes servitude? It is, of course, because the aggressive male, being the one to arouse her sexual passions, enables her to fulfil her work of procreation. This may be. But, granting this explanation, it must be allowed that love under such conditions evidences a deterioration, not alone in the size and strength of the female, but in mental capacity—love at a much lower level than those beautiful cases in which the sexes are more alike, equal in capacity, and co-operate together in the race work.

Yet in justice it must be added that even the most polygamous males are not always devoid of affection. I once saw on a Derbyshire high-road a cock show evident signs of sorrow over the death of one of his wives, who had been killed by a passing motor. He refused to leave the spot where her body lay, and walked round and round it, uttering sharp cries of grief. Nor are sexual lapses confined to the males; a female will take advantage of a moment when the attention of the old cocks is entirely absorbed by the anxiety of a fight, to run off with a young male.[93] Even among species noted for their conjugal fidelity this sometimes happens. Female pigeons, for example, have been known to fall violently in love with strange males, and this is especially common if the legitimate spouse is wounded or becomes weak.[94] Darwin records a very curious case of a sudden passion appearing in a female wild-duck, who, after breeding with her own mallard for a couple of seasons, deserted him for a stranger—a male pintail.