The Subjection of Women
{"WorkMasterId":6381,"WpPageId":281664,"ParentWpPageId":193819,"Slug":"subjection-of-women","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-stuart-mill/subjection-of-women/","RelativeUrl":"theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-stuart-mill/subjection-of-women/","HasFullText":true,"RawHtmlLength":345583,"CleanHtmlLength":289473,"Kicker":"Philosophy Work","Title":"The Subjection of Women","Deck":"Mill argues that legal and social subordination of women is unjust, irrational, and harmful to human development, liberty, and social progress.","BackLink":{"Text":"Back to John Stuart Mill","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-stuart-mill/"},"AuthorCard":{"Label":"Author","Title":"John Stuart Mill","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-stuart-mill/","MediaHref":"","ImageSrc":"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/john-stuart-mill-01-london-stereoscopic-c1870-portrait-1.jpg","ImageAlt":"John Stuart Mill by the London Stereoscopic Company, c. 1870","FilterTerra":"Western Europe","ClickText":"John Stuart Mill","ClickHref":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/john-stuart-mill/","Copies":["1806 CE – 1873 CE","Pentonville, London","English liberal utilitarian philosopher of liberty, individuality, higher pleasures, inductive logic, political economy, representative government, women\u0027s equality, religious skepticism, and empiricist method."]},"ContextCards":[{"Label":"Period","Key":"Period:4","Title":"Modern History","DateText":"1800 CE – 1944 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/"},{"Label":"Era","Key":"Era:11","Title":"Long 19th Century","DateText":"1870 CE – 1913 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/philosophers-of-the-long-19th-century/"},{"Label":"Composition","Title":"1869 CE","Url":"","DateText":""}],"DateNote":"Displayed as 1869 CE for first publication; Harriet Taylor Mill influence is documented without creating a duplicate coauthored row.","GeoCards":[{"Label":"Region","Key":"Region:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita","Key":"TerraAvita:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita Region","Key":"TerraAvitaRegion:2"},{"Label":"Modern Country","Key":"Country:GBR:1"}],"OriginalTitle":"The Subjection of Women","Language":"English","DisciplineCards":[{"Label":"Primary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:political-philosophy"},{"Label":"Secondary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:ethics"}],"Tradition":"British empiricism; liberal utilitarianism; associationism; political economy; social reform","FullText":{"Title":"Full Text","Copy":"Public-domain full text from Project Gutenberg eBook #27083 .","Url":"","Label":"","Kicker":"","Cards":[]},"CoreThesis":["Mill argues that legal and social subordination of women is unjust, irrational, and harmful to human development, liberty, and social progress."],"Classification":{"AlternateTitles":"Subjection of Women","KeyConcepts":"women\u0027s rights; equality; marriage; liberty; suffrage; social progress; gender justice","Methodology":"Direct Mill work-cluster record based on SEP, IEP, Britannica, OLL Collected Works, Gutenberg/Wikisource surfaces, catalog records, and scholarship. No full text is imported.","Structure":"One work-cluster page with explicit integer display year, date note, evidence note, discipline mapping, and public source evidence. Serial publication and posthumous publication notes are documented without importing full text."},"Arguments":["Mill argues that legal and social subordination of women is unjust, irrational, and harmful to human development, liberty, and social progress."],"Influence":{"InfluencedBy":"James Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Harriet Taylor Mill, David Hume, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Auguste Comte, Coleridge, associationist psychology, British empiricism, and nineteenth-century reform politics.","InfluenceOn":""},"Significance":["Accepted as a direct Mill work through SEP, IEP, OLL, Gutenberg, Wikisource, Commons title page, catalog, and scholarship evidence.","Mill remains central for liberty, utilitarian ethics, rights, democracy, public reason, induction, scientific method, women\u0027s equality, political economy, secular religion, and liberal social reform."],"EvidenceNote":["Accepted as a direct Mill work through SEP, IEP, OLL, Gutenberg, Wikisource, Commons title page, catalog, and scholarship evidence."],"MainSections":[{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Versions","BodyHtml":"\u003cdiv class=\"dz-philo__full-version-grid\"\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-version-card\"\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-provider\"\u003eProject Gutenberg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ch3 class=\"dz-philo__full-version-title\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #27083\u003c/h3\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-meta\"\u003eHtmlText · Imported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ca class=\"dz-philo__full-version-link\" href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27083\"\u003eOpen full version\u003c/a\u003e\n \u003c/article\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e"},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Core Thesis","Paragraphs":["Mill argues that legal and social subordination of women is unjust, irrational, and harmful to human development, liberty, and social progress."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Classification","Fields":[{"Label":"Alternate Titles","Value":"Subjection of Women"},{"Label":"Key Concepts","Value":"women\u0027s rights; equality; marriage; liberty; suffrage; social progress; gender justice"},{"Label":"Methodology","Value":"Direct Mill work-cluster record based on SEP, IEP, Britannica, OLL Collected Works, Gutenberg/Wikisource surfaces, catalog records, and scholarship. No full text is imported."},{"Label":"Structure","Value":"One work-cluster page with explicit integer display year, date note, evidence note, discipline mapping, and public source evidence. Serial publication and posthumous publication notes are documented without importing full text."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Arguments","Paragraphs":["Mill argues that legal and social subordination of women is unjust, irrational, and harmful to human development, liberty, and social progress."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Influence","Fields":[{"Label":"Influenced By","Value":"James Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Harriet Taylor Mill, David Hume, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Auguste Comte, Coleridge, associationist psychology, British empiricism, and nineteenth-century reform politics."},{"Label":"Influence On","Value":"Liberalism, utilitarian ethics, democratic theory, women\u0027s rights, political economy, empiricist logic, philosophy of science, social reform, analytic liberalism, and debates over liberty and individuality."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Significance","Paragraphs":["Accepted as a direct Mill work through SEP, IEP, OLL, Gutenberg, Wikisource, Commons title page, catalog, and scholarship evidence.","Mill remains central for liberty, utilitarian ethics, rights, democracy, public reason, induction, scientific method, women\u0027s equality, political economy, secular religion, and liberal social reform."]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Evidence Note","Paragraphs":["Accepted as a direct Mill work through SEP, IEP, OLL, Gutenberg, Wikisource, Commons title page, catalog, and scholarship evidence."]},{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Text","BodyHtml":"\u003cp class=\"dz-philo__section-copy dz-philo__full-text-source\"\u003ePublic-domain full text from \u003ca href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27083\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #27083\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-text-body\"\u003e\r\n\u003cpre\u003e\u003c/pre\u003e\r\n\u003ch1\u003e\r\nTHE SUBJECTION\u003cbr\u003e\r\nOF\u003cbr\u003e\r\nWOMEN\r\n\u003c/h1\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"theauthor\"\u003e\r\nBY\u003cbr\u003e\r\nJOHN STUART MILL\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"titlecenter\"\u003e\r\nLONDON\u003cbr\u003e\r\nLONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER\u003cbr\u003e\r\n1869\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"titlecenter\"\u003e\r\nLONDON:\u003cbr\u003e\r\nSAVILL, EDWARDS AND CO., PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET,\u003cbr\u003e\r\nCOVENT GARDEN.\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca id=\"page1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 1]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\r\n\u003ca id=\"chapter1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\r\nCHAPTER I.\r\n\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe object of this Essay is to explain as\r\nclearly as I am able, the grounds of an\r\nopinion which I have held from the very earliest\r\nperiod when I had formed any opinions at all on\r\nsocial or political matters, and which, instead of\r\nbeing weakened or modified, has been constantly\r\ngrowing stronger by the progress of reflection\r\nand the experience of life: That the principle\r\nwhich regulates the existing social relations\r\nbetween the two sexes—the legal subordination of\r\none sex to the other—is wrong in itself, and now\r\none of the chief hindrances to human improvement;\r\nand that it ought to be replaced by a\r\nprinciple of perfect equality, admitting no power\r\nor privilege on the one side, nor disability on the\r\nother.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe very words necessary to express the task\r\nI have undertaken, show how arduous it is.\r\nBut it would be a mistake to suppose that the\r\ndifficulty of the case must lie in the insufficiency\r\nor obscurity of the grounds of reason on which\r\n\u003ca id=\"page2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 2]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmy conviction rests. The difficulty is that which\r\nexists in all cases in which there is a mass of\r\nfeeling to be contended against. So long as\r\nan opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings,\r\nit gains rather than loses in stability by having\r\na preponderating weight of argument against\r\nit. For if it were accepted as a result of\r\nargument, the refutation of the argument might\r\nshake the solidity of the conviction; but when it\r\nrests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative\r\ncontest, the more persuaded its adherents\r\nare that their feeling must have some deeper\r\nground, which the arguments do not reach;\r\nand while the feeling remains, it is always throwing\r\nup fresh intrenchments of argument to repair\r\nany breach made in the old. And there are so\r\nmany causes tending to make the feelings connected\r\nwith this subject the most intense and\r\nmost deeply-rooted of all those which gather\r\nround and protect old institutions and customs,\r\nthat we need not wonder to find them as yet less\r\nundermined and loosened than any of the rest\r\nby the progress of the great modern spiritual and\r\nsocial transition; nor suppose that the barbarisms\r\nto which men cling longest must be less barbarisms\r\nthan those which they earlier shake off.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIn every respect the burthen is hard on those\r\nwho attack an almost universal opinion. They\r\nmust be very fortunate as well as unusually\r\n\u003ca id=\"page3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 3]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncapable if they obtain a hearing at all. They\r\nhave more difficulty in obtaining a trial, than\r\nany other litigants have in getting a verdict. If\r\nthey do extort a hearing, they are subjected to a\r\nset of logical requirements totally different from\r\nthose exacted from other people. In all other\r\ncases, the burthen of proof is supposed to lie with\r\nthe affirmative. If a person is charged with a\r\nmurder, it rests with those who accuse him to\r\ngive proof of his guilt, not with himself to prove\r\nhis innocence. If there is a difference of opinion\r\nabout the reality of any alleged historical event,\r\nin which the feelings of men in general are not\r\nmuch interested, as the Siege of Troy for\r\nexample, those who maintain that the event took\r\nplace are expected to produce their proofs, before\r\nthose who take the other side can be required to\r\nsay anything; and at no time are these required\r\nto do more than show that the evidence\r\nproduced by the others is of no value. Again, in\r\npractical matters, the burthen of proof is supposed\r\nto be with those who are against liberty;\r\nwho contend for any restriction or prohibition;\r\neither any limitation of the general freedom\r\nof human action, or any disqualification or disparity\r\nof privilege affecting one person or kind\r\nof persons, as compared with others. The\r\n\u003ci\u003eà priori\u003c/i\u003e presumption is in favour of freedom\r\nand impartiality. It is held that there should\r\n\u003ca id=\"page4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 4]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe no restraint not required by the general good,\r\nand that the law should be no respecter of persons,\r\nbut should treat all alike, save where dissimilarity\r\nof treatment is required by positive reasons, either\r\nof justice or of policy. But of none of these rules\r\nof evidence will the benefit be allowed to those\r\nwho maintain the opinion I profess. It is useless\r\nfor me to say that those who maintain the\r\ndoctrine that men have a right to command and\r\nwomen are under an obligation to obey, or that\r\nmen are fit for government and women unfit, are\r\non the affirmative side of the question, and that\r\nthey are bound to show positive evidence for the\r\nassertions, or submit to their rejection. It is\r\nequally unavailing for me to say that those who\r\ndeny to women any freedom or privilege rightly\r\nallowed to men, having the double presumption\r\nagainst them that they are opposing freedom\r\nand recommending partiality, must be held to\r\nthe strictest proof of their case, and unless their\r\nsuccess be such as to exclude all doubt, the judgment\r\nought to go against them. These would be\r\nthought good pleas in any common case; but\r\nthey will not be thought so in this instance.\r\nBefore I could hope to make any impression,\r\nI should be expected not only to answer\r\nall that has ever been said by those who take\r\nthe other side of the question, but to imagine\r\nall that could be said by them—to find them\r\n\u003ca id=\"page5\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 5]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin reasons, as well as answer all I find: and\r\nbesides refuting all arguments for the affirmative,\r\nI shall be called upon for invincible positive\r\narguments to prove a negative. And even if I\r\ncould do all this, and leave the opposite party\r\nwith a host of unanswered arguments against\r\nthem, and not a single unrefuted one on their side,\r\nI should be thought to have done little; for\r\na cause supported on the one hand by universal\r\nusage, and on the other by so great a preponderance\r\nof popular sentiment, is supposed to have a\r\npresumption in its favour, superior to any conviction\r\nwhich an appeal to reason has power to\r\nproduce in any intellects but those of a high class.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nI do not mention these difficulties to complain\r\nof them; first, because it would be useless; they\r\nare inseparable from having to contend through\r\npeople\u0027s understandings against the hostility\r\nof their feelings and practical tendencies: and\r\ntruly the understandings of the majority of mankind\r\nwould need to be much better cultivated than\r\nhas ever yet been the case, before they can be\r\nasked to place such reliance in their own power\r\nof estimating arguments, as to give up practical\r\nprinciples in which they have been born and bred\r\nand which are the basis of much of the existing\r\norder of the world, at the first argumentative\r\nattack which they are not capable of logically\r\nresisting. I do not therefore quarrel with them\r\n\u003ca id=\"page6\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 6]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfor having too little faith in argument, but for\r\nhaving too much faith in custom and the general\r\nfeeling. It is one of the characteristic prejudices\r\nof the reaction of the nineteenth century\r\nagainst the eighteenth, to accord to the unreasoning\r\nelements in human nature the infallibility\r\nwhich the eighteenth century is supposed to have\r\nascribed to the reasoning elements. For the\r\napotheosis of Reason we have substituted that of\r\nInstinct; and we call everything instinct which\r\nwe find in ourselves and for which we cannot\r\ntrace any rational foundation. This idolatry,\r\ninfinitely more degrading than the other, and\r\nthe most pernicious of the false worships of\r\nthe present day, of all of which it is now the\r\nmain support, will probably hold its ground until\r\nit gives way before a sound psychology, laying\r\nbare the real root of much that is bowed down\r\nto as the intention of Nature and the ordinance\r\nof God. As regards the present question, I am\r\nwilling to accept the unfavourable conditions\r\nwhich the prejudice assigns to me. I consent\r\nthat established custom, and the general feeling,\r\nshould be deemed conclusive against me, unless\r\nthat custom and feeling from age to age can be\r\nshown to have owed their existence to other\r\ncauses than their soundness, and to have derived\r\ntheir power from the worse rather than the better\r\nparts of human nature. I am willing that judgment\r\n\u003ca id=\"page7\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 7]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nshould go against me, unless I can show\r\nthat my judge has been tampered with. The concession\r\nis not so great as it might appear; for to\r\nprove this, is by far the easiest portion of my task.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe generality of a practice is in some cases a\r\nstrong presumption that it is, or at all events\r\nonce was, conducive to laudable ends. This is\r\nthe case, when the practice was first adopted, or\r\nafterwards kept up, as a means to such ends, and\r\nwas grounded on experience of the mode in which\r\nthey could be most effectually attained. If the\r\nauthority of men over women, when first established,\r\nhad been the result of a conscientious\r\ncomparison between different modes of constituting\r\nthe government of society; if, after trying\r\nvarious other modes of social organization—the\r\ngovernment of women over men, equality between\r\nthe two, and such mixed and divided modes of\r\ngovernment as might be invented—it had been\r\ndecided, on the testimony of experience, that the\r\nmode in which women are wholly under the rule\r\nof men, having no share at all in public concerns,\r\nand each in private being under the legal obligation\r\nof obedience to the man with whom she\r\nhas associated her destiny, was the arrangement\r\nmost conducive to the happiness and well being of\r\nboth; its general adoption might then be fairly\r\nthought to be some evidence that, at the time\r\nwhen it was adopted, if was the best: though even\r\n\u003ca id=\"page8\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 8]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthen the considerations which recommended it\r\nmay, like so many other primeval social facts of\r\nthe greatest importance, have subsequently, in the\r\ncourse of ages, ceased to exist. But the state of\r\nthe case is in every respect the reverse of this.\r\nIn the first place, the opinion in favour of the\r\npresent system, which entirely subordinates the\r\nweaker sex to the stronger, rests upon theory\r\nonly; for there never has been trial made of\r\nany other: so that experience, in the sense in\r\nwhich it is vulgarly opposed to theory, cannot be\r\npretended to have pronounced any verdict. And\r\nin the second place, the adoption of this system\r\nof inequality never was the result of deliberation,\r\nor forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion\r\nwhatever of what conduced to the benefit of\r\nhumanity or the good order of society. It arose\r\nsimply from the fact that from the very earliest\r\ntwilight of human society, every woman (owing\r\nto the value attached to her by men, combined\r\nwith her inferiority in muscular strength) was\r\nfound in a state of bondage to some man.\r\nLaws and systems of polity always begin by\r\nrecognising the relations they find already existing\r\nbetween individuals. They convert what\r\nwas a mere physical fact into a legal right, give\r\nit the sanction of society, and principally aim at\r\nthe substitution of public and organized means\r\nof asserting and protecting these rights, instead\r\n\u003ca id=\"page9\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 9]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof the irregular and lawless conflict of physical\r\nstrength. Those who had already been compelled\r\nto obedience became in this manner legally bound\r\nto it. Slavery, from being a mere affair of force\r\nbetween the master and the slave, became regularized\r\nand a matter of compact among the\r\nmasters, who, binding themselves to one another\r\nfor common protection, guaranteed by their\r\ncollective strength the private possessions of\r\neach, including his slaves. In early times,\r\nthe great majority of the male sex were slaves,\r\nas well as the whole of the female. And many\r\nages elapsed, some of them ages of high cultivation,\r\nbefore any thinker was bold enough to\r\nquestion the rightfulness, and the absolute social\r\nnecessity, either of the one slavery or of the\r\nother. By degrees such thinkers did arise: and\r\n(the general progress of society assisting) the\r\nslavery of the male sex has, in all the countries\r\nof Christian Europe at least (though, in one of\r\nthem, only within the last few years) been at\r\nlength abolished, and that of the female sex has\r\nbeen gradually changed into a milder form of\r\ndependence. But this dependence, as it exists\r\nat present, is not an original institution, taking\r\na fresh start from considerations of justice and\r\nsocial expediency—it is the primitive state of\r\nslavery lasting on, through successive mitigations\r\nand modifications occasioned by the same causes\r\n\u003ca id=\"page10\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 10]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich have softened the general manners, and\r\nbrought all human relations more under the\r\ncontrol of justice and the influence of humanity.\r\nIt has not lost the taint of its brutal origin.\r\nNo presumption in its favour, therefore, can be\r\ndrawn from the fact of its existence. The\r\nonly such presumption which it could be supposed\r\nto have, must be grounded on its having\r\nlasted till now, when so many other things which\r\ncame down from the same odious source have\r\nbeen done away with. And this, indeed, is what\r\nmakes it strange to ordinary ears, to hear it\r\nasserted that the inequality of rights between\r\nmen and women has no other source than the\r\nlaw of the strongest.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThat this statement should have the effect of\r\na paradox, is in some respects creditable to the\r\nprogress of civilization, and the improvement of\r\nthe moral sentiments of mankind. We now live—that\r\nis to say, one or two of the most advanced\r\nnations of the world now live—in a state\r\nin which the law of the strongest seems to be\r\nentirely abandoned as the regulating principle\r\nof the world\u0027s affairs: nobody professes it, and,\r\nas regards most of the relations between human\r\nbeings, nobody is permitted to practise it. When\r\nany one succeeds in doing so, it is under cover of\r\nsome pretext which gives him the semblance of\r\nhaving some general social interest on his side.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page11\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 11]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThis being the ostensible state of things, people\r\nflatter themselves that the rule of mere force is\r\nended; that the law of the strongest cannot be the\r\nreason of existence of anything which has remained\r\nin full operation down to the present time. However\r\nany of our present institutions may have begun,\r\nit can only, they think, have been preserved\r\nto this period of advanced civilization by a well-grounded\r\nfeeling of its adaptation to human nature,\r\nand conduciveness to the general good. They\r\ndo not understand the great vitality and durability\r\nof institutions which place right on the side\r\nof might; how intensely they are clung to; how\r\nthe good as well as the bad propensities and sentiments\r\nof those who have power in their hands,\r\nbecome identified with retaining it; how slowly\r\nthese bad institutions give way, one at a time,\r\nthe weakest first, beginning with those which are\r\nleast interwoven with the daily habits of life; and\r\nhow very rarely those who have obtained legal\r\npower because they first had physical, have ever\r\nlost their hold of it until the physical power had\r\npassed over to the other side. Such shifting of\r\nthe physical force not having taken place in the\r\ncase of women; this fact, combined with all the\r\npeculiar and characteristic features of the particular\r\ncase, made it certain from the first that this\r\nbranch of the system of right founded on might,\r\nthough softened in its most atrocious features at an\r\n\u003ca id=\"page12\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 12]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nearlier period than several of the others, would be\r\nthe very last to disappear. It was inevitable that\r\nthis one case of a social relation grounded on force,\r\nwould survive through generations of institutions\r\ngrounded on equal justice, an almost solitary\r\nexception to the general character of their laws\r\nand customs; but which, so long as it does not\r\nproclaim its own origin, and as discussion has\r\nnot brought out its true character, is not felt to\r\njar with modern civilization, any more than\r\ndomestic slavery among the Greeks jarred with\r\ntheir notion of themselves as a free people.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe truth is, that people of the present and\r\nthe last two or three generations have lost all\r\npractical sense of the primitive condition of\r\nhumanity; and only the few who have studied\r\nhistory accurately, or have much frequented the\r\nparts of the world occupied by the living representatives\r\nof ages long past, are able to form any\r\nmental picture of what society then was. People\r\nare not aware how entirely, in former ages, the\r\nlaw of superior strength was the rule of life; how\r\npublicly and openly it was avowed, I do not say\r\ncynically or shamelessly—for these words imply\r\na feeling that there was something in it to be\r\nashamed of, and no such notion could find a\r\nplace in the faculties of any person in those ages,\r\nexcept a philosopher or a saint. History gives a\r\ncruel experience of human nature, in shewing\r\n\u003ca id=\"page13\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 13]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhow exactly the regard due to the life, possessions,\r\nand entire earthly happiness of any class of persons,\r\nwas measured by what they had the power\r\nof enforcing; how all who made any resistance\r\nto authorities that had arms in their hands, however\r\ndreadful might be the provocation, had not\r\nonly the law of force but all other laws, and all\r\nthe notions of social obligation against them; and\r\nin the eyes of those whom they resisted, were\r\nnot only guilty of crime, but of the worst of all\r\ncrimes, deserving the most cruel chastisement\r\nwhich human beings could inflict. The first\r\nsmall vestige of a feeling of obligation in a\r\nsuperior to acknowledge any right in inferiors,\r\nbegan when he had been induced, for convenience,\r\nto make some promise to them. Though these\r\npromises, even when sanctioned by the most\r\nsolemn oaths, were for many ages revoked or\r\nviolated on the most trifling provocation or\r\ntemptation, it is probable that this, except by\r\npersons of still worse than the average morality,\r\nwas seldom done without some twinges of conscience.\r\nThe ancient republics, being mostly\r\ngrounded from the first upon some kind of\r\nmutual compact, or at any rate formed by an\r\nunion of persons not very unequal in strength,\r\nafforded, in consequence, the first instance of a\r\nportion of human relations fenced round, and\r\nplaced under the dominion of another law than\r\n\u003ca id=\"page14\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 14]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat of force. And though the original law of\r\nforce remained in full operation between them\r\nand their slaves, and also (except so far as limited\r\nby express compact) between a commonwealth\r\nand its subjects, or other independent commonwealths;\r\nthe banishment of that primitive law\r\neven from so narrow a field, commenced the regeneration\r\nof human nature, by giving birth to\r\nsentiments of which experience soon demonstrated\r\nthe immense value even for material interests,\r\nand which thenceforward only required\r\nto be enlarged, not created. Though slaves were\r\nno part of the commonwealth, it was in the free\r\nstates that slaves were first felt to have rights as\r\nhuman beings. The Stoics were, I believe, the\r\nfirst (except so far as the Jewish law constitutes\r\nan exception) who taught as a part of morality\r\nthat men were bound by moral obligations to\r\ntheir slaves. No one, after Christianity became\r\nascendant, could ever again have been a stranger\r\nto this belief, in theory; nor, after the rise of the\r\nCatholic Church, was it ever without persons to\r\nstand up for it. Yet to enforce it was the most\r\narduous task which Christianity ever had to perform.\r\nFor more than a thousand years the\r\nChurch kept up the contest, with hardly any perceptible\r\nsuccess. It was not for want of power\r\nover men\u0027s minds. Its power was prodigious.\r\nIt could make kings and nobles resign their most\r\n\u003ca id=\"page15\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 15]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nvalued possessions to enrich the Church. It\r\ncould make thousands, in the prime of life and\r\nthe height of worldly advantages, shut themselves\r\nup in convents to work out their salvation by\r\npoverty, fasting, and prayer. It could send\r\nhundreds of thousands across land and sea,\r\nEurope and Asia, to give their lives for the deliverance\r\nof the Holy Sepulchre. It could make\r\nkings relinquish wives who were the object of\r\ntheir passionate attachment, because the Church\r\ndeclared that they were within the seventh (by our\r\ncalculation the fourteenth) degree of relationship.\r\nAll this it did; but it could not make men fight\r\nless with one another, nor tyrannize less cruelly\r\nover the serfs, and when they were able, over\r\nburgesses. It could not make them renounce\r\neither of the applications of force; force militant,\r\nor force triumphant. This they could never\r\nbe induced to do until they were themselves in\r\ntheir turn compelled by superior force. Only\r\nby the growing power of kings was an end put to\r\nfighting except between kings, or competitors for\r\nkingship; only by the growth of a wealthy and\r\nwarlike bourgeoisie in the fortified towns, and of a\r\nplebeian infantry which proved more powerful\r\nin the field than the undisciplined chivalry, was the\r\ninsolent tyranny of the nobles over the bourgeoisie\r\nand peasantry brought within some bounds.\r\nIt was persisted in not only until, but long after,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page16\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 16]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe oppressed had obtained a power enabling\r\nthem often to take conspicuous vengeance; and\r\non the Continent much of it continued to the\r\ntime of the French Revolution, though in England\r\nthe earlier and better organization of the democratic\r\nclasses put an end to it sooner, by establishing\r\nequal laws and free national institutions.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIf people are mostly so little aware how completely,\r\nduring the greater part of the duration\r\nof our species, the law of force was the avowed\r\nrule of general conduct, any other being only\r\na special and exceptional consequence of peculiar\r\nties—and from how very recent a date it is that\r\nthe affairs of society in general have been even\r\npretended to be regulated according to any\r\nmoral law; as little do people remember or\r\nconsider, how institutions and customs which\r\nnever had any ground but the law of force, last\r\non into ages and states of general opinion which\r\nnever would have permitted their first establishment.\r\nLess than forty years ago, Englishmen\r\nmight still by law hold human beings in bondage\r\nas saleable property: within the present century\r\nthey might kidnap them and carry them off, and\r\nwork them literally to death. This absolutely\r\nextreme case of the law of force, condemned by\r\nthose who can tolerate almost every other form\r\nof arbitrary power, and which, of all others, presents\r\nfeatures the most revolting to the feelings\r\n\u003ca id=\"page17\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 17]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof all who look at it from an impartial position,\r\nwas the law of civilized and Christian England\r\nwithin the memory of persons now living: and\r\nin one half of Anglo-Saxon America three or\r\nfour years ago, not only did slavery exist, but\r\nthe slave trade, and the breeding of slaves expressly\r\nfor it, was a general practice between\r\nslave states. Yet not only was there a greater\r\nstrength of sentiment against it, but, in England\r\nat least, a less amount either of feeling or of interest\r\nin favour of it, than of any other of the\r\ncustomary abuses of force: for its motive was\r\nthe love of gain, unmixed and undisguised; and\r\nthose who profited by it were a very small numerical\r\nfraction of the country, while the natural\r\nfeeling of all who were not personally interested\r\nin it, was unmitigated abhorrence. So extreme\r\nan instance makes it almost superfluous to refer\r\nto any other: but consider the long duration of\r\nabsolute monarchy. In England at present it\r\nis the almost universal conviction that military\r\ndespotism is a case of the law of force, having\r\nno other origin or justification. Yet in all the\r\ngreat nations of Europe except England it either\r\nstill exists, or has only just ceased to exist, and\r\nhas even now a strong party favourable to it in\r\nall ranks of the people, especially among persons\r\nof station and consequence. Such is the power\r\nof an established system, even when far from\r\n\u003ca id=\"page18\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 18]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nuniversal; when not only in almost every period\r\nof history there have been great and well-known\r\nexamples of the contrary system, but these have\r\nalmost invariably been afforded by the most\r\nillustrious and most prosperous communities. In\r\nthis case, too, the possessor of the undue power,\r\nthe person directly interested in it, is only one\r\nperson, while those who are subject to it and\r\nsuffer from it are literally all the rest. The\r\nyoke is naturally and necessarily humiliating to all\r\npersons, except the one who is on the throne,\r\ntogether with, at most, the one who expects to\r\nsucceed to it. How different are these cases\r\nfrom that of the power of men over women! I\r\nam not now prejudging the question of its justifiableness.\r\nI am showing how vastly more permanent\r\nit could not but be, even if not justifiable,\r\nthan these other dominations which have nevertheless\r\nlasted down to our own time. Whatever\r\ngratification of pride there is in the possession\r\nof power, and whatever personal interest in\r\nits exercise, is in this case not confined to a\r\nlimited class, but common to the whole male\r\nsex. Instead of being, to most of its supporters,\r\na thing desirable chiefly in the abstract, or, like\r\nthe political ends usually contended for by factious,\r\nof little private importance to any but the\r\nleaders; it comes home to the person and hearth\r\nof every male head of a family, and of every one\r\n\u003ca id=\"page19\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 19]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwho looks forward to being so. The clodhopper\r\nexercises, or is to exercise, his share of the power\r\nequally with the highest nobleman. And the\r\ncase is that in which the desire of power is the\r\nstrongest: for every one who desires power, desires\r\nit most over those who are nearest to him, with\r\nwhom his life is passed, with whom he has most\r\nconcerns in common, and in whom any independence\r\nof his authority is oftenest likely to\r\ninterfere with his individual preferences. If, in\r\nthe other cases specified, powers manifestly\r\ngrounded only on force, and having so much less\r\nto support them, are so slowly and with so much\r\ndifficulty got rid of, much more must it be so\r\nwith this, even if it rests on no better foundation\r\nthan those. We must consider, too, that the\r\npossessors of the power have facilities in this\r\ncase, greater than in any other, to prevent any\r\nuprising against it. Every one of the subjects\r\nlives under the very eye, and almost, it may be\r\nsaid, in the hands, of one of the masters—in\r\ncloser intimacy with him than with any of her\r\nfellow-subjects; with no means of combining\r\nagainst him, no power of even locally over-mastering\r\nhim, and, on the other hand, with the\r\nstrongest motives for seeking his favour and\r\navoiding to give him offence. In struggles for\r\npolitical emancipation, everybody knows how often\r\nits champions are bought off by bribes, or daunted\r\n\u003ca id=\"page20\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 20]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nby terrors. In the case of women, each individual\r\nof the subject-class is in a chronic state of\r\nbribery and intimidation combined. In setting\r\nup the standard of resistance, a large number of\r\nthe leaders, and still more of the followers, must\r\nmake an almost complete sacrifice of the pleasures\r\nor the alleviations of their own individual\r\nlot. If ever any system of privilege and enforced\r\nsubjection had its yoke tightly riveted\r\non the necks of those who are kept down by it,\r\nthis has. I have not yet shown that it is a\r\nwrong system: but every one who is capable of\r\nthinking on the subject must see that even if it\r\nis, it was certain to outlast all other forms of\r\nunjust authority. And when some of the grossest\r\nof the other forms still exist in many civilized\r\ncountries, and have only recently been got rid\r\nof in others, it would be strange if that which\r\nis so much the deepest-rooted had yet been\r\nperceptibly shaken anywhere. There is more\r\nreason to wonder that the protests and testimonies\r\nagainst it should have been so numerous\r\nand so weighty as they are.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nSome will object, that a comparison cannot\r\nfairly be made between the government of the\r\nmale sex and the forms of unjust power which I\r\nhave adduced in illustration of it, since these are\r\narbitrary, and the effect of mere usurpation,\r\nwhile it on the contrary is natural. But was\r\n\u003ca id=\"page21\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 21]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthere ever any domination which did not appear\r\nnatural to those who possessed it? There was\r\na time when the division of mankind into two\r\nclasses, a small one of masters and a numerous\r\none of slaves, appeared, even to the most cultivated\r\nminds, to be a natural, and the only natural,\r\ncondition of the human race. No less an intellect,\r\nand one which contributed no less to the\r\nprogress of human thought, than Aristotle, held\r\nthis opinion without doubt or misgiving; and\r\nrested it on the same premises on which the\r\nsame assertion in regard to the dominion of men\r\nover women is usually based, namely that there\r\nare different natures among mankind, free natures,\r\nand slave natures; that the Greeks were\r\nof a free nature, the barbarian races of Thracians\r\nand Asiatics of a slave nature. But why need I\r\ngo back to Aristotle? Did not the slaveowners\r\nof the Southern United States maintain the same\r\ndoctrine, with all the fanaticism with which men\r\ncling to the theories that justify their passions\r\nand legitimate their personal interests? Did\r\nthey not call heaven and earth to witness that\r\nthe dominion of the white man over the black is\r\nnatural, that the black race is by nature incapable\r\nof freedom, and marked out for slavery?\r\nsome even going so far as to say that the freedom\r\nof manual labourers is an unnatural order of\r\nthings anywhere. Again, the theorists of absolute\r\n\u003ca id=\"page22\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 22]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmonarchy have always affirmed it to be the\r\nonly natural form of government; issuing from\r\nthe patriarchal, which was the primitive and\r\nspontaneous form of society, framed on the\r\nmodel of the paternal, which is anterior to society\r\nitself, and, as they contend, the most natural\r\nauthority of all. Nay, for that matter, the law\r\nof force itself, to those who could not plead any\r\nother, has always seemed the most natural of all\r\ngrounds for the exercise of authority. Conquering\r\nraces hold it to be Nature\u0027s own dictate that\r\nthe conquered should obey the conquerors, or, as\r\nthey euphoniously paraphrase it, that the feebler\r\nand more unwarlike races should submit to the\r\nbraver and manlier. The smallest acquaintance\r\nwith human life in the middle ages, shows how\r\nsupremely natural the dominion of the feudal\r\nnobility over men of low condition appeared to\r\nthe nobility themselves, and how unnatural the\r\nconception seemed, of a person of the inferior\r\nclass claiming equality with them, or exercising\r\nauthority over them. It hardly seemed less so\r\nto the class held in subjection. The emancipated\r\nserfs and burgesses, even in their most\r\nvigorous struggles, never made any pretension to\r\na share of authority; they only demanded more\r\nor less of limitation to the power of tyrannizing\r\nover them. So true is it that unnatural generally\r\nmeans only uncustomary, and that everything\r\n\u003ca id=\"page23\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 23]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhich is usual appears natural. The subjection\r\nof women to men being a universal\r\ncustom, any departure from it quite naturally\r\nappears unnatural. But how entirely, even in\r\nthis case, the feeling is dependent on custom,\r\nappears by ample experience. Nothing so much\r\nastonishes the people of distant parts of the\r\nworld, when they first learn anything about\r\nEngland, as to be told that it is under a queen:\r\nthe thing seems to them so unnatural as to be\r\nalmost incredible. To Englishmen this does not\r\nseem in the least degree unnatural, because they\r\nare used to it; but they do feel it unnatural that\r\nwomen should be soldiers or members of parliament.\r\nIn the feudal ages, on the contrary, war\r\nand politics were not thought unnatural to\r\nwomen, because not unusual; it seemed natural\r\nthat women of the privileged classes should be\r\nof manly character, inferior in nothing but bodily\r\nstrength to their husbands and fathers. The\r\nindependence of women seemed rather less unnatural\r\nto the Greeks than to other ancients, on\r\naccount of the fabulous Amazons (whom they\r\nbelieved to be historical), and the partial example\r\nafforded by the Spartan women; who, though no\r\nless subordinate by law than in other Greek\r\nstates, were more free in fact, and being trained\r\nto bodily exercises in the same manner with\r\nmen, gave ample proof that they were not naturally\r\n\u003ca id=\"page24\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 24]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndisqualified for them. There can be little\r\ndoubt that Spartan experience suggested to Plato,\r\namong many other of his doctrines, that of the\r\nsocial and political equality of the two sexes.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nBut, it will be said, the rule of men over women\r\ndiffers from all these others in not being a rule\r\nof force: it is accepted voluntarily; women make\r\nno complaint, and are consenting parties to it.\r\nIn the first place, a great number of women do\r\nnot accept it. Ever since there have been women\r\nable to make their sentiments known by their\r\nwritings (the only mode of publicity which society\r\npermits to them), an increasing number of them\r\nhave recorded protests against their present social\r\ncondition: and recently many thousands of them,\r\nheaded by the most eminent women known to\r\nthe public, have petitioned Parliament for their\r\nadmission to the Parliamentary Suffrage. The\r\nclaim of women to be educated as solidly, and in\r\nthe same branches of knowledge, as men, is urged\r\nwith growing intensity, and with a great prospect\r\nof success; while the demand for their admission\r\ninto professions and occupations hitherto closed\r\nagainst them, becomes every year more urgent.\r\nThough there are not in this country, as there\r\nare in the United States, periodical Conventions\r\nand an organized party to agitate for the Rights\r\nof Women, there is a numerous and active Society\r\norganized and managed by women, for the more\r\n\u003ca id=\"page25\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 25]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlimited object of obtaining the political franchise.\r\nNor is it only in our own country and in America\r\nthat women are beginning to protest, more or\r\nless collectively, against the disabilities under\r\nwhich they labour. France, and Italy, and\r\nSwitzerland, and Russia now afford examples of\r\nthe same thing. How many more women there\r\nare who silently cherish similar aspirations, no\r\none can possibly know; but there are abundant\r\ntokens how many \u003ci\u003ewould\u003c/i\u003e cherish them, were they\r\nnot so strenuously taught to repress them as contrary\r\nto the proprieties of their sex. It must be\r\nremembered, also, that no enslaved class ever\r\nasked for complete liberty at once. When Simon\r\nde Montfort called the deputies of the commons\r\nto sit for the first time in Parliament, did any\r\nof them dream of demanding that an assembly,\r\nelected by their constituents, should make and\r\ndestroy ministries, and dictate to the king in\r\naffairs of state? No such thought entered into\r\nthe imagination of the most ambitious of them.\r\nThe nobility had already these pretensions; the\r\ncommons pretended to nothing but to be exempt\r\nfrom arbitrary taxation, and from the gross individual\r\noppression of the king\u0027s officers. It is a\r\npolitical law of nature that those who are under\r\nany power of ancient origin, never begin by\r\ncomplaining of the power itself, but only of its\r\noppressive exercise. There is never any want of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page26\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 26]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwomen who complain of ill usage by their husbands.\r\nThere would be infinitely more, if complaint\r\nwere not the greatest of all provocatives\r\nto a repetition and increase of the ill usage. It\r\nis this which frustrates all attempts to maintain\r\nthe power but protect the woman against its\r\nabuses. In no other case (except that of a child)\r\nis the person who has been proved judicially to\r\nhave suffered an injury, replaced under the physical\r\npower of the culprit who inflicted it.\r\nAccordingly wives, even in the most extreme and\r\nprotracted cases of bodily ill usage, hardly ever\r\ndare avail themselves of the laws made for their\r\nprotection: and if, in a moment of irrepressible\r\nindignation, or by the interference of neighbours,\r\nthey are induced to do so, their whole effort afterwards\r\nis to disclose as little as they can, and to\r\nbeg off their tyrant from his merited chastisement.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nAll causes, social and natural, combine to\r\nmake it unlikely that women should be collectively\r\nrebellious to the power of men. They\r\nare so far in a position different from all other\r\nsubject classes, that their masters require something\r\nmore from them than actual service. Men\r\ndo not want solely the obedience of women, they\r\nwant their sentiments. All men, except the most\r\nbrutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly\r\nconnected with them, not a forced slave but a\r\nwilling one, not a slave merely, but a favourite.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page27\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 27]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThey have therefore put everything in practice\r\nto enslave their minds. The masters of all\r\nother slaves rely, for maintaining obedience, on\r\nfear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears.\r\nThe masters of women wanted more than simple\r\nobedience, and they turned the whole force of\r\neducation to effect their purpose. All women\r\nare brought up from the very earliest years in\r\nthe belief that their ideal of character is the very\r\nopposite to that of men; not self-will, and government\r\nby self-control, but submission, and yielding\r\nto the control of others. All the moralities tell\r\nthem that it is the duty of women, and all the\r\ncurrent sentimentalities that it is their nature, to\r\nlive for others; to make complete abnegation of\r\nthemselves, and to have no life but in their\r\naffections. And by their affections are meant\r\nthe only ones they are allowed to have—those to\r\nthe men with whom they are connected, or to\r\nthe children who constitute an additional and\r\nindefeasible tie between them and a man. When\r\nwe put together three things—first, the natural\r\nattraction between opposite sexes; secondly, the\r\nwife\u0027s entire dependence on the husband, every\r\nprivilege or pleasure she has being either his\r\ngift, or depending entirely on his will; and lastly,\r\nthat the principal object of human pursuit, consideration,\r\nand all objects of social ambition, can in\r\ngeneral be sought or obtained by her only through\r\n\u003ca id=\"page28\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 28]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhim, it would be a miracle if the object of being\r\nattractive to men had not become the polar star\r\nof feminine education and formation of character.\r\nAnd, this great means of influence over the minds\r\nof women having been acquired, an instinct of\r\nselfishness made men avail themselves of it to\r\nthe utmost as a means of holding women in\r\nsubjection, by representing to them meekness,\r\nsubmissiveness, and resignation of all individual\r\nwill into the hands of a man, as an essential\r\npart of sexual attractiveness. Can it be doubted\r\nthat any of the other yokes which mankind have\r\nsucceeded in breaking, would have subsisted till\r\nnow if the same means had existed, and had been\r\nas sedulously used, to bow down their minds to it?\r\nIf it had been made the object of the life of every\r\nyoung plebeian to find personal favour in the\r\neyes of some patrician, of every young serf with\r\nsome seigneur; if domestication with him, and\r\na share of his personal affections, had been held\r\nout as the prize which they all should look out\r\nfor, the most gifted and aspiring being able to\r\nreckon on the most desirable prizes; and if, when\r\nthis prize had been obtained, they had been shut\r\nout by a wall of brass from all interests not\r\ncentering in him, all feelings and desires but\r\nthose which he shared or inculcated; would not\r\nserfs and seigneurs, plebeians and patricians, have\r\nbeen as broadly distinguished at this day as men\r\n\u003ca id=\"page29\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 29]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand women are? and would not all but a\r\nthinker here and there, have believed the distinction\r\nto be a fundamental and unalterable fact\r\nin human nature?\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe preceding considerations are amply sufficient\r\nto show that custom, however universal it\r\nmay be, affords in this case no presumption, and\r\nought not to create any prejudice, in favour of\r\nthe arrangements which place women in social\r\nand political subjection to men. But I may go\r\nfarther, and maintain that the course of history,\r\nand the tendencies of progressive human society,\r\nafford not only no presumption in favour of this\r\nsystem of inequality of rights, but a strong one\r\nagainst it; and that, so far as the whole course of\r\nhuman improvement up to this time, the whole\r\nstream of modern tendencies, warrants any inference\r\non the subject, it is, that this relic of the\r\npast is discordant with the future, and must\r\nnecessarily disappear.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nFor, what is the peculiar character of the\r\nmodern world—the difference which chiefly distinguishes\r\nmodern institutions, modern social\r\nideas, modern life itself, from those of times long\r\npast? It is, that human beings are no longer\r\nborn to their place in life, and chained down by\r\nan inexorable bond to the place they are born to,\r\nbut are free to employ their faculties, and such\r\nfavourable chances as offer, to achieve the lot which\r\n\u003ca id=\"page30\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 30]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmay appear to them most desirable. Human\r\nsociety of old was constituted on a very different\r\nprinciple. All were born to a fixed social position,\r\nand were mostly kept in it by law, or interdicted\r\nfrom any means by which they could\r\nemerge from it. As some men are born white\r\nand others black, so some were born slaves and\r\nothers freemen and citizens; some were born\r\npatricians, others plebeians; some were born feudal\r\nnobles, others commoners and \u003ci\u003eroturiers\u003c/i\u003e. A slave\r\nor serf could never make himself free, nor,\r\nexcept by the will of his master, become so.\r\nIn most European countries it was not till\r\ntowards the close of the middle ages, and as a\r\nconsequence of the growth of regal power, that\r\ncommoners could be ennobled. Even among nobles,\r\nthe eldest son was born the exclusive heir to the\r\npaternal possessions, and a long time elapsed before\r\nit was fully established that the father could disinherit\r\nhim. Among the industrious classes, only\r\nthose who were born members of a guild, or were\r\nadmitted into it by its members, could lawfully\r\npractise their calling within its local limits; and\r\nnobody could practise any calling deemed important,\r\nin any but the legal manner—by processes\r\nauthoritatively prescribed. Manufacturers\r\nhave stood in the pillory for presuming to carry\r\non their business by new and improved methods.\r\nIn modern Europe, and most in those parts of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page31\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 31]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nit which have participated most largely in all\r\nother modern improvements, diametrically opposite\r\ndoctrines now prevail. Law and government\r\ndo not undertake to prescribe by whom\r\nany social or industrial operation shall or shall\r\nnot be conducted, or what modes of conducting\r\nthem shall be lawful. These things are left to\r\nthe unfettered choice of individuals. Even the\r\nlaws which required that workmen should serve\r\nan apprenticeship, have in this country been\r\nrepealed: there being ample assurance that in\r\nall cases in which an apprenticeship is necessary,\r\nits necessity will suffice to enforce it. The old\r\ntheory was, that the least possible should be left\r\nto the choice of the individual agent; that all\r\nhe had to do should, as far as practicable, be laid\r\ndown for him by superior wisdom. Left to\r\nhimself he was sure to go wrong. The modern\r\nconviction, the fruit of a thousand years of\r\nexperience, is, that things in which the individual\r\nis the person directly interested, never go right\r\nbut as they are left to his own discretion; and\r\nthat any regulation of them by authority, except\r\nto protect the rights of others, is sure to be mischievous.\r\nThis conclusion, slowly arrived at, and\r\nnot adopted until almost every possible application\r\nof the contrary theory had been made with\r\ndisastrous result, now (in the industrial department)\r\nprevails universally in the most advanced\r\n\u003ca id=\"page32\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 32]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncountries, almost universally in all that have\r\npretensions to any sort of advancement. It is\r\nnot that all processes are supposed to be equally\r\ngood, or all persons to be equally qualified for\r\neverything; but that freedom of individual\r\nchoice is now known to be the only thing\r\nwhich procures the adoption of the best processes,\r\nand throws each operation into the hands\r\nof those who are best qualified for it. Nobody\r\nthinks it necessary to make a law that only a\r\nstrong-armed man shall be a blacksmith. Freedom\r\nand competition suffice to make blacksmiths\r\nstrong-armed men, because the weak-armed can\r\nearn more by engaging in occupations for which\r\nthey are more fit. In consonance with this\r\ndoctrine, it is felt to be an overstepping of the\r\nproper bounds of authority to fix beforehand,\r\non some general presumption, that certain persons\r\nare not fit to do certain things. It is now\r\nthoroughly known and admitted that if some\r\nsuch presumptions exist, no such presumption is\r\ninfallible. Even if it be well grounded in a\r\nmajority of cases, which it is very likely not\r\nto be, there will be a minority of exceptional\r\ncases in which it does not hold: and in those\r\nit is both an injustice to the individuals, and\r\na detriment to society, to place barriers in the\r\nway of their using their faculties for their own\r\nbenefit and for that of others. In the cases,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page33\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 33]\u003c/span\u003e\r\non the other hand, in which the unfitness is\r\nreal, the ordinary motives of human conduct\r\nwill on the whole suffice to prevent the incompetent\r\nperson from making, or from persisting\r\nin, the attempt.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIf this general principle of social and economical\r\nscience is not true; if individuals, with\r\nsuch help as they can derive from the opinion\r\nof those who know them, are not better judges\r\nthan the law and the government, of their\r\nown capacities and vocation; the world cannot\r\ntoo soon abandon this principle, and return to\r\nthe old system of regulations and disabilities.\r\nBut if the principle is true, we ought to act\r\nas if we believed it, and not to ordain that to\r\nbe born a girl instead of a boy, any more\r\nthan to be born black instead of white, or a\r\ncommoner instead of a nobleman, shall decide\r\nthe person\u0027s position through all life—shall\r\ninterdict people from all the more elevated\r\nsocial positions, and from all, except a few,\r\nrespectable occupations. Even were we to admit\r\nthe utmost that is ever pretended as to the\r\nsuperior fitness of men for all the functions now\r\nreserved to them, the same argument applies\r\nwhich forbids a legal qualification for members of\r\nParliament. If only once in a dozen years the\r\nconditions of eligibility exclude a fit person,\r\nthere is a real loss, while the exclusion of thousands\r\n\u003ca id=\"page34\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 34]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof unfit persons is no gain; for if the constitution\r\nof the electoral body disposes them to\r\nchoose unfit persons, there are always plenty of\r\nsuch persons to choose from. In all things of\r\nany difficulty and importance, those who can do\r\nthem well are fewer than the need, even with\r\nthe most unrestricted latitude of choice: and any\r\nlimitation of the field of selection deprives society\r\nof some chances of being served by the competent,\r\nwithout ever saving it from the incompetent.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nAt present, in the more improved countries,\r\nthe disabilities of women are the only case, save\r\none, in which laws and institutions take persons\r\nat their birth, and ordain that they shall never in\r\nall their lives be allowed to compete for certain\r\nthings. The one exception is that of royalty.\r\nPersons still are born to the throne; no one, not\r\nof the reigning family, can ever occupy it, and\r\nno one even of that family can, by any means\r\nbut the course of hereditary succession, attain it.\r\nAll other dignities and social advantages are open\r\nto the whole male sex: many indeed are only\r\nattainable by wealth, but wealth may be striven\r\nfor by any one, and is actually obtained by many\r\nmen of the very humblest origin. The difficulties,\r\nto the majority, are indeed insuperable without\r\nthe aid of fortunate accidents; but no male\r\nhuman being is under any legal ban: neither\r\nlaw nor opinion superadd artificial obstacles to\r\n\u003ca id=\"page35\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 35]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe natural ones. Royalty, as I have said, is\r\nexcepted: but in this case every one feels it to be\r\nan exception—an anomaly in the modern world,\r\nin marked opposition to its customs and principles,\r\nand to be justified only by extraordinary\r\nspecial expediencies, which, though individuals\r\nand nations differ in estimating their weight,\r\nunquestionably do in fact exist. But in this\r\nexceptional case, in which a high social function\r\nis, for important reasons, bestowed on birth instead\r\nof being put up to competition, all free nations\r\ncontrive to adhere in substance to the principle\r\nfrom which they nominally derogate; for they\r\ncircumscribe this high function by conditions\r\navowedly intended to prevent the person to whom\r\nit ostensibly belongs from really performing it;\r\nwhile the person by whom it is performed, the\r\nresponsible minister, does obtain the post by a\r\ncompetition from which no full-grown citizen of\r\nthe male sex is legally excluded. The disabilities,\r\ntherefore, to which women are subject from the\r\nmere fact of their birth, are the solitary examples\r\nof the kind in modern legislation. In no\r\ninstance except this, which comprehends half the\r\nhuman race, are the higher social functions\r\nclosed against any one by a fatality of birth which\r\nno exertions, and no change of circumstances,\r\ncan overcome; for even religious disabilities\r\n(besides that in England and in Europe they\r\n\u003ca id=\"page36\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 36]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhave practically almost ceased to exist) do not\r\nclose any career to the disqualified person in case\r\nof conversion.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe social subordination of women thus stands\r\nout an isolated fact in modern social institutions;\r\na solitary breach of what has become their fundamental\r\nlaw; a single relic of an old world of\r\nthought and practice exploded in everything else,\r\nbut retained in the one thing of most universal\r\ninterest; as if a gigantic dolmen, or a vast temple\r\nof Jupiter Olympius, occupied the site of St.\r\nPaul\u0027s and received daily worship, while the surrounding\r\nChristian churches were only resorted to\r\non fasts and festivals. This entire discrepancy\r\nbetween one social fact and all those which\r\naccompany it, and the radical opposition between\r\nits nature and the progressive movement which is\r\nthe boast of the modern world, and which has\r\nsuccessively swept away everything else of an\r\nanalogous character, surely affords, to a conscientious\r\nobserver of human tendencies, serious\r\nmatter for reflection. It raises a primâ facie presumption\r\non the unfavourable side, far outweighing\r\nany which custom and usage could in such\r\ncircumstances create on the favourable; and\r\nshould at least suffice to make this, like the\r\nchoice between republicanism and royalty, a\r\nbalanced question.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe least that can be demanded is, that the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page37\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 37]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nquestion should not be considered as prejudged\r\nby existing fact and existing opinion, but open to\r\ndiscussion on its merits, as a question of justice\r\nand expediency: the decision on this, as on\r\nany of the other social arrangements of mankind,\r\ndepending on what an enlightened estimate of\r\ntendencies and consequences may show to be\r\nmost advantageous to humanity in general, without\r\ndistinction of sex. And the discussion must\r\nbe a real discussion, descending to foundations,\r\nand not resting satisfied with vague and general\r\nassertions. It will not do, for instance, to assert\r\nin general terms, that the experience of mankind\r\nhas pronounced in favour of the existing system.\r\nExperience cannot possibly have decided between\r\ntwo courses, so long as there has only been experience\r\nof one. If it be said that the doctrine of\r\nthe equality of the sexes rests only on theory, it\r\nmust be remembered that the contrary doctrine\r\nalso has only theory to rest upon. All that is\r\nproved in its favour by direct experience, is that\r\nmankind have been able to exist under it, and to\r\nattain the degree of improvement and prosperity\r\nwhich we now see; but whether that prosperity\r\nhas been attained sooner, or is now greater, than\r\nit would have been under the other system, experience\r\ndoes not say. On the other hand, experience\r\ndoes say, that every step in improvement\r\nhas been so invariably accompanied by a step\r\n\u003ca id=\"page38\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 38]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmade in raising the social position of women,\r\nthat historians and philosophers have been led to\r\nadopt their elevation or debasement as on the\r\nwhole the surest test and most correct measure of\r\nthe civilization of a people or an age. Through\r\nall the progressive period of human history, the\r\ncondition of women has been approaching nearer\r\nto equality with men. This does not of itself\r\nprove that the assimilation must go on to complete\r\nequality; but it assuredly affords some presumption\r\nthat such is the case.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nNeither does it avail anything to say that the\r\n\u003ci\u003enature\u003c/i\u003e of the two sexes adapts them to their\r\npresent functions and position, and renders these\r\nappropriate to them. Standing on the ground of\r\ncommon sense and the constitution of the human\r\nmind, I deny that any one knows, or can know,\r\nthe nature of the two sexes, as long as they have\r\nonly been seen in their present relation to one\r\nanother. If men had ever been found in society\r\nwithout women, or women without men, or if\r\nthere had been a society of men and women in\r\nwhich the women were not under the control of\r\nthe men, something might have been positively\r\nknown about the mental and moral differences\r\nwhich may be inherent in the nature of each.\r\nWhat is now called the nature of women is an\r\neminently artificial thing—the result of forced\r\nrepression in some directions, unnatural stimulation\r\n\u003ca id=\"page39\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 39]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin others. It may be asserted without\r\nscruple, that no other class of dependents have\r\nhad their character so entirely distorted from its\r\nnatural proportions by their relation with their\r\nmasters; for, if conquered and slave races have\r\nbeen, in some respects, more forcibly repressed,\r\nwhatever in them has not been crushed down by an\r\niron heel has generally been let alone, and if left\r\nwith any liberty of development, it has developed\r\nitself according to its own laws; but in the case\r\nof women, a hot-house and stove cultivation has\r\nalways been carried on of some of the capabilities\r\nof their nature, for the benefit and pleasure of\r\ntheir masters. Then, because certain products of\r\nthe general vital force sprout luxuriantly and\r\nreach a great development in this heated atmosphere\r\nand under this active nurture and watering,\r\nwhile other shoots from the same root, which\r\nare left outside in the wintry air, with ice purposely\r\nheaped all round them, have a stunted\r\ngrowth, and some are burnt off with fire and\r\ndisappear; men, with that inability to recognise\r\ntheir own work which distinguishes the unanalytic\r\nmind, indolently believe that the tree\r\ngrows of itself in the way they have made it\r\ngrow, and that it would die if one half of it\r\nwere not kept in a vapour bath and the other\r\nhalf in the snow.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nOf all difficulties which impede the progress\r\n\u003ca id=\"page40\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 40]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof thought, and the formation of well-grounded\r\nopinions on life and social arrangements, the\r\ngreatest is now the unspeakable ignorance and\r\ninattention of mankind in respect to the influences\r\nwhich form human character. Whatever\r\nany portion of the human species now are, or\r\nseem to be, such, it is supposed, they have a\r\nnatural tendency to be: even when the most\r\nelementary knowledge of the circumstances in\r\nwhich they have been placed, clearly points out\r\nthe causes that made them what they are.\r\nBecause a cottier deeply in arrears to his landlord\r\nis not industrious, there are people who\r\nthink that the Irish are naturally idle. Because\r\nconstitutions can be overthrown when the authorities\r\nappointed to execute them turn their arms\r\nagainst them, there are people who think the\r\nFrench incapable of free government. Because\r\nthe Greeks cheated the Turks, and the Turks only\r\nplundered the Greeks, there are persons who\r\nthink that the Turks are naturally more sincere:\r\nand because women, as is often said, care nothing\r\nabout politics except their personalities, it is\r\nsupposed that the general good is naturally less\r\ninteresting to women than to men. History,\r\nwhich is now so much better understood than\r\nformerly, teaches another lesson: if only by showing\r\nthe extraordinary susceptibility of human\r\nnature to external influences, and the extreme\r\n\u003ca id=\"page41\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 41]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nvariableness of those of its manifestations which\r\nare supposed to be most universal and uniform.\r\nBut in history, as in travelling, men usually see\r\nonly what they already had in their own minds;\r\nand few learn much from history, who do not\r\nbring much with them to its study.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nHence, in regard to that most difficult question,\r\nwhat are the natural differences between\r\nthe two sexes—a subject on which it is impossible\r\nin the present state of society to obtain complete\r\nand correct knowledge—while almost everybody\r\ndogmatizes upon it, almost all neglect and\r\nmake light of the only means by which any\r\npartial insight can be obtained into it. This is,\r\nan analytic study of the most important department\r\nof psychology, the laws of the influence\r\nof circumstances on character. For, however\r\ngreat and apparently ineradicable the moral and\r\nintellectual differences between men and women\r\nmight be, the evidence of their being natural\r\ndifferences could only be negative. Those only\r\ncould be inferred to be natural which could not\r\npossibly be artificial—the residuum, after deducting\r\nevery characteristic of either sex which\r\ncan admit of being explained from education or\r\nexternal circumstances. The profoundest knowledge\r\nof the laws of the formation of character\r\nis indispensable to entitle any one to affirm even\r\nthat there is any difference, much more what\r\n\u003ca id=\"page42\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 42]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe difference is, between the two sexes considered\r\nas moral and rational beings; and since\r\nno one, as yet, has that knowledge, (for there is\r\nhardly any subject which, in proportion to its\r\nimportance, has been so little studied), no one is\r\nthus far entitled to any positive opinion on the\r\nsubject. Conjectures are all that can at present\r\nbe made; conjectures more or less probable,\r\naccording as more or less authorized by such\r\nknowledge as we yet have of the laws of psychology,\r\nas applied to the formation of character.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nEven the preliminary knowledge, what the\r\ndifferences between the sexes now are, apart\r\nfrom all question as to how they are made what\r\nthey are, is still in the crudest and most incomplete\r\nstate. Medical practitioners and physiologists\r\nhave ascertained, to some extent, the\r\ndifferences in bodily constitution; and this is an\r\nimportant element to the psychologist: but\r\nhardly any medical practitioner is a psychologist.\r\nRespecting the mental characteristics of women;\r\ntheir observations are of no more worth than\r\nthose of common men. It is a subject on which\r\nnothing final can be known, so long as those\r\nwho alone can really know it, women themselves,\r\nhave given but little testimony, and that little,\r\nmostly suborned. It is easy to know stupid\r\nwomen. Stupidity is much the same all the\r\nworld over. A stupid person\u0027s notions and feelings\r\n\u003ca id=\"page43\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 43]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmay confidently be inferred from those which\r\nprevail in the circle by which the person is surrounded.\r\nNot so with those whose opinions and\r\nfeelings are an emanation from their own nature\r\nand faculties. It is only a man here and there\r\nwho has any tolerable knowledge of the character\r\neven of the women of his own family. I do\r\nnot mean, of their capabilities; these nobody\r\nknows, not even themselves, because most of\r\nthem have never been called out. I mean their\r\nactually existing thoughts and feelings. Many\r\na man thinks he perfectly understands women,\r\nbecause he has had amatory relations with\r\nseveral, perhaps with many of them. If he is\r\na good observer, and his experience extends to\r\nquality as well as quantity, he may have learnt\r\nsomething of one narrow department of their\r\nnature—an important department, no doubt.\r\nBut of all the rest of it, few persons are generally\r\nmore ignorant, because there are few from\r\nwhom it is so carefully hidden. The most\r\nfavourable case which a man can generally have\r\nfor studying the character of a woman, is that\r\nof his own wife: for the opportunities are greater,\r\nand the cases of complete sympathy not so unspeakably\r\nrare. And in fact, this is the source\r\nfrom which any knowledge worth having on the\r\nsubject has, I believe, generally come. But most\r\nmen have not had the opportunity of studying in\r\n\u003ca id=\"page44\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 44]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthis way more than a single case: accordingly\r\none can, to an almost laughable degree, infer\r\nwhat a man\u0027s wife is like, from his opinions\r\nabout women in general. To make even this\r\none case yield any result, the woman must be\r\nworth knowing, and the man not only a competent\r\njudge, but of a character so sympathetic in\r\nitself, and so well adapted to hers, that he can\r\neither read her mind by sympathetic intuition,\r\nor has nothing in himself which makes her shy\r\nof disclosing it. Hardly anything, I believe,\r\ncan be more rare than this conjunction. It\r\noften happens that there is the most complete\r\nunity of feeling and community of interests as\r\nto all external things, yet the one has as little\r\nadmission into the internal life of the other as\r\nif they were common acquaintance. Even with\r\ntrue affection, authority on the one side and subordination\r\non the other prevent perfect confidence.\r\nThough nothing may be intentionally\r\nwithheld, much is not shown. In the analogous\r\nrelation of parent and child, the corresponding\r\nphenomenon must have been in the observation\r\nof every one. As between father and son, how\r\nmany are the cases in which the father, in spite\r\nof real affection on both sides, obviously to all\r\nthe world does not know, nor suspect, parts of\r\nthe son\u0027s character familiar to his companions\r\nand equals. The truth is, that the position of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page45\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 45]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlooking up to another is extremely unpropitious\r\nto complete sincerity and openness with him.\r\nThe fear of losing ground in his opinion or in his\r\nfeelings is so strong, that even in an upright character,\r\nthere is an unconscious tendency to show\r\nonly the best side, or the side which, though not\r\nthe best, is that which he most likes to see: and it\r\nmay be confidently said that thorough knowledge\r\nof one another hardly ever exists, but between\r\npersons who, besides being intimates, are equals.\r\nHow much more true, then, must all this be,\r\nwhen the one is not only under the authority of\r\nthe other, but has it inculcated on her as a duty\r\nto reckon everything else subordinate to his\r\ncomfort and pleasure, and to let him neither see\r\nnor feel anything coming from her, except what\r\nis agreeable to him. All these difficulties stand\r\nin the way of a man\u0027s obtaining any thorough\r\nknowledge even of the one woman whom alone,\r\nin general, he has sufficient opportunity of studying.\r\nWhen we further consider that to understand\r\none woman is not necessarily to understand\r\nany other woman; that even if he could study\r\nmany women of one rank, or of one country, he\r\nwould not thereby understand women of other\r\nranks or countries; and even if he did, they are\r\nstill only the women of a single period of history;\r\nwe may safely assert that the knowledge which\r\nmen can acquire of women, even as they have\r\n\u003ca id=\"page46\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 46]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbeen and are, without reference to what they\r\nmight be, is wretchedly imperfect and superficial,\r\nand always will be so, until women themselves\r\nhave told all that they have to tell.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nAnd this time has not come; nor will it come\r\notherwise than gradually. It is but of yesterday\r\nthat women have either been qualified by literary\r\naccomplishments, or permitted by society, to tell\r\nanything to the general public. As yet very\r\nfew of them dare tell anything, which men, on\r\nwhom their literary success depends, are unwilling\r\nto hear. Let us remember in what manner,\r\nup to a very recent time, the expression, even\r\nby a male author, of uncustomary opinions, or\r\nwhat are deemed eccentric feelings, usually was,\r\nand in some degree still is, received; and we may\r\nform some faint conception under what impediments\r\na woman, who is brought up to think\r\ncustom and opinion her sovereign rule, attempts\r\nto express in books anything drawn from the\r\ndepths of her own nature. The greatest woman\r\nwho has left writings behind her sufficient to\r\ngive her an eminent rank in the literature of her\r\ncountry, thought it necessary to prefix as a motto\r\nto her boldest work, “Un homme peut braver\r\nl\u0027opinion; une femme doit s\u0027y soumettre.”\u003ca id=\"ref_1_1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnref pginternal\" href=\"#footnote_1_1\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e The\r\ngreater part of what women write about women\r\nis mere sycophancy to men. In the case of unmarried\r\n\u003ca id=\"page47\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 47]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwomen, much of it seems only intended\r\nto increase their chance of a husband. Many,\r\nboth married and unmarried, overstep the mark,\r\nand inculcate a servility beyond what is desired\r\nor relished by any man, except the very vulgarest.\r\nBut this is not so often the case as, even at a\r\nquite late period, it still was. Literary women\r\nare becoming more freespoken, and more willing\r\nto express their real sentiments. Unfortunately,\r\nin this country especially, they are themselves\r\nsuch artificial products, that their sentiments are\r\ncompounded of a small element of individual\r\nobservation and consciousness, and a very large\r\none of acquired associations. This will be less\r\nand less the case, but it will remain true to a\r\ngreat extent, as long as social institutions do not\r\nadmit the same free development of originality\r\nin women which is possible to men. When that\r\ntime comes, and not before, we shall see, and\r\nnot merely hear, as much as it is necessary to\r\nknow of the nature of women, and the adaptation\r\nof other things to it.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nI have dwelt so much on the difficulties which\r\nat present obstruct any real knowledge by men\r\nof the true nature of women, because in this as\r\nin so many other things “opinio copiæ inter\r\nmaximas causas inopiæ est;” and there is little\r\nchance of reasonable thinking on the matter,\r\nwhile people flatter themselves that they perfectly\r\n\u003ca id=\"page48\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 48]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nunderstand a subject of which most men know\r\nabsolutely nothing, and of which it is at present\r\nimpossible that any man, or all men taken together,\r\nshould have knowledge which can qualify\r\nthem to lay down the law to women as to what\r\nis, or is not, their vocation. Happily, no such\r\nknowledge is necessary for any practical purpose\r\nconnected with the position of women in relation\r\nto society and life. For, according to all the\r\nprinciples involved in modern society, the question\r\nrests with women themselves—to be decided by\r\ntheir own experience, and by the use of their\r\nown faculties. There are no means of finding\r\nwhat either one person or many can do, but by\r\ntrying—and no means by which any one else can\r\ndiscover for them what it is for their happiness\r\nto do or leave undone.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nOne thing we may be certain of—that what is\r\ncontrary to women\u0027s nature to do, they never\r\nwill be made to do by simply giving their nature\r\nfree play. The anxiety of mankind to interfere\r\nin behalf of nature, for fear lest nature should\r\nnot succeed in effecting its purpose, is an altogether\r\nunnecessary solicitude. What women by\r\nnature cannot do, it is quite superfluous to forbid\r\nthem from doing. What they can do, but not\r\nso well as the men who are their competitors,\r\ncompetition suffices to exclude them from; since\r\nnobody asks for protective duties and bounties\r\n\u003ca id=\"page49\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 49]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin favour of women; it is only asked that the\r\npresent bounties and protective duties in favour\r\nof men should be recalled. If women have a\r\ngreater natural inclination for some things than\r\nfor others, there is no need of laws or social\r\ninculcation to make the majority of them do\r\nthe former in preference to the latter. Whatever\r\nwomen\u0027s services are most wanted for, the\r\nfree play of competition will hold out the\r\nstrongest inducements to them to undertake.\r\nAnd, as the words imply, they are most wanted\r\nfor the things for which they are most fit; by\r\nthe apportionment of which to them, the collective\r\nfaculties of the two sexes can be applied\r\non the whole with the greatest sum of valuable\r\nresult.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe general opinion of men is supposed to be,\r\nthat the natural vocation of a woman is that of\r\na wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be,\r\nbecause, judging from acts—from the whole of\r\nthe present constitution of society—one might\r\ninfer that their opinion was the direct contrary.\r\nThey might be supposed to think that the\r\nalleged natural vocation of women was of all\r\nthings the most repugnant to their nature;\r\ninsomuch that if they are free to do anything\r\nelse—if any other means of living, or occupation\r\nof their time and faculties, is open, which has\r\nany chance of appearing desirable to them—there\r\n\u003ca id=\"page50\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 50]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwill not be enough of them who will be willing\r\nto accept the condition said to be natural to\r\nthem. If this is the real opinion of men in\r\ngeneral, it would be well that it should be\r\nspoken out. I should like to hear somebody\r\nopenly enunciating the doctrine (it is already\r\nimplied in much that is written on the subject)—“It\r\nis necessary to society that women\r\nshould marry and produce children. They will\r\nnot do so unless they are compelled. Therefore\r\nit is necessary to compel them.” The merits of\r\nthe case would then be clearly defined. It\r\nwould be exactly that of the slaveholders of\r\nSouth Carolina and Louisiana. “It is necessary\r\nthat cotton and sugar should be grown. White\r\nmen cannot produce them. Negroes will not,\r\nfor any wages which we choose to give. \u003ci\u003eErgo\u003c/i\u003e\r\nthey must be compelled.” An illustration still\r\ncloser to the point is that of impressment.\r\nSailors must absolutely be had to defend the\r\ncountry. It often happens that they will not\r\nvoluntarily enlist. Therefore there must be\r\nthe power of forcing them. How often has\r\nthis logic been used! and, but for one flaw\r\nin it, without doubt it would have been successful\r\nup to this day. But it is open to the\r\nretort—First pay the sailors the honest value\r\nof their labour. When you have made it as\r\nwell worth their while to serve you, as to work for\r\n\u003ca id=\"page51\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 51]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nother employers, you will have no more difficulty\r\nthan others have in obtaining their services.\r\nTo this there is no logical answer except “I will\r\nnot:” and as people are now not only ashamed,\r\nbut are not desirous, to rob the labourer of his\r\nhire, impressment is no longer advocated. Those\r\nwho attempt to force women into marriage by\r\nclosing all other doors against them, lay themselves\r\nopen to a similar retort. If they mean\r\nwhat they say, their opinion must evidently be,\r\nthat men do not render the married condition\r\nso desirable to women, as to induce them to\r\naccept it for its own recommendations. It is\r\nnot a sign of one\u0027s thinking the boon one offers\r\nvery attractive, when one allows only Hobson\u0027s\r\nchoice, “that or none.” And here, I believe,\r\nis the clue to the feelings of those men, who\r\nhave a real antipathy to the equal freedom of\r\nwomen. I believe they are afraid, not lest\r\nwomen should be unwilling to marry, for I\r\ndo not think that any one in reality has that\r\napprehension; but lest they should insist that\r\nmarriage should be on equal conditions; lest\r\nall women of spirit and capacity should prefer\r\ndoing almost anything else, not in their own\r\neyes degrading, rather than marry, when marrying\r\nis giving themselves a master, and a master\r\ntoo of all their earthly possessions. And truly,\r\nif this consequence were necessarily incident to\r\n\u003ca id=\"page52\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 52]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nmarriage, I think that the apprehension would\r\nbe very well founded. I agree in thinking it\r\nprobable that few women, capable of anything\r\nelse, would, unless under an irresistible \u003ci\u003eentrainement\u003c/i\u003e,\r\nrendering them for the time insensible\r\nto anything but itself, choose such a lot, when\r\nany other means were open to them of filling\r\na conventionally honourable place in life: and\r\nif men are determined that the law of marriage\r\nshall be a law of despotism, they are quite right,\r\nin point of mere policy, in leaving to women\r\nonly Hobson\u0027s choice. But, in that case, all\r\nthat has been done in the modern world to\r\nrelax the chain on the minds of women, has\r\nbeen a mistake. They never should have been\r\nallowed to receive a literary education. Women\r\nwho read, much more women who write, are,\r\nin the existing constitution of things, a contradiction\r\nand a disturbing element: and it was\r\nwrong to bring women up with any acquirements\r\nbut those of an odalisque, or of a domestic\r\nservant.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n\u003ca id=\"footnote_1_1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#ref_1_1\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e1\u003c/a\u003e: Title-page of Mme. de Stael\u0027s “Delphine.”\r\n\u003ca id=\"page53\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 53]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\r\n\u003ca id=\"chapter2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\r\nCHAPTER II.\r\n\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt will be well to commence the detailed discussion\r\nof the subject by the particular\r\nbranch of it to which the course of our observations\r\nhas led us: the conditions which the laws\r\nof this and all other countries annex to the\r\nmarriage contract. Marriage being the destination\r\nappointed by society for women, the prospect\r\nthey are brought up to, and the object which it\r\nis intended should be sought by all of them, except\r\nthose who are too little attractive to be\r\nchosen by any man as his companion; one might\r\nhave supposed that everything would have been\r\ndone to make this condition as eligible to them\r\nas possible, that they might have no cause to\r\nregret being denied the option of any other.\r\nSociety, however, both in this, and, at first, in all\r\nother cases, has preferred to attain its object by\r\nfoul rather than fair means: but this is the only\r\ncase in which it has substantially persisted in\r\nthem even to the present day. Originally women\r\nwere taken by force, or regularly sold by their\r\nfather to the husband. Until a late period in\r\n\u003ca id=\"page54\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 54]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nEuropean history, the father had the power to\r\ndispose of his daughter in marriage at his own\r\nwill and pleasure, without any regard to hers.\r\nThe Church, indeed, was so far faithful to a better\r\nmorality as to require a formal “yes” from the\r\nwoman at the marriage ceremony; but there was\r\nnothing to shew that the consent was other than\r\ncompulsory; and it was practically impossible for\r\nthe girl to refuse compliance if the father persevered,\r\nexcept perhaps when she might obtain the\r\nprotection of religion by a determined resolution\r\nto take monastic vows. After marriage, the man\r\nhad anciently (but this was anterior to Christianity)\r\nthe power of life and death over his wife.\r\nShe could invoke no law against him; he was\r\nher sole tribunal and law. For a long time\r\nhe could repudiate her, but she had no corresponding\r\npower in regard to him. By the old\r\nlaws of England, the husband was called the \u003ci\u003elord\u003c/i\u003e\r\nof the wife; he was literally regarded as her\r\nsovereign, inasmuch that the murder of a man\r\nby his wife was called treason (\u003ci\u003epetty\u003c/i\u003e as distinguished\r\nfrom \u003ci\u003ehigh\u003c/i\u003e treason), and was more cruelly\r\navenged than was usually the case with high\r\ntreason, for the penalty was burning to death.\r\nBecause these various enormities have fallen into\r\ndisuse (for most of them were never formally\r\nabolished, or not until they had long ceased to\r\nbe practised) men suppose that all is now as it\r\n\u003ca id=\"page55\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 55]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nshould be in regard to the marriage contract;\r\nand we are continually told that civilization and\r\nChristianity have restored to the woman her just\r\nrights. Meanwhile the wife is the actual bond-servant\r\nof her husband: no less so, as far as legal\r\nobligation goes, than slaves commonly so called.\r\nShe vows a lifelong obedience to him at the\r\naltar, and is held to it all through her life by\r\nlaw. Casuists may say that the obligation of\r\nobedience stops short of participation in crime,\r\nbut it certainly extends to everything else. She\r\ncan do no act whatever but by his permission, at\r\nleast tacit. She can acquire no property but for\r\nhim; the instant it becomes hers, even if by\r\ninheritance, it becomes \u003ci\u003eipso facto\u003c/i\u003e his. In this\r\nrespect the wife\u0027s position under the common\r\nlaw of England is worse than that of slaves in\r\nthe laws of many countries: by the Roman law,\r\nfor example, a slave might have his peculium,\r\nwhich to a certain extent the law guaranteed to\r\nhim for his exclusive use. The higher classes\r\nin this country have given an analogous advantage\r\nto their women, through special contracts\r\nsetting aside the law, by conditions of pin-money,\r\n\u0026amp;c.: since parental feeling being stronger with\r\nfathers than the class feeling of their own sex, a\r\nfather generally prefers his own daughter to a\r\nson-in-law who is a stranger to him. By means\r\nof settlements, the rich usually contrive to withdraw\r\n\u003ca id=\"page56\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 56]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe whole or part of the inherited property\r\nof the wife from the absolute control of the\r\nhusband: but they do not succeed in keeping it\r\nunder her own control; the utmost they can\r\ndo only prevents the husband from squandering\r\nit, at the same time debarring the rightful owner\r\nfrom its use. The property itself is out of the\r\nreach of both; and as to the income derived from\r\nit, the form of settlement most favourable to the\r\nwife (that called “to her separate use”) only\r\nprecludes the husband from receiving it instead\r\nof her: it must pass through her hands, but if\r\nhe takes it from her by personal violence as soon\r\nas she receives it, he can neither be punished,\r\nnor compelled to restitution. This is the amount\r\nof the protection which, under the laws of this\r\ncountry, the most powerful nobleman can\r\ngive to his own daughter as respects her husband.\r\nIn the immense majority of cases there\r\nis no settlement: and the absorption of all rights,\r\nall property, as well as all freedom of action,\r\nis complete. The two are called “one person in\r\nlaw,” for the purpose of inferring that whatever\r\nis hers is his, but the parallel inference is never\r\ndrawn that whatever is his is hers; the maxim is\r\nnot applied against the man, except to make him\r\nresponsible to third parties for her acts, as a\r\nmaster is for the acts of his slaves or of his cattle.\r\nI am far from pretending that wives are in\r\n\u003ca id=\"page57\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 57]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ngeneral no better treated than slaves; but no\r\nslave is a slave to the same lengths, and in so\r\nfull a sense of the word, as a wife is. Hardly\r\nany slave, except one immediately attached to the\r\nmaster\u0027s person, is a slave at all hours and all\r\nminutes; in general he has, like a soldier, his\r\nfixed task, and when it is done, or when he is off\r\nduty, he disposes, within certain limits, of his\r\nown time, and has a family life into which the\r\nmaster rarely intrudes. “Uncle Tom” under his\r\nfirst master had his own life in his “cabin,”\r\nalmost as much as any man whose work takes\r\nhim away from home, is able to have in his own\r\nfamily. But it cannot be so with the wife. Above\r\nall, a female slave has (in Christian countries) an\r\nadmitted right, and is considered under a moral\r\nobligation, to refuse to her master the last familiarity.\r\nNot so the wife: however brutal a tyrant\r\nshe may unfortunately be chained to—though she\r\nmay know that he hates her, though it may be\r\nhis daily pleasure to torture her, and though she\r\nmay feel it impossible not to loathe him—he can\r\nclaim from her and enforce the lowest degradation\r\nof a human being, that of being made the\r\ninstrument of an animal function contrary to her\r\ninclinations. While she is held in this worst description\r\nof slavery as to her own person, what\r\nis her position in regard to the children in\r\nwhom she and her master have a joint interest?\r\n\u003ca id=\"page58\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 58]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThey are by law \u003ci\u003ehis\u003c/i\u003e children. He alone has any\r\nlegal rights over them. Not one act can she do\r\ntowards or in relation to them, except by delegation\r\nfrom him. Even after he is dead she is\r\nnot their legal guardian, unless he by will has\r\nmade her so. He could even send them away\r\nfrom her, and deprive her of the means of seeing\r\nor corresponding with them, until this power was\r\nin some degree restricted by Serjeant Talfourd\u0027s\r\nAct. This is her legal state. And from this state\r\nshe has no means of withdrawing herself. If she\r\nleaves her husband, she can take nothing with\r\nher, neither her children nor anything which is\r\nrightfully her own. If he chooses, he can compel\r\nher to return, by law, or by physical force; or he\r\nmay content himself with seizing for his own use\r\nanything which she may earn, or which may be\r\ngiven to her by her relations. It is only legal\r\nseparation by a decree of a court of justice, which\r\nentitles her to live apart, without being forced\r\nback into the custody of an exasperated jailer—or\r\nwhich empowers her to apply any earnings to her\r\nown use, without fear that a man whom perhaps\r\nshe has not seen for twenty years will pounce\r\nupon her some day and carry all off. This legal\r\nseparation, until lately, the courts of justice would\r\nonly give at an expense which made it inaccessible\r\nto any one out of the higher ranks. Even\r\nnow it is only given in cases of desertion, or of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page59\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 59]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe extreme of cruelty; and yet complaints are\r\nmade every day that it is granted too easily.\r\nSurely, if a woman is denied any lot in life but\r\nthat of being the personal body-servant of a\r\ndespot, and is dependent for everything upon the\r\nchance of finding one who may be disposed to\r\nmake a favourite of her instead of merely a\r\ndrudge, it is a very cruel aggravation of her fate\r\nthat she should be allowed to try this chance only\r\nonce. The natural sequel and corollary from\r\nthis state of things would be, that since her all in\r\nlife depends upon obtaining a good master, she\r\nshould be allowed to change again and again\r\nuntil she finds one. I am not saying that she\r\nought to be allowed this privilege. That is a\r\ntotally different consideration. The question of\r\ndivorce, in the sense involving liberty of remarriage,\r\nis one into which it is foreign to my purpose to\r\nenter. All I now say is, that to those to whom\r\nnothing but servitude is allowed, the free choice\r\nof servitude is the only, though a most insufficient,\r\nalleviation. Its refusal completes the assimilation\r\nof the wife to the slave—and the slave\r\nunder not the mildest form of slavery: for in\r\nsome slave codes the slave could, under certain\r\ncircumstances of ill usage, legally compel the\r\nmaster to sell him. But no amount of ill usage,\r\nwithout adultery superadded, will in England\r\nfree a wife from her tormentor.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page60\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 60]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nI have no desire to exaggerate, nor does the\r\ncase stand in any need of exaggeration. I have\r\ndescribed the wife\u0027s legal position, not her actual\r\ntreatment. The laws of most countries are far\r\nworse than the people who execute them, and\r\nmany of them are only able to remain laws by\r\nbeing seldom or never carried into effect. If\r\nmarried life were all that it might be expected\r\nto be, looking to the laws alone, society would\r\nbe a hell upon earth. Happily there are both\r\nfeelings and interests which in many men\r\nexclude, and in most, greatly temper, the impulses\r\nand propensities which lead to tyranny:\r\nand of those feelings, the tie which connects\r\na man with his wife affords, in a normal\r\nstate of things, incomparably the strongest\r\nexample. The only tie which at all approaches\r\nto it, that between him and his children, tends,\r\nin all save exceptional cases, to strengthen,\r\ninstead of conflicting with, the first. Because\r\nthis is true; because men in general do not\r\ninflict, nor women suffer, all the misery which\r\ncould be inflicted and suffered if the full power\r\nof tyranny with which the man is legally invested\r\nwere acted on; the defenders of the\r\nexisting form of the institution think that all\r\nits iniquity is justified, and that any complaint\r\nis merely quarrelling with the evil which is the\r\nprice paid for every great good. But the mitigations\r\n\u003ca id=\"page61\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 61]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin practice, which are compatible with\r\nmaintaining in full legal force this or any other\r\nkind of tyranny, instead of being any apology\r\nfor despotism, only serve to prove what power\r\nhuman nature possesses of reacting against the\r\nvilest institutions, and with what vitality the\r\nseeds of good as well as those of evil in human\r\ncharacter diffuse and propagate themselves. Not\r\na word can be said for despotism in the family\r\nwhich cannot be said for political despotism.\r\nEvery absolute king does not sit at his window\r\nto enjoy the groans of his tortured subjects, nor\r\nstrips them of their last rag and turns them\r\nout to shiver in the road. The despotism of\r\nLouis XVI. was not the despotism of Philippe\r\nle Bel, or of Nadir Shah, or of Caligula; but\r\nit was bad enough to justify the French Revolution,\r\nand to palliate even its horrors. If an\r\nappeal be made to the intense attachments\r\nwhich exist between wives and their husbands,\r\nexactly as much may be said of domestic slavery.\r\nIt was quite an ordinary fact in Greece and\r\nRome for slaves to submit to death by torture\r\nrather than betray their masters. In the proscriptions\r\nof the Roman civil wars it was\r\nremarked that wives and slaves were heroically\r\nfaithful, sons very commonly treacherous. Yet\r\nwe know how cruelly many Romans treated\r\ntheir slaves. But in truth these intense individual\r\n\u003ca id=\"page62\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 62]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfeelings nowhere rise to such a luxuriant\r\nheight as under the most atrocious institutions.\r\nIt is part of the irony of life, that the strongest\r\nfeelings of devoted gratitude of which human\r\nnature seems to be susceptible, are called forth\r\nin human beings towards those who, having the\r\npower entirely to crush their earthly existence,\r\nvoluntarily refrain from using that power. How\r\ngreat a place in most men this sentiment fills, even\r\nin religious devotion, it would be cruel to inquire.\r\nWe daily see how much their gratitude to\r\nHeaven appears to be stimulated by the contemplation\r\nof fellow-creatures to whom God\r\nhas not been so merciful as he has to themselves.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nWhether the institution to be defended is\r\nslavery, political absolutism, or the absolutism of\r\nthe head of a family, we are always expected to\r\njudge of it from its best instances; and we are\r\npresented with pictures of loving exercise of\r\nauthority on one side, loving submission to it on\r\nthe other—superior wisdom ordering all things\r\nfor the greatest good of the dependents, and surrounded\r\nby their smiles and benedictions. All\r\nthis would be very much to the purpose if any\r\none pretended that there are no such things as\r\ngood men. Who doubts that there may be great\r\ngoodness, and great happiness, and great affection,\r\nunder the absolute government of a good man?\r\nMeanwhile, laws and institutions require to be\r\n\u003ca id=\"page63\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 63]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nadapted, not to good men, but to bad. Marriage\r\nis not an institution designed for a select few.\r\nMen are not required, as a preliminary to the\r\nmarriage ceremony, to prove by testimonials that\r\nthey are fit to be trusted with the exercise of\r\nabsolute power. The tie of affection and obligation\r\nto a wife and children is very strong with\r\nthose whose general social feelings are strong,\r\nand with many who are little sensible to any\r\nother social ties; but there are all degrees of\r\nsensibility and insensibility to it, as there are all\r\ngrades of goodness and wickedness in men, down\r\nto those whom no ties will bind, and on whom\r\nsociety has no action but through its \u003ci\u003eultima ratio\u003c/i\u003e,\r\nthe penalties of the law. In every grade of this\r\ndescending scale are men to whom are committed\r\nall the legal powers of a husband. The vilest\r\nmalefactor has some wretched woman tied to\r\nhim, against whom he can commit any atrocity\r\nexcept killing her, and, if tolerably cautious, can\r\ndo that without much danger of the legal penalty.\r\nAnd how many thousands are there among the\r\nlowest classes in every country, who, without\r\nbeing in a legal sense malefactors in any other\r\nrespect, because in every other quarter their\r\naggressions meet with resistance, indulge the\r\nutmost habitual excesses of bodily violence towards\r\nthe unhappy wife, who alone, at least of\r\ngrown persons, can neither repel nor escape from\r\n\u003ca id=\"page64\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 64]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntheir brutality; and towards whom the excess\r\nof dependence inspires their mean and savage\r\nnatures, not with a generous forbearance, and a\r\npoint of honour to behave well to one whose lot\r\nin life is trusted entirely to their kindness, but\r\non the contrary with a notion that the law has\r\ndelivered her to them as their thing, to be used\r\nat their pleasure, and that they are not expected\r\nto practise the consideration towards her which\r\nis required from them towards everybody else.\r\nThe law, which till lately left even these atrocious\r\nextremes of domestic oppression practically unpunished,\r\nhas within these few years made some\r\nfeeble attempts to repress them. But its attempts\r\nhave done little, and cannot be expected to do\r\nmuch, because it is contrary to reason and experience\r\nto suppose that there can be any real check\r\nto brutality, consistent with leaving the victim\r\nstill in the power of the executioner. Until a\r\nconviction for personal violence, or at all events\r\na repetition of it after a first conviction, entitles\r\nthe woman \u003ci\u003eipso facto\u003c/i\u003e to a divorce, or at least to\r\na judicial separation, the attempt to repress these\r\n“aggravated assaults” by legal penalties will\r\nbreak down for want of a prosecutor, or for want\r\nof a witness.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nWhen we consider how vast is the number of\r\nmen, in any great country, who are little higher\r\nthan brutes, and that this never prevents them\r\n\u003ca id=\"page65\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 65]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfrom being able, through the law of marriage,\r\nto obtain a victim, the breadth and depth of\r\nhuman misery caused in this shape alone by the\r\nabuse of the institution swells to something appalling.\r\nYet these are only the extreme cases.\r\nThey are the lowest abysses, but there is a sad\r\nsuccession of depth after depth before reaching\r\nthem. In domestic as in political tyranny, the\r\ncase of absolute monsters chiefly illustrates the\r\ninstitution by showing that there is scarcely any\r\nhorror which may not occur under it if the\r\ndespot pleases, and thus setting in a strong light\r\nwhat must be the terrible frequency of things\r\nonly a little less atrocious. Absolute fiends are\r\nas rare as angels, perhaps rarer: ferocious\r\nsavages, with occasional touches of humanity, are\r\nhowever very frequent: and in the wide interval\r\nwhich separates these from any worthy representatives\r\nof the human species, how many are the\r\nforms and gradations of animalism and selfishness,\r\noften under an outward varnish of civilization\r\nand even cultivation, living at peace with\r\nthe law, maintaining a creditable appearance to\r\nall who are not under their power, yet sufficient\r\noften to make the lives of all who are so, a\r\ntorment and a burthen to them! It would be\r\ntiresome to repeat the commonplaces about the\r\nunfitness of men in general for power, which,\r\nafter the political discussions of centuries, every\r\n\u003ca id=\"page66\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 66]\u003c/span\u003e\r\none knows by heart, were it not that hardly any\r\none thinks of applying these maxims to the case\r\nin which above all others they are applicable,\r\nthat of power, not placed in the hands of a man\r\nhere and there, but offered to every adult male,\r\ndown to the basest and most ferocious. It is\r\nnot because a man is not known to have broken\r\nany of the Ten Commandments, or because he\r\nmaintains a respectable character in his dealings\r\nwith those whom he cannot compel to have\r\nintercourse with him, or because he does not fly\r\nout into violent bursts of ill-temper against those\r\nwho are not obliged to bear with him, that it is\r\npossible to surmise of what sort his conduct will\r\nbe in the unrestraint of home. Even the commonest\r\nmen reserve the violent, the sulky, the\r\nundisguisedly selfish side of their character for\r\nthose who have no power to withstand it. The\r\nrelation of superiors to dependents is the nursery\r\nof these vices of character, which, wherever else\r\nthey exist, are an overflowing from that source.\r\nA man who is morose or violent to his equals,\r\nis sure to be one who has lived among inferiors,\r\nwhom he could frighten or worry into submission.\r\nIf the family in its best forms is, as it is\r\noften said to be, a school of sympathy, tenderness,\r\nand loving forgetfulness of self, it is still oftener,\r\nas respects its chief, a school of wilfulness, overbearingness,\r\nunbounded self-indulgence, and a\r\n\u003ca id=\"page67\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 67]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndouble-dyed and idealized selfishness, of which\r\nsacrifice itself is only a particular form: the care\r\nfor the wife and children being only care for\r\nthem as parts of the man\u0027s own interests and\r\nbelongings, and their individual happiness being\r\nimmolated in every shape to his smallest preferences.\r\nWhat better is to be looked for under\r\nthe existing form of the institution? We know\r\nthat the bad propensities of human nature are\r\nonly kept within bounds when they are allowed\r\nno scope for their indulgence. We know that\r\nfrom impulse and habit, when not from deliberate\r\npurpose, almost every one to whom others\r\nyield, goes on encroaching upon them, until a\r\npoint is reached at which they are compelled to\r\nresist. Such being the common tendency of\r\nhuman nature; the almost unlimited power which\r\npresent social institutions give to the man over\r\nat least one human being—the one with whom\r\nhe resides, and whom he has always present—this\r\npower seeks out and evokes the latent germs\r\nof selfishness in the remotest corners of his\r\nnature—fans its faintest sparks and smouldering\r\nembers—offers to him a license for the indulgence\r\nof those points of his original character which\r\nin all other relations he would have found it necessary\r\nto repress and conceal, and the repression\r\nof which would in time have become a second\r\nnature. I know that there is another side to\r\n\u003ca id=\"page68\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 68]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe question. I grant that the wife, if she\r\ncannot effectually resist, can at least retaliate;\r\nshe, too, can make the man\u0027s life extremely uncomfortable,\r\nand by that power is able to carry\r\nmany points which she ought, and many which\r\nshe ought not, to prevail in. But this instrument\r\nof self-protection—which may be called\r\nthe power of the scold, or the shrewish sanction—has\r\nthe fatal defect, that it avails most against\r\nthe least tyrannical superiors, and in favour of\r\nthe least deserving dependents. It is the weapon\r\nof irritable and self-willed women; of those who\r\nwould make the worst use of power if they themselves\r\nhad it, and who generally turn this power\r\nto a bad use. The amiable cannot use such an\r\ninstrument, the highminded disdain it. And on\r\nthe other hand, the husbands against whom it is\r\nused most effectively are the gentler and more\r\ninoffensive; those who cannot be induced, even\r\nby provocation, to resort to any very harsh exercise\r\nof authority. The wife\u0027s power of being\r\ndisagreeable generally only establishes a counter-tyranny,\r\nand makes victims in their turn chiefly\r\nof those husbands who are least inclined to be\r\ntyrants.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nWhat is it, then, which really tempers the\r\ncorrupting effects of the power, and makes it\r\ncompatible with such amount of good as we\r\nactually see? Mere feminine blandishments,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page69\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 69]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthough of great effect in individual instances,\r\nhave very little effect in modifying the general\r\ntendencies of the situation; for their power only\r\nlasts while the woman is young and attractive,\r\noften only while her charm is new, and not\r\ndimmed by familiarity; and on many men they\r\nhave not much influence at any time. The real\r\nmitigating causes are, the personal affection\r\nwhich is the growth of time, in so far as the man\u0027s\r\nnature is susceptible of it, and the woman\u0027s\r\ncharacter sufficiently congenial with his to excite\r\nit; their common interests as regards the children,\r\nand their general community of interest\r\nas concerns third persons (to which however there\r\nare very great limitations); the real importance\r\nof the wife to his daily comforts and enjoyments,\r\nand the value he consequently attaches to her\r\non his personal account, which, in a man capable\r\nof feeling for others, lays the foundation of caring\r\nfor her on her own; and lastly, the influence naturally\r\nacquired over almost all human beings by\r\nthose near to their persons (if not actually disagreeable\r\nto them): who, both by their direct entreaties,\r\nand by the insensible contagion of their feelings\r\nand dispositions, are often able, unless counteracted\r\nby some equally strong personal influence,\r\nto obtain a degree of command over the conduct\r\nof the superior, altogether excessive and unreasonable.\r\nThrough these various means, the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page70\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 70]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwife frequently exercises even too much power\r\nover the man; she is able to affect his conduct\r\nin things in which she may not be qualified to\r\ninfluence it for good—in which her influence may\r\nbe not only unenlightened, but employed on the\r\nmorally wrong side; and in which he would act\r\nbetter if left to his own prompting. But neither\r\nin the affairs of families nor in those of states\r\nis power a compensation for the loss of freedom.\r\nHer power often gives her what she has no right\r\nto, but does not enable her to assert her own\r\nrights. A Sultan\u0027s favourite slave has slaves\r\nunder her, over whom she tyrannizes; but the\r\ndesirable thing would be that she should neither\r\nhave slaves nor be a slave. By entirely sinking\r\nher own existence in her husband; by having no\r\nwill (or persuading him that she has no will) but\r\nhis, in anything which regards their joint relation,\r\nand by making it the business of her life\r\nto work upon his sentiments, a wife may gratify\r\nherself by influencing, and very probably perverting,\r\nhis conduct, in those of his external relations\r\nwhich she has never qualified herself to\r\njudge of, or in which she is herself wholly influenced\r\nby some personal or other partiality or\r\nprejudice. Accordingly, as things now are,\r\nthose who act most kindly to their wives, are\r\nquite as often made worse, as better, by the wife\u0027s\r\ninfluence, in respect to all interests extending\r\n\u003ca id=\"page71\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 71]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbeyond the family. She is taught that she has\r\nno business with things out of that sphere; and\r\naccordingly she seldom has any honest and conscientious\r\nopinion on them; and therefore hardly\r\never meddles with them for any legitimate purpose,\r\nbut generally for an interested one. She\r\nneither knows nor cares which is the right side in\r\npolitics, but she knows what will bring in money\r\nor invitations, give her husband a title, her son\r\na place, or her daughter a good marriage.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nBut how, it will be asked, can any society\r\nexist without government? In a family, as in a\r\nstate, some one person must be the ultimate\r\nruler. Who shall decide when married people\r\ndiffer in opinion? Both cannot have their way,\r\nyet a decision one way or the other must be\r\ncome to.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt is not true that in all voluntary association\r\nbetween two people, one of them must be absolute\r\nmaster: still less that the law must determine\r\nwhich of them it shall be. The most frequent\r\ncase of voluntary association, next to marriage,\r\nis partnership in business: and it is not found or\r\nthought necessary to enact that in every partnership,\r\none partner shall have entire control over\r\nthe concern, and the others shall be bound to\r\nobey his orders. No one would enter into partnership\r\non terms which would subject him to the\r\nresponsibilities of a principal, with only the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page72\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 72]\u003c/span\u003e\r\npowers and privileges of a clerk or agent. If\r\nthe law dealt with other contracts as it does with\r\nmarriage, it would ordain that one partner should\r\nadminister the common business as if it was his\r\nprivate concern; that the others should have only\r\ndelegated powers; and that this one should be\r\ndesignated by some general presumption of law,\r\nfor example as being the eldest. The law never\r\ndoes this: nor does experience show it to be\r\nnecessary that any theoretical inequality of power\r\nshould exist between the partners, or that the\r\npartnership should have any other conditions than\r\nwhat they may themselves appoint by their articles\r\nof agreement. Yet it might seem that the exclusive\r\npower might be conceded with less danger\r\nto the rights and interests of the inferior, in the\r\ncase of partnership than in that of marriage,\r\nsince he is free to cancel the power by withdrawing\r\nfrom the connexion. The wife has no\r\nsuch power, and even if she had, it is almost\r\nalways desirable that she should try all measures\r\nbefore resorting to it.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt is quite true that things which have to\r\nbe decided every day, and cannot adjust themselves\r\ngradually, or wait for a compromise, ought\r\nto depend on one will: one person must have\r\ntheir sole control. But it does not follow that\r\nthis should always be the same person. The\r\nnatural arrangement is a division of powers\r\n\u003ca id=\"page73\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 73]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbetween the two; each being absolute in the\r\nexecutive branch of their own department, and\r\nany change of system and principle requiring the\r\nconsent of both. The division neither can nor\r\nshould be pre-established by the law, since it\r\nmust depend on individual capacities and suitabilities.\r\nIf the two persons chose, they might\r\npre-appoint it by the marriage contract, as pecuniary\r\narrangements are now often pre-appointed.\r\nThere would seldom be any difficulty\r\nin deciding such things by mutual consent, unless\r\nthe marriage was one of those unhappy ones in\r\nwhich all other things, as well as this, become\r\nsubjects of bickering and dispute. The division\r\nof rights would naturally follow the division of\r\nduties and functions; and that is already made\r\nby consent, or at all events not by law, but by\r\ngeneral custom, modified and modifiable at the\r\npleasure of the persons concerned.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe real practical decision of affairs, to whichever\r\nmay be given the legal authority, will greatly\r\ndepend, as it even now does, upon comparative\r\nqualifications. The mere fact that he is usually\r\nthe eldest, will in most cases give the preponderance\r\nto the man; at least until they both\r\nattain a time of life at which the difference\r\nin their years is of no importance. There will\r\nnaturally also be a more potential voice on the\r\nside, whichever it is, that brings the means of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page74\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 74]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsupport. Inequality from this source does not\r\ndepend on the law of marriage, but on the\r\ngeneral conditions of human society, as now\r\nconstituted. The influence of mental superiority,\r\neither general or special, and of superior\r\ndecision of character, will necessarily tell for\r\nmuch. It always does so at present. And this\r\nfact shows how little foundation there is for the\r\napprehension that the powers and responsibilities\r\nof partners in life (as of partners in business),\r\ncannot be satisfactorily apportioned by agreement\r\nbetween themselves. They always are so\r\napportioned, except in cases in which the marriage\r\ninstitution is a failure. Things never\r\ncome to an issue of downright power on one\r\nside, and obedience on the other, except where\r\nthe connexion altogether has been a mistake,\r\nand it would be a blessing to both parties to\r\nbe relieved from it. Some may say that the\r\nvery thing by which an amicable settlement of\r\ndifferences becomes possible, is the power of\r\nlegal compulsion known to be in reserve; as\r\npeople submit to an arbitration because there\r\nis a court of law in the background, which they\r\nknow that they can be forced to obey. But\r\nto make the cases parallel, we must suppose\r\nthat the rule of the court of law was, not to\r\ntry the cause, but to give judgment always for\r\nthe same side, suppose the defendant. If so,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page75\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 75]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe amenability to it would be a motive with\r\nthe plaintiff to agree to almost any arbitration,\r\nbut it would be just the reverse with the\r\ndefendant. The despotic power which the law\r\ngives to the husband may be a reason to make\r\nthe wife assent to any compromise by which\r\npower is practically shared between the two,\r\nbut it cannot be the reason why the husband\r\ndoes. That there is always among decently\r\nconducted people a practical compromise, though\r\none of them at least is under no physical or\r\nmoral necessity of making it, shows that the\r\nnatural motives which lead to a voluntary\r\nadjustment of the united life of two persons\r\nin a manner acceptable to both, do on the\r\nwhole, except in unfavourable cases, prevail. The\r\nmatter is certainly not improved by laying down\r\nas an ordinance of law, that the superstructure of\r\nfree government shall be raised upon a legal\r\nbasis of despotism on one side and subjection\r\non the other, and that every concession which\r\nthe despot makes may, at his mere pleasure,\r\nand without any warning, be recalled. Besides\r\nthat no freedom is worth much when held on\r\nso precarious a tenure, its conditions are not\r\nlikely to be the most equitable when the law\r\nthrows so prodigious a weight into one scale;\r\nwhen the adjustment rests between two persons\r\none of whom is declared to be entitled to\r\n\u003ca id=\"page76\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 76]\u003c/span\u003e\r\neverything, the other not only entitled to\r\nnothing except during the good pleasure of\r\nthe first, but under the strongest moral and\r\nreligious obligation not to rebel under any excess\r\nof oppression.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nA pertinacious adversary, pushed to extremities,\r\nmay say, that husbands indeed are willing\r\nto be reasonable, and to make fair concessions\r\nto their partners without being compelled to it,\r\nbut that wives are not: that if allowed any rights\r\nof their own, they will acknowledge no rights at\r\nall in any one else, and never will yield in anything,\r\nunless they can be compelled, by the\r\nman\u0027s mere authority, to yield in everything.\r\nThis would have been said by many persons some\r\ngenerations ago, when satires on women were in\r\nvogue, and men thought it a clever thing to insult\r\nwomen for being what men made them.\r\nBut it will be said by no one now who is worth\r\nreplying to. It is not the doctrine of the present\r\nday that women are less susceptible of good\r\nfeeling, and consideration for those with whom\r\nthey are united by the strongest ties, than men\r\nare. On the contrary, we are perpetually told\r\nthat women are better than men, by those who\r\nare totally opposed to treating them as if they\r\nwere as good; so that the saying has passed into\r\na piece of tiresome cant, intended to put a complimentary\r\nface upon an injury, and resembling\r\n\u003ca id=\"page77\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 77]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthose celebrations of royal clemency which, according\r\nto Gulliver, the king of Lilliput always\r\nprefixed to his most sanguinary decrees. If\r\nwomen are better than men in anything, it surely\r\nis in individual self-sacrifice for those of their\r\nown family. But I lay little stress on this, so\r\nlong as they are universally taught that they\r\nare born and created for self-sacrifice. I believe\r\nthat equality of rights would abate the exaggerated\r\nself-abnegation which is the present artificial\r\nideal of feminine character, and that a good\r\nwoman would not be more self-sacrificing than\r\nthe best man: but on the other hand, men\r\nwould be much more unselfish and self-sacrificing\r\nthan at present, because they would no longer\r\nbe taught to worship their own will as such a\r\ngrand thing that it is actually the law for another\r\nrational being. There is nothing which men so\r\neasily learn as this self-worship: all privileged\r\npersons, and all privileged classes, have had it.\r\nThe more we descend in the scale of humanity,\r\nthe intenser it is; and most of all in those who\r\nare not, and can never expect to be, raised above\r\nany one except an unfortunate wife and children.\r\nThe honourable exceptions are proportionally\r\nfewer than in the case of almost any other human\r\ninfirmity. Philosophy and religion, instead\r\nof keeping it in check, are generally suborned to\r\ndefend it; and nothing controls it but that\r\n\u003ca id=\"page78\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 78]\u003c/span\u003e\r\npractical feeling of the equality of human beings,\r\nwhich is the theory of Christianity, but which\r\nChristianity will never practically teach, while\r\nit sanctions institutions grounded on an arbitrary\r\npreference of one human being over another.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThere are, no doubt, women, as there are\r\nmen, whom equality of consideration will not\r\nsatisfy; with whom there is no peace while any\r\nwill or wish is regarded but their own. Such\r\npersons are a proper subject for the law of\r\ndivorce. They are only fit to live alone, and\r\nno human beings ought to be compelled to associate\r\ntheir lives with them. But the legal subordination\r\ntends to make such characters\r\namong women more, rather than less, frequent.\r\nIf the man exerts his whole power, the woman\r\nis of course crushed: but if she is treated with\r\nindulgence, and permitted to assume power,\r\nthere is no rule to set limits to her encroachments.\r\nThe law, not determining her rights, but\r\ntheoretically allowing her none at all, practically\r\ndeclares that the measure of what she has a\r\nright to, is what she can contrive to get.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe equality of married persons before the\r\nlaw, is not only the sole mode in which that\r\nparticular relation can be made consistent with\r\njustice to both sides, and conducive to the\r\nhappiness of both, but it is the only means\r\nof rendering the daily life of mankind, in any\r\n\u003ca id=\"page79\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 79]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhigh sense, a school of moral cultivation. Though\r\nthe truth may not be felt or generally acknowledged\r\nfor generations to come, the only school\r\nof genuine moral sentiment is society between\r\nequals. The moral education of mankind has\r\nhitherto emanated chiefly from the law of force,\r\nand is adapted almost solely to the relations\r\nwhich force creates. In the less advanced\r\nstates of society, people hardly recognise any\r\nrelation with their equals. To be an equal is\r\nto be an enemy. Society, from its highest place\r\nto its lowest, is one long chain, or rather ladder,\r\nwhere every individual is either above or below\r\nhis nearest neighbour, and wherever he does\r\nnot command he must obey. Existing moralities,\r\naccordingly, are mainly fitted to a relation of\r\ncommand and obedience. Yet command and\r\nobedience are but unfortunate necessities of\r\nhuman life: society in equality is its normal\r\nstate. Already in modern life, and more and\r\nmore as it progressively improves, command\r\nand obedience become exceptional facts in life,\r\nequal association its general rule. The morality\r\nof the first ages rested on the obligation to\r\nsubmit to power; that of the ages next following,\r\non the right of the weak to the forbearance and\r\nprotection of the strong. How much longer is\r\none form of society and life to content itself with\r\nthe morality made for another? We have had\r\n\u003ca id=\"page80\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 80]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe morality of submission, and the morality\r\nof chivalry and generosity; the time is now\r\ncome for the morality of justice. Whenever,\r\nin former ages, any approach has been made\r\nto society in equality, Justice has asserted its\r\nclaims as the foundation of virtue. It was\r\nthus in the free republics of antiquity. But\r\neven in the best of these, the equals were limited\r\nto the free male citizens; slaves, women, and\r\nthe unenfranchised residents were under the\r\nlaw of force. The joint influence of Roman\r\ncivilization and of Christianity obliterated these\r\ndistinctions, and in theory (if only partially in\r\npractice) declared the claims of the human\r\nbeing, as such, to be paramount to those of\r\nsex, class, or social position. The barriers which\r\nhad begun to be levelled were raised again by\r\nthe northern conquests; and the whole of modern\r\nhistory consists of the slow process by which\r\nthey have since been wearing away. We are\r\nentering into an order of things in which justice\r\nwill again be the primary virtue; grounded as\r\nbefore on equal, but now also on sympathetic\r\nassociation; having its root no longer in the\r\ninstinct of equals for self-protection, but in a\r\ncultivated sympathy between them; and no one\r\nbeing now left out, but an equal measure being\r\nextended to all. It is no novelty that mankind\r\ndo not distinctly foresee their own changes,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page81\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 81]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand that their sentiments are adapted to past,\r\nnot to coming ages. To see the futurity of the\r\nspecies has always been the privilege of the intellectual\r\nélite, or of those who have learnt from\r\nthem; to have the feelings of that futurity has\r\nbeen the distinction, and usually the martyrdom,\r\nof a still rarer élite. Institutions, books, education,\r\nsociety, all go on training human beings\r\nfor the old, long after the new has come; much\r\nmore when it is only coming. But the true\r\nvirtue of human beings is fitness to live together\r\nas equals; claiming nothing for themselves but\r\nwhat they as freely concede to every one else;\r\nregarding command of any kind as an exceptional\r\nnecessity, and in all cases a temporary\r\none; and preferring, whenever possible, the\r\nsociety of those with whom leading and following\r\ncan be alternate and reciprocal. To\r\nthese virtues, nothing in life as at present constituted\r\ngives cultivation by exercise. The\r\nfamily is a school of despotism, in which the\r\nvirtues of despotism, but also its vices, are largely\r\nnourished. Citizenship, in free countries, is partly\r\na school of society in equality; but citizenship fills\r\nonly a small place in modern life, and does not\r\ncome near the daily habits or inmost sentiments.\r\nThe family, justly constituted, would be the real\r\nschool of the virtues of freedom. It is sure to\r\nbe a sufficient one of everything else. It will\r\n\u003ca id=\"page82\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 82]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nalways be a school of obedience for the children,\r\nof command for the parents. What is needed\r\nis, that it should be a school of sympathy in\r\nequality, of living together in love, without\r\npower on one side or obedience on the other.\r\nThis it ought to be between the parents. It\r\nwould then be an exercise of those virtues which\r\neach requires to fit them for all other association,\r\nand a model to the children of the feelings\r\nand conduct which their temporary training by\r\nmeans of obedience is designed to render habitual,\r\nand therefore natural, to them. The moral training\r\nof mankind will never be adapted to the\r\nconditions of the life for which all other human\r\nprogress is a preparation, until they practise in\r\nthe family the same moral rule which is adapted\r\nto the normal constitution of human society.\r\nAny sentiment of freedom which can exist in\r\na man whose nearest and dearest intimacies are\r\nwith those of whom he is absolute master, is\r\nnot the genuine or Christian love of freedom,\r\nbut, what the love of freedom generally was\r\nin the ancients and in the middle ages—an\r\nintense feeling of the dignity and importance\r\nof his own personality; making him disdain a\r\nyoke for himself, of which he has no abhorrence\r\nwhatever in the abstract, but which he is abundantly\r\nready to impose on others for his own\r\ninterest or glorification.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page83\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 83]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nI readily admit (and it is the very foundation\r\nof my hopes) that numbers of married people\r\neven under the present law, (in the higher classes\r\nof England probably a great majority,) live in\r\nthe spirit of a just law of equality. Laws never\r\nwould be improved, if there were not numerous\r\npersons whose moral sentiments are better\r\nthan the existing laws. Such persons ought\r\nto support the principles here advocated; of\r\nwhich the only object is to make all other\r\nmarried couples similar to what these are now.\r\nBut persons even of considerable moral worth,\r\nunless they are also thinkers, are very ready\r\nto believe that laws or practices, the evils of\r\nwhich they have not personally experienced,\r\ndo not produce any evils, but (if seeming to\r\nbe generally approved of) probably do good,\r\nand that it is wrong to object to them. It\r\nwould, however, be a great mistake in such\r\nmarried people to suppose, because the legal conditions\r\nof the tie which unites them do not occur\r\nto their thoughts once in a twelvemonth, and because\r\nthey live and feel in all respects as if they\r\nwere legally equals, that the same is the case with\r\nall other married couples, wherever the husband is\r\nnot a notorious ruffian. To suppose this, would\r\nbe to show equal ignorance of human nature and\r\nof fact. The less fit a man is for the possession\r\nof power—the less likely to be allowed to exercise\r\n\u003ca id=\"page84\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 84]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nit over any person with that person\u0027s voluntary\r\nconsent—the more does he hug himself in the\r\nconsciousness of the power the law gives him,\r\nexact its legal rights to the utmost point which\r\ncustom (the custom of men like himself) will\r\ntolerate, and take pleasure in using the power,\r\nmerely to enliven the agreeable sense of possessing\r\nit. What is more; in the most naturally\r\nbrutal and morally uneducated part of the lower\r\nclasses, the legal slavery of the woman, and something\r\nin the merely physical subjection to their\r\nwill as an instrument, causes them to feel a\r\nsort of disrespect and contempt towards their\r\nown wife which they do not feel towards any\r\nother woman, or any other human being, with\r\nwhom they come in contact; and which makes\r\nher seem to them an appropriate subject for any\r\nkind of indignity. Let an acute observer of the\r\nsigns of feeling, who has the requisite opportunities,\r\njudge for himself whether this is not the case:\r\nand if he finds that it is, let him not wonder at\r\nany amount of disgust and indignation that can\r\nbe felt against institutions which lead naturally\r\nto this depraved state of the human mind.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nWe shall be told, perhaps, that religion imposes\r\nthe duty of obedience; as every established fact\r\nwhich is too bad to admit of any other defence,\r\nis always presented to us as an injunction of\r\nreligion. The Church, it is very true, enjoins it\r\n\u003ca id=\"page85\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 85]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin her formularies, but it would be difficult to\r\nderive any such injunction from Christianity.\r\nWe are told that St. Paul said, “Wives, obey\r\nyour husbands:” but he also said, “Slaves, obey\r\nyour masters.” It was not St. Paul\u0027s business,\r\nnor was it consistent with his object, the propagation\r\nof Christianity, to incite any one to rebellion\r\nagainst existing laws. The apostle\u0027s acceptance\r\nof all social institutions as he found them,\r\nis no more to be construed as a disapproval of\r\nattempts to improve them at the proper time,\r\nthan his declaration, “The powers that be are\r\nordained of God,” gives his sanction to military\r\ndespotism, and to that alone, as the\r\nChristian form of political government, or commands\r\npassive obedience to it. To pretend\r\nthat Christianity was intended to stereotype\r\nexisting forms of government and society, and\r\nprotect them against change, is to reduce it to\r\nthe level of Islamism or of Brahminism. It is\r\nprecisely because Christianity has not done this,\r\nthat it has been the religion of the progressive\r\nportion of mankind, and Islamism, Brahminism,\r\n\u0026amp;c., have been those of the stationary portions;\r\nor rather (for there is no such thing as a really\r\nstationary society) of the declining portions.\r\nThere have been abundance of people, in all ages of\r\nChristianity, who tried to make it something of the\r\nsame kind; to convert us into a sort of Christian\r\n\u003ca id=\"page86\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 86]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nMussulmans, with the Bible for a Koran, prohibiting\r\nall improvement: and great has been their\r\npower, and many have had to sacrifice their lives\r\nin resisting them. But they have been resisted,\r\nand the resistance has made us what we are, and\r\nwill yet make us what we are to be.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nAfter what has been said respecting the obligation\r\nof obedience, it is almost superfluous to\r\nsay anything concerning the more special point\r\nincluded in the general one—a woman\u0027s right\r\nto her own property; for I need not hope that\r\nthis treatise can make any impression upon those\r\nwho need anything to convince them that a\r\nwoman\u0027s inheritance or gains ought to be as\r\nmuch her own after marriage as before. The\r\nrule is simple: whatever would be the husband\u0027s\r\nor wife\u0027s if they were not married, should be\r\nunder their exclusive control during marriage;\r\nwhich need not interfere with the power to tie\r\nup property by settlement, in order to preserve\r\nit for children. Some people are sentimentally\r\nshocked at the idea of a separate interest in\r\nmoney matters, as inconsistent with the ideal\r\nfusion of two lives into one. For my own part,\r\nI am one of the strongest supporters of community\r\nof goods, when resulting from an entire unity of\r\nfeeling in the owners, which makes all things\r\ncommon between them. But I have no relish\r\nfor a community of goods resting on the doctrine,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page87\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 87]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat what is mine is yours but what is\r\nyours is not mine; and I should prefer to decline\r\nentering into such a compact with any\r\none, though I were myself the person to profit\r\nby it.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThis particular injustice and oppression to\r\nwomen, which is, to common apprehensions, more\r\nobvious than all the rest, admits of remedy\r\nwithout interfering with any other mischiefs: and\r\nthere can be little doubt that it will be one of\r\nthe earliest remedied. Already, in many of the\r\nnew and several of the old States of the American\r\nConfederation, provisions have been inserted\r\neven in the written Constitutions, securing\r\nto women equality of rights in this respect: and\r\nthereby improving materially the position, in\r\nthe marriage relation, of those women at least\r\nwho have property, by leaving them one instrument\r\nof power which they have not signed\r\naway; and preventing also the scandalous abuse\r\nof the marriage institution, which is perpetrated\r\nwhen a man entraps a girl into marrying him\r\nwithout a settlement, for the sole purpose of\r\ngetting possession of her money. When the\r\nsupport of the family depends, not on property,\r\nbut on earnings, the common arrangement, by\r\nwhich the man earns the income and the wife\r\nsuperintends the domestic expenditure, seems to\r\nme in general the most suitable division of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page88\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 88]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlabour between the two persons. If, in addition\r\nto the physical suffering of bearing children,\r\nand the whole responsibility of their care and\r\neducation in early years, the wife undertakes\r\nthe careful and economical application of the\r\nhusband\u0027s earnings to the general comfort of the\r\nfamily; she takes not only her fair share, but\r\nusually the larger share, of the bodily and mental\r\nexertion required by their joint existence. If\r\nshe undertakes any additional portion, it seldom\r\nrelieves her from this, but only prevents her\r\nfrom performing it properly. The care which\r\nshe is herself disabled from taking of the children\r\nand the household, nobody else takes;\r\nthose of the children who do not die, grow up\r\nas they best can, and the management of the\r\nhousehold is likely to be so bad, as even in point\r\nof economy to be a great drawback from the\r\nvalue of the wife\u0027s earnings. In an otherwise\r\njust state of things, it is not, therefore, I think,\r\na desirable custom, that the wife should contribute\r\nby her labour to the income of the family.\r\nIn an unjust state of things, her doing so may\r\nbe useful to her, by making her of more value\r\nin the eyes of the man who is legally her master;\r\nbut, on the other hand, it enables him still farther\r\nto abuse his power, by forcing her to work, and\r\nleaving the support of the family to her exertions,\r\nwhile he spends most of his time in drinking\r\n\u003ca id=\"page89\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 89]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand idleness. The \u003ci\u003epower\u003c/i\u003e of earning is essential\r\nto the dignity of a woman, if she has not\r\nindependent property. But if marriage were an\r\nequal contract, not implying the obligation of\r\nobedience; if the connexion were no longer enforced\r\nto the oppression of those to whom it is\r\npurely a mischief, but a separation, on just\r\nterms (I do not now speak of a divorce), could\r\nbe obtained by any woman who was morally\r\nentitled to it; and if she would then find all\r\nhonourable employments as freely open to her as\r\nto men; it would not be necessary for her protection,\r\nthat during marriage she should make\r\nthis particular use of her faculties. Like a man\r\nwhen he chooses a profession, so, when a woman\r\nmarries, it may in general be understood that\r\nshe makes choice of the management of a household,\r\nand the bringing up of a family, as the\r\nfirst call upon her exertions, during as many\r\nyears of her life as may be required for the purpose;\r\nand that she renounces, not all other objects\r\nand occupations, but all which are not\r\nconsistent with the requirements of this. The\r\nactual exercise, in a habitual or systematic\r\nmanner, of outdoor occupations, or such as\r\ncannot be carried on at home, would by this\r\nprinciple be practically interdicted to the greater\r\nnumber of married women. But the utmost\r\nlatitude ought to exist for the adaptation of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page90\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 90]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ngeneral rules to individual suitabilities; and there\r\nought to be nothing to prevent faculties exceptionally\r\nadapted to any other pursuit, from\r\nobeying their vocation notwithstanding marriage:\r\ndue provision being made for supplying\r\notherwise any falling-short which might become\r\ninevitable, in her full performance of the ordinary\r\nfunctions of mistress of a family. These things,\r\nif once opinion were rightly directed on the\r\nsubject, might with perfect safety be left to be\r\nregulated by opinion, without any interference\r\nof law.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page91\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 91]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\r\n\u003ca id=\"chapter3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\r\nCHAPTER III.\r\n\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nOn the other point which is involved in the\r\njust equality of women, their admissibility\r\nto all the functions and occupations hitherto\r\nretained as the monopoly of the stronger sex,\r\nI should anticipate no difficulty in convincing\r\nany one who has gone with me on the subject of\r\nthe equality of women in the family. I believe\r\nthat their disabilities elsewhere are only clung to\r\nin order to maintain their subordination in domestic\r\nlife; because the generality of the male\r\nsex cannot yet tolerate the idea of living with\r\nan equal. Were it not for that, I think that\r\nalmost every one, in the existing state of opinion\r\nin politics and political economy, would admit\r\nthe injustice of excluding half the human race\r\nfrom the greater number of lucrative occupations,\r\nand from almost all high social functions; ordaining\r\nfrom their birth either that they are not,\r\nand cannot by any possibility become, fit for\r\nemployments which are legally open to the\r\nstupidest and basest of the other sex, or else that\r\nhowever fit they may be, those employments shall\r\n\u003ca id=\"page92\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 92]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe interdicted to them, in order to be preserved\r\nfor the exclusive benefit of males. In the last\r\ntwo centuries, when (which was seldom the case)\r\nany reason beyond the mere existence of the fact\r\nwas thought to be required to justify the disabilities\r\nof women, people seldom assigned as a reason\r\ntheir inferior mental capacity; which, in times\r\nwhen there was a real trial of personal faculties\r\n(from which all women were not excluded) in the\r\nstruggles of public life, no one really believed in.\r\nThe reason given in those days was not women\u0027s\r\nunfitness, but the interest of society, by which was\r\nmeant the interest of men: just as the \u003ci\u003eraison d\u0027état\u003c/i\u003e,\r\nmeaning the convenience of the government, and\r\nthe support of existing authority, was deemed a\r\nsufficient explanation and excuse for the most flagitious\r\ncrimes. In the present day, power holds\r\na smoother language, and whomsoever it oppresses,\r\nalways pretends to do so for their own good:\r\naccordingly, when anything is forbidden to women,\r\nit is thought necessary to say, and desirable to\r\nbelieve, that they are incapable of doing it, and\r\nthat they depart from their real path of success\r\nand happiness when they aspire to it. But to\r\nmake this reason plausible (I do not say valid),\r\nthose by whom it is urged must be prepared to\r\ncarry it to a much greater length than any one\r\nventures to do in the face of present experience.\r\nIt is not sufficient to maintain that women on\r\n\u003ca id=\"page93\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 93]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe average are less gifted than men on the\r\naverage, with certain of the higher mental\r\nfaculties, or that a smaller number of women\r\nthan of men are fit for occupations and functions\r\nof the highest intellectual character. It is\r\nnecessary to maintain that no women at all are\r\nfit for them, and that the most eminent women\r\nare inferior in mental faculties to the most\r\nmediocre of the men on whom those functions\r\nat present devolve. For if the performance of the\r\nfunction is decided either by competition, or by any\r\nmode of choice which secures regard to the public\r\ninterest, there needs be no apprehension that any\r\nimportant employments will fall into the hands of\r\nwomen inferior to average men, or to the average\r\nof their male competitors. The only result would\r\nbe that there would be fewer women than men\r\nin such employments; a result certain to happen\r\nin any ease, if only from the preference always\r\nlikely to be felt by the majority of women for the\r\none vocation in which there is nobody to compete\r\nwith them. Now, the most determined depreciator\r\nof women will not venture to deny, that\r\nwhen we add the experience of recent times to\r\nthat of ages past, women, and not a few merely,\r\nbut many women, have proved themselves capable\r\nof everything, perhaps without a single exception,\r\nwhich is done by men, and of doing it successfully\r\nand creditably. The utmost that can be\r\n\u003ca id=\"page94\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 94]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsaid is, that there are many things which none of\r\nthem have succeeded in doing as well as they\r\nhave been done by some men—many in which\r\nthey have not reached the very highest rank.\r\nBut there are extremely few, dependent only on\r\nmental faculties, in which they have not attained\r\nthe rank next to the highest. Is not this enough,\r\nand much more than enough, to make it a\r\ntyranny to them, and a detriment to society, that\r\nthey should not be allowed to compete with men\r\nfor the exercise of these functions? Is it not a\r\nmere truism to say, that such functions are often\r\nfilled by men far less fit for them than numbers\r\nof women, and who would be beaten by women\r\nin any fair field of competition? What difference\r\ndoes it make that there may be men somewhere,\r\nfully employed about other things, who may be\r\nstill better qualified for the things in question\r\nthan these women? Does not this take place\r\nin all competitions? Is there so great a superfluity\r\nof men fit for high duties, that society can\r\nafford to reject the service of any competent\r\nperson? Are we so certain of always finding a\r\nman made to our hands for any duty or function\r\nof social importance which falls vacant, that we\r\nlose nothing by putting a ban upon one-half of\r\nmankind, and refusing beforehand to make their\r\nfaculties available, however distinguished they\r\nmay be? And even if we could do without\r\n\u003ca id=\"page95\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 95]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthem, would it be consistent with justice to refuse\r\nto them their fair share of honour and distinction,\r\nor to deny to them the equal moral right of all\r\nhuman beings to choose their occupation (short\r\nof injury to others) according to their own\r\npreferences, at their own risk? Nor is the injustice\r\nconfined to them: it is shared by those\r\nwho are in a position to benefit by their services.\r\nTo ordain that any kind of persons shall not be\r\nphysicians, or shall not be advocates, or shall not\r\nbe members of parliament, is to injure not them\r\nonly, but all who employ physicians or advocates,\r\nor elect members of parliament, and who are\r\ndeprived of the stimulating effect of greater competition\r\non the exertions of the competitors, as\r\nwell as restricted to a narrower range of individual\r\nchoice.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt will perhaps be sufficient if I confine\r\nmyself, in the details of my argument, to functions\r\nof a public nature: since, if I am successful\r\nas to those, it probably will be readily granted\r\nthat women should be admissible to all other\r\noccupations to which it is at all material whether\r\nthey are admitted or not. And here let me\r\nbegin by marking out one function, broadly distinguished\r\nfrom all others, their right to which is\r\nentirely independent of any question which can\r\nbe raised concerning their faculties. I mean the\r\nsuffrage, both parliamentary and municipal. The\r\n\u003ca id=\"page96\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 96]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nright to share in the choice of those who are to\r\nexercise a public trust, is altogether a distinct\r\nthing from that of competing for the trust itself.\r\nIf no one could vote for a member of parliament\r\nwho was not fit to be a candidate, the government\r\nwould be a narrow oligarchy indeed. To\r\nhave a voice in choosing those by whom one is\r\nto be governed, is a means of self-protection due\r\nto every one, though he were to remain for ever\r\nexcluded from the function of governing: and\r\nthat women are considered fit to have such\r\na choice, may be presumed from the fact, that\r\nthe law already gives it to women in the\r\nmost important of all cases to themselves: for\r\nthe choice of the man who is to govern a\r\nwoman to the end of life, is always supposed\r\nto be voluntarily made by herself. In the case\r\nof election to public trusts, it is the business\r\nof constitutional law to surround the right of\r\nsuffrage with all needful securities and limitations;\r\nbut whatever securities are sufficient in\r\nthe case of the male sex, no others need be\r\nrequired in the case of women. Under whatever\r\nconditions, and within whatever limits, men are\r\nadmitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of\r\njustification for not admitting women under the\r\nsame. The majority of the women of any class\r\nare not likely to differ in political opinion from\r\nthe majority of the men of the same class, unless\r\n\u003ca id=\"page97\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 97]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe question be one in which the interests of\r\nwomen, as such, are in some way involved; and if\r\nthey are so, women require the suffrage, as their\r\nguarantee of just and equal consideration. This\r\nought to be obvious even to those who coincide\r\nin no other of the doctrines for which I contend.\r\nEven if every woman were a wife, and if every\r\nwife ought to be a slave, all the more would\r\nthese slaves stand in need of legal protection: and\r\nwe know what legal protection the slaves have,\r\nwhere the laws are made by their masters.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nWith regard to the fitness of women, not only\r\nto participate in elections, but themselves to\r\nhold offices or practise professions involving\r\nimportant public responsibilities; I have already\r\nobserved that this consideration is not essential\r\nto the practical question in dispute: since any\r\nwoman, who succeeds in an open profession,\r\nproves by that very fact that she is qualified for\r\nit. And in the case of public offices, if the political\r\nsystem of the country is such as to exclude\r\nunfit men, it will equally exclude unfit women:\r\nwhile if it is not, there is no additional evil in the\r\nfact that the unfit persons whom it admits may\r\nbe either women or men. As long therefore as\r\nit is acknowledged that even a few women may\r\nbe fit for these duties, the laws which shut the\r\ndoor on those exceptions cannot be justified by\r\nany opinion which can be held respecting the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page98\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 98]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncapacities of women in general. But, though this\r\nlast consideration is not essential, it is far from\r\nbeing irrelevant. An unprejudiced view of it\r\ngives additional strength to the arguments against\r\nthe disabilities of women, and reinforces them by\r\nhigh considerations of practical utility.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nLet us at first make entire abstraction of all\r\npsychological considerations tending to show, that\r\nany of the mental differences supposed to exist\r\nbetween women and men are but the natural\r\neffect of the differences in their education and\r\ncircumstances, and indicate no radical difference,\r\nfar less radical inferiority, of nature. Let us\r\nconsider women only as they already are, or as\r\nthey are known to have been; and the capacities\r\nwhich they have already practically shown.\r\nWhat they have done, that at least, if nothing\r\nelse, it is proved that they can do. When we\r\nconsider how sedulously they are all trained away\r\nfrom, instead of being trained towards, any of\r\nthe occupations or objects reserved for men, it is\r\nevident that I am taking a very humble ground\r\nfor them, when I rest their case on what they\r\nhave actually achieved. For, in this case, negative\r\nevidence is worth little, while any positive evidence\r\nis conclusive. It cannot be inferred to be\r\nimpossible that a woman should be a Homer, or\r\nan Aristotle, or a Michael Angelo, or a Beethoven,\r\nbecause no woman has yet actually produced\r\n\u003ca id=\"page99\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 99]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nworks comparable to theirs in any of those\r\nlines of excellence. This negative fact at most\r\nleaves the question uncertain, and open to\r\npsychological discussion. But it is quite certain\r\nthat a woman can be a Queen Elizabeth, or a\r\nDeborah, or a Joan of Arc, since this is not\r\ninference, but fact. Now it is a curious consideration,\r\nthat the only things which the existing\r\nlaw excludes women from doing, are the things\r\nwhich they have proved that they are able to do.\r\nThere is no law to prevent a woman from having\r\nwritten all the plays of Shakspeare, or composed\r\nall the operas of Mozart. But Queen Elizabeth\r\nor Queen Victoria, had they not inherited the\r\nthrone, could not have been intrusted with the\r\nsmallest of the political duties, of which the\r\nformer showed herself equal to the greatest.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIf anything conclusive could be inferred from\r\nexperience, without psychological analysis, it\r\nwould be that the things which women are not\r\nallowed to do are the very ones for which they\r\nare peculiarly qualified; since their vocation for\r\ngovernment has made its way, and become conspicuous,\r\nthrough the very few opportunities\r\nwhich have been given; while in the lines of\r\ndistinction which apparently were freely open to\r\nthem, they have by no means so eminently distinguished\r\nthemselves. We know how small a\r\nnumber of reigning queens history presents, in\r\n\u003ca id=\"page100\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 100]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncomparison with that of kings. Of this smaller\r\nnumber a far larger proportion have shown\r\ntalents for rule; though many of them have\r\noccupied the throne in difficult periods. It is\r\nremarkable, too, that they have, in a great\r\nnumber of instances, been distinguished by merits\r\nthe most opposite to the imaginary and conventional\r\ncharacter of women: they have been as\r\nmuch remarked for the firmness and vigour of\r\ntheir rule, as for its intelligence. When, to\r\nqueens and empresses, we add regents, and viceroys\r\nof provinces, the list of women who have\r\nbeen eminent rulers of mankind swells to a great\r\nlength.\u003ca id=\"ref_2_1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnref pginternal\" href=\"#footnote_2_1\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e This fact is so undeniable, that some\r\none, long ago, tried to retort the argument, and\r\nturned the admitted truth into an additional\r\ninsult, by saying that queens are better than\r\n\u003ca id=\"page101\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 101]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nkings, because under kings women govern, but\r\nunder queens, men.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt may seem a waste of reasoning to argue\r\nagainst a bad joke; but such things do affect\r\npeople\u0027s minds; and I have heard men quote this\r\nsaying, with an air as if they thought that there\r\nwas something in it. At any rate, it will serve\r\nas well as anything else for a starting point in\r\ndiscussion. I say, then, that it is not true that\r\nunder kings, women govern. Such cases are\r\nentirely exceptional: and weak kings have quite\r\nas often governed ill through the influence of\r\nmale favourites, as of female. When a king\r\nis governed by a woman merely through his\r\namatory propensities, good government is not\r\nprobable, though even then there are exceptions.\r\nBut French history counts two kings who have\r\nvoluntarily given the direction of affairs during\r\nmany years, the one to his mother, the other to\r\nhis sister: one of them, Charles VIII., was a\r\nmere boy, but in doing so he followed the intentions\r\nof his father Louis XI., the ablest monarch\r\nof his age. The other, Saint Louis, was the\r\nbest, and one of the most vigorous rulers, since\r\nthe time of Charlemagne. Both these princesses\r\nruled in a manner hardly equalled by any\r\nprince among their contemporaries. The emperor\r\nCharles the Fifth, the most politic prince of his\r\ntime, who had as great a number of able men in\r\n\u003ca id=\"page102\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 102]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhis service as a ruler ever had, and was one of the\r\nleast likely of all sovereigns to sacrifice his interest\r\nto personal feelings, made two princesses of his\r\nfamily successively Governors of the Netherlands,\r\nand kept one or other of them in that post during\r\nhis whole life, (they were afterwards succeeded\r\nby a third). Both ruled very successfully, and\r\none of them, Margaret of Austria, was one of\r\nthe ablest politicians of the age. So much for\r\none side of the question. Now as to the other.\r\nWhen it is said that under queens men govern,\r\nis the same meaning to be understood as when\r\nkings are said to be governed by women? Is it\r\nmeant that queens choose as their instruments\r\nof government, the associates of their personal\r\npleasures? The case is rare even with those\r\nwho are as unscrupulous on the latter point as\r\nCatherine II.: and it is not in these cases that\r\nthe good government, alleged to arise from male\r\ninfluence, is to be found. If it be true, then, that\r\nthe administration is in the hands of better men\r\nunder a queen than under an average king, it\r\nmust be that queens have a superior capacity\r\nfor choosing them; and women must be better\r\nqualified than men both for the position of sovereign,\r\nand for that of chief minister; for the\r\nprincipal business of a prime minister is not to\r\ngovern in person, but to find the fittest persons\r\nto conduct every department of public affairs.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page103\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 103]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe more rapid insight into character, which\r\nis one of the admitted points of superiority\r\nin women over men, must certainly make them,\r\nwith anything like parity of qualifications in\r\nother respects, more apt than men in that choice\r\nof instruments, which is nearly the most important\r\nbusiness of every one who has to do with\r\ngoverning mankind. Even the unprincipled\r\nCatherine de\u0027 Medici could feel the value of a\r\nChancellor de l\u0027Hôpital. But it is also true\r\nthat most great queens have been great by their\r\nown talents for government, and have been\r\nwell served precisely for that reason. They\r\nretained the supreme direction of affairs in their\r\nown hands: and if they listened to good advisers,\r\nthey gave by that fact the strongest proof that\r\ntheir judgment fitted them for dealing with the\r\ngreat questions of government.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIs it reasonable to think that those who are\r\nfit for the greater functions of politics, are incapable\r\nof qualifying themselves for the less?\r\nIs there any reason in the nature of things, that\r\nthe wives and sisters of princes should, whenever\r\ncalled on, be found as competent as the princes\r\nthemselves to \u003ci\u003etheir\u003c/i\u003e business, but that the wives\r\nand sisters of statesmen, and administrators, and\r\ndirectors of companies, and managers of public\r\ninstitutions, should be unable to do what is done\r\nby their brothers and husbands? The real\r\n\u003ca id=\"page104\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 104]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nreason is plain enough; it is that princesses,\r\nbeing more raised above the generality of men\r\nby their rank than placed below them by their\r\nsex, have never been taught that it was improper\r\nfor them to concern themselves with politics;\r\nbut have been allowed to feel the liberal interest\r\nnatural to any cultivated human being, in the\r\ngreat transactions which took place around them,\r\nand in which they might be called on to take a\r\npart. The ladies of reigning families are the\r\nonly women who are allowed the same range of\r\ninterests and freedom of development as men;\r\nand it is precisely in their case that there is not\r\nfound to be any inferiority. Exactly where and\r\nin proportion as women\u0027s capacities for government\r\nhave been tried, in that proportion have\r\nthey been found adequate.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThis fact is in accordance with the best\r\ngeneral conclusions which the world\u0027s imperfect\r\nexperience seems as yet to suggest, concerning\r\nthe peculiar tendencies and aptitudes characteristic\r\nof women, as women have hitherto been.\r\nI do not say, as they will continue to be; for, as\r\nI have already said more than once, I consider\r\nit presumption in any one to pretend to decide\r\nwhat women are or are not, can or cannot be, by\r\nnatural constitution. They have always hitherto\r\nbeen kept, as far as regards spontaneous development,\r\nin so unnatural a state, that their nature\r\n\u003ca id=\"page105\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 105]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncannot but have been greatly distorted and disguised;\r\nand no one can safely pronounce that if\r\nwomen\u0027s nature were left to choose its direction as\r\nfreely as men\u0027s, and if no artificial bent were attempted\r\nto be given to it except that required by\r\nthe conditions of human society, and given to both\r\nsexes alike, there would be any material difference,\r\nor perhaps any difference at all, in the\r\ncharacter and capacities which would unfold\r\nthemselves. I shall presently show, that even\r\nthe least contestable of the differences which\r\nnow exist, are such as may very well have been\r\nproduced merely by circumstances, without any\r\ndifference of natural capacity. But, looking at\r\nwomen as they are known in experience, it may\r\nbe said of them, with more truth than belongs\r\nto most other generalizations on the subject, that\r\nthe general bent of their talents is towards the\r\npractical. This statement is conformable to all\r\nthe public history of women, in the present and\r\nthe past. It is no less borne out by common\r\nand daily experience. Let us consider the\r\nspecial nature of the mental capacities most\r\ncharacteristic of a woman of talent. They are\r\nall of a kind which fits them for practice, and\r\nmakes them tend towards it. What is meant\r\nby a woman\u0027s capacity of intuitive perception?\r\nIt means, a rapid and correct insight into present\r\nfact. It has nothing to do with general principles.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page106\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 106]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nNobody ever perceived a scientific law\r\nof nature by intuition, nor arrived at a general\r\nrule of duty or prudence by it. These are\r\nresults of slow and careful collection and comparison\r\nof experience; and neither the men nor\r\nthe women of intuition usually shine in this department,\r\nunless, indeed, the experience necessary\r\nis such as they can acquire by themselves. For\r\nwhat is called their intuitive sagacity makes\r\nthem peculiarly apt in gathering such general\r\ntruths as can be collected from their individual\r\nmeans of observation. When, consequently, they\r\nchance to be as well provided as men are with\r\nthe results of other people\u0027s experience, by\r\nreading and education, (I use the word chance\r\nadvisedly, for, in respect to the knowledge that\r\ntends to fit them for the greater concerns of\r\nlife, the only educated women are the self-educated)\r\nthey are better furnished than men\r\nin general with the essential requisites of skilful\r\nand successful practice. Men who have been\r\nmuch taught, are apt to be deficient in the\r\nsense of present fact; they do not see, in the\r\nfacts which they are called upon to deal with,\r\nwhat is really there, but what they have been\r\ntaught to expect. This is seldom the case with\r\nwomen of any ability. Their capacity of “intuition”\r\npreserves them from it. With equality\r\nof experience and of general faculties, a woman\r\n\u003ca id=\"page107\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 107]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nusually sees much more than a man of what\r\nis immediately before her. Now this sensibility\r\nto the present, is the main quality on which the\r\ncapacity for practice, as distinguished from theory,\r\ndepends. To discover general principles, belongs\r\nto the speculative faculty: to discern and discriminate\r\nthe particular cases in which they are\r\nand are not applicable, constitutes practical talent:\r\nand for this, women as they now are have a\r\npeculiar aptitude. I admit that there can be\r\nno good practice without principles, and that\r\nthe predominant place which quickness of observation\r\nholds among a woman\u0027s faculties, makes\r\nher particularly apt to build over-hasty generalizations\r\nupon her own observation; though at\r\nthe same time no less ready in rectifying those\r\ngeneralizations, as her observation takes a wider\r\nrange. But the corrective to this defect, is access\r\nto the experience of the human race; general\r\nknowledge—exactly the thing which education\r\ncan best supply. A woman\u0027s mistakes are specifically\r\nthose of a clever self-educated man, who\r\noften sees what men trained in routine do not\r\nsee, but falls into errors for want of knowing\r\nthings which have long been known. Of course\r\nhe has acquired much of the pre-existing knowledge,\r\nor he could not have got on at all; but\r\nwhat he knows of it he has picked up in fragments\r\nand at random, as women do.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page108\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 108]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nBut this gravitation of women\u0027s minds to\r\nthe present, to the real, to actual fact, while\r\nin its exclusiveness it is a source of errors, is\r\nalso a most useful counteractive of the contrary\r\nerror. The principal and most characteristic\r\naberration of speculative minds as such, consists\r\nprecisely in the deficiency of this lively perception\r\nand ever-present sense of objective fact.\r\nFor want of this, they often not only overlook\r\nthe contradiction which outward facts oppose\r\nto their theories, but lose sight of the legitimate\r\npurpose of speculation altogether, and let\r\ntheir speculative faculties go astray into regions\r\nnot peopled with real beings, animate or inanimate,\r\neven idealized, but with personified shadows\r\ncreated by the illusions of metaphysics or by the\r\nmere entanglement of words, and think these\r\nshadows the proper objects of the highest, the most\r\ntranscendant, philosophy. Hardly anything can\r\nbe of greater value to a man of theory and\r\nspeculation who employs himself not in collecting\r\nmaterials of knowledge by observation,\r\nbut in working them up by processes of thought\r\ninto comprehensive truths of science and laws of\r\nconduct, than to carry on his speculations in the\r\ncompanionship, and under the criticism, of a really\r\nsuperior woman. There is nothing comparable\r\nto it for keeping his thoughts within the limits\r\nof real things, and the actual facts of nature.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page109\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 109]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nA woman seldom runs wild after an abstraction.\r\nThe habitual direction of her mind to dealing\r\nwith things as individuals rather than in groups,\r\nand (what is closely connected with it) her more\r\nlively interest in the present feelings of persons,\r\nwhich makes her consider first of all, in anything\r\nwhich claims to be applied to practice, in what\r\nmanner persons will be affected by it—these two\r\nthings make her extremely unlikely to put faith\r\nin any speculation which loses sight of individuals,\r\nand deals with things as if they existed for the\r\nbenefit of some imaginary entity, some mere\r\ncreation of the mind, not resolvable into the\r\nfeelings of living beings. Women\u0027s thoughts\r\nare thus as useful in giving reality to those of\r\nthinking men, as men\u0027s thoughts in giving width\r\nand largeness to those of women. In depth, as\r\ndistinguished from breadth, I greatly doubt if\r\neven now, women, compared with men, are at\r\nany disadvantage.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIf the existing mental characteristics of women\r\nare thus valuable even in aid of speculation, they\r\nare still more important, when speculation has\r\ndone its work, for carrying out the results of\r\nspeculation into practice. For the reasons already\r\ngiven, women are comparatively unlikely to fall\r\ninto the common error of men, that of sticking\r\nto their rules in a case whose specialities either\r\ntake it out of the class to which the rules are\r\n\u003ca id=\"page110\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 110]\u003c/span\u003e\r\napplicable, or require a special adaptation of\r\nthem. Let us now consider another of the\r\nadmitted superiorities of clever women, greater\r\nquickness of apprehension. Is not this pre-eminently\r\na quality which fits a person for\r\npractice? In action, everything continually\r\ndepends upon deciding promptly. In speculation,\r\nnothing does. A mere thinker can wait,\r\ncan take time to consider, can collect additional\r\nevidence; he is not obliged to complete his\r\nphilosophy at once, lest the opportunity should\r\ngo by. The power of drawing the best conclusion\r\npossible from insufficient data is not\r\nindeed useless in philosophy; the construction\r\nof a provisional hypothesis consistent with all\r\nknown facts is often the needful basis for further\r\ninquiry. But this faculty is rather serviceable\r\nin philosophy, than the main qualification for it:\r\nand, for the auxiliary as well as for the main\r\noperation, the philosopher can allow himself any\r\ntime he pleases. He is in no need of the capacity\r\nof doing rapidly what he does; what he rather\r\nneeds is patience, to work on slowly until imperfect\r\nlights have become perfect, and a conjecture\r\nhas ripened into a theorem. For those, on the\r\ncontrary, whose business is with the fugitive and\r\nperishable—with individual facts, not kinds of\r\nfacts—rapidity of thought is a qualification next\r\nonly in importance to the power of thought itself.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page111\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 111]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nHe who has not his faculties under immediate\r\ncommand, in the contingencies of action, might\r\nas well not have them at all. He may be fit to\r\ncriticize, but he is not fit to act. Now it is in\r\nthis that women, and the men who are most like\r\nwomen, confessedly excel. The other sort of man,\r\nhowever pre-eminent may be his faculties, arrives\r\nslowly at complete command of them: rapidity of\r\njudgment and promptitude of judicious action,\r\neven in the things he knows best, are the gradual\r\nand late result of strenuous effort grown into\r\nhabit.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt will be said, perhaps, that the greater\r\nnervous susceptibility of women is a disqualification\r\nfor practice, in anything but domestic life,\r\nby rendering them mobile, changeable, too\r\nvehemently under the influence of the moment,\r\nincapable of dogged perseverance, unequal and\r\nuncertain in the power of using their faculties.\r\nI think that these phrases sum up the greater\r\npart of the objections commonly made to the\r\nfitness of women for the higher class of serious\r\nbusiness. Much of all this is the mere overflow\r\nof nervous energy run to waste, and would cease\r\nwhen the energy was directed to a definite end.\r\nMuch is also the result of conscious or unconscious\r\ncultivation; as we see by the almost\r\ntotal disappearance of “hysterics” and fainting\r\nfits, since they have gone out of fashion. Moreover,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page112\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 112]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhen people are brought up, like many\r\nwomen of the higher classes (though less so in\r\nour own country than in any other) a kind of hot-house\r\nplants, shielded from the wholesome vicissitudes\r\nof air and temperature, and untrained in\r\nany of the occupations and exercises which give\r\nstimulus and development to the circulatory and\r\nmuscular system, while their nervous system,\r\nespecially in its emotional department, is kept in\r\nunnaturally active play; it is no wonder if those\r\nof them who do not die of consumption, grow\r\nup with constitutions liable to derangement from\r\nslight causes, both internal and external, and\r\nwithout stamina to support any task, physical or\r\nmental, requiring continuity of effort. But\r\nwomen brought up to work for their livelihood\r\nshow none of these morbid characteristics,\r\nunless indeed they are chained to an excess of\r\nsedentary work in confined and unhealthy rooms.\r\nWomen who in their early years have shared in\r\nthe healthful physical education and bodily freedom\r\nof their brothers, and who obtain a sufficiency\r\nof pure air and exercise in after-life, very\r\nrarely have any excessive susceptibility of nerves\r\nwhich can disqualify them for active pursuits.\r\nThere is indeed a certain proportion of persons,\r\nin both sexes, in whom an unusual degree of\r\nnervous sensibility is constitutional, and of so\r\nmarked a character as to be the feature of their\r\n\u003ca id=\"page113\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 113]\u003c/span\u003e\r\norganization which exercises the greatest influence\r\nover the whole character of the vital phenomena.\r\nThis constitution, like other physical conformations,\r\nis hereditary, and is transmitted to sons as well\r\nas daughters; but it is possible, and probable, that\r\nthe nervous temperament (as it is called) is inherited\r\nby a greater number of women than of\r\nmen. We will assume this as a fact: and let me\r\nthen ask, are men of nervous temperament found\r\nto be unfit for the duties and pursuits usually\r\nfollowed by men? If not, why should women of\r\nthe same temperament be unfit for them? The\r\npeculiarities of the temperament are, no doubt,\r\nwithin certain limits, an obstacle to success in\r\nsome employments, though an aid to it in\r\nothers. But when the occupation is suitable to\r\nthe temperament, and sometimes even when it is\r\nunsuitable, the most brilliant examples of success\r\nare continually given by the men of high nervous\r\nsensibility. They are distinguished in their practical\r\nmanifestations chiefly by this, that being\r\nsusceptible of a higher degree of excitement than\r\nthose of another physical constitution, their powers\r\nwhen excited differ more than in the case of other\r\npeople, from those shown in their ordinary state:\r\nthey are raised, as it were, above themselves,\r\nand do things with ease which they are wholly\r\nincapable of at other times. But this lofty excitement\r\nis not, except in weak bodily constitutions,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page114\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 114]\u003c/span\u003e\r\na mere flash, which passes away immediately,\r\nleaving no permanent traces, and incompatible\r\nwith persistent and steady pursuit of an object.\r\nIt is the character of the nervous temperament\r\nto be capable of \u003ci\u003esustained\u003c/i\u003e excitement, holding\r\nout through long continued efforts. It is what\r\nis meant by \u003ci\u003espirit\u003c/i\u003e. It is what makes the high-bred\r\nracehorse run without slackening speed till\r\nhe drops down dead. It is what has enabled so\r\nmany delicate women to maintain the most sublime\r\nconstancy not only at the stake, but through\r\na long preliminary succession of mental and\r\nbodily tortures. It is evident that people of this\r\ntemperament are particularly apt for what may\r\nbe called the executive department of the leadership\r\nof mankind. They are the material of\r\ngreat orators, great preachers, impressive diffusers\r\nof moral influences. Their constitution might\r\nbe deemed less favourable to the qualities required\r\nfrom a statesman in the cabinet, or from\r\na judge. It would be so, if the consequence\r\nnecessarily followed that because people are excitable\r\nthey must always be in a state of excitement.\r\nBut this is wholly a question of training.\r\nStrong feeling is the instrument and element of\r\nstrong self-control: but it requires to be cultivated\r\nin that direction. When it is, it forms not the\r\nheroes of impulse only, but those also of self-conquest.\r\nHistory and experience prove that\r\n\u003ca id=\"page115\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 115]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe most passionate characters are the most fanatically\r\nrigid in their feelings of duty, when their\r\npassion has been trained to act in that direction.\r\nThe judge who gives a just decision in a case\r\nwhere his feelings are intensely interested on the\r\nother side, derives from that same strength of\r\nfeeling the determined sense of the obligation of\r\njustice, which enables him to achieve this victory\r\nover himself. The capability of that lofty enthusiasm\r\nwhich takes the human being out of\r\nhis every-day character, reacts upon the daily\r\ncharacter itself. His aspirations and powers when\r\nhe is in this exceptional state, become the type\r\nwith which he compares, and by which he estimates,\r\nhis sentiments and proceedings at other\r\ntimes: and his habitual purposes assume a character\r\nmoulded by and assimilated to the moments\r\nof lofty excitement, although those, from\r\nthe physical nature of a human being, can only\r\nbe transient. Experience of races, as well as of\r\nindividuals, does not show those of excitable temperament\r\nto be less fit, on the average, either\r\nfor speculation or practice, than the more unexcitable.\r\nThe French, and the Italians, are undoubtedly\r\nby nature more nervously excitable\r\nthan the Teutonic races, and, compared at least\r\nwith the English, they have a much greater\r\nhabitual and daily emotional life: but have they\r\nbeen less great in science, in public business, in\r\n\u003ca id=\"page116\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 116]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nlegal and judicial eminence, or in war? There\r\nis abundant evidence that the Greeks were of\r\nold, as their descendants and successors still are,\r\none of the most excitable of the races of mankind.\r\nIt is superfluous to ask, what among the\r\nachievements of men they did not excel in. The\r\nRomans, probably, as an equally southern people,\r\nhad the same original temperament: but the\r\nstern character of their national discipline, like\r\nthat of the Spartans, made them an example of\r\nthe opposite type of national character; the\r\ngreater strength of their natural feelings being\r\nchiefly apparent in the intensity which the same\r\noriginal temperament made it possible to give to\r\nthe artificial. If these cases exemplify what a\r\nnaturally excitable people may be made, the Irish\r\nCelts afford one of the aptest examples of what\r\nthey are when left to themselves; (if those can\r\nbe said to be left to themselves who have been\r\nfor centuries under the indirect influence of bad\r\ngovernment, and the direct training of a Catholic\r\nhierarchy and of a sincere belief in the Catholic\r\nreligion.) The Irish character must be considered,\r\ntherefore, as an unfavourable case: yet, whenever\r\nthe circumstances of the individual have been at\r\nall favourable, what people have shown greater\r\ncapacity for the most varied and multifarious individual\r\neminence? Like the French compared\r\nwith the English, the Irish with the Swiss, the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page117\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 117]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nGreeks or Italians compared with the German\r\nraces, so women compared with men may be\r\nfound, on the average, to do the same things\r\nwith some variety in the particular kind of excellence.\r\nBut, that they would do them fully\r\nas well on the whole, if their education and\r\ncultivation were adapted to correcting instead of\r\naggravating the infirmities incident to their temperament,\r\nI see not the smallest reason to doubt.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nSupposing it, however, to be true that women\u0027s\r\nminds are by nature more mobile than those\r\nof men, less capable of persisting long in the\r\nsame continuous effort, more fitted for dividing\r\ntheir faculties among many things than for\r\ntravelling in any one path to the highest point\r\nwhich can be reached by it: this may be\r\ntrue of women as they now are (though not\r\nwithout great and numerous exceptions), and\r\nmay account for their having remained behind\r\nthe highest order of men in precisely the things\r\nin which this absorption of the whole mind in\r\none set of ideas and occupations may seem to\r\nbe most requisite. Still, this difference is one\r\nwhich can only affect the kind of excellence, not\r\nthe excellence itself, or its practical worth: and\r\nit remains to be shown whether this exclusive\r\nworking of a part of the mind, this absorption of\r\nthe whole thinking faculty in a single subject,\r\nand concentration of it on a single work, is the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page118\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 118]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnormal and healthful condition of the human\r\nfaculties, even for speculative uses. I believe\r\nthat what is gained in special development by\r\nthis concentration, is lost in the capacity of the\r\nmind for the other purposes of life; and even in\r\nabstract thought, it is my decided opinion that\r\nthe mind does more by frequently returning to\r\na difficult problem, than by sticking to it without\r\ninterruption. For the purposes, at all events,\r\nof practice, from its highest to its humblest departments,\r\nthe capacity of passing promptly from\r\none subject of consideration to another, without\r\nletting the active spring of the intellect run\r\ndown between the two, is a power far more\r\nvaluable; and this power women pre-eminently\r\npossess, by virtue of the very mobility of which\r\nthey are accused. They perhaps have it from\r\nnature, but they certainly have it by training\r\nand education; for nearly the whole of the occupations\r\nof women consist in the management of\r\nsmall but multitudinous details, on each of which\r\nthe mind cannot dwell even for a minute, but\r\nmust pass on to other things, and if anything\r\nrequires longer thought, must steal time at odd\r\nmoments for thinking of it. The capacity indeed\r\nwhich women show for doing their thinking in\r\ncircumstances and at times which almost any\r\nman would make an excuse to himself for not\r\nattempting it, has often been noticed: and a\r\n\u003ca id=\"page119\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 119]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwoman\u0027s mind, though it may be occupied only\r\nwith small things, can hardly ever permit itself\r\nto be vacant, as a man\u0027s so often is when not\r\nengaged in what he chooses to consider the\r\nbusiness of his life. The business of a woman\u0027s\r\nordinary life is things in general, and can\r\nas little cease to go on as the world to go\r\nround.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nBut (it is said) there is anatomical evidence\r\nof the superior mental capacity of men compared\r\nwith women: they have a larger brain. I reply,\r\nthat in the first place the fact itself is doubtful.\r\nIt is by no means established that the brain of a\r\nwoman is smaller than that of a man. If it is\r\ninferred merely because a woman\u0027s bodily frame\r\ngenerally is of less dimensions than a man\u0027s, this\r\ncriterion would lead to strange consequences.\r\nA tall and large-boned man must on this showing\r\nbe wonderfully superior in intelligence to a small\r\nman, and an elephant or a whale must prodigiously\r\nexcel mankind. The size of the brain in\r\nhuman beings, anatomists say, varies much less\r\nthan the size of the body, or even of the head,\r\nand the one cannot be at all inferred from the\r\nother. It is certain that some women have as\r\nlarge a brain as any man. It is within my\r\nknowledge that a man who had weighed many\r\nhuman brains, said that the heaviest he knew of,\r\nheavier even than Cuvier\u0027s (the heaviest previously\r\n\u003ca id=\"page120\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 120]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nrecorded,) was that of a woman. Next,\r\nI must observe that the precise relation which\r\nexists between the brain and the intellectual\r\npowers is not yet well understood, but is a\r\nsubject of great dispute. That there is a very\r\nclose relation we cannot doubt. The brain is\r\ncertainly the material organ of thought and\r\nfeeling: and (making abstraction of the great\r\nunsettled controversy respecting the appropriation\r\nof different parts of the brain to different mental\r\nfaculties) I admit that it would be an anomaly,\r\nand an exception to all we know of the general\r\nlaws of life and organization, if the size of the\r\norgan were wholly indifferent to the function; if\r\nno accession of power were derived from the\r\ngreater magnitude of the instrument. But the\r\nexception and the anomaly would be fully as\r\ngreat if the organ exercised influence by its\r\nmagnitude \u003ci\u003eonly\u003c/i\u003e. In all the more delicate operations\r\nof nature—of which those of the animated\r\ncreation are the most delicate, and those of the\r\nnervous system by far the most delicate of these—differences\r\nin the effect depend as much on\r\ndifferences of quality in the physical agents, as\r\non their quantity: and if the quality of an instrument\r\nis to be tested by the nicety and delicacy\r\nof the work it can do, the indications point\r\nto a greater average fineness of quality in the\r\nbrain and nervous system of women than of men.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page121\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 121]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nDismissing abstract difference of quality, a thing\r\ndifficult to verify, the efficiency of an organ is\r\nknown to depend not solely on its size but on its\r\nactivity: and of this we have an approximate\r\nmeasure in the energy with which the blood\r\ncirculates through it, both the stimulus and the\r\nreparative force being mainly dependent on the\r\ncirculation. It would not be surprising—it is\r\nindeed an hypothesis which accords well with the\r\ndifferences actually observed between the mental\r\noperations of the two sexes—if men on the\r\naverage should have the advantage in the size of\r\nthe brain, and women in activity of cerebral circulation.\r\nThe results which conjecture, founded\r\non analogy, would lead us to expect from this\r\ndifference of organization, would correspond to\r\nsome of those which we most commonly see. In\r\nthe first place, the mental operations of men\r\nmight be expected to be slower. They would\r\nneither be so prompt as women in thinking, nor\r\nso quick to feel. Large bodies take more time\r\nto get into full action. On the other hand,\r\nwhen once got thoroughly into play, men\u0027s brain\r\nwould bear more work. It would be more persistent\r\nin the line first taken; it would have\r\nmore difficulty in changing from one mode of\r\naction to another, but, in the one thing it was\r\ndoing, it could go on longer without loss of\r\npower or sense of fatigue. And do we not find that\r\n\u003ca id=\"page122\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 122]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe things in which men most excel women are\r\nthose which require most plodding and long\r\nhammering at a single thought, while women do\r\nbest what must be done rapidly? A woman\u0027s\r\nbrain is sooner fatigued, sooner exhausted; but\r\ngiven the degree of exhaustion, we should expect\r\nto find that it would recover itself sooner. I\r\nrepeat that this speculation is entirely hypothetical;\r\nit pretends to no more than to suggest\r\na line of enquiry. I have before repudiated the\r\nnotion of its being yet certainly known that\r\nthere is any natural difference at all in the\r\naverage strength or direction of the mental capacities\r\nof the two sexes, much less what that\r\ndifference is. Nor is it possible that this should\r\nbe known, so long as the psychological laws of the\r\nformation of character have been so little studied,\r\neven in a general way, and in the particular\r\ncase never scientifically applied at all; so long\r\nas the most obvious external causes of difference\r\nof character are habitually disregarded—left unnoticed\r\nby the observer, and looked down upon\r\nwith a kind of supercilious contempt by the\r\nprevalent schools both of natural history and of\r\nmental philosophy: who, whether they look for\r\nthe source of what mainly distinguishes human\r\nbeings from one another, in the world of matter\r\nor in that of spirit, agree in running down those\r\nwho prefer to explain these differences by the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page123\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 123]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndifferent relations of human beings to society\r\nand life.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nTo so ridiculous an extent are the notions\r\nformed of the nature of women, mere empirical\r\ngeneralizations, framed, without philosophy or\r\nanalysis, upon the first instances which present\r\nthemselves, that the popular idea of it is different\r\nin different countries, according as the opinions\r\nand social circumstances of the country have given\r\nto the women living in it any speciality of development\r\nor non-development. An Oriental thinks\r\nthat women are by nature peculiarly voluptuous;\r\nsee the violent abuse of them on this ground in\r\nHindoo writings. An Englishman usually thinks\r\nthat they are by nature cold. The sayings about\r\nwomen\u0027s fickleness are mostly of French origin;\r\nfrom the famous distich of Francis the First, upward\r\nand downward. In England it is a common\r\nremark, how much more constant women are than\r\nmen. Inconstancy has been longer reckoned discreditable\r\nto a woman, in England than in France;\r\nand Englishwomen are besides, in their inmost\r\nnature, much more subdued to opinion. It may\r\nbe remarked by the way, that Englishmen are in\r\npeculiarly unfavourable circumstances for attempting\r\nto judge what is or is not natural, not merely\r\nto women, but to men, or to human beings altogether,\r\nat least if they have only English experience\r\nto go upon: because there is no place where\r\n\u003ca id=\"page124\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 124]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhuman nature shows so little of its original lineaments.\r\nBoth in a good and a bad sense, the English\r\nare farther from a state of nature than any\r\nother modern people. They are, more than any\r\nother people, a product of civilization and discipline.\r\nEngland is the country in which social discipline\r\nhas most succeeded, not so much in conquering, as\r\nin suppressing, whatever is liable to conflict with\r\nit. The English, more than any other people, not\r\nonly act but feel according to rule. In other\r\ncountries, the taught opinion, or the requirement\r\nof society, may be the stronger power, but the\r\npromptings of the individual nature are always\r\nvisible under it, and often resisting it: rule may\r\nbe stronger than nature, but nature is still there.\r\nIn England, rule has to a great degree substituted\r\nitself for nature. The greater part of life is\r\ncarried on, not by following inclination under the\r\ncontrol of rule, but by having no inclination but\r\nthat of following a rule. Now this has its good\r\nside doubtless, though it has also a wretchedly\r\nbad one; but it must render an Englishman\r\npeculiarly ill-qualified to pass a judgment on the\r\noriginal tendencies of human nature from his own\r\nexperience. The errors to which observers elsewhere\r\nare liable on the subject, are of a different\r\ncharacter. An Englishman is ignorant respecting\r\nhuman nature, a Frenchman is prejudiced. An\r\nEnglishman\u0027s errors are negative, a Frenchman\u0027s\r\n\u003ca id=\"page125\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 125]\u003c/span\u003e\r\npositive. An Englishman fancies that things do\r\nnot exist, because he never sees them; a Frenchman\r\nthinks they must always and necessarily exist,\r\nbecause he does see them. An Englishman does\r\nnot know nature, because he has had no opportunity\r\nof observing it; a Frenchman generally\r\nknows a great deal of it, but often mistakes it,\r\nbecause he has only seen it sophisticated and distorted.\r\nFor the artificial state superinduced by\r\nsociety disguises the natural tendencies of the\r\nthing which is the subject of observation, in two\r\ndifferent ways: by extinguishing the nature, or by\r\ntransforming it. In the one case there is but\r\na starved residuum of nature remaining to be\r\nstudied; in the other case there is much, but it\r\nmay have expanded in any direction rather than\r\nthat in which it would spontaneously grow.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nI have said that it cannot now be known how\r\nmuch of the existing mental differences between\r\nmen and women is natural, and how much artificial;\r\nwhether there are any natural differences at\r\nall; or, supposing all artificial causes of difference\r\nto be withdrawn, what natural character would\r\nbe revealed. I am not about to attempt what I\r\nhave pronounced impossible: but doubt does not\r\nforbid conjecture, and where certainty is unattainable,\r\nthere may yet be the means of arriving\r\nat some degree of probability. The first\r\npoint, the origin of the differences actually\r\n\u003ca id=\"page126\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 126]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nobserved, is the one most accessible to speculation;\r\nand I shall attempt to approach it, by the\r\nonly path by which it can be reached; by tracing\r\nthe mental consequences of external influences.\r\nWe cannot isolate a human being from the circumstances\r\nof his condition, so as to ascertain experimentally\r\nwhat he would have been by nature;\r\nbut we can consider what he is, and what his circumstances\r\nhave been, and whether the one would\r\nhave been capable of producing the other.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nLet us take, then, the only marked case which\r\nobservation affords, of apparent inferiority of\r\nwomen to men, if we except the merely physical\r\none of bodily strength. No production in philosophy,\r\nscience, or art, entitled to the first rank,\r\nhas been the work of a woman. Is there any\r\nmode of accounting for this, without supposing\r\nthat women are naturally incapable of producing\r\nthem?\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIn the first place, we may fairly question\r\nwhether experience has afforded sufficient grounds\r\nfor an induction. It is scarcely three generations\r\nsince women, saving very rare exceptions, have\r\nbegun to try their capacity in philosophy, science,\r\nor art. It is only in the present generation that\r\ntheir attempts have been at all numerous; and\r\nthey are even now extremely few, everywhere but\r\nin England and France. It is a relevant question,\r\nwhether a mind possessing the requisites of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page127\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 127]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfirst-rate eminence in speculation or creative art\r\ncould have been expected, on the mere calculation\r\nof chances, to turn up during that lapse of time,\r\namong the women whose tastes and personal\r\nposition admitted of their devoting themselves to\r\nthese pursuits. In all things which there has yet\r\nbeen time for—in all but the very highest grades\r\nin the scale of excellence, especially in the department\r\nin which they have been longest engaged,\r\nliterature (both prose and poetry)—women have\r\ndone quite as much, have obtained fully as high\r\nprizes and as many of them, as could be expected\r\nfrom the length of time and the number of competitors.\r\nIf we go back to the earlier period\r\nwhen very few women made the attempt, yet some\r\nof those few made it with distinguished success.\r\nThe Greeks always accounted Sappho among\r\ntheir great poets; and we may well suppose that\r\nMyrtis, said to have been the teacher of Pindar,\r\nand Corinna, who five times bore away from him\r\nthe prize of poetry, must at least have had sufficient\r\nmerit to admit of being compared with that great\r\nname. Aspasia did not leave any philosophical\r\nwritings; but it is an admitted fact that Socrates\r\nresorted to her for instruction, and avowed himself\r\nto have obtained it.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIf we consider the works of women in modern\r\ntimes, and contrast them with those of men,\r\neither in the literary or the artistic department,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page128\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 128]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsuch inferiority as may be observed resolves\r\nitself essentially into one thing: but that is a\r\nmost material one; deficiency of originality. Not\r\ntotal deficiency; for every production of mind\r\nwhich is of any substantive value, has an originality\r\nof its own—is a conception of the mind\r\nitself, not a copy of something else. Thoughts\r\noriginal, in the sense of being unborrowed—of\r\nbeing derived from the thinker\u0027s own observations\r\nor intellectual processes—are abundant in the\r\nwritings of women. But they have not yet\r\nproduced any of those great and luminous new\r\nideas which form an era in thought, nor those\r\nfundamentally new conceptions in art, which\r\nopen a vista of possible effects not before thought\r\nof, and found a new school. Their compositions\r\nare mostly grounded on the existing fund of\r\nthought, and their creations do not deviate widely\r\nfrom existing types. This is the sort of inferiority\r\nwhich their works manifest: for in point of execution,\r\nin the detailed application of thought,\r\nand the perfection of style, there is no inferiority.\r\nOur best novelists in point of composition, and\r\nof the management of detail, have mostly been\r\nwomen; and there is not in all modern literature\r\na more eloquent vehicle of thought than the style\r\nof Madame de Stael, nor, as a specimen of purely\r\nartistic excellence, anything superior to the prose\r\nof Madame Sand, whose style acts upon the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page129\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 129]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnervous system like a symphony of Haydn or\r\nMozart. High originality of conception is, as I\r\nhave said, what is chiefly wanting. And now to\r\nexamine if there is any manner in which this\r\ndeficiency can be accounted for.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nLet us remember, then, so far as regards\r\nmere thought, that during all that period in the\r\nworld\u0027s existence, and in the progress of cultivation,\r\nin which great and fruitful new truths\r\ncould be arrived at by mere force of genius,\r\nwith little previous study and accumulation of\r\nknowledge—during all that time women did not\r\nconcern themselves with speculation at all. From\r\nthe days of Hypatia to those of the Reformation,\r\nthe illustrious Heloisa is almost the only woman\r\nto whom any such achievement might have been\r\npossible; and we know not how great a capacity\r\nof speculation in her may have been lost to\r\nmankind by the misfortunes of her life. Never\r\nsince any considerable number of women have\r\nbegun to cultivate serious thought, has originality\r\nbeen possible on easy terms. Nearly all\r\nthe thoughts which can be reached by mere\r\nstrength of original faculties, have long since\r\nbeen arrived at; and originality, in any high\r\nsense of the word, is now scarcely ever attained\r\nbut by minds which have undergone elaborate\r\ndiscipline, and are deeply versed in the results\r\nof previous thinking. It is Mr. Maurice, I think,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page130\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 130]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwho has remarked on the present age, that its\r\nmost original thinkers are those who have known\r\nmost thoroughly what had been thought by their\r\npredecessors: and this will always henceforth be\r\nthe case. Every fresh stone in the edifice has\r\nnow to be placed on the top of so many others,\r\nthat a long process of climbing, and of carrying\r\nup materials, has to be gone through by whoever\r\naspires to take a share in the present stage of\r\nthe work. How many women are there who\r\nhave gone through any such process? Mrs.\r\nSomerville, alone perhaps of women, knows as\r\nmuch of mathematics as is now needful for\r\nmaking any considerable mathematical discovery:\r\nis it any proof of inferiority in women, that she\r\nhas not happened to be one of the two or three\r\npersons who in her lifetime have associated their\r\nnames with some striking advancement of the\r\nscience? Two women, since political economy\r\nhas been made a science, have known enough of\r\nit to write usefully on the subject: of how many\r\nof the innumerable men who have written on it\r\nduring the same time, is it possible with truth to\r\nsay more? If no woman has hitherto been a\r\ngreat historian, what woman has had the necessary\r\nerudition? If no woman is a great philologist,\r\nwhat woman has studied Sanscrit and\r\nSlavonic, the Gothic of Ulphila and the Persic\r\nof the Zendavesta? Even in practical matters\r\n\u003ca id=\"page131\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 131]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwe all know what is the value of the originality\r\nof untaught geniuses. It means, inventing\r\nover again in its rudimentary form something\r\nalready invented and improved upon by many\r\nsuccessive inventors. When women have had\r\nthe preparation which all men now require to be\r\neminently original, it will be time enough to\r\nbegin judging by experience of their capacity for\r\noriginality.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt no doubt often happens that a person, who\r\nhas not widely and accurately studied the thoughts\r\nof others on a subject, has by natural sagacity a\r\nhappy intuition, which he can suggest, but cannot\r\nprove, which yet when matured may be an important\r\naddition to knowledge: but even then,\r\nno justice can be done to it until some other\r\nperson, who does possess the previous acquirements,\r\ntakes it in hand, tests it, gives it a scientific\r\nor practical form, and fits it into its place among\r\nthe existing truths of philosophy or science. Is\r\nit supposed that such felicitous thoughts do not\r\noccur to women? They occur by hundreds to\r\nevery woman of intellect. But they are mostly\r\nlost, for want of a husband or friend who has the\r\nother knowledge which can enable him to estimate\r\nthem properly and bring them before the world:\r\nand even when they are brought before it, they\r\ngenerally appear as his ideas, not their real\r\nauthor\u0027s. Who can tell how many of the most\r\n\u003ca id=\"page132\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 132]\u003c/span\u003e\r\noriginal thoughts put forth by male writers,\r\nbelong to a woman by suggestion, to themselves\r\nonly by verifying and working out? If I may\r\njudge by my own case, a very large proportion\r\nindeed.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIf we turn from pure speculation to literature\r\nin the narrow sense of the term, and the fine arts,\r\nthere is a very obvious reason why women\u0027s\r\nliterature is, in its general conception and in its\r\nmain features, an imitation of men\u0027s. Why is the\r\nRoman literature, as critics proclaim to satiety,\r\nnot original, but an imitation of the Greek?\r\nSimply because the Greeks came first. If women\r\nlived in a different country from men, and had\r\nnever read any of their writings, they would have\r\nhad a literature of their own. As it is, they have\r\nnot created one, because they found a highly advanced\r\nliterature already created. If there had\r\nbeen no suspension of the knowledge of antiquity,\r\nor if the Renaissance had occurred before the\r\nGothic cathedrals were built, they never would\r\nhave been built. We see that, in France and\r\nItaly, imitation of the ancient literature stopped\r\nthe original development even after it had commenced.\r\nAll women who write are pupils of the\r\ngreat male writers. A painter\u0027s early pictures,\r\neven if he be a Raffaelle, are undistinguishable in\r\nstyle from those of his master. Even a Mozart\r\ndoes not display his powerful originality in his\r\n\u003ca id=\"page133\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 133]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nearliest pieces. What years are to a gifted individual,\r\ngenerations are to a mass. If women\u0027s\r\nliterature is destined to have a different collective\r\ncharacter from that of men, depending on any\r\ndifference of natural tendencies, much longer\r\ntime is necessary than has yet elapsed, before it\r\ncan emancipate itself from the influence of accepted\r\nmodels, and guide itself by its own impulses.\r\nBut if, as I believe, there will not prove\r\nto be any natural tendencies common to women,\r\nand distinguishing their genius from that of men,\r\nyet every individual writer among them has her\r\nindividual tendencies, which at present are still\r\nsubdued by the influence of precedent and example:\r\nand it will require generations more, before\r\ntheir individuality is sufficiently developed to make\r\nhead against that influence.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt is in the fine arts, properly so called, that\r\nthe \u003ci\u003eprimâ facie\u003c/i\u003e evidence of inferior original\r\npowers in women at first sight appears the\r\nstrongest: since opinion (it may be said) does not\r\nexclude them from these, but rather encourages\r\nthem, and their education, instead of passing over\r\nthis department, is in the affluent classes mainly\r\ncomposed of it. Yet in this line of exertion they\r\nhave fallen still more short than in many others,\r\nof the highest eminence attained by men. This\r\nshortcoming, however, needs no other explanation\r\nthan the familiar fact, more universally true\r\n\u003ca id=\"page134\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 134]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin the fine arts than in anything else; the vast\r\nsuperiority of professional persons over amateurs.\r\nWomen in the educated classes are almost universally\r\ntaught more or less of some branch or\r\nother of the fine arts, but not that they may gain\r\ntheir living or their social consequence by it.\r\nWomen artists are all amateurs. The exceptions\r\nare only of the kind which confirm the general\r\ntruth. Women are taught music, but not for\r\nthe purpose of composing, only of executing it:\r\nand accordingly it is only as composers, that\r\nmen, in music, are superior to women. The only\r\none of the fine arts which women do follow, to\r\nany extent, as a profession, and an occupation\r\nfor life, is the histrionic; and in that they are\r\nconfessedly equal, if not superior, to men. To\r\nmake the comparison fair, it should be made\r\nbetween the productions of women in any branch\r\nof art, and those of men not following it as a\r\nprofession. In musical composition, for example,\r\nwomen surely have produced fully as good things\r\nas have ever been produced by male amateurs.\r\nThere are now a few women, a very few, who\r\npractise painting as a profession, and these are\r\nalready beginning to show quite as much talent\r\nas could be expected. Even male painters (\u003ci\u003epace\u003c/i\u003e\r\nMr. Ruskin) have not made any very remarkable\r\nfigure these last centuries, and it will be long\r\nbefore they do so. The reason why the old painters\r\n\u003ca id=\"page135\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 135]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwere so greatly superior to the modern, is that\r\na greatly superior class of men applied themselves\r\nto the art. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries\r\nthe Italian painters were the most accomplished\r\nmen of their age. The greatest of them were\r\nmen of encyclopædical acquirements and powers,\r\nlike the great men of Greece. But in their\r\ntimes fine art was, to men\u0027s feelings and conceptions,\r\namong the grandest things in which a human\r\nbeing could excel; and by it men were made, what\r\nonly political or military distinction now makes\r\nthem, the companions of sovereigns, and the equals\r\nof the highest nobility. In the present age, men\r\nof anything like similar calibre find something\r\nmore important to do, for their own fame and\r\nthe uses of the modern world, than painting:\r\nand it is only now and then that a Reynolds or\r\na Turner (of whose relative rank among eminent\r\nmen I do not pretend to an opinion) applies himself\r\nto that art. Music belongs to a different order\r\nof things; it does not require the same general\r\npowers of mind, but seems more dependant on a\r\nnatural gift: and it may be thought surprising\r\nthat no one of the great musical composers has\r\nbeen a woman. But even this natural gift, to be\r\nmade available for great creations, requires study,\r\nand professional devotion to the pursuit. The only\r\ncountries which have produced first-rate composers,\r\neven of the male sex, are Germany and Italy—countries\r\n\u003ca id=\"page136\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 136]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin which, both in point of special and\r\nof general cultivation, women have remained far\r\nbehind France and England, being generally (it\r\nmay be said without exaggeration) very little educated,\r\nand having scarcely cultivated at all any\r\nof the higher faculties of mind. And in those\r\ncountries the men who are acquainted with the\r\nprinciples of musical composition must be counted\r\nby hundreds, or more probably by thousands, the\r\nwomen barely by scores: so that here again, on\r\nthe doctrine of averages, we cannot reasonably\r\nexpect to see more than one eminent woman to\r\nfifty eminent men; and the last three centuries\r\nhave not produced fifty eminent male composers\r\neither in Germany or in Italy.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThere are other reasons, besides those which we\r\nhave now given, that help to explain why women\r\nremain behind men, even in the pursuits which are\r\nopen to both. For one thing, very few women\r\nhave time for them. This may seem a paradox;\r\nit is an undoubted social fact. The time and\r\nthoughts of every woman have to satisfy great\r\nprevious demands on them for things practical.\r\nThere is, first, the superintendence of the family\r\nand the domestic expenditure, which occupies at\r\nleast one woman in every family, generally the one\r\nof mature years and acquired experience; unless\r\nthe family is so rich as to admit of delegating that\r\ntask to hired agency, and submitting to all the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page137\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 137]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwaste and malversation inseparable from that mode\r\nof conducting it. The superintendence of a household,\r\neven when not in other respects laborious, is\r\nextremely onerous to the thoughts; it requires\r\nincessant vigilance, an eye which no detail escapes,\r\nand presents questions for consideration and solution,\r\nforeseen and unforeseen, at every hour of the\r\nday, from which the person responsible for them\r\ncan hardly ever shake herself free. If a woman\r\nis of a rank and circumstances which relieve her in\r\na measure from these cares, she has still devolving\r\non her the management for the whole family of its\r\nintercourse with others—of what is called society,\r\nand the less the call made on her by the former\r\nduty, the greater is always the development of the\r\nlatter: the dinner parties, concerts, evening parties,\r\nmorning visits, letter writing, and all that goes with\r\nthem. All this is over and above the engrossing\r\nduty which society imposes exclusively on women,\r\nof making themselves charming. A clever woman\r\nof the higher ranks finds nearly a sufficient employment\r\nof her talents in cultivating the graces\r\nof manner and the arts of conversation. To look\r\nonly at the outward side of the subject: the great\r\nand continual exercise of thought which all women\r\nwho attach any value to dressing well (I do not\r\nmean expensively, but with taste, and perception\r\nof natural and of artificial \u003ci\u003econvenance\u003c/i\u003e) must\r\nbestow upon their own dress, perhaps also upon\r\n\u003ca id=\"page138\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 138]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthat of their daughters, would alone go a great\r\nway towards achieving respectable results in art,\r\nor science, or literature, and does actually exhaust\r\nmuch of the time and mental power they might\r\nhave to spare for either.\u003ca id=\"ref_2_2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnref pginternal\" href=\"#footnote_2_2\"\u003e[2]\u003c/a\u003e If it were possible\r\nthat all this number of little practical interests\r\n(which are made great to them) should leave\r\nthem either much leisure, or much energy and\r\nfreedom of mind, to be devoted to art or speculation,\r\nthey must have a much greater original\r\nsupply of active faculty than the vast majority of\r\nmen. But this is not all. Independently of the\r\nregular offices of life which devolve upon a woman,\r\nshe is expected to have her time and faculties\r\nalways at the disposal of everybody. If a man\r\nhas not a profession to exempt him from such\r\ndemands, still, if he has a pursuit, he offends\r\nnobody by devoting his time to it; occupation is\r\n\u003ca id=\"page139\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 139]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nreceived as a valid excuse for his not answering\r\nto every casual demand which may be made on\r\nhim. Are a woman\u0027s occupations, especially her\r\nchosen and voluntary ones, ever regarded as excusing\r\nher from any of what are termed the calls of\r\nsociety? Scarcely are her most necessary and\r\nrecognised duties allowed as an exemption. It\r\nrequires an illness in the family, or something\r\nelse out of the common way, to entitle her to\r\ngive her own business the precedence over other\r\npeople\u0027s amusement. She must always be at the\r\nbeck and call of somebody, generally of everybody.\r\nIf she has a study or a pursuit, she must snatch\r\nany short interval which accidentally occurs to be\r\nemployed in it. A celebrated woman, in a work\r\nwhich I hope will some day be published, remarks\r\ntruly that everything a woman does is done at odd\r\ntimes. Is it wonderful, then, if she does not attain\r\nthe highest eminence in things which require consecutive\r\nattention, and the concentration on them\r\nof the chief interest of life? Such is philosophy,\r\nand such, above all, is art, in which, besides the\r\ndevotion of the thoughts and feelings, the hand\r\nalso must be kept in constant exercise to attain\r\nhigh skill.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThere is another consideration to be added to\r\nall these. In the various arts and intellectual\r\noccupations, there is a degree of proficiency sufficient\r\nfor living by it, and there is a higher\r\n\u003ca id=\"page140\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 140]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ndegree on which depend the great productions\r\nwhich immortalize a name. To the attainment\r\nof the former, there are adequate motives in the\r\ncase of all who follow the pursuit professionally:\r\nthe other is hardly ever attained where there is\r\nnot, or where there has not been at some period\r\nof life, an ardent desire of celebrity. Nothing\r\nless is commonly a sufficient stimulus to undergo\r\nthe long and patient drudgery, which, in the case\r\neven of the greatest natural gifts, is absolutely\r\nrequired for great eminence in pursuits in which\r\nwe already possess so many splendid memorials\r\nof the highest genius. Now, whether the cause\r\nbe natural or artificial, women seldom have this\r\neagerness for fame. Their ambition is generally\r\nconfined within narrower bounds. The influence\r\nthey seek is over those who immediately surround\r\nthem. Their desire is to be liked, loved, or admired,\r\nby those whom they see with their eyes:\r\nand the proficiency in knowledge, arts, and accomplishments,\r\nwhich is sufficient for that, almost\r\nalways contents them. This is a trait of character\r\nwhich cannot be left out of the account\r\nin judging of women as they are. I do not at\r\nall believe that it is inherent in women. It is\r\nonly the natural result of their circumstances.\r\nThe love of fame in men is encouraged by education\r\nand opinion: to “scorn delights and live\r\nlaborious days” for its sake, is accounted the part\r\n\u003ca id=\"page141\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 141]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof “noble minds,” even if spoken of as their\r\n“last infirmity,” and is stimulated by the access\r\nwhich fame gives to all objects of ambition, including\r\neven the favour of women; while to\r\nwomen themselves all these objects are closed,\r\nand the desire of fame itself considered daring\r\nand unfeminine. Besides, how could it be that\r\na woman\u0027s interests should not be all concentrated\r\nupon the impressions made on those who\r\ncome into her daily life, when society has ordained\r\nthat all her duties should be to them, and\r\nhas contrived that all her comforts should depend\r\non them? The natural desire of consideration\r\nfrom our fellow creatures is as strong in a woman\r\nas in a man; but society has so ordered things\r\nthat public consideration is, in all ordinary cases,\r\nonly attainable by her through the consideration\r\nof her husband or of her male relations, while\r\nher private consideration is forfeited by making\r\nherself individually prominent, or appearing in\r\nany other character than that of an appendage\r\nto men. Whoever is in the least capable of\r\nestimating the influence on the mind of the\r\nentire domestic and social position and the whole\r\nhabit of a life, must easily recognise in that influence\r\na complete explanation of nearly all the\r\napparent differences between women and men,\r\nincluding the whole of those which imply any\r\ninferiority.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page142\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 142]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nAs for moral differences, considered as distinguished\r\nfrom intellectual, the distinction commonly\r\ndrawn is to the advantage of women.\r\nThey are declared to be better than men; an\r\nempty compliment, which must provoke a bitter\r\nsmile from every woman of spirit, since there is\r\nno other situation in life in which it is the established\r\norder, and considered quite natural and\r\nsuitable, that the better should obey the worse.\r\nIf this piece of idle talk is good for anything, it\r\nis only as an admission by men, of the corrupting\r\ninfluence of power; for that is certainly the\r\nonly truth which the fact, if it be a fact, either\r\nproves or illustrates. And it \u003ci\u003eis\u003c/i\u003e true that servitude,\r\nexcept when it actually brutalizes, though\r\ncorrupting to both, is less so to the slaves than\r\nto the slave-masters. It is wholesomer for the\r\nmoral nature to be restrained, even by arbitrary\r\npower, than to be allowed to exercise arbitrary\r\npower without restraint. Women, it is said,\r\nseldomer fall under the penal law—contribute a\r\nmuch smaller number of offenders to the criminal\r\ncalendar, than men. I doubt not that the same\r\nthing may be said, with the same truth, of negro\r\nslaves. Those who are under the control of\r\nothers cannot often commit crimes, unless at the\r\ncommand and for the purposes of their masters.\r\nI do not know a more signal instance of the\r\nblindness with which the world, including the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page143\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 143]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nherd of studious men, ignore and pass over all\r\nthe influences of social circumstances, than their\r\nsilly depreciation of the intellectual, and silly\r\npanegyrics on the moral, nature of women.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe complimentary dictum about women\u0027s\r\nsuperior moral goodness may be allowed to pair\r\noff with the disparaging one respecting their\r\ngreater liability to moral bias. Women, we are\r\ntold, are not capable of resisting their personal\r\npartialities: their judgment in grave affairs is\r\nwarped by their sympathies and antipathies.\r\nAssuming it to be so, it is still to be proved that\r\nwomen are oftener misled by their personal\r\nfeelings than men by their personal interests.\r\nThe chief difference would seem in that case to\r\nbe, that men are led from the course of duty\r\nand the public interest by their regard for themselves,\r\nwomen (not being allowed to have private\r\ninterests of their own) by their regard for somebody\r\nelse. It is also to be considered, that all\r\nthe education which women receive from society\r\ninculcates on them the feeling that the individuals\r\nconnected with them are the only ones to whom\r\nthey owe any duty—the only ones whose interest\r\nthey are called upon to care for; while, as far as\r\neducation is concerned, they are left strangers\r\neven to the elementary ideas which are presupposed\r\nin any intelligent regard for larger interests\r\nor higher moral objects. The complaint\r\n\u003ca id=\"page144\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 144]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nagainst them resolves itself merely into this,\r\nthat they fulfil only too faithfully the sole duty\r\nwhich they are taught, and almost the only one\r\nwhich they are permitted to practise.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe concessions of the privileged to the unprivileged\r\nare so seldom brought about by any\r\nbetter motive than the power of the unprivileged\r\nto extort them, that any arguments against the\r\nprerogative of sex are likely to be little attended\r\nto by the generality, as long as they are able to\r\nsay to themselves that women do not complain\r\nof it. That fact certainly enables men to retain\r\nthe unjust privilege some time longer; but does\r\nnot render it less unjust. Exactly the same\r\nthing may be said of the women in the harem of\r\nan Oriental: they do not complain of not being\r\nallowed the freedom of European women. They\r\nthink our women insufferably bold and unfeminine.\r\nHow rarely it is that even men complain\r\nof the general order of society; and how much\r\nrarer still would such complaint be, if they did\r\nnot know of any different order existing anywhere\r\nelse. Women do not complain of the\r\ngeneral lot of women; or rather they do, for\r\nplaintive elegies on it are very common in the\r\nwritings of women, and were still more so as\r\nlong as the lamentations could not be suspected\r\nof having any practical object. Their complaints\r\nare like the complaints which men make of the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page145\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 145]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ngeneral unsatisfactoriness of human life; they\r\nare not meant to imply blame, or to plead for\r\nany change. But though women do not complain\r\nof the power of husbands, each complains\r\nof her own husband, or of the husbands of her\r\nfriends. It is the same in all other cases of\r\nservitude, at least in the commencement of the\r\nemancipatory movement. The serfs did not at\r\nfirst complain of the power of their lords, but\r\nonly of their tyranny. The Commons began by\r\nclaiming a few municipal privileges; they next\r\nasked an exemption for themselves from being\r\ntaxed without their own consent; but they would\r\nat that time have thought it a great presumption\r\nto claim any share in the king\u0027s sovereign authority.\r\nThe case of women is now the only case\r\nin which to rebel against established rules is still\r\nlooked upon with the same eyes as was formerly\r\na subject\u0027s claim to the right of rebelling against\r\nhis king. A woman who joins in any movement\r\nwhich her husband disapproves, makes herself a\r\nmartyr, without even being able to be an apostle,\r\nfor the husband can legally put a stop to her\r\napostleship. Women cannot be expected to\r\ndevote themselves to the emancipation of women,\r\nuntil men in considerable number are prepared\r\nto join with them in the undertaking.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n\u003ca id=\"footnote_2_1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#ref_2_1\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e1\u003c/a\u003e: Especially is this true if we take into consideration Asia\r\nas well as Europe. If a Hindoo principality is strongly, vigilantly,\r\nand economically governed; if order is preserved without\r\noppression; if cultivation is extending, and the people prosperous,\r\nin three cases out of four that principality is under a woman\u0027s\r\nrule. This fact, to me an entirely unexpected one, I have collected\r\nfrom a long official knowledge of Hindoo governments.\r\nThere are many such instances: for though, by Hindoo institutions,\r\na woman cannot reign, she is the legal regent of a kingdom during\r\nthe minority of the heir; and minorities are frequent, the lives of\r\nthe male rulers being so often prematurely terminated through\r\nthe effect of inactivity and sensual excesses. When we consider\r\nthat these princesses have never been seen in public, have never\r\nconversed with any man not of their own family except from behind\r\na curtain, that they do not read, and if they did, there is no\r\nbook in their languages which can give them the smallest instruction\r\non political affairs; the example they afford of the natural\r\ncapacity of women for government is very striking.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n\u003ca id=\"footnote_2_2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#ref_2_2\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e2\u003c/a\u003e: “It appears to be the same right turn of mind which enables\r\na man to acquire the \u003ci\u003etruth\u003c/i\u003e, or the just idea of what is right, in\r\nthe ornaments, as in the more stable principles of art. It has\r\nstill the same centre of perfection, though it is the centre of a\r\nsmaller circle.—To illustrate this by the fashion of dress, in\r\nwhich there is allowed to be a good or bad taste. The component\r\nparts of dress are continually changing from great to little, from\r\nshort to long; but the general form still remains: it is still the\r\nsame general dress which is comparatively fixed, though on a very\r\nslender foundation; but it is on this which fashion must rest. He who\r\ninvents with the most success, or dresses in the best taste, would\r\nprobably, from the same sagacity employed to greater purposes,\r\nhave discovered equal skill, or have formed the same correct taste,\r\nin the highest labours of art.”—\u003ci\u003eSir Joshua Reynolds\u0027 Discourses\u003c/i\u003e,\r\nDisc. vii.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page146\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 146]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\r\n\u003ca id=\"chapter4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\r\nCHAPTER IV.\r\n\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThere remains a question, not of less importance\r\nthan those already discussed, and\r\nwhich will be asked the most importunately by\r\nthose opponents whose conviction is somewhat\r\nshaken on the main point. What good are we\r\nto expect from the changes proposed in our\r\ncustoms and institutions? Would mankind be\r\nat all better off if women were free? If not,\r\nwhy disturb their minds, and attempt to make\r\na social revolution in the name of an abstract\r\nright?\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt is hardly to be expected that this question\r\nwill be asked in respect to the change proposed\r\nin the condition of women in marriage. The\r\nsufferings, immoralities, evils of all sorts, produced\r\nin innumerable cases by the subjection of individual\r\nwomen to individual men, are far too\r\nterrible to be overlooked. Unthinking or uncandid\r\npersons, counting those cases alone which\r\nare extreme, or which attain publicity, may say\r\nthat the evils are exceptional; but no one can\r\nbe blind to their existence, nor, in many cases,\r\n\u003ca id=\"page147\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 147]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nto their intensity. And it is perfectly obvious\r\nthat the abuse of the power cannot be very much\r\nchecked while the power remains. It is a power\r\ngiven, or offered, not to good men, or to decently\r\nrespectable men, but to all men; the most brutal,\r\nand the most criminal. There is no check but\r\nthat of opinion, and such men are in general\r\nwithin the reach of no opinion but that of men\r\nlike themselves. If such men did not brutally\r\ntyrannize over the one human being whom the\r\nlaw compels to bear everything from them, society\r\nmust already have reached a paradisiacal state.\r\nThere could be no need any longer of laws to\r\ncurb men\u0027s vicious propensities. Astræa must\r\nnot only have returned to earth, but the heart of\r\nthe worst man must have become her temple. The\r\nlaw of servitude in marriage is a monstrous contradiction\r\nto all the principles of the modern world,\r\nand to all the experience through which those\r\nprinciples have been slowly and painfully worked\r\nout. It is the sole case, now that negro slavery has\r\nbeen abolished, in which a human being in the plenitude\r\nof every faculty is delivered up to the tender\r\nmercies of another human being, in the hope\r\nforsooth that this other will use the power solely\r\nfor the good of the person subjected to it.\r\nMarriage is the only actual bondage known to\r\nour law. There remain no legal slaves, except\r\nthe mistress of every house.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page148\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 148]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt is not, therefore, on this part of the subject,\r\nthat the question is likely to be asked, \u003ci\u003eCui bono\u003c/i\u003e?\r\nWe may be told that the evil would outweigh\r\nthe good, but the reality of the good admits of\r\nno dispute. In regard, however, to the larger\r\nquestion, the removal of women\u0027s disabilities—their\r\nrecognition as the equals of men in all that\r\nbelongs to citizenship—the opening to them of\r\nall honourable employments, and of the training\r\nand education which qualifies for those employments—there\r\nare many persons for whom it is\r\nnot enough that the inequality has no just or\r\nlegitimate defence; they require to be told\r\nwhat express advantage would be obtained by\r\nabolishing it.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nTo which let me first answer, the advantage of\r\nhaving the most universal and pervading of all\r\nhuman relations regulated by justice instead of\r\ninjustice. The vast amount of this gain to\r\nhuman nature, it is hardly possible, by any explanation\r\nor illustration, to place in a stronger light\r\nthan it is placed by the bare statement, to any one\r\nwho attaches a moral meaning to words. All the\r\nselfish propensities, the self-worship, the unjust self-preference,\r\nwhich exist among mankind, have their\r\nsource and root in, and derive their principal\r\nnourishment from, the present constitution of the\r\nrelation between men and women. Think what\r\nit is to a boy, to grow up to manhood in the\r\n\u003ca id=\"page149\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 149]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbelief that without any merit or any exertion of\r\nhis own, though he may be the most frivolous\r\nand empty or the most ignorant and stolid of\r\nmankind, by the mere fact of being born a male\r\nhe is by right the superior of all and every one\r\nof an entire half of the human race: including\r\nprobably some whose real superiority to himself\r\nhe has daily or hourly occasion to feel; but even\r\nif in his whole conduct he habitually follows\r\na woman\u0027s guidance, still, if he is a fool, she\r\nthinks that of course she is not, and cannot be,\r\nequal in ability and judgment to himself; and if\r\nhe is not a fool, he does worse—he sees that she\r\nis superior to him, and believes that, notwithstanding\r\nher superiority, he is entitled to command and\r\nshe is bound to obey. What must be the effect\r\non his character, of this lesson? And men of the\r\ncultivated classes are often not aware how deeply\r\nit sinks into the immense majority of male minds.\r\nFor, among right-feeling and well-bred people, the\r\ninequality is kept as much as possible out of sight;\r\nabove all, out of sight of the children. As much\r\nobedience is required from boys to their mother\r\nas to their father: they are not permitted to\r\ndomineer over their sisters, nor are they accustomed\r\nto see these postponed to them, but the\r\ncontrary; the compensations of the chivalrous\r\nfeeling being made prominent, while the servitude\r\nwhich requires them is kept in the background.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page150\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 150]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nWell brought-up youths in the higher classes\r\nthus often escape the bad influences of the situation\r\nin their early years, and only experience them\r\nwhen, arrived at manhood, they fall under the\r\ndominion of facts as they really exist. Such\r\npeople are little aware, when a boy is differently\r\nbrought up, how early the notion of his inherent\r\nsuperiority to a girl arises in his mind; how it\r\ngrows with his growth and strengthens with his\r\nstrength; how it is inoculated by one schoolboy\r\nupon another; how early the youth thinks himself\r\nsuperior to his mother, owing her perhaps\r\nforbearance, but no real respect; and how sublime\r\nand sultan-like a sense of superiority he feels,\r\nabove all, over the woman whom he honours by\r\nadmitting her to a partnership of his life. Is it\r\nimagined that all this does not pervert the whole\r\nmanner of existence of the man, both as an individual\r\nand as a social being? It is an exact\r\nparallel to the feeling of a hereditary king that\r\nhe is excellent above others by being born a king,\r\nor a noble by being born a noble. The relation\r\nbetween husband and wife is very like that\r\nbetween lord and vassal, except that the wife is\r\nheld to more unlimited obedience than the vassal\r\nwas. However the vassal\u0027s character may have\r\nbeen affected, for better and for worse, by his\r\nsubordination, who can help seeing that the lord\u0027s\r\nwas affected greatly for the worse? whether he was\r\n\u003ca id=\"page151\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 151]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nled to believe that his vassals were really superior\r\nto himself, or to feel that he was placed in command\r\nover people as good as himself, for no merits\r\nor labours of his own, but merely for having, as\r\nFigaro says, taken the trouble to be born. The\r\nself-worship of the monarch, or of the feudal superior,\r\nis matched by the self-worship of the male.\r\nHuman beings do not grow up from childhood in\r\nthe possession of unearned distinctions, without\r\npluming themselves upon them. Those whom\r\nprivileges not acquired by their merit, and which\r\nthey feel to be disproportioned to it, inspire with\r\nadditional humility, are always the few, and the\r\nbest few. The rest are only inspired with pride,\r\nand the worst sort of pride, that which values\r\nitself upon accidental advantages, not of its own\r\nachieving. Above all, when the feeling of being\r\nraised above the whole of the other sex is combined\r\nwith personal authority over one individual\r\namong them; the situation, if a school of conscientious\r\nand affectionate forbearance to those\r\nwhose strongest points of character are conscience\r\nand affection, is to men of another quality a regularly\r\nconstituted Academy or Gymnasium for\r\ntraining them in arrogance and overbearingness;\r\nwhich vices, if curbed by the certainty of resistance\r\nin their intercourse with other men, their equals,\r\nbreak out towards all who are in a position to be\r\nobliged to tolerate them, and often revenge themselves\r\n\u003ca id=\"page152\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 152]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nupon the unfortunate wife for the involuntary\r\nrestraint which they are obliged to submit to\r\nelsewhere.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe example afforded, and the education given\r\nto the sentiments, by laying the foundation of\r\ndomestic existence upon a relation contradictory\r\nto the first principles of social justice, must, from\r\nthe very nature of man, have a perverting influence\r\nof such magnitude, that it is hardly possible\r\nwith our present experience to raise our imaginations\r\nto the conception of so great a change\r\nfor the better as would be made by its removal.\r\nAll that education and civilization are doing to\r\nefface the influences on character of the law of\r\nforce, and replace them by those of justice, remains\r\nmerely on the surface, as long as the citadel of\r\nthe enemy is not attacked. The principle of the\r\nmodern movement in morals and politics, is that\r\nconduct, and conduct alone, entitles to respect:\r\nthat not what men are, but what they do, constitutes\r\ntheir claim to deference; that, above all,\r\nmerit, and not birth, is the only rightful claim to\r\npower and authority. If no authority, not in its\r\nnature temporary, were allowed to one human\r\nbeing over another, society would not be employed\r\nin building up propensities with one hand\r\nwhich it has to curb with the other. The child\r\nwould really, for the first time in man\u0027s existence\r\non earth, be trained in the way he should go, and\r\n\u003ca id=\"page153\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 153]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwhen he was old there would be a chance that\r\nhe would not depart from it. But so long as the\r\nright of the strong to power over the weak rules\r\nin the very heart of society, the attempt to make\r\nthe equal right of the weak the principle of its\r\noutward actions will always be an uphill struggle;\r\nfor the law of justice, which is also that of\r\nChristianity, will never get possession of men\u0027s\r\ninmost sentiments; they will be working against\r\nit, even when bending to it.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe second benefit to be expected from giving\r\nto women the free use of their faculties, by leaving\r\nthem the free choice of their employments,\r\nand opening to them the same field of occupation\r\nand the same prizes and encouragements as to\r\nother human beings, would be that of doubling\r\nthe mass of mental faculties available for the\r\nhigher service of humanity. Where there is now\r\none person qualified to benefit mankind and\r\npromote the general improvement, as a public\r\nteacher, or an administrator of some branch of public\r\nor social affairs, there would then be a chance of\r\ntwo. Mental superiority of any kind is at present\r\neverywhere so much below the demand; there is\r\nsuch a deficiency of persons competent to do\r\nexcellently anything which it requires any considerable\r\namount of ability to do; that the loss\r\nto the world, by refusing to make use of one-half\r\nof the whole quantity of talent it possesses, is\r\n\u003ca id=\"page154\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 154]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nextremely serious. It is true that this amount\r\nof mental power is not totally lost. Much of\r\nit is employed, and would in any case be employed,\r\nin domestic management, and in the few\r\nother occupations open to women; and from the\r\nremainder indirect benefit is in many individual\r\ncases obtained, through the personal influence\r\nof individual women over individual men. But\r\nthese benefits are partial; their range is extremely\r\ncircumscribed; and if they must be admitted, on\r\nthe one hand, as a deduction from the amount\r\nof fresh social power that would be acquired by\r\ngiving freedom to one-half of the whole sum of\r\nhuman intellect, there must be added, on the\r\nother, the benefit of the stimulus that would be\r\ngiven to the intellect of men by the competition;\r\nor (to use a more true expression) by the necessity\r\nthat would be imposed on them of deserving\r\nprecedency before they could expect to obtain it.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThis great accession to the intellectual power\r\nof the species, and to the amount of intellect\r\navailable for the good management of its affairs,\r\nwould be obtained, partly, through the better and\r\nmore complete intellectual education of women,\r\nwhich would then improve \u003ci\u003epari passu\u003c/i\u003e with that\r\nof men. Women in general would be brought up\r\nequally capable of understanding business, public\r\naffairs, and the higher matters of speculation, with\r\nmen in the same class of society; and the select\r\n\u003ca id=\"page155\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 155]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nfew of the one as well as of the other sex, who\r\nwere qualified not only to comprehend what is\r\ndone or thought by others, but to think or do\r\nsomething considerable themselves, would meet\r\nwith the same facilities for improving and training\r\ntheir capacities in the one sex as in the other.\r\nIn this way, the widening of the sphere of action\r\nfor women would operate for good, by raising\r\ntheir education to the level of that of men, and\r\nmaking the one participate in all improvements\r\nmade in the other. But independently of this,\r\nthe mere breaking down of the barrier would of\r\nitself have an educational virtue of the highest\r\nworth. The mere getting rid of the idea that all\r\nthe wider subjects of thought and action, all the\r\nthings which are of general and not solely of\r\nprivate interest, are men\u0027s business, from which\r\nwomen are to be warned off—positively interdicted\r\nfrom most of it, coldly tolerated in the little\r\nwhich is allowed them—the mere consciousness a\r\nwoman would then have of being a human being\r\nlike any other, entitled to choose her pursuits,\r\nurged or invited by the same inducements as any\r\none else to interest herself in whatever is interesting\r\nto human beings, entitled to exert the\r\nshare of influence on all human concerns which\r\nbelongs to an individual opinion, whether she\r\nattempted actual participation in them or not—this\r\nalone would effect an immense expansion of\r\n\u003ca id=\"page156\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 156]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe faculties of women, as well as enlargement of\r\nthe range of their moral sentiments.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nBesides the addition to the amount of individual\r\ntalent available for the conduct of human\r\naffairs, which certainly are not at present so\r\nabundantly provided in that respect that they\r\ncan afford to dispense with one-half of what\r\nnature proffers; the opinion of women would then\r\npossess a more beneficial, rather than a greater,\r\ninfluence upon the general mass of human belief\r\nand sentiment. I say a more beneficial, rather\r\nthan a greater influence; for the influence of\r\nwomen over the general tone of opinion has\r\nalways, or at least from the earliest known period,\r\nbeen very considerable. The influence of mothers\r\non the early character of their sons, and the\r\ndesire of young men to recommend themselves to\r\nyoung women, have in all recorded times been\r\nimportant agencies in the formation of character,\r\nand have determined some of the chief\r\nsteps in the progress of civilization. Even in\r\nthe Homeric age, αιδως towards the Τρωαδας\r\nἑλκεσιπεπλους is an acknowledged and powerful\r\nmotive of action in the great Hector. The moral\r\ninfluence of women has had two modes of operation.\r\nFirst, it has been a softening influence.\r\nThose who were most liable to be the victims\r\nof violence, have naturally tended as much as they\r\ncould towards limiting its sphere and mitigating\r\n\u003ca id=\"page157\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 157]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nits excesses. Those who were not taught to fight,\r\nhave naturally inclined in favour of any other\r\nmode of settling differences rather than that of\r\nfighting. In general, those who have been the\r\ngreatest sufferers by the indulgence of selfish\r\npassion, have been the most earnest supporters of\r\nany moral law which offered a means of bridling\r\npassion. Women were powerfully instrumental\r\nin inducing the northern conquerors to adopt\r\nthe creed of Christianity, a creed so much more\r\nfavourable to women than any that preceded it.\r\nThe conversion of the Anglo-Saxons and of the\r\nFranks may be said to have been begun by the\r\nwives of Ethelbert and Clovis. The other mode\r\nin which the effect of women\u0027s opinion has been\r\nconspicuous, is by giving a powerful stimulus to\r\nthose qualities in men, which, not being themselves\r\ntrained in, it was necessary for them that\r\nthey should find in their protectors. Courage,\r\nand the military virtues generally, have at all\r\ntimes been greatly indebted to the desire which\r\nmen felt of being admired by women: and the\r\nstimulus reaches far beyond this one class of\r\neminent qualities, since, by a very natural effect\r\nof their position, the best passport to the admiration\r\nand favour of women has always been\r\nto be thought highly of by men. From the\r\ncombination of the two kinds of moral influence\r\nthus exercised by women, arose the spirit\r\n\u003ca id=\"page158\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 158]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof chivalry: the peculiarity of which is, to aim at\r\ncombining the highest standard of the warlike\r\nqualities with the cultivation of a totally different\r\nclass of virtues—those of gentleness, generosity,\r\nand self-abnegation, towards the non-military and\r\ndefenceless classes generally, and a special submission\r\nand worship directed towards women; who\r\nwere distinguished from the other defenceless\r\nclasses by the high rewards which they had it\r\nin their power voluntarily to bestow on those\r\nwho endeavoured to earn their favour, instead of\r\nextorting their subjection. Though the practice of\r\nchivalry fell even more sadly short of its theoretic\r\nstandard than practice generally falls below theory,\r\nit remains one of the most precious monuments of\r\nthe moral history of our race; as a remarkable instance\r\nof a concerted and organized attempt by a\r\nmost disorganized and distracted society, to raise\r\nup and carry into practice a moral ideal greatly\r\nin advance of its social condition and institutions;\r\nso much so as to have been completely frustrated\r\nin the main object, yet never entirely inefficacious,\r\nand which has left a most sensible, and for the\r\nmost part a highly valuable impress on the ideas\r\nand feelings of all subsequent times.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe chivalrous ideal is the acme of the\r\ninfluence of women\u0027s sentiments on the moral\r\ncultivation of mankind: and if women are to\r\nremain in their subordinate situation, it were\r\n\u003ca id=\"page159\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 159]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ngreatly to be lamented that the chivalrous standard\r\nshould have passed away, for it is the only\r\none at all capable of mitigating the demoralizing\r\ninfluences of that position. But the changes in\r\nthe general state of the species rendered inevitable\r\nthe substitution of a totally different ideal of\r\nmorality for the chivalrous one. Chivalry was\r\nthe attempt to infuse moral elements into a state\r\nof society in which everything depended for good\r\nor evil on individual prowess, under the softening\r\ninfluences of individual delicacy and generosity.\r\nIn modern societies, all things, even in the military\r\ndepartment of affairs, are decided, not by individual\r\neffort, but by the combined operations of\r\nnumbers; while the main occupation of society\r\nhas changed from fighting to business, from military\r\nto industrial life. The exigencies of the\r\nnew life are no more exclusive of the virtues of\r\ngenerosity than those of the old, but it no\r\nlonger entirely depends on them. The main foundations\r\nof the moral life of modern times must\r\nbe justice and prudence; the respect of each\r\nfor the rights of every other, and the ability\r\nof each to take care of himself. Chivalry left\r\nwithout legal check all forms of wrong which\r\nreigned unpunished throughout society; it only\r\nencouraged a few to do right in preference to\r\nwrong, by the direction it gave to the instruments\r\nof praise and admiration. But the real dependence\r\n\u003ca id=\"page160\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 160]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof morality must always be upon its penal\r\nsanctions—its power to deter from evil. The\r\nsecurity of society cannot rest on merely rendering\r\nhonour to right, a motive so comparatively weak in\r\nall but a few, and which on very many does not\r\noperate at all. Modern society is able to repress\r\nwrong through all departments of life, by a fit\r\nexertion of the superior strength which civilization\r\nhas given it, and thus to render the existence\r\nof the weaker members of society (no\r\nlonger defenceless but protected by law) tolerable\r\nto them, without reliance on the chivalrous\r\nfeelings of those who are in a position to tyrannize.\r\nThe beauties and graces of the chivalrous\r\ncharacter are still what they were, but the rights\r\nof the weak, and the general comfort of human\r\nlife, now rest on a far surer and steadier support;\r\nor rather, they do so in every relation of life\r\nexcept the conjugal.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nAt present the moral influence of women is\r\nno less real, but it is no longer of so marked\r\nand definite a character: it has more nearly\r\nmerged in the general influence of public opinion.\r\nBoth through the contagion of sympathy, and\r\nthrough the desire of men to shine in the eyes\r\nof women, their feelings have great effect in\r\nkeeping alive what remains of the chivalrous\r\nideal—in fostering the sentiments and continuing\r\nthe traditions of spirit and generosity. In these\r\n\u003ca id=\"page161\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 161]\u003c/span\u003e\r\npoints of character, their standard is higher than\r\nthat of men; in the quality of justice, somewhat\r\nlower. As regards the relations of private life\r\nit may be said generally, that their influence is,\r\non the whole, encouraging to the softer virtues,\r\ndiscouraging to the sterner: though the statement\r\nmust be taken with all the modifications\r\ndependent on individual character. In the\r\nchief of the greater trials to which virtue is\r\nsubject in the concerns of life—the conflict between\r\ninterest and principle—the tendency of\r\nwomen\u0027s influence is of a very mixed character.\r\nWhen the principle involved happens to be one\r\nof the very few which the course of their religious\r\nor moral education has strongly impressed\r\nupon themselves, they are potent auxiliaries to\r\nvirtue: and their husbands and sons are often\r\nprompted by them to acts of abnegation which\r\nthey never would have been capable of without\r\nthat stimulus. But, with the present education\r\nand position of women, the moral principles\r\nwhich have been impressed on them cover but a\r\ncomparatively small part of the field of virtue,\r\nand are, moreover, principally negative; forbidding\r\nparticular acts, but having little to do with\r\nthe general direction of the thoughts and purposes.\r\nI am afraid it must be said, that disinterestedness\r\nin the general conduct of life—the\r\ndevotion of the energies to purposes which hold\r\n\u003ca id=\"page162\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 162]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nout no promise of private advantages to the\r\nfamily—is very seldom encouraged or supported\r\nby women\u0027s influence. It is small blame to them\r\nthat they discourage objects of which they have\r\nnot learnt to see the advantage, and which withdraw\r\ntheir men from them, and from the interests\r\nof the family. But the consequence is that\r\nwomen\u0027s influence is often anything but favourable\r\nto public virtue.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nWomen have, however, some share of influence\r\nin giving the tone to public moralities since their\r\nsphere of action has been a little widened, and\r\nsince a considerable number of them have occupied\r\nthemselves practically in the promotion of objects\r\nreaching beyond their own family and household.\r\nThe influence of women counts for a great deal\r\nin two of the most marked features of modern\r\nEuropean life—its aversion to war, and its addiction\r\nto philanthropy. Excellent characteristics\r\nboth; but unhappily, if the influence of women\r\nis valuable in the encouragement it gives to these\r\nfeelings in general, in the particular applications\r\nthe direction it gives to them is at least as often\r\nmischievous as useful. In the philanthropic department\r\nmore particularly, the two provinces\r\nchiefly cultivated by women are religious proselytism\r\nand charity. Religious proselytism at\r\nhome, is but another word for embittering of\r\nreligious animosities: abroad, it is usually a\r\n\u003ca id=\"page163\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 163]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nblind running at an object, without either knowing\r\nor heeding the fatal mischiefs—fatal to the\r\nreligious object itself as well as to all other\r\ndesirable objects—which may be produced by the\r\nmeans employed. As for charity, it is a matter\r\nin which the immediate effect on the persons\r\ndirectly concerned, and the ultimate consequence\r\nto the general good, are apt to be at complete\r\nwar with one another: while the education given\r\nto women—an education of the sentiments rather\r\nthan of the understanding—and the habit inculcated\r\nby their whole life, of looking to immediate\r\neffects on persons, and not to remote effects\r\non classes of persons—make them both unable\r\nto see, and unwilling to admit, the ultimate evil\r\ntendency of any form of charity or philanthropy\r\nwhich commends itself to their sympathetic feelings.\r\nThe great and continually increasing mass\r\nof unenlightened and shortsighted benevolence,\r\nwhich, taking the care of people\u0027s lives out of\r\ntheir own hands, and relieving them from the\r\ndisagreeable consequences of their own acts, saps\r\nthe very foundations of the self-respect, self-help,\r\nand self-control which are the essential conditions\r\nboth of individual prosperity and of social\r\nvirtue—this waste of resources and of benevolent\r\nfeelings in doing harm instead of good, is immensely\r\nswelled by women\u0027s contributions, and\r\nstimulated by their influence. Not that this is\r\n\u003ca id=\"page164\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 164]\u003c/span\u003e\r\na mistake likely to be made by women, where\r\nthey have actually the practical management of\r\nschemes of beneficence. It sometimes happens\r\nthat women who administer public charities—with\r\nthat insight into present fact, and especially into\r\nthe minds and feelings of those with whom they\r\nare in immediate contact, in which women generally\r\nexcel men—recognise in the clearest manner\r\nthe demoralizing influence of the alms given or\r\nthe help afforded, and could give lessons on the\r\nsubject to many a male political economist. But\r\nwomen who only give their money, and are not\r\nbrought face to face with the effects it produces,\r\nhow can they be expected to foresee them? A\r\nwoman born to the present lot of women, and\r\ncontent with it, how should she appreciate the\r\nvalue of self-dependence? She is not self-dependent;\r\nshe is not taught self-dependence; her\r\ndestiny is to receive everything from others, and\r\nwhy should what is good enough for her be bad\r\nfor the poor? Her familiar notions of good are\r\nof blessings descending from a superior. She\r\nforgets that she is not free, and that the poor\r\nare; that if what they need is given to them unearned,\r\nthey cannot be compelled to earn it: that\r\neverybody cannot be taken care of by everybody,\r\nbut there must be some motive to induce people\r\nto take care of themselves; and that to be helped\r\nto help themselves, if they are physically capable\r\n\u003ca id=\"page165\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 165]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof it, is the only charity which proves to be\r\ncharity in the end.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThese considerations show how usefully the\r\npart which women take in the formation of\r\ngeneral opinion, would be modified for the better\r\nby that more enlarged instruction, and practical\r\nconversancy with the things which their opinions\r\ninfluence, that would necessarily arise from their\r\nsocial and political emancipation. But the improvement\r\nit would work through the influence\r\nthey exercise, each in her own family, would be\r\nstill more remarkable.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt is often said that in the classes most exposed\r\nto temptation, a man\u0027s wife and children\r\ntend to keep him honest and respectable, both by\r\nthe wife\u0027s direct influence, and by the concern he\r\nfeels for their future welfare. This may be so,\r\nand no doubt often is so, with those who are\r\nmore weak than wicked; and this beneficial influence\r\nwould be preserved and strengthened\r\nunder equal laws; it does not depend on the\r\nwoman\u0027s servitude, but is, on the contrary, diminished\r\nby the disrespect which the inferior class\r\nof men always at heart feel towards those who\r\nare subject to their power. But when we ascend\r\nhigher in the scale, we come among a totally\r\ndifferent set of moving forces. The wife\u0027s influence\r\ntends, as far as it goes, to prevent the\r\nhusband from falling below the common standard\r\n\u003ca id=\"page166\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 166]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof approbation of the country. It tends quite as\r\nstrongly to hinder him from rising above it.\r\nThe wife is the auxiliary of the common public\r\nopinion. A man who is married to a woman\r\nhis inferior in intelligence, finds her a perpetual\r\ndead weight, or, worse than a dead weight, a\r\ndrag, upon every aspiration of his to be better\r\nthan public opinion requires him to be. It is\r\nhardly possible for one who is in these bonds, to\r\nattain exalted virtue. If he differs in his opinion\r\nfrom the mass—if he sees truths which have not\r\nyet dawned upon them, or if, feeling in his heart\r\ntruths which they nominally recognise, he would\r\nlike to act up to those truths more conscientiously\r\nthan the generality of mankind—to all\r\nsuch thoughts and desires, marriage is the heaviest\r\nof drawbacks, unless he be so fortunate as to\r\nhave a wife as much above the common level as\r\nhe himself is.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nFor, in the first place, there is always some\r\nsacrifice of personal interest required; either of\r\nsocial consequence, or of pecuniary means; perhaps\r\nthe risk of even the means of subsistence.\r\nThese sacrifices and risks he may be willing to\r\nencounter for himself; but he will pause before\r\nhe imposes them on his family. And his family\r\nin this case means his wife and daughters; for\r\nhe always hopes that his sons will feel as he feels\r\nhimself, and that what he can do without, they\r\n\u003ca id=\"page167\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 167]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwill do without, willingly, in the same cause.\r\nBut his daughters—their marriage may depend\r\nupon it: and his wife, who is unable to enter\r\ninto or understand the objects for which these\r\nsacrifices are made—who, if she thought them\r\nworth any sacrifice, would think so on trust, and\r\nsolely for his sake—who can participate in none\r\nof the enthusiasm or the self-approbation he\r\nhimself may feel, while the things which he is\r\ndisposed to sacrifice are all in all to her; will\r\nnot the best and most unselfish man hesitate\r\nthe longest before bringing on her this consequence?\r\nIf it be not the comforts of life, but\r\nonly social consideration, that is at stake, the\r\nburthen upon his conscience and feelings is still\r\nvery severe. Whoever has a wife and children\r\nhas given hostages to Mrs. Grundy. The approbation\r\nof that potentate may be a matter of indifference\r\nto him, but it is of great importance\r\nto his wife. The man himself may be above\r\nopinion, or may find sufficient compensation in\r\nthe opinion of those of his own way of thinking.\r\nBut to the women connected with him, he can\r\noffer no compensation. The almost invariable\r\ntendency of the wife to place her influence in the\r\nsame scale with social consideration, is sometimes\r\nmade a reproach to women, and represented as\r\na peculiar trait of feebleness and childishness of\r\ncharacter in them: surely with great injustice.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page168\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 168]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nSociety makes the whole life of a woman, in the\r\neasy classes, a continued self-sacrifice; it exacts\r\nfrom her an unremitting restraint of the whole\r\nof her natural inclinations, and the sole return it\r\nmakes to her for what often deserves the name\r\nof a martyrdom, is consideration. Her consideration\r\nis inseparably connected with that of her\r\nhusband, and after paying the full price for it, she\r\nfinds that she is to lose it, for no reason of which\r\nshe can feel the cogency. She has sacrificed her\r\nwhole life to it, and her husband will not sacrifice\r\nto it a whim, a freak, an eccentricity; something\r\nnot recognised or allowed for by the world,\r\nand which the world will agree with her in\r\nthinking a folly, if it thinks no worse! The\r\ndilemma is hardest upon that very meritorious\r\nclass of men, who, without possessing talents\r\nwhich qualify them to make a figure among those\r\nwith whom they agree in opinion, hold their\r\nopinion from conviction, and feel bound in\r\nhonour and conscience to serve it, by making\r\nprofession of their belief, and giving their time,\r\nlabour, and means, to anything undertaken in its\r\nbehalf. The worst case of all is when such men\r\nhappen to be of a rank and position which of\r\nitself neither gives them, nor excludes them\r\nfrom, what is considered the best society; when\r\ntheir admission to it depends mainly on what is\r\nthought of them personally—and however unexceptionable\r\n\u003ca id=\"page169\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 169]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ntheir breeding and habits, their being\r\nidentified with opinions and public conduct unacceptable\r\nto those who give the tone to society\r\nwould operate as an effectual exclusion. Many\r\na woman flatters herself (nine times out of ten\r\nquite erroneously) that nothing prevents her and\r\nher husband from moving in the highest society\r\nof her neighbourhood—society in which others\r\nwell known to her, and in the same class of life,\r\nmix freely—except that her husband is unfortunately\r\na Dissenter, or has the reputation of\r\nmingling in low radical politics. That it is, she\r\nthinks, which hinders George from getting a\r\ncommission or a place, Caroline from making an\r\nadvantageous match, and prevents her and her husband\r\nfrom obtaining invitations, perhaps honours,\r\nwhich, for aught she sees, they are as well entitled\r\nto as some folks. With such an influence in\r\nevery house, either exerted actively, or operating\r\nall the more powerfully for not being asserted, is\r\nit any wonder that people in general are kept\r\ndown in that mediocrity of respectability which\r\nis becoming a marked characteristic of modern\r\ntimes?\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThere is another very injurious aspect in which\r\nthe effect, not of women\u0027s disabilities directly, but\r\nof the broad line of difference which those disabilities\r\ncreate between the education and character\r\nof a woman and that of a man, requires to\r\n\u003ca id=\"page170\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 170]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe considered. Nothing can be more unfavourable\r\nto that union of thoughts and inclinations\r\nwhich is the ideal of married life. Intimate\r\nsociety between people radically dissimilar to one\r\nanother, is an idle dream. Unlikeness may attract,\r\nbut it is likeness which retains; and in proportion\r\nto the likeness is the suitability of the individuals\r\nto give each other a happy life. While women\r\nare so unlike men, it is not wonderful that selfish\r\nmen should feel the need of arbitrary power in\r\ntheir own hands, to arrest \u003ci\u003ein limine\u003c/i\u003e the life-long\r\nconflict of inclinations, by deciding every question\r\non the side of their own preference. When people\r\nare extremely unlike, there can be no real identity\r\nof interest. Very often there is conscientious\r\ndifference of opinion between married people, on\r\nthe highest points of duty. Is there any reality\r\nin the marriage union where this takes place?\r\nYet it is not uncommon anywhere, when the\r\nwoman has any earnestness of character; and it\r\nis a very general case indeed in Catholic countries,\r\nwhen she is supported in her dissent by the only\r\nother authority to which she is taught to bow, the\r\npriest. With the usual barefacedness of power\r\nnot accustomed to find itself disputed, the influence\r\nof priests over women is attacked by Protestant\r\nand Liberal writers, less for being bad in\r\nitself, than because it is a rival authority to the\r\nhusband, and raises up a revolt against his infallibility.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page171\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 171]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nIn England, similar differences occasionally\r\nexist when an Evangelical wife has allied\r\nherself with a husband of a different quality; but\r\nin general this source at least of dissension is got\r\nrid of, by reducing the minds of women to such a\r\nnullity, that they have no opinions but those of\r\nMrs. Grundy, or those which the husband tells\r\nthem to have. When there is no difference of\r\nopinion, differences merely of taste may be sufficient\r\nto detract greatly from the happiness of\r\nmarried life. And though it may stimulate the\r\namatory propensities of men, it does not conduce\r\nto married happiness, to exaggerate by differences\r\nof education whatever may be the native differences\r\nof the sexes. If the married pair are\r\nwell-bred and well-behaved people, they tolerate\r\neach other\u0027s tastes; but is mutual toleration what\r\npeople look forward to, when they enter into\r\nmarriage? These differences of inclination will\r\nnaturally make their wishes different, if not\r\nrestrained by affection or duty, as to almost all\r\ndomestic questions which arise. What a difference\r\nthere must be in the society which the two\r\npersons will wish to frequent, or be frequented\r\nby! Each will desire associates who share their\r\nown tastes: the persons agreeable to one, will be\r\nindifferent or positively disagreeable to the other;\r\nyet there can be none who are not common to\r\nboth, for married people do not now live in different\r\n\u003ca id=\"page172\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 172]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nparts of the house and have totally different\r\nvisiting lists, as in the reign of Louis XV.\r\nThey cannot help having different wishes as to\r\nthe bringing up of the children: each will wish to\r\nsee reproduced in them their own tastes and sentiments:\r\nand there is either a compromise, and only\r\na half-satisfaction to either, or the wife has to\r\nyield—often with bitter suffering; and, with or\r\nwithout intention, her occult influence continues\r\nto counterwork the husband\u0027s purposes.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt would of course be extreme folly to suppose\r\nthat these differences of feeling and inclination\r\nonly exist because women are brought up differently\r\nfrom men, and that there would not be\r\ndifferences of taste under any imaginable circumstances.\r\nBut there is nothing beyond the mark\r\nin saying that the distinction in bringing-up\r\nimmensely aggravates those differences, and\r\nrenders them wholly inevitable. While women\r\nare brought up as they are, a man and a woman\r\nwill but rarely find in one another real agreement\r\nof tastes and wishes as to daily life. They\r\nwill generally have to give it up as hopeless, and\r\nrenounce the attempt to have, in the intimate\r\nassociate of their daily life, that \u003ci\u003eidem velle, idem\r\nnolle\u003c/i\u003e, which is the recognised bond of any society\r\nthat is really such: or if the man succeeds in\r\nobtaining it, he does so by choosing a woman\r\nwho is so complete a nullity that she has no\r\n\u003ca id=\"page173\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 173]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003evelle\u003c/i\u003e or \u003ci\u003enolle\u003c/i\u003e at all, and is as ready to comply\r\nwith one thing as another if anybody tells her to\r\ndo so. Even this calculation is apt to fail; dulness\r\nand want of spirit are not always a guarantee\r\nof the submission which is so confidently expected\r\nfrom them. But if they were, is this the ideal\r\nof marriage? What, in this case, does the man\r\nobtain by it, except an upper servant, a nurse,\r\nor a mistress? On the contrary, when each\r\nof two persons, instead of being a nothing, is\r\na something; when they are attached to one\r\nanother, and are not too much unlike to begin\r\nwith; the constant partaking in the same things,\r\nassisted by their sympathy, draws out the latent\r\ncapacities of each for being interested in the\r\nthings which were at first interesting only to the\r\nother; and works a gradual assimilation of the\r\ntastes and characters to one another, partly by\r\nthe insensible modification of each, but more by\r\na real enriching of the two natures, each acquiring\r\nthe tastes and capacities of the other in\r\naddition to its own. This often happens between\r\ntwo friends of the same sex, who are much associated\r\nin their daily life: and it would be a\r\ncommon, if not the commonest, case in marriage,\r\ndid not the totally different bringing-up of the\r\ntwo sexes make it next to an impossibility to\r\nform a really well-assorted union. Were this\r\nremedied, whatever differences there might still\r\n\u003ca id=\"page174\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 174]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe in individual tastes, there would at least be,\r\nas a general rule, complete unity and unanimity as\r\nto the great objects of life. When the two persons\r\nboth care for great objects, and are a help\r\nand encouragement to each other in whatever\r\nregards these, the minor matters on which their\r\ntastes may differ are not all-important to them;\r\nand there is a foundation for solid friendship, of\r\nan enduring character, more likely than anything\r\nelse to make it, through the whole of life, a greater\r\npleasure to each to give pleasure to the other,\r\nthan to receive it.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nI have considered, thus far, the effects on the\r\npleasures and benefits of the marriage union which\r\ndepend on the mere unlikeness between the wife\r\nand the husband: but the evil tendency is prodigiously\r\naggravated when the unlikeness is inferiority.\r\nMere unlikeness, when it only means\r\ndifference of good qualities, may be more a\r\nbenefit in the way of mutual improvement, than\r\na drawback from comfort. When each emulates,\r\nand desires and endeavours to acquire, the other\u0027s\r\npeculiar qualities, the difference does not produce\r\ndiversity of interest, but increased identity of it,\r\nand makes each still more valuable to the other.\r\nBut when one is much the inferior of the two in\r\nmental ability and cultivation, and is not actively\r\nattempting by the other\u0027s aid to rise to the other\u0027s\r\nlevel, the whole influence of the connexion upon\r\n\u003ca id=\"page175\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 175]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe development of the superior of the two is\r\ndeteriorating: and still more so in a tolerably\r\nhappy marriage than in an unhappy one. It is\r\nnot with impunity that the superior in intellect\r\nshuts himself up with an inferior, and elects\r\nthat inferior for his chosen, and sole completely\r\nintimate, associate. Any society which is not improving,\r\nis deteriorating: and the more so, the\r\ncloser and more familiar it is. Even a really\r\nsuperior man almost always begins to deteriorate\r\nwhen he is habitually (as the phrase is) king of his\r\ncompany: and in his most habitual company the\r\nhusband who has a wife inferior to him is always so.\r\nWhile his self-satisfaction is incessantly ministered\r\nto on the one hand, on the other he insensibly\r\nimbibes the modes of feeling, and of looking at\r\nthings, which belong to a more vulgar or a more\r\nlimited mind than his own. This evil differs\r\nfrom many of those which have hitherto been\r\ndwelt on, by being an increasing one. The\r\nassociation of men with women in daily life is\r\nmuch closer and more complete than it ever was\r\nbefore. Men\u0027s life is more domestic. Formerly,\r\ntheir pleasures and chosen occupations were\r\namong men, and in men\u0027s company: their wives\r\nhad but a fragment of their lives. At the present\r\ntime, the progress of civilization, and the turn of\r\nopinion against the rough amusements and convivial\r\nexcesses which formerly occupied most men\r\n\u003ca id=\"page176\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 176]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nin their hours of relaxation—together with (it\r\nmust be said) the improved tone of modern feeling\r\nas to the reciprocity of duty which binds\r\nthe husband towards the wife—have thrown the\r\nman very much more upon home and its inmates,\r\nfor his personal and social pleasures: while the\r\nkind and degree of improvement which has been\r\nmade in women\u0027s education, has made them in\r\nsome degree capable of being his companions in\r\nideas and mental tastes, while leaving them, in\r\nmost cases, still hopelessly inferior to him. His\r\ndesire of mental communion is thus in general\r\nsatisfied by a communion from which he learns\r\nnothing. An unimproving and unstimulating\r\ncompanionship is substituted for (what he might\r\notherwise have been obliged to seek) the society\r\nof his equals in powers and his fellows in the\r\nhigher pursuits. We see, accordingly, that young\r\nmen of the greatest promise generally cease to\r\nimprove as soon as they marry, and, not improving,\r\ninevitably degenerate. If the wife does\r\nnot push the husband forward, she always holds\r\nhim back. He ceases to care for what she does\r\nnot care for; he no longer desires, and ends by\r\ndisliking and shunning, society congenial to his\r\nformer aspirations, and which would now shame\r\nhis falling-off from them; his higher faculties\r\nboth of mind and heart cease to be called into activity.\r\nAnd this change coinciding with the new and\r\n\u003ca id=\"page177\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 177]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nselfish interests which are created by the family,\r\nafter a few years he differs in no material respect\r\nfrom those who have never had wishes for anything\r\nbut the common vanities and the common\r\npecuniary objects.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nWhat marriage may be in the case of two\r\npersons of cultivated faculties, identical in opinions\r\nand purposes, between whom there exists\r\nthat best kind of equality, similarity of powers\r\nand capacities with reciprocal superiority in them—so\r\nthat each can enjoy the luxury of looking up\r\nto the other, and can have alternately the pleasure\r\nof leading and of being led in the path of development—I\r\nwill not attempt to describe. To those\r\nwho can conceive it, there is no need; to those\r\nwho cannot, it would appear the dream of an\r\nenthusiast. But I maintain, with the profoundest\r\nconviction, that this, and this only, is the ideal of\r\nmarriage; and that all opinions, customs, and institutions\r\nwhich favour any other notion of it, or\r\nturn the conceptions and aspirations connected\r\nwith it into any other direction, by whatever pretences\r\nthey may be coloured, are relics of primitive\r\nbarbarism. The moral regeneration of mankind\r\nwill only really commence, when the most fundamental\r\nof the social relations is placed under the\r\nrule of equal justice, and when human beings\r\nlearn to cultivate their strongest sympathy with\r\nan equal in rights and in cultivation.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page178\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 178]\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nThus far, the benefits which it has appeared\r\nthat the world would gain by ceasing to make\r\nsex a disqualification for privileges and a badge\r\nof subjection, are social rather than individual;\r\nconsisting in an increase of the general fund of\r\nthinking and acting power, and an improvement\r\nin the general conditions of the association of\r\nmen with women. But it would be a grievous\r\nunderstatement of the case to omit the most\r\ndirect benefit of all, the unspeakable gain in\r\nprivate happiness to the liberated half of the\r\nspecies; the difference to them between a life of\r\nsubjection to the will of others, and a life of\r\nrational freedom. After the primary necessities\r\nof food and raiment, freedom is the first and\r\nstrongest want of human nature. While mankind\r\nare lawless, their desire is for lawless freedom.\r\nWhen they have learnt to understand the\r\nmeaning of duty and the value of reason, they\r\nincline more and more to be guided and restrained\r\nby these in the exercise of their freedom; but\r\nthey do not therefore desire freedom less; they\r\ndo not become disposed to accept the will of\r\nother people as the representative and interpreter\r\nof those guiding principles. On the contrary,\r\nthe communities in which the reason has\r\nbeen most cultivated, and in which the idea of\r\nsocial duty has been most powerful, are those\r\nwhich have most strongly asserted the freedom\r\n\u003ca id=\"page179\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 179]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nof action of the individual—the liberty of each to\r\ngovern his conduct by his own feelings of duty,\r\nand by such laws and social restraints as his own\r\nconscience can subscribe to.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nHe who would rightly appreciate the worth of\r\npersonal independence as an element of happiness,\r\nshould consider the value he himself puts\r\nupon it as an ingredient of his own. There is no\r\nsubject on which there is a greater habitual difference\r\nof judgment between a man judging for\r\nhimself, and the same man judging for other\r\npeople. When he hears others complaining that\r\nthey are not allowed freedom of action—that their\r\nown will has not sufficient influence in the regulation\r\nof their affairs—his inclination is, to ask,\r\nwhat are their grievances? what positive damage\r\nthey sustain? and in what respect they consider\r\ntheir affairs to be mismanaged? and if they fail\r\nto make out, in answer to these questions, what\r\nappears to him a sufficient case, he turns a deaf\r\near, and regards their complaint as the fanciful\r\nquerulousness of people whom nothing reasonable\r\nwill satisfy. But he has a quite different standard\r\nof judgment when he is deciding for himself.\r\nThen, the most unexceptionable administration of\r\nhis interests by a tutor set over him, does not\r\nsatisfy his feelings: his personal exclusion from\r\nthe deciding authority appears itself the greatest\r\ngrievance of all, rendering it superfluous even to\r\n\u003ca id=\"page180\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 180]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nenter into the question of mismanagement. It is\r\nthe same with nations. What citizen of a free\r\ncountry would listen to any offers of good and\r\nskilful administration, in return for the abdication\r\nof freedom? Even if he could believe that\r\ngood and skilful administration can exist among\r\na people ruled by a will not their own, would\r\nnot the consciousness of working out their\r\nown destiny under their own moral responsibility\r\nbe a compensation to his feelings for\r\ngreat rudeness and imperfection in the details of\r\npublic affairs? Let him rest assured that whatever\r\nhe feels on this point, women feel in a fully\r\nequal degree. Whatever has been said or written,\r\nfrom the time of Herodotus to the present, of the\r\nennobling influence of free government—the nerve\r\nand spring which it gives to all the faculties, the\r\nlarger and higher objects which it presents to the\r\nintellect and feelings, the more unselfish public\r\nspirit, and calmer and broader views of duty,\r\nthat it engenders, and the generally loftier platform\r\non which it elevates the individual as a moral,\r\nspiritual, and social being—is every particle\r\nas true of women as of men. Are these things\r\nno important part of individual happiness? Let\r\nany man call to mind what he himself felt on\r\nemerging from boyhood—from the tutelage and\r\ncontrol of even loved and affectionate elders—and\r\nentering upon the responsibilities of manhood.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page181\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 181]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nWas it not like the physical effect of taking off a\r\nheavy weight, or releasing him from obstructive,\r\neven if not otherwise painful, bonds? Did he\r\nnot feel twice as much alive, twice as much a\r\nhuman being, as before? And does he imagine\r\nthat women have none of these feelings? But it\r\nis a striking fact, that the satisfactions and\r\nmortifications of personal pride, though all in all\r\nto most men when the case is their own, have\r\nless allowance made for them in the case of other\r\npeople, and are less listened to as a ground or a\r\njustification of conduct, than any other natural\r\nhuman feelings; perhaps because men compliment\r\nthem in their own case with the names of so\r\nmany other qualities, that they are seldom\r\nconscious how mighty an influence these feelings\r\nexercise in their own lives. No less large and\r\npowerful is their part, we may assure ourselves, in\r\nthe lives and feelings of women. Women are\r\nschooled into suppressing them in their most\r\nnatural and most healthy direction, but the internal\r\nprinciple remains, in a different outward\r\nform. An active and energetic mind, if denied\r\nliberty, will seek for power: refused the command\r\nof itself, it will assert its personality by\r\nattempting to control others. To allow to any\r\nhuman beings no existence of their own but\r\nwhat depends on others, is giving far too\r\nhigh a premium on bending others to their purposes.\r\n\u003ca id=\"page182\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 182]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nWhere liberty cannot be hoped for, and\r\npower can, power becomes the grand object of\r\nhuman desire; those to whom others will not\r\nleave the undisturbed management of their own\r\naffairs, will compensate themselves, if they can, by\r\nmeddling for their own purposes with the affairs\r\nof others. Hence also women\u0027s passion for personal\r\nbeauty, and dress and display; and all the\r\nevils that flow from it, in the way of mischievous\r\nluxury and social immorality. The love of power\r\nand the love of liberty are in eternal antagonism.\r\nWhere there is least liberty, the passion for power\r\nis the most ardent and unscrupulous. The desire\r\nof power over others can only cease to be a depraving\r\nagency among mankind, when each of\r\nthem individually is able to do without it: which\r\ncan only be where respect for liberty in the personal\r\nconcerns of each is an established principle.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nBut it is not only through the sentiment of\r\npersonal dignity, that the free direction and disposal\r\nof their own faculties is a source of individual\r\nhappiness, and to be fettered and restricted in\r\nit, a source of unhappiness, to human beings, and\r\nnot least to women. There is nothing, after disease,\r\nindigence, and guilt, so fatal to the pleasurable\r\nenjoyment of life as the want of a worthy outlet\r\nfor the active faculties. Women who have the\r\ncares of a family, and while they have the cares\r\nof a family, have this outlet, and it generally\r\n\u003ca id=\"page183\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 183]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsuffices for them: but what of the greatly increasing\r\nnumber of women, who have had no\r\nopportunity of exercising the vocation which\r\nthey are mocked by telling them is their proper\r\none? What of the women whose children have\r\nbeen lost to them by death or distance, or have\r\ngrown up, married, and formed homes of their\r\nown? There are abundant examples of men\r\nwho, after a life engrossed by business, retire with\r\na competency to the enjoyment, as they hope, of\r\nrest, but to whom, as they are unable to acquire\r\nnew interests and excitements that can replace\r\nthe old, the change to a life of inactivity brings\r\nennui, melancholy, and premature death. Yet\r\nno one thinks of the parallel case of so many\r\nworthy and devoted women, who, having paid what\r\nthey are told is their debt to society—having\r\nbrought up a family blamelessly to manhood and\r\nwomanhood—having kept a house as long as they\r\nhad a house needing to be kept—are deserted by\r\nthe sole occupation for which they have fitted\r\nthemselves; and remain with undiminished activity\r\nbut with no employment for it, unless perhaps a\r\ndaughter or daughter-in-law is willing to abdicate\r\nin their favour the discharge of the same functions\r\nin her younger household. Surely a hard\r\nlot for the old age of those who have worthily\r\ndischarged, as long as it was given to them to\r\ndischarge, what the world accounts their only\r\n\u003ca id=\"page184\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 184]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsocial duty. Of such women, and of those others\r\nto whom this duty has not been committed at\r\nall—many of whom pine through life with the\r\nconsciousness of thwarted vocations, and activities\r\nwhich are not suffered to expand—the\r\nonly resources, speaking generally, are religion\r\nand charity. But their religion, though it may\r\nbe one of feeling, and of ceremonial observance,\r\ncannot be a religion of action, unless in the\r\nform of charity. For charity many of them are\r\nby nature admirably fitted; but to practise it\r\nusefully, or even without doing mischief, requires\r\nthe education, the manifold preparation, the knowledge\r\nand the thinking powers, of a skilful administrator.\r\nThere are few of the administrative\r\nfunctions of government for which a person would\r\nnot be fit, who is fit to bestow charity usefully.\r\nIn this as in other cases (pre-eminently in that\r\nof the education of children), the duties permitted\r\nto women cannot be performed properly,\r\nwithout their being trained for duties which, to\r\nthe great loss of society, are not permitted to\r\nthem. And here let me notice the singular way\r\nin which the question of women\u0027s disabilities is\r\nfrequently presented to view, by those who find\r\nit easier to draw a ludicrous picture of what they\r\ndo not like, than to answer the arguments for it.\r\nWhen it is suggested that women\u0027s executive\r\ncapacities and prudent counsels might sometimes\r\n\u003ca id=\"page185\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 185]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbe found valuable in affairs of state, these lovers\r\nof fun hold up to the ridicule of the world, as\r\nsitting in parliament or in the cabinet, girls in\r\ntheir teens, or young wives of two or three and\r\ntwenty, transported bodily, exactly as they are,\r\nfrom the drawing-room to the House of Commons.\r\nThey forget that males are not usually\r\nselected at this early age for a seat in Parliament,\r\nor for responsible political functions.\r\nCommon sense would tell them that if such\r\ntrusts were confided to women, it would be\r\nto such as having no special vocation for married\r\nlife, or preferring another employment of\r\ntheir faculties (as many women even now prefer\r\nto marriage some of the few honourable occupations\r\nwithin their reach), have spent the best\r\nyears of their youth in attempting to qualify\r\nthemselves for the pursuits in which they desire\r\nto engage; or still more frequently perhaps,\r\nwidows or wives of forty or fifty, by whom the\r\nknowledge of life and faculty of government\r\nwhich they have acquired in their families, could\r\nby the aid of appropriate studies be made available\r\non a less contracted scale. There is no\r\ncountry of Europe in which the ablest men have\r\nnot frequently experienced, and keenly appreciated,\r\nthe value of the advice and help of clever and\r\nexperienced women of the world, in the attainment\r\nboth of private and of public objects; and\r\n\u003ca id=\"page186\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 186]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthere are important matters of public administration\r\nto which few men are equally competent\r\nwith such women; among others, the detailed\r\ncontrol of expenditure. But what we are now\r\ndiscussing is not the need which society has of\r\nthe services of women in public business, but the\r\ndull and hopeless life to which it so often condemns\r\nthem, by forbidding them to exercise the\r\npractical abilities which many of them are conscious\r\nof, in any wider field than one which to\r\nsome of them never was, and to others is no\r\nlonger, open. If there is anything vitally important\r\nto the happiness of human beings, it is\r\nthat they should relish their habitual pursuit.\r\nThis requisite of an enjoyable life is very imperfectly\r\ngranted, or altogether denied, to a large\r\npart of mankind; and by its absence many a life\r\nis a failure, which is provided, in appearance, with\r\nevery requisite of success. But if circumstances\r\nwhich society is not yet skilful enough to overcome,\r\nrender such failures often for the present\r\ninevitable, society need not itself inflict them.\r\nThe injudiciousness of parents, a youth\u0027s own\r\ninexperience, or the absence of external opportunities\r\nfor the congenial vocation, and their\r\npresence for an uncongenial, condemn numbers\r\nof men to pass their lives in doing one thing reluctantly\r\nand ill, when there are other things which\r\nthey could have done well and happily. But on\r\n\u003ca id=\"page187\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 187]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwomen this sentence is imposed by actual law,\r\nand by customs equivalent to law. What, in\r\nunenlightened societies, colour, race, religion, or\r\nin the case of a conquered country, nationality,\r\nare to some men, sex is to all women; a\r\nperemptory exclusion from almost all honourable\r\noccupations, but either such as cannot be fulfilled\r\nby others, or such as those others do not think\r\nworthy of their acceptance. Sufferings arising\r\nfrom causes of this nature usually meet with so\r\nlittle sympathy, that few persons are aware of the\r\ngreat amount of unhappiness even now produced\r\nby the feeling of a wasted life. The case\r\nwill be even more frequent, as increased cultivation\r\ncreates a greater and greater disproportion\r\nbetween the ideas and faculties of women, and\r\nthe scope which society allows to their activity.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\nWhen we consider the positive evil caused to\r\nthe disqualified half of the human race by their\r\ndisqualification—first in the loss of the most inspiriting\r\nand elevating kind of personal enjoyment,\r\nand next in the weariness, disappointment,\r\nand profound dissatisfaction with life, which are\r\nso often the substitute for it; one feels that\r\namong all the lessons which men require for\r\ncarrying on the struggle against the inevitable\r\nimperfections of their lot on earth, there is no\r\nlesson which they more need, than not to add to\r\nthe evils which nature inflicts, by their jealous\r\n\u003ca id=\"page188\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e[Pg 188]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nand prejudiced restrictions on one another.\r\nTheir vain fears only substitute other and worse\r\nevils for those which they are idly apprehensive\r\nof: while every restraint on the freedom of\r\nconduct of any of their human fellow creatures,\r\n(otherwise than by making them responsible for\r\nany evil actually caused by it), dries up \u003ci\u003epro tanto\u003c/i\u003e\r\nthe principal fountain of human happiness, and\r\nleaves the species less rich, to an inappreciable\r\ndegree, in all that makes life valuable to the\r\nindividual human being.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"theend\"\u003e\r\nTHE END.\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cpre\u003e\u003c/pre\u003e\r\n\u003c/article\u003e"}],"SectionSequence":["Back Link","Work Title","Deck","Author","Period","Era","Composition","Date Note","Region","Terra Avita","Terra Avita Region","Modern Country","Original Title","Language","Primary Discipline","Secondary Discipline","Tradition","Full Versions","Core Thesis","Classification","Arguments","Influence","Significance","Evidence Note","Full Text"],"Counts":{"ContextCards":3,"GeoCards":4,"DisciplineCards":2,"Links":11,"Sections":25,"Styles":3,"Scripts":1}}