in establishing the claim of excessive sex-distinction in the human race, much needs to be said to make clear to the general reader what is meant by the term. to the popular mind, both the coarsely familiar and the over-refined, “sexual” is thought to mean “sensual”; and the charge of excessive sex-distinction seems to be a reproach. this should be at once dismissed, as merely showing ignorance of the terms used. a man does not object to being called “masculine,” nor a woman to being called “feminine.” yet whatever is masculine or feminine is sexual. to be distinguished by femininity is to be distinguished by sex. to be over-feminine is to be over-sexed. to manifest in excess any of the distinctions of sex, primary or secondary, is to be over-sexed. our hypothetical peacock, with his too large and splendid tail, would be over-sexed, and no offence to his moral character!
the primary sex-distinctions in our race as in others consist merely in the essential organs and functions of reproduction. the secondary distinctions, and this is where we are to look for our largest excess—consist in all those differences in organ and function, in look and action, in habit, manner, method, occupation, 41behavior, which distinguish men from women. in a troop of horses, seen at a distance, the sexes are indistinguishable. in a herd of deer the males are distinguishable because of their antlers. the male lion is distinguished by his mane, the male cat only by a somewhat heavier build. in certain species of insects the male and female differ so widely in appearance that even naturalists have supposed them to belong to separate species. beyond these distinctions lies that of conduct. certain psychic attributes are manifested by either sex. the intensity of the maternal passion is a sex-distinction as much as the lion’s mane or the stag’s horns. the belligerence and dominance of the male is a sex-distinction: the modesty and timidity of the female is a sex-distinction. the tendency to “sit” is a sex-distinction of the hen: the tendency to strut is a sex-distinction of the cock. the tendency to fight is a sex-distinction of males in general: the tendency to protect and provide for, is a sex-distinction of females in general.
with the human race, whose chief activities are social, the initial tendency to sex-distinction is carried out in many varied functions. we have differentiated our industries, our responsibilities, our very virtues, along sex lines. it will therefore be clear that the claim of excessive 42sex-distinction in humanity, and especially in woman, does not carry with it any specific “moral” reproach, though it does in the larger sense prove a decided evil in its effect on human progress.
in primary distinctions our excess is not so marked as in the farther and subtler development; yet, even here, we have plain proof of it. sex-energy in its primal manifestation is exhibited in the male of the human species to a degree far greater than is necessary for the processes of reproduction,—enough, indeed, to subvert and injure those processes. the direct injury to reproduction from the excessive indulgence of the male, and the indirect injury through its debilitating effect upon the female, together with the enormous evil to society produced by extra-marital indulgence,—these are facts quite generally known. we have recognized them for centuries, and sought to check the evil action by law, civil, social, moral. but we have treated it always as a field of voluntary action, not as a condition of morbid development. we have held it as right that man should be so, but wrong that man should do so. nature does not work in that way. what it is right to be, it is right to do. what it is wrong to do, it is wrong to be. this inordinate demand in the human male is an excessive sex-distinction. in 43this, in a certain over-coarseness and hardness, a too great belligerence and pride, a too great subservience to the power of sex-attraction, we find the main marks of excessive sex-distinction in men. it has been always checked and offset in them by the healthful activities of racial life. their energies have been called out and their faculties developed along all the lines of human progress. in the growth of industry, commerce, science, manufacture, government, art, religion, the male of our species has become human, far more than male. strong as this passion is in him, inordinate as is his indulgence, he is a far more normal animal than the female of his species,—far less over-sexed. to him this field of special activity is but part of life,—an incident. the whole world remains besides. to her it is the world. this has been well stated in the familiar epigram of madame de sta?l,—“love with man is an episode, with woman a history.” it is in woman that we find most fully expressed the excessive sex-distinction of the human species,—physical, psychical, social. see first the physical manifestation.
to make clear by an instance the difference between normal and abnormal sex-distinction, look at the relative condition of a wild cow and a “milch cow,” such as we have made. the wild cow is a female. she has healthy calves, and 44milk enough for them; and that is all the femininity she needs. otherwise than that she is bovine rather than feminine. she is a light, strong, swift, sinewy creature, able to run, jump, and fight, if necessary. we, for economic uses, have artificially developed the cow’s capacity for producing milk. she has become a walking milk-machine, bred and tended to that express end, her value measured in quarts. the secretion of milk is a maternal function,—a sex-function. the cow is over-sexed. turn her loose in natural conditions, and, if she survive the change, she would revert in a very few generations to the plain cow, with her energies used in the general activities of her race, and not all running to milk.
physically, woman belongs to a tall, vigorous, beautiful animal species, capable of great and varied exertion. in every race and time when she has opportunity for racial activity, she developes accordingly, and is no less a woman for being a healthy human creature. in every race and time where she is denied this opportunity,—and few, indeed, have been her years of freedom,—she has developed in the lines of action to which she was confined; and those were always lines of sex-activity. in consequence the body of woman, speaking in the largest generalization, manifests sex-distinction predominantly.
45woman’s femininity—and “the eternal feminine” means simply the eternal sexual—is more apparent in proportion to her humanity than the femininity of other animals in proportion to their caninity or felinity or equinity. “a feminine hand” or “a feminine foot” is distinguishable anywhere. we do not hear of “a feminine paw” or “a feminine hoof.” a hand is an organ of prehension, a foot an organ of locomotion: they are not secondary sexual characteristics. the comparative smallness and feebleness of woman is a sex-distinction. we have carried it to such an excess that women are commonly known as “the weaker sex.” there is no such glaring difference between male and female in other advanced species. in the long migrations of birds, in the ceaseless motion of the grazing herds that used to swing up and down over the continent each year, in the wild, steep journeys of the breeding salmon, nothing is heard of the weaker sex. and among the higher carnivora, where longer maintenance of the young brings their condition nearer ours, the hunter dreads the attack of the female more than that of the male. the disproportionate weakness is an excessive sex-distinction. its injurious effect may be broadly shown in the oriental nations, where the female in curtained harems is confined most exclusively 46to sex-functions and denied most fully the exercise of race-functions. in such peoples the weakness, the tendency to small bones and adipose tissue of the over-sexed female, is transmitted to the male, with a retarding effect on the development of the race. conversely, in early germanic tribes the comparatively free and humanly developed women—tall, strong, and brave—transmitted to their sons a greater proportion of human power and much less of morbid sex-tendency.
the degree of feebleness and clumsiness common to women, the comparative inability to stand, walk, run, jump, climb, and perform other race-functions common to both sexes, is an excessive sex-distinction; and the ensuing transmission of this relative feebleness to their children, boys and girls alike, retards human development. strong, free, active women, the sturdy, field-working peasant, the burden-bearing savage, are no less good mothers for their human strength. but our civilized “feminine delicacy,” which appears somewhat less delicate when recognized as an expression of sexuality in excess,—makes us no better mothers, but worse. the relative weakness of women is a sex-distinction. it is apparent in her to a degree that injures motherhood, that injures wifehood, that injures the individual. the sex-usefulness 47and the human usefulness of women, their general duty to their kind, are greatly injured by this degree of distinction. in every way the over-sexed condition of the human female reacts unfavorably upon herself, her husband, her children, and the race.
in its psychic manifestation this intense sex-distinction is equally apparent. the primal instinct of sex-attraction has developed under social forces into a conscious passion of enormous power, a deep and lifelong devotion, overwhelming in its force. this is excessive in both sexes, but more so in women than in men,—not so commonly in its simple physical form, but in the unreasoning intensity of emotion that refuses all guidance, and drives those possessed by it to risk every other good for this one end. it is not at first sight easy, and it may seem an irreverent and thankless task, to discriminate here between what is good in the “master passion” and what is evil, and especially to claim for one sex more of this feeling than for the other; but such discrimination can be made.
it is good for the individual and for the race to have developed such a degree of passionate and permanent love as shall best promote the happiness of individuals and the reproduction of species. it is not good for the race or for the 48individual that this feeling should have become so intense as to override all other human faculties, to make a mock of the accumulated wisdom of the ages, the stored power of the will; to drive the individual—against his own plain conviction—into a union sure to result in evil, or to hold the individual helpless in such an evil union, when made.
such is the condition of humanity, involving most evil results to its offspring and to its own happiness. and, while in men the immediate dominating force of the passion may be more conspicuous, it is in women that it holds more universal sway. for the man has other powers and faculties in full use, whereby to break loose from the force of this; and the woman, specially modified to sex and denied racial activity, pours her whole life into her love, and, if injured here, she is injured irretrievably. with him it is frequently light and transient, and, when most intense, often most transient. with her it is a deep, all-absorbing force, under the action of which she will renounce all that life offers, take any risk, face any hardships, bear any pain. it is maintained in her in the face of a lifetime of neglect and abuse. the common instance of the police court trials—the woman cruelly abused who will not testify against her husband—shows this. this devotion, carried to such a 49degree as to lead to the mismating of individuals with its personal and social injury, is an excessive sex-distinction.
but it is in our common social relations that the predominance of sex-distinction in women is made most manifest. the fact that, speaking broadly, women have, from the very beginning, been spoken of expressively enough as “the sex,” demonstrates clearly that this is the main impression which they have made upon observers and recorders. here one need attempt no farther proof than to turn the mind of the reader to an unbroken record of facts and feelings perfectly patent to every one, but not hitherto looked at as other than perfectly natural and right. so utterly has the status of woman been accepted as a sexual one that it has remained for the woman’s movement of the nineteenth century to devote much contention to the claim that women are persons! that women are persons as well as females,—an unheard of proposition!
in a “handbook of proverbs of all nations,” a collection comprising many thousands, these facts are to be observed: first, that the proverbs concerning women are an insignificant minority compared to those concerning men; second, that the proverbs concerning women almost invariably apply to them in general,—to the sex. 50those concerning men qualify, limit, describe, specialize. it is “a lazy man,” “a violent man,” “a man in his cups.” qualities and actions are predicated of man individually, and not as a sex, unless he is flatly contrasted with woman, as in “a man of straw is worth a woman of gold,” “men are deeds, women are words,” or “man, woman, and the devil are the three degrees of comparison.” but of woman it is always and only “a woman,” meaning simply a female, and recognizing no personal distinction: “as much pity to see a woman weep as to see a goose go barefoot.” “he that hath an eel by the tail and a woman by her word hath a slippery handle.” “a woman, a spaniel, and a walnut-tree,—the more you beat ’em, the better they be.” occasionally a distinction is made between “a fair woman” and “a black woman”; and solomon’s “virtuous woman,” who commanded such a high price, is familiar to us all. but in common thought it is simply “a woman” always. the boast of the profligate that he knows “the sex,” so recently expressed by a new poet,—“the things you will learn from the yellow and brown, they’ll ’elp you an’ ’eap with the white”; the complaint of the angry rejected that “all women are just alike!”—the consensus of public opinion of all time goes to show that the characteristics common to the 51sex have predominated over the characteristics distinctive of the individual,—a marked excess in sex-distinction.
from the time our children are born, we use every means known to accentuate sex-distinction in both boy and girl; and the reason that the boy is not so hopelessly marked by it as the girl is that he has the whole field of human expression open to him besides. in our steady insistence on proclaiming sex-distinction we have grown to consider most human attributes as masculine attributes, for the simple reason that they were allowed to men and forbidden to women.
a clear and definite understanding of the difference between race-attributes and sex-attributes should be established. life consists of action. the action of a living thing is along two main lines,—self-preservation and race-preservation. the processes that keep the individual alive, from the involuntary action of his internal organs to the voluntary action of his external organs,—every act, from breathing to hunting his food, which contributes to the maintenance of the individual life,—these are the processes of self-preservation. whatever activities tend to keep the race alive, to reproduce the individual, from the involuntary action of the internal organs to the voluntary action of the external organs; 52every act from the development of germ-cells to the taking care of children, which contributes to the maintenance of the racial life,—these are the processes of race-preservation. in race-preservation, male and female have distinctive organs, distinctive functions, distinctive lines of action. in self-preservation, male and female have the same organs, the same functions, the same lines of action. in the human species our processes of race-preservation have reached a certain degree of elaboration; but our processes of self-preservation have gone farther, much farther.
all the varied activities of economic production and distribution, all our arts and industries, crafts and trades, all our growth in science, discovery, government, religion,—these are along the line of self-preservation: these are, or should be, common to both sexes. to teach, to rule, to make, to decorate, to distribute,—these are not sex-functions: they are race-functions. yet so inordinate is the sex-distinction of the human race that the whole field of human progress has been considered a masculine prerogative. what could more absolutely prove the excessive sex-distinction of the human race? that this difference should surge over all its natural boundaries and blazon itself across every act of life, so that every step of the human creature is marked 53“male” or “female,”—surely, this is enough to show our over-sexed condition.
little by little, very slowly, and with most unjust and cruel opposition, at cost of all life holds most dear, it is being gradually established by many martyrdoms that human work is woman’s as well as man’s. harriet martineau must conceal her writing under her sewing when callers came, because “to sew” was a feminine verb, and “to write” a masculine one. mary somerville must struggle to hide her work from even relatives, because mathematics was a “masculine” pursuit. sex has been made to dominate the whole human world,—all the main avenues of life marked “male,” and the female left to be a female, and nothing else.
but while with the male the things he fondly imagined to be “masculine” were merely human, and very good for him, with the female the few things marked “feminine” were feminine, indeed; and her ceaseless reiterance of one short song, however sweet, has given it a conspicuous monotony. in garments whose main purpose is unmistakably to announce her sex; with a tendency to ornament which marks exuberance of sex-energy, with a body so modified to sex as to be grievously deprived of its natural activities; with a manner and behavior wholly attuned to sex-advantage, and frequently most 54disadvantageous to any human gain; with a field of action most rigidly confined to sex-relations; with her overcharged sensibility, her prominent modesty, her “eternal femininity,”—the female of genus homo is undeniably over-sexed.
this excessive distinction shows itself again in a marked precocity of development. our little children, our very babies, show signs of it when the young of other creatures are serenely asexual in general appearance and habit. we eagerly note this precocity. we are proud of it. we carefully encourage it by precept and example, taking pains to develope the sex-instinct in little children, and think no harm. one of the first things we force upon the child’s dawning consciousness is the fact that he is a boy or that she is a girl, and that, therefore, each must regard everything from a different point of view. they must be dressed differently, not on account of their personal needs, which are exactly similar at this period, but so that neither they, nor any one beholding them, may for a moment forget the distinction of sex.
our peculiar inversion of the usual habit of species, in which the male carries ornament and the female is dark and plain, is not so much a proof of excess indeed, as a proof of the peculiar 55reversal of our position in the matter of sex-selection. with the other species the males compete in ornament, and the females select. with us the females compete in ornament, and the males select. if this theory of sex-ornament is disregarded, and we prefer rather to see in masculine decoration merely a form of exuberant sex-energy, expending itself in non-productive excess, then, indeed, the fact that with us the females manifest such a display of gorgeous adornment is another sign of excessive sex-distinction. in either case the forcing upon girl-children of an elaborate ornamentation which interferes with their physical activity and unconscious freedom, and fosters a premature sex-consciousness, is as clear and menacing a proof of our condition as could be mentioned. that the girl-child should be so dressed as to require a difference in care and behavior, resting wholly on the fact that she is a girl,—a fact not otherwise present to her thought at that age,—is a precocious insistence upon sex-distinction, most unwholesome in its results. boys and girls are expected, also, to behave differently to each other, and to people in general,—a behavior to be briefly described in two words. to the boy we say, “do”; to the girl, “don’t.” the little boy must “take care” of the little girl, even if she is larger than he is. “why?” 56he asks. because he is a boy. because of sex. surely, if she is the stronger, she ought to take care of him, especially as the protective instinct is purely feminine in a normal race. it is not long before the boy learns his lesson. he is a boy, going to be a man; and that means all. “i thank the lord that i was not born a woman,” runs the hebrew prayer. she is a girl, “only a girl,” “nothing but a girl,” and going to be a woman,—only a woman. boys are encouraged from the beginning to show the feelings supposed to be proper to their sex. when our infant son bangs about, roars, and smashes things, we say proudly that he is “a regular boy!” when our infant daughter coquettes with visitors, or wails in maternal agony because her brother has broken her doll, whose sawdust remains she nurses with piteous care, we say proudly that “she is a perfect little mother already!” what business has a little girl with the instincts of maternity? no more than the little boy should have with the instincts of paternity. they are sex-instincts, and should not appear till the period of adolescence. the most normal girl is the “tom-boy,”—whose numbers increase among us in these wiser days,—a healthy young creature, who is human through and through, not feminine till it is time to be. the most normal boy has calmness and gentleness 57as well as vigor and courage. he is a human creature as well as a male creature, and not aggressively masculine till it is time to be. childhood is not the period for these marked manifestations of sex. that we exhibit them, that we admire and encourage them, shows our over-sexed condition.
