[19] Another author—H. Quensel—goes even farther than this in his book (in some respects most fantastic), “Do We Advance? An Ideal Philosophical Hypothesis of the Evolution of the Human Psyche based upon Natural Science,” pp. 152, 153 (Cologne, 1904). He writes: “When we compare the position in civilization of man and woman, we find that man unquestionably takes the higher position in respect of those intellectual impulses which serve as the basis of the higher and the highest stages of civilization, especially the impulse of building and construction, of the collection and the elaboration of scientific facts, in regard to the science of statesmanship and social activities, in respect also of the study of the connexion between cause and effect, and in respect of art. When, however, we apply to the problem before us the data I have obtained concerning the details of physical retrogression and of psychical advance, it appears that woman in many relations stands unquestionably higher than man; for woman, in her development, not alone in bodily relations, as regards the retrogression of the skeletal and muscular systems and the delicacy of constitution dependent thereon, as regards the cutaneous covering of the body, and as regards speech and voice, has advanced much farther than man on the path of bodily retrogression necessary for the progress of civilization. Positively, also, in all that concerns the development of the highest psychical impulses, the development of general nervous sensibility, of a finer discrimination of moral values and of idealism, of general charity and capacity for self-sacrifice in association with diminishing egoism, of transcendental piety and religious sentiment, and also of clearness of vision, and, finally, in all that concerns the development of an adaptability disclosing supreme psychical differentiation—associated, indeed, with deficient fixity of purpose—woman has advanced far beyond man on the forward path of civilization; that is to say, in respect of civilization, woman unquestionably excels man.”
[20] W. Havelburg, in his essay, “Climate, Race, and Nationality in Relation to Marriage,” published in “Health and Disease in Relation to Marriage and the Married State,” by Senator and Kaminer, p. 127 (London, Rebman, Limited, 1904), also alludes to the significance of progressive sexual differentiation in the process of civilization, and draws attention to the increase in feminine beauty.
[21] We may refer also to Paul Bartel’s valuable work, “Ueber Geschlechtsunterschiede am Schädel”—“Sexual Differences in the Skull” (Berlin, 1898). The author concludes: “We are unable to recognize any important difference between man’s skull and woman’s—probably, indeed, no such difference exists.”
[22] We must not ignore the fact, that other distinguished anthropologists, such as Manouvrier, Pearson, Frassetto, and especially Giuffrida-Ruggieri, have recently contested the slighter variability and the infantile character of woman. Cf. Giuffrida-Ruggieri, “Anthropological Considerations regarding Infantilism, and Conclusions regarding the Origin of the Varieties of the Human Species” (Italian Zoological Review, 1903, vol. xiv., Nos. 4, 5). Cf. also the interesting remarks of Näcke in the “German Archives for Criminal Anthropology,” 1903, vol. xiii., pp. 292, 293.
[23] Konrad Lange—“Das Wesen der Kunst” (“The Nature of Art”), pp. 361-364; Berlin, 1901—has ably exposed the subjective grounds of this ancient dispute, and has shown their untenability.
CHAPTER V
PSYCHICAL DIFFERENTIAL SEXUAL CHARACTERS—THE WOMAN’S QUESTION
(Appendix: SEXUAL SENSIBILITY IN WOMAN)
“Among all the higher activities and movements of our time, the struggle of our sisters to attain an equality of position with the strong, the dominant, the oppressive sex, appears to me, from the purely human point of view, most beautiful and most interesting; indeed, I regard it as possible that the coming century will obtain its historical characterization, not from any of the social and economical controversies of the world of men, but that this century will be known to subsequent history distinctively as that in which the solution of the ‘woman’s question’ was obtained.”—Georg Hirth.