Skip to main content

Full text of "The fraud of feminism"

See other formats

Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive 

in 2008 witii funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 












/I/ 3 

9 \ 












V. THE " CHIVALRY " FAKE .... 98 






The present volume aims at furnishing a succinct ex- 
posure of the pretensions of the Modern Feminist Move- 
ment. It aims at presenting the case against it nvith an 
especial vieiu to tracking donvn and gibbetting the in- 
famous falsehoods y the conventional statements, nvhich are 
not merely perversions of the truth, but nvhich are directly 
and categorically contrary to the truth, but ivhich pass 
muster by sheer force of uncontradicted repetition. It is 
by this kind of bluff that the claims of Feminism are 
sustained. The follonving is a fair example of the state- 
ments of Feminist writers: — ^^ As for accusing the 
ivorld at large of fatuous indulgence for ivomanhood in 
general, the idea is too preposterous for ivords. The true 
* legends of the Old Bailey ' tell, not of ivomen absurdly 
acquitted, but of miserable girls sent to the gallonvs for 
murders committed in half delirious dread of the ruthless- 
ness of hypocritical Society. ^^ Now it is this sort of legend 
that it is one of the chief objects of the following pages 
to explode. Of course the ^''fatuous indulgence"*"^ for 
^^ womanhood in general ^^ practised by the ^^ world at 
large ^"^ is precisely one of the most conspicuous features 

A I 


of our time, and the person ivho denies it, ij he is not 
deliberately prevaricating, must he a ver^itable Rip van 
Wrinkle awakening out of a sleep lasting at least tivo 
generations. Similarly the story of the ** miserable girls 
sent to the gallows, ^^ etc, is, as far as living memory 
is concerned, a pure legend. It is well known that in 
the cases referred to of the murder of their new-born 
children by girls, at the very outside a year or two^s 
light imprisonment is the only penalty actually inflicted. 
The acquittal of women on the most serious charges, 
especially where the victims are men, in the teeth of 
the strongest evidence, is, on the other hand, an every- 
day occurrence. Now it is statements like the above on 
which, as already said, the Feminist Movement thrives ; 
its most powerful argumentative weapoti with the man 
in the street is the legend that woman is oppressed by 
man. It is rarely that anyone takes the trouble to refute 
the legend in general, or any specific case adduced as an 
illustration of it. When, however, the bluff is exposed, 
when the real facts of the case are laid bare to public 
notice, and nvoman is shown, not only as not oppressed 
but as privileged, up to the top of her bent, then the 
apostles of Feminism, male and female, being unable to 
make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent 
resort to the boycott, and, by ignoring what they cannot 
answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so 


dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers 
and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well 

For the restf it must not be supposed that this little book 
makes any claim to exhaust the subject or to be a scientific 
treatise. It is, and is meant to be, a popular refutation of 
the current arguments in favour of Feminism, and a brief 
statement of the case against Feminism, Sir Almroth 
Wright's short treatise, *^The Unexpurgated Case against 
Woman's Suffrage,^^ which deals with the question from 
a somewhat different standpoint, may be consulted with 
advantage by the reader. 

An acknowledgment should be made to the editor of 
The New Age for the plucky stand made by that journal 
in the attempt to dam the onrush of sentimental slush set 
free by the self -constituted champions of womanhood. I 
have also to thank two eminent medical authorities for 
reading the proofs of my second chapter. 


In the following pages it is not intended to furnish 
a treatise on the evolution of woman generally or 
of her place in society, but simply to offer a 
criticism on the theory and practice of what is 
known as Modern Feminism. 

By Modern Feminism I understand a certain 
attitude of mind towards the female sex. This 
attitude of mind is often self-contradictory and 
illogical. While on the one hand it will claim, on 
the ground of the intellectual and moral equality 
of women with men, the concession of female 
suffrage, and commonly, in addition thereto, the 
admission of women to all professions, offices and 
functions of public life ; on the other it will strenu- 
ously champion the preservation and intensification 
of the privileges and immunities before the 
law, criminal and civil, in favour of women, which 
have grown up in the course of the nineteenth 

The above attitude, with all its inconsistencies, 
has at its back a strong sex-conscious party, 


or sex union, as we may term it, among women, 
and a floating mass of inconsequent, slushy 
sentiment among men. There is more than one 
popular prejudice which obscures the meaning and 
significance of Modern Feminism with many people. 
There is a common theory, for instance, based upon 
what really obtained to some extent before the 
prevalence of Modern Feminism, that in any case 
of antagonism between the two sexes, women 
always take the man's side against the woman. 
Now this theory, if it ever represented the true 
state of the case, has long ceased to do so. 

The powerful female sex union spoken of, in the 
/Npresent day, exercises such a strong pressure in 
' the formation of public opinion among women, that 
it is rapidly becoming next to impossible, even in 
the most flagrant cases, where man is the victim, 
to get any woman to acknowledge that another 
woman has committed a wrong. On the other 
hand it may be noted, that the entire absence of 
any consciousness of sex antagonism in the attitude 
of men towards women, combined with an intensi- 
fication of the old-world chivalry prescribed by 
tradition towards the so-called weaker sex, exer- 
cises, if anything, an* increasing sway over male 
public opinion. Hence the terrific force Feminism has 
obtained in the world of the early twentieth century. 

It is again often supposed, and this is also a 
mistake, that in individual cases of dispute between 


the sexes, the verdict, let us say of a jury of men, in 
favour of the female prisoner or the female litigant 
is solely or even mainly determined by the fact of 
the latter's good looks. This may indeed play 
a part ; but it is easy to show from records of 
cases that it is a subordinate one — that, whatever 
her looks or her age may be, the verdict is given 
her not so much because she is a pretty woman as 
because she is a nvoman. Here again the question 
of attractiveness may have played a more potent 
part in determining male verdicts in the days 
before Feminist sentiment and Feminist views had 
reached their present dominance. But now the 
question of sex alone, of being a woman, is 
sufficient to determine judgment in her favour. 

There is a trick with which votaries of Feminism 
seek to prejudice the public mind against its critics, 
and that is the * * fake " that any man who ventures 
to criticise the pretensions of Feminism, is actuated 
by motives of personal rancour against the female 
sex, owing to real or imaginary wrongs suffered by 
him at the hands of some member or members of 
the sex. I suppose it may be possible that there 
are persons, not precisely microcephalous idiots, 
who could be made to believe such stuff as this 
in disparagement of him who ventures an in- 
dependent j^udgment on these questions ; otherwise 
the conduct of Feminists in adopting this line of 
argument would be incomprehensible. But we 


would fain believe that the number of these feeble- 
minded persons, who believe there is any connection 
between a man having independent judgment 
enough to refuse to bend the knee to Modern 
Feminist dogma, and his having quarrelled with any 
or all of his female friends or relations, cannot be 
very numerous. As a matter of fact there is not 
one single prominent exponent of views hostile to 
the pretensions of what is called the *' Woman's 
Movement" of the present day, respecting whom 
there is a tittle of evidence of his not having lived 
all his life on the best of terms with his woman- 
kind. There is only one case known of indirectly 
by the present writer, and that not of a prominent 
writer or speaker on the subject, that would afford 
any plausible excuse whatever for alleging anti- 
Feminist views to have been influenced by personal 
motives of this kind. I am aware, of course, that 
Feminists, with their usual mendacity, have made 
lying statements to this effect respecting well-nigh 
every prominent writer on the anti-Feminist side, 
in the hope of influencing the aforesaid feeble- 
minded members of the public against their 
opponents. But a very little investigation suf^ces 
to show in every case the impudent baselessness 
of their allegations. The contemptible silliness of 
this method of controversy should render it un- 
worthy of serious remark, and my only excuse for 
alluding to it is the significant sidelight it casts 


upon the intellectual calibre of those who resort 
to it, and of the confidence or want of confidence 
they have in the inherent justice of their cause and 
the logical strength of their case. 



The position of women in social life was for a 
long time a matter of course. It did not arise as 
a question, because it was taken for granted. The 
dominance of men seemed to derive so obviously 
from natural causes, from the possession of faculties 
physical, moral and intellectual, in men, which 
were wanting in women, that no one thought of 
questioning the situation. At the same time, the 
inferiority of woman was never conceived as so 
great as to diminish seriously, much less to eliminate 
altogether, her responsibility for crimes she might 
commit. There were cases, of course, such as that 
of offences committed by women under coverture, 
in which a diminution of responsibility was recog- 
nised and was given effect to in condonation of the 
offence and in mitigation of the punishment. But 
there was no sentiment in general in favour of a 
female more than of a male criminal. It entered 
into the head of no one to weep tears of pity over 
the murderess of a lover or husband rather than 
over the murderer of a sweetheart or wife. Simi- 


larly, minor offenders, a female blackmailer, a female 
thief, a female perpetrator of an assault, was not 
deemed less guilty or worthy of more lenient 
treatment than a male offender in like cases. The 
law, it was assumed, and the assumption was acted 
upon, was the same for both sexes. The sexes 
were equal before the law. The laws were 
harsher in some respects than now, although not 
perhaps in all. But there was no special line of 
demarcation as regards the punishment of offences 
as between men and women. The penalty 
ordained by the law for crime or misdemeanour 
was the same for both and in general applied 
equally to both. Likewise in civil suits, pro- 
ceedings were not specially weighted against the 
man and in favour of the woman. There was, as 
a general rule, no very noticeable sex partiality 
in the administration of the law. 

This state of affairs continued in England till 
well into the nineteenth century. Thenceforward 
a change began to take place. Modern Feminism 
rose slowly above the horizon. Modern Feminism 
has two distinct sides to it: (l) an articulate 
political and economic side embracing demands for 
so-called rights ; and (2) a sentimental side which 
insists in an accentuation of the privileges and 
immunities which have grown up, not articulately 
or as the result of definite demands, but as the 
consequence of sentimental pleading in particular 


cases. In this way, however, a public opinion became 
established, finding expression in a sex favouritism 
in the law and even still more in its administration, 
in favour of women as against men. 

These two sides of Modern Feminism are not 
necessarily combined in the same person. One may, 
for example, find opponents of female suffrage 
who are strong advocates of sentimental favourit- 
ism towards women in matters of law and its 
administration. On the other hand you may find, 
though this is more rare, strong advocates of political 
and other rights for the female sex, who sincerely 
deprecate the present inequality of the law in 
favour of women. As a rule, however, the two 
sides go together, the vast bulk of the advocates 
of ** Women's Rights " being equally keen on the 
retention and extension of women's privileges. 
Indeed, it would seem as though the main object 
of the bulk of the advocates of the "Woman's 
Movement" was to convert the female sex into 
the position of a dominant sexe noblesse. The two 
sides of Feminism have advanced hand in hand for 
the last two generations, though it was the purely 
sentimental side that first appeared as a factor in 
public opinion. 

The attempt to paint women in a different light 
to the traditional one of physical, intellectual and 
moral inferiority to men, probably received its 
first literary expression in a treatise published in 


1532 by Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim .en- 
titled De Nobtlitate et Praecellentia Feminei Sexus and 
dedicated to Margaret, Regent of the Netherlands, 
whose favour Agrippa was at that time desirous of 
courting. The ancient world has nothing to offer 
in the shape of literary forerunners of Modern 
Feminism, although that industrious collector of 
historical odds and ends, Valerius Maximus, re- 
lates the story of one Afrania who, with some of her 
friends, created disturbances in the Law Courts of 
ancient Rome in her attempt to make women's 
voices heard before the tribunals. As regards 
more recent ages, after Agrippa, we have to wait 
till the early years of the eighteenth century for 
another instance of Feminism before its time, in an 
essay on the subject of woman by Daniel Defoe. 
But it was not till the closing years of the 
eighteenth century that any considerable ex- 
pression of opinion in favour of changing the 
relative positions of the sexes, by upsetting the 
view of their respective values, founded on the 
general experience of mankind, made itself notice- 

The names of Mary Wollstonecraft in English 
literature and of Condorcet in French, will hardly fail 
to occur to the reader in this connection. During 
the French Revolution the crazy Olympe de 
Gouges achieved ephemeral notoriety by her claim 
for the intellectual equality of women with men. 


Up to this time (the close of the eighteenth 
century) no advance whatever had been made 
by legislation in recognising the modern theory 
of sex equality. The claims of women and their 
apologists for entering upon the functions of men, 
political, social or otherwise, although put forward 
from time to time by isolated individuals, received 
little countenance from public opinion, and still 
less from the law. What I have called, how- 
ever, the sentimental aspect of Modern Feminism 
undoubtedly did make some headway in public 
opinion by the end of the eighteenth century, and 
grew in volume during the early years of the 
nineteenth century. It effectuated in the Act 
passed in 1 8 20 by the English Parliament abolish- 
ing the punishment of flogging for female criminals. 
This was the first beginning of the differentiation of 
the sexes in the matter of the criminal law. The 
parliamentary debate on the Bill in question shows 
clearly enough the power that Sentimental 1 Femi- 

1 I should explain that I attach a distinct meaning to the 
word sentimental'^ as used by me it does not signify, as it does 
with most people, an excess of sentiment over and above what 
I feel myself, but a sentiment unequally distributed. As used 
in this sense, the repulsion to the flogging of women while no 
repulsion is felt to the flogging of men is sent'imentalism pure 
and simple. On the other hand the objection to flogging 
altogether as punishment for men or women could not be de- 
scribed as sentimentalism, whatever else it might be. In the 
same way the anti-vivisectionist's aversion to *« physiological" 
experiments on animals, if confined to household pets and not 


nism had acquired in public opinion in the course 
of a generation, for no proposal was made at the 
same time to abolish the punishment of flogging 
so far as men were concerned. Up to this time 
the criminal law of England, as of other countries, 
made no distinction whatever between the sexes 
in the matter of crime and punishment, or at least 
no distinction based on the principle or sentiment 
of sex privilege. (A slight exception might be 
made, perhaps, in the crime of ** petty treason," 
which distinguished the murder of a husband by 
his wife from other cases of homicide.) But from 
this time forward, legislation and administration 
have diverged farther and farther from the principle 
of sex equality in this connection in favour of 
female immunity, the result being that at the 
present day, assuming the punishment meted out 
to the woman for a given crime to represent a 
normal penalty, the man receives an additional 
increment over and above that accorded to the 
crime, for the offence of having been horn a man and 
not a ivoman. 

The Original Divorce Law of 1857 ^^ its 

extended to other animals, might be justly described as senti- 
mentalism ; but one who objected to such experiments on all 
animals, no matter whether one agreed with his point of view 
or not, could not be justly charged with sentimentalism (or at 
least, not unless, while objecting to vivisection, he or she were 
prepared to condone other acts involving an equal amount of 
cruelty to animals). 


provisions respecting costs and alimony, constitutes 
another landmark in the matter of female privilege 
before the law. Other measures of unilateral 
sex legislation followed in the years ensuing until 
the present state of things, by which the whole 
power of the State is practically at the disposal of 
woman to coerce and oppress men. But this side 
of the question we propose to deal with later on. 

The present actual movement of Feminism 
in political and social life may be deemed to 
have begun in the early sixties, in the agitation 
which preceded the motion of John Stuart Mill in 
1867, on the question of conferring the parliament- 
ary franchise upon women. This was coincident 
with an agitation for the opening of various careers 
to women, notably the medical faculty. We are 
speaking, of course, here of Great Britain, which 
was first in the field in Europe, alike in the theory 
and practice of Modern Feminism. But the publica- 
tion by the great protagonist of the movement, 
John Stuart Mill, of his book, " The Subjection of 
Women," in 1868, endowed the cause with a 
literary gospel which was soon translated into the 
chief languages of the Continent, and corresponding 
movements started in other countries. Strangely 
enough, it made considerable headway in Russia, 
the awakening of Russia to Western ideas hav- 
ing recently begun to make itself felt at the 
time of which we are speaking. The movement 


henceforth took its place as a permanent factor 
in the political and social life of this and other 
countries. Bills for female suffrage were intro- 
duced every year into the British House of 
Commons with, on the whole, yearly diminishing 
majorities against these measures, till a few years 
back the scale turned on the other side, and the 
Women's Enfranchisement Bill passed every year its 
second reading until 191 2, when for the first time 
for many years it was rejected by a small majority. 
Meanwhile both sides of the Feminist movement, 
apart from the question of the franchise, had been 
gaining in influence. Municipal franchise " on the 
same terms as for men " had been conceded. Women 
have voted for and sat on School Boards, Boards 
of Guardians, and other public bodies. Their 
claim to exercise the medical profession has been 
not merely admitted in law but recognised in 
public opinion for long past. All the advantages 
of an academic career have been opened to them, 
with the solitary exception of the actual confer- 
ment of degrees at Oxford and Cambridge. Such 
has been the growth of the articulate and political 
side of the theory of Modern Feminism. 

The sentimental side of Feminism, with its 
practical result of the overweighting of justice in 
the interests of women in the courts, civil as well 
as criminal, and their practical immunity from the 
operation of the criminal law when in the dock. 


has advanced correspondingly j while at the same 
time the sword of that same criminal law is 
sharpened to a razor edge against the man even 
accused, let alone convicted, of any offence against 
the sacrosanct majesty of " Womanhood." Such 
is the present position of the Woman question 
in this country, which we take as typical, in the 
sense that in Great Britain, to which we may 
also add the United States of America and the 
British Colonies, where — if possible, the movement 
is stronger than in the mother country itself — we 
see the logical outcome of Feminist theory and 
sentiment. It remains to consider the existing 
facts more in detail, and the psychological bearings 
of that large number of persons who have been 
in the recent past, and are being at the present 
time, influenced to accept the dogmas of Modern 
Feminism and the statements of alleged facts made 
by its votaries. Before doing so it behoves us 
to examine the credibility of the dogmas them- 
selves, and the nature of the arguments used to 
support them and also the accuracy of the alleged 
facts employed by the Feminists to stimulate 
the indignation of the popular mind against the 
pretended wrongs of women. 



We have pointed out in the last chapter that 
Modern Feminism has two sides, the positive, 
definite, and articulate side, which ostensibly claims 
equality between the sexes, the chief concern of 
which is the conferring of all the rights and duties 
of men upon women, and the opening up of all 
careers to them. The justification of these demands 
is based upon the dogma, that, notwithstanding 
appearances to the contrary, women are endowed 
by nature with the same capacity intellectually 
and morally as men. We have further pointed 
out that there is another side in Modern Feminism 
which in a vague way claims for women immunity 
from criminal law and special privileges on the 
ground of sex in civil law. The basis of this 
side of Feminism is a sentimentalism — i.e. an un- 
equally distributed sentiment in favour of women, 
traditional and acquired. It is seldom even at- 
tempted to base this sentimental claim for women 
on argument at all. The utmost attempts in this 
direction amount to vague references to physical 



weakness, and to the claim for special considera- 
tion deriving from the old theory of the mental 
and moral weakness of the female sex, so strenu- 
ously combated as out of date, when the first 
side of Modern Feminism is being contended 
for. The more or less inchoate assumptions of 
the second or sentimental side of the modern 
"Woman's Movement" amounts practically, as 
already stated, to a claim for women to be allowed 
to commit crimes without incurring the penalties 
imposed by the law for similar crimes when 
committed by men. It should be noted that in 
practice the most strenuous advocates of the 
positive and articulate side of Feminism are also 
the sincerest upholders of the unsubstantial and 
inarticulate assumptions of the sentimental side of 
the same creed. This is noticeable whenever a 
woman is found guilty of a particularly atrocious 
crime. It is somewhat rare for women to be 
convicted of such crimes at all, since the influence 
of sentimental Feminism with judges and juries is 
sufficient to procure an acquittal, no matter how 
conclusive the evidence to the contrary. Even if 
women are found guilty it is usual for a virtually 
nominal sentence to be passed. Should, however, 
a woman by any chance be convicted of a heinous 
crime, such as murder or maiming, under speci- 
ally aggravated circumstances, and a sentence be 
passed such as would be unanimously sanctioned by 


public opinion in the case of a man, then we find 
the whole Feminist world up in arms. The out- 
cry is led by self-styled upholders of equality 
between the sexes, the apostles of the positive 
side of Feminism, who bien entendu claim the 
eradication of sex boundaries in political and social 
life on the ground of women being of equal 
capacity with men, but who, when moral responsi- 
bility is in question, conveniently fall back on a 
sentiment, the only conceivable ground for which 
is to be found in the time-honoured theory of the 
mental and moral weakness of the female sex. 
As illustrations of the truth of the foregoing, the 
reader may be referred to the cases of Florence 
Doughty in 1906, who shot at and wounded a 
solicitor with whom she had relations, together 
with his son; to Daisy Lord in 1908, for the 
murder of her new-born child ; to the case of the 
Italian murderess, Napolitano in Canada, convicted 
of the cold-blooded butchery of her husband in his 
sleep in 1911, for whose reprieve a successful 
agitation was got up by the suffrage societies ! 

Let us first of all consider the dogma at the basis 
of the positive side of Modern Feminism, which 
claims rational grounds of fact and reason for 
itself, and professes to be able to make good its 
case by virtue of such grounds. This dogma con- 
sists in the assertion of equality in intellectual 
capacity, in spite of appearances to the contrary, of 


women with men. I think it will be admitted that 
the articulate objects of Modern Feminism, taking 
theni one with another, rest on this dogma, and on 
this dogma alone. I know it has been argued as 
regards the question of suffrage, that the demand 
does not rest solely upon the admission of equality 
of capacity, since men of a notoriously inferior 
mental order are not excluded from voting upon 
that ground, but the fallacy of this last argument 
is obvious. In all these matters we have to deal 
with averages. Public opinion has hitherto recog- 
nised the average of women as being intellectually 
below the voting standard, and the average man as 
not. This, if admitted, is enough to establish the 
anti-suffrage thesis. The latter is not affected by 
the fact that it is possible to find certain individual 
men of inferior intelligence and therefore less 
intrinsically qualified to form a political judgment 
than certain specially gifted women. The pre- 
tended absurdity of ** George Eliot having no vote, 
and of her gardener having one" is really no 
absurdity at all. In the first place, given the 
economic advantages which conferred education 
upon the novelist, and not upon the gardener,' 
there is not sufficient evidence available that his 
judgment in public affairs might not have been 
even superior to that of George Eliot herself. 
Moreover, the possession of exceptionally strong 
imaginative faculty, expressing itself as literary 


genius or talent in works of fiction, does not 
necessarily imply exceptional power of political 
judgment. But, be this as it may, where averages 
are in question, exceptions obviously do not count. 

The underlying assumption of the suffrage 
movement may therefore be taken to be the 
average equality of the sexes as regards intellectual 

An initial difficulty exists in proving theoretic- 
ally the intellectual inferiority of women to men, 
or even their relative unsuitability for fulfilling 
functions involving a special order of judgment. 
There are such things as matters of fact which 
are open to common observation and which none 
think of denying or calling in question unless they 
have some special reason for doing so. Now it is 
always possible to deny a fact, however evident it 
may be to ordinary perception, and it is equally 
impossible to prove that the person calling in 
question the aforesaid evident fact is either lying 
(or shall we say is *' prevaricating"), or even that 
he is a person hopelessly abnormal in his organs of 

At the time of writing, the normal person who 

1 I believe there are some Feminist fanatics who pretend to 
maintain the superiority of the female mind, but I doubt 
whether this thesis is taken seriously even by those who put 
sit forward. In any case there are limits to the patent absurditie 
which it is worth while to refute by argument. 


has no axe to grind in maintaining the contrary, 
declares the sun to be shining brightly, but should 
it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this 
obvious fact, and declare that the day is gloomy 
and overcast, there is no power of argument by 
which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. 
I may point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm 
that he doesn't see it I can't prove that he does. 
This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely likely 
to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar 
to those cases of persons (and they are not seldom 
met with) who, when they find facts hope- 
lessly destructive of a certain theoretical position 
adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot 
of controversy in their own favour by boldly 
denying the inconvenient facts. One often has 
experience of this trick of controversy in discussing 
the question of the n otorious charac teristics of the 
female sex. The Feminist driven into a corner ,' 
endeavours to save his face by flatly denying j 
matters open to common observation and admitted \ 
as obvious by all who are not Feminists. Such I 
facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar j 
to the female sex, commonly connoted by the term / 
hysteria ; the absence, or at best the extremely I 
imperfect development of the logical faculty in / 
most women ; the inability of the average woman / 
in her judgment of things to rise above personal j 
considerations ; and, what is largely a consequence / 


of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and 
fair play among women in general. The aforesaid 
peculiarities of women, as women, are, I contend, 
matters of common observation and are only dis- 
puted by those persons — to wit Feminists — to 
whose theoretical views and practical demands 
their admission would be inconvenient if not fatal. 
Of course these characterisations refer to averages, 
and they do not exclude partial or even occasionally 
striking exceptions. It is possible, therefore, 
although perhaps not very probable, that indi- 
vidual experience may in the case of certain 
individuals play a part in falsifying their general 
outlook ; it is possible — although, as I before 
said not perhaps very probable — that any given 
man's experience of the other sex has been limited 
to a few quite exceptional women and that hence his 
particular experience contradicts that of the general 
run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal 
to admit what to others are self-evident facts 
would be perfectly bona Jide. The above highly 
improbable contingency is the only refuge for those 
who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist's 
denials. In this matter I only deal with the male 
Feminist. The female Feminist is usually too biassed 
a witness in this particular question. 

Now let us consider the whole of the differentia- 
tions of the mental character between man and 
woman in the light of a further generalisation 


which is sufficiently obvious in itself and which 
has been formulated with special clearness by the 
late Otto Weininger in his remarkable book, 
" Geschlecht und Charakter" (Sex and Character). 
I refer to the observations contained in Section II., 
Chaps. 2 and 3. The point has been, of course, pre- 
viously noted, and the present writer, among others, 
has on various occasions called special attention to 
it. But its formulation and elaboration by Weininger 
is the most complete I know. The truth in 
question consists in the fact, undeniable to all those 
not rendered impervious to facts by preconceived 
/ dogma, that, as I have elsewhere put it, while man 
[has a sex, woman is sl sex. Let us hear Weininger 
on this point. ** Woman is only sexual, man is a/so 
sexual. Alike in time and space this difference may 
be traced in man, parts of his body susceptible to 
sexual excitement are small in number and strictly 
localised. In woman sexuality is diffused over the 
whole body, every contact on whatever part excites 
her sexually." Weininger points out that while 
the sexual element in man, owing to the physio- 
logical character of the sexual organs, may be at 
times more violent than that in woman, yet that 
it is spasmodic and occurs in crises separated by 
intervals of quiescence. In woman, on the other 
hand, while less spasmodic, it is continuous. The 
sexual instinct with man being, as he styles it, " an 
appendix" and no more, he can raise himself 


mentally entirely outside of it. ** He is conscious of 
it as of something which he possesses but which 
is not inseparate from the rest of his nature. He 
can view it objectively. With woman this is not 
the case ; the sex element is part of her whole 
nature. Hence, it is not as with man, clearly recog- 
nisable in local manifestations, but subtly affects the 
whole life of the organism. For this reason the man 
is conscious of the sexual element within him as 
such, whereas the woman is unconscious of it as 
such. It is not for nothing that in common parlance 
woman is spoken of as * the sex.' In this sexual 
differentiation of the whole life-nature of woman 
from man, deducible as it is from physiological and 
anatomical distinctions, lies the ground of those 
differentiations of function which culminate in the 
fact that while mankind in its intellectual moral 
and technical development is represented in the 
main by Man, Woman has continued to find her 
chief function in the direct procreation of the race.'* 
A variety of causes, notably modern economic 
development, in their effect on family life, also the 
illegitimate application of the modern democratic 
notion of the equality of classes and races, to 
that of sex, has contributed to the modern revolt 
against natural sex limitations. 

Assuming the substantial accuracy of the above 
statement of fact, the absurdity and cheapness 
of the clap- trap of the modern " social purity " 


monger, as to having one and the same sexual 
morality for both sexes will be readily seen. The 
recognition of the necessity of admitting greater 
latitude in this respect to men than to women is 
based clearly on physiology and common-sense. 
With men sexual instinct manifests itself locally, 
and at intervals its satisfaction is an urgent and 
pressing need. With woman this is not so. Hence 
the recognised distinction between the sexes in 
this respect is, as far as it goes, a thoroughly 
sound one. Not that I am championing the 
severity of the restrictions of the current sexual 
code as regards women. On the contrary, I think 
it ought to be and will be, in a reasonable society 
of the future, considerably relaxed. I am only 
pointing out that the urgency is not so great in 
the one case as in the other. And this fact it is 
which has led to the toleration of a stringency, 
originally arising mainly from economic causes 
(questions of inheritance and the like), in the case 
of women, which would not have been tolerated 
in that of men, even had similar reasons for its 
adoption in their case obtained. Any successful 
attempt of social purity mongers to run counter 
to physiology in enforcing either by legislation 
or public opinion the same stringency on men in 
this respect as on women could but have the most 
disastrous consequences to the health and well- 
being of the community. 


It was a saying of the late Dr Henry Maudsley : 
** Sex lies deeper than culture. ^^ By this we may 
understand to be meant that sex differences are 
organic. All authorities on the physiological 
question are agreed that woman is less well- 
organised, less well-developed, than man. Dr 
de Varigny asserts that this fact is traceable 
throughout the whole female organism, through- 
out all its tissues, and all its functions. For 
instance, the stature of the human female is less 
than that of the man in all races. As regards 
weight there is a corresponding difference. The 
adult woman weighs, on the average, rather more 
'K\\ than II lbs. less than the man; moreover as a rule 

a woman completes her growth some years 
earlier than a man. The bones are lighter in the 
woman than in the man ; not absolutely but in 
proportion to the weight of the body. They are, 
it is stated, not merely thinner but more fragile. 
The difference may be traced even to their 
; chemical composition. The whole muscular de- 

velopment is inferior in woman to that in man 
by about one-third. The heart in woman is 
smaller and lighter than in man — being about 
loj oz. in man as against slightly over 
8 oz. in woman. In the woman the respiratory 
organs show less chest and lung capacity. Again, 
the blood contains a considerably less proportion 
of red to white corpuscles. Finally, we come to 


the question of the size and constitution of the 
brain. (It should be observed that all these 
distinctions of sex show themselves more or less 
from birth onwards.) 

Specialists are agreed that at all ages the 
size of the brain of woman is less than that of 
man. The difference in relative size is greater 
in proportion according to the degree of civilisation. 
This is noteworthy, as it would seem as though 
the brain of man grew with the progress of 
civilisation, whereas that of woman remains nearly 
stationary. The average proportion as regards size 
of skull between the woman and man of to-day 
is as 85 to 100. The weight of brain in woman 
varies from gSJ oz. to 45ioz. 5 in man, from 42 
oz. to 49 oz. This represents the absolute difl'er- 
ence in weight, but, according to Dr de Varigny, 
the relative weight — i.e. the weight in proportion 
to that of the whole body — is even more striking 
in its indication of inferiority. The weight of the 
brain in woman is but one-forty-fourth of the 
weight of the body, while in man it is one-fortieth. 
This difference accentuates itself with age. It is 
only 7 per cent in favour of man between twenty and 
thirty years ; it is II per cent, between thirty and 
forty years. As regards the substance of the brain 
itself and its convolutions, the enormous majority 
of physiologists are practically unanimous in de- 
claring that the female brain is simpler and 


smoother, its convolutions fewer and more super- 
ficial than those of the male brain, that the frontal 
lobes, generally associated with the intellectual 
faculties, are less developed than the occipital lobes, 
whith are universally connected with the lower 
psychological functions. The grey substance is 
poorer and less abundant in woman than in man, 
while the blood vessels of the occipital region are 
correspondingly fuller than those supplying the 
frontal lobes. In man the case is exactly the 

r reverse. It cannot be denied by any sane person 
familiar with the barest elements of physiology 
that the whole female organism is subservient 
to the functions of child-bearing and lactation, 
which explains the inferior development of those 
/ organs and faculties which are not specially 
/ connected with this supreme end of Woman. 

It is the fashion of Feminists, ignoring these 
fundamental physiological sex differences, to 
affirm that the actual inferiority of women, where 
they have the honesty to admit such an obvious 
fact, is accountable by the centuries of oppression 
in which Woman has been held by wicked and 
evil-minded Man. The absurdity of this conten- 
tion has been more than once pointed out. As- 
suming its foundation in fact, what does it imply .? 
Clearly that the girls inherit only through their 
mothers and boys only through their fathers, an 
hypothesis plainly at variance with the known 


facts of heredity. Yet those who maintain that 
distinction of intelligence, etc., between the sexes y^; traceable to external conditions affecting one ^^f^^L 
sex only and inherited ^through that sex alone, ^ir^ 

cannot evade "the above assumption. Those, 
therefore, who regard it as an article of their 
faith that Woman would show herself not in- 
ferior in mental power to man, if only she 
had the chance of exercising that power, must 
find a surer foundation for their opinion than 
this theory of the centuries of oppression, under 
which, as they allege, the female sex has 

We now come to the important question of 
morbid and pathological mental conditions to 
which the female sex is liable and which are 
usually connected with those constitutional dis- 
turbances of the nervous system which pass under 
the name of hysteria. The word is, as everyone 
knows, derived from hystera — the ijuomb, and was 
uniformly regarded by the ancients as directly 
due to disease of the uterusy this view maintaining 
itself in modern medicine up till well-nigh the 
middle of the nineteenth century. Thus Dr J. 
Mason Good (in his "Study of Medicine," 1822, 
vol. iii., p. 528, an important medical text-book 
during the earlier half of the nineteenth century) 
says : " With a morbid condition of this organ, 
hysteria is in many instances very closely con- 


nected, though it is going too far to say that it is 
always dependent upon such condition, for we 
meet with instances, occasionally, in which no 
possible connexion can be traced between the 
disease and the organ," etc. This is perhaps the 
first appearance, certainly in English medicine, 
of doubts being thrown on the uterine origin of 
the various symptoms grouped under the general 
term, hysteria. Towards the latter part of the 
nineteenth century the prevalent view tended 
more and more to dissociate hysteria from uterine 
trouble. Lately, however, some eminent patho- 
logists have shown a tendency to qualify the 
terms of the latter view. Thus Dr Thomas 
Stevenson in 1 902 admits that **it [hysteria] 
frequently accompanies a morbid state of the 
uterus," especially where inflammation and con- 
gestion are present, and it is not an uncommon 
thing for surgeons at the present time to remove 
the ovaries in obstinate cases of hysteria. On the 
other hand Dr Thomas Buzzard, in an article 
on the subject in Quain's Dictionary of Medicine ^ 
1902, states that hysteria is only exceptionally 
found in women suffering from diseases of the 
genital organs, and its relation to uterine and 
ovarian disturbances is probably neither more nor 
less than that which pertains to the other affections 
of the nervous system which may occur without 
any obvious material cause. Dr Thomas LufF 


("Text-Book on Forensic Medicine," 1 895) shows 
that the derangements of the reproductive functions 
are undoubtedly the cause of various attacks of 
insanity in the female. Dr Savage, in his book 
** On Neuroses," says that acute mania in women 
occurs most frequently at the period of adult and 
mature life, and may occasionally take place at 
either extreme age. Acute mania sometimes occurs 
at the suppression of the menses. The same is true 
of melancholia and other pathological mental 
symptoms. Dr Luff states that acute mania may 
replace hysteria ; that this happens at periods such 
as puberty, change of life and menstruation. 
These patients in the intervals of their attacks are 
often morbidly irritable or excitable, but as time 
goes on their energies become diminished and their 
emotions blunted (" Forensic Medicine," ii. 307). 
Such patients are often seized with a desire to 
commit violence •, they are often very mischievous, 
tearing up clothes, breaking windows, etc. In this 
mental disorder the patient is driven by a morbid 
and uncontrollable impulse to such acts. It is not 
accompanied by delusions, and frequently no 
change will have been noticed in the individual 
prior to the commission of the act, and conse- 
quently, says Dr Luff, " there is much difference 
of opinion as to the responsibility of the individual " 
(ii. 297). Among the acts spoken of Dr Luff 
mentions a propensity to set fire to furniture, 


houses, etc. All this, though written in 1895, might 
serve as a commentary on the Suffragette agitation 
f recent years. The renowned French professor, 
r Paul Janet (" Les Hysteriques," 1894) ^^"^ 
Refined hysteria : " Hysteria is a mental affection 
belonging to the large group of diseases due to 
cerebral weakness and debility. Its physical 
symptoms are somewhat indefinite, consisting 
chiefly in a general diminution of nutrition. It is 
largely characterised by moral symptoms, chief 
of which is an impairment of the faculty of 
psychological synthesis, an abolition and a con- 
traction of the field of consciousness. This mani- 
fests itself in a peculiar manner and by a certain 
number of elementary phenomena. Thus sensations 
and images are no longer perceived, and appear 
to be blotted out from the individual perception, 
a tendency which results in their persistent and 
complete separation from the personality in some 
cases and in the formation of many independent 
groups. This series of psychological facts alternate 
the one with the other or co-exist. Finally this 
synthetic defect favours the formation of certain 
independent ideas, which develop complete in 
themselves, and unattached from the control of 
the consciousness of the personality. These ideas 
show themselves in affections possessing very 
various and unique characteristics." According 
to Mr A. S. Millar, F.R.C.S.E. {Encyclopedia 


Medica, vol. v.), " Hysteria is that . . . condition 
in which there is imagination, imitation, or ex- 
aggeration. ... It occurs mostly in females and 
persons of nervous temperament, and is due to 
some nervous derangement, which may or may 
not be pathological." Sir James Paget (" Clinical 
Lectures on Mimicry") says also that hysterical 
patients are mostly females of nervous tempera- 
ment. " They think of themselves constantly, are 
fond of telling everyone of their troubles and thus 
court sympathy, for which they have a morbid 
craving. Will power is deficient in one direction, 
though some have it very strongly where their 
interests are concerned." He thinks the term 
"hysteria" in the sense now employed incorrect, 
and would substitute "mimicry." "The will 
should be controlled by the intellect," observes 
Dr G. F. Still of King's College Hospital, " rather 
than by the emotions and the lack of this control 
appears to be at the root of some, at least, of the 
manifestations of hysteria." 

Dr Thomas Buzzard, above mentioned, thus 
summarises the mental symptoms: "The intelli- 
gence may be apparently of good quality, the 
patient evincing sometimes remarkable quickness 
of apprehension ; but carefully tested it is found 
to be wanting in the essentials of the highest class 
of mental power. The memory may be good, but 
the judgment is weak and the ability to concentrate 


the attention for any length of time upon a subject 
is absent. So also regard for accuracy, and the 
energy necessary to ensure it in any work that is 
undertaken, is deficient. The emotions are excited 
with undue readiness and when aroused are in- 
capable of control. Tears are occasioned not only 
by pathetic ideas but by ridiculous subjects and 
peals of laughter may incongruously greet some 
tragic announcement, or the converse may take 
place. The ordinary signs of emotion may be 
absent and replaced by an attack of syncope, 
convulsion, pain or paralysis. Perhaps more con- 
stant than any other phenomenon in hysteria is 
a pronounced desire for the sympathy and interest 
of others. This is evidently only one of the most 
characteristic qualities of femininity, uncontrolled 
by the action of the higher nervous centres which 
in a healthy state keep it in subjection. There is 
very frequently not only a deficient regard for 
truthfulness, but a proneness to active deception 
and dishonesty. So common is this, that the 
various phases of hysteria are often assumed to 
be simple examples of voluntary simulation and 
the title of disease refused to the condition. But 
it seems more reasonable to refer the symptoms to 
impairment of the highly complex nervous processes 
which form the physiological side of the moral 
faculties (Quain's Dictionary of Medicine, 1 902). 
" It is not uncommon to find hysteria in females 


accompanied by an utter indifference and insensi- 
bility to sexual relations. Premature cessation of 
ovulation is a frequent determining cause. In cases 
where the ovaries are absent the change from girl 
to woman, which normally takes place at puberty, 
does not occur. The girl grows but does not 
develop, a masculine appearance supervenes, the 
voice becomes manly and harsh, sexual passion is 
absent, the health remains good. The most violent 
instances of hysteria are in young women of the most {}yx^^A^' 
robust and masculine constitution " (John Mason , ,^^^£ ^^^ 
Good, M.D., "Study of Medicine," 1822). Other ,' " ' '^^ 
determmmg causes are given, as pamrul impressions, 
long fasting, strong emotions, imitation, luxury, 
ill-directed education and unhappy surroundings, • > -^'^"'^^'*^ 
celibacy, where not of choice but enforced by cir-»i*a//i^?^^ 
cumstances, unfortunate marriages, long-continued -^ntJ^^^^f^*^ 
trouble, fright, worry, overwork, disappointment 
and such like nervous perturbations, all which 
causes predispose to hysteria. " It attacks child- 
less women more frequently than mothers and 
particularly young widows," and, says Dr J. 
Mason Good, " more especially still those who are 
constitutionally inclined to that morbid salacity 
which has often been called nymphomania . . . 
the surest remedy is a happy marriage " (" Study of 
Medicine," 1 82 2, iii. 53 1). Hysteria is, in common — ^^ 
with other nervous disorders, essentially a heredi- .^ 
tary malady, and Briquet (" Trait e de I'hysterie," 


1899) gives statistics to show that in nine cases out 
of ten hysterical parents have hysterical children. 
Dr Paul Sainton of the Faculty of Medicine, 
Paris, says : " The appearance of a symptom 
of hysteria generally proves that the malady has 
already existed for some time though latent. The 
name of a provocative agent of hysteria is given 
to any circumstance which suddenly reveals the 
malady but the real cause of the disorder is a 
hereditary disposition. If the real cause is unique, 
the provocative agents are numberless. The moral 
emotions, grief, fright, anger and other psychic 
disturbances are the most frequent causes of 
hysterical affections and in every walk of life 
subjects are equally liable to attacks." 

Hysteria may appear at any age. It is common 
with children, especially during the five or six 
years preceding puberty. Of thirty-three cases 
under twelve years which came under Dr Still's 
notice, twenty-three were in children over eight 
years. Hysteria in women is most frequent between 
the ages of fifteen and thirty, and most frequently 
of all between fifteen and twenty. As a rule there 
is a tendency to cessation after the " change." It 
frequently happens, however, that the disease is 
continued into an advanced period of life. 

** There is a constant change," says Professor 
Albert Moll ("Das nervose Weib," p. 165), 
**from a cheerful to a depressed mood. From 


being free and merry the woman in a short time 
becomes sulky and sad. While a moment before 
she was capable of entertaining a whole company 
without pause, talking to each member about that 
which interested him, shortly afterwards she does 
not speak a word more. I may mention the well- 
worn example of the refusal of a new hat as being 
capable of converting the most lively mood into its 
opposite. The weakness of will shows itself here 
in that the nervous woman [by ** nervous" Dr Moll 
means what is commonly termed ** hysterical"] 
cannot, like the normal one, command the ex- 
pression of her emotions. She can laugh un- 
interruptedly over the most indifferent matter until 
she falls into veritable laughing fits. The crying 
fits which we sometimes observe belong to the 
same category. When the nervous woman is 
excited about anything she exhibits outbreaks of 
fury wanting all the characteristics of womanhood, 
and she is not able to prevent these emotional out- 
bursts. In the same way just as the emotions 
weaken the will and the woman cannot suppress 
this or that action, it is noticeable in many nervous 
women that quite independently of these emotions 
there is a tendency to continuous alterations in 
their way of acting. It has been noticed as 
characteristic of many nervous persons that their 
only consistency lies in their inconsistency. But this 
must in no way be applied to all nervous persons. 


On this disposition, discoverable in the nature of so 
many nervous women, rests the craving for change 
as manifested in the continual search for new 
pleasures, theatres, concerts, parties, tours, and 
other things (p. 1 47). Things that to the normal 
woman are indifferent or to which she has, in a 
sense, accustomed herself, are to the nervous 
woman a source of constant worry. Although she 
may perfectly well know that the circumstances of 
herself and her husband are the most brilliant and 
that it is unnecessary for her to trouble herself in 
the least about her material position as regards the 
future, nevertheless the idea of financial ruin 
constantly troubles her. Thus if she is a millionaire's 
wife she never escapes from constant worry. 
Similarly the nervous woman creates troubles out 
of things that are unavoidable. If in the course of 
years she gets more wrinkles, and her attraction for 
man diminishes, this may easily become a source of 
lasting sorrow for the nervous woman." 

"We now have to consider a point which is being 
continually urged by Feminists in the present day 
when confronted with the pathological mental 
symptoms so commonly observed in women which 
are usually regarded as having their origin in 
hysteria. "We often hear it said by Feminists in 
answer to arguments based on the above fact : 
" Oh, but men can also suffer from hysteria ! *' 
**In England," says Dr Buzzard," "hysteria is 


comparatively rarely met with in males, the female 
sex being much more prone to the affection." The 
proportion of males to females in hysteria is, ac- 
cording to Dr Pitre (" Clinical Essay on Hysteria," 
1891), I to 3 ; according to Bodensheim, I to lo; 
and according to Briquet, I to 20. The author of 
the article on Hysteria in The Encyclopedia Britannica 
(nth edition, 1911) also gives I to 20 as the 
numerical proportion between male and female 
cases. Dr Pitr^, in the work above cited, gives 
82 per cent, of cases of convulsions in women as 
against 22 in men. But in all this, under the con- 
cept hysteria are included, and indeed chiefly 
referred to, various physical symptoms of a con- 
vulsive and epileptic character which are quite 
distinct from the mental conditions rightly or 
wrongly connected, or even identified, with 
hysteria in the popular mind, and by many medical 
authorities. But even as regards hysteria in the 
former sense of the word, a sharp line of distinction 
based on a diagnosis of cases was long ago drawn 
by medical men between hysteria mascuUna and hysteria 
foeminina, and in the present day eminent authorities 
— e.g Dr Bernard Hollander — would deny that the 
symptoms occasionally diagnosed as hysteria in men 
are identical with or due to the same causes as 
the somewhat similar conditions known in women 
under the name. 

After all, this whole question in its broader 


bearings is more a question of common-sense 
observation than one for medical experts. 

What we are here chiefly concerned with as 
** hysteria" (in accordance with popular usage of 
the term) are certain pathological mental symptoms 
in women open to everybody's observation, and 
denied by no one unprejudiced by Feminist views. 
Every impartial person has only to cast his eye 
round his female acquaintance, and to recall the 
various women, of all classes, conditions and 
nationalities, that he may have come in contact 
with in the course of his life, to recognise those 
, symptoms of mental instability commonly called 
hysterical, as obtaining in at least a proportion of 
one to every four or five women he has known, in 
a marked and unmistakable degree. The propor- 
tion given is, in fact, stated in an official report to 
the Prussian Government issued some ten years 
back as that noticeable among female clerks, post 
office servants and other women employed in the 
Prussian Civil Service. Certainly as regards women 
in general, the observation of the present writer, 
and others whom he has questioned on the subject, 
would seem to indicate that the proportions given 
in the Prussian Civil Service report as regards the 
number ot women afflicted in this way are rather 
under than over stated.^ There are many medical 

* The insanities mentioned above are the extremes. There are 
mental disturbances of less severity constantly occurring which 


men who aver that no woman is entirely free from 
such symptoms at least immediately before and 
during the menstrual period. The head surgeon at 
a well-known London hospital informed a friend 
of mine that he could always tell when this period 
was on or approaching with his nurses, by the 
mental change which came over them. 

Now these pathological symptoms noticeable in 
a slight and more or less unimportant degree in the 
vast majority, if not indeed in all women, and in a 
marked pathological degree in a large proportion 
of women, it is scarcely too much to say do not 
occur at all in men. I have indeed known, I think, 
two men, and only two, in the course of my life, 
exhibiting mental symptoms analogous to those 
commonly called " hysterical" in women. On the 
other hand my own experience, and it is not alone, 
is that very few women with whom I have come 
into more or less frequent contact, socially or 
otherwise, have not at times shown the symptoms 
referred to in a marked degree. If, therefore, we 
are to admit the bare possibility of men being 
afflicted in a similar way it must be conceded that 
such cases represent such raros aves as to be 
negligible for practical purposes. 

A curious thing in pronounced examples of this 

are connected with the regular menstrual period as well as with 
disordered menstruation, with pregnancy, with parturition, 
with lactation, and especially with the change of life. 


mental instability in women is that the symptoms 
are often so very similar in women of quite different 
birth, surroundings and nationality. I can recall 
at the present moment three cases, each different as 
regards birth, class, and in one case nationality, 
and yet who are liable to develop the same symptoms 
under the influence of quite similar idees fixes. 

But it seems hardly necessary to labour the point 
in question at greater length. The whole experi- 
ence of mankind since the dawn of written records 
confirmed by, as above said, that of every living 
person not specially committed to the theories of 
Modern Feminism, bears witness alike to the pre- 
valence of what we may term the hysterical mind in 
woman and to her general mental frailty. It is not for 
nothing that women and children have always been 
classed together. This view, based as it is on the 
unanimous experience of mankind and confirmed 
by the observation of all independent persons, has, 
I repeat, not been challenged before the appear- 
ance of the present Feminist Movement and hardly 
by anyone outside the ranks of that movement. 

It is not proposed here to dilate at length on the 
fact, often before insisted upon, of the absence 
throughout history of the signs of genius, and, with 
a few exceptions, of conspicuous talent, in the 
human female, in art, science, literature, invention 
or "affairs." The fact is incontestable, and if it be 


argued that this absence in women, of genius or 
even of a high degree of talent, is no proof of the 
inferiority of the average woman to the average 
man the answer is obvious. 

Apart from conclusive proof, the fact of the 
existence in all periods of civilisation, and even 
under the higher barbarism, of exceptionally gifted 
men, and never of a correspondingly gifted woman, 
does undoubtedly ajfFord an indication of inferiority 
of the average woman as regards the average man. 
From the height of the mountain peaks we may, 
other things equal, undoubtedly conclude the 
existence of a tableland beneath them in the same 
tract of country whence they arise. I have already, 
in the present chapter, besides elsewhere, referred 
to the fallacy that intellectual or other fundamental 
inferiority in woman existing at the present day is 
traceable to any alleged repression in the past, since 
(Weissmann and his denial of transmission of ac- 
quired characteristics apart), assuming for the sake 
of the argument such repression to have really 
attained the extent alleged, and its effects to have 
been transmitted to future generations, it is against 
all the laws of heredity that such transmission 
should have taken place through the female line alone ^ 
as is contended by the advocates of this theory. 
Referring to this point, Herbert Spencer has 
expressed the conviction of most scientific thinkers 
on the subject when he declares a difference 


between the mental powers of men and women to 
result from '* a physiological necessity, and [that] no 
amount of culture can obliterate it." He further 
observes (the passages occur in a letter of his to 
John Stuart Mill) that " the relative deficiency of 
the female mind is in just those most complex 
faculties, intellectual and moral, which have political 
action for their sphere." 

One of the points as regards the inferiority of 
. women which Feminists are willing and even 
eager to concede, and it is the only point of which 
this can be said, is that of physical weakness. 
The reason why they should be particularly 
anxious to emphasise this deficiency in the sex is 
not difficult to discern. It is the only possible 
semblance of an argument which can be plausibly 
brought forward to justify female privileges in 
certain directions. It does not really do so, but it 
is the sole pretext which they can adduce with 
any show of reason at all. Now it may be observed 
'^^^ (l) that the general frailty of woman would 
militate coetdris paribus, against their own dogma 
of the intellectual equality between the sexes ; (2) 
that this physical weakness is more particularly a 
muscular weakness, since constitutionally the organ- 
ism of the human female has enormous power of 
resistance and resilience, in general, far greater than 
. tkp^ that of man (see below, pp. 1 25- 1 28). It is a matter 
/? f) °^ common observation that the average woman can 


pass through strains and recover in a way few 
men can do. But as we shall have occasion to 
revert to these two points at greater length later 
on, we refrain from saying more here. 

How then, after consideration, shall we judge of 
the Feminist thesis, affirmed and reaffirmed, insisted 
upon by so many as an incontrovertible axiom, that 
woman is the equal, intellectually and morally, if 
not physically, of man ? Surely that it has all the 
characteristics of a true dogma. Its votaries might 
well say with Tertullian, credo quia absurdum. It 
contradicts the whole experience of mankind in 
the past. It is refuted by all impartial observation 
in the present. The facts which undermine it are 
seriously denied by none save those committed to 
the dogma in question. Like all dogmas, it is sup- 
ported by ** bluff." In this case the ** bluff" is to the 
effect that it is the "part, mark, business, lot" (as 
the Latin grammars of our youth would have had 
it) of the ** advanced" man who considers himself 
up to date, and not " Early Victorian," to regard it 
as unchallengeable. Theological dogmas are backed 
up by the bluff of authority, either of scriptures 
or of churches. This dogma of the Feminist cult is 
not vouchsafed by the authority of a Communion 
of saints but by that of the Communion of advanced 
persons up to date. Unfortunately dogma doeis not 
sit so well upon the community of advanced persons 
up to date — who otherwise profess to, and generally 



do, bring the tenets they hold to the bar of 
reason and critical test — as it does on a church 
or community of saints who suppose themselves 
to be individually or collectively in communication 
with wisdom from on high. Be this as it may, the 
"advanced man" who would claim to be "up to 
date" has to swallow this dogma and digest it as 
best he can. He may secretly, it is true, spew it out 
of his mouth, but in public, at least, he must make 
a pretence of accepting it without flinching. 



We have already pointed out that Modern 
Feminism has two sides or aspects. The first 
formulates definite political, juridical and economic 
demands on the grounds of justice, equity, equality 
and so forth, as general principles ; the second does 
not formulate in so many words definite demands 
as general principles, but seems to exploit the 
traditional notions of chivalry based on male sex 
sentiment, in favour of according women special 
privileges on the ground of their sex, in the 
law, and still more in the administration of the 
law. For the sake of brevity we call the first 
Political Feminism, for, although its demands are 
not confined to the political sphere, it is first 
and foremost a political movement, and its typical 
claim at the present time, the Franchise, is a 
purely political one ; and the second Sentimental 
Feminism, inasmuch as it commonly does not profess 
to be based on any general principle whatever, 
whether of equity or otherwise, but relies ex- 
clusively on the traditional and conventional 



sex sentiment of Man towards Woman. It may 
be here premised that most Political Feminists, 
however much they may refuse to admit it, are 
at heart also Sentimental Feminists. Sentimental 
Feminists, on the other hand, are not invariably 
Political Feminists, although the majority of them 
undoubtedly are so to a greater or lesser extent. 
Logically, as we shall have occasion to insist upon 
later on, the principles professedly at the root of 
Political Feminism are in flagrant contradiction 
with any that can justify Sentimental Feminism. 

Now both the orders of Feminism referred to 
have been active for more than a generation past 
in fomenting a crusade against the male sex — an 
Anti-Man Crusade. Their efforts have been largely 
successful owing to a fact to which attention has, 
perhaps, not enough been called. In the case of 
other classes, or bodies of persons, having com- 
munity of interests this common interest invariably 
interprets itself in a sense of class, caste, or race 
solidarity. The class or caste has a certain esprit de 
corps in its own interest. The whole of history 
largely turns on the conflict of economic classes 
based on a common feeling obtaining between 
members of the respective classes ; on a small 
scale, we see the same thing in the solidarity of a 
particular trade or profession. But it is unnecessary 
to do more than call attention here to this funda- 
mental sociological law upon which alike the class 


struggles of history, and of modern times, the 
patriotism of states from the city-state of the 
ancient world to the national state of the modern 
world, is based. Now note the peculiar manner 
in which this law manifests itself in the sex question 
of the present day. While Modern Feminism has 
succeeded in establishing a powerful sex-solidarity 
amongst a large section of women as against 
men, there is not only no sex-solidarity of men as 
against women, but, on the contrary, the prevalence 
of an altogether opposed sentiment. Men hate their 
brother-men in their capacity of male persons. In any 
conflict of interests between a man and a woman, 
male public opinion, often in defiance of the most 
obvious considerations of equity, sides with the 
woman, and glories in doing so. Here we seem to 
have a very flagrant contradiction with, as has 
already been said, one of the most fundamental 
sociological laws. The explanations of the pheno- 
mena in question are, of course, ready to hand : — 
Tradition of chivalry, feelings, perhaps inherited, 
dating possibly back to the prehuman stage of 
man's evolution, derived from the competition of 
the male with his fellow-male for the possession 
.of the coveted female, etc. 

These explanations may have a measure of 
validity, but I must confess they are to me scarcely 
adequate to account for the intense hatred which 
the large section of men seem to entertain towards 


their fellow-males in the world of to-day, and 
their eagerness to champion the female in the 
sex war which the Woman's " sex union," as it 
has been termed, has declared of recent years. 
Whatever may be the explanation, and I confess 
I cannot find one completely satisfactory, the fact 
remains. A Woman's Movement unassisted by 
man, still more if opposed energetically by the 
public opinion of a solid phalanx of the man- 
hood of any country, could not possibly make 
any headway. As it is, we see the legislature, 
judges, juries, parsons, specially those of the non- 
conformist persuasion, all vie with one another in 
denouncing the villainy and baseness of the male 
person, and ever devising ways and means to make 
his life hard for him. To these are joined a host of 
literary men and journalists of varying degrees of 
reputation who contribute their quota to the stream 
of anti-manism in the shape of novels, storiettes, 
essays, and articles, the design of which is to paint 
man as a base, contemptible creature, as at once 
a knave and an imbecile, a bird of prey and a 
sheep in wolfs clothing, and all as a foil to the 
glorious majesty of Womanhood. There are not 
wanting artists who are pressed into this service. 
The picture of the Thames Embankment at 
night, of the drowned unfortunate with the 
angel's face, the lady and gentleman in evening 
dress who have just got out of their cab — the lady 


with uplifted hands bending over the dripping 
form, and the callous and brutal gentleman turning 
aside to light a cigarette — this is a typical 
specimen of Feminist didactic art. By these means, 
which have been carried on with increasing ardour 
for a couple of generations past, what we may term 
the anti-man cultus has been made to flourish and 
to bear fruit till we find nowadays all recent legis- 
lation affecting the relations between the sexes 
carrying its impress, and the whole of the judiciary 
and magistracy acting as its priests and ministrants. 
On the subject of Anti-man legislation, I have 
already written at length elsewhere,^ but for the 
sake of completeness I state the case briefly 
here, (i) The marriage laws of England to-day 
are a monument of Feminist sex partiality. 
If I may be excused the paradox, the parti- 
ality of the marriage laws begins with the 
law relating to breach of promise, which, as is 
well known, enables a woman to punish a man 
vindictively for refusing to marry her after having 
once engaged himself to her. I ought to add, and 
this, oftentimes, however good his grounds may be 
for doing so. Should the woman commit perjury, 
in these cases, she is never prosecuted for the 

^ Cf. Fortnightly Rev'uiv, November 191 1, "A Creature of 
Privilege," also a pamphlet (collaboration) entitled " The 
Legal Subjection of Men." Twentieth Century Press, reprinted 
by New Age Press, 1908. 


offence. Although the law of breach of promise 
, exists also for the man, it is well known to be 
I totally ineffective and practically a dead letter. 
It should be remarked that, however gross the 
misrepresentations or undue influences on the part 
of the woman may have been to induce the man 
to marry her, they do not cause her to lose her 
right to compensation. As, for instance, where an 
experienced woman of the world of thirty or forty 
entraps a boy scarcely out of his teens. (2) Again, 
according to the law of England, the right to 
maintenance accrues solely to the woman. Formerly 
this privilege was made dependent on her co- 
habitation with the man and generally decent 
behaviour to him. Now even these limitations 
cease to be operative, while the man is liable to 
imprisonment and confiscation of any property he 
may have. A wife is now at full liberty to leave 
her husband, while she retains her right to get 
Sy her husband sent to gaol if he refuses to maintain 
her — to put the matter shortly, the law imposes 
upon the wife no legally enforceable duties what- 
ever towards her husband. The one thing which 
it will enforce with iron vigour is the wife's right 
of maintenance against her husband. In the case 
of a man of the well-to-do classes, the man's 
property is confiscated by the law in favour of 
his wife. In the case of a working man the law 
compels her husband to do corvee for her, as the 


feudal serf had to do for his lord. The wife, on 
the other hand, however wealthy, is not compelled 
to give a farthing towards the support of her 
husband, even though disabled by sickness or by 
accident ; the single exception in the latter case 
being should he become chargeable to the parish, 
in which case the wife would have to pay the 
authorities a pauper's rate for his maintenance. 
In a word, a wife has complete possession and 
control over any property she may possess, as well 
as over her earnings ; the husband, on the other 
hand, is liable to confiscation of capitalised property 
or earnings at the behest of the law courts in ,j 
favour of his wife. A wife may even make her -^ 
husband bankrupt on the ground of money she 
alleges that she lent him j a husband, on the other 
hand, has no claim against his wife for any money 'i* 
advanced, since a husband is supposed to give, and 
not to /endf his wife money, or other valuables. 
(3) The law affords the wife a right to commit torts ^^ 
against third parties — e.g. libels and slanders — ^ V 
the husband alone being responsible, and this rule v- 
applies even although the wife is living apart from '•^ 
her husband, who is wholly without knowledge ^^ 
of her misdeeds. With the exception of murder, 5 
a wife is held by the law to be guiltless of practic- 
ally any crime committed in the presence of her 
husband. (4) No man can obtain a legal separation 
or divorce from his wife (save under the Licensing v^^' 


Act of 1902, a Police Court separation for habitual 
drunkenness alone) without a costly process in the 
High Court. Every wife can obtain, if not a 
divorce, at least a legal separation, by going 
whining to the nearest police court, for a few 
shillings, which her husband, of course, has to 
pay. The latter, it is needless to say, is mulcted 
in alimony at the " discretion of the Court." This 
** discretion" is very often of a queer character 
for the luckless husband. Thus, a working man 
earning only twenty shillings a week may easily 
find himself in the position of having to pay from 
seven to ten shillings a week to a shrew out of 
his wages. 

In cases where a wife proceeds to file a 
petition for divorce, the way is once more smoothed 
for her by the law, at the husband's expense. 
He has to advance her money to enable her to 
fight him. Should the case come on for hearing 
the husband finds the scale still more weighted 
against him ; every slander of his wife is assumed 
to be true until he has proved its falsity, the 
slightest act or a word during a moment of 
irritation, even a long time back, being twisted 
into what is termed " legal cruelty," even though 
such has been provoked by a long course of ill 
treatment and neglect on the part of the wife. 
The husband and his witnesses can be indicted 
for perjury for the slightest exaggeration or 


inaccuracy in their statements, while the most 

calculated falsity in the evidence of the wife and 

her witnesses is passed over. Not the grossest 

allegation on the part of the wife against the ;. -.^.^^U^ 

husband, even though proved in court to be false, ^ J 

is sufficient ground for the husband to refuse to p'*'*'^^^^ 

take her back again, or from preventing the court/ ^M. ^ A^*»*^ 

from confiscating his property if he resists doing -/^^ ^t-^^ZZ^^ 

so. Knowledge of the unfairness of the court ^ ' 

to the husband, as all lawyers are aware, prevents 

a large number of men from defending divorce 

actions brought by their wives. A point should 

here be mentioned as regards the action of a 

husband for damages against the seducer of his 

wife. Such damages obviously belong to the 

husband as compensation for his destroyed home^ 

life. Now these damages our modern judges in \ 

their feminist zeal have converted into a fund for 

endowing the adulteress, depriving the husband 

of any compensation whatever for the wrong done 

him. He may not touch the income derived from 

the money awarded him by the jury, which is 

handed over by the court to his divorced wife. 

It would take us too long to go through all the 

privileges, direct and indirect, conferred by statute 

or created by the rulings of judges and the practice 

of the courts, in favour of the wife against the 

husband. It is the more unnecessary to go into 

them here as they may be found in detail with 


illustrative cases in the aforesaid pamphlet in which 
I collaborated, entitled " The Legal Subjection 
of Men" (mentioned in the footnote to p. ^^). 

At this point it may be well to say a word on 
the one rule of the divorce law which Feminists 
are perennially trotting out as a proof of the 
shocking injustice of the marriage law to women : 
that to obtain her divorce the woman has to prove 
cruelty in addition to adultery against her husband, 
while in the case of the husband it is sufficient 
to prove adultery alone. Now to make of this 
rule a grievance for the woman is, I submit, 
evidence of the destitution of the Feminist case. 
In default of any real injustice pressing on 
the woman the Feminist is constrained to make 
as much capital as possible out of the merest 
semblance of a grievance he can lay his hand on. 
The reasons for this distinction which the law 
draws between the husband and the wife, it is 
obvious enough, are perfectly well grounded. It 
is based mainly on the simple fact that while 
a woman by her adultery may foist upon her 
husband a bastard which he will be compelled 
by law to support as his own child, in the 
husband's case of having an illegitimate child the 
wife and her property are not affected. Now in 
a society such as ours is, based upon private 
property-holding, it is only natural, I submit, that 
the law should take account of this fact. But not 


only is this rule of law almost certainly doomed 
to repeal in the near future, but in even the present 
day, while it still nominally exists, it is practically 
a dead letter in the divorce court, since any trivial 
act of which the wife chooses to complain is 
strained by the court into evidence of cruelty in 
the legal and technical sense. As the matter stands, 
the practical eiFect of the rule is a much greater 
injustice to the husband than to the wife, since the 
former often finds himself convicted of " cruelty " 
which is virtually nothing at all, in order that the 
wife's petition may be granted, and which is often 
made the excuse by Feminist judges for depriving 
the husband of the custody of his children. Mis- 
conduct on the wife's part, or neglect of husband 
and children, does not weigh with the court which 
will not on that ground grant relief to the husband 
from his obligation for maintenance, etc. On the 
other hand, neglect of the wife by the husband 
is made a ground for judicial separation with the 
usual consequences — alimony, etc. " Thus," as it 
has been put, <* between the upper and the nether 
millstone, cruelty on the one hand, neglect on the 
other, the unhappy husband can be legally ground 
to pieces, whether he does anything or whether he 
does nothing." Personal violence on the part of 
the husband is severely punished ; on the part of 
a wife she will be let off with impunity. Even 
if she should in an extreme case be imprisoned, the 


husband, if a poor man, on her release will be 
compelled to take her back to live with him. The 
case came under the notice of the writer a few 
years ago in which a humane magistrate was 
constrained to let off a woman who had nearly 
murdered a husband on the condition of her 
graciously consenting to a separation, but she had 
presumably still to be supported by her victim. 

The decision in the notorious Jackson case 
precluded the husband from compelling his wife 
to obey an order of the court for the restitution 
of conjugal rights. The persistent Feminist tendency 
of all case-law is illustrated by a decision of the 
House of Lords in 1894 ^^ reference to the law 
of Scotland constituting desertion for four years 
a ground ipso facto for a divorce with the right 
of remarriage. Here divorce was refused to a man 
whose wife had left him for four years and taken 
her child with her. The Law Lords justified their 
own interpretation of the law on the ground that 
the man did not really want her to come back. 
But inasmuch as this plea can be started in every 
case where it cannot be proved that the husband 
had absolutely grovelled before his wife, imploring 
her to return, and possibly even then — since the 
sincerity even of this grovelling might conceivably 
be called in question — it is clear that the decision 
practically rendered this old Scottish law inoperative 
for the husband. 


As regards the offence of bigamy, for which a 
man commonly receives a heavy sentence of penal 
servitude, I think I may venture to state, without 
risking contradiction, that no woman during recent 
years has been imprisoned for this offence. The 
statute law, while conferring distinct privileges 
upon married women as to the control of their 
property, and for trading separately and apart from 
their husbands, renders them exempt from the 
ordinary liabilities incurred by a male trader as 
regards proceedings under the Debtors Acts and 
the Bankruptcy Law. See Acts of 1822 (45 & 46 

Vict. c. 75); 1893 (5^ & 57 ^'^^^' ^- ^3)' ^^^ 
cases Scott v. Morley, 57 L.J.R.Q.B. 43. L.R. 20 
Q.B.D. In re Hannah Lines exparte Lester C.A. 
(1893), 2. 2. B. 113- 

In the case of Lady Bateman v. Faber and others 
reported in Chancery Appeal Cases (1898 Law Re- 
ports) the Master of the Rolls (Sir N. Lindley) is 
reported to have said : " The authorities showed 
that a married woman could not by hook or by 
crook — even by her own fraud — deprive herself 
of restraint upon anticipation. He would say nothing 
as to the policy of the law, but it had been 
affirmed by the Married Woman's Property Act " 
(the Act of 1882 above referred to) **and the 
result was that a married woman could play fast 
and loose to an extent to which no other person 
could." (N.B. — Presumably a male person.) ^^^^^--^^ 


It has indeed been held, to such a length does 
the law extend its protection and privileges to the 
female, that even the concealment by a wife from 
the husband at the time of marriage that she was 
then pregnant by another man was no ground for 
declaring the marriage null and void. 

The above may be taken as a fair all-round, 
although by no means an exhaustive, statement of 
^ the present one-sided condition of the civil law 
as regards the relation of husband and wife. We 
will now pass on to the consideration of the 
relative incidence of the criminal law on the two 
sexes. We will begin with the crime of murder. 
The law of murder is still ostensibly the same for 
both sexes, but in effect the application of its 
provisions in the two cases is markedly different. 
As, however, these differences lie, as just stated, 
not in the law itself but rather in its administration, 
we can only give in this place, where we are 
dealing with the principles of law rather than 
with their application, a general formula of the 
mode in which the administration of the law of 
murder proceeds, which, briefly stated, is as follows: 
The evidence even to secure conviction in the case 
of a woman must be many times stronger than 
that which would suffice to hang a man. Should a 
conviction be obtained, the death penalty, though 
pronounced, is not given effect to, the female 
prisoner being almost invariably reprieved. In 


most cases where there is conviction at all, it is 
for manslaughter and not for murder, when a 
light or almost nominal sentence is passed. Cases 
confirming what is here said will be given later 
on. There is one point, however, to be observed 
here, and that is the crushing incidence of the law 
of libel. This means that no case of any woman, 
however notoriously guilty on the evidence, can 
be quoted, after she has been acquitted by a 
Feminist jury, as the law holds such to be innocent 
and provides them with **a remedy" in a libel 
action. Now, seeing that most women accused of 
murder are acquitted irrespective of the evidence, 
it is clear that the writer is fatally handicapped 
so far as confirmation of his thesis by cases is 

Women are to all intents and purposes allowed 
to harass men, when they conceive they have a 
grievance, at their own sweet will, the magistrate 
usually telling their victim that he cannot interfere. 
In the opposite case, that of a man harassing a 
woman, the latter has invariably to find sureties 
for his future good behaviour, or else go to gaol. 

One of the njost infamous enactments indicative 
of Feminist sex bias is the Criminal Law Amend- 
ment Act of 1886. The Act itself was led up to 
with the usual effect by an unscrupulous newspaper 
agitation in the Feminist and Puritan interest, 
designed to create a panic in the public mind. 


under the influence of which legislation of this 
description can generally be rushed through Parlia- 
ment. The reckless disregard of the commonest 
principles of justice and common-sense of this 
abominable statute may be seen in the shameless sex 
privilege it accords the female in the matter of 
seduction. Under its provisions a boy of fourteen 
years can be prosecuted and sent to gaol for an 
offence to which he has been instigated by a girl just 
under sixteen years, whom the law, of course, on the 
basis of the aforesaid sex privilege, holds guiltless. 
^^ <:' '^^^ outrageous infamy of this provision is especi- 
ally apparent when we consider the greater 

— precocity of the average girl as compared with 

l^fi^/j t/^ the average boy of this age. 

J ^ ^ We come now to the latest piece of Anti-man 
^ legislation, the so-called White Slave Trade Act of 

(S^f^^fi^'t'^ l^l'2' (Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912, 2 & 3 
Geo. V. c. 20). This statute was, as usual, 

^ J rushed through the legislature on the wave of 

L^, /j factitious public excitement organised for the 

"^''^ purpose, and backed up by the usual faked state- 
jit^ ments and exaggerated allegations, the whole 

matter being three parts bogus and deliberate 
lying. The alleged dangers of the unprotected 
female were, for the object of the agitation, pur- 
posely exaggerated in the proverbial proportion of 
the mountain to the molehill. But as regards many 
of those most eager in promoting this piece of 


Anti-man legislation, there were probably special 
psychological reasons to account for their attitude. 
The special features of the Bill, the Act in question, 
are (l) increased powers given to the police in 
the matter of arrest on suspicion, and (2) the 
flogging clauses. 

Up till now the flogging of garrotters was 
justified against opponents, by its upholders, on 
the ground of the peculiarly brutal nature of the 
offence of highway robbery with violence. It 
should be noted that in the Act in question no 
such excuse can apply, for it is appointed to be 
inflicted for offences which, whatever else they 
may be, do not in their nature involve violence, 
and hence which cannot be described as brutal 
in the ordinary sense of the term. The Anti-man 
nature of the whole measure, as of the agitation 
itself which preceded it, is conclusively evidenced 
by the fact that while it is well known that the 
number of women gaining a living by "procura- 
tion" is much greater than the number of men 
engaged therein, comparatively little vituperation 
was heard against the female delinquents in the 
matter, and certainly none of the vitriolic ferocity 
that was poured out upon the men alleged to 
participate in the traffic. A corresponding distinc- 
tion was represented in the measure itself by the 
allocation of the torture of the lash to men 
alone. It is clear, therefore, that the zeal for the 


suppression of the traffic in question was not the 
sole motive in the ardour of the flogging fraternity. 
Even the Anti-manism at the back of the whole 
of this class of legislation seems insufficient to 
account for the outbreak of bestial blood-lust, for 
the tigerish ferocity, of which the flogging clauses 
in the Act are the outcome. There is, I take it, 
no doubt that psychical sexual aberration plays a 
not inconsiderable part in many of those persons 
— in a word, that they are labouring under some 
degree of homo-sexual Sadism. The lustful glee 
on the part of the aforesaid persons which greets 
the notion of the partial flaying alive, for that is 
what the " cat " means, of some poor wretch who 
has succumbed to the temptation of getting his liveli- 
hood by an improper method, is hardly to be 
explained on any other hypothesis. Experts allege 
that traces of psycho-sexual aberration are latent 
in many persons where it would be least expected, 
and it is, prima facie, likely enough that these latent 
tendencies in both men and women should become 
active under the cover of an agitation in favour of 
purity and anti-sexuality, to the point of gratify- 
ing itself with the thought of torture inflicted 
upon men. A psycho-sexual element of another 
kind doubtless also plays a not unimportant role 
in the agitation of "ladies" in favour of that 
abomination, ** social purity," which, being inter- 
preted, generally means lubricity turned upside 


down. The fiery zeal manifested by many of those 
ladies for the suppression of the male sex is 
assuredly not without its pathological significance. 
The monstrosity of the recent White Slave Traffic 
enactment and its savage anti-male vindictiveness 
is shown not merely, as already observed, in the 
agitation which preceded it, with its exaggerated 
vilification of the male offenders in the matter of 
procuration and its passing over with comparative 
slight censure the more numerous female offenders, 
or in the general spirit animating the Act itself, 
but it is noticeable in the very preposterous 
exaggeration of its provisions. For example, in the 
section dealing with the souteneur, the framers 
of this Act, and the previous Criminal Law 
Amendment Acts to which this latest one is merely 
supplementary, are not satisfied with penalising the 
man who has no other means of subsistence beyond 
what he derives from the wages of some female 
friend's prostitution, but they strike with impartial 
rigour the man who knowingly lives luholly or in part 
from such a source. If, therefore, the clause were 
taken in its strict sense, any poor out-at-elbow man 
who accepted the hospitality of a woman of doubt- 
ful virtue in the matter of a drink, or a dinner, 
would put himself within the pale of this clause 
in the Act, and might be duly flayed by the "cat" 
in consequence. The most flagrant case occurred 
in a London police court in March 19 1 3, in which 


a youth of eighteen years, against whose general 
character nothing was alleged and who was known 
to be in employment as a carman, was sentenced 
to a month's hard labour under the following 
circumstances : — It was reported that he had been 
living with a woman apparently considerably older 
than himself, whom admittedly he had supported 
by his own exertions and, when this was in- 
sufficient, even by the pawning of his clothes, 
and whom as soon as he discovered she was 
earning money by prostitution he had left. Would 
it be believed that a prosecution was instituted by 
the police against this young man under the 
iniquitous White Slave Traffic Act ? But what 
seems still more incredible is that the magistrate, 
presumably a sane gentleman, after admitting 
that the poor fellow was '^more sinned against 
than sinning," did not hesitate to pass on him a 
sentence of one month's hard labour ! ! ! Of course 
the woman, who was the head and front of the 
offending, if offending there was, remained un- 
touched. The above is a mild specimen of 
"justice" as meted out in our police courts, 
"for men only"! Quite recently there was a 
case in the north of England of a carter, who 
admittedly worked at his calling but who, it was 
alleged, was assisted by women with whom he had 
lived. Now this unfortunate man was sentenced 
to a long term of imprisonment plus flogging. For 


the judges, of course, any extension of their power 
over the prisoner in the dock is a godsend. It is 
quite evident that they are revelling in their new 
privilege to inflict torture. One of them had the 
shamelessness recently to boast of the satisfac- 
tion it gave him and to sneer at those of his 
colleagues who did not make full use of their 
judicial powers in this direction. 

The bogus nature of the reasons urged in favour 
of the most atrocious clauses of this abominable 
Act came out clearly enough in the speeches of 
the official spokesmen of the Government in its 
favour. For example, Lord Haldane in the House 
of Lords besought the assembled peers to bethink 
themselves of the unhappy victim of the souteneur. 
He drew a picture of how a heartless bully might 
beat, starve and otherwise ill treat his victim, be- 
sides taking away her earnings. He omitted to 
explain how the heartless bully in a free country 
could coerce his ** victim" to remain with him 
against her will. He ignored the existence of the 
police, or of a whole army of social purity busy- 
bodies, and vigilance societies for whom her case 
would be a tasty morsel only too eagerly snapped 
at. If the " victim " does not avail herself of any of 
those means of escape, so ready to her hand, the 
presumption is that she prefers the company of her 
alleged brutal tyrant to that of the chaste Puritan 
ladies of the vigilance societies. To those who follow 


the present state of artificially fomented public 
opinion in the matter, Lord Haldane's suggestion 
that there was any danger of the precious 
** victim" not being sufficiently slobbered over, 
will seem to be not without a touch of humour. 
Furthermore, as illustrating the utter illogicality of 
the line taken by the promoters of the Act, for 
whom Lord Haldane acted as the mouthpiece, we 
have only to note the fact that the measure does 
not limit the penalties awarded to cases accom- 
panied by circumstances of aggravation such as 
Lord Haldane pictures, which it might easily have 
done, but extends it impartially to all cases 
whether accompanied by cruelty or not. We can 
hardly imagine that a man of Lord Haldane's 
intellectual power and general humanity should not 
have been aware of the hollowness of the case he 
had to put as an official advocate, and of the 
rottenness of the conventional arguments he had 
to state in its support. When confronted with the 
unquestionably true contention that corporal pun- 
ishments, especially such as are of a savage and vin- 
dictive kind, are degrading alike to the inflicters of 
them and to those who are their victims, he replied 
that criminals in the cases in question were already 
so degraded that they could not be degraded 
further. One would imagine he could hardly have 
failed to know that he was talking pernicious 
twaddle. It is obvious that this argOment, in 


addition to its being untrue, in fact opens the flood- 
gates to brutal penal legislation all round, so far at 
least as the more serious offences are concerned. One 
could equally well assert of murder, burglary, even 
abus de confidence in some cases, and other offences, 
that the perpetrators of them must be so degraded 
that no amount of brutal punishment could degrade 
them further. Everybody can regard the crime to 
which he has a pet aversion more than other crimes 
as indicating the perpetrator thereof to be outside 
the pale of humanity. 

But as regards the particular case in point, let 
us for a moment clear our minds of cant upon the 
subject. Procuration and also living on the pro- 
ceeds of prostitution may be morally abominable 
methods of securing a livelihood, though even 
here, as in most other offences, there may be cir- 
cumstances of palliation in individual cases. But 
after all said and done, it is doubtful whether, apart 
from any fraud or misrepresentation, which, of 
course, places it altogether in a different category, 
these ought to be regarded as criminal offences. 
To offer facilities or to act as an agent for women 
who are anxious to lead a " gay life," or even to 
suggest such a course to women, so long as prostitu- 
tion itself is not recognised by the law as crime, however 
reprehensible morally, would scarcely seem to 
transcend the limits of legitimate individual liberty. 
In any case, the constituting of such an action a 


crime must surely open out an altogether new 
principle in jurisprudence, and one of far-reaching 
consequences. The same remarks apply even more 
forcibly to the question of sharing the earnings of 
a prostitute. Prostitution per se is not in the eyes of 
the law a crime or even a misdemeanour. The woman 
who makes her living as a prostitute is under the 
protection of the law, and the money she receives 
from her customer is recognised as her property. 
If she, however, in the exercise of her right of free 
disposition of that property, gives some of it to a 
male friend, that friend, by the mere acceptance of 
a free gift, becomes a criminal in the eyes of the 
law. Anything more preposterous, judging by all 
hitherto recognised principles of jurisprudence, can 
scarcely be imagined. Even from the moral point 
of view of the class of cases coming under the 
purview of the Act, of men who in part share in 
the proceeds of their female friends' traffic, must 
involve many instances in which no sane person — 'ue. 
one who is not bitten by the rabid man-hatred of 
the Feminist and social purity monger — must re- 
gard the moral obliquity involved as not very 
serious. Take, for instance, the case of a man 
who is out of work, who is perhaps starving, and 
receives temporary assistance of this kind. Would 
any reasonable person allege that such a man was in 
the lowest depths of moral degradation, still less 
that he merited for this breach, at most, of fine 


delicacy of feeling, the flaying alive prescribed by 
the Act under consideration. Besides all this, it 
is well known that some women, shop assistants 
and others, gain part of their living by their re- 
putable avocation and part in another way. Now 
presumably the handing over of a portion of her 
regular salary to her lover would not constitute 
the latter a flayable criminal, but the endowment 
of him with a portion of any of the "presents" 
obtained by her pursuit of her other calling would 
do so. The process of earmarking the permissible 
and the impermissible gift strikes one as very diffi- 
cult even if possible. 

The point last referred to leads us on to another 
reflection. If the man who " in whole or in part " 
lives on the proceeds of a woman's prostitution is of 
necessity a degraded wretch outside the pale of all 
humanity, as he is represented to be by the flog- 
ging fraternity, how about the employer or em- 
ployeress of female labour who bases his or her 
scale of wages on the assumption that the girls and 
women he or she employs, supplement these wages 
by presents received after working hours, for their 
sexual favours — in other words, by prostitution ? 
Many of these employers of labour are doubtless 
to be found among the noble band of advocates 
of White Slave Traffic Bills, flogging and social 
purity. The above persons, of course, are respectable 
members of society, while a souteneur is an outcast. 


In addition to the motives before alluded to as 
actuating the promoters of the factitious and bogus 
so-called " White Slave " agitation, there is one 
very powerful political and economic motive which 
must not be left out of sight. In view of the exist- 
ing "labour unrest," it is highly desirable from the 
point of view of our possessing and governing 
classes that popular attention should be drawn off 
labour wrongs and labour grievances on to some- 
thing less harassing to the capitalist and official 
mind. Now the Anti-man agitation forms a capital 
red herring for drawing the popular scent off class 
opposition by substituting sex antagonism in its 

"" If you can set public opinion off on the question 
of wicked Man and down-trodden Woman, you 
have done a good deal to help capitalistic enter- 
prise to tide over the present crisis. The insistence 
of public opinion on better conditions for the 
labourer will thus be weakened by being diverted 
into urging forward vindictive laws against men, 
and for placing as far as may be the whole power 
of the State at the disposal of the virago, the 
shrew and the female sharper, in their designs 
upon their male victim. For, be it remembered, 
it is always the worst type of woman to whom 
the advantage of laws passed as the result of 
the Anti-man campaign accrues. The real nature 
of the campaign is crucially exhibited in some 


of the concrete demands put forward by its 

One of the measures proposed in the so-called 
"Woman's Charter" drawn up with the approval 
of all prominent Feminists by Lady McLaren (now 
Lady Aberconway) some four or five years back, 
and which had been previously advocated by other 
Feminist writers, was to the effect that a husband, 
in addition to his other liabilities, should be legally 
compelled to pay a certain sum to his wife, 
ostensibly as wages for her housekeeping services, 
no matter whether she performs the services well, 
or ill, or not at all. Whatever the woman is, or 
does, the husband has to pay all the same. Another 
of the clauses in this precious document is to the 
eiFect that a wife is to be under no obligation to 
follow her husband, compelled probably by the 
necessity of earning a livelihood for himself and 
her, to any place of residence outside the British 
Islands. That favourite crank of the Feminist, of 
raising the age of consent with the result of increas- 
ing the number of victims of the designing young 
female should speak for itself to every unbiassed 
person. One of the proposals which finds most 
favour with the Sentimental Feminist is the demand 
that in the case of the murder by a woman of her 
illegitimate child, the putative father should be 
placed in the dock as an accessory ! In other words, 
a man should be punished for a crime of which 


he is wholly innocent, because the guilty person 
was forsooth a woman. That such a suggestion 
should be so much as entertained by otherwise 
sane persons is indeed significant of the degeneracy 
of mental and moral fibre induced by the Feminist 
movement, for it may be taken as typical. It 
reminds me of a Feminist friend of mine who, 
challenged by me, sought (for long in vain) to 
find a case in the courts in which a man was 
unduly favoured at the expense of a woman. At 
last he succeeded in lighting upon the following 
from somewhere in Scotland : A man and woman 
who had been drinking went home to bed, and 
the woman caused the death of her baby by 
"overlaying it." Both the man and the woman 
were brought before the court on the charge of 
manslaughter, for causing the death, by culpable 
negligence, of the infant. In accordance with the 
evidence, the woman who had overlaid the baby was 
convicted and sentenced to six months' imprison- 
ment, and naturally the man, who had not done so, 
was released. Now, in the judgment of my Feminist 
friend, in other matters sane enough, the fact that 
the man who had not committed any offence was 
let ofi, while his female companion, who had, was 
punished, showed the bias of the court in favour 
of the man! ! Surely this is a noteworthy illustration, 
glaring as it is, of how all judgment is completely 
overbalanced and destroyed in otherwise judicial 


minds — of how such minds are completely hypno- 
tised by the adoption of the Feminist dogma. As 
a matter of fact, of course, the task my friend set 
himself to do was hopeless. As against the cases, 
which daily occur all over the country, of flagrant 
injustice to men and partiality to women on the 
part of the courts, there is, I venture to assert, 
not to be found a single case within the limits of 
the four seas of a judicial decision in the contrary 
sense — i.e. of one favouring the man at the expense 
of the woman. 

This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its 
character, of men for men, which has for its 
results that " man-made " laws invariably favour 
the opposite sex, and that •' man-administered 
justice" follows the same course, is a psycho- 
logical problem which is well worth the earnest 
attention of students of sociology and thinkers 



While what we have termed Political Feminism 
vehemently asserts its favourite dogma, the in- 
tellectual and moral equality of the sexes — that 
the woman is as good as the man if not better — 
Sentimental Feminism as vehemently seeks to 
exonerate every female criminal, and protests 
against any punishment being meted out to her 
approaching in severity that which would be 
awarded a man in a similar case. It does so on 
grounds which presuppose the old theory of the 
immeasurable inferiority, mental and moral, of 
woman, which are so indignantly spurned by 
every Political Feminist — i.e, in his or her capacity 
as such. We might suppose, therefore, that Political 
Feminism, with its theory of sex equality based on 
the assumption of equal sex capacity, would be in 
strong opposition in this matter with Sentimental 
Feminism, which seeks, as its name implies, to 
attenuate female responsibility on grounds which 
are not distinguishable from the old-fashioned 
assumption of inferiority. But does Political 



Feminism consistently adopt this logical position ? 
Not one whit. It is quite true that some Feminists, 
when hard pressed, may grudgingly concede the 
untenability on rational grounds of the Sentimental 
Feminists' claims. But taken as a whole, and in 
their practical dealings, the Political Feminists are 
in accord with the Sentimental Feminists in claim- 
ing female immunity on the ground of sex. This is 
shown in every case where a female criminal re- 
ceives more than a nominal sentence. 

We have already given examples of the fact in 
question, and they could be indefinitely extended. 
At the end of the year 191 1, at Birmingham, in the 
case of a woman convicted of the murder of her 
paramour by deliberately pouring inflammable oil 
over him while he was asleep, and then setting it 
afire, and afterwards not only exulting in the action 
but saying she was ready to do it again, the jury 
brought in recommendation to mercy with their 
verdict. And, needless to say, the influence of 
Political and Sentimental Feminism was too strong 
to allow the capital sentence to be carried out, even 
with such a fiendish wretch as this. In the case 
of the Italian woman in Canada, Napolitano, before 
mentioned, the female franchise societies issued a 
petition to Mr Borden, the Premier of Canada, in 
favour of the commutation of sentence. The usual 
course was adopted in this case, as in most others in 
which a woman murders a man — to wit, the truly 


"chivalrous" one of trying to blacken the char- 
acter of the dead victim in defence of the action 
of the murderess. In other cases, more especially, 
of course, where the man is guilty of a crime against 
a woman, when mercy is asked for the offender, 
we are pitifully adjured to " think of the poor 
victim." As we have seen. Lord Haldane trotted 
out this exhortation in a case where it was absurdly 
inappropriate, since the much - commiserated 
** victim" had only herself to thank for being a 
** victim," and still more for remaining a ** victim." 
We never hear this plea for the ** victim" urged 
where the ** victim " happens to be a man and the 
offender a woman. Compare this with the case 
of the boy of nineteen, Beal, whom Mr M*Kenna 
hanged for the murder of his sweetheart, and that 
in the teeth of an explanation given in the defence 
which was at least possible, if not probable, and 
which certainly, putting it at the very lowest, 
introduced an element of doubt into the case. 
Fancy a girl of nineteen being convicted, what- 
ever the evidence, of having poisoned her paramour 
or even if, per impossibile , she were convicted, fancy 
her being given more than a short term of imprison- 
ment ! A man murdered by a woman is always the 
horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the 
man is just as surely the angelic victim. Anyone 
who reads reports of cases with an unbiassed mind 
must admit the absolute accuracy of this statement. 


Divine woman is always the " injured innocent," 
not only in the graver crimes, such as murder, but 
also in the minor offences coming under the 
cognisance of the law. At the Ledbury Petty 
Sessions a woman in the employment of a draper, 
who had purloined goods to the amount of £lS^y 
was acquitted on the ground of *' kleptomania," 
and this notwithstanding the fact that she had 
been in the employment of the prosecutor for over 
five years, had never complained of illness and 
had never been absent from business ; also that 
her landlady gave evidence showing that she was 
sound in mind and body. At the very same sessions 
two men were sentenced respectively to eight and 
twelve months' imprisonment for stealing goods 
to the value of £$ ! (John Bull, 1 2th November 

At this point I may be permitted to quote from 
the article formerly alluded to {Fortnightly Review, 
November 191 1, case taken from a report in The 
News of the World of 28th February 1909) : "A 
young woman shot at the local postman with 
a revolver ; the bullet grazed his face, she having 
fired point blank at his head. Jury returned a 
verdict of not guilty, although the revolver was 
found on her when arrested, and the facts were 
admitted and were as follows : — At noon she left 
her house, crossing three fields to the house of 
the victim, who was at home and alone ; upon his 


appearing she fired point blank at his head ; he 
banged to the door, and thus turned off the bullet, 
which grazed his face and ' ploughed a furrow 
through his hair.' She had by her when arrested 
a revolver cocked and with four chambers undis- 

Let us now take the crime of violent assault 
with attempt to do bodily injury. The ft)llowing 
cases will serve as illustrative examples : — From 
The Neius of the World, 9th May 1 909 : A nurse 
in Belfast sued her lost swain for breach of 
promise. 5^^ obtained /"loo damages although it ivas 
admitted by her counsel that she had thronvn vitriol over 
the defendant y thereby injuring him, and the defendant had 
not prosecuted her I Also it was admitted that she 
had been ** carrying on" with another man. From 
The Morning Leader of 8th July 1 905 I have 
taken the following extraordinary facts as to the 
varied punishment awarded in cases of vitriol- 
throwing : That of a woman who threw vitriol 
over a sergeant at Aldershot, and was sentenced 
to six months' imprisonment without hard labour 
while a man who threw it over a woman at Ports- 
mouth was tried and convicted at the Hants 
Assizes, on 7th July 1905, and sentenced by Mr 
Justice Bigham to twelve years' penal servitude ! 
As regards the first case it will be observed that, 
(notwithstanding a crime, which in the case of 
a man was described by the judge as ** cowardly 


and vile " and meriting twelve years' penal servitude) 
the woman was rewarded by damages for £100, 
to be obtained from the very victim whom she 
had done her best to maim for life (besides being 
unfaithful to him) and who had generously 
abstained from prosecuting. 

But it is not merely in cases of murder, attempted 
murder or serious assault that justice is mocked by 
the present state of our law and its administration 
in the interests of the female sex. The same attitude 
is observed, the same farcical sentences on women, 
whether the crime be theft, fraud, common assault, 
criminal slander or other minor offences. We 
have the same preposterous excuses admitted, the 
same preposterous pleas allowed, and the same 
farcical sentences passed — if, indeed, any sentence 
be passed at all. The following examples I have 
culled at random : — From John Bull, 26th February 
191 o: At the London Sessions, Mr Robert 
Wallace had to deal with the case of a 
well-dressed woman living at Hampstead, who 
pleaded guilty to obtaining goods to the amount 
of £^0 by false pretences. In explanation of 
her crime it was stated that she was under a 
mistaken impression that her engagement would 
not lead to marriage, that she became de- 
pressed, and that she " did not know what she 
said or did," while in mitigation of punishment it 
was urged that the money had been repaid, that 


her fiance could not marry her if she were sent 
to gaol, and that her life would be irretrievably 
ruined, and she was discharged ! From The Bir- 
mingham Post, 4th February 1902 : A female 
clerk (twenty-six) pleaded guilty to embezzling 
^5, IS. pd. on i6th November, £2^ 2s. 4d. on 
21st December and £^y os. 9d. on 23rd December 
last, the moneys of her employer. Prosecuting 
counsel said prisoner entered prosecutor's employ 
in 1900, and in June last her salary was raised to 
27s. 6d. a week. The defalcations, which began 
a month before the increase, amounted to £l1^* 
She had falsified the books, and when suspicion 
fell upon her destroyed two books, in order, as 
she thought, to prevent detection. Her counsel 
pleaded for leniency on the ground of her previous 
good character and because she was engaged \ The 
recorder merely bound her over, stating that her 
parents and young man were respectable, and so 
was the house in which she lodged ! A correspon- 
dent mentions in The Birmingham Post of February 
1902 a case where a woman had burned her 
employer's outhouses and property, doing ^^1800 
worth of damage, and got ofi' with a month's 
imprisonment. On the other hand, the same judge, 
at the same Quarter Sessions, thus dealt with two 
male embezzlers : C. C. (twenty-eight), clerk, who 
pleaded guilty to embezzling two sums of money 
from his master in August and September of 1 90 1 


(amounts not given), was sent to gaol for six 
calendar months ; and S. G. (twenty-four), clerk, 
pleaded guilty to embezzling ys. 6d. and 3s. For 
the defence it was urged that the prisoner had 
been poorly paid, and the recorder, hearing that 
a gentleman was prepared to employ the man as 
soon as released, sentenced him to three months' 
hard labour ! O merciful recorder ! 

The "injured innocent" theory usually comes 
into play with magistrates when a woman is 
charged with aggravated annoyance and harassing 
of men in their business or profession, when, as 
already stated, the administrator of the law will 
usually tell the prosecutor that he cannot interfere. 
In the opposite case of a man annoying a woman 
under like circumstances he invariably has to find 
substantial sureties for his good behaviour or go to 
gaol. No injured innocence for him ! 

There is another case in which it seems probable 
that, animated by the same fixed idea, those re- 
sponsible for the framing of laws have flagrantly 
neglected an obvious measure for public safety. We 
refer to the unrestricted sale of sulphuric acid 
(vitriol) which is permitted. Now here we have a 
substance subserving only very special purposes in 
industry, none in household economy, or in other 
departments, save for criminal ends, which is never- 
theless procurable without let or hindrance. Is it 
possible to believe that this would be the case if men 


were In the habit of using this substance in settling 
their differences with each other, even still more 
if they employed it by way of emphasising their 
disapproval of the jilting of sweethearts ? That it 
should be employed by women in wreaking their 
vengeance on recalcitrant lovers seems a natural 
if not precisely a commendable action, in the eyes 
of a Sentimental Feminist public opinion, and one 
which, on the mildest hypothesis, " doesn't matter." 
Hence a deadly substance may be freely bought 
and sold as though it were cod-liver oil. A very 
nice thing for dastardly viragoes for whom public 
opinion has only the mildest of censures ! In 
any reasonable society the indiscriminate sale of 
corrosive substances would in itself be a crime 
punishable with a heavy term of imprisonment. 

It is not only by men, and by a morbid public 
opinion inflamed by Feminist sentiment in general, 
that female criminals are surrounded by a halo of 
injured innocence. The reader can hardly fail to 
notice that such women have the effrontery to pre- 
tend to regard themselves in this light. This is often 
so in cases of assault, murder or attempted murder 
of lovers by their sweethearts. Such is, of course, 
particularly noticeable in the senselessly wicked 
outrages, of which more anon. The late Otto 
Weininger, in his book before quoted, **Geschlecht 
und Charakter" (Sex and Character), has some note- 
worthy remarks on this, remarks which, whether we 


accept his suggested theory or not, might well 
have been written as a comment on recent cases 
of suiFragette crimes and criminals. " The male 
criminal," says Weininger, " has from his birth 
the same relation to the idea of value [moral value] 
as any other man in whom the criminal tendencies 
governing himself may be wholly absent. The 
female on the other hand often claims to be fully 
justified when she has committed the greatest 
conceivable infamy. While the genuine criminal 
is obtusely silent against all reproaches, a woman* 
will express her astonishment and indignation that 
anyone can doubt her perfect right to act as she 
has done. Women are convinced of their being in 
the right without ever having sat in judgment on 
themselves. The male criminal, it may be true, does 
not do so either, but then he never maintains that 
he is in the right. He rather goes hastily out of 
the way of discussing right and wrong, because it 
reminds him of his guilt. In this fact we have a 
proof that he has a relationship to the [moral] idea, 
and that it is unfaithfulness to his better self of 
which he is unwilling to be reminded. No male 
criminal has ever really believed that injustice has 
been done him by punishment. The female criminal 
on the other hand is convinced of the maliciousness 
of her accusers, and if she is unwilling no man can 
persuade her that she has done wrong. Should 
someone admonish her, it is true that she often 


bursts into tears, begs for forgiveness and admits 
her fault ; she may even believe indeed that she 
really feels this fault. Such is only the case, how- 
ever, when she has felt inclined to do so, for this 
very dissolving in tears affects her always with a 
certain voluptuous pleasure. The male criminal is 
obstinate, he does not allow himself to be turned 
round in a moment as the apparent defiance of a 
woman may be converted into an apparent sense of 
guilt, where, that is, the accuser understands how to 
handle her" (**Geschlecht und Charakter," pp. 253- 
254). Weininger's conclusion is : " Not that woman 
i is naturally evil or anti^moral, but rather that she 
j is merely ^-moral, in other words that she is 
^\[ destitute of what is commonly called * moral 
) sense.' " The cases of female penitents and others 
which seem to contradict this announcement 
[Weininger explains by the hypothesis that ** it is 
' only in company and under external influence that 
il woman can feel remorse." 

Be all this as it may, the fact remains that 
women when most patently and obviously guilty 
of vile and criminal actions will, with the most 
complete nonchalance, insist that they are in the 
right. This may be, and very possibly often is, 
mere impudent effrontery, relying on the privilege 
of the female sex, or it may, in part at least, as 
Weininger insists, be traceable to " special deep- 
lying sex-characteristics." But in any case the 


singular fact is that men, and men even of other- 
wise judicial capacity, are to be found who are 
prepared virtually to accept the justice of this 
attitude, and who are ready to condone, if not 
directly to defend, any conduct, no matter how 
vile or how criminal, on the part of a woman. 
We have illustrations of this class of judgment 
almost every day, but I propose to give two 
instances of what I should deem typical, if slightly 
extreme, perversions of moral judgment on the 
part of two men, both of them of social and 
intellectual standing, and without any doubt 
personally of the highest integrity. Dr James 
Donaldson, Principal of the University of St 
Andrews, in his work entitled " Woman, her 
Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and 
Rome and among the Early Christians," comment- 
ing on the well-known story attributed to the 
year 331 B.C., which may or may not be historical, 
of the wholesale poisoning of their husbands by 
Roman matrons, as well as of subsequent cases 
of the same crime, concludes his remarks with 
these words : "It seems to me that we must 
regard them [namely these stories or facts, as we 
may choose to consider them] as indicating that 
the Roman matrons felt sometimes that they were 
badly treated, that they ought not to endure the 
bad treatment, and that they ought to take the 
only means that they possessed of expressing their 


feelings, and of wreaking vengeance, by employing 
poison" (p. 92). Now though it may be said 
that in this passage we have no direct justification 
of the atrocious crime attributed to the Roman 
matrons, yet it can hardly be denied that we have 
here a distinct condonation of the infamous and 
dastardly act, such a condonation as the worthy 
Principal of St Andrews University would hardly 
have meted out to men under any circumstances. 
Probably Professor Donaldson, in writing the above, 
felt that his comments would not be resented very 
strongly, even if not actually approved, by public 
opinion, steeped as it is at the present time in 
Feminism, political and sentimental. 

Another instance, this time of direct special 
pleading to prove a woman guilty of an atrocious 
crime to be an " injured innocent." It is taken from 
an eminent Swiss alienist in his work on Sex. Dr 
Forel maintains a thesis which may or may not be 
true to the effect that the natural maternal instinct 
is either absent or materially weakened in the case 
of a woman who has given birth to a child begotten 
by rape, or under circumstances bordering upon 
rape, and indeed more or less in all cases where 
the woman is an unwilling participant in the sexual 
act. By way of illustration of this theory he cites 
the case of a barmaid in St Gallen who was seduced 
by her employer under such circumstances as those 
above mentioned; a child resulted, who was put 


out to nurse at an institution until five years of 
age, when it was handed over to the care of the 
mother. Now what does the woman do ? Within a 
few hours of receiving the little boy into her keep- 
ing she took him to a lonely place and deliberately 
strangled him, in consequence of which she was 
tried and condemned. Now Dr Forel, in his 
Feminist zeal, feels it incumbent upon him to try 
to whitewash this female monster by urging, on 
the basis of this theory, the excuse that under the 
circumstances of its conception one could not 
expect the mother to have the ordinary instincts of 
maternity as regards her child. The worthy doctor 
is apparently so blinded by his Feminist prejudices 
that (quite apart from the correctness or otherwise 
of his theory) he is oblivious of the absurd irrele- 
vancy of his argument. What, we may justly ask, 
has the maternal instinct, or its absence, to do 
with the guilt of the murderess of a helpless child 
committed to her care ? Who or what the child 
was is immaterial ! That a humane and otherwise 
clear-headed man like Dr Forel could take a wretch 
of this description under his agis, and still more 
that in doing so he should serve up such utterly 
illogical balderdash by way of argument, is only 
one more instance of how the most sane-thinking 
men are rendered fatuous by the glamour of 
Sentimental Feminism. 

In the present chapter we have given a few 



typical instances of the practice which constitutes 
one of the most conspicuous features of Modern 
Feminism and of the public opinion which it has 
engendered. We hear and read, ad nauseam, of 
excuses, and condonation, for every crime com- 
mitted by a woman, while a crime of precisely 
similar a character and under precisely similar 
circumstances, where a man is the perpetrator, meets 
with nothing but virulent execration from that 
truculent ass, British public opinion, as manipu- 
lated by the Feminist fraternity, male and female. 
This state of public opinion reacts, of course, 
upon the tribunals and has the result that women 
are practically free to commit any offence they 
please, with always a splendid sporting chance of 
getting acquitted altogether', and a practical 
certainty that even if convicted they will receive 
farcical sentences, or, should the sentence be in any 
degree adequate to the offence, that such sentence 
will not be carried out. The way in which criminal 
law is made a jest and a mockery as regards female 
prisoners, the treatment of criminal suffragettes, 
is there in evidence. The excuse of health being 
endangered by their going without their breakfasts 
has resulted in the release after a few days 
of women guilty -of the vilest crimes — e.g. the 
attempt to set fire to the theatre at Dublin. It 
may be well to recall the outrageous facts of 
modern female immunity and free defiance of the 


law as illustrated by one quotation of a description 
of the merry time of the window-smashers of 
March 191 2 in Holloway prison given by a corre- 
spondent of The Daily Telegraph, The correspondent 
of that journal describes his visit to the aforesaid 
prison, where he said there appeared to have been 
no punishment of any kind for any sort of mis- 
behaviour. " All over the place," he writes, ** is 
noise — women calling to women everywhere, and 
the officials seem powerless to preserve even the 
semblance of discipline. A suiFragist will call out 
her name while in a cell, and another one who 
knows her will answer, giving her name in re- 
turn, and a conversation will then be carried on 
between the two. This chattering obtains all day 
and far into the night. The * officials ' as the 
wardresses prefer themselves called, have already 
given the prison the name of * the monkey-house.' 
Certain it is that the prisoners are treated with 
all deference, the reason being perhaps that the 
number of officials is insufficient to establish 
proper order. While I was waiting yesterday one 
lady drove up in a carriage and pair, in which were 
two policemen and several bundles of clothes, to 
enter upon her sentence and this is the note which 
seems to dominate the whole of the prison. 
Seventy-six of the prisoners are supposed to be 
serving sentences with hard labour, but none of 
them are wearing prison clothes, and in only one 


or two instances have any tasks of any description 
been given, those generally being a little sewing 
or knitting." Again a member of the "Women's 
Freedom League at a meeting on 19th May 191 2 
boasted that the suffragettes had a wing of their 
own at Holloway. " They had nice hot water pipes 
and all the latest improvements and were able to 
climb up to the window and exchange sentiments 
with their friends." She had saved money and 
enjoyed herself very much ! ! 

Here we have a picture of the way the modern 
authorities of the law recognise the *' injured 
innocence" of female delinquents who claim the 
right wantonly to destroy property. Our present 
society, based as it is on private property-holding, 
and which usually punished with the utmost severity 
any breach of the sanctity of private property, 
waives its claims where women are concerned. 
Similarly arson under circumstances directly en- 
dangering human life, for which the law prescribes 
the maximum sentence of penal servitude for life, 
is considered adequately punished by a week or 
two's imprisonment when those convicted of the 
crime are of the female sex. Oh, but they were 
acting from political motives ! Good, and have not 
terrorist anarchists, Fenians and Irish dynamiters 
of the Land League days also acted from political 
motives ? The terrorist anarchist, foolish and in- 
defensible though his tactics may be, believes 


honestly enough that he is paving the way for 
the abohtion of poverty, misery and social in- 
justice, a far more vital thing than the franchise ! 
The Irish Fenians and dynamiters pursued a similar 
policy and there is no reason to doubt their honest 
belief that it would further the cause of the free- 
dom and national independence of Ireland. Yet 
were these *' political" offenders dealt with other- 
wise than as ordinary criminals when convicted of 
acts qualified by the law as felonies ? And their 
acts, moreover, whatever we may think of them 
otherwise, were, in most cases at least, politically 
logical from their own point of view, and not 
senseless injuries to unoffending persons, as those 
of the present-day female seekers after the suffrage. 



The justification for the whole movement of 
Modern Feminism in one of its main practical 
aspects — namely, the placing of the female sex in 
the position of privilege, advantage and immunity 
— is concentrated in the current conception of 
"chivalry." It behoves us, therefore, to devote 
some consideration to the meaning and implication 
of this notion. Now this word chivalry is the 
dernier ressort of those at a loss for a justification 
of the modern privileging of women. But those 
who use it seldom give themselves the trouble to 
analyse the connotation of this term. Brought to 
book as to its meaning, most persons would prob- 
ably define it as deference to, or consideration 
for, weakness, especially bodily weakness. Used 
in this sense, however, the term covers a very much 
wider ground than the "kow-towing" to the 
female section of the human race, usually associ- 
ated with it. Boys, men whose muscular strength 
is below the average, domestic animals, etc., might 
all claim this special protection as a plea of 



chivalry, in their favour. And yet we do not find 
different criminal laws, or diiFerent rules of prison 
treatment, say, for men whose stamina is below 
the average. Neither do we find such men or boys / 
exempted by law from corporal punishment in 
consequence of their weakness, unless as an excep- 
tion in individual cases when the weakness amounts 
to dangerous physical disability. Neither, again, in 
the general affairs of life are we accustomed to see 
any such deference to men of weaker muscular or 
constitutional development as custom exacts in the 
case of women. Once more, looking at the question 
from the other side, do we find the claim of 
chivalry dropped in the case of the powerful 
virago or the muscularly developed female athlete, 
the sportswoman who rides, hunts, plays cricket, 
football, golf and other masculine games, and who 
may even fence or box ? Not one whit ! 

It would seem then that the definition of the 
term under consideration, based on the notion of 
deference to mere weakness as such, will hardly 
hold water, since in its application the question of/ 
sex always takes precedence of that of weakness. 
Let us try again ! Abandoning for the moment the 
definition of chivalry as a consideration for weak- 
ness, considered absolutely, as we may term it, let us 
see whether the definition of consideration for 
relative defencelessness — i.e. defencelessness in a 
given situation — will coincide with the current 


usage of the word. But here again we are met 
with the fact that the man in the hands of the law — 
to wit, in the grip of the forces of the State, ay, 
even the strongest man, were he a very Hercules, is 
in as precisely as defenceless and helpless a position 
relative to those in whose power he finds himself, 
as the weakest woman would be in the like case, 
neither more nor less ! And yet an enlightened and 
chivalrous public opinion tolerates the most fiendish 
barbarities and excogitated cruelties being per- 
petrated upon male convicts in our gaols, while it 
shudders with horror at the notion of female con- 
victs being accorded any severity of punishment at 
all even for the same, or, for that matter, more 
heinous offences. A particularly crass and crucial 
illustration is that infamous piece of one-sided sex 
legislation which has already occupied our attention 
in the course of the present volume — to wit, the 
so-called "White Slave Traflic Act" 1912. 

It is plain then that chivalry as understood in 
the present day really spells sex privilege and sex 
favouritism pure and simple, and that any attempts 
to define the term on a larger basis, or to give it 
a colourable rationality founded on fact, are simply 
subterfuges, conscious or unconscious, on the part 
of those who put them forward. The etymology of 
the word chivalry is well known and obvious 
enough. The term meant originally the virtues 
associated with knighthood considered as a whole. 


bravery even to the extent of reckless daring, 
loyalty to the chief or feudal superior, generosity 
to a fallen foe, general open-handedness, and open- 
heartedness, including, of course, the succour of the 
weak and the oppressed generally, inter alia, the 
female sex when in difficulties. It would be idle, of 
course, to insist upon the historical definition of 
the term. Language develops and words in course 
of time depart widely from their original connota- 
tion, so that etymology alone is seldom of much 
value in practically determining the definition of 
words in their application at the present day. But 
the fact is none the less worthy of note that only 
a fragment of the original connotation of the word 
chivalry is covered by the term as used in our 
time, and that even that fragment is torn from its 
original connection and is made to serve as a scare- 
crow in the field of public opinion to intimidate all 
who refuse to act upon, or who protest against, the 
privileges and immunities of the female sex.^ 

I have said that even that subsidiary element 
in the old original notion of chivalry which is now 

iQne among many apposite cases, which has occurred re- 
cently, was protested against in a letter to 77;*? Daily Telegraph, 
2ist March 1913, in which it was pointed out that while a 
suffragette got a few months' imprisonment in the second 
division for wilfully setting fire to the pavilion in Kew 
Gardens, a few days previously, at the Lewes Assizes, a man 
had been sentenced to five years' penal servitude for burning 
a rick 1 1 


well-nigh the only surviving remnant of its 
original connotation is torn from its connection and 
hence has necessarily become radically changed in 
its meaning. From being part of a general code 
of manners enjoined upon a particular guild or 
profession it has been degraded to mean the 
exclusive right in one sex guaranteed by law and 
custom to certain advantages and exemptions with- 
out any corresponding responsibility. Let us make 
no mistake about this. When the limelight of 
a little plain but critical common-sense is turned 
upon this notion of chivalry hitherto regarded as 
so sacrosanct, it is seen to be but a poor thing 
after all ; and when men have acquired the habit 
of habitually turning the light of such criticism 
upon it, the accusation, so terrible in the present 
state of public opinion, of being " unchivalrous " 
will lose its terrors for them. In the so-called ages 
of chivalry themselves it never meant, as it does 
to-day, the woman right or wrong. It never meant 
as it does to-day the general legal and social 
privilege of sex. It never meant a social defence 
or a legal exoneration for the bad and even the 
criminal woman, simply because she is a woman. 
It meant none of these things. All it meant was a 
voluntary or gratuitous personal service to the for- 
lorn women which the members of the Knights' guild 
among other such services, many of them taking 
precedence of this one, were supposed to perform. 


So far as courage is concerned, which was 
perhaps the first of the chivalric virtues in the old 
days, it certainly requires more courage in our 
days to deal severely with a woman when she 
deserves it (as a man would be dealt with in like 
circumstances) than it does to back up a woman 
against her wicked male opponent. 

It is a cheap thing, for example, in the case 
of a man and woman quarrelling in the street, to 
play out the stage role of the bold and gallant 
Englishman ** who won't see a woman maltreated 
and put upon, not he ! " and this, of course, without 
any inquiry into the merits of the quarrel. To 
swim with the stream, to make a pretence of 
boldness and bravery, when all the time you 
know you have the backing of conventional public 
opinion and mob-force behind you, is the cheapest 
of mock heroics. 

Chivalry to-day means the woman, right or 
wrong, just as patriotism to-day means " my 
country right or wrong." In other words, chivalry l 
to-day is only another name for Sentimental 
Feminism. Every outrageous pretension of Senti- 
mental Feminism can be justified by the appeal 
to chivalry, which amounts (to use the German 
expression) to an "appeal from Pontius to Pilate." 
This Sentimental Feminism commonly called 
chivalry is sometimes impudently dubbed by its 
votaries, "manliness." It will presumably continue 



in its practical effects until a sufficient minority 
of sensible men will have the moral courage to 
beard a Feminist public opinion and shed a little 
of this sort of " manliness." The plucky Welshmen 
at Llandystwmdwy in their dealings with the 
suffragette rowdies on a memorable occasion 
showed themselves capable of doing this. In fact 
one good effect generally of militant suffragetteism 
seems to be the weakening of the notion of 
chivalry — i.e, in its modern sense of Sentimental 
Feminism — amongst the populace of this country. 

The combination of Sentimental Feminism with 
its invocation of the old-world sentiment of chivalry 
which was based essentially on the assumption of 
the mental, moral and physical inferiority of woman 
to man, for its justification, with the pretensions 
of modern Political Feminism, is simply grotesque 
in its inconsistent absurdity. In this way Modern 
Feminism would fain achieve the feat of eating 
its cake and having it too. When political and 
economic rights are in question, Ifien entendt4y such 
as involve gain and social standing, the assump- 
tion of inferiority magically disappears before the 
strident assertion of the dogma of the equality of 
woman with man — her mental and moral equality 
certainly ! When, however, the question is of a 
different character — for example, for the relieving 
of some vile female criminal of the penalty of her 
misdeeds — then Sentimental Feminism comes into 


play, then the whole plaidoyer is based on the j 
chivalric sentiment of deference and consideration \ 
for poor, weak woman. I may point out that here, 
if it be in the least degree logical, the plea for 
mercy or immunity can hardly be based on any 
other consideration than that of an intrinsic moral 
weakness in view of which the offence is to be 
condoned. The plea of physical weakness, if such 
be entertained, is here in most cases purely 
irrelevant. Thus, as regards the commutation of 
the death sentence, the question of the muscular 
strength or weakness of the condemned person 
does not come in at all. The same applies, mutatis 
mutandis, to many other forms of criminal punish- 
ment. But it must not be forgotten that there are 
two aspects of physical strength or weakness. 
There is, as we have already pointed out, the 
muscular aspect and the constitutional aspect. If 
we concede the female sex as essentially and 
inherently weaker in muscular power and develop- 
ment than the male, this by no means involves the 
assumption that woman is constitutionally weaker 
than man. On the contrary, it is a known fact 
attested, as far as I am aware, by all physiologists, 
no less than by common observation, that the 
constitutional toughness and power of endurance 
of woman in general far exceeds that of man, 
as explained in an earlier chapter. This resilient 
power of the system, its capacity for enduring 


strain, it may here be remarked in passing, is by 
no means necessarily a characteristic of a specially 
high stage of organic evolution. We find it in- 
deed in many orders of invertebrate animals in 
striking forms. Be this as it may, however, the 
existence of this greater constitutional strength or 
resistant power in the female than in the male 
organic system — as crucially instanced by the 
markedly greater death-rate of boys than of girls 
in infancy and early childhood — should, in respect 
of severity of punishment, prison treatment, etc., 
be a strong counter-argument against the plea 
for leniency, or immunity in the case of female 
criminals, made by the advocates of Sentimental 

But these considerations afford only one more 
illustration of the utter irrationality of the whole 
movement of Sentimental Feminism identified with 
the notion of *' chivalry." For the rest, we may 
find illustrations of this galore. A very flagrant 
case is that infamous *^rule of the sea" which 
came so much into prominence at the time of the 
Titatiic disaster. According to this preposterous 
*'chivalric" Feminism, in the case of a ship 
foundering, it is the unwritten law of the seas, 
not that the passengers shall leave the ship and 
be rescued in their order as they come, but that 
the whole female portion shall have the right 
of being rescued before any man is allowed to 




leave the ship. Now this abominable piece of sex 
favouritism, on the face of it, cries aloud in its 
irrational injustice. Here is no cj^uestion of bodily 
strength or weakness, either muscular or constitu- 
tionair^fn this respect, for the nonce, all are on a ^^ J^^ ^ 
level. But it is a case of life itself. A number of ;JU...ya.U.m^ 
poor wretches are doomed to a watery grave, /y^ 
simply and solely because they have not had the ^^^r*^-*^^ 
luck to be born of the privileged female sex. \ 

Such is ** chivalry " as understood to-day — the 
deprivation, the robbery from men of the most 
elementary personal rights in order to endow 
women with privileges at the expense of men. "^ 
During the ages of chivalry and for long after it 
was not so. Law and custom then was the same for 
men as for women in its incidence. To quote the 
familiar proverb in a slightly altered form, then — 
" what was sauce for the gander was sauce for the 
goose." Not until the nineteenth century did this 
state of things change. Then for the first time the 
law began to respect persons and to distinguish in 
favour of sex. 

Even taking the matter on the conventional 
ground of weakness and granting, for the sake of 
argument, the relative muscular weakness of the 
female as ground for her being allowed the im- 
munity claimed by Modern Feminists of the senti- 
mental school, the distinction is altogether lost 
sight of between weakness as such and aggressive 


weakness. Now I submit there is a very con- 
siderable difference between what is due to 
weakness that is harmless and unprovocative, and 
weakness that is aggressive, still more when this 
aggressive weakness presumes on itself as weak- 
ness, and on the consideration extended to it, in 
order to become tyrannical and oppressive. Weak- 
ness as such assuredly deserves all consideration, 
but aggressive weakness deserves none save to 
be crushed beneath the iron heel of strength. 
Woman at the present day has been encouraged 
by a Feminist public opinion to become meanly 
aggressive under the protection of her weakness. 
She has been encouraged to forge her gift of 
weakness into a weapon of tyranny against man, 
unwitting that in so doing she has deprived her 
weakness of all just claim to consideration or even 
to toleration. 



By Feminist lies I understand false statements put 
forward by persons, many of whom should be 
perfectly well aware that they are false, apparently 
with the deliberate intention of misleading public 
opinion as to the real position of woman before 
the law. By fallacies I understand statements 
doubtless dictated by Feminist prepossessions or 
Feminist bias, but not necessarily suggesting con- 
scious or deliberate mala fides. 

Of the first order, the statements are made 
apparently with intentional dishonesty in so far 
as many of the persons making them are concerned, 
since we may reasonably suppose them to have 
intelligence and knowledge enough to be aware 
that they are contrary to fact. The talk about the 
wife being a chattel, for example, is so palpably 
absurd in the face of the existing law that it is 
nowadays scarcely worth making (although we do 
hear it occasionally even now). But it was not even 
true under the old common law of England, which, 
for certain disabilities on the one hand, conceded 


to the wife certain corresponding privileges on the 
other. The law of husband and wife, as modified 
by statute in the course of the nineteenth century, 
as I have often enough had occasion to point 
out, is a monument of legalised tyranny over the 
husband in the interests of the wife. 

If in the face of the facts the word chattel, as 
applied to the wife, has become a little too pre- 
posterous even for Feminist controversial methods, 
there is another falsehood scarcely less brazen that 
we hear from Feminist fanatics every day. The 
wife, we are told, is the only unpaid servant ! A 
more blatant lie could scarcely be imagined. As 
every educated person possessing the slightest 
acquaintance with the laws of England knows, the 
law requires the husband to maintain his wife in a 
manner according with his own social position ; 
has, in other words, to feed, clothe and afford 
her all reasonable luxuries, which the law, with 
a view to the economic standing of the husband, 
regards as necessaries. This although the husband 
has no claim on the wife's property or income, 
however wealthy she may be. Furthermore, it 
need scarcely be said, a servant who is inefficient, 
lazy, or otherwise intolerable, can be dismissed or 
her wage can be lowered. Not so that privileged 
person, the legally wedded wife. It matters not 
whether she perform her duties well, badly, in- 
differently, or not at all, the husband's legal 


obligations remain just the same. It will be seen, 
therefore, that the wife in any case receives from 
the husband economic advantages compared with 
which the wages of the most highly paid servant 
in existence are a mere pauper's pittance. This talk 
we hear ad nauseum, from the Feminist side, of the 
wife being an " unpaid servant," is typical of the 
whole Feminist agitation. We find the same de- 
liberate and unscrupulous dishonesty characterising 
it throughout. Facts are not merely perverted or 
exaggerated, they are simply turned upside down. 
Another statement commonly made is that 
women's lower wages as compared with men's is 
the result of not possessing the parliamentary 
franchise. Now this statement, though not perhaps 
bearing on its face the wilful deception charac- 
terising the one just mentioned, is not any the less 
a perversion of economic fact, and we can hardly 
regard it otherwise than as intentional. It is quite 
clear that up to date the wages of men have not 
been raised by legislation, and yet sections of the 
working classes have possessed the franchise at 
least since 1867. What legislation has done for 
the men has been simply to remove obstacles in the 
way of industrial organisation on the part of the 
workman in freeing the trade unions from dis- 
abilities, and even this was begun, owing toworking- 
class pressure from outside, long before — as long 
ago as the twenties of the last century under the 


auspices of Joseph Hume and Francis Place. Now 
women's unions enjoy precisely the same freedom 
as men's unions, and nothing stands in the way 
of working women organising and agitating for 
higher wages. Those who talk of the franchise as 
being necessary for working women in order to 
obtain equal industrial and economic advantages 
with working men must realise perfectly well that 
they are performing the oratorical operation collo- 
quially known as " talking through their hat." The 
reasons why the wages of women workers are 
lower than those of men, whatever else may be their 
grounds, and these are, I think, pretty obvious, 
clearly are not traceable to anything which the 
concession of the franchise would remove. If it be 
suggested that a law could be enacted compulsorily 
enforcing equal rates of payment for women as for 
men, what the result would be the merest tyro in 
such matters can foresee — to wit, that it would 
mean the wholesale displacement of female by male 
labour over large branches of industry, and this, 
we imagine, is not precisely what the advocates of 
female suffrage are desirous of effecting. 

Male labour, owing to its greater efficiency and 
other causes, being generally preferred by em- 
ployers to female labour, it is not likely that, even 
for the sake of female beaux yeux, they are going to 
accept female labour in the place of male, on an 
equal wage basis. All this, of course, is quite apart 


from the question referred to on a previous page, 
as to the economic responsibilities in the interests 
of women, which our Feminist law-makers have 
saddled on the man — namely, the responsibility 
of the husband, and the husband alone, for the 
maintenance of his wife and family, obligations 
from anything corresponding to which the female 
sex is wholly free. 

In a leaflet issued by the ** Men's Federation for 
Women's Suffrage " it is affirmed that " many laws 
are on the statute book which inflict injustice on 
Women." We challenge this statement as an un- 
mitigated falsehood. Its makers ought to know 
perfectly well that they cannot justify it. There are 
no laws on the statute book inflicting injustice on 
women as a Sex, but there are many laws inflicting 
injustice on men in the supposed interests of 
women. The worn-out tag which has so long done 
duty with Feminists in this connection — viz. the 
rule of the Divorce Court, that in order to procure 
divorce a wife has to prove cruelty as well as 
adultery on the part of a husband, whereas a 
husband has to prove adultery alone on the part 
of a wife — has already been dealt with and its 
rottenness as a specimen of a grievance sufficiently 
exposed in this work and elsewhere by the present 
writer. Is what the authors of the leaflet may 
possibly have in their mind (if they have anything 
at all) when they talk about statutes inflicting in- 


justice on women, that the law does not carry sex 
vindictiveness against men far enough to please 
them ? With all its flogging, penal servitude, hard 
labour and the rest, for offences against women, 
some of them of a comparatively trivial kind, does 
the law as regards severity on men not even yet 
satisfy the ferocious Feminist souls of the members 
of the " Men's Federation for Women's Suffrage" ? 
This is the only explanation of the statement in 
question other than that it is sheer bald bluff 
designed to mislead those ignorant of the law. 

Another flagrant falsehood perpetually being 
dinned into our ears by the suffragists is the state- 
ment that nvomen have to obey the same laivs as men. 
The conclusion drawn from this false statement is, 
of course, that since they have to obey these laws 
equally with men, they have an equal claim with 
men to take part in the making or the modifying 
of them. Now without pausing to consider the 
fallacy underlying the conclusion, we would point 
out that it is sufficient for our present purpose to 
call attention to the falsity of the initial assumption 
itself. It needs only one who follows current 
events and reads his newspaper with impartial 
mind to see that to allege that women have to, in 
the true sense of the words {i.e. are compelled 
to), obey the same laws as men is a glaringly 
mendacious statement. It is unnecessary in this 
place to go over once more the mass of evidence 


comprised in previous writings of my own — e.g. 
in the pamphlet, " The Legal Subjection of Man " 
(Twentieth Century Press), in the article, " A 
Creature of Privilege " (Fortnightly Review, Nov- 
ember 191 1), and elsewhere in the present volume, 
illustrating the unquestionable fact that though in 
theory women may have to obey the law as men 
have, yet in practice they are absolved from all 
the more serious consequences men have to suffer 
when they disobey it. The treatment recently 
accorded to the suffragettes for crimes such as 
wilful damage and arson, not to speak of their 
previous prison treatment when convicted for 
obstruction, disturbance and minor police misde- 
meanours, is a proof, writ large, of the mendacity 
of the statement that women no less than men 
have to obey the laws of the country, so far, that 
is, as any real meaning is attached to this phrase. 

Another suffragist lie which is invariably allowed 
to pass muster by default, save for an occasional 
protest by the present writer, is the assumption 
that the English law draws a distinction as regards 
prison treatment, etc., as between political and non- 
political offenders. Everyone with even the most 
elementary legal knowledge is aware that no such 
distinction has ever been recognised or suggested 
by the English law — at least until the prison ordi- 
nance made quite recently, expressly to please the 
suffragettes, by Mr Winston Churchill when Home 


Secretary. However desirable many may consider 
such a distinction to be, nothing is more indubitable 
than the fact that it has never previously obtained 
in the letter or practice of the law of England. 
And yet, without a word of contradiction from 
those who know better, arguments and protests 
galore have been fabricated on the suffragist side, 
based solely on this impudently false assumption. 
Misdemeanours and crimes at common law, when 
wilfully committed, have in all countries always 
remained misdemeanours and crimes, whatever 
motive can be conveniently put forward to account 
for them. A political offence has always meant 
the expression of opinions or the advocacy of 
measures or acts (not of the nature of common law 
crimes) which are in contravention of the existing 
law — e.g, a ** libel" on the constituted authorities 
of the State, or the forcible disregard of a law or 
police regulation in hindrance of the right of public 
speech or meeting. This is what is meant by 
political offence in any country recognising such as 
a special class of offence entitling those committing 
it to special treatment. This is so where the 
matter refers to the internal legislation of the 
country. Where the question of extradition comes 
in the definition of political offence is, of course, 
wider. Take the extreme case, that of the assassina- 
tion of a ruler or functionary, especially in a 
despotic State, where free Press and the free 


expression of opinion generally do not exist. This 
is undoubtedly a political, not a common law 
offence, in so far as other countries are concerned, and 
hence the perpetrator of such a deed has the right 
to claim immunity, on this ground, from extra- 
dition. The position assumable is, that under despotic 
conditions the progressive man is at war with the 
despot and those exercising authority under him ; 
therefore, in killing the despot or the repositories 
of despotic authority, he is striking directly at the 
enemy. It would, however, be absurd for the agent 
in a deed of this sort to expect special political 
treatment ivithin the jurisdiction of the State itself 
immediately concerned. As a matter of fact he 
never does so. Fancy a Russian Nihilist, when 
brought to trial, whining that he is a political 
offender and hence to be exempted from all harsh 
treatment ! No, the Nihilist has too much self- 
respect to make himself ridiculous in this way. 
Hardly even the maddest Terrorist Anarchist 
would make such a claim. For example, the French 
law recognises the distinction between political and 
common law offences. But for all this the bande 
tragique, Bonnot and his associates, did not receive 
any benefit from the distinction or even claim to do 
so, though otherwise they were loud enough in 
proclaiming the political motives inspiring them. 
Even as regards extradition, running amuck at large, 
setting fire promiscuously to private buildings or 


injuring the ordinary non-political citizen, as a 
" protest," would not legally come into the category 
of political offences and hence protect their authors 
from being surrendered as ordinary criminals. 

The real fact, of course, is that all this talk on 
the part of suffragettes and their backers about 
"political" offences and ** political" prison treat- 
ment is only a mean and underhand way of trying 
to secure special sex privileges under false pre- 
tences. Those who talk the loudest in the strain 
in question know this perfectly well. 

These falsehoods are dangerous, in spite of 
what one would think ought to be their obvious 
character as such, by reason of the psychological 
fact that you only require to repeat a lie often 
enough, provided you are uncontradicted, in order 
for the aforesaid lie to be received as established 
truth by the mass of mankind (" mostly fools," as 
Carlyle had it). 

It is a preposterous claim, I contend, that any 
misdemeanour and a fortiori any felony has, law 
apart, and even from a merely ethical point of view, 
any claim to special consideration and leniency on 
the bare declaration of the felon or misdemeanant 
that it had been dictated by political motive. In 
no country, at any time, has the mere assertion 
of political motive been held to bring an ordinary 
crime within the sphere of treatment of political 
offences. According to the legal and ethical logic 


of the suffragettes, it is perfectly open for them 
to set on fire theatres, churches and houses, and 
even to shoot down the harmless passer-by in 
the street, and claim the treatment of first-class 
misdemeanants on the ground that the act was 
done as a protest against some political grievance 
under which they imagined themselves to be labour- 
ing. The absurdity of the suggestion is evident on 
its mere statement. And yet the above preposterous 
assumption has been suffered equally with the 
one last noted to pass virtually without protest, 
and what is more serious, it has been acted upon by 
the authorities as though it were indubitably sound 
law as well as sound ethics ! It may be pointed out 
that what has cost many an Irish Fenian in the old 
days, and many a Terrorist Anarchist at a later date, 
a sentence of penal servitude for life, can be indulged 
in by modern suffragettes at the expense of a few 
weeks' imprisonment in the first or second division. 
Of course, this whole talk of " political offences," 
when they are, on the face of them, mere common 
crimes, is purely and simply a trick designed to 
shield the cowardly and contemptible female 
creatures who perpetrate these senseless and 
dastardly outrages from the punishment they 
deserve and would receive if they had not the 
good fortune to be of the privileged sex. In the 
case of men this impudent nonsense would, of 
course, never have been put forward, and, if it had. 


would have been summarily laughed out of court. 
That it should be necessary to point out these 
things in so many words is a striking illustration 
of the moral and intellectual atrophy produced 
by Feminism in the public mind. 

There is another falsehood we often hear by 
way of condoning the infamous outrages of the 
suffragettes. The excuse is often offered when 
the illogical pointlessness of the "militant" methods 
of the modern suffragette are in question: "Oh! 
men have also done the same things : men have 
used violence to attain political ends ! " Now the 
fallacy involved in this retort is plain enough. 

It may be perfectly true that men have used 
violence to attain their ends on occasion. But to 
assert this fact in the connection in question is 
purely irrelevant. There is violence and violence. 
It is absolutely false to say that men have ever 
adopted purposeless and inane violence as a policy. 
The violence of men has always had an intelligible 
relation to the ends they had in view, either 
proximate or ultimate. They pulled down Hyde 
Park railings in 1 866. Good ! But why was this } 
Because they wanted to hold a meeting, and found 
the park closed against them, the destruction of 
the railings being the only means of gaining access 
to the park. Again, the Reform Bill riots of 183 1 
were at least all directed against Government 
property and governmental persons — that is, the 


enemy with whom they were at war. In most 
cases, as at Bristol and Nottingham, there was 
(as in that of the Hyde Park railings) a very 
definite and immediate object in the violence and 
destruction committed — namely, the release of 
persons imprisoned for the part they had taken 
in the Reform movement, by the destruction of 
the gaols where they were confined. What con- 
ceivable analogy have these things with a policy 
of destroying private property, setting fire to tea 
pavilions, burning boat-builders' stock-in-trade, 
destroying private houses, poisoning pet dogs, 
upsetting jockeys, defacing people's correspond- 
ence, including the postal orders of the poor, 
mutilating books in a college library, pictures in a 
public gallery, etc., etc. ? And all these, bien entendu, 
not openly and in course of a riot, but furtively, 
in the pursuit of a deliberately premeditated policy ! 
Have, I ask, men ever, in the course of the world's 
history, committed mean, futile and dastardly 
crimes such as these in pursuit of any political 
or public end? There can be but one answer 
to this question. Every reader must know that 
there is no analogy whatever between suffragettes* 
** militancy " and the violence and crimes of which 
men may have been guilty. Even the Terrorist 
Anarchist, however wrong-headed he may be, and 
however much his deeds may be deemed morally 
reprehensible, is at least logical in his actions. 


in so far as the latter have always had some definite 
bearing on his political ends and were not mere 
senseless " running amuck." The utterly discon- 
nected, meaningless and wanton character signal- 
ising the policy of the ** militant" suffragettes 
would of itself suffice to furnish a conclusive 
argument for the incapacity of the female intellect 
to think logically or politically, and hence against 
the concession to women of public powers, political, 
judicial or otherwise. 

Another fallacy analogous to the preceding, 
inasmuch as it seeks to counterbalance female 
defects and weaknesses by the false allegation of 
corresponding deficiencies in men, is the Feminist 
retort sometimes heard when the question of 
hysteria in women is raised : " Oh ! men can also 
suffer from hysteria ! " This has been already dealt 
with in an earlier chapter, but for the sake of com- 
pleting the list of prominent Feminist fallacies I 
restate it concisely here. Now as we have seen it 
is exceedingly doubtful whether this statement is 
true in any sense whatever. There are eminent 
authorities who would deny that men ever have 
true hysteria. There are others, of course, again, 
who would extend the term hysteria so as to 
include every form of neurasthenic disturbance. 
The question is largely, with many persons 
who discuss the subject, one of terminology. It 
suffices here to cut short quibbling on this score. 


For the nonce, let us drop the word hysteria and 
formulate the matter as follows : — Women are 
frequently subject to a pathological mental con- 
dition, differing in different cases but offering 
certain well-marked features in common, a con- 
dition which seldom, if ever, occurs in men. This 
I take to be an incontrovertible proposition based 
upon experience which will be admitted by every 
impartial person. 

Now the existence of the so-called hysterical 
man I have hitherto found to be attested on 
personal experience solely by certain Feminist 
medical practitioners who allege that they have 
met with him in their consulting-rooms. His 
existence is thus vouchsafed for just as the reality 
of the sea-serpent is vouchsafed for by certain 
sea captains or other ancient mariners. Far be 
it from me to impugn the ability, still less the 
integrity, of these worthy persons. But in either 
case I may have my doubts as to the accuracy of 
their observation or of their diagnosis. It may be 
that the sea-serpent exists and it may be that 
hysteria is at times discoverable in male persons. 
But while a conclusive proof of the discovery of 
a single sea-serpent of the orthodox pattern would 
go far to justify the yarn of the ancient mariner, 
the proof of the occurrence, in an occasional case, 
of hysteria in men, would not by far justify the 
implied contention that hysteria is not essentially 


a female malady. If hysterical men are as common 
a phenomenon as certain hard-pressed Feminists 
would make out, what I want to know is : Where 
are they ? While we come upon symptoms which 
would be commonly attributed to hysteria in well- 
nigh every second or third woman of whose life 
we have any intimate knowledge, how often do 
we find in men symptoms in any way resembling 
these ? In my own experience I have come across 
but two cases of men giving indications of a 
temperament in any way analogous to that of the 
** hysterical woman." After all, the experience of 
the average layman, and in this I contend my own 
is more or less typical, is more important in the 
case of a malady manifesting itself in symptoms 
obvious to common observation, such as the one 
we are considering, than that of the medical 
practitioner, who by reason of his profession 
would be especially likely to see cases, if there 
were any at all, however few they might be. The 
possibility, moreover, at least suggests itself, that 
the latter may often mistake for hysteria (using 
the word in the sense commonly applied to the 
symptoms presented by women) symptoms re- 
sulting from general neurasthenia or even from 
purely extraneous causes, such as alcohol, drugs, 
etc. That this is sometimes the case is hardly open 
to question. That the pathological mental symptoms 
referred to as prevalent in the female, whether 


we attribute them to hysteria or not, are rarely if 
ever found in the male sex is an undoubted fact. 
The rose, it is said, is as sweet by any other name, 
and whether we term these affections symptoms 
of hysteria, or describe them as hysteria itself, or 
deny that they have anything to go with " true 
hysteria," their existence and frequency in the 
female sex remains nevertheless a fact. No ! 
whether some of the symptoms of hysteria, " true " 
or " so-called," are occasionally to be found in men 
or not, every impartial person must admit that they 
are extremely rare, whereas as regards certain 
pathological mental symptoms, common in women 
and popularly identified (rightly or wrongly) with 
hysteria, there is, I contend, little evidence 
of their occurring in men at all. Wriggle and 
prevaricate as they may, it is impossible for 
Suffragists and Feminists to successfully evade 
the undoubted truth that the mentality of women 
is characterised constitutionally by a general insta- 
bility, manifesting itself in pathological symptoms 
radically differing in nature and in frequency from 
any that obtain in men. 

Very conspicuous among the fallacies that have 
done yeoman service in the Feminist Movement is 
the assumption that women are constitutionally the 
" weaker sex." This has also been discussed by us 
in Chapter II., but the latter may again be supple- 
mented here by a few further remarks, so deeply 


rooted is this fallacy in public opinion. The reason of 
the unquestioned acceptance of the assumption is 
partly due to a confusion of two things under one 
name. The terms, "bodily strength" and "bodily 
weakness " cover two distinct facts. The attribution 
of greater bodily weakness to the female sex than 
to the male undoubtedly expresses a truth, but no 
less does the attribution of greater bodily strength 
to the female than to the male sex equally express 
a truth. In size, weight and muscular development, 
average man has an unquestionable, and in most 
cases enormous, advantage over average woman. 
It is in this sense that the bodily structure of the 
human female can with some show of justice be 
described as frail. On the other hand, as regards 
tenacity of life, recuperative power and what we 
may term toughness of constitution, woman is 
without doubt considerably stronger than man. 
Now this vigour of constitution may, of course, also 
be described as bodily strength, and to this con- 
fusion the assumption of the general frailty of the 
female bodily organism as compared with the male 
has acquired general currency in the popular mind. 
The most carefully controlled and reliable statistics 
of the Registrar-General and other sources show 
the enormously greater mortality of men than of 
women at all ages and under all conditions of life. 
Under the age of five the evidence shows that 
1 20 boys die to every loo girls. In adult life the 


Registrar-General shows that diseases of the chest 
are the cause of nearly 40 per cent, of more 
deaths among men than among women. That 
violence and accident should be the occasion of 
150 per cent, more deaths amongst men than 
women is accounted for, partly, at least, by the 
greater exposure of men, although the enormous 
disparity would lead one to suspect that here also 
the inferior resisting power in the male constitution 
plays a not inconsiderable part in the result. The 
report of the medical officer to the Local Govern- 
ment Board proves that between the ages of fifty- 
five and sixty-five there is a startling difference 
in numbers between the deaths of men and those 
of women. The details for the year 1910 are as 
follows : — 

Diseases Males Females 

Nervous system 






Blood vessels 



Respiratory system 



Digestive system 



Kidneys, etc. 



Acute infections 


1 1 64 

Violent deaths 



Various additional causes, connected with the more 
active and anxious life of men, the greater strain 
to which they are subjected, their greater exposure 
alike to infection and to accident, may explain a 


certain percentage of the excessive death-rate of 
the male population as opposed to the female, yet 
these explanations, even allowing the utmost 
possible latitude to them, really only touch the 
fringe of the difference, with the single exception 
of deaths from violence and accident above alluded 
to, where liability and exposure may account for 
a somewhat larger percentage. The great cause 
of the discrepancy remains, without doubt, the 
enormously greater potentiality of resistance, in 
other words of constitutional strength, in the 
female bodily organism as compared with the male. 
We must now deal at some length with a fallacy 
of some importance, owing to the apparatus of 
learning with which it has been set forth, to be 
found in Mr Lester F. Ward's book, entitled 
"Pure Sociology," notwithstanding that its falla- 
cious nature is plain enough when analysed. Mr 
Ward terms his speculation the " Gynoecocentric 
Theory," by which he understands apparently the 
Feminist dogma of the supreme importance of the 
female in the scheme of humanity and nature 
generally. His arguments are largely drawn from 
general biology, especially that of inferior organ- 
isms. He traces the various processes of repro- 
duction in the lower departments of organic nature, 
subdivision, germination, budding, etc., up to 
the earlier forms of bi-sexuality, culminating in 
conjugation or true sexual union. His standpoint 


he thus states in the terms of biological origins : 
** Although reproduction and sex are two distinct 
things, and although a creature that reproduces 
without sex cannot properly be called either male 
or female, still so completely have these concep- 
tions become blended in the popular mind that 
a creature which actually brings forth offspring 
out of its own body, is instinctively classed as 
female. The female is the fertile sex, and whatever 
is fertile is looked upon as female. Assuredly it 
would be absurd to look upon an organism 
propagating sexually as male. Biologists have 
proceeded from this popular standpoint and 
regularly speak of ' mother cells,' and * daughter 
cells.' It, therefore, does no violence to language 
or to science to say that life begins with the 
female organism and is carried on a long distance 
by means of females alone. In all the different 
forms of a-sexual reproduction, from fission to 
parthenogenesis, the female may in this sense 
be said to exist alone and perform all the functions 
of life, including reproduction. In a word, life 
begins as female." 

In the above remarks it will be seen that Mr 
Ward, so to say, jumps the claim of a-sexual 
organisms to be considered as female. This, in 
itself a somewhat questionable proceeding, serves 
him as a starting-point for his theory. The a-sexual 
female (?), he observes, is not only primarily the 


original sex, but continues throughout, the main 
trunk, though afterwards the male element is added 
'* for the purposes of fertilisation." ** Among 
millions of humble creatures," says Mr Ward, 
" the male is simply and solely a fertiliser." The 
writer goes on in his efforts to belittle the male 
sex in the sphere of biology. " The gigantic female 
spider and the tiny male fertiliser, the Mantis 
insect with its similarly large and ferocious female, 
bees, and mosquitoes," all are pressed into the 
service. Even the vegetable kingdom, in so far as 
it shows signs of sex differentiation, is brought 
into the lists in favour of his theory of female 
supremacy, or ** gynoecocentricism," as he terms it. 
This theory may be briefly stated as follows : — 
In the earliest organisms displaying sex differentia- 
tion, it is the female which represents the organism 
proper, the rudimentary male existing solely for 
the purpose of the fertilisation of the female. This 
applies to most of the lower forms of life in which 
the differentiation of sex obtains, and in many 
insects, the Mantis being one of the cases specially 
insisted upon by our author. The process of the 
development of the male sex is by means of the 
sexual selection of the female. From being a mere 
fertilising agent, gradually, as evolution proceeds, 
it assumes the form and characteristics of an 
independent organism like the original female 
trunk organism. But the latter continues to main- 


tain its supremacy in the life of the species, by 
means chiefly of sexual selection, until the human 
period, i.e. more or less (!), for Mr Ward is 
bound to admit signs of male superiority in the 
higher vertebrates — viz. birds and mammals. This 
superiority manifests itself in size, strength, 
ornamentation, alertness, etc. But it is with man, 
with the advent of the reasoning faculty, and, as a 
consequence, of human supremacy, that it becomes 
first unmistakably manifest. This superiority, Mr 
Ward contends, has been developed under the aegis 
of the sexual selection of the female, and enabled 
cruel and wicked man to subject and enslave down- 
trodden and oppressed woman, who has thus been 
crushed by a Frankenstein of her own creation. 
Although in various earlier phases of human organ- 
isation woman still maintains her social supremacy, 
this state of affairs soon changes. Androcracy estab- 
lishes itself, and woman is reduced to the role of 
breeding the race and of being the servant of man. 
Thus she has remained throughout the periods 
of the higher barbarism and of civilisation. Our 
author regards the lowest point of what he terms 
the degradation of woman to have been reached 
in the past, and the last two centuries as having 
witnessed a movement in the opposite direction — 
namely, towards the emancipation of woman and 
equality between the sexes. {Cf. "Pure Soci- 
ology," chap, xiv., and especially pp. 290-377.) 


* The above is a brief, but, I think, not unfaii 
skeleton statement of the theory which Mr Lestei 
Ward has elaborated in the work above referrec 
to, in great detail and with immense wealth oi 
illustration. But now I ask, granting the correct- 
ness of Mr Ward's biological premises and the 
accuracy of his exposition, and I am not specialisi 
enough to be capable of criticising these in detail 
What does it all amount to ? The " business end' 
(as the Americans would say) of the whole theory 
it is quite evident, is to afford a plausible anc 
scientific basis for the Modern Feminist Movement 
and thus to further its practical pretensions. Whai 
Mr Ward terms the androcentric theory, at leasi 
as regards man and the higher vertebrates, whicJ 
is on the face of it supported by the facts o] 
human experience and has been accepted well- 
nigh unanimously up to quite recent times, is 
according to him, all wrong. The male element ii 
the universe of living things is not the elemeni 
of primary importance, and the female elemeni 
the secondary, but the converse is the case. For this 
contention Mr Ward, as already pointed out, has 
by dint of his biological learning, succeeded ai 
least in making out a case in so far as lower forms oj 
life are concerned. He has, however, to admit — a fata! 
admission surely — that evolution has tended pro- 
gressively to break down the superiority of the 
female (by means, as he contends, of her owe 


sexual selection) and to transfer sex supremacy 
to the male, according to Mr Ward, hitherto a 
secondary being, and that this tendency becomes 
very obvious in most species of birds and mammals. 
"With the rise of man, however, out of the 
pithecanthroposy the homosynosis, or by whatever other 
designation we may call the intermediate organism 
between the purely animal and the purely human, 
and the consequent supersession of instinct as the 
dominant form of intelligence by reason, the 
question of superiority, as Mr Ward candidly 
admits, is no longer doubtful, and upon the 
unquestionable superiority of the male, in due 
course of time, follows the unquestioned supremacy. 
It is clear then that, granting the biological 
premises of our author that the lowest sexual 
organisms are virtually female and that in the her- 
maphrodites the female element predominates ; that 
in the earliest forms of bi-sexuaJity the fertilising or 
male element was merely an offshoot of the female 
trunk and that this oiFshoot develops, mainly by 
means of sexual selection on the part of the female, 
into an organism similar to the latter; that not 
until we reach the higher vertebrates, the birds 
and the mammals, do we find any traces of male 
superiority ; and that this superiority only becomes 
definite and obvious, leading to male domination, in 
the human species — granting all this, I say, what 
argument can be founded upon it in support of the 


equal value physically, intellectually and morally 
of the female sex in human society, or the desir- 
ability of its possessing equal political power with 
men in such society ? On the contrary, Mr Ward's 
whole exposition, with his biological facts of 
illustration, would seem to point rather in the 
opposite direction. We seem surely to have here, 
if Mr Ward's premises be accepted as to the 
primitive insignificance of the male element — at 
first overshadowed and dominated by the female 
stem, but gradually evolving in importance, char- 
acter and fruition, till we arrive at man the highest 
product of evolution up to date — a powerful 
argument for anti-Feminism. On Mr Ward's own 
showing, we find that incontestible superiority, 
both in size and power of body and brain, has 
manifested itself in Androcracy, when the female 
is relegated, in the natural course of things, to the 
function of child-bearing. This, it can hardly be 
denied, is simply one more instance of the general 
process of evolution, whereby the higher being is 
evolved from the lower, at first weak and depend- 
ent upon its parent, the latter remaining dominant 
until the new being reaches maturity, when in its 
turn it becomes supreme, while that out of which 
it developed, and of which it was first the mere 
offshoot, falls into the backgrouud and becomes in 
its turn subordinate to its own product. 

Let us turn now to another scientific fallacy, the 


result of a good man struggling with adversity — 
Le. a sound and honest scientific investigator, but 
one who, at the same time, is either himself obsessed 
with the principles of Feminism as with a religious 
dogma, or else is nervously afraid of offending 
others who are. His attitude reminds one of 
nothing so much as that of the orthodox geologist 
of the first half of the nineteenth century, who 
wrote in mortal fear of incurring the odium theo- 
logicum by his exposition of the facts of geology, 
and who was therefore nervously anxious to per- 
suade his readers that the facts in question did not 
clash with the Mosaic cosmogony as given in the 
Book of Genesis. With Mr Havelock Ellis in his 
work, **Man and Woman," it is not the dogma of 
Biblical infallibility that he is concerned to defend, 
but a more modern dogma, that of female equality, 
so dear to the heart of the Modern Feminist. Mr 
Ellis's efforts to evade the consequences of the 
scientific truths he honestly proclaims are almost 
pathetic. One cannot help noticing, after his ex- 
position of some fact that goes dead against the 
sex-equality theory as contended for by Feminists, 
the eagerness with which he hastens to add some 
qualifying statement tending to show that after all 
it is not so incompatible with the Feminist dogma 
as it might appear at first sight. 

The piece de resistance, however, of Mr Havelock 
Ellis is contained in his " conclusion." The author 


has for his problem to get over the obvious in- 
compatibility of the truth he has himself abundantly 
demonstrated in the course of his book, that the 
woman-type, in every respect, physiological and 
psychological, approaches the child-type, while the 
man-type, in its proper progress towards maturity, 
increasingly diverges from it. The obvious implica- 
tion of this fact is surely plain, on the principle of 
the development of the individual being a shorthand 
reproduction of the evolution of the species, or, 
to express it in scientific phraseology, of ontogeny 
being the abbreviated recapitulation of the stages 
presented by philogeny. If we proceed on this well- 
accredited and otherwise universally accepted 
principle of biology, the inference is clear enough 
— to wit, that woman is, as Herbert Spencer and 
others have pointed out, simply " undeveloped 
man" — in other words, that Woman represents a 
flower stage of evolution than Man. Now this 
Hvould obviously not at all suit the book of Mr 
Ellis's Feminism. Explained away it has to be in 
some fashion or other. So our author is driven 
to the daring expedient of throwing overboard one 
of the best established generalisations of modern 
biology, and boldly declaring that the principle 
contained therein is reversed (we suppose " for 
this occasion only ") in the case of Man. In this 
way he is enabled to postulate a theory consoling 
to the Feminist soul, which affirms that adult man 


is nearer in point of development to his pre-human 
ancestor|than either the child or the woman ! The 
physiological and psychological analogies observable 
between'the child and the savage, and even, especi- 
ally in early childhood, between the child and the 
lower mammalian types — analogies which, notably 
in the life of instinct and passion, are traceable 
readily also in the human female — all these count 
for nothing ; they are not dreamt of in Mr Ellis's 
Feminist philosophy. The Modern Feminist dogma 
requires that woman should be recognised as equal 
in every respect (except in muscular strength) with 
man, and if possible, as rather superior to him. If 
Nature has not worked on Feminist lines, as common 
observation and scientific research alike testify on 
the face of things, naughty Nature must be 
" corrected," in theory, at least, by the ingenuity of 
Feminist savants of the degraded male persuasion. 
To this end we must square our scientific hypo- 
theses ! 

The startling theory of Mr Havelock Ellis, 
which must seem, one would think, to all impartial 
persons, so out of accord with all the acknow- 
ledged laws and facts of biological science, appears 
to the present writer, it must be confessed, the 
very reductio ad ahsurdum of Feminist controversial 

I will conclude this chapter on Feminist Lies and 
Fallacies with a fallacy of false analogy or false 


illustration, according as we may choose to term 
it. This quasi-argument was recently put forward 
in a defence speech by one of the prisoners in a 
suffragette trial and was subsequently repeated by 
George Bernard Shaw in a letter to The Times, 
Put briefly, the point attempted to be made is as 
follows : — Apostrophising men, it is said : ** How 
would you like it if the historical relations of the 
sexes were reversed, if the making and the 
administrating of the laws and the whole power of 
the State were in the hands of women ? Would not 
you revolt in such a condition of affairs ? " Now to 
this quasi-argument the reply is sufficiently clear. 
The moral intended to be conveyed in the 
hypothetical question put, is that women have just 
as much right to object to men's domination, as men 
would have to object to women's domination. But 
it is plain that the point of the whole question 
resides in z. petitio principle — to wit, in the assump- 
tion that those challenged admit equal intellectual 
capacity and equal moral stability as between the 
average woman and the average man. Failing this 
assumption the challenge becomes senseless and 
futile. If we ignore mental and moral differences it 
is only a question of degree as to when we are 
landed in obvious absurdity. In ** Gulliver's 
Travels" we have a picture of society in which 
horses ruled the roost, and lorded it over human 
beings. In this satire Swift in effect put the 


question : ** How would you humans like to be 
treated by horses as inferiors, just as horses are 
treated by you to-day ? " I am, be it remembered, 
not instituting any comparison between the two 
cases, beyond pointing out that the argument as 
an argument is intrinsically the same in both. 



We have already spoken of two strains in Modern 
Feminism which, although commonly found to- 
gether, are nevertheless intrinsically distinguishable. 
The first I have termed Sentimental Feminism and 
the second Political Feminism. Sentimental Feminism 
is in the main an extension and emotional elabora- 
tion of the old notion of chivalry, a notion which 
in the period when it was supposed to have been 
at its zenith, certainly played a very much smaller 
part in human affairs than it does in its extended 
and metamorphosed form in the present day. We 
have already analysed in a former chapter the 
notion of chivalry. Taken in its most general and 
barest form it represents the consideration for 
weakness which is very apt to degenerate into 
a worship of mere weakness. La faihlesse prime le 
droit is not necessarily nearer justice than la force 
prime le droit \ although to hear much of the talk 
in the present day on% would imagine that the 
inherent right of the weak to oppress the strong 
were a first principle of eternal rectitude. But the 



theory of chivalry is scarcely invoked in the 
present day save in the interests of one particular 
form of weakness — viz. the woman as the 
muscularly weaker sex, and here it has acquired 
an utterly different character.^ 

Chivalry, as understood by Modern Sentimental 
Feminism, means unlimited licence for women in 
their relations with men, and unlimited coercion 
for men in their relations with women. To men 
all duties and no rights, to women all rights and 
no duties, is the basic principle underlying Modern 
Feminism, SufFragism, and the bastard chivalry 
it is so fond of invoking. The most insistent 
female shrieker for equality between the sexes 
among Political Feminists, it is interesting to ob- 
serve, will, in most cases, on occasion be found 
an equally insistent advocate of the claims of 
Sentimental Feminism, based on modern meta- 
morphosed notions of chivalry. It never seems to 
strike anyone that the muscular weakness of 
woman has been forged by Modern Feminists into 

1 As regards this point it should be remarked that mediaeval 
chivalry tolerated (as Wharton expressed it in his " History 
of Poetry") *' the grossest indecencies and obscenities between 
the sexes," such things as modern puritanism would stigmatise 
with such words as " unchivalrous," "unmanly " and the like. 
The resemblance between the modern worship of women and the 
relations of the mediaeval knight to the female sex is very 
thin indeed. Modern claims to immunity for women from the 
criminal law and medieval chivalry are quite different things. 


an abominable weapon of tyranny. Under cover 
of the notion of chivalry, as understood by Modern 
Feminism, Political and Sentimental Feminists alike 
would deprive men of the most elementary rights 
of self-defence against women and would exonerate 
the latter practically from all punishment for the 
most dastardly crimes against men. They know 
they can rely upon the support of the sentimental 
section of public opinion with some such parrot 
cry of ** What ! Hit a woman ! " 

Why not, if she molests you ? 

** Treat a woman in this way ! " ** Shame ! " 
responds automatically the crowd of Sentimental 
Feminist idiots, oblivious of the fact that the real 
shame lies in their endorsement of an iniquitous 
sex privilege. If the same crowd were prepared to 
condemn any special form of punishment or mode 
of treatment as inhumane for both sexes alike, there 
would, of course, be nothing to be said. But it is 
not so. The most savage cruelty and vindictive 
animosity towards men leaves them comparatively 
cold, at most evoking a mild remonstrance as against 
the inflated manifestation of sentimental horror and 
frothy indignation produced by any slight hardship 
inflicted by way of punishment (let us say) on a 
female offender. 

The psychology of Sentimental Feminism gener- 
ally is intimately bound up with the curious 
phenomenon of the hatred of men by their own 


sex as such. With women, in spite of what is 
sometimes alleged, one does not find this pheno- 
menon of anti-sex. On the contrary, nowadays we 
are in presence of a powerful female sex-solidarity 
indicating the beginnings of a strong sex-league 
of women against men. But with men, as already 
said, in all cases of conflict between the sexes, we 
are met with a callous indifference, alternating with 
positive hostility towards their fellow-men, which 
seems at times to kill in them all sense of justice. 
This is complemented on the other side by an 
imbecile softness towards the female sex in general 
which reminds one of nothing so much as of the 
maudlin bonhomie of the amiable drunkard. This 
besotted indulgence, as before noted, is proof 
even against the outraged sense of injury to 

As we all know, offences against property, as 
a rule, are those the average bourgeois is least 
inclined to condone, yet we have recently seen 
a campaign of deliberate wanton destruction by 
arson and other means, directed expressly against 
private property, which nevertheless the respect- 
able propertied bourgeois, the man of law and 
order, has taken pretty much " lying down." Let 
us suppose another case. Let us imagine an 
anarchist agitation, with a known centre and 
known leaders, a centre from which daily outrages 
were deliberately planned by these leaders and 


carried out by their emissaries, all, bien entendu, 
of the male persuasion. 

'" Now what attitude does the reader suppose 
" public opinion " of the propertied classes would 
adopt towards the miscreants who were responsible 
for these acts ? Can he not picture to himself the 
furious indignation, the rabid diatribes, the ad- 
vocacy of hanging, flogging, penal servitude for 
life, as the minimum punishment, followed by 
panic legislation on these lines, which would ensue 
as a consequence. Yet of such threatenings and 
slaughter, where suffragettes who imitate the 
policy of the Terrorist Anarchist are concerned, 
we hear not a sound. The respectable propertied 
bourgeois, the man of law and order, will, it is 
true, probably condemn these outrages in an 
academic way, but there is an undernote of 
hesitancy which damps down the fire of his 
indignation. There is no vindictiveness, no note 
of atrocity in his expostulations ; nay, he is even 
prepared, on occasion, to argue the question, while 
maintaining the impropriety, the foolishness, the 
" unwomanliness " of setting fire to empty houses, 
cutting up golf links, destroying correspondence, 
smashing windows and the like. But of fiery in- 
dignation, of lurid advocacy of barbaric punish- 
ments, or of ferocity in general, we have not a 
trace. On the contrary, a certain willingness to 
admit and even to emphasise the disinterestedness 


of these female criminals is observable^ As regards 
this last point, we must again insist on what was 
pointed out on a previous page, that the disinter- 
estedness and unselfishness of many a male bomb- 
throwing anarchist who has come in for the 
righteous bourgeois' sternest indignation, are, at 
least, as unquestionable as those of the female 
house-burners and window-smashers. Moreover 
the anarchist, however wrong-headed he may have 
been in his action, as once before remarked, it must 
not be forgotten, had at least for the goal of his 
endeavours, not merely the acquirement of a vote, 
but the revolution which he conceived would abolish 
human misery and raise humanity to a higher level. 
In this strange phenomenon, therefore, in which 
the indignation of the bourgeois at the wanton 
and wilful violation of the sacredness of his idol, 
is reduced to mild remonstrance and its punitive 
action to a playful pretence, we have a crucial 
instance of the extraordinary influence of Feminism 
over the modern mind. That the propertied classes 
should take arson and wilful destruction of property 
in general, with such comparative equanimity be- 
cause the culprits are women, acting in the assumed 
interest of a cause that aims at increasing the 
influence of women in the State, is the most 
striking illustration we can have of the power of 
Feminism. We have here a double phenomenon, 
the unreasoning hatred of man as a sex, by men, 



and their equally unreasoning indulgence towards 
the other sex. As we indicated above, not only is 
the sense of esprit de corps entirely absent among 
modern men as regards their own sex, while 
strongly present in modern women, but this 
negative characteristic has become positive on the 
other side. Thus the modern sex problem presents 
us with a reversal of the ordinary sociological law of 
the solidarity of those possessing common interests. 
It remains to consider the psychological explana- 
tion of this fact. Why should men so conspicuously 
prefer the interests of women before those of 
their own sex ? That this is the case with 
modern man the history of the legislation of 
the last fifty years shows, and the undoubted 
fact may be found further illustrated in the 
newspaper reports of well-nigh every trial, whether 
at civil or criminal law, quite apart from the 
ordinary "chivalric" acts of men in the detail of 
social life. This question of sex, therefore, as 
before said, forms the solitary exception to the 
general law of the esprit de corps of those possessing 
common characteristics and interests. It cannot be 
adequately explained by a reference to the evolu- 
tion of sex functions and relations from primitive 
man onwards, since it is at least in the extreme 
form we see it to-day, a comparatively recent 
social phenomenon. The theory of the sacro- 
sanctity of women by virtue of their sex, quite 


apart from their character and conduct as indi- 
viduals, scarcely dates back farther than a century, 
even from its beginnings. The earlier chivalry, 
where it obtained at all, applied only to the 
woman who presented what were conceived of 
as the ideal moral feminine characteristics in some 
appreciable degree. The mere physical fact of sex 
was never for a moment regarded as of itself 
sufficient to entitle the woman to any special 
homage, consideration, or immunity, over and 
above the man. No one suggested that the female 
criminal was less guilty or more excusable than 
the male criminal. No one believed that a woman 
had a vested right to rob or swindle a man because 
she had had sexual relations with him. This notion 
of the mere fact of sex — of femality — as of itself 
constituting a title to special privileges and im- 
munities, apart from any other consideration, is a 
product of very recent times. In treating this 
question, in so far as it bears on the criminal law, 
it is important to distinguish carefully between the 
softening of the whole system of punishment due 
to the general development of humanitarian ten- 
dencies and the special discrimination made in fa- 
vour of the female sex. These two things are very 
often inadequately distinguished from one another. 
Punishment may have become more humane where 
men are concerned, it may have advanced up to 
a certain point in this direction, but its character 


is not essentially changed. As regards women, 
however, the whole conception of criminal punish- 
ment and penal discipline has altered. Sex privilege 
has been now definitely established as a principle. 

Now a complete investigation of the psychology 
of this curious phenomenon we have been con- 
sidering — namely, the hatred so common with men 
for their fellow-men as a sex — is a task which has 
never yet been properly taken in hand. Its obverse 
side is to be seen on all hands in the conferring 
and confirming of sex prerogative on women. Not 
very long ago, as we have seen, one of its most 
striking manifestations came strongly under public 
notice — namely, the ** rule of the sea," by which 
women, by virtue of their sex, can claim to be saved 
from a sinking ship before men. The fact that the 
laws and practices in which this man-hatred and 
woman-preference find expression are contrary to 
every elementary sense of justice, in many cases 
conflict with public policy, and can obviously be 
seen to be purely arbitrary, matters not. The 
majority of men feel no sense of the injustice 
although they may admit the fact of the injustice, 
when categorically questioned. They are prepared 
when it comes to the point to let public policy go 
by the board rather than entrench upon the sacred 
privilege and immunity of the female ; while as to 
the arbitrary and unreasoning nature of the afore- 
said laws and practices, not being troubled with a 


logical conscience, this does not affect them. I must 
confess to being unequal to the task of accurately 
fathoming the psychological condition of the average 
man who hates man in general and loves woman in 
general to the extent of going contrary to so many 
apparently basal tendencies of human nature as we 
know it otherwise. The reply, of course, will be 
an appeal to the power of the sexual instinct. But 
this, I must again repeat, will not explain the rise, 
or, if not the rise, at least the marked expansion 
of the sentiment in question during the last three 
generations or thereabouts. Even apart from this, 
while I am well aware of the power of sexual love 
to effect anything in the mind of man as regards its 
individual object, I submit it is difficult to conceive 
how it can influence so strongly men's attitude 
towards women they have not seen, or, even where 
they have seen them, when there is no question of 
sexual attraction, or, again, as regards the collec- 
tivity of women — the abstract category. Woman 
(in general). 

We have already dealt with the Anti-man cam- 
paign in the Press, especially in modern novels and 
plays. This, as we have remarked, often takes the 
form of direct abuse of husbands and lovers and 
the attempt to make them look ridiculous as a 
foil to the brilliant qualities of wives and sweet- 
hearts. But we sometimes find the mere laudation 
of woman herself, apart from any direct anti- 


manism, assume the character of an intellectual 
emetic. A much-admired contemporary novelist, 
depicting a wedding ceremony in fashionable 
society circles, describes the feelings of his hero, 
a young man disgusted with the hollowness and 
vanity of " Society " and all its ways, as follows : — 
** The bride was opposite him now, and by an 
instinct of common chivalry he turned away his 
eyes ; it seemed to him a shame to look at that 
downcast head above the silver mystery of her 
perfect raiment ; the modest head full, doubtless, 
of devotion and pure yearnings ; the stately head 
where no such thought as * How am I looking 
this day of all days, before all London ? * had ever 
entered : the proud head, where no such fear as, 
*How am I carrying it off?* could surely be 
besmirching. . . . He saw below the surface of 
this drama played before his eyes ; and set his face, 
as a man might who found himself assisting at a 
sacrifice." Now, I ask, can it be believed that the 
writer of the above flamboyant feminist fustian 
is a novelist and playwright of established reputation 
who undoubtedly has done good work. The 
obvious criticism must surely strike every reader 
that it is somewhat strange that this divinely 
innocent creature he glorifies should arise straight 
out of a milieu which is shown up as the embodi- 
ment of hollowness and conventional superficiality. 
If men can lay the butter on thick in their laudation 


of womanhood, female idolaters of their own sex 
can fairly outbid them. At the time of writing 
there has just come under my notice a dithyramb 
in the journal, The Clarion, by Miss Winnifred 
Blatchford, on the sacrosanct perfections of woman- 
hood in general, especially as exemplified in the 
suicidal exploits of the late lamented Emily 
Wilding Davidson of Epsom fame, and a diatribe 
on the purity, beauty and unapproachable glory 
of woman. According to this lady, the glory of 
womanhood seems to extend to every part of the 
female organism, but, we are told, is especially 
manifested in the hair (oozing into the roots 
apparently). Evidently there is something especially 
sacred in woman's hair ! This prose ode to Woman, 
as exemplified in Emily Davidson, culminates in the 
invocation : *' Will the day ever come when a 
woman's life will be rated higher . . . than that of 
a jockey ? " Poor jockey ! We will trust not, though 
present appearances do indicate a strong tendency to 
regard a woman as possessing the prerogatives of 
the sacred cow of Indian or ancient Egyptian fame ! 
It is impossible to read or hear any discussion 
on, say, the marriage laws, without it being 
apparent that the female side of the question 
is the one element of the problem which is 
considered worthy of attention. The undoubted 
iniquity of our existing marriage laws is always 
spoken of as an injustice to the woman and the 


changes in the direction of greater freedom which 
are advocated as a relief to the wife bound to 
a bad or otherwise unendurable husband. That the 
converse case may happen, that that reviled and 
despised thing, a husband, may also have reason 
to desire relief from a wife whose angelic qualities 
and vast superiority to his own vile male self he 
fails to appreciate, never seems to enter into the 
calculation at all. 

That no satisfactory formulation of the psychology 
of the movement of Feminism has yet been offered 
is undoubtedly true. For the moment, I take it, all 
we can do is co-ordinate the fact as a case of what 
we may term social hypnotism, of those waves 
of feeling uninfluenced by reason which are a 
phenomenon so common in history — witchcraft 
manias, flagellant fanaticisms, religious " revivals," 
and similar social upheavals. The belief that woman 
is oppressed by man, and that the need for remedy- 
ing that oppression at all costs is urgent, partly, at 
least, doubtless belongs to this order of phenomena. 
That this feeling is widespread and held in various 
degrees of intensity by large numbers of persons, 
men no less than women, is not to be denied. That 
it is of the nature of a hypnotic wave of sentiment, 
uninfluenced by reason, is shown by the fact that 
argument does not seem to touch it. You may show 
conclusively that facts are opposed to the assump- 
tion ; that, so far from women being oppressed, the 


very contrary is the case; that the existing law 
and its administration is in no essential respect 
whatever unfavourable to women, but, on the 
contrary, is, as a whole, grossly unfair to men — it is 
all to no purpose. Your remonstrances, in the main, 
fall on deaf ears, or, shall we say, they fall off the 
mind coated with Feminist sentiment as water falls 
from the proverbial duck's back. The facts are 
ignored and the sentiment prevails ; the same old 
catchwords, the same lies and threadbare fallacies 
are repeated. The fact that they have been shown 
to be false counts for nothing. The hypnotic wave 
of sentiment sweeps reason aside and compels men 
to believe that woman is oppressed and man the 
oppressor, and believe it they will. If facts are 
against the idee fixe of the hypnotic suggestion, so 
much the worse for the facts. Thus far the Feminist 
dogma of the oppression of the female sex. 

As regards the obverse side of this Sentimental 
Feminism which issues in ferocious sex-laws directed 
against men for offences against women — laws enact- 
ing barbarous tortures, such as the " cat," and which 
are ordered with gusto in all their severity in our 
criminal courts — this probably is largely traceable to 
the influence of Sadie lusts. An agitation such as that 
which led to the passing of the White Slave Traffic 
Act, so-called, of 191 2, is started, an agitation engin- 
eered largely by the inverted libidinousness of social 
purity mongers, and on the crest of this agitation 


the votaries of Sadie cruelty have their innings. 
The foolish Sentimental Feminist at large, whose 
indignation against wicked man is fanned to fury 
by bogus tales and his judgment captured by repre- 
sentations of the severities requisite to stamp out 
the evil he is assured is so widespread, lends his 
fatuous support to the measures proposed. The 
judicial Bench is, of course, delighted at the in- 
crease of power given it over the prisoner in the 
dock, and should any of the puisnes happen to have 
Sadie proclivities they are as happy as horses in 
clover and the "cat" flourishes like a green bay 

Let us now turn to the question of the psy- 
chology of Political Feminism. Political Feminism, 
as regards its immediate demand of female suffrage, 
is based directly on the modern conception of 
democracy. This is its avowed basis. With modern 
notions of universal suffrage it is declared that the 
exclusion of women from the franchise is logically 
incompatible. If you include in the parliamentary 
voting lists all sorts and conditions of men, it is 
said, it is plainly a violation of the principle of 
democracy to exclude more than one half of the 
adult population from the polls. As Mill used to 
say in his advocacy of female suffrage, so long as 
the franchise was restricted to a very small section 
of the population, there may have been nothing 
noteworthy in the exclusion of women. But now 


that the mass of men are entitled to the vote and 
the avowed aim of democracy is to extend it to 
all men, the refusal to extend it still further to 
women is an anomaly and a manifest inconsistency. 
But in this, Mill, and others who have used his 
argument, omitted to consider one very vital point. 
The extensions of the suffrage, such as have been 
demanded and in part obtained by democracy up 
to the present agitation, have always referred to 
the removal of class barriers, wealth barriers, race 
barriers, etc. — in a word, social barriers — but never 
to the removal of barriers based on deep-lying 
organic difference — i.e. barriers determining not 
sociological but biological distinctions. The case 
of sex is unique in this connection, and this fact 
vitiates any analogy between the extension of 
suffrage to women and its extension to fresh social 
strata such as democracy has hitherto had in view, 
terminating in the manhood suffrage which is the 
ultimate goal of all political democrats. Now sex 
constitutes an organic or biological difference, just 
as a species constitutes another and (of course) 
a stronger biological difference. Hence I contend 
the mere fact of this difference rules out the bare 
appeal to the principle of democracy per se as an 
argument in favour of the extension of the suffrage 
to women. There is, I submit, no parity between 
the principle and practice of democracy as hitherto 
understood, and the new extension proposed to be 


given to the franchise by the inclusion of women 
within its pale. And yet there is no question but 
that the apparent but delusive demand of logical 
consistency in this question, has influenced and 
still influences many an honest democrat in his 
attitude in this matter. 

But although the recognition of the difference 
of sex as being an organic difference and therefore 
radically other than social differences of caste, 
class, wealth, or even race, undoubtedly invalidates 
the appeal to the democrat on the ground of 
consistency, to accept the principle of female 
suffrage, yet it does not necessarily dispose of 
the question. It merely leaves the ground free for 
the problem as to whether the organic distinction 
implied in sex does or does not involve correspond- 
ing intellectual and moral differences in the female 
sex which it is proposed to enfranchise ; and 
furthermore whether such differences, if they 
exist, involve general inferiority, or at least an 
unfitness ad hoc for the exercise of political 
functions. These questions we have, I think, 
suflficiently discussed already in the present work. 
The fact of the existence of exceptionally able 
women in various departments, does undoubtedly 
mislead many men in their judgment as to the 
capacity of the average woman to ** think politic- 
ally," or otherwise to show herself the effective 
equal of the average man, morally and intellectually. 


The reasons for answering this question in the 
negative we have already briefly indicated in the 
course of our investigations. This renders it un- 
necessary to discuss the matter any further here. 

In dealing with the psychological aspects of the 
Feminist Movement, the intellectual conditions 
which paved the way for its acceptance, it is worth 
while recalling two or three typical instances of 
the class of "argument" to be heard on occasion 
from the female advocates for the suffrage. Thus, 
when the census was taken in 191 1 and the 
"Women's Political and Social Union conceived, 
as they thought, the brilliant idea of annoying the 
authorities and vitiating the results of the census 
by refusing to allow themselves to be enrolled, 
one of the leaders, when interviewed on the point, 
gave her reason for her refusal to be included, in 
the following terms: — "I am not a citizen" 
(meaning that she did not possess the franchise) 
<* and I am not going to pretend to be one." The 
silliness of this observation is, of course, obvious, 
seeing that the franchise or even citizenship has 
nothing whatever to do with the census, which 
includes infants, besides criminals, lunatics, imbe- 
ciles, etc. Again, in a manifesto of the Women's 
Political and Social Union defending window- 
smashing and other "militant" outrages, it was 
pointed out that the coal strike had caused more 
injury than the window- smashing and yet the 


strikers were not prosecuted as the window- 
smashers were — in other words, the exercise of 
the basal personal right of the free man to with- 
hold his labour save under the conditions agreed 
to by him, is paralleled with criminal outrage 
against person and property ! Again, some three 
or four years ago, when the Women's Suffrage 
Bill had passed the Commons, on its being 
announced by the Government that for the re- 
mainder of the Session no further facilities could 
be given for private members' Bills, save for those 
of a non-contentious character, one of these sapient 
females urged in the Press that, seeing that there 
were persons to be found in both the orthodox 
political camps who were in favour of female 
suffrage, therefore the Bill in question must be 
regarded as of a non-contentious character ! Once 
more, a lady, writing a few months ago to one 
of the weekly journals, remarked that though 
deliberate window-breaking, destruction of letters, 
and arson, might be illegal acts, yet that the 
punishing of them by imprisonment with hard 
labour, they being political offences, was also an 
illegal act, with the conclusion that the ** militants " 
and the authorities, both alike having committed 
illegal acts, were " quits " ! These choice specimens 
of suffragettes' logic are given as throwing a 
significant light on the mental condition of women 
in the suffragette movement, and indirectly on 


female psychology generally. One would pre- 
sumably suppose that the women who put them 
forward must have failed to see the exhibition 
they were making of themselves. That any human 
being out of an asylum, could have sunk to the 
depth of fatuous inconsequent idiocy they indicate 
would seem scarcely credible. Is the order of 
imbecility which the above and many similar 
utterances reflect, confined to suffragette intelli- 
gence alone, or does it point to radical inferiority 
of intellectual fibre, not in degree merely, but in 
kind, in the mental constitution of the human 
female generally ? Certainly it is hard to think 
that any man, however low his intelligence, would 
be capable of making a fool of himself precisely 
in the way these women are continually doing 
in their attempts to defend their cause and their 

In the foregoing pages we have endeavoured 
to trace some of the leading strands of thought 
going to make up the Modern Feminist Movement. 
Sentimental Feminism clearly has its roots in 
sexual feeling, and in the tradition of chivalry, 
albeit the notion of chivalry has essentially changed 
in the course of its evolution. For the rest. Senti- 
mental Feminism, with its double character of 
man-antipathy and woman-sympathy, as we see it 
to-day, has assumed the character of one of those 
psychopathic social phenomena which have so 


often recurred in history. It can only be explained, 
like the latter, as an hypnotic wave passing over 

As for Political Feminism, we have shown that 
this largely has its root in a fallacious application 
of the notion of democracy, partaking largely of 
the logical fallacy known technically as a dicto 
secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. This logical 
fallacy of Political Feminism is, of course, reinforced 
and urged forward by Sentimental Feminism. As 
coming under the head of the psychology of the 
movement, we have also called attention to some 
curious phenomena of logic al imbecil ity, noticeable 
in the utterances of educated women in the 
suffragette agitation. 



Feminism, or, as it is sometimes called, the eman- 
cipation of woman, as we know it in the present 
day, may be justifiably indicted as a gigantic fraud 
— a fraud in its general aim and a fraud alike in its 
methods of controversy and in its practical tactics. 
It is through and through disingenuous and 
dishonest. Modern Feminism has always professed 
to be a movement for political and social equality 
between the sexes. The claim for this equalising 
of position and rights in modern society is logically 
based upon the assumption of an essential equality 
in natural ability between the sexes. As to this, 
we have indicated in the preceding pages on broad 
lines, the grounds for regarding the foregoing 
assumption as false. But quite apart from this 
question, I contend the fraudulent nature of the 
present movement can readily be seen by showing it 
to be not merely based on false grounds, but directly 
and consciously fraudulent in its pretensions. 

It uniformly professes to aim at the placing of 
the sexes on a footing of social and political 
L i6i 


equality. A very little inquiry into its concrete 
demands suffices to show that its aim, so far 
from being equality, is the very reverse — viz. to 
bring about, with the aid of men themselves, as 
embodied in the forces of the State, a female 
ascendancy and a consolidation and extension of 
already existing female privileges. That this is so 
may be seen in general by the constant conjunction 
of Political and Sentimental Feminism in the same 
persons. It may be seen more particularly in 
detail, in the specific demands of Feminists. These 
demands, as formulated by suffragists as a reason 
why the vote is essential to the interests of 
women, amount to little if anything else than 
proposals for laws to enslave and browbeat men 
and to admit women to virtual if not actual im- 
munity for all offences committed against men. It 
h enough to consult any suggestions for a woman's 
** charter " in order to confirm what is here said. 
Such proposals invaribly suggest the sacrificing of 
man at every turn to woman.^ 

1 This is arrived at by the clever trick of appealing to the 
modern theory of the equal mental capacity of the sexes when 
it is a question of political and economic rights and advantages 
for women, and of counterappealing to the traditional sentiment 
based on the belief in the inferiority of the female sex, when 
it is a question of legal and administrative privilege and 
consideration. The Feminist thus succeeds by his dexterity 
in the usually difficult feat of "getting it both ways " for his 
fair clients. 


In the early eighties of the last century appeared 
a skit in the form of a novel from the pen of the 
late Sir Walter Besant, entitled " The Revolt of 
Man," depicting the oppression of man under a 
Feminist regime, an oppression which ended in 
a revolt and the re-establishment of male supremacy. 
The ideas underlying this Jeu (T esprit of the subjec- 
tion of men would seem to be seriously entertained 
by the female leaders of the present woman's 
movement. It is many years ago now since a 
minister holding one of the highest positions in the 
present Cabinet made the remark to me : — " The 
real object, you know, for which these women want 
the vote is simply to get rascally laws passed 
against men ! " Subsequent Feminist agitation has 
abundantly proved the truth of this observation. 
An illustration of the practical results of the 
modern woman's movement is to be seen in the 
infamous White Slave Traffic Act of 191 2 rushed 
through Parliament as a piece of panic legislation 
by dint of a campaign of sheer hard lying. The 
atrocity of this act has been sufficiently dealt with 
in a previous chapter.^ 

1 There is one fortunate thing as regards these savage laws 
aimed at the suppression of certain crimes, and that is, as it 
would seem, they are never effective in achieving their purpose. 
As Mr Tighe Hopkins remarks, apropos of the torture of the 
<<cat" ("Wards of the State," p. 203): — "The attempt to 
correct crime with crime has everywhere repaid us in the old 
properly disastrous way." It would indeed be regrettable if it 


Other results of the inequality between the 
sexes so effectively urged by present-day Feminism, 
may be seen in the conduct of magistrates, judges 
and juries, in our courts civil and criminal. This has 
been already animadverted upon in the course of 
the present work, and illustrative cases given, as also 
in previous writings of the present author to which 
allusion has already been made. It is not too much 
to say that a man has practically no chance in the 
present day in a court of law, civil or criminal, of 
obtaining justice where a woman is in the case. 
The savage vindictiveness exhibited towards men, as 
displayed in the eagerness of judges to obtain, and 
the readiness of juries to return, convictions against 
men accused of crimes against women, on evidence 
which, in many cases, would not be good enough 
(to use the common phrase) to hang a dog on, with 
the inevitable ferocious sentence following convic- 
tion, may be witnessed on almost every occasion 
when such cases are up for trial. I have spoken of 

could be shown that penal laws of this kind were successful. 
Far better is it that the crimes of isolated individuals should 
continue than that crimes such as the cold-blooded infliction 
of torture and death committed at the behest of the State, as 
supposed to represent the whole of society, should attain their 
object, even though the object be the suppression of crimes 
of another kind perpetrated by the aforesaid individuals within 
society. The successful repression of crimes committed by 
individuals, by a crime committed by State authority, can only 
act as an encouragement to the State to continue its course 
of inflicting punishment which is itself a crime. 


the eagerness of judges to obtain convictions. As 
an illustration of this sort of thing, the following 
may be given : — In the trial of a man for the 
murder of a woman, before Mr Justice Buckniil, 
which took place some time ago, it came out in 
evidence that the woman had violently and ob- 
scenely abused and threatened the man immediately 
before, in the presence of other persons. The jury 
were so impressed with the evidence of unusually 
strong provocation that they hesitated whether it 
was not sufficient to reduce the crime to that of 
manslaughter, and, unable to agree offhand on a 
verdict of murder, asked the judge for further 
guidance. Their deliberations were, however, cut 
short by the judge, who remarked on the hesitation 
they had in arriving at their verdict, finally adding : 
** Only think, gentlemen, how you would view it had 
this been your own wife or sister who was cruelly 
done to death ! " With the habitual obsequiousness 
of a British jury towards the occupant of the Bench, 
the gentlemen in question swallowed complacently 
the insult thrown at their wives and sisters in 
putting them in the same category with a foul 
strumpet, and promptly did what the judge obviously 
wanted of them — to wit, brought in a verdict 
of wilful murder. The cases on the obverse side, 
where the judge, by similar sentimental appeal, 
aims at procuring the acquittal of female prisoners 
notoriously guilty on the evidence, that palladium 


of rogues, the English law of libel, precludes me 
from referring to individually. As regards the dis- 
parity in punishment, however, we have an apt and 
recent illustration in the execution of the youth of 
nineteen, convicted on doubtful evidence of the 
murder of his sweetheart, and the reprieve of 
the woman convicted on her own admission of the 
murder of her paramour by soaking him in paraffin 
during his sleep and setting him alight ! 

Another effect of the influence of Sentimental 
Feminism, is seen in crimes of the " unwritten law " 
description, the crime passionel of the French. The 
most atrocious and dastardly murders and other 
crimes of violence are condoned and even glorified 
if they can but be covered by the excuse that they 
are dictated by a desire to avenge a woman's 
** honour" or to enable her to obtain the object of 
her wishes. The incident in Sir J. M. Barrie's play 
of the lady who murders a man by throwing him 
out of a railway carriage over a dispute respecting 
the opening of a window, and gets acquitted on the 
excuse that her little girl had got a cold, represents 
a not exaggerated picture of "modern justice" — 
for women only ! The outrageous application of 
the principles, if such you may call them, of Senti- 
mental Feminism in this country in the case of the 
suffragettes, has made English justice and penal 
administration the laughing-stock of the world. 
But the way in which the crimes of the suffragettes 


have been dealt with, is after all only a slight 
exaggeration of the immunity from all the severer 
penalties of the law enjoyed by female convicts 
generally. This has been carried in the case of 
suffragette criminals to the utmost limits of absur- 
dity. In fact, the deference exhibited towards these 
deliberate perpetrators of crimes of wanton destruc- 
tion is sometimes comic, as in the case of the 
Richmond magistrate who rebuked the policeman- 
witness in an arson charge for omitting the 
" Miss " in referring to one of the female prisoners 
in the dock : as well as in the " high character " 
usually attributed to the perpetrators of these 
deeds of outrage and violence even by certain 
functionaries of Church and State. They did not 
speak in this strain morebetoken, when mere male 
anarchists or Fenians were involved in difficulties 
with the law due to overzeal for their cause ! 

The whole movement, it is quite evident, 
depends for its success, largely, at least, on the 
apathy of men. The bulk of men undoubtedly do 
not sympathise with the pretensions of the Feminist 
agitation, but the bulk of men are indifferent one 
way or the other. They do not take the Feminist 
Movement seriously. The bare notion of women, 
as such, being a danger to men as such, strikes 
them as absurd. They do not realise that the 
question is not of the physical strength of women 
as women, but of the whole forces of the State 


being at the disposal of women to set in motion 
to gratify their whims and passions. The idea of 
a sex war in which women take the field against 
men, such as represents .the inwardness of the 
whole Feminist Movement of to-day, seems to them 
ridiculous. The feeling at the root of most men's 
good-humoured patronage of, or indifference to. 
Modern Feminist claims, is roughly expressed in 
a remark of the late William Morris in replying to 
some animadversions of mine on the subject : — 
** What does it matter ? A man ought to be always 
able to deal with a woman if necessary. Why, I 
could tackle a half dozen women at once for that 
matter ! " This is a common attitude of mind on 
the subject among otherwise sane and sensible 
men. The absurdity of it is manifest when one 
considers that the issue of man versus woman as 
units of physical strength respectively, is purely 
irrelevant. It is not a question of the man tackling 
the woman or any number of women. It is the 
question of the whole force of the State tackling 
the man in favour of the woman. The prevalent 
idea in many men's minds seems to be that of the 
State drawing a ring-fence around the disputant 
man and woman and letting them fight the matter 
out between themselves, which, to speak the 
language of the great geometer of antiquity — 
** is absurd." 

Modern Feminism, tacking itself on to an older 


tradition which it travesties beyond all recognition, 
has succeeded in affecting modern public opinion 
with an overpowering sense of the sacrosanctity 
of human femality as such. It is not content with 
respect for the ideal of good womanhood but it 
would fain place on a pedestal the mere fact of 
femalehood in itself. This is illustrated in a thou- 
sand ways. Thus while public opinion tolerates 
the most bestial and infamous forms of corporal 
punishment for men in gaols, it will regard the 
slight chastisement by the medical head of an 
institution for mental cases, of a girl who is 
admittedly obstinate and refractory rather than 
mentally afflicted in the ordinary sense of the term, 
as " degrading." 

Again, in order to sustain its favourite thesis, 
the intellectual equality of woman with man, it 
resorts, whenever a plausible case presents itself, 
to its usual policy of the falsification of fact. Take 
the instance of Madame Curie. When radium was 
first discovered in the laboratory of the late Pro- 
fessor Curie we were told that the latter had made 
the discovery, it being at the same time mentioned 
that he possessed in his wife a valuable aid in his 
laboratory work. We were afterwards told that 
the discovery of radium was the joint work of 
both, the implication being that the honours were 
equally divided. Now, Feminist influence has 
succeeded in getting Madame Curie spoken of 



as herself the discoverer of radium ! I venture 
to affirm that there is no evidence whatever for 
assuming that radium would ever have seen the 
light had the late Professor Curie not himself 
experimented in his laboratory, not to speak of 
his predecessor Becquerel. 

We have seen that Feminists are, in this country, 
at least, zealous in championing the Puritan view 
of sexual morality. Many of them, in the vehemence 
of their Anti-man crusade, look forward with relish 
to the opportunity they anticipate will be afforded 
them when women get the vote, of passing laws 
rigorously enforcing asceticism on men by means 
of severe penal enactments. All forms of indulgence 
(by men), sexual or otherwise, uncongenial to the 
puritanic mind, would be equally placed under the 
ban of the criminal law ! Anyone desirous of 
testing the truth of the above statement has only 
to read the suffragette papers and other expositions 
of the gospel of Feminism as held by its most 
devoted advocates. 

One point should not be lost sight of, and that 
is the attitude of the Press. Almost all journals 
are ready to publish any argument in favour of the 
suffrage or of the other claims of the movement on 
behalf of women. In defiance of this fact, a 
prominent Feminist prelate some time ago, in a 
letter to The Times, alleged among the other so- 
called grievances of women at the present day. 


and apparently as in some sort a condonation of 
"militancy," that the Press was closed to women 
anxious to air their grievances ! A statement more 
directly the reverse of the truth could hardly have 
been made. Open any paper of general circulation — 
say any of the morning dailies — and you will find 
letters galore advocating the Feminist side of the 
question ! According to my own observation, they 
are in the proportion of something like three or 
four in favour to one against. The fact is useless 
denying that this sex-agitation has every favour 
shown it by current ** public opinion," including 
even that of its opponents. Female ** militants" 
of the suffrage have pleas urged in condonation 
of their criminal acts, such as their alleged 
** high character," which would be laughed at in 
the case of men — and yet they whine at being 

The readiness, and almost eagerness, with which 
certain sections of British public opinion are ready 
to view favourably anything urged on behalf of 
female suffrage, is aptly illustrated by the well- 
known argument we so often hear when the 
existence of ** militancy " is pointed out as a reason 
for withholding the suffrage — the argument, namely, 
as to the unfairness of refusing the franchise to 
numbers of peaceable and law-abiding women who 
are asking for it, because a relatively small section 
of women resort to criminal methods of emphasising 


their demand. Now let us examine the real inter- 
pretation of the facts. It is quite true that the 
majority of the women agitating for the suffrage 
at the present day are themselves non-militants. 
But what is and has been their attitude towards their 
militant sisters ? Have they ever repudiated the 
criminal tactics of the latter with the decision and 
even indignation one might reasonably have ex- 
pected had they really regarded the campaign of 
violence and wanton outrage with strong disappro- 
bation, not to say abhorrence ? The answer must 
be a decided negative. At the very most they 
mildly rebuke the unwisdom of militant methods, 
blessing them, as it were, with faint blame, while, 
as a general rule, they will not go even so far as 
this, but are content, while graciously deigning 
to tell you that, although their own methods are 
not those of militancy, yet that they and the 
militants are alike working for the same end, 
notwithstanding they may differ as to the most 
effective methods of attaining it. The non-militant 
woman suffragist is always careful never to appear 
an fl«//-militant. Everyone can see that had the 
bulk of the so-called " peaceable and law-abiding" 
suffragists, to whose claims we are enjoined to 
give ear, honestly and resolutely set their faces 
against, and vigorously denounced, the criminal 
campaign, refusing to have anything to do with 
it or its authors, the campaign in question would 


have come to an end long ago. But no ! this would 
not have suited the book of the " peaceable and law- 
abiding " advocates of woman's suffrage. Their aim 
has been, and is still, to run with the " militant " 
hare and hunt with the " peaceable and law- 
abiding " hounds. While themselves abstaining from 
any unlawful act they are perfectly willing and 
desirous that they and their movement shall reap 
all the advantages of advertisement and otherwise 
that may accrue from the militant policy. That the 
above is a true state of the case as regards the 
** peaceful and law-abiding" elements in the suffra- 
gist movement, which we are assured so largely 
outnumber the militant section, one would think 
must be plain to everyone, however obtuse, who 
has followed with attention the course of the present 
agitation. And yet there are fools of the male sex 
who consider seriously this preposterous plea of 
the injustice of refusing to concede the suffrage to 
a large number of "peaceable and law-abiding" 
women who are demanding it, because of the action 
of a small body of violent females — with whom, bien 
entendu, the aforesaid large body of " peaceable and 
law-abiding" women (while keeping themselves 
carefully aloof from active participation in militancy), 
do not pretend to conceal their sympathy ! 

The whole modern woman's movement is based, 
in a measure, at least, on an assumption which is 
absolutely unfounded — to wit, that man has 


systematically oppressed woman in the past, that 
the natural tendency of evil-minded man is always 
to oppress woman, or, to put it from the other side, 
that woman is the victim of man's egoism ! The 
unsoundness of this view ought to be apparent to 
every unbiassed student of history, anthropology, 
and physiology. The Feminist prefers to see 
evidence of male oppression in the place woman 
has occupied in social and political life, rather than 
the natural consequence of her organic constitution, 
her secondary sexual characteristics, and the natural 
average inferiority which flows therefrom. As 
regards the personal relations between men and 
women, an impartial view of the case must in- 
evitably lead to the conclusion that whatever else 
man in general may have on his conscience, no 
reasonable reproach lies to his score as regards his 
treatment of woman. The patience, forbearance^ 
and kindliness, with which, from Socrates down- 
wards, men as a rule have encountered the whims, 

^^ the tempers, and the tantrums of their often un- 
worthy womankind is indeed a marvel. But it is 
a still greater marvel that Modern Feminism in 
this, as in other things, should have succeeded in 
hocussing public opinion into the delusion that the 

^ exact opposite of the truth represents the real 
state of the case. This, however, is a marvel 

' which runs through the history of the controversial 
exploits of the whole Feminist Movement. 


In the foregoing pages we have striven to 
unmask the shameless imposture which, in the 
main, this movement represents. We have tracked 
down one dishonest argument after another. We 
have pointed out how the thinnest and hoUowest 
of subterfuges are allowed to pass muster, and 
even to become current coin, b)^ dint of unrefuted 
reiteration. The Feminist trick of reversing the 
facts of the case, as, for example, the assertion that 
man-made law and its administration is unjust to 
women, and then raising a howl of indignation at 
the position of affairs they picture, such being, of 
course, the diametrical opposite of the real facts — 
all this has been exposed. In conclusion I can only 
express the hope that honest, straightforward men 
who have been bitten by Feminist wiles will take 
pause and reconsider their position. Whatever 
sentiment or sympathy they may have with the 
aims of the movement intrinsically, it ought to be 
not too much to expect them to view with con- 
tempt and abhorrence the mass of disingenuous 
falsehood and transparent subterfuge, which the 
votaries of Feminism systematically seek to palm 
oiF upon a public opinion — only too easily gullible 
in this matter — as true fact and valid argument. 


RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
University of California Library 

or to the 

BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 


• 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 

• 1 -year loans may be recharged by bringing 
books to NRLF 

• Renewals and recharges may be made 
4 days prior to due date 


OCT 10 Z003 


DD20 15M 4-02 

YB 0707