Truth is the name we give to errors grown hoary with the centuries.
-- SPINOZA.

   The authors of The Dominant Sex contemplate a refounding (Neubegründung) of the comparative psychology of the sexes. The present volume is the initial contribution to that work; it is intended to demolish the old edifice, and in part to clear the ground for the new construction. Literally translated, the original title runs: "Feminine Peculiarities in the Men's State, and Masculine Peculiarities in the Women's State." The fundamental theory of the book is that what we call "masculine" qualities to-day are merely the qualities of a dominant sex; and that what we call "feminine" qualities are merely the qualities of a subordinate sex. Novel-readers may remember that the theory was foreshadowed forty years ago in Walter Besant's amusing anti-feminist squib, The Revolt of Man. In the present study we have a work as readable as any novel in which knowledge of the psychological and sociological effects of sex dominance is placed upon a scientific basis. Only when full allowance has been made for these effects, will it be possible to ascertain the residue of masculine and feminine character traits which are indisputably congenital. The authors have proved that much of what we lightly class as "masculinity" and "femininity" is not congenital, but is reacquired from generation to generation.

   There are two other main lines of contemporary research into the problems of the comparative psychology of the sexes. One of these is by way of direct

    The second main line of recent research into the psychology of sex differentiation has been that furnished by psychoanalysis -- by the direct study of unconscious mentation in ourselves and our contemporaries, and by the application of psychoanalytical theory in the imaginative reconstruction of prehistoric society (as in Freud's Totem and Taboo, and Kolnai's Psychoanalysis and Sociology). But here, likewise, inferences are vitiated by the "Men's-State complex" of the psychoanalysts, whether these be men or women. From one point of view The Dominant Sex is itself a psychoanalytical study, for it shows how largely our judgments concerning sex differentiation are unconsciously influenced by the affects dependent upon the extant type of sex dominion, and how historians have

    We do not wish to imply that no one before the Vaertings has ever been aware of the existence of the bias to which we refer. There are, for instance, reiterated allusions to it in the writings of women rebels against male dominion, from the days of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication onwards. Havelock Ellis writes to us in a private letter: "The fallacy in sexual comparisons is fairly familiar -- the difficulty is to eliminate it. It has been acutely present to my mind for nearly forty years; and I have always attached importance to control observations, when possible, on other species in which there was no reason to suppose one sex dominant." But the Vaertings are the first to attempt the elucidation of the matter in all its bearings, as the outcome of a detailed historical and sociological study.

    The evidence for the widespread existence of a feminine dominance, the obverse of the masculine dominance with which we are all familiar, is scattered broadcast throughout the succeeding pages, and throughout those of the numerous works to which the authors refer. There is no need to summarise it in this foreword. Students of sociology are acquainted with Bachofen's theory of matriarchy; and those who cannot read German have access, at any rate, to summary expositions of the theories of the author of Das Mutterrecht. Such original English (or American)

    In fine, then, the Vaertings' theory is that the Men's State tends to produce "manly men," and "womanly women." On the other hand, the Women's State tends

    Meanwhile, the influence of the Men's State is unceasingly at work. As Evelyn Sharp wrote recently in the Daily Herald (September 5, 1922 -- article on "Sex Equality") : "The perpetual insistence on the limitation of women's interests has resulted in her artificial specialisation in such interests. But this is a reactionary and not a progressive tendency, and one that hinders the solution of many problems that will only be solved when they are approached, not as women's, but as human questions. It is also a tendency that hinders the emancipation of women. For, after all, woman's emancipation simply means her recognition as a human being."

    Evelyn Sharp, it will be seen, like Mary Wollstonecraft, Havelock Ellis, and many another, is a forerunner in respect of a portion of the Vaertings' great

    Marx showed that history could not be made intelligible without the clue afforded by the recognition of the class struggle; he pointed out that historiographers in general were, and could not but be, under the spell of the ideology of the master class. History had to be rewritten -- for the most part still has to be rewritten -- by persons whose master-class bias has been readjusted. In like manner the Vaertings contend that history is perennially falsified by the prepotent ideology of the dominant sex. Nor is it history alone that has to be rewritten from an equalitarian outlook in sexual matters. The readjustment is quite as essential in respect of the inferences most recently drawn in the fields of sociology and psychology. These two sciences, likewise, must be "refounded" upon a sex-equalitarian basis. Blow follows blow with disconcerting speed, making lovers of a quiet life look back with regret to the times when Bishop Ussher's contemporaries found it easy to believe that Eve was created out of Adam's rib in the year 4004 B.C. But alas, our authors have little difficulty in showing that, quite apart from the excellent Ussher's defects as a chronologer, the rib-story itself has to be dismissed as a Men's-State fable! That was the Yahvist version, and Yahve was a Men's-State god, fashioned after the image of dominant males. The Elohist myth, on the other hand, "male and female created he them," has a comparatively equalitarian flavour, and was the saga of a tribe or tribes where the sexes held equal sway. In respect

    Our sex nature is very variously composed. Neither in society nor in the individual is it stable in its characters. Many societies and many individuals are strongly sexed, but the modern trend towards equal rights for the sexes is unquestionably accompanied by a reduction in the intensity of sex differentiation.

    In the psychological sphere, sex differentiation has three main factors: biological, psychological, and sociological.

    Biologically or psychologically determined differences in the psychology of the sexes, in sexual behaviour, indubitably exist. Their existence in the human species is indicated by the comparative study of sex psychology in the animal kingdom, and it is confirmed by recent experimental work in transplating the reproductive glands. To-day the influence of sexual hormones upon character is an established fact. But it seems probable that all men have circulating in their blood both "male" and "female" hormones. Apart from actual or experimental inversion, the influence of these in any individual is fluctuating.

    Secondly, differences in sexual behaviour are largely due to a psychological determinism, are to a great extent the outcome of suggestions and autosuggestions as to what conduct is appropriate for boys or girls, for men or women. But in large part these suggestions are in turn dependent upon the third factor, the sociological.

    The Dominant Sex is a detailed study of the sociological factor of sex differentiation.

   London, 1923.

    From of old the comparative psychology of man and woman has been on a false route, and there it still wanders to-day. The custom is to compare dominant males with females whose position is subordinate or at least inferior in rank, the comparison being thus between groups whose position is fundamentally unequal. But the differences shown to exist between such groups are just as likely to depend upon sociological causes, and to be the outcome of the reciprocal position of the sexes, as to be due to congenital divergencies. It is erroneous, therefore, to do what is usually done at the present time, and to describe the differences in question without further consideration as sexual characters.

    The error presumably arises from a not unnatural identification of the male sex with dominance and of the female sex with subordination. The respective associations have been regarded as inseparable. The extant inequality in the positions of men and women has consequently been looked upon as itself an expression of sex differentiation, and a search for additional factors of the inequality has been considered superfluous. Yet the steady advance of the female sex towards the attainment of equal rights has been enough to show that the foregoing assumption is invalid. The course of this investigation will make the fallacy manifest on other grounds.

    A new basis of comparison is the essential pre-

    To-day we are still far from any such equivalence of powers. Nominally, indeed, there is an equivalence of rights, but in reality men continue to exercise a notable predominance. Consequently the sexes cannot at present be unreservedly compared. But among quite a number of peoples women have been dominant, and the women and the men of these peoples can be compared with the men and the women of peoples where masculine dominion prevails. A comparison between the sexes when this precaution is observed will throw an entirely new light upon the psychology of men and women respectively. Furthermore and simultaneously, it will furnish remarkable elucidations in the domains of the ethnography, sexology, anthropology, and sociology of the sexes. Our investigation has enabled us to ascertain the extremely important fundamental law that the contemporary peculiarities of women are mainly determined by the existence of the

    Such is the general thesis we hope to establish in the present volume. To do so, we must proceed to examine the question in detail.

   

---

-xviii-

		PAGE
	TRANSLATORS' FOREWORD . . . . . . . . .	v
	INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .	xiii
CHAPTER ONE:	THE PRINCIPLE OF REVERSAL IN MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE . . . . . . . . . .	21
CHAPTER TWO:	THE CANONS OF THE SEXUAL LIFE UNDER MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE. . . . . . . .	25
CHAPTER THREE:	DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL ETHICS UNDER MASCULINE AND FEMININE DOMINANCE, As BASED UPON PHYSIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEXES . .	55
CHAPTER FOUR:	SEXUAL ETHICS WHERE THE SEXES HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . .	64
CHAPTER FIVE:	REVERSAL OF THE CANONS OF SOCIAL LIFE FOR THE RESPECTIVE SEXES ACCORDING AS MEN OR WOMEN RULE. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE DIVISION OF LABOUR .	71
CHAPTER SIX:	THE SOCIAL POSITION OF THE SEXES WHEN MEN AND WOMEN HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS	94
CHAPTER SEVEN:	THE INFLUENCE OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE ON BODILY DEVELOPMENT, THE SEXUAL IDEAL Or BEAUTY, CLOTHING, AND THE LOVE OF ADORNMENT, IN MEN AND WOMEN RESPECTIVELY . . . . . . . .	100
CHAPTER EIGHT:	THE INFLUENCE OF EQUALITY OF RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN UPON SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION IN RESPECT OF BODILY FORM AND CLOTHING . . . . .	114
CHAPTER NINE:	THE INFLUENCE OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEXUAL MODESTY . .	121
CHAPTER TEN:	THE RESPECTIVE VIEWS OF MEN AND WOMEN CONCERNING BEAUTY AND INTELLIGENCE AS PRODUCTS OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE . . . . . .	134
CHAPTER ELEVEN:	THE INFLUENCE OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE ON THE POSITION OF CHILDREN . . . .	141
		PAGE
CHAPTER TWELVE:	THE SEX OF DEITIES UNDER MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE . . . . . . . . . .	155
CHAPTER THIRTEEN:	THE SEX OF PRIESTS UNDER MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE . . . . . . . . . .	183
CHAPTER FOURTEEN:	MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE AND THE SEX OF MONARCHS . . . . . . . . . .	188
CHAPTER FIFTEEN:	THE ATTITUDE OF MEN AND WOMEN TOWARDS WAR AND PEACE. MORAL COURAGE AND PHYSICAL COURAGE . . . . . . . . . . . .	202
CHAPTER SIXTEEN:	WHAT Is EXPECTED FROM THE EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, AND WHAT WILL RESULT THEREFROM .	219
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN:	THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE HISTORICAL VESTIGES OF THE DOMINANCE OF WOMEN .-	236
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN:	THE PENDULUM MOVEMENT OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE . . . . . . . .	255
	GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . .	269
	BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . .	272
	INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . ..	281

   TESTIMONY concerning the dominance of women among various peoples differs greatly in comprehensiveness. As regards the ancient Egyptians such abundant evidence is forthcoming that the existence of feminine dominance as far as this people is concerned has been placed beyond question for all who have studied the matter objectively. In the case of the Spartans the historical traces are perhaps less numerous, but they are so plain as to leave no doubt as to the reality of the dominance of women in that nation. In both instances, therefore, we have proof of the existence of feminine dominance among civilised peoples. As far as savages are concerned, the most detailed reports that have come to hand anent the dominance of women relate to the Kamchadales, the Chamorros, the Iroquois, the Basque-Iberian stocks, the Garos, the Dyaks, and the Balonda. In addition there were, for example, the Libyans, among whom it is demonstrable that the dominance of women was once absolute at a time when they were at least in an intermediate stage between barbarism and civilisation. We find, moreover, fairly definite traces of the dominance of

    It is of the first importance that we should recognise the hitherto unknown peculiarities of the dominance of women. A comparative study of feminine dominance as it existed among the most diverse peoples and in the most various phases of civilisation shows that the main characteristics of this dominance are perennial and immutable, whether it is encountered among savages or in a race at the highest level of civilisation. Where women rule, woman is the wooer. The man contributes the dowry; the woman expects a pledge of fidelity from her husband, and the woman has the sole right of disposal over the common possessions. She alone is entitled to divorce her partner should he no longer please her. From the husband, chastity and conjugal fidelity are demanded; the man is often severely punished for unfaithfulness; but the obligations of the wife in this respect are less exacting. The husband adopts the name and nationality of the wife. The children are called after the mother and inherit from the mother. The social position of the children depends on that of the mother. The wife's occupations lead her away from the home, while the husband attends to domestic affairs. The man adorns himself, but the woman's clothing is comparatively sober. Unmarried men are regarded with contempt. The

    These phenomena are characteristic of feminine dominance. A comparison with the phenomena characteristic of masculine dominance shows that the latter are no less perennial and no less immutable among the most diverse peoples and in the most various phases of civilisation. The only difference is that the rôles of the sexes are reversed. Where men rule, we find that in love and marriage, in social life and in religion, the man occupies the position which is occupied by the woman in communities where women rule.

    Feminine dominance, like masculine dominance, is especially characterised by the fact that, notwithstanding the existence of two sexes, one sex holds sway. Both these varieties of dominance must therefore be described as monosexual. Monosexual dominance invariably allots the same position to the dominant sex, be that sex female or male. But according as man or woman rules, we find a reversal of the relationships, which, but for this reversal, are identical in aspect. The two leading principles of the comparative psychology of the Men's State and the Women's State are therefore: on the one hand, complete conformity in the general laws and limitations of sexual and social duties; and, on the other hand, a reversal of relative positions, an interchange in the rôles of the sexes.

    As an outcome of the operation of these two principles we find that feminine peculiarities in the Men's State have as their counterpart masculine peculiarities in the Women's State. Conversely, masculine peculiarities in the Men's State are fundamentally identical with feminine peculiarities in the Women's State. We shall, in the sequel, show above all that the canons whereby feminine peculiarities are determined in contemporary civilisation are, in all their details, a pure product of the Men's State. We shall show that there is not a single "masculine quality" which cannot be paralleled as a "feminine quality" in the history of one race or another. The more complete our information becomes concerning the phases of the dominance of women, the more fully does it demonstrate the reversal of masculine and feminine peculiarities.

   THE working of the principle of reversal, of the exchange of sexual rôles, under masculine and feminine dominance respectively, is extremely conspicuous in connection with love and marriage. Courtship is, for example, to-day regarded as a specifically masculine function, as one for which man is especially adapted by the peculiarities of his nature. But from the love poems of the ancient Egyptians we learn that among them woman was the wooer.[1] In fifteen of the nineteen songs in the so-called London Manuscript the woman courts the man; in four only is man the wooer. We may infer that most of the poems were written by women, although that possibility is not even considered by modern Egyptologists. Owing to the nature of the intellectual life in the contemporary Men's State, their masculine authorship is assumed without question by investigators. This Men's-State viewpoint leads Müller so far astray that he minimises the significance of the feminine wooing, although the internal evidence of the poems is too strong for him to be able to deny the reality of the phenomenon. He writes, characteristically enough, that to a modern poet it must seem "as if Egyptian women had been over-

[1] Wilhelm Max Müller, Die Liebespoesie der alten Aegypter. -- The practice of courtship by women continued as late as 1400 B.C., if we accept Müller's estimate of the date when the poems were written. Some Egyptologists, however, regard them as of much earlier date.

    Not all investigators, of course, take so biased and subjective a view. Reitzenstein[2] for instance, recognises that in Egypt the women were the wooers. W. von Bissing,[3] too, says: "The peculiarity of these poems is that they always exhibit the girls as taking the initiative; it is they who come to their lovers, or endeavour to catch them." Yet neither Reitzenstein nor Bissing recognises that the practice of courtship by the women is the outcome of the Women's State. Meyer[4] seems to have been on the track of this recognition, though he does not express himself very clearly on the point. He writes: "Among the Egyptians the women were remarkably free. . . . As late as the fourth century B.C., there existed, side by side with patriarchal marriage, a form of marriage in which the wife chose the husband, and could divorce him on payment of compensation." We note that Meyer does not plainly declare that this reversal of patriarchal marriage is matriarchal marriage. But the idea is implicit in the phrases he employs.

    The following facts likewise contribute to sustain the conviction that the custom of women acting as wooers is the outcome of feminine dominance. The farther back we go in the literature of a people, the more frequent are the indications of women as wooers. But the older a literature, the greater the probability that it arises from phases of an earlier dominance of women, or from times which in manners and customs were at least closely akin to such phases. Among the Lydians, where the reversal of rôles in the division of labour is an additional indication that the dominance of women prevailed, the women sought out their

[2] Liebe und Ehe im alten Orient.

[3] Die Kultur des alten Aegypten, p. 39.

[4] Geschichte des Alterthums, vol, i, p. 51.

    Among the Garos, women were dominant, and

[5] Herodotus, i, 93.

[6] Cf. V. Jaeckel, Studien zur vergleichenden Völkerkunde, p. 65.

[7] Cf., among others, Schmeing, Flucht and Werbungssagen in der Legende.

[8] Deutsche Geschichte.

    A yet plainer indication that dominance is the origin of the practice of courtship by women is found in the fact that sovereign princesses always woo and choose husbands for themselves. Examples are frequent in history. A like tendency is observable in priestesses whenever they have considerable power.[11]

    An interesting psychological point is that when, in a Women's State, women are the wooers, we encounter once again the individual customs that are characteristic of male wooers in a Men's State -- these ranging from the making of assignations to the use of such artificial stimuli as wine and narcotics.[12] Typical and psychologically significant is the fact that, when

[9] The History of Human Marriage.

[10] Die Vierlande und deren Bewohner.

[11] Cf., among others, Meiners, Geschichte des weiblichen Geschlechts, vol. i; also Müller-Lyer, Die Familie.

[12] Cf., for instance, Müller, op. cit., p. 40.

    Jaeckel[13] speaks of an Indian tribe in Assam (probably the Garos are referred to) among whom the girls are the wooers. The courted male "has to make a vigorous resistance, culminating in flight; he is captured and led back to the nuptial residence amid the lamentations of the parents." Among the Kamchadales, where the dominance of women prevailed and women were the wooers, the women positively fought for the possession of the men (Klemm). In ancient saga, too, the motif of courtship by women is encountered. S. Hänsch[14] relates the myth of Solmacis. The nymph fell in love with Hermaphroditus, the son of Hermes and Aphrodite, having espied the beautiful youth bathing. We see, then, that the character traits with which we are familiar in women who are wooed by men, have their counterpart in the character traits of men where women rule, and consequently woo the males. The reversal extends, as we have seen, even to what appear to be mere superficialities, and this

[13] Op. cit., p. 62.

[14] Mythologisches Taschenwörterbuch.

    The psychological correspondence between the contemporary masculine peculiarities in the Men's State and the feminine peculiarities in the Women's State, is as conspicuous, or even more conspicuous, in the case of marriage. The very qualities we regard to-day as specifically masculine, are regarded in the Women's State as specifically feminine; conversely, qualities that we look upon as womanly are in the Women's State looked upon as manly. Consider, for example, the fundamental law of Men's-State marriage, that the wife shall obey her husband. Down to the present day, attempts have always been made to base this law upon psychological arguments concerning the differences between men and women. The tendency to accept subordination has been described as specifically feminine; the subordination of the wife to the husband has been supposed to be in the best accord with woman's nature. Man, on the other hand, we are

[15] Müller, op. cit., p. 24.

    The conformity to type displayed by the sexes goes so far that the dominant partner, when entering upon marriage, demands an express pledge of obedience from the chosen mate. To-day men receive from their wives a promise that they will "love, honour, and obey." In ancient Egypt the wife exacted a promise of obedience from the husband. Diodorus[16] says in plain terms: "Among the people,[17] too, the wife has authority over the husband, and in the marriage contract the husband has expressly to pledge himself to obey his wife." We see that the ruling sex, whether male or female, is never so firmly convinced of the other sex's natural disposition towards

[16] I. 27. The accuracy of the passage has been confirmed by recently discovered papyri. To this matter we shall return.

[17] That is to say, not only in the royal family, whose customs in this respect he has already described.

    If additional evidence be demanded in support of, the contention that in ancient Egypt women held sway over men, it may be found in the fact that the Egyptian texts frequently denote women by the epithets "lady" or "mistress."[18] In the songs, the man addresses his inamorata as "lady" [in the sense explained in the note]. In business letters the husband speaks of his wife as "the mistress" [in the sense explained in the note]. Characteristic is the fact that such Egyptologists as Müller and Erman, whose minds are permeated with the ideology of the Men's State, cannot allow these words to pass without attempting to interpret them in the terms of that ideology. Müller[19] writes that the appellations seem quite incomprehensible when applied to women. Erman and Krebs[20] attach to the word "mistress" a footnote to the effect that it is "an affected designation for wife."

    In Sparta, likewise, the men were subject to the women. Plutarch states in several passages[21] that the Spartan women were the only wives who held sway over their husbands. Aristotle,[22] too, says in a phrase quite free from ambiguity: "Contentious and warlike peoples such as the Lacedæmonians always pass under the dominion of women." Plutarch[23] tells us that

[18] The feminine equivalents of "lord" and "master," definitely connoting the idea of command. In the German original, "Herrin" and "Herrscherin."

[19] Liebespoesie der alten Aegypter.

[20] Aus den Papyrus der königlichen Museen.

[21] Lycurgus. Spartan Apophthegms.

[22] Politics, II. 6, 6.

[23] Lycurgus, 4

    To the men of a community where the males are dominant, the accounts of the earlier extensive prevalence of a social system in which the men were subject to the women are as annoying as a red rag to a bull. Witness Meiners,[24] when confronted with the fact of the dominance of women among the Lacedæmonians. He writes that the Spartan women had absolute authority over their "degenerate" husbands. The husbands treated the wives as mistresses, and termed them such. The women of other parts of Greece esteemed the Spartan wives fortunate, and did not hide their envy of the latter's "spurious happiness." The "regiment of women" in Sparta, as in all "noble" but "corrupt" peoples, was an unmistakable indication that the men who submitted to female authority were no longer fitted to rule other men.

    The author's summarisation is obviously full of Men's-State prejudices. The men who belonged to the opposite phase of the distribution of the power of the sexes, and who were subject to the canons of that phase, seem "degenerate" to a man who is a member of a community where masculine dominion prevails; he considers the sway exercised by women over men a "spurious happiness"; and he describes the whole race as "corrupt." And yet the husband

[24] Op. cit, vol. i, pp. 355 et seq.; English transl., Vol. i, pp. 291 et seq.

    Meiners[27] gives a similar description of the complete subordination of the husband in a Chamorro marriage. The Chamorro men, who were famous for their bodily strength, were kept by their wives in a state of abject subjection. The wives ruled, and the husbands could do nothing without their consent. If

[25] Op. cit., vol. i, pp. 19 et seq.; Eng. transl., vol. i, pp. 17 et seq.

[26] Anthropologie der Naturvölker, vol. v, p. 107.

[27] Vermischte philosophische Schriften, p. 267.

    The same duty of subordination was imposed upon married men among the Iroquois, where the dominance of women likewise prevailed. Lewis Morgan tells us that the wife was the head of the family, and that at any time she could order her husband out of the house. According to Livingstone, among the Balonda the husband was so completely subject to the wife that he could do nothing whatever without her approval -- neither enter into an agreement, nor do any one some trifling service. So was it, too, among the Cantabri and the Zambesis, where the men had absolutely no independence, and were entirely subject to their wives. Müller-Lyer writes of the Pani-Kooch of Hindustan that the husband had to obey the orders of his wife and his mother-in-law. Among the Khonds and the Sakai, also, the wife lorded it over the husband.

    We see, then, that one-sided obedience on the part of one sex in marriage is the outcome of monosexual dominance, and that it is manifested quite independently of the question which of the two sexes holds sway. Volney[28] writes: "Domestic despotism lay at the foundation of political despotism." Maybe Volney was right. But the reverse may be true. It is possible that political despotism brought domestic despotism in its train. Whatever the causal sequence, one thing is certain, that the two varieties of despotism are invariably associated, be their primal origin what it may.

    An additional proof that the subordination of one

[28] Les Ruines.

    Westermarck tells us that among the people of Loango the queens kill their paramours when these allow their affections to stray. From Meiners we quote the following passage concerning the privileges of the women of the reigning house among the Natchez -- a people among whom, according to Waitz, the women were greatly honoured, and could discharge the functions of royalty. "They exercised the power of life and death, and could order their guards to put to death summarily any one who was unlucky enough to incur their displeasure. If a queen should do a subject the honour of choosing him as a husband, the latter had to obey his exalted partner in all things, and to preserve inviolable fidelity towards her. The queen could punish a disobedient or unfaithful husband, just like any other commoner, by ordering his instant execution. But the queens regarded it as their traditional privilege to live precisely as they pleased. Their husbands had no say in the matter, no ground

    Meiners reports the exercise of similar unrestricted authority over husbands by the sovereign princesses of many other tribes. In almost all the instances it is expressly stated that this authority included the power of life and death. Jaeckel tells us that in the case of a general social predominance of women, no less than where a woman occupied the throne, conjugal despotism by women went so far that the husbands had to kneel in the presence of their wives, or to adopt some like posture of humility when serving their wives' needs. Who that reads of such humiliations inflicted upon men by women, can fail to recall the precisely similar humiliations inflicted upon the female sex by the male? Monosexual dominance degenerates in the same fashion whichever sex rules; it blossoms in the same poison-flowers, indifferently whether men or women hold sway.

    This conformity recurs in respect of other exaggerated manifestations of conjugal authority on the part of the dominant sex. At the height of its power, a dominant sex is not satisfied with insisting that in married life the members of the subordinate sex shall obey their partners; in addition it reserves to itself the right of divorce. In absolutist Men's States, the right of the husband to put away his wife is often regarded as self-evident -- was so regarded, for instance, among the Old Testament Jews. Historians willingly record such facts, but they are less inclined to allude to the right of wives in a Women's State to put away their husbands. Nevertheless such a right has been just as freely conceded to and exercised by wives as the corresponding right of husbands in the Men's State. In

    Even certain notorious customs connected with the termination of a marriage by the death of the dominant partner are the same whether the deceased was a man or a woman. Every one knows that, in the case of certain ruling princes, when the sovereign died his widow or widows had either to join the husband in the tomb, or else were condemned to practise some extraordinarily harsh form of mourning; every one, too, has heard of the practice of suttee in Hindustan, where the widow was burned alive on the husband's funeral pyre. But, in accordance with the peculiarities of the Men's-State ideology, few of our contemporaries are aware that these customs have their obverse

[29] Der Papyrus Libbey, etc., Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg, 1907.

    However, we need not turn to such morbid outgrowths and degenerations of marriage customs in order to show that the sexes have similar characteristics, whether the husband or the wife plays the despot in conjugal life. The little tokens of affection that are displayed in marriage suffice to prove that these characteristics are not fundamentally different in the two sexes, but are determined by the form of sexual dominance. It is noteworthy, for example, that in ancient Egyptian representations of a married pair, the wife's arm always rests upon that of the husband.[31] This position corresponds to feminine dominance in marriage, whereas the reverse position represents masculine dominance. We may further note that in ancient Egypt when a man became betrothed he was said "to hide himself behind a girl"; when he had married, the phrase ran "a wife sits by him."[32]

    Duplex sexual morality, with which we are all familiar as an accompaniment of male predominance,

[30] Nouveaux voyages aux Indes, vol. ii, p. 44.

[31] Müller, op. cit., p. 23; Revillout, L'ancienne Egypte, vol. ii, La femme.

[32] Müller, op. cit., pp. 3 et seq.

    It is a familiar fact that in modern civilised countries under masculine domination a duplex sexual morality prevails, despite the recognition of the monogamic principle. There, in the life of sex, the men have preferential rights. But hitherto it has not been generally recognised that where women rule, sexual morality develops in the inverse sense, so that the women have more sexual freedom than the men. Here likewise there is an infringement of the monogamic principle, but this time in favour of the wife. The phenomenon is met with wherever the dominance of women obtains, whether among civilised nations or among primitive folk. During the most flourishing period of Sparta, monogamy became the recognised form of marriage in that country. Herodotus[33] tells us that among the Spartans a man had only one wife. According to Plutarch[34] there were no male adulterers in Lacedæmon. But as regards the fidelity of Spartan wives, history tells a very different tale. Meyer[35] declares that polyandry was common in Sparta. The

[33] V. 39.

[34] I. 196.

[35] Op. cit., vol. i, p. 28.

    We still possess but little information concerning the

[36] Life of Pyrrhus.

[37] Andromache, 596.

[38] Op. cit., vol. i, pp. 352 et seq.

[39] In this connexion, cf. Schulte-Vaerting, Die Friedenspolitik des Perikles, ein Vorbild für den Pazifismus, p. 195.

    The only erotic document at our disposal is in the so-called Turin papyrus. Here are pictures of sexual scenes. They do not warrant any inferences as to the polyandry of Egyptian women, but (as we shall see presently) they show obvious characteristics of feminine dominance. Monogamy developed early in Egypt. In the days of Herodotus, the features of this institution were still well marked. But although monogamy prevailed, women had more sexual freedom than men. Many investigators are of opinion that "upon women in ancient Egypt the obligation of conjugal fidelity was not imposed." This view is confirmed by the fact that in Egypt no stigma attached to the mother of an illegitimate child, and that the position of illegitimate children was just as good as that of children born in wedlock.[40]

    According to quite a number of authorities, polygamy must also have been practised in ancient Egypt, at least in isolated instances. In proof, such writers point first of all to the royal harems. These harems, however, are among the contentious points of Egyptian history. Wilkinson expressly denies that the Egyptian monarchs practised polygamy. In his view the harem did not contain the king's wives, but prisoners of war or purchased slaves who had been adopted into the family and were employed as domestic servants by the queen or her friends. Rameses' wives at Medeenet Haboo were probably maid-servants, and not the monarch's wives at all.[41] The children of these women were children of the royal house-

[40] Diodorus. I, 80. See also, Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. ii, p. 64.

[41] Wilkinson, Op. cit., vol. i, p. 319, vOl. ii, p. 60.

    It is probable that ignorance of the conditions of ancient Egyptian life accounts for the apparently authentic instances of polygamy practised by the Egyptian kings. For instance, it was formerly believed that Rameses II married his own daughters, since these bore the title of "royal spouses." Later researches have shown that all the daughters of the royal house received this title at birth. The contrast between Egypt with its monogamic and moral laws, and surrounding peoples whose customs were more or less polygamous, has been overlooked. In outward appearance Egypt conformed to the practices of these other nations, but did not do so in reality. For example, the king of Babylon sent one of his daughters to wed Amenhotep III. The lady's brother subsequently lodged a complaint, on the ground that no Babylonian envoy had ever seen her again. It is evident that Amenhotep, not wishing to refuse the proffered alliance, had ostensibly wedded the Babylonian

    Among primitive folk where the dominance of women prevailed, there was the same tendency towards the maintenance of a duplex code of sexual morality, according to which the duty of conjugal fidelity was enforced on men only. Women could follow their own bent in sexual matters. In the case of the Chamorros conjugal infidelity was severely punished in men, even when the offence was merely suspected, not proved. The accused husband was dealt with by the women of the neighbourhood. But if the wife proved unfaithful, her husband had no right to lay a finger on her. Meiners declares that among the Chamorros it was only the women who were privileged libertines. This phrase gives us a clear insight into the characteristics of family life among this people.[42]

    Conditions were precisely similar among the Kamchadales. Meiners[43] tells us that the married men of this race had to conceal their amours with extreme care. But wives bestowed their favours quite openly, not considering it worth while to hide their infidelities from their husbands. We cannot fail to be struck by the way in which this duplex morality of the Women's State finds its counterpart in the Men's State. Among the Mingrelians and the Circassians, where women

[42] Meiners, Geschichte, etc., vol. i, pp. 105 et seq.; History, vol. i, pp. 89 et seq.

[43] Ibid., vol. i, pp. 19 et seq, and vol. i, pp. 17 et seq.

    Among the Arabs, too, in the days when women were dominant, polyandry prevailed.[44] Even in Mohammed's time, the Arab woman was essentially polyandrous. According to Reitzenstein, Mohammed once exhorted a married woman to be faithful to her husband, and admonished her not to indulge in whoredom. She made answer: "A free woman does not practise whoredom." The implication was that a free woman might have carnal relations with as many men as she liked. Children born out of wedlock secured full recognition, and were not regarded as bastards. On the Malabar coast, where also women were dominant, polyandry was practised, not only by the queens, but throughout the population. Among the Cascovins, where the women were dominant, a wife usually had, in addition to her husband-in-chief, a supplementary husband to whom various duties were assigned.

[44] Strabo, xii, 31.

    In like manner, the value placed upon pre-conjugal chastity in men and women respectively is sharply contrasted in the Men's State and the Women's State. Only in the Men's State is feminine continence before marriage highly esteemed; in the Women's State the unmarried girls enjoy (openly or secretly) sexual freedom, just as unmarried men do in the Men's State. Meiners[45] writes of the Kamchadales that they do not prize virginity at all. "The greatest recommendation an unmarried girl can have, is that she has bestowed her favours upon an exceptionally large number of lovers. Such a girl is supposed to have exceptionally good grounds for expecting that she will be able to count upon the love of her future husband, since she has given plain proof of her experience in love." Even to-day we can see quite clearly that the value placed upon pre-conjugal chastity is an outcome of monosexual dominance. H. Wega[46] recently wrote: "Virginity is no longer highly esteemed; it has ceased to play a part in the amatory life of the male. . . . Purity and chastity are obsolete notions. Women demand in sexual matters the same standard of values as men, and men concede this standard." The decline and disappearance of the old one-sided estimate of the value of pre-conjugal chastity in women, however, are not (as is commonly supposed) manifestations of the decay of morality; they are the outcome of a waning of masculine predominance. Since the valuation is merely a product of male supremacy, it must perforce be reduced in proportion as male supremacy becomes less marked.

    In the Women's State, conversely, masculine chastity

[45] Vermisihte philosophische Schriften, p. 174.

[46] "Nord und Süd," 1920, Unsere gesunkene Moral und ihre Ursachen.

    We see, then, that pre-conjugal chastity and also a "maidenly" reserve and bashfulness are, when monosexual dominance prevails, displayed only by members of the subject sex. In another respect, sexual customs prove to be wholly dependent upon the wielding of power. Dominant males and dominant females have harems whenever this accords with the established code of sexual morals. The resemblance between the respective practices of the male and the female owners of harems is so close as to seem almost incredible. In the male harems of negro queens, for instance, we find the precise counterparts of the female harems of the rulers of Persia.[47] The same aberrations of jealousy and the same abuses of power are encountered in both cases. The negro queens could choose for their

[47] Meiners, Geschichte, vol. i, pp. 74 et seq. and pp. 160 et seq.; History, pp. 62 et seq., and pp. 134 et seq. It need hardly be said that Meiners himself fails to note the resemblance.

    Exactly similar precautions, exaggerated in like manner to the pitch of cruelty, were observed in Persia when the ladies of the harem were on a journey. The only difference was that the sex rôles were reversed. When the royal harem was on its way through a town, all the male inhabitants of the houses along the line of route had to leave their homes, and the side streets were cut off by curtains. If the harem was to pass through a country district, all the men were hunted out of the roadside villages several hours before. Two hours before the coming of the harem, muskets were fired as an additional warning. Then, an hour before the harem came, the eunuchs rode along the highway and killed every male that they encountered. Chardin reports a number of tragical incidents; he tells how old men, who imagined that their years would give them a eunuch's immunity and who tried to present petitions to the monarch, were butchered by the latter or his eunuchs. Unsuspecting travellers,

    Seeing that the vagaries of love in the two sexes, when these respectively hold sway, are so closely akin psychologically, are indeed identical, all over the world, we can no longer doubt that sex differentiation is merely the outcome of the position of dominance or subjection, and is not a product of inborn biological characteristics.

    Above all it is plain to us that the views previously held as to the causation of polygamy are utterly erroneous.

    Again, the customary relationship between husband and wife in the matter of age, far from being dependent upon biological and psychical sexual differentiation, is simply a consequence of monosexual dominance. The supremacy of either sex tends to establish a particular age relationship between husband and wife, the rule being that in marriage the member of the dominant sex is in almost all cases considerably older than the member of the subordinate sex. Where men dominate, therefore, husbands are older than their wives; and where women dominate, wives are older than their husbands. The chief determinant here is the duty of providing for the spouse, inasmuch as we shall see that this duty devolves upon the dominant sex.

    In Egypt, for instance, it was the young man, not the maiden, who was exhorted to marry early. Müller translates from the Bulak papyrus: "Get thyself a wife while thou art young, so that thou mayst procreate a son in thine own likeness. If she bear thee a child while thou art still young, that is as it should be."

    Among the Iroquois, where the women were dominant, the wife was usually older than her husband. Waitz[48] reports that a young man was often assigned by his mother to a wife older than himself -- for the mothers were supreme in matrimonial arrangements. There have been many other peoples among which, during the phase of feminine dominance, the marriage of a young man to an older woman was customary. Jaeckel[49] gives numerous instances of this. In some cases, 15 was regarded as the best age for a young man to marry, and 19 for a young woman. "Youths who have not married before they are 16 are derided, whereas it is no shame to a girl to remain unmarried until she is 20 or more." The age contrast that obtains between husband and wife in the contemporary Men's State is here faithfully reflected, of course with the usual reversal of rôles; the same remark applies to the one-sided social valuation of early marriage, for we see that it is always the members of the subordinate sex that must be married off while still quite young.

    Among the Otomacos of South America the young men were first wedded to elderly women; and subsequently, after these had died, to young girls. Among the Fuegians, "the young men would rather marry an experienced woman of a certain age, than a young and even beautiful girl." Among the Khonds, the father usually chooses for his son a wife about six years older than the lad. In Burma, the difference is even greater, for here the wife is apt to be from ten to fifteen years older than her husband.

    There is but a scanty tradition concerning social

[48] Op. cit., p. 102.

[49] Op. cit., p. 60.

    In bringing to a close our account of the differential psychology of love and marriage in the Men's State and the Women's State, a reference maybe made to the valuation of celibacy. In this matter, also, opinion receives its stamp from monosexual dominance. It is always the members of the subordinate sex who are derided for being unmarried. A one-sided contempt for the "old maid" is purely a product of the Men's State. Where women rule, it is the "old bachelor" who is an object of derision, the target of popular wit -- though attention has not hitherto been directed to the fact. Among the Koreans a lad is already subjected to ridicule if he reaches the age of 16 without being married. Such an "old bachelor" is refused the title of man, and receives the contumelious name of "jatau." Who can fail to be reminded of our Men's-State usage of the term "old maid"?

    Among the Santals, unmarried men are similarly scorned. They are regarded with contempt by both sexes, and are compared with thieves and witches. They are "not men." In Sparta, during the days of the dominance of women, unmarried men were utterly despised. A Spartan bachelor was actually deprived

[50] "Archiv für Frauenkunde," 1918.

    But the unmarried are only contemned when they belong to the subordinate sex. This one-sided restriction of scorn to members of the subject sex is doubtless connected with the division of labour that obtains under monosexual dominance, and also perhaps with the consequent differentiation in social position. The fuller consideration of this topic must be deferred.

   A DUPLEX moral code in sexual matters is an inevitable accompaniment of monosexual dominance. Mutatis mutandis, it asserts its influence equally under masculine dominance and under feminine. Invariably the ruling sex has sexual privileges and freedoms which are denied to the subordinate sex. But whereas the general trend towards the establishment of a duplex code of sexual ethics is identical in the Men's State and the Women's State, some of the results of the working of this duplex code differ in the respective cases. The contrast makes its appearance precisely where physiological differentiation is operative, so that the results cannot be identical in the two sexes despite their close psychological likeness.

    One of these divergencies has already been mentioned. It concerns the position of the illegitimate child. Under masculine predominance we invariably find that illegitimate children have an inferior status, and are sometimes regarded with the utmost contempt. This contempt extends also to the mother, and indeed seems primarily to be visited upon the mother. Contempt for the mother of an illegitimate child is, in the Men's State, a natural outcome of duplex sexual morality. For in the Men's State chastity and conjugal

    In all Women's States, therefore, we find that the position of the illegitimate child is just as good as that of the legitimate child. There is plain evidence of this in the case of ancient Egypt. As regards Sparta we have testimony that unmarried motherhood was positively an honour to a woman. Timæa, wife of King Agis, bore a son to Alcibiades; "far from being ashamed of the fact, she was proud." Again, Chelidonis lived in open adultery with "the handsome youth Alcotatus." She was envied the possession of such a lover, and the Spartans wished her many children by such a man.[1]

    We see clearly that the difference in the position of the illegitimate child and the unmarried mother in the

[1] Schulte-Vaerting, op. cit., pp. 192 et seq.

    Like considerations apply to the destruction of the germinating life. The degree to which, in the Men's State, the practice of abortion is regarded as a serious crime, depends upon how absolute male predominance is. To all appearance the origin of such moral judgments is to be found in the strict sexual code which, as an outcome of duplex sexual morality, is one-sidedly imposed upon members of the female sex. Abortion destroys the evidence of a breach of the code. Herein lies the gravamen of the offence as far as the dominant males are concerned, and that is why, in the Men's State, the practice is so severely punished. (At all times, doubtless, there have been men and women who considered there were ideal grounds for objecting to the practice of abortion.) But where women rule, "morality" is a masculine virtue. Here, however, breaches of the code which is so strictly imposed upon males are made manifest, not in the person of the offender, man, but in the person of his sexual partner, woman. In the Women's State,

    In the case of one Women's State we are expressly informed that abortion was quite permissible there. I refer to the Kamchadales. Meiners[2] reports the fact with profound disapproval. His attitude is easily explicable, for he belonged to an age when masculine predominance was almost absolute.

    To-day, when masculine dominion is on the wane and when the influence of women is increasing, we naturally find that there is a vigorous campaign on behalf of an equality of rights for the illegitimate child, and on behalf of the right to procure abortion. The free woman wishes her freedom to extend to the use of her own body. Some men are willing to concede to women this right of bodily self-determination; others would fain refuse it. In like manner, the craving for freedom is stronger in some women than in others. Consequently, the movement progresses at varying rates among different peoples. It is slow here, more rapid there. But one thing seems certain. The right to procure abortion is an outcome of the increasing influence of women; we shall therefore not have to wait until women are dominant before this right is

[2] Vermischte philosophische Schriften, vol. i, p. 174.

    The men and the women who object to the annulling of the laws against abortion, and who fear that the repeal of these laws will have disastrous consequences, overlook the consideration that there is much less reason to expect any abuse of the right of physiological self-determination in the case of free women than in the case of women who have grown up under the tyranny of masculine predominance.

    We now come to a third difference between the sexual ethics of the Men's State and those of the Women's State, a difference that is likewise based upon a physiological difference in sexual organisation. Here, too, the duplex morality of monosexual dominance is the starting-point of the difference.

    Duplex morality, with freedom in sex relations for members of the dominant sex and restrictions for members of the subordinate sex, necessarily leads to prostitution. In accordance with the working of the law of reversal, the prostitution of women develops in the Men's State, and the prostitution of men in the Women's State. The facts are extremely characteristic. Not merely do we find that the tendency to this reversal is manifest, but we discover that the reversal is pushed to the limits of physiological possibility.

    The Men's State is invariably cursed with the institution of female prostitution. So powerless is it to deal with the evil, that prostitution has not infre-

    Both in the case of the ancient Egyptians and in that of the Spartans, the absence of female prostitution has been noted in contrast to what obtained in contemporary Men's States. In Egypt there were no female prostitutes. As regards Sparta, Plato says there were no prostitutes there because women could make a living at the trade. Among the Arabs, too, female prostitution was unknown during the days of women's dominance.

    But the absence of female prostitution is not an exclusive peculiarity of the dominance of women, for we note the same absence where the sexes have equal rights. As examples may be mentioned the ancient Teutons and the modern State of Wyoming. Prostitution was unknown to the former, and there is no prostitution in the latter. The Norse peoples, among whom the movement for the equal rights of women has made considerable progress, have likewise great successes to record in this respect. The matter of equal rights, and their effects, will have to be further considered in the sequel.

    The absence of female prostitution in the Women's State shows that in this field no less than in others the law of reversal in monosexual dominance is operative. The reversal of duplex sexual morality in the Women's State makes it impossible for female prostitution to exist. Aristophanes[3] was not slow to point out that women in general would gladly do away with

[3] Lysistrata.

    But in accordance with the law of reversal, and in view of the aforesaid psychological resemblance between the sexes, we should expect to find male prostitution in the Women's State as the counterpart to female prostitution in the Men's State. Duplex sexual morality, leading to the prostitution of women where men rule, ought, mutatis mutandis, to lead to the prostitution of men where women rule. As a matter of fact there are plain indications of the occurrence of male prostitution under the dominance of women. For example, Strabo[4] reports that the women of Lydia, who were dominant in that country, chose lovers at their own free will, and spent lavishly in order to please the men of their choice. They were likewise "so indulgent" that they gave their lovers hospitable entertainment. The wording of the report shows that it emanated from a male writer who had not really fathomed the nature of the prostitution he described, precisely because it was male prostitution under the dominance of women. Nevertheless the characteristics of prostitution are unmistakable. The woman seeks out her lover, and pays him for his amatory services, either in money or by way of entertainment. But the study of such a work as Iwan

[4] XIII, 815.

    Herein, then, we detect a real difference between the Men's State, and the Women's State. But we should make a great mistake were we to refer this difference to a psychological distinction between men and women -- to suppose that either sex possesses a larger infusion of inborn moral faculty, or that either sex possesses in this respect some peculiar mental aptitude denied to the other. The difference depends entirely upon physiological causes. The only reason why male prostitution in the Women's State never develops to the same extent as female prostitution in the Men's State is that men are physiologically incapable of becoming the counterparts of women in this particular matter. Man's sexual nature is such as to make him physiologically incompetent to fulfil the requirements of male prostitution. His capacity for sexual intercourse is insignificant in comparison with that of woman, of whom indeed Fraenkel[6] goes so far as to say that her capacity in this respect is, physiologically speaking, boundless. Within a single day or night, one prostitute can satisfy the sexual requirements of quite a number of men. She can entertain as many visitors as choose to offer themselves, without any impairment of her sexual powers, and with-

[5] Iwan Bloch, Die Prostitution.

[6] Normale und pathologische Sexualphysiologie des Weibes.

    We see, then, that the difference between the prevalence of female prostitution in the Men's State and that of male prostitution in the Women's State has a purely physiological cause in the difference between men and women in the matter of capacity for sexual intercourse. The respective frequency of prostitution in the Men's State and the Women's State exhibits variations which precisely correspond with the variations between the capacity for sexual intercourse in the two sexes. The absence of prostitution in the Women's State, and where the sexes have equal rights, betokens a higher degree of sexual health in such communities as compared with the Men's State. To this matter we shall return.

   

[7] Cf. Vaerting, Ueber die sexualphysiologischen Grundlagen der doppelten Moral und der Prostitution, "Zeitschrift zur Bekenntnis der Ges chlechtsrankheiten," 1917.

   WHERE the sexes have equal rights, sexual ethics are characterised by complete equality of sexual rights and duties for the two sexes. The duplex morality met with under monosexual dominance is replaced by a code which is precisely the same for men and for women. Now, sexual equality can manifest itself in either of two ways. Every phase of equal rights for the sexes is preceded by a particular phase of monosexual dominance. The transition from one phase to another is not sudden but gradual. One phase develops out of the other. When, as to-day, a society where men hold sway is yielding place to one in which men and women have equal rights, attentive observation will show that there are two distinct trends in the evolution of sexual morality. The starting point in each case is the demand for the abolition of the sexual privileges of the male, but two ways of achieving this present themselves. Women may be granted like sexual freedoms to those which men already possess, or the rigid canons of sexual behaviour which are already imposed upon women may be imposed upon men also.

    Both these trends are conspicuously in evidence to-day. The remarkable fact is that the former trend has more champions among women, the latter among men. Pre-eminently it is women who seek to realise

    It is less easy to understand why men would rather see the restrictions of female sexual morality imposed upon their own sex, than see the sexual freedoms of men granted to women also. If future events should confirm the supposition that this is so, we shall at least be able to infer that men think it more important to restrict the sexual freedom of women than to preserve their own. We cannot venture to say whether the uncertainties of paternity play their part in determining such a masculine outlook.[1]

    It is obvious, however, that, under monosexual dominance, monogamy must always be fictitious. The monogamic code is continually being infringed owing to the perpetual resurgence of the duplex morality inseparably associated with the sway of one sex over the other. Schopenhauer[2] writes: "It is futile to make a contentious matter of polygamy. We must accept it as a universal fact, and our task is merely to regulate it. Where are genuine monogamists to be found? We are all polygamists, for a time at least, and most of us always." Schopenhauer is right for every phase of monosexual dominance. This, owing to the duplex morality that characterises it, invariably

[1] Of course there are numerous exceptions to the foregoing generalisation: women who demand monogamy for both sexes; and men who demand sexual freedom for both sexes.

[2] Parerga und Paralipomena.

    Equality of rights is of such fundamental importance in relation to monogamic morality, that perhaps the former has to be regarded as the real originator of the latter. Nations wherein the idea of monogamy is conspicuous have unquestionably passed through a phase in which the sexes have had equal rights; the monogamic principle is a vestige of such a phase. We shall see in due course that the phase of equal rights for men and women creates the economic conditions that are the indispensable antecedents of monogamy.

    For the strict carrying out of monogamy there are two requisites: premarital chastity in both sexes; and faithfulness after marriage in the case of both parties.

[3] See, for instance, Reitzenstein, Urgeschichte der Ehe.

    Conversely, in the transition to the simpler ethic of sex equality, the polygamic principle which represents the other trend of the duplex morality characteristic of monosexual dominance, may gain the victory over

[6] Op. cit., pp. 85 et seq.

    The polygamic principle can also exist side by side with the monogamic principle in this way, that both sexes may be perfectly free before marriage, whereas as soon as marriage has taken place monogamy becomes a strict obligation.

    Apparently, in the phase of equal sexual rights, the monogamic principle has a better chance of success than the polygamic principle or the mixed polygamic and monogamic. The probable explanation is that in human beings the monogamic trend is stronger than the polygamic. Elsewhere the present authors have proved this as regards males.[9] Moreover, it is probable that the intensity of the monogamic trend runs parallel with the development of the understanding -- a relationship to be further considered in the sequel. This gives us some reason for hoping that in the coming days of sex equality the prospects of a victory of the monogamic principle are greater than those of a

[7] Cf. Lewis Morgan, Ancient Society. 1877, pp. 409 et seq.

[8] Origin and Development of Moral Ideas, 2nd ed., vol. ii (1917), p. 423.

[9] Die monogame Veranlagung des Mannes, "Zeitschrift für Sexual wissenschaft," 1917.

   OWNERSHIP and occupation are the two things which mainly give the stamp to social life. In this respect, likewise, monosexual dominance is decisive of the rôle of the sexes in social relationships, for the dominant sex and the subordinate sex always play the same respective parts no matter which sex holds sway.

    Where monosexual dominance is absolute, the right of ownership is always vested exclusively in the dominant sex. The subordinate sex has no property of its own. We are all familiar with this restriction of the right of ownership to the dominant sex as far as the Men's State is concerned. Here the man alone owns property. The proprietary rights of the male are especially conspicuous in marriage, for in the Men's State the wife has no proprietary rights whatever. But though every one is familiar with this allotment of the right of ownership in the Men's State, few people are aware that it has a precise counterpart in the Women's State. Just as in the psychology of the amatory life and in that of conjugal life, so also as concerns ownership and the material basis of marriage, the same principle of reversal prevails, so that the rôles of men and women arc similarly interchanged.

    Where women are dominant, this tendency is manifest, both among primitive folk and in civilised nations. In ancient Egypt, the husband always brought a dowry into the marriage, and it became the property of his wife. This custom prevailed as late as the Ptolemaic era. In the earlier days of Egyptian civilisation women were alone entitled to own property. It is true that Müller, who is obsessed by the ideology of the Men's State, opines that the Greeks were guilty of exaggeration when they declared that all the possessions of an Egyptian bridegroom were made over to his bride. But there was no exaggeration. The reports of Greek observers have been confirmed by subsequent investigations. As late as the days of Darius, the wife said of the dowry brought by her husband: "It is my property." Again, in its oldest form the word "wife" signified in Egypt: "The one who clothes her husband." We may presume this to mean that the wife was responsible for the expenditure on clothing. We learn from Wiedemann's hieratic texts that when marriage was contracted the house became the sole property of the wife. In this connexion there is an interesting letter dating from 1100 B.C. A man had given a tenant farmer notice to quit. But the man's wife wished to keep the farmer as tenant, and it was regarded as self-evident that her will should prevail. The relevant passage in the letter runs as follows:[1] "I have come back to the capital.

[1] Erman and Krebs, Aus den Papyrus der königlichen Museen.

    We see that the husband, in his communication to the farmer, implies that his wife's will is the only thing that counts. Were the change of plans due merely to complaisance on his part, he would have said, "I have yielded to my wife," or have used some similar phrase. But he merely tells the farmer that his wife has expressed her wishes, and therefore the farmer can stay on as tenant. There is nothing more to be said about the matter.

    Turning to Sparta, we have an express declaration on the part of Plutarch[2] that women there were the sole property owners. Meiners considers that this exclusive right of the Spartan women to hold property was a direct outcome of their dominance. It is plain, too, from Plutarch's reports concerning the party struggles under Agis and Leonidas, that power, wealth, and ownership were exclusively vested in the women of Sparta.[3]

    In the case of those primitive folk among whom women were dominant, there is no lack of detailed and unambiguous information to the effect that women were the sole property owners. This was the case among the Chamorros, the Cantabri, the Balonda, the Iroquois, the Lycians, the Kamchadales, the Nicaraguans, the Zambesis, and many others. Among such peoples, the husband could not sell any-

[2] I, 190.

[2] Agis, 7.

    Strabo reports that among the Cantabri the daughters were the only heritors. Brothers were supplied with what they needed by their sisters. Among the Nayars of the Malabar coast, where women were dominant, only the daughters could inherit.

    Far more significant psychologically than the relationship between property-owing and dominance, is the determination of the division of labour between the sexes by the question whether men or women hold sway. It is a very general belief that the contemporary division of labour between the sexes is the outcome of specifically sexual, specifically masculine and feminine, peculiarities. Already in the days of Socrates the opinion prevailed that the nature of the sexes was decisive as regards the division of labour. It seemed incontestable that men were suited for such occupations as were carried on away from home, whereas "woman, who is weak and timid, is predestined, as if by divine command, to occupy herself with domestic affairs." But with the aid of our comparative study of the history of monosexual dominance we shall be able to show that this ancient assumption is false. We can prove that the division of labour between the sexes is not determined by inherited differences between men and women, and that it depends solely upon monosexual dominance. In Women's States we find precisely the same tendency to the division of labour between the sexes that we find in Men's States, the only difference being that the rôles of the sexes are reversed. Where woman rules, the women carry on the occupations outside the home, whilst the men look after the household and care for the family. But when man rules he insists that "woman's place is the home," and declares that outside occupations are a masculine prerogative.[4] The dominant sex, male or female as the case may be, tends to restrict the subordinate sex to work in the home and to family cares.

[4] Cf. Bucura, Die Eigenart des Weibes, 1918.

    We find this both among civilised nations and among primitive folk. Ancient Egypt, in earlier days, was unquestionably familiar with the reversal of the division of labour as between the sexes. The reversal must have been in force as late as the time of Herodotus. He relates that in Egypt the women, in contradistinction to the customs prevailing among other nations, were engaged in masculine occupations, practising commerce and frequenting the markets, whereas the men sat at home weaving, and in general looked after the housework. The Talmud confirms Herodotus' statement, for it tells us that the children of Israel during the captivity were indignant because, when in Egypt, the Jewish men were compelled to do women's work, whereas the Jewish women were set to the tasks of men.[5] We cannot suppose that the reversal of rôles was due to the servile status of the Jews, for had this been the case the labours appropriate to the subordinate sex among the Egyptians would have been assigned, as a mark of contempt, to both sexes of the enslaved race.

    The reversal of rôles in the division of labour is equally plain, as regards Egypt, in a passage we find in the OEdipus at Colonus of Sophocles (339 et seq.)[6] OEdipus says to his two daughters: "How you imitate the manners of the Egyptians in your ways of thought and your mode of life! In Egypt the men stay at home and sit at the looms, whilst the women go abroad to seek the necessaries of life. And they whom it beseemed to care for my needs sit at home

[5] According to Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, vol. i, the Israelites were in Egypt about 1300 B.C.

[6] Cf. Bachofen, op. cit., p. 100.

    In addition, Bachofen refers to Nymphodorus of Syracuse as having confirmed Herodotus' reports. Bachofen also tells us that King Sesostris is said to have been the first who imposed women's work on men.

    The reversed rôle of women in social life is plainly indicated by the fact (to which Herodotus expressly refers) that the duty of maintaining parents was incumbent upon daughters and not upon sons. Obviously sons could not discharge this obligation in a social system where women were the sole property-owners, where the right of inheritance was reserved for women, and where women were the only breadwinners.

    Many additional traits of ancient Egyptian life bear witness to the reversal of the division of labour. For example, let us consider the Egyptian "Liturgies."[7] This term, from the Greek , denotes a public office or duty which the richer citizens discharged at their own expense. Some of these seem to have been performed by men and some by women. Wills of the Ptolemaic era are extant showing that sons and daughters inherited such liturgies from father and mother. Here, indeed, we have an indication of the equal rights of the sexes, a matter to which we shall return. But even at this late period we find that the women were still active outside the home. In connexion with court occupations of the Ptolemaic days women are referred to as "bearers of the prize of battle and bearers of the basket."[8]

[7] Erman and Krebs, op. cit.

[8] f&igr.

    In a previous chapter we have referred to the oldest Egyptian poems that have come down to us. These contain evidence that women were engaged in occupations outside the home. Fowling was an important occupation in Egypt, and would appear in early days to have been reserved for women, seeing that the word "fowler" is always used in the feminine. Laundry work, on the other hand, would seem from the poems to have been an exclusively masculine avocation. Men, too, prepared the nuptial couch, providing the finest linen and the most costly essences. One of the poems, written by a woman, shows that her domestic affairs were attended to by a man. According to Erman, at a later period a woman would help her husband to look after the housework. The implication is that at this date housework was still regarded as a masculine occupation.

    We have another remarkable indication of the fact that in ancient Egypt the women were concerned with extra-domestic occupations whilst the men did the housework. Herodotus tells us that in Egypt, "where everything was topsy-turvy," the sexes even relieved the calls of nature in the reverse of the customary way, for the women stood up to make water whereas the men adopted a crouching posture. The latter point is peculiarly striking.

    In the days when the dominance of women was absolute, the assignment of domestic work to the males probably included the care of infants in arms. In the case of the Libyans we have reports as to their manners and customs during the period when women held sway, and we learn from these that there was a complete reversal of the division of labour familiar to ourselves. In Libya, not only did the men do the house-

    Diodorus[10] writes as follows: "All authority was vested in the women, who discharged every kind of public duty. The men looked after domestic affairs, just as the women do among ourselves, and did as they were told by their wives. They were not allowed to undertake war service, or to exercise any of the functions of government, or to fill any public office, such as might have given them more spirit to set themselves up against the women. The children were handed over immediately after birth to the men, who reared them on milk and other food suitable to their age."

    There are definite indications that in ancient Egypt, likewise, the men had the care of infants in arms and looked after their feeding. It is recorded that the royal princes and princesses had male nurses as late as the days of the Middle Kingdom. Erman writes that these men who had the care of the princes and who ranked among the highest persons about the court "used, strangely enough, to speak of themselves as the princes' nurses. Thus, during the reign of Amenhotep I, Prince El Kab was the nurse of the royal prince Uadmes, and Semnut, the favourite of Queen Chnemtomun, was the male nurse of the royal princess Ranofre." Again, in the days of the Middle Kingdom, a [male] "guardian of the diadem" boasts of having "given suck to the God" and of having "adorned Horus the Lord of the Palace." Of course Erman misinterprets the significance of this designation "nurse." He regards it as nothing more than an

[9] Cf. Ploss and Bartels, Das Weib, vol. ii.

[10] III, 51.

    It is most probable that these men described as nurses among the Egyptians did actually discharge the duties of a nurse, caring for infants in arms and seeing to their food, just as men did among the Libyans. Even if we are to suppose they were merely teachers in the royal family, and that the title "nurse" was a survival not carrying with it the obligation to undertake the duties of a nurse, the very title, though honorary, suggests that such duties must have been real in earlier generations. As a fact, however, we have no reason to assume, with Erman, that these male nurses were nurses only in an honorary sense. Erman is led astray by the Men's-State ideology. Because, as far as his experience goes, none but women tend infants in arms, he jumps to the conclusion that the title "nurse" applied to a man can have no serious meaning.

    In Libya, a State contemporary with and bordering upon ancient Egypt, and one in which women were dominant, there was a complete reversal of the division of labour as we know it to-day." As previously explained, not only did the Libyan men do all the housework, but they took care of the children from infancy onwards. We have a detailed description of the way in which they cared for nurselings. Ploss and Bartels note as "a strange phenomenon" this

[11] Ploss and Bartels, op. cit., vol. ii.

    Similar facts regarding male nurses are reported in the case of other peoples.[12] "The father feeds his little ones, and carries them about caressing them tenderly." A vestige of this Women's-State custom is found in India to-day, where men act as nurses to European children. We are told that they make excellent nurses, and also excellent sick-nurses. Among the Battas the care of children is entirely in the hands of the men. In the case of the Basque-Iberian stocks, where women held sway, we have the authority of Strabo and of Humboldt as to the prevalence of a similar custom. The women did the field work, and children were entrusted to the care of the men immediately after birth. Among these tribes, moreover, the father of a new-born child was treated like a lying-in woman. The custom has prevailed on into recent times. In this connexion we may note that as late as 1800 a characteristic incident showed the political influence of women among the Basques, for when in this year a popular vote was taken the women exercised the suffrage as well as the men.

    According to Westermarck among the blackfellows of Encounter Bay in South Australia it was regarded as absolutely indispensable that the father should care for the children. If, therefore, a woman bore a child after the father had died, she killed this posthumous infant. The same custom is reported of the Creeks.

    Herein, according to the authors of the present work, is to be found the true explanation of the couvade, of the putting of the father to bed when his

[12] Jaeckel, op. cit., pp. 90 et seq.

    We have also unambiguous information concerning the Kamchadales that a reversed division of labour was attendant on feminine dominance. When women ruled in Kamchatka, the men not only did the cooking but all the rest of the housework, the sewing, and the laundry work, docilely doing everything assigned to them by the women. The men are so domesticated, says Meiners, that they greatly dislike being away from home for more than one day. "Should a longer absence than this become necessary, they try to persuade their wives to accompany them, for they cannot get on without the women folk." Such traits are characteristic of the house-wife in the Men's State. The love of home and the dependence on the spouse are, as we see, faithfully reflected in the husbands of the Women's State. For these men, home is the world. When away from home they cannot feel at ease without the protection and the company of their

    In this matter of the division of labour, the character traits of men in the Men's State are likewise reproduced down to the smallest details in the women of the Women's State. Among ourselves to-day, men refuse to engage in what they term feminine occupations, not because they do not know how to do them, but because they consider such work beneath their masculine dignity. For example, the man of the house, in our western lands, would scorn the task of patching and mending the family clothing, and would consider it beneath him even to sew on a button. Now, precisely as in the Men's State men despise "women's work," so in the Women's State do women despise "men's work." Under the changed conditions, a man's work is beneath a woman's dignity; she thinks it would demean her to undertake any of the duties that are allotted to the subordinate sex. Not even a promise of high pay could induce a Kamchadale woman to undertake sewing, laundry work, and similar services." In Kamchatka these were a man's tasks. There was only one way in which members of the exploring party in Kamchatka could bribe the Kamchadale women to undertake tasks regarded by them with such contempt. This was "by the gratification of their sensual appetite." The point is worth noting because it is so characteristic of mono-sexual dominance to find the dominant sex repaying the subordinate sex for sexual services. Where men rule, it is the way of men to reward women for their caresses, and the practice of course tends to degen-

[13] Meiners, Geschichte, etc., vol. i, pp. 27 et seq.; History, etc., vol. i. pp. 23 et seq.

    There is plain evidence that the position of predominance is the reason why the men of the Men's State despise typically feminine tasks, and why the women of the Women's State despise typically masculine tasks. For there is no refusal, in either case, when a member of the subordinate sex is asked to undertake some occupation usually regarded as appropriate to members of the dominant sex. On the contrary, in the Men's State women are proud when they can do men's work just as efficiently as the men. They do not consider that men's occupations are degrading; they feel that, as members of the subordinate sex, they are lifted by such occupations to the level of the dominant sex. We have, therefore, in such instances, nothing to do with a specifically feminine or masculine aptitude for some particular occupation. The determinative factor is sexual dominance.

    Among the Lapps[14] there was a reversed division of labour. The men did all the housework, the cooking, and the sewing. The women went fishing and were excellent sailors. Leather-dressing, which was one of the chief occupations in Lapland, was also women's work. The same fact is reported by Livingstone in the case of the Balonda, among whom the women ruled and were the bread-winners.

    In the land of Adel (a province of Abyssinia) where according to Jaeckel "women enjoyed great freedom"

[read, "held sway"] the women did all the hard work, whilst the men were engaged in such tasks as to us

[14] Herbert Spencer, in his Principles of Biology, pointed out ihat the women of Lapland occupied a "free" position.

    To-day an investigator who had grown up in a Women's State and who should then pay a visit to our own Men's State and there observe that the arduous work away from the home was being mainly or almost exclusively done by men, would certainly derive the impression that our women were leading slothful lives and were mercilessly exploiting our men. No such visitor from a Women's State would ever hit upon the notion that this sex, comprised of those who groan under the burden of extra-domestic occupations and who produce the unmistakable impression of being downtrodden, is in truth the dominant sex. In like manner a traveller from a Men's State who sees women sweating at field work, believes them to be exploited by lazy males, whereas in this case the women form the dominant sex. The misunderstanding has always been easy when observers from a Men's State have studied Women's-State customs and institutions. All the more easy was it for such an observer to overlook the fact that the men in these cases were not loafers, but were busily occupied at home, for domestic occupations did not come under his purview at all. Furthermore, among ourselves to-day, a great many women (especially in the upper circles) do actually lead idle lives. Conversely, there must have been a similar stratum of male idlers in the Women's State. Travellers, at any rate those who write books, make acquaintances chiefly among the upper circles; and we may assume that the upper-class men of the Women's State must have led a life no

    A reversal of the division of labour is reported of the Lydians, who are known to have lived under the dominance of women. In Lydia, Herodotus saw a mortuary monument which he described as the greatest work of the kind in the world next to those of the Egyptians and the Babylonians. Upon the pillars at the time of his visit was still to be read a statement that the greater part of the construction had been done by women. Of the same monument Strabo tells us that it was mainly built by girls. Another remark of Strabo's shows how widely diffused in the Europe of his day was the reversal of the division of labour. This is what he writes concerning the Celtae: "They have in common with a great many peoples that the tasks of men and of women are the opposite of those with which we are familiar."

    Parenthetically let us remark that the talent many

    Burdach was merely reiterating an opinion of Socrates when he wrote: "The allotment of occupations is a natural one, and is in accordance with the peculiarities of the sexes, when man pursues his avocations away from the home whilst woman attends to home affairs." Such a view still prevails almost universally. It has seemed valid for centuries, and indeed for millenniums, thanks to the influence of the Men's State, which gave birth to the idea. We have shown that, despite its venerable antiquity and universal acceptance, the theory is untenable. The division of labour as between men and women is not the outcome of sexual differences, but has originated exclusively under

[16] Politik, vol. i, p. 256.

    Nevertheless Bachofen recognised that women tend to become more vigorous as their sex gains power. "It is well known that the physical strength of women grows proportionally with the decline in the physical strength of men. If to this there be superadded the ennobling influence which the consciousness of power and its exercise have upon them, whilst men are burdened by a sense of enslavement and are depressed by the performance of servile tasks, it is natural that the disparity between the two sexes should soon become more prominent. A physical degradation of the men and an increasing physical fitness of the women, are the necessary outcome of such conditions."[19]

[18] op. cit., p. I00.

[19] Very remarkable is the way in which Bachofen fails to recognise that the influence of masculine dominance is precisely the same, except that thereby it is the men who are made fit whilst the women are enfeebled.

    We have, therefore, adequate grounds for the opinion that women's physique has had nothing to do, as cause, with the division of labour between the sexes. Here the comparative weakness of women is not a cause but an effect. Since in the Men's State to-day we see only the effects, we readily make the mistake of confusing effect with cause. In contradistinction to the general opinion, we regard it as incontestable that the first division of labour was that between a dominant sex and a subordinate sex. Herein is perhaps to be found the origin of all division of labour.[21]

    The division of labour between the sexes originates

[20] Women and Economics, 1906.

[21] Schurtz considers that in the most primitive stages of human economic life the division of labour was such that men provided the foodstuffs of animal origin and women those of vegetable origin. The idea is untenable.

    But these advantages would not be recognised were women dominant. In that case it would be said that illegitimate children would be left uncared for if men were to do extra-domestic work and were to be the bread-winners and this neglect of illegitimate children is what we actually see to-day when man is the bread-winner. While the dominance of men remains undisputed, the drawback is ignored. Even to-day it is generally overlooked that the neglect of illegitimate children is a consequence of the occupation of men in extra-domestic concerns. The transition towards equal rights for the sexes tends, however, to make such drawbacks conspicuous.

    Were women dominant, and should men attack the system, women would defend the division of labour in accordance with which they worked away from the home. The system, the women would say, is divinely ordained and in conformity with the laws of nature, for in the reversed system illegitimate children would be uncared for. Such a defence of feminine privileges would be quite as "logical" as the contemporary masculine defence of men's privileges on the ground that

    These dominant women would likewise declare that prostitution would become a growing evil were men to work away from home -- and we find that prostitution is actually rife to-day under masculine dominance. This great evil, which invariably attaches to the extra-domestic occupation of men, is overlooked during the period of masculine dominance. In a transitional phase of society, people become aware of its existence. In the Women's State, should men make an attack upon the privileged position of the women, these latter would stress the evils of prostitution even more strongly than men to-day stress the "purity of women" in order to prove that women must continue to be sheltered in the home. Women to-day, although to a considerable extent they are now invading men's spheres of occupation, are not installing brothels with male inmates; and such institutions are unlikely to become general, whatever happens, owing to the comparatively inadequate sexual capacity even of the most vigorous among men. Mutatis mutandis, however, in a Women's State wherein men's attack upon women's privileges had advanced as far as women's attack upon men's privileges has advanced in the contemporary Men's State, men would unquestionably proceed to establish brothels with women as inmates, although hitherto no such brothels had existed. To the women this would seem "an irrefutable proof that man's place is the home."

   THE division of labour into a domestic sphere for one sex and an extra-domestic sphere for the other, is a definite criterion of monosexual dominance. Equality of rights for the sexes, on the other hand, with its concomitant bisexual dominance, necessarily leads to the abrogation of the division of labour on sexual lines.

    In Egypt, during the later days of the ancient regime, at a time when the dominance of women had apparently given place to a phase of equal rights for the sexes, there are plain indications that various kinds of work were undertaken now by members of one sex and now by members of the other, so that there was no sharp delimitation of avocations as between the sexes. In marriage contracts belonging to the days of Darius, the wife, who alone is mentioned as the contracting party, expressly refers to "all that I may earn in conjunction with you." It seems clear that the husband was now a joint wage-earner. Later, under the Ptolemies, this joint bread-winning was still in vogue. By that time, when the Greeks had conquered Egypt under Alexander and had imposed their Men's-State customs,[1] the husband had become the contracting party. But the phrase "all that I may earn in conjunction with you" appears in the contract un-

[1] Revillout has shown that Amasis II had already instituted reforms on the Greek model, about two-and-a-half centuries before the beginning of the Ptolemaic era.

    Down to a comparatively late period, the sexes followed the chase together, practising in common the sport of fowling, which was very popular in Egypt. In earlier days, as the old love-songs show, the women had gone fowling alone.

    Just as the two sexes pursued their extra-domestic avocations in common, so do they seem, in these days when sex equality was being established, to have done housework together. Erman[2] reports that the wife helped her husband to look after the housekeeping. We see from this that the husband was still responsible for the housekeeping, but that the wife no longer regarded participation in such tasks as "unwomanly." Obviously we are here contemplating the early stages of a transition.

[2] Op. Cit., Vol. i, p. 217.

    At this period, honours and distinctions were bestowed upon men and upon women in precisely the same form. In the new realm the rank of "fan-bearer on the king's right hand" was the highest of all dignities, which could be granted only to princes, judges-in-chief, treasurers-in-chief, generals, and other supreme officials. But the title of fan-bearer was now allotted both to men and to women; the members of either sex could display the insignia of this exalted office.

    In Babylonia, concerning which Viktor Marx[3] has made a detailed study of the position of women, the period from 604 to 485 B.C. was manifestly one when equality of the sexes prevailed. Men and women worked together. In a lawsuit concerning an inheritance, a wife declares: "My husband and I carried on business with the money of my dowry, and we jointly purchased a building site." There are many allusions to this joint conduct of affairs by husband and wife. Women could also carry on business alone, could do so apparently whether married or single. At any rate, no mention is made in the documents of their status in this respect. The fact that both sexes engaged in extra-domestic occupations is indicated by the circumstance that in marriage contracts neither the wife nor the husband undertook any obligation in respect of a common residence. The same remark applies to Egypt.

    At this period the sexes were quite independent of one another in social life. Men and women could both bring lawsuits, could both be sued, and could both act as witnesses. The wife was not under guardianship, and could freely dispose of her own property

[3] Beiträge zur Assyriologie, vol. iv.

    Explorers have frequently encountered primitive folk living in the phase when there is no division of labour along sexual lines. They report instances in which men and women jointly care for the children and jointly participate in extra-domestic avocations. Among the Motu[4] the men stayed at home to care for the children when the women went fishing. But if the men went fishing, the women stayed at home to look after the children. In Australia, likewise, there are tribes among which both sexes tend the children.

    Among the Battas the two sexes tilled the ground together, but the care of the children devolved exclusively on the men. This last example is especially instructive as an illustration of the way in which the division of labour develops during the transition from monosexual dominance to equality of rights between the sexes. Here we have obviously to do with a transition from feminine dominance, since the men were still charged with the duty of looking after the children. Characteristic are the two facts: that the men were already sharing in the extra-domestic work, the tilling of the soil; and that the women had not yet begun to do their share of the domestic occupations. Indubitably this is closely connected with the principle of dominance, for the avocations of the dominant sex are regarded as more exalted than those of the subor-

[4] Cf. Jaeckel, op. cit., pp. 90 et seq.

    We have, then, several factors which reinforce one another in impelling the members of the subordinate sex to push their way into the avocations of the dominant sex; and we have several factors tending to restrain the members of the dominant sex from sharing in the domestic avocations of the subordinate sex. The result is -- when such a transition from monosexual dominance to equal rights is in progress -- that the barriers between the respective spheres of activity of the two sexes are broken down more quickly in one direction than in the other. We have been studying, in the case of the Battas, a transition from feminine dominance to equal rights. Among ourselves to-day may be observed the same trends, the only difference being that the rôles of the sexes are reversed. Our civilisation is passing from the phase of masculine dominance to the phase of equal rights. Characteristic of the transition is the manner in which our women are pushing

   CERTAIN peculiarities of bodily form are to-day regarded as typically feminine characters. It is not only among the laity that "an agreeable rounding-off of the frame with fat" is considered characteristic of women as contrasted with the "angularity" of men, for a recognition of this contrast is believed to be one of the most stable among medical theories. In like manner, it is supposed to be a scientific fact, based upon biological differences between the sexes, that men are on the average considerably larger and stronger than women. Bucura,[1] in a recently published work, gives a renewed account of these differences between men and women, believing himself to be providing a scientific foundation for the popular opinion upon such matters. But a comparison of the bodily types of men and women in the Men's State and the Women's State shows that the current assumption is false. The differences with which we are familiar are not secondary sexual characters; they are the outcome of monosexual dominance, being closely connected with the division of labour.

    The members of the subordinate sex always exhibit a comparative obesity no matter whether they be men or women. In the Men's State, this luxuriance of

[1] op. cit.

    The cause of this difference between the sexes in the matter of bodily form when monosexual dominance prevails is unquestionably to be found in the sexual division of labour. The tendency to fatty deposit always affects the subordinate sex. As we have seen, this is the sex which finds its sphere of work in the home, and domestic avocations certainly tend to promote the deposit of fat. First of all, those who work in the house have charge of the cooking pots, and can gorge at will. For instance, Waitz reports that the Eskimo men were inclined to fat. But among the Eskimos, as we have already learned, the men did the housework. Furthermore, the sex which works at home has more rest and leisure, a less active and less exciting life, seeing that the care for the maintenance of the family is always the task of the dominant sex -- the one that works away from home. But the more repose, the less active movement, and the less excitement, a human being has, the more marked the tendency to put on fat. On the other hand, leanness is promoted by an arduous life and by one full of anxiety.

    The tendency to put on fat is especially conspicuous in those members of the subordinate sex who belong to the upper classes, for here the factors that favour this tendency are exceptionally powerful. Among the well-to-do, food is more plentiful, leisure is more abundant, and safe-guarding from cares is more effectual. Now we know that the popular ideal of beauty is mainly determined by the physical traits of the upper-class types. Since a rounded body is especially characteristic of the well-to-do members of the subordinate sex, we find that under monosexual dominance this is the type regarded as the ideal of beauty.

    Concerning the Celtae likewise, we have facts showing how the bodily development of the sexes was influenced by monosexual dominance. We have already (see p. 87) quoted Strabo's account of the way in which, among this people, the sexual division of labour was the reverse of that with which we are familiar. Now among the Celtae of Strabo's time there must have been a marked tendency to obesity, for in another passage[2] he tells us that the men ran to fat, and that the youths had to attain a prescribed girth.

    Under monosexual dominance, just as a considerable deposit of fat is typical of the subordinate sex, so are greater stature and greater strength characteristic of the dominant sex. Reports concerning these points are, indeed, scantier, both as regards Men's States and as regards Women's States. A few examples from the latter may be given, to show the reversal of what we know in our own Men's State. Aristotle expressly declares that, among the Spartans and the Athenians, the ideal of beauty for women was to be very tall.

[2] IV, 6.

    A parenthetical reference may be made to the amazing strength of the Tahitian queen Oberea. Jaeckel quotes Captain Wallis as saying that she could carry him about as if he had been a child.

    There are probably two reasons why the members of the subordinate sex lag behind those of the dominant sex in stature and in bodily strength. In the first place, during childhood and youth, when the growth of the body is taking place, the former are not so well nourished as the latter. Among ourselves to-day the belief is still current that females need less food than males. When this theory is translated into practice during the years of growth, the effect on the physique must be considerable.

[3] XV, 12.

    In the second place, from youth upwards, the members of the dominant sex enjoy greater freedom of movement and engage in more active physical exercise. These circumstances must favour the natural growth in height and strength.

    Passing now to consider the ideal of beauty, we find that under monosexual dominance this has a sexual stress in the case of only one of the sexes, the one that is subordinate. The ideal which the dominant sex cherishes regarding the beauty of its own members is always characterised by neutrality in the sexual respect. The ultimate causes of this difference cannot be considered in the present work, and we must content ourselves with giving a few instances to show that it does actually exist. The ideal of beauty in the case of the subordinate sex, in so far as that ideal finds expression in art, must always have the charm of youth, whereas this element forms no necessary part of the artistic expression of the ideal of beauty in the case of the dominant sex. As soon as our attention has been directed to the matter, confirmatory instances from the contemporary art of the Men's State crowd upon our notice. Among the ancient Egyptians we find the obverse of the same trend. The kings were usually depicted as young men, although we know that in many cases they lived to a great age. Weber and Baldamus[4] write: "All the statues of the Pharaohs have the typical aspect of an amiable young man in the early twenties." Schneider goes so far as to say that often enough the statues of the kings exhibit a "sugary insipidity."

[4] Weltgeschichte.

    Not merely do we find that the masculine and feminine bodily forms regarded in any age as typical are influenced by monosexual dominance and vary from one extreme to the other according as one sex or the other holds sway. In addition we have to note (and this is very remarkable) that the tendency to adornment and the inclination to wear finery, and therewith sexual differentiation in hairdressing and costume, are profoundly affected by monosexual dominance. To-day, for instance, the love of finery and the fondness for self-adornment are looked upon as specifically feminine. It is regarded as unquestionable that they are the manifestations of an inborn peculiarity of women. Runge[5] is merely expressing the universal opinion of his contemporaries when he writes: "Woman's love of adornment and her inclination to coquetry are manifestations of the sexual life." Nevertheless, the information we have concerning styles of hairdressing and prevalent costumes in the case of men and women of various lands and at various epochs where or when women held sway, suffices to show that in this respect no less than in others the theory of specifically feminine peculiarities is a Men's-State error. In ancient Egypt the love of adornment was a masculine, not a feminine, trait. Erman writes: "Whereas to us it seems appropriate that women, not men, should be fond of self-adornment, the ancient Egyptians would appear to have been of the opposite way of thinking. The fashions in men's clothing were greatly diversified, but women's dress remained strangely uniform throughout the ages. From the Fourth Dynasty to the Eighteenth, the women of

[5] Das Weib in seiner geschlechtlichen Eigenart.

    The dress of the women of ancient Egypt was identical for all classes. Among ourselves to-day we find a similar uniformity of dress in the case of the men of all classes. So remarkable is the identity of masculine clothing throughout all social strata of modern society that we are entitled to speak of "man's dress" without qualification as uniform in type. Even ceremonial costume is the same for all classes; on State occasions a man wears a frock-coat and a tall hat, whether he be sovereign prince or shopkeeper. Nor is there any change in this respect as a man grows older. He may be eighteen or he may be sixty, but irrespective of age he must turn up at a formal party in a suit of the same tint and the same cut. The trend towards uniformity in dress for the dominant sex would appear to be more marked in proportion as monosexual dominance is more completely established.

    Uniformity of appearance extends in the case of the dominant sex to the manner of dressing the hair as well as to the clothing. To-day, nearly all men wear their hair in the same fashion. In Sparta a like uniformity in the matter of hairdressing prevailed among women, who were the dominant sex. But whereas among our men the mode of hairdressing is regulated by unwritten laws only, in the case of the Spartan women it was formally prescribed by written laws.[6]

    A fondness in men for self-adornment, and a tendency on the part of women towards simplicity and uniformity in dress, are reported in the case of other peoples besides the ancient Egyptians. Such a reversal of the trends and customs of our own civilisation was marked among the Libyans. We have already noted that in Libya the dominance of women was absolute. Strabo relates that the men of this land were addicted to self-adornment and that they delighted in the care of their bodies. They curled the hair and the beard, wore plenty of gold ornaments, and were diligent in the care of the teeth and the finger-nails. "The men dress their hair in so artificial a fashion," writes Strabo, "that when they are on an excursion they are rarely seen to touch one another, for fear of disarranging their coiffure." The reader is involuntarily reminded of the extremes of artificiality in women's head-dressing, such as are preserved in pictures dating from the most diverse epochs of masculine dominance. Westermarck tells us that among the Khonds, where the women rule, the men wear their hair long, and spend much time dressing it. The men of Tanna, in the New Hebrides, wear their hair "twelve and

[6] Jaeckel, op. cit., p. 3.

    We may presume that the inclination towards self-adornment displayed by members of the subordinate sex, and the tendency of members of the dominant sex to dispense with ornaments and to wear drab clothing, are both intimately connected with the sexual division of labour. Those who belong to the sex which works in the home have more time and opportunity for self-adornment than those who belong to the sex which works away from home. The arts of the toilet become a pastime. But there is a supplementary factor which strengthens the pleasure and the interest in this pastime. Leisure increases erotic susceptibility. Since the members of the other sex have less leisure, the pent-up erotic passion of the home-keeping sex seeks an outlet in the practice of bodily adornment -- which was primitively regarded (and is unquestionably still regarded to-day) as a preparatory love-act. There may also contribute an impulse accentuated by the heightened sensuality, the impulse to please the members of the other sex who are the objects of sexual desire.

    This is why we find that to-day the women who have most leisure and least work are those who devote

[7] Turner, Samoa.

[8] Hist. xxviii, 12.

    Dress is simplified as much as possible. This simplification is the basis of the prevalent uniformity. For, first of all, the trend towards simplification affects the majority of the dominant sex, seeing that the overwhelming majority is engaged in extra-domestic avocations, and has therefore to work very hard and with little leisure. Furthermore, the less energetic and diligent members of the dominant sex, those who might retain the inclination to self-adornment, have little or no influence, inasmuch as their lack of industry makes it impossible for them to win possessions and power. Those who devote their energies to work, and pay little heed to dress, have the best chance of gaining influential positions. These, therefore, are the persons most imitated; it is they who set the standard in matters of appearance. To the effects of the imitative impulse are superadded the effects of pressure from above in the direction of uniformity. It is in the interest of the influential to deprive those

    The way in which overwork, and the associated indifference to sexual concerns, lead to sobriety of aspect and to labour-saving in matters of appearance, is likewise illustrated by the way in which men do their hair in the contemporary Men's State. Modern styles of hairdressing for men are ugly but convenient. The conjunction of qualities is characteristic. To the overworked man, the ugliness is of little moment, since he has no great interest in arousing sexual liking in the members of the other sex. Convenience is the decisive factor for one whose long hours of work make time-saving of the utmost importance.

    The desire to save time is the probable explanation of the fact that the men of States in which the rule of their sex is unchallenged usually let their beards grow. The men of ancient Egypt were invariably clean-shaven. Always, as the influence of women increases, we find among men a growing tendency to shave the beard. An accessory factor is probably at work here, for when women become more influential, youth in men is more highly valued, and the appearance of the young male becomes the ideal of masculine beauty.

    The overburdening of the dominant sex with work is, it would seem, the explanation of what appears to be a fact -- that tattooing is a practice peculiar to that sex. E. Meyer tells us that tattooing was rare in ancient Egypt, and that it was confined to women.

    There are also certain sexual distinctions in dress which are probably not the outcome of the sexual division of labour, but are directly dependent upon the dominance.

    Monosexual dominance invariably evokes a tendency towards the differentiation of dress into masculine and feminine types. For each sex there is one typical garment which diverges as markedly as possible from the typical garment of the other sex. In modern Europe the contrast between trousers and skirt is characteristic. But should any one be inclined to fancy that the wearing of trousers by men and skirts by women is connected with certain masculine and feminine biological peculiarities, a glance at contemporary fashions in other civilisations than our own (to say nothing of the costumes of past ages) will enable us to reduce the theory to absurdity. There exists to-day an extremely ancient nation in which sexual differentiation in dress has taken the opposite direction. In China, the men wear skirts (or at any rate long robes) and the women wear trousers. We see, then, that this particular difference of dress has nothing to do with the biology of sex. Those who imagine that it has are obviously creating an imaginary difference between the sexes. Such a tendency to create imaginary differences is the direct outcome of monosexual dominance. A basic principle of monosexual dominance is precisely this inclination to exaggerate sexual contrasts and to ignore sexual similarities. We must defer to

    It has been shown that the rôle of wooer is always assigned to members of the dominant sex. Since, as we have just learned, the dominant sex inclines to discard the arts of bodily adornment, the result is that, when monosexual dominance prevails, the wooer is as a rule soberly attired, whereas the members of the wooed sex are gaily adorned. This combination of drabness of attire and wooing, on the one hand, and of ornateness and being wooed, on the other, seems in striking contrast with the phenomena of animal life in general. If among the lower animals we find the members of one sex distinguished from those of the other by motley splendour, the more ornate sex is commonly the wooing sex -- so far as our admittedly imperfect insight enables us to judge of these matters. Hitherto, at any rate, we have felt justified in assuming that among the lower animals the more ornate sex is the wooing sex. Liepmann,[9] for instance, gives an interesting demonstration that in the case of birds the sex which has the more splendid plumage, whether male or female, acts as wooer and is more combative than the other. The birds with duskier plumage look after the fledglings, even though these less ornate ones are the cocks. The question therefore arises whether man is in truth biologically distinguished from the lower animals in this respect, or whether monosexual dominance may not be a degenerative phenomenon -- destined, as will be shown in the sequel, to lead to absurdities. In fact, equality of rights for the sexes seems accordant with natural trends, whereas mono-

[9] Die Psychologie der Frau.

   IN respect of the development of bodily form and in respect of the clothing typical for the two sexes, equality of rights initiates a trend exactly opposite to that characteristic of monosexual dominance. Whereas monosexual dominance is established upon an artificial creation of contrasts and differences between men and women, equality of rights is established upon the maintenance of the natural resemblances between the sexes. The result is that in the era of equality we find that the sexes are equal in average stature, that they tend to resemble one another in bodily form, and that they wear the same sort of clothing. Typical in these matters were our own ancestors, the ancient Teutons. We have abundant indications that among them in the days of Tacitus the sexes had equal rights. Tacitus expressly reports that among the Teutons men and women were of the same height and were equally strong. He also tells us that they were similarly dressed. There seems to have been very little difference in the way they did their hair, for both men and women wore the hair long. Diodorus[1] reports of the Gauls (and we may presume that he is referring to the period when the sexes had equal rights among these people) that the

[1] V, 32.

    Ploss and Bartels write of the Kamchadales: "The women show a complete lack of feminine charm, and are distinguished from the men only by the difference in the genital organs. The women are so like the men that at the first glance we can hardly tell the sexes apart." This report is peculiarly instructive. It seems at first to conflict with the account of the matter given by Meiners. That authority declared that the Kamchadale women were remarkably good-looking, and that they preserved their youth exceptionally long. But in reality there is no contradiction, for Meiners' report dates from a much earlier period than that of Ploss and Bartels. Meiners was referring to the era when the dominance of women was unchallenged among the Kamchadales. Since, according to the latest investigations, male dominance is now being definitely established among this people, they must have passed through a phase when the sexes had equal rights, and it is to this period indubitably that Ploss and Bartels' account relates. The instance shows with remarkable clearness how strong an influence sexual dominance exerts on the development of typical bodily forms. More especially we see that the development

[2] Das Weib in anthropologische Betrachtung.

    Liepmann[4] writes: "A stressing of the secondary sexual characters is felt to be beautiful." We, however, are now able to realise that this is merely a Men's-State view, and that it has no application to conditions where equality of rights prevails.

    In the case of many other peoples we have data showing the existence of a close likeness between the sexes in physical form. The most perfect instance of this would seem to be that of the Cingalese. Albert Friedenthal states that a newcomer to Ceylon is quite unable to distinguish between the sexes. Men and women dress alike, the only difference being that the men wear a curved mother-of-pearl comb. Friedenthal gives additional details which show clearly that the Cingalese are in the phase of equal rights for the sexes. Of the Lepkas, the same writer tells us that the sexes are so much alike that it is necessary to count their hair plaits in order to distinguish men from women -- for the women wear two plaits and the men only one. According to Ellis, among the Pueblos the men and the women closely resemble one another in

[3] "Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologic," 1914.

[4] Op. cit., p. 104.

    We are in a position to-day to observe how during the phase of equality of rights a tendency arises to mitigate the sexual differences in bodily form and in dress that have been established during monosexual dominance. A comparison of the typical feminine figure in the Germany of thirty years back with the feminine figure which is typical to-day will show how vast has been the transformation. All the artificially accentuated feminine traits -- accentuated with the aid of corsets and breast-pads -- have disappeared. No longer do we see slender waists, broad hips, and luxuriant bosoms. The ideal of feminine beauty tends to approximate towards a boyish type. In the case of men we notice the same trend. Germans are now clean-shaven, or at most have a mere indication of a

[5] Reise durch Nord-Brasilien.

    In the period of transition from monosexual dominance to equality of rights, two trends are manifest. The greater simplicity and unadornedness of the dominant sex struggle with the marked trend of the subordinate sex towards self-adornment, each of these trends trying to extend its dominion over both sexes. The two tendencies seem to have equal chances of success. The growing influence of women increases the erotic inclinations of the males, and therewith simultaneously accentuates the impulse towards self-adornment. In the case of women, on the other hand, who are now engaging in extra-domestic avocations, there is less leisure for self-adornment, and an inclination towards simplicity and utility in dress awakens.

    There are, consequently, certain reasons for hoping

   UNDER monosexual dominance the rôle of sexual modesty is always assigned to the subordinate sex. When man rules, the convention is that woman should be modest. Down to the present day, therefore, in Men's States, modesty is extolled as a womanly virtue. But in Women's States, conversely, it is valued as a specifically masculine quality. An observation made by Herodotus[1] shows that this was so already in classical times. He writes: "Among the Lydians, as among almost all barbarians, even a man is terribly ashamed of being seen naked." The inference is that in the writer's Grecian homeland men were not thus shamefaced, whereas it was taken as a matter of course that women should be modest. Were it otherwise, Herodotus would not have used the word "even." Moreover, the indignation the other Greeks displayed because the Spartan women practised gymnastic exercises in a state of nudity, shows that Grecian women in general were ashamed of nudity. It follows that in Hellas in the days of Herodotus the prevailing moral notions concerning nudity and modesty were based upon the canons for men and for women respectively with which we are familiar in the practical experience of our own Men's State.

    A Lydian man, then, was greatly ashamed to be seen

[1] I, 10.

    In Sparta, young people of both sexes practised gymnastics together in the nude state. Probably in earlier days this had been the custom for women only, but as men grew freer it had been sanctioned for youths as well. We see the counterpart in contemporary Sweden, where the sexes bathe together unclothed. In this instance the assimilation comes from the other side, men having long been dominant and women having of late won a freer position. In the Athens of the classical age the young men used to exercise together in the nude state, and since the Athenians were outraged because the Spartan women did the same thing, we can only suppose that this ran counter to the Men's-State prejudices of the Athenians. Euripides, writing of the Spartan women in this connexion, says: "The daughters of Sparta are not to be found at home; they consort with the young men. Having laid aside their clothing, having bared their hips, the maidens wrestle with the youths. To me, indeed, such conduct seems shameful."

    All the prejudice of monosexual dominance is crudely displayed by the closing phrase. To Euripides there seemed nothing shameful in the fact that the Spartan youths exercised together in a state of nudity, for did not the Athenian youths do the same thing? But he was outraged at the idea of women participating under the same conditions, for the Athenians had

    The notion that women are more modest than men is so ingrained in Men's-State investigators as to blind them to obvious facts. It was found, for example, in the case of many savages that the men were more decorously clad than the women. From this various observers (Waitz and others) have inferred that the clothing worn by these tribes cannot have been donned from a sentiment of shame, since in that case the women would have been more adequately clothed than the men. A very moderate degree of objectivity of outlook would have made so remarkable an inference impossible. One would think that the most superficial observation would have shown that the peculiar sexual organisation of men makes it far more necessary for them than for women to conceal the genital organs. It is not altogether agreeable to a man that every one should promptly become aware of the fact that he is in a condition of sexual excitement.

    The one-sided manner in which the demand for modesty is concentrated on the subordinate sex is to be explained by the essential nature of monosexual dominance. There are three main peculiarities of this dominance of which a one-sided development of modesty is a logical consequence. First of all we have to consider duplex sexual morality, in virtue of which the sexual activities of members of the subordinate sex are restricted, and chastity is imposed on them as a duty. One-sided modesty is the outcome of this

    Furthermore, as we have seen, the members of the dominant sex are always the wooers, and the members of the subordinate sex are always the wooed. This is peculiarly favourable to the preponderant development of modesty in the subordinate sex, for modesty in the wooed acts as an incitement to the wooer. The division of labour characteristic of monosexual dominance likewise contributes to strengthen the development of modesty in the subordinate sex and to weaken its development in the dominant sex. The members of the latter, in their extra-domestic activities, are removed from association with the other sex. In these circumstances, there is no stimulus to modesty, but the reverse. When the members of one sex are alone together, there is apt to arise a free and easy attitude in respect of sexual matters, and this is antagonistic to the growth of modesty. At home, on the other hand, the members of the subordinate sex are seldom exempt from the presence of members of the other sex. The elders of the dominant sex who are past work, the young who are not yet fit for work, the invalids who are temporarily unfit, are all homekeepers, and this prevents the isolation of the subordinate sex. Moreover, the nature of extra-domestic occupations involves a high degree of aggregation of members of the dominant sex, whereas the nature of domestic avocations is not such as to involve the aggregation of the subordinate sex. But it is the aggre-

    It is probable, however, that the decisive factor tending to restrict the development of modesty to members of the subordinate sex is the one-sided way in which sexual concerns are always contemplated under monosexual dominance. Monosexual dominance entails that the outlooks of the dominant sex are alone valid. Each sex sees in its own members, for the most part, the sexually neutral side of character, whereas in the other sex it pays special attention to the sexually tinged aspects of character. The authors propose to discuss the subject exhaustively in a later volume, and their reference to it here is merely parenthetical. Above all, modesty is a sexual sentiment. It is therefore predominantly displayed towards members of the other sex. Consequently, when members of the dominant sex compare the two sexes, they will always perceive that the subordinate sex bears the palm for modesty.

    It is, however, a remarkable fact that the characteristics of erotic art during the days when the dominance of one sex is at its climax are by no means in accord with the view that the subordinate sex is the more modest. Such, at any rate, is the first impression produced by the examination of these works of art. They incline to indicate plainly and unrestrainedly the sex of members of the subordinate sex, but to indicate the sexual characters of members of the dominant sex with very light touches. As far as ancient Egypt is concerned, the oldest erotic depiction is found in the Turin papyrus. There can be no doubt that this dates from the period when the dominance

    These trends of erotic art have two lessons. They teach us first of all that the dominant sex is really more shamefaced than it is inclined in theory to admit. Secondly, they show that the members of the subordinate sex are always predominantly regarded as sexual beings. Were it true that men in the Men's State are as immodest as they are commonly supposed

    In any picture gallery we may note how strong this sense of shame is in civilised humanity. When two persons of different sexes are visiting such a gallery, the sense of shame is aroused in either by sexual representations of his or her respective sex. For instance, should the two come across a picture representing a woman in a dubious situation, it is the female observer who will feel ashamed; and conversely. Since, however, our picture galleries contain works that are almost exclusively products of Men's States, and since therefore erotic representations of women are enormously more frequent than erotic representations of men, there is much more to arouse shamefacedness in a female visitor than in a male. Such erotic representations of males as are to be found in our galleries are for the most part the work of homosexually inclined artists, and are rare. It follows that if we were to keep a record of the manifestations of shame in a mixed company of men and women visiting an art gallery, we should certainly find a considerable excess among the women. This preponderance, however, would not be the outcome of a stronger inborn tendency to modesty, but would depend upon the Men's-State trend of the works of art on view. On the other hand, when members of the same sex accompany one

    When the transition from one form of sexual dominance to the other occurs, everything that may offend the modesty of the members of the sex that is newly rising to power is thrust out of sight. The result is that the more marked the dominance of one sex, the less do its members in their daily experience encounter anything likely to put them to shame.

    Inasmuch as everything offensive to modesty is hidden, modesty is never offended; and since modesty is never offended, the supposition is apt to arise that modesty is non-existent. This is supposed to be the case with men to-day. Herein we find the main reason why the dominant sex never inspires so much love as the subordinate sex. The fact that men seem shameless is repulsive to many women, although neither men nor women have hitherto understood the reason for this apparent lack of modesty in men. The real reason is that in the case of men in our civilisation the stimuli to modesty have been removed. As woman attains to power, she will tend to put out of sight things that offend her, and to bring to the front things which disturb man. Therewith man's fondness for woman will dwindle, but woman's fondness for man will grow.

    Such data as the foregoing are not obtainable at all epochs, but they are conspicuous in a period of transition like our own. At other epochs, other data

    Under monosexual dominance the subordinate sex is always the main topic of erotic art, for the works of art are almost exclusively produced by members of the dominant sex. In normal cases, it is only the other sex that arouses erotic interest. We are indifferent to the sexual characters of members of our own sex; the traits in them that arouse our interest are neutral from the sexual point of view. Consequently an artist, when depicting members of the other sex, tends to concentrate attention on erotic traits, whereas when we depict members of our own sex we tend rather to consider sexually neutral traits. The dominant sex controls artistic production, and with us to-day men are dominant. The result is that in our artistic representations of human behaviour, the doings of women receive predominant attention. Furthermore, when woman's behaviour is being portrayed, much stress is apt to be laid upon the sensual and the erotic, whereas these aspects are almost always ignored as far as men's behaviour is concerned. In the arts, men, whether clothed or nude, are mainly, depicted as neuter beings. Male artists are chiefly interested in the sexually neutral traits of their male models, for these neutral traits seem to the artist the most significant and the most characteristic. The sexual characters of the members of his own sex are not so much indifferent to him as positively antipathetic, so that he inclines to veil the insignia of manhood with a fig leaf. In the Women's State the conditions are reversed. Here artistic production is mainly controlled by woman. She regards man predominantly as a sexual being, and this outlook natu-

    The foregoing considerations provide a sufficient explanation of the origin of the phallus cult and the Venus cult respectively. It has hitherto been assumed that the phallus cult is man-made, and the Venus cult, woman-made. Such an opinion is likewise maintained by connoisseurs like Krauss and Reiskel.[2] They write that the phallus cult is found among virile, warlike peoples, and the Venus cult among effeminate peoples. It can be demonstrated that the truth lies the other way about. The phallus cult is typical of the female sex, and therefore gets the upper hand where feminine dominance prevails. The Venus cult is typical of the male sex, and attains its climax in the Men's State. Thus the phallus cult was most widely diffused in ancient Egypt, which is indeed regarded as its original home. "Monuments of this cult are most numerous in Egypt. From this centre they spread into Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. Egyptian history throws more light on the phallus than the history of any other oriental nation" (Krauss and Reiskel).

    During the greater part of its history before the birth of Christ, Egypt was a Women's State. Moreover, the reports of Herodotus and Plutarch concerning the phallus cult in Egypt show that this cult was

[2] Die Zeugung in Glaube, Sitten und Bräuchen der Völker.

    In the case of other peoples we have plain proof that the phallus cult was an affair of women. In Syria gigantic phalluses have been found with the inscription: "Bacchus erected these phalluses in honour of his stepmother Juno." The phallus cult was vigorously defended by the women, not by the men. In Krauss and Reiskel we read: "Notwithstanding the onslaughts of Christianity, the phallus cult was long maintained by the Greeks. The Greek women continued to wear phallic pendants of various forms as amulets." In Egypt the phallus cult persisted for four centuries after Christ.

    We are often told that women acted as chief priests of the phallic deities. Assa, the son of David, deprived his mother Machia of her power, and destroyed the images and shrines of the phallic deity whose chief priest she was. Herein we perceive an incident in the struggle between the sexes for dominance. The fight of the male leaders of the children of Israel against the worship of Baal belongs to the same chapter. Baal was pre-eminently the god of the Women's State, for he was presumably a phallic deity, at any rate at the epoch when the men of Israel, striving for masculine predominance, were waging war against Baal.

    The Venus cult is the typical cult of masculine domi-

[3] Isis and Osiris.

    Of course in the cult or worship of the sexual symbol of one sex, members of the other sex often become involved, with the obvious aim of bringing the cult into closer contact with realities. Among many peoples, these cults are made the occasions for sexual intercourse. In such cases, differences arise from the natural differences between the sexes. Owing to these sexual differences, the male sexual divinity could to a certain extent become a substitute for the mortal reality he symbolised,[4] whereas in the case of the female divinity this substitute rôle was denied. As a general rule, therefore, the temples of the phallic deities were served only by women, whereas the attendants in the temples of Venus were of both sexes. Since Venus was not able in person to gratify the sexual desires of her male worshippers, it was natural that her place should be taken by mortal women. It is known that in Babylon young people of both sexes worshipped in the temple of the goddess of love. Still, this circumstance may have been a manifestation of the equal rights of the sexes. We know (see above,

[4] We think, in the connection, inter alia, of the fascinum which was used by the Jewish women.

    According to Krauss and Reiskel there is evidence of the existence of the phallus cult among almost all peoples. It follows from what has been said above that among all peoples women must have at one time held sway.

    As far as our own civilisation is concerned, the phallus cult and the Venus cult have both been banned. All the same, masculine dominance is still manifest in the Venus cult displayed in the numerous works of art that glorify Venus. But under the dominance of men, when fully established, there is no place for images of the phallic deities. It is in conformity with masculine dominance that love should to-day be mainly symbolised by a goddess. In our man-ruled world, Venus is the supreme symbol of love, and the star of Dionysos has paled. Who knows Bacchus or Dionysos as the god of love? Bacchus has for us become the god of intoxication -- not the intoxication of love, but of wine. Cupid, indeed, is a male deity, but he is only a child.

   WHERE men rule, the current belief is that women are more beautiful than men, and that men are more intelligent than women. These differences are numbered among the sexual peculiarities whose origin is supposed to be traceable from inborn qualities that vary in the two sexes. In reality, the theory is a pure product of monosexual dominance. Only in the Men's State is beauty regarded as a predominant attribute of women, and there alone is livelier intelligence ascribed to men. In the Women's State, the usual opinions are the reverse of these. As the tendency towards sex equality makes progress, beauty and intelligence are considered to belong in equal measure to the two sexes.

    Proneness to regard women as gifted with more intelligence than men is very plainly manifest in the Women's State. Among the Kamchadales, for instance, both the men and the women considered it unquestionable that women are far more intelligent than men. The investigators who have failed to recognise the influence of monosexual dominance accept the prevailing view of the Kamchadales as a fact. They believe that the Kamchadale women really were more intelligent than the men, and that this is why they held sway over the men. Do we not seem to be studying the opinions of our own day, but seen looking-glass

    The views that prevail concerning the intelligence of a class, a caste, or a sex, are purely the outcome of the relationships of power. The dominant class, caste, or sex, uses its power to diffuse the idea that its members are endowed with exceptional intelligence. Of course it may chance that the more intelligent win to power. But it may equally well happen that the less intelligent

    We do not need to go so far afield as Kamchatka to find instances. The first historical reports concerning the ancient Teutons unquestionably relate to a period when equality of rights was being established between the sexes, but when there were still obvious indications of the transition from the phase of female dominance.[1] At this epoch the women were considered cleverer and wiser than the men. On account of her wisdom, Veleda was almost universally looked upon as a goddess. Tacitus tells us of the Teutons that they believed there

[1] It is a matter of common knowledge that Lamprecht has demonstrated the existence of matriarchy among the ancient Teutons.

    In ancient Egypt during the days of women's dominance, there was likewise a general belief in the intellectual superiority of women. This is shown by the allotment of rôles to Isis and Osiris. Isis, the female deity, was the legislator; Osiris, the male deity, was the benefactor. The goddess, therefore, is the incorporation of intellectual functions; the god, of affective. Diodorus[2] records from the pillars of the shrines of Isis and Osiris inscriptions which plainly indicate this reversal of what among ourselves is regarded as the natural antithesis between manly intelligence and womanly sympathy. Isis boasts: "What I have established as a law can be abrogated by no one." Osiris, on the other hand, says: "There is no place in the

[2] I, 27.

    Isis, the goddess, was mainly venerated as legislator; Osiris, the god, was mainly venerated as benefactor. Demeter, one of the oldest of the Greek goddesses, is described by Diodorus as "the legislator, the one who first prescribed the laws." To-day, under male hegemony, our views concerning the typical functions of the two sexes have developed in the opposite directions. Legislation is considered a specifically masculine function, whereas benefaction is assumed to be peculiarly accordant with the natural aptitudes of women. The relative positions of Isis and Osiris in ancient Egypt suffice to indicate that such views are the outcome of monosexual dominance. Isis takes precedence of her spouse Osiris, and is always named before him. Even Plutarch speaks of "Isis and Osiris." In the inscriptions reproduced by Diodorus, that relating to Isis begins, "I, Isis, am the Queen of all Lands," whereas that relating to Osiris begins, "My Father is Chronos." Whilst of Isis we are told that she rules all the countries of the world, of Osiris it is merely reported that he has visited them all. Indubitably at the time when these inscriptions were carved, Isis must have ranked higher than Osiris. Thus Isis was the personification of the dominant sex, which ascribed to her as her most characteristic quality that which was most highly esteemed among the attributes of the dominant sex.

    In the case of beauty there is less abundant historical evidence than in the case of intelligence to indicate that its ascription in higher degree to members of the dominant sex is a direct outcome of sexual dominance.

    There are factors which contribute in actual practice to make the subordinate sex better looking than the dominant sex. There are, in addition, psychological reasons why beauty should be speciously ascribed to the subordinate sex. At this stage the matter can be touched on only in passing. Each sex always looks upon the other sex as predominantly the embodiment of sexual qualities. Now, sexuality and beauty are intimately associated. Beauty plays a great part in stimulating the senses, in arousing sexual desire. The result is that, normally, each sex will regard the members of the other sex as better looking than the members of its own sex. In men, the physical excellencies of a man do not arouse a sexually tinged admiration; the charms of a woman leave another woman cold, or at most arouse a sexual envy. It is part of the essential nature of sexuality that we should tend to esteem intelligence more highly in members of our own sex, and to esteem physical beauty more highly in members of the opposite sex. What the average sensual man chiefly values in another man is the latter's wisdom; what he chiefly values in a woman is her physical "points." Conversely, what a woman finds interesting in another woman is intelligence, whereas in the case

    Wherever one sex rules, one aspect of this duplex outlook will prevail. The standpoint of the dominant sex will dominate. When men rule, the masculine view that women are more beautiful than men, and that men are more intelligent than women, will be regarded as the natural opinion of all mankind. When women rule, the converse theory, equally subjective, equally one-sided, will be regarded as objective truth.

   IN the Men's State, children bear the father's name. In the Women's State, they receive the mother's name. The dominant sex transmits the name to the offspring, and the name of the subordinate sex disappears from the line of succession. Transmission of the mother's name to the offspring is one among the few phenomena whose significance has heretofore been recognised as "matriarchal." For Bachofen, this transmission of the mother's name was a criterion of the dominance of women, but very few investigators have followed him here. Almost universally there has been an attempt to draw a sharp distinction between matriarchy[1] and the dominance of women. This tendency is the outcome of the Men's-State ideology of contemporary investigators.

    In the case of almost all peoples who lived under the dominance of women, we are informed that the children bore the mother's name. It was so among the Iroquois, the Lycians, the Cantabri, the Acharnians, and others. According to Lamprecht, the Germans in the days of Tacitus were still named after the mother. We have incontrovertible evidence that among the Egyptians it was the custom to call children after the

[1] It is unfortunate that the accepted English equivalent of Mutterrecht (literally, mother-right) is matriarchy, which derivatively connotes the idea of dominion. The German term we have translated by "dominance of women," and analogous phrases is Frauenberrschaft (women's rule). There is no terminological contradiction in German when a distinction is drawn between Mutterrecht and Frauenherrschaft. -- TRANSLATORS' NOTE.

    In the Women's State of ancient Egypt, descent was traced through the mother, precisely as it is traced through the father in the genealogical trees of the

[2] Op. Cit., Vol. i, p. 22,4.

[3] Ibid., p. 51.

    The privileged position of the dominant sex is shown in other ways besides that of naming the children. We know that in our own Men's States the social status and the nationality of a child are exclusively determined by the social status and the nationality of the father. We find the obverse of this custom in Women's States. If an Iroquois woman wedded a man belonging to another tribe, the offspring were accounted Iroquois. But if an Iroquois man married out of the tribe, his children were looked upon as aliens.[5] It was the same with social status. We encounter like customs in ancient Egypt. If a free woman married a slave, the children were free. The legal position of the children was solely determined by that of the mother. Bachofen's[6] investigations concerning matriarchy among the Lycians show that, in relation to the child, the mother in the Women's State exercises precisely the determinative influence that is exercised by the father in the Men's State.

    We have definite information that the dominance of

[4] Op. cit., vol. i, pp. 224 et seq.

[5] Lewis Morgan, op. cit., p. 293.

[6] Verhandlungen deutscher Philologen, Stuttgart, 1856, p. 42.

    Thus we see that the institutions of the Women's State are in these respects a faithful reflection of those

[7] I, 173. Rawlinson's Translation.

    The general name used for "native land" varies, as a rule, in accordance with the prevalent type of monosexual dominance. When the expression "fatherland" is current, we can trace its origin to the existence of masculine domination. Conversely, the use of the term "motherland" is rooted in feminine hegemony. We learn from Diodorus[8] that the previously quoted inscription on one of the columns of the temple of Isis concludes with the words: "Hail to thee, Egypt, my motherland." In Egypt women held sway, and their rule was reflected in the word motherland. Herodotus tells us that the Lycians originally came to Asia Minor from Crete. Now, among the Cretans it was custo-

[8] I, 27.

    We have already noted that the children of the dominant sex are favoured in the matter of inheritance. Where monosexual dominance is absolute, we usually find that only members of the dominant sex can inherit. Among the Lycians, for instance, there were no male heirs. In the case of the Cantabri, property passed to the eldest daughter; her brothers were under her tutelage; she gave them a small dowry when they married. Strabo states that among the Arabs inheritance was determined by primogeniture independently of sex, and this suggests that equality of rights prevailed. In Germany, the Men's State, the eldest son had a privileged position in matters of inheritance. This is indicated by the right of [male] primogeniture, in accordance with which all real estate passed to the eldest son. In this matter as in others we find that under monosexual dominance there is a tendency to give to members of the dominant sex, from the cradle, privileges which they will enjoy till the day of their death. On the other hand, members of the subordinate sex are in a less advantageous position from earliest childhood onwards.

    Children of the dominant sex are more highly esteemed than children of the subordinate sex. In the Men's State, for instance, the birth of a boy arouses more rejoicing than the birth of a girl. In the Women's State, of course, it is the other way about. Thus we are expressly told of the Pelew Islanders, who were under the dominance of women, that the birth of a girl was a more joyful event than the birth

    We cannot decide a priori what would be the general wish of parents in this matter under a system of equal rights for the sexes; we cannot tell whether the members of each sex would tend to exhibit a preference for having offspring of their own sex, or conversely. It might be supposed that the wishes of the dominant sex under monosexual dominance would furnish us with a clue. In that case, under equal rights, men would wish mainly to have boys and women to have girls. But the argument is fallacious, for the freedom of choice of the dominant sex is illusory, and the wishes of the dominant sex where monosexual dominance prevails are no index to a natural taste. The influence of monosexual dominance greatly transcends the power of inborn inclinations. This is indicated by the way in which, under monosexual dominance, the tendency to play the wooer and the tendency to neglect the arts of self-adornment are always conjoined in the dominant sex, whereas the natural or biological trend would seem to be for the impulse of self-adornment to evolve out of the inclination to play the wooer. In this matter, too, we therefore find that something unnatural has developed as a product of monosexual dominance. It follows from this train of reasoning that the desire of the dominant sex for offspring of its own sex may be

    When we remember that the parents' initial desire for offspring of the dominant sex is often reversed after a time, when they have had two or three children of that sex, our doubt whether there is any natural predisposition on the part of a parent to desire a child of his or her own sex is strengthened. Indeed, it would seem more probable that by nature a man is predisposed to a preference for having daughters, and a woman to a preference for having sons; and that this tendency would become apparent should monosexual dominance give place to equality of rights.

    It is, however, also possible that as far as natural inclinations are concerned there is no difference in this matter between parental wishes, for every one has two soul sides, one sexually tinged, and the other neutral or universally human. As a sexual being, a man would desire girl children and a woman boy children. But should the sexual trend pass into the background, and should the universally human inclinations predominate, we should find a natural tendency for each parent to prefer having children of his or her own sex. In the event of an equilibrium of forces, there would be a corresponding balance as regards the desire for children of one sex or the other. Both the father and mother would wish indifferently for girls and boys, although the balance in the two cases would be attained by an inverse route. There would be an ostensible identity, concealing a contrast, and this is a point of great psychological interest. Inasmuch as, however, in married life the sexual trends incline as a rule to predominate over the universally human trends, we may perhaps expect to find, when the influence of mono-

    There is, nevertheless, sufficient evidence that in Women's States girl children were in general more highly esteemed, just as boys are more highly esteemed in Men's States. The study of the practice of infanticide, and of the practice of mutilating children, shows that the dominant sex was always inclined to deal harshly with children of the subordinate sex and to spare children of the dominant sex. The general belief is to-day that where infanticide prevails or has prevailed, the victims invariably are or were girls. This view is simply an expression of Men's-State ideology. A more careful examination of the question shows that there have been peoples among which the boys were the only victims of infanticide, and that these peoples lived under the dominance of women. In the Old Testament, for example, we read (Exodus, Chap. I) that the king of Egypt ordered the Hebrew midwives to kill the male children of the Jews, but to spare the girls. Hegel,[10] referring to a negro State where women held sway, writes: "One Women's State became greatly celebrated for its conquests. It was ruled by a woman. In childbirth, the women had to go outside the settlement, and should the offspring be a male infant they had to make away with it."

[10] The Philosophy of History. Introduction, The Geographical Bases of Universal History.

    Meiners[11] reports the same of the Gagers, another African tribe. Their laws and constitution were established by queens, and it was under queens that they made their greatest conquests. One of the queens issued an ordinance that no male children were to be brought up. All of them were to be put to death. To set the example she killed her own son, who was still at the breast. Thereupon, all the new-born boys and all the immature sons were slaughtered, and the custom continued in force apparently until the conversion to Christianity. We see, then, that among savages under the dominance of women, contempt for children of the subordinate sex may be accentuated to the pitch of infanticide. The infanticide of females is so familiar an occurrence that proof is superfluous. But what has hitherto been invariably overlooked in this connexion is that female infanticide is a specialty of the Men's State.

    A not infrequent custom is the mutilation of children, and here it is extremely significant that in Women's States the male infants are the victims of such mutilations whereas in Men's States the female children are the victims. In China down to our own day the practice of foot-binding is confined to females. On the other hand, during the reign of Libussa in Bohemia only male children were mutilated.[12] The following fact seems also worth noting in this connexion. Among the before-mentioned Gagers, the queen issued a decree that all congenitally deformed children were to be killed. This applied to both sexes. It is well known that a similar law prevailed in Sparta at a time when

[11] Geschichte, vol. i, pp. 79 et seq.; History, pp. 66 et seq. Meiners' authority is Cavazzi (see Bibliography).

[12] Ploss and Bartels, op. cit.

    It may seem strange at the first glance that children belonging to the dominant sex, notwithstanding their privileged position, should be compelled to accept responsibility for the maintenance of parents, whereas no such responsibility is imposed upon children of the subordinate sex. But when we enquire into the causes of the difference, we find that the determinants are not psychological but social. The members of the subordinate sex are not in a position, economically speaking, to support the parents. The more absolute the monosexual dominance, the more completely are the ownership of property and the opportunity for earning an income reserved to members of the dominant sex. In these circumstances, the duty of maintaining parents is necessarily imposed on the dominant sex. In the Men's State, therefore, the sons have to maintain their parents; whereas in the Women's State this obligation is mainly incumbent on the daughters. Herodotus[13] writes concerning the Egyptians: "Sons need not support their parents, but daughters are compelled to whether they like it or not." We may infer from this passage that in ancient Egypt during the days of women's dominance the reversal of the sexual division of labour as we know it must have been thorough. Had the daughters, as among ourselves, been restricted to

[13] I, 35.

    Among the by-products of monosexual dominance, manifest both in the Men's State and in the Women's State, is a restriction of the right of children to choose their own mates. We find in this case that it is especially the subordinate sex whose freedom is curtailed by the authority of the dominant sex. Where women rule, the mother arranges her son's marriage, as we learn happened among the Iroquois and among the Guatemala Indians. Where men rule, the father arranges the marriage of his daughter. Sometimes, as in ancient Rome, a parent of the dominant sex continues to exercise uncontrolled authority over the children of both sexes even when the latter have grown up.

    A word may be said, in conclusion, concerning fecundity in Men's States and Women's States respectively. It is not easy to speak positively as to whether fecundity is likely to be greater in one kind of State or in the other. Worth mentioning is the fact that in ancient Egypt a high fecundity prevailed. Were we to outline an imaginative description of some future State in which women should play as great a part as they played in ancient Egypt, nearly all the members of the contemporary intelligentsia, from woman doctor

    More important than the question of fecundity is the question -- which form of sexual dominance ensures a happier childhood. The present writers have studied the life of the most diverse peoples, described by investigators of the most various dispositions. Once only have they come across the words: "This is the paradise of children." To what happy people does the statement refer? To the Cingalese. But reports concerning this people show that among them there was almost perfect equality between the sexes. It would seem as if happiness could be assured for children neither by the Men's State nor by the Women's State, but only by the Humanist State characterised by equal rights for the sexes.

   

[14] Abhandlungen und Aufsätze, vol. i, p. 265.

   HUMAN beings are either men or women, and those who serve the deities are either priests or priestesses. In like manner, the deities themselves are not neuter beings but sexed; they are either gods or goddesses. The question therefore arises, what influence, if any, monosexual dominance has upon the sex of deities and upon that of their chosen servants. In the case of the deities, we find that there is a uniform tendency which determines their sex under monosexual dominance. It may be formulated as a general law. As soon as a people has advanced sufficiently far to make deities for itself in human form, the inclination is in the Men's State to give the chief place to male divinities and in the Women's State to female divinities.

    Except in the case of those deities which are merely symbols of the sexual life, men have a preference for gods and women for goddesses. There are deep-seated psychological causes for these preferences. The spiritual ties that bind men to gods and women to goddesses are duplex. There is more intellectual confidence between two persons of the same sex than between two persons of opposite sexes. This is a psychological law of fundamental importance. The relationship of a human being to a deity is above all one of trust in that deity, and in its essence (except, of course, in the case

    Extremely instructive in its bearing upon the psychological law we are now considering is the following legend recorded by St. Augustine: -- "During the reign of King Cecrops a twofold miracle occurred. Simultaneously there sprouted from the ground an olive-tree, and there burst forth from another place a spring of water. The king, greatly alarmed, sent to Delphi to ask the meaning of the portent and to seek counsel. The god answered that the olive-tree signified Minerva, the water Neptune. It was for the citizens to decide which of the two signs to accept, and after which of the two deities they would name their city. Cecrops thereupon summoned a citizens' meeting, consisting both of men and women, for it was then the custom for the women to take part in the public assemblies. The men voted for Neptune, the women for Minerva." We see that the men were unanimously in favour of a god, and

[1] De Civitate Dei, xviii, 9.

    Cumont[3] gives several instances of the religious predilection of women for goddesses and of men for gods. "Isis and Cybele found in women their most enthusiastic and generous supporters, those who were their most zealous propagandists, whereas the adherents of Mithra were almost exclusively men." Cumont, however, failed to recognise that the sex of the deity determined the preferences of the male and the female devotees. He imagined that the attraction exercised, in the one case upon men, and in the other case upon women, depended upon the nature of the religion. Writing of the cults of Isis and Cybele, he says that they aroused feelings and brought consolations which made them especially congenial to women, whereas men turned rather to Mithra for the sake of the rude discipline his worship imposed. This explanation fails to go to the psychological root of the matter; it is purely superficial. Besides, the worship of Isis in Rome involved a discipline no less rude and onerous than that of the Mithra cult. Juvenal[4] relates that the devotee of Isis had to bathe in mid-winter in the chill waters of

[2] The use of the Latin names by Augustine, Neptune for Poseidon, and Minerva for Pallas Athena, partly conceals the significance of the episode. The influence of the women was preponderant, for the new city was called Athens. -- Of course there is another version of the legend. In this, while the olive represents Athena, Poseidon strikes the ground with his trident and a horse emerges. Athena and Poseidon are vying with each other which shall produce a gift more useful to mankind, and the council of the gods decides that the olive is more useful than the horse. Hence the name of Athens is chosen. But perhaps this version is a Men's-State gloss! -- TRANSLATORS' NOTE.

[3] Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, 1906.

[4] XI, 537.

    Very characteristic is the fact that the religion of the Magna Mater (Rhea, Cybele) was brought to Rome by women, that is to say through the vaticinations of the sibyls. Herodotus[5] reports that the temple of Athena at Lindos was built by the daughters of Danaos, when they landed there upon their flight. He also tells us that Ladike, the wife of Amasis, when in great trouble, made a vow to a goddess in order to secure a boon. In both cases, therefore, women had recourse to deities of their own sex.

    To a large extent men were excluded from the worship of feminine deities. The men of Lapland were not allowed to participate in the sacrificial rites performed by the women in honour of the goddess Sagarakka. We note the same thing in the case of the Thesmophoria, the festival in honour of Demeter celebrated in late autumn at various places in Hellas. In classical Rome special services were held by women in honour of the Bona Dea. In many cases males were forbidden to enter the sanctuary of a goddess. At Catana in Sicily there was a shrine of Demeter where men were never allowed to set foot. At Megalopolis in Arcadia was a temple dedicated to Persephone to which women had access at all times, but men only once a year. Poets have intuitively recognised this peculiar and sexually determined relationship of confidence between men and gods and between women and goddesses respectively. Aristophanes, for example, in Lysistrata

[5] III, 182.

    Thus we find that in the case both of men and of women, the votaries of religion do not give their perfect trust to deities unless these are of their own sex. A divinity of the opposite sex from the worshipper tends to arouse a sexually tinged emotion, and the worship of such a deity is either a sexual cult or else stands on the border-line between strictly religious worship and a sexual cult. The religious sentiments in such cases serve as a mask for the sexual instinct. When we call to mind the ecstatic mysteries celebrated by women in honour of Dionysos, we remember how they tended to degenerate into sexual frenzy. As a counterpart, we may recall the orgies of the Gaulish men in honour of the Magna Mater. In a paroxysm of sexual enthusiasm, the worshipper would sometimes offer up his manhood as a sacrifice to the goddess.

    Religion, centring as it does in a human personification of one sort or another, naturally tends to arouse the idea that the best way of winning the favour of the deity is to imitate the deity's behaviour, to mould the worshipper's conduct upon the conduct of the object of adoration.[6] Thereby men and women are impelled by a psychological determinism to worship at the shrine of a deity which is masculine in the case of the male worshipper and feminine in the case of the female. This is because the worshipper can far more closely imitate a deity of his or her own sex. In youth, therefore, the season of life when religious influences are exceptionally powerful, it is quite common for Pro-

[6] Cf. Cumont, op. cit., p. 59.

    Inasmuch as, under the guidance of purely religious sentiments, the members of both sexes will incline to prefer deities of the dominant sex, under monosexual dominance such deities will always hold the first rank (except in so far as the deities are sexual symbols). The ruling sex, having the power to diffuse its own outlooks, tends to generalise its specific ideology. Should the trends of the subordinate sex run counter, they are likely to be suppressed all the more forcibly in proportion as they diverge from those of the dominant sex and in proportion as the power of the dominant sex is more overwhelming. The result is that the hegemony of male deities is usually associated with the dominance of men, and the hegemony of female deities with the dominance of women.

    This predominance of the deities that are of the same sex as that which holds sway is not exclusively

    The awe-inspiring qualities of the godhead reinforce the tendency to make the divinities beings of the sex which dominates on earth. When the godhead is a symbol of the qualities that inspire dread, and when the deity is the wielder of power, it is given the sex of those who wield real power on earth and who therefore inspire more dread than the members of the subordinate sex.

    When there is a transference of dominion from one

[7] In the case of kingship different factors are at work, although at first sight the psychological determinants might seem the same. We shall see later that the reality of kingly power makes all the difference.

    On the other hand, whichever sex rules, there is a strong tendency to create gods of both sexes. It is true that the dominant sex aims at making the deities of its own sex dominant in heaven, and the ruling sex on earth has power to ensure that this shall be so. But religious need is usually stronger in members of the subordinate sex, and the religious need of the subordinate sex (except when it takes a purely sexual turn) is directed towards deities of its own sex. The result is that the dominance of deities of the ruling sex is persistently imperilled by the rivalry of deities of the other sex, deities which are continually being pushed to the front by the strong religious sensibilities of the members of the subordinate sex. The predominance of deities of the dominant sex is not secure unless monosexual dominance is absolute. This is the explanation of an association which, as we shall see, is very common: the association of monosexual absolutism with monotheism or henotheism.

    A further complication ensues from the way in which the sexual instinct leads men and women to create sexual divinities which are of the opposite sex to the creators. We have a historic instance of a change in the sex of a deity as the outcome of a change in mono-

    There are additional but indirect indications of these changes in sex. According to Erman,[10] the dress of the male deities of Egypt resembles a woman's dress that has been turned up at the bottom. Perhaps this may signify that these gods were at one time goddesses, and that to facilitate the transformation the feminine dress was retained. There are also deities which have not merely feminine dress and masculine beards, but are definitely depicted as bisexual. They exhibit the sexual characters of both sexes, most of them having a woman's breasts and a man's beard. Various unsatisfactory theories have been brought forward to account for the origin of these hermaphrodite deities. Our own researches suggest that they are products of the transition between the two types of monosexual dominance. In the gradual adaptation of the sex of the deity to the changing type of sexual dominance in social life, one of the sexual characters was modified while the other was left intact. The goddess Istar seems at a certain stage to have been a bisexual deity of this kind.[11] The Nile is also personified by a bisexual figure with breasts and beard. Similar depictions are even to be found in the case of Christian saints. The reader

[8] Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, Parthey's ed., p. 153.

[9] Cf. Gruppe, Die griechischen Culte und Mythen, etc.

[10] Op. cit., vol. ii, p. 357.

[11] Cf. Jeremias, Das alte Testament, p. 38.

    In many cases the deities outlive the monosexual dominance whose product they are without experiencing any transformation. This happens especially when the new type of sexual dominance preserves a strong imprint of sexual equality. We may take Athens as an example. Bachofen has proved that here in very early days women held sway. Excavations have shown that the earliest pre-Homeric deities were for the most part feminine.[13] Athena was the most important of these. Later, in the days of masculine dominance, Athena remained the leading deity, the protectress of the city. Her predominance is still conspicuous in Homer's Iliad, for the side on which Athena fights is victorious. In the contest described by Homer between Athena and Ares, the goddess gets the better even of the god of war. This maintenance of the leading position by the goddess who had been supreme during the dominance of women is probably explicable on the supposition that later, when men had become dominant, women still exercised considerable influence, and that this enabled Athena to make headway against the competition of the male deities. There was still extant in the Attic Men's State a law by which, in certain circumstances, women as well as men were called upon to vote. As

[12] A "local saint," i.e., the object of profound local veneration, but not officially canonised. St. Kümmernis, also known as St. Wilgefortis (perhaps a corruption of "virgo fortis") and as St. Gehilfen, is worshipped especially in South Germany and Tyrol. She was, according to the legend, the daughter of a heathen king who had vowed herself to the service of Christ. Being troubled with suitors, she prayed for some change in her appearance which would scare away the wooers, and was vouchsafed a beard as an effectual deterrent. -- TRANSLATORS' NOTE.

[13] Cf. G. Koch, Lehrbuch der Geschichte, Altertum, p. 42.

    Interesting in this connexion is a remark by Rosa Mayreder[14] to the effect that the Holy Ghost was originally feminine. Since the purely religious sentiment of human beings tends to be concentrated in men upon gods and in women upon goddesses, we often find under monosexual dominance that the supreme deity belongs to the dominant sex, but that there are many minor deities of the subordinate sex. The origin and preservation of deities of the subordinate sex is facilitated when the religious sensibilities have a sexual admixture. Such an admixture lessens the resistance of the dominant sex to the introduction of deities of the subordinate sex into the pantheon.

    In Babylon at the time of Hammurabi, this being an epoch when men were apparently dominant but when women seem to have been advancing towards a position of equal rights, there were always temples and oblations for deities of both sexes. The letters of Hammurabi show that feminine deities were worshipped as goddesses of victory.[15] They must lead the army to

[14] Zur Kritik der Weiblichkeit, p. 266.

[15] King, The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.

    In Syria and Phoenicia, feminine deities occupy the foremost place. In Byblos, the chief object of worship was the great goddess Ba'alat. There was also a male divinity, Adonis, addressed as "My Lord."[16] Syria is pre-eminently the home of Astarte, and there is hardly any other country where religion is so strongly tinged with sexuality.

    In Carthage, likewise, a city said to have been founded by a Phoenician queen, feminine divinity takes precedence of masculine. Winckler writes that the chief temples of Juno-Astarte and Apollo-Esnum were consecrated in the citadel of Carthage. Unfortunately, the historical traditions that have come down to us concerning the Phoenicians are scanty. Gfrörer's view that the Phoenicians turned the men into women and the women into men throws a clear light on the dominance of women. The interchange of sex rôles, the reversal of feminine and masculine types, is an unmistakable criterion of a phase of social life in which women are dominant.

    Cumont describes the predominance of Cybele, the Magna Mater, in Asia Minor. Beside her was a god named Attis who was regarded as her husband. In religious worship, however, the wife took the place of

[16] Cf. Meyer, op. cit., vol. i, 2, p. 426.

    Though our information concerning the religion of ancient Egypt is copious, we are hazy about many points. There were deities of both sexes. With the possible exception of certain local divinities, the goddesses appear to have ranked higher than the gods. In especial we find that Diodorus[18] reports the absolute supremacy of the goddess Isis. She ruled her spouse Osiris. For Diodorus, this supremacy of the goddess was the cause of the supremacy of the queens of Egypt over the kings, and of Egyptian wives in general over Egyptian husbands. Diodorus' own religious sentiments made him believe that the position of the goddess was the determinant of the position of the human beings who were of the same sex as herself. But to us, who look upon the gods and the goddesses as creatures of the human spirit, it seems obvious that Diodorus is confusing cause and effect. The goddess Isis is supreme because women are dominant in social life. It is noteworthy, none the less, that Diodorus should have recognised a causal relationship between the two phenomena.

    Some additional evidence of the predominant position of the goddesses in the Egyptian pantheon may be given. Important in this connexion is the fact previously mentioned that the male deities should take their style of dress from the female. The gods which are seeking recognition must make themselves resemble the authenticated goddesses as closely as possible. The oldest Egyptian deity is the goddess Neith or Nut. Neithotep, wife of one of the first kings of Egypt, had

[17 Op. cit., pp. 138 et seq.

[18] I, 27.

    The primal deity, procreative energy, fundamental

[19] Another very early Egyptian deity is a god, Min of Koptos. Three colossal limestone statues of this divinity are extant. The images have huge erect penises, and this indicates that the god was definitely sexual in his attributes. Moreover, the fact that this sexual deity is masculine indicates that women were dominant. The god Ammon of Thebae is also depicted with an erect penis. It seems probable, therefore, that the male deities of the Egyptians were originally phallic, and that this is why they found a place in the pantheon during the days when women were dominant.

[20] Op. Cit., p. 29.

[21] Brugsch, Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter, pp. 58 and 144, et seq.

    In ancient Egypt the feminine divine principle took

[22] Brugsch, op. cit., pp. 108 et seq.

    On several occasions predominance over the male deities is expressly ascribed to Isis. She is invariably named before her spouse Osiris in the ancient records. In a complaint Isis brings against Osiris, the goddess says: "Thy wife is thy protectress."[24] The matter is made even plainer in an old inscription reported by Brugsch, which runs as follows: "Isis the Great, Mother of God, Mistress of Tentyra in the temple of Au, the Golden, was born in the city of Golden, Pinubut, the birth of her brother Osiris took place in Thebae, that of her son Horus in Ous, and that of her sister Nephtys in the city of Little Diospolis." Thus Isis stands in the very centre of the stage; she is the head of the family, around whom are grouped her brother and spouse Osiris, her son, and her sister. In a record belonging to the Ptolemaic era we still read of "the Great Isis, the Mother of the Gods."[25]

    When the religion of Egypt won to influence in

[23] Isis and Osiris, 9.

[24] V. von Strauss, Altägyptischer Götterglaube, vol. i, p. 128.

[25] Erman and Krebs, op. cit., p. 117.

    There is much conflict of opinion among Egyptologists concerning the Egyptian deities and their relative importance. A comparison of the writings of Brugsch with those of Schneider suffices to convince the reader of this. Doubtless the discrepancies are partly dependent upon the uncertainty of the data. But the main cause is that students of Egyptian lore have hitherto had no inkling of the principle of monosexual dominance and of its significance in relation to the process of god-making. The bearing of the dominance of women upon the mythology of Egypt was not recognised, and could not be recognised, because the investigators' vision was subjectively restricted by their familiarity with the opposite type of monosexual dominance. Once more we have a plain indication of the way in which blindness to the influences operative in the Women's State results from the Men's-State ideology of the observer. Typical in this respect are the differing opinions concerning the importance of the feminine deities voiced in the respective works of Brugsch, published in 1888, and Schneider, published in 1907. Brugsch speaks of the gods and the goddesses of ancient Egypt as coequal in rank. He states in set terms that according to the Egyptians the divine energy immanent in the primal matter of the universe was both male and female, and that the creative rôle was ascribed by them to deities of both sexes. He quotes from Horapollon a passage to show that this view prevailed in Egypt from very early days. Horapollon

[26] Schneider, Op. cit., pp. 548 et seq.

    Schneider is a typical Men's-State investigator. In his study of Egyptian religious lore he practically confines his attention to the male deities. The goddesses are mentioned only in passing, so that a reader who has no independent knowledge of the subject would naturally infer that their position was altogether subordinate to that of the gods. We encounter in the picture presented by this author the characteristic lineaments of monosexual masculine absolutism; the Egyptian traditions, with their Women's-State atmosphere, are transmogrified into Men's-State traditions. Whereas all the ancient records, and even Plutarch, who flourished about a century after the birth of Christ, invariably name Isis before Osiris, Schneider no less invariably reverses the order.[28] He goes so far as to imply that Isis is a mere appendage to Osiris, for he writes: "The need for pairing has led to her being placed by Osiris' side."[29] He refers in several places to this inclination to form pairs, and says that in the Old Kingdom at the time of Narmer there were at least two gods having human shape, Min and Hathor. In the Osiris cycle, he says, the gods are invariably paired.[30] Although he thus faintly indicates the tendency to equivalence, in general he alludes solely to male deities -- and the phrase "the Osiris cycle" is, in-

[27] Brugsch, op. cit., p. 114.

[28] Cf. pp. 156, 324, 407, 548, etc.

[29] Op. cit., p. 407.

[30] Ibid., pp. 348, 413.

    Nevertheless, Isis' precedence over Osiris has been often expressly recognised by recent investigators. Bachofen tells us that Egypt is the land where the dominance of women became stereotyped, and that all the culture of the country was based upon the precedence of Isis over Osiris. He also points out that consecration to Isis took place before the initiation into the Osiris mysteries. Jablonski[31] holds the same view, writing: "Isis takes precedence of Osiris as an object of adoration. We see the same thing in the subsequent diffusion of the Isis cult in the Roman Empire."

    Autocracy or predominance of female divinities is reported in the case of many other Women's States. The Iroquois had no gods, but only goddesses. In Crete, goddesses occupied the premier place, and Demeter was of Cretan origin. Weinhold[32] tells us that among the ancient Teutons the Norris ranked high above the other deities. At a later date they came to be regarded as merely prophetesses or witches, the change being presumably due to a waning of feminine dominance. According to Sayce,[33] among the Hittites, who showed a strong Women's-State trend, the supreme deity was of the female sex. The Kamchadales[34] worshipped two deities, one male and one female. The latter was regarded as a superior being to the former. Kutka, the male deity, was derided as clumsy and stupid. It was his fault that the world had

[31] Pantheon Aegyptiorum, p. 99.

[32] Die deutschen Frauen in dern Mittelalter, p. 42.

[33] The Hittites, 1892.

[34] Cf. Meiners, Vermischte philosophische Schriften, vol. i, p, 167.

    Just as in Women's States the leading place is usually given to a goddess, so in Men's States a god ordinarily occupies the chief position. This trend is especially conspicuous when a new religion comes into being in a community where Men's-State institutions are already firmly established. In such a case a male deity is given unmistakable precedence over all the goddesses. Often enough, indeed, the latter tend to vanish from the scene, so that a god becomes the one and only deity. Attempts have frequently been made to represent monotheism as a product of advance in civilisation and general intelligence. Our information regarding two of the most highly civilised nations known to history, the Egyptian and the Greek, conflicts with this theory. During the days of their highest development, the Greeks and the Egyptians were polytheists, and their deities were of both sexes. Nevertheless the Greek civilisation seems to have attained a supremely high level.

    It is probable that various causes have contributed to the growth of monotheism and henotheism. Among these causes, exalted motives predominate, but monosexual dominance was unquestionably a contributory and important cause, which has hitherto been overlooked. The dominant sex inclines to give the first rank to a deity of its own sex. This superior rank is most effectively secured when there is only one divine being, whose sex of course is that of those who are dominant in the social sphere, for there is no better way of ensuring against attempts on the part of deities of the other sex to push their way to the front.

    It is a demonstrable fact that monotheism has always taken its rise during the phase of monosexual dominance, and the invariability of this sequence suggests a causal relationship. Monosexual dominance is the cause, monotheism the effect. Monotheism cannot take root except upon the soil of monosexual dominance. This is shown by the history of all the great monotheistic religions. The ancient records show that Moses was the first to introduce the worship of one God among the Jews. He is supposed to have lived about 1300 B.C. At this time masculine dominance was already established among the Jews, as the Mosaic code of laws plainly shows. It is true that among these laws we find an admixture of Women's-State notions, for Moses drew from old sources as well as from new; but the Men's-State trends predominate.

    Even stronger were the Men's-State trends in the days of Mohammed. That is why in Mohammedanism we find that women's title to enter the religious community is disputed on the ground that women probably have no souls.

    Christ did not create a new monotheism. He merely gave a new content to the extant Judaic monotheism. In Christianity we have to make a sharp distinction between the aims of Christ, the founder of the religion, and those of Paul, the most active of its apostles. Christ's whole teaching shows him to have been an advocate of equal rights for the sexes. Paul, on the other hand, had a Men's-State mentality. We should have known this if the only one of his

    The contrast in this respect between Christ and Paul may be dependent upon the outstanding endowments of the former. It may, however, be due to the fact that the two men derived from racial stocks in different phases of monosexual development. In the times of Christ, the Jews were certainly far from having established equality of rights for the sexes, but there seem to have been traces of a Women's-State complexion about the régime of King Herod. There are two historical incidents bearing on this view. First of all, Herod's sister Salome divorced her husband Costobar -- a purely Women's-State procedure, like that of any ancient Egyptian wife. Reitzenstein[35] points out that this is the only instance known to us in Jewish history in which the initiative in divorce was taken by the wife. He quotes Josephus, who declares that the action was contrary to the Mosaic Law. In the Men's State, only the husband is entitled to seek divorce. Secondly, the legendary massacre of the innocents belongs to the time of Herod. In this massacre the victims were all boys. We have already learned that when infanticide and the mutilation of children are practised, the members of the dominant sex escape. The infanticide of boys is characteristic

[35] Op. Cit., p. 102.

    Nevertheless, we must not forget that the differing ideologies of Christ and Paul may have been purely individual. The greater the genius, the more complete is emancipation from the reign of custom. Invariably, therefore, we find that in the teaching of persons of great genius, in the teaching of those whose minds are detached from the epoch in which they happen to live, there is a powerful inclination to give expression to the demand for equal rights.[36] The reader need think only of Plato, Goethe, and Kant. Plato devotes a whole section of his teaching to this matter of equal rights. Goethe, reversing the customary Men's-State demand that women shall be subordinate to men, insists that it is the business of men to obey.[37] Kant, in his Athropologie, expressly declares that the two sexes are equal in intelligence; he even goes so far as to compare women with the king and man with the king's minister. Paul was certainly a lesser genius than Christ. He may have excelled Christ in will power, but did not do so in understanding.

[36] In a later work, the authors hope to show that the establishment of equal rights for the sexes will betoken the highest phase in the evolution of mankind.

[27] Chapter and verse will be given in the work mentioned in the foregoing note.

    The Men's-State imprint stamped by Paul on the Christian religion has been a hindrance to its spread among many peoples who were in a different phase of development. The Men's-State Judaico-Christian monotheistic creed has only been able to make headway against bisexual polytheism by concessions to the latter. The plurality of the gods reappeared in the hierarchy of the saints. Above all, there developed the cult of the Virgin Mary, in whose person the feminine divine principle was reincorporated.

    In Germany, when the dominance of men had entirely replaced the phase of equal rights, favourable conditions had been established for the efforts of the Reformation to abolish the widespread polytheism which took the f orm of the cult of the saints. Protestantism is especially contrasted with Catholicism by the stressing of monotheism characteristic of the reformed faith, for the Reformation would never have been possible had not masculine dominance been intensified almost to absolutism. Were it not that by the time of the Reformation the influence of women had greatly dwindled in comparison with their influence in the days when Christianity was founded, it would have been impossible to degrade the Virgin Mary (the incorporation of the feminine divine principle) to the insignificant position she occupies in the Protestant faith to-day.

    As regards ancient Egypt, some Egyptologists contend that monotheism prevailed there in the very earliest times.[38] In view of the well-marked feminine dominance of those days, the opinion is not improbably correct.

    Monotheism, however, is not a necessary conse-

[38] Gruppe, op. cit., p. 502.

    The way in which the sex of deities is interconnected with the religious predilections of the worshippers explains why there have apparently been hardly any women among the founders of religion. Very various reasons for this have been adduced.[40] But the main and hitherto unrecognised reason is that all the history of religions, like history in general, either relates to the Men's-State epoch, or else has been written by Men's-State investigators. Just as, in the Men's State, but little information has come down to us concerning

[39] Cf. the periodical "Neues Leben," edited by Dr. Ernst Hunkel.

[40] Cf. Havelock Ellis. Man and Women.

    Obviously, the Men's State is an unfavourable environment for the work of a woman founder of religion. A woman who should found a religion would, generally speaking, make a feminine deity the centre of that religion. Since, however, men, like women, prefer deities of their own sex, the dominant males would be disinclined to accept the new woman-made religion -- and the attitude of the dominant sex is decisive as to the chances a new religion has of making its way. Even if in the Men's State there be just as many women as men with a talent for founding religions, very few religions will, in practical experience, be founded in the Men's State, seeing that the psychology of the dominant sex will, in the case of women, deprive the talent of scope for exercise.

    This explains, moreover, why the male founders of religion, with their doctrine of a male deity, address themselves especially to men, whereas women, preaching a female deity, address themselves rather to women. The founder of a religion finds that the members of his or her own sex are those most inclined to accept and to spread the new doctrine. As regards the male founders of religion, proof of this statement would be superfluous. We have much less evidence concerning female founders of religion. In view of

    It seems probable, therefore, that women, in the days of their dominance, were also energetic founders of religions.

    In this connexion, an interesting parallel may be drawn between the Men's State and the Women's State in the religious domain. We find that the history of the creation is influenced in its various versions by monosexual dominance. The legend that Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs is a typical product of Men's-State ideology. According to the Younger Edda,[42] the gods created men and women

[41] I, 171.

[42] Scherr, Geschichte der deutschen Frauen, p. 79.

    We have similar reversals of sex rôles in the legends of unions between gods and mortals. In the Women's State we are told of the union between a female deity and a mortal of the male sex. Such stories have been preserved in ancient saga. In the Men's-State versions, on the other hand, we read, as in Genesis (vi. 2-4) : "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and. . . . when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

   THE sex of priests in the Women's State and in the Men's State seems closely connected with the sex of the leading deities, but despite careful investigation we have been unable to discover the existence of any definite tendency. Of course, it does not follow that no such tendency exists. All that any one is entitled to assert is that, if there be a fundamental tendency, it must be less strongly developed than that which manifests itself in the case of the sex of deities; or else, that history and tradition are so defective in this respect that the tendency is irrecognisable. Moreover, in these investigations concerning the problems of the Men's State and the Women's State, great difficulties arise because (both for psychological and historical reasons) we are rarely if ever able to decide the precise point at which, in the history of a particular people, the dominance of one sex ends and that of the other begins. We have in fact learned that between two epochs of monosexual dominance, masculine and feminine respectively, there always intervenes a phase of sex equality. For this reason, the transformation of the manners and customs typical of

[1] The authors use the word "Priester" as of common gender, distinguishing in case of need between "weibliche" and "männliche" Priester. We have found it convenient to follow them in the English rendering, using "priest" as of common gender, and distinguishing in case of need between "male" priests and "female" priests. -- TRANSLATORS' NOTE.

    As regards the particular problem we are now considering, that of the sex of priests, we lack precise evidence to show that the sex of the priesthood was determined by monosexual dominance. There have been peoples whose priests were all males, peoples whose priests were all females, and peoples whose priests were of both sexes. But there is no definite correspondence in either of the two former cases between the sex of the priesthood and that of the dominant sex; nor do we find, when priests are of both sexes, that this has a necessary connexion with the phase of equal sexual rights.

    Among the Pampas Indian tribes, which are now extinct, there were only female priests.[2] In Formosa, likewise, there was a tribe whose priests were all women. The Mandayas of the Philippines, too, would have no male priests.[3] Unfortunately we have no information as to which sex was dominant in any of these cases. Among some of the tribes of northern Asia, and also in ancient Mexico, female priests predominated. But in these cases, as well, we lack information as to the type of sexual dominance that prevailed. Christianity, during the days when the domi-

[2] Platz, Die Völker der Erde, vol. ii, p. 82.

[3] Jaeckel, op. cit., p. 32.

    Where the priesthood comprised both sexes, Christianity at the outset followed the native example. This was the case in Germany and also in Rome. In the days of Charlemagne, female priests still officiated at Rome in the Christian church. We know that Alcuin begged the arch-priestess Damoeta in Rome to take active measures in order to heal the schisms in the church.[4] When St. Boniface wished to spread the Christian faith in Germany, he called in the aid of women, presumably because the Germans were used to the ministrations of female priests. Thus he requested the abbess Thekla to preach publicly in church. We see that the Pauline prescription, "Let your women keep silence in the churches," was disregarded by Boniface, the great missionary, when he found that it was discordant with the spirit of the people he was trying to convert. At the present time, women are again making their way into the priesthood. According to Max Hirsch,[5] in the year 1900 there were already in the United States 3,405 female ministers of religion.

    The obverse to this parallelism between masculine dominance and masculine priesthood in Christianity, is to be found among the Wabuna, a Congo tribe. According to Mense[6] the Wabuna were under the dominance of women, having women chiefs and only women as priests.

[4] Klemm, Die Frauen, vol. iv, p. 37.

[5] Ueber das Frauenstudium "Archiv für Frauenkunde," 1919.

[6] Quoted by Schurtz, Urgeschichte der Kultur, p. 125.

    Turning to ancient Egypt, we find, that, as far as the very earliest times are concerned, those in which the dominance of women was most thoroughly established, details as to the sex of the priests are unfortunately lacking. In later days there were priests of both sexes; for instance, all the members of the royal family were priests, regardless of sex. Numerous mummies of high priests both male and female have been disinterred. Although to-day, when the dominance of men is almost universal, it is hardly less universal to restrict the priesthood to males, it would be erroneous to infer that, speaking generally, the entry into the priesthood has been reserved for members of the dominant sex. The enquirer need merely turn to Rome, where, during the days when male hegemony was absolute, women could act as high priests. Among the Celtae, on the other hand, concerning whom there are definite indications that they lived under the dominance of women, male soothsayers officiated as high priests.[7] Strabo also informs us concerning the oracle of Dodona, that originally the soothsayers had been men, but later were women. Now in the days when women priests were delivering these oracles, the dominance of men seems to have prevailed in Epirus, whereas primitively it is probable that women held sway there. Here, then would be another instance in which the priests did not belong to the dominant sex.

    Jaeckel has drawn attention to the remarkable fact that, despite the great diversities among religions, there is one trait which is generally shared by male priests. For the most part their dress and their way of doing the hair has a markedly feminine stamp. The medicine men of Patagonia were always dressed

[7] Strabo, iv, 6,

    The same thing strikes us as regards the way in which male priests dress their hair. Herodotus says that among the priests of all the nations known to him, the custom was, except only in the case of the Egyptians, to wear the hair long.[8] In connexion with the feminine attire of the Egyptian gods, we pointed out that these male deities had probably undergone a change of sex, but had retained feminine attire so that the common people might not be too abruptly made aware of the change of sex. It seems possible that the feminine attire of male priests can be explained on similar grounds. These male priests may have had female predecessors. The retention of feminine attire would in that case be a deference to the externals with which the common people were familiar.

    When a monosexual priesthood officiates for worshippers of both sexes, there is always danger that the religion will unwittingly invade the sexual sphere. A mingling of sexuality and religion takes place. Such mingling introduces psychological complications into all the manifestations in this field, inasmuch as it veils intrinsic religion with the ambiguities of a sexually tinged piety or of a religious sexuality.

[8] Here is further proof, if proof be needed, that when men leave their hair uncut, it will grow just as long as women's. But there are still many pundits who believe that a man's hair has less inclination to grow long than a woman's!

   KINGSHIP and chieftainship are found both in Men's States and in Women's States. The general assumption has hitherto been that in a Men's State, a man, and in a Women's State, a woman, will wield the royal power. At the first glance this psychological principle seems in such perfect harmony with monosexual dominance that we are inclined to regard it as the only possible one. Monarchical authority embodies the supreme power in the State, and we feel as if this power must necessarily be wielded by a member of the dominant sex.

    Among many peoples we do in fact find that the monarch is a member of the dominant sex, and the frequency of this experience has confirmed the idea that such an association is inevitable. We need offer no proof of the assertion that in Men's States the right to wield monarchical power is often restricted to men, and it will suffice to refer to counterparts in Women's States. In the kingdom of Attinga, where women held sway, it was a fundamental law that none but women could ascend the throne (Meiners). The Wabuna on the Congo were under feminine dominance, and all their chiefs were women (Schurtz). Reitzenstein says that in Khyria gynecocracy was associated with matriarchy, so that here the chief priestess was at the same time the supreme political authority. The

    Nevertheless, whether under the dominance of men or under the dominance of women, monarchical rule may take a form which, as far as sex is concerned, seems to conflict with the psychology of monosexual dominance. In the case of not a few peoples we learn that the monarch, or at any rate the person who incorporated the highest political dignity in the State, was a member of the subordinate sex. In reality, however, such a custom, despite its seeming discordance with all the trends of monosexual dominance, is an outcome of this dominance. The monarchy, as the supreme power in the State, is often regarded by the magnates of a country as a menace to their own power. When such a notion prevails, they endeavour to check the tendency of monarchical power to become absolute, by appointing as monarch a member of the subordinate sex. In many instances we are definitely

    Thus on the one hand we may find monosexual dominance pushed to an extreme where it is taken as a matter of course that the monarch shall be a member of the dominant sex. Conversely we may find that a dread of the abuse of monarchical authority carries the day. In that event the royal power is entrusted to a member of the subordinate sex.

    Meiners[1] informs us that some of the earlier nations of America, "among whom women were despised and ill-treated, nevertheless appointed women as their ostensible rulers." He says that this choice of women as monarchs is referable to the mutual jealousies of the nobles, who were unwilling to concede the royal dignity to any one of their number, and therefore preferred to entrust it to a woman as less likely to restrict their powers. Meiners[2] says the same thing concerning the inhabitants of the East Indies and concerning those of the South Sea Islands. Although in domestic life they despised and oppressed women, they had women as rulers, or at least honoured certain women as queens.

    As a counterpart to these Men's States in which women were monarchs, we find Women's States in which men were chieftains or kings. Among the Iroquois in the days of the dominance of women, the choice of ruler was entirely in the women's hands. They chose a prince, and Morgan tells us that they were careful to avoid appointing the most efficient among their men lest he should secure too much power

[1] Geschichte, vol. i, p. 53; History vol. i, p. 44.

[2] Geschichte, vol. i, p. 100; History, vol. i, p. 85.

    In Sparta the monarchical authority was wielded by men at a time when the predominance of women prevailed. A passage in Aristotle's writings shows clearly that the Spartan women exercised the leadership in political matters, for he says that the Lacedæmonians owed most of their institutions in the days of their supremacy to women. He also writes: "Contentious and warlike nations such as the Lacedæmonians are always under women's rule." The political power of the Spartan women is shown by a passage in Plutarch's life of Agis, which proves that the women exercised the powers of aristocracy as well as those of democracy. "The women decided in favour of Agis (who wished to re-establish equality; but others turned to Leonidas, in order that he might countermine the plans of Agis, for these women saw that equality was a menace to their prestige, their power, and their wealth. . . . Subsequently the mass of the people

    We have also records of peoples among which, at least for certain periods, the supreme authority was vested in a duarchy consisting of a man and a woman. In the case of the Hittites there is definite evidence that the king and the queen ruled as equals. We referred on page 156 to the silver tablet recording the treaty of 1290 B.C. between the Hittites and the Egyptians. The pictures on the tablet indicate that the Hittite king and the Hittite queen were co-equal in position as representatives of their nation. According to Müller-Lyer, among the Ashantis a queen ruled the women subjects while her brother held sway over the males. In the Pelew Islands, where political power was vested in the women, the actual rulers of the community were a pair of chieftains, one male and the other female. Among the Wyandots (Hurons), the women were likewise supreme in political matters. They elected chieftains of both sexes, with a marked preponderance of women, for every tribal council consisted of forty-four females and eleven males. Here, again, we see the obverse of the distribution of political power with which we are familiar in our own land.

    According to Waitz[4] among the Micronesians the supreme ruler was a woman, but subordinate to her were male chiefs. When disputes arose among the chiefs, the decision of the queen was final, and she also had the last word in questions of war and peace. Her authority was that of an absolute monarch. Among

[3] Schulte-Vaerting, op. cit., pp. 181 et seq.

[4] Op. Cit., vol. v, p. 123.

    Seeing that, in less than a thousand years, a right confirmed by written history, the right of women to share in the monarchical power, can be so utterly forgotten in the land where that right prevailed, we have a standard by which to measure the amount of credence to be given to modern reports of foreign monarchical institutions dating sometimes from thousands of years back. For centuries the records of history and tradition have been passing through the filter of masculine dominance, and this has -- we might almost say, perforce -- tended to extract from the stream all the details disharmonious with the dominance of men. Concurrently with a change in sex dominance, there occurs something more than a change in the mutual relationships of the sexes, and something more than a change in their physiological and mental constitutions. We find also that historical records undergo modification to adapt them to the new conditions.

    These trends must always be taken into account in our study of Egyptian lore. There has come down to us a certain amount of definite evidence to show that the queens of Egypt had more power than the kings. We have already quoted Diodorus' statement that in Egypt the queen was more powerful than the king, and was more highly honoured. In documents of as late as the Ptolemaic age the queen is named before the king, for we read: "In the reign of Queen

[5] Cf. Klemm, op. cit., vol. iii, p, 265.

    Here is a practical instance of the monarchical authority of the queens in ancient Egypt. After the death of his queen, Thothmes I had to abdicate in favour of his daughter Hatshepsu. The latter took over the government, although her father had at least two sons of about the same age as herself

[6] Cf. Erman and Krebs, op. cit., p. 117.

[7] Op cit., vol. i, p. 165.

    According to Diodorus, Sesostris had two columns in honour of himself and his wife erected at Memphis. They were both of the same height, thirty ells in each case. The significance of this statement becomes obvious when we think of some of the monuments erected during the days of absolute monarchy in Prussia, the régime so recently overthrown. The monuments in the Siegesallee all commemorate the glories of the male Hohenzollerns; their wives being completely ignored. Even those queens who, according to the testimony of our own historians, greatly excelled their husbands in ability (we need only compare Queen Louise with Frederick William III) found no place beside their husbands in the Hohenzollern gallery. Legally, the queens had no share in the government, and were therefore unworthy to be represented side by side with the actual rulers. When we apply this experience to the interpretation of what Diodorus tells us concerning the pillars at Memphis, we may draw the conclusion that Sesostris and his wife shared equally in the royal power.

    A reference is in place here to the images of the Sphinx. Of late it has been suggested that these must have been male, but it is far more probable that they were memorials of the queens. Bearing on this theory we have to remember that "lioness" was a favourite term of endearment in Egypt.[8]

    A few examples may be given to show how potent the Men's-State influence has been, and still is, in obliterating the traces of the monarchical power of women in Egypt. It may be thought remarkable, in view of the extensive evidence we have adduced to

[8] Both in sport and in earnest, Egyptian women are often spoken of as the "lionesses of the Nile."

    Speaking generally, we find that names and inscriptions in the Egyptian records have been to a great extent modified or falsified, and in some cases have been actually erased. One instance of such falsification is worth recording here, since it bears an unmistakable Men's-State stamp. In the statues of Queen Hatshepsu the feminine robes have been changed into masculine attire in order to suggest that the images represented a male ruler -- presumably her successor Thothmes III. Her names, too, have been erased, and have been replaced by masculine names. Bolko

[9] The history of Cleopatra shows how strongly the Men's-State leaven was working in Ptolemaic Egypt, especially in this matter of the royal power. When her father Ptolemy Auletes died, she became queen, but only on condition that she married her younger brother Ptolemy, who was co-ruler. Wilkinson tells us that in monuments of a somewhat later date the name of her son Cæsarion is always associated with her own.

    We may mention in passing the characteristic fact that in the eyes of Men's-State historians it does not detract in any way from the repute and prestige of King Thothmes that he should have been (as is generally supposed) the initiator of the before-mentioned falsifications, which were the outcome of his desire after the death of his spouse and sister to take her glories to himself. But what would our Men's-State historians have thought of the matter, had Thothmes been a woman instead of a man? Let us suppose that a queen, after her husband's death, had cheated concerning his great deeds, had falsified the records so that the fame of their performance might accrue to herself. Would not this instance of petty jealousy have become proverbial?

    Erman exhibits similar Men's-State prejudices when he is writing of the Egyptian monarchs. He tells us that the queens were regarded as the mortal representatives of the goddess Nut. For this reason they were held in great veneration. "Sometimes the idea enhanced their political influence. Later, too, in the Saitan epoch, we find that these women are the nominal rulers of Thebae, and there is a good deal to show that once before, at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, they had held a similar position." Thus the female sovereigns of Thebae are spoken of

    Menes, or Mena, is spoken of as the first king of the First Dynasty. There is just as much reason to describe his wife Neithotep as a supreme ruler, for her title as queen is mentioned quite as often as Menes' title as king, and her name appears more frequently than his. It was she who had a temple built in honour of the goddess Neith. Her mausoleum appears to have been far more splendid than her husband's.

    Schneider[10] is another instance. This authority openly expresses his Men's-State displeasure concerning the preponderant position of the queens. "Towards the close of the dynasty, Queen Teye, a woman of comparatively low birth, ruled over her husband and her son. The latter, Amenhotep IV, never appears without his wife. An amazing tendency to give the wife the same rights as the husband was leading to love marriages and to a sort of facultative monogamy." How can we expect that an investigator who regards as "amazing" the tendency to give women equal rights, should exhibit any understanding of the phases of women's dominance?

    Here is another example of the way in which Schneider's Men's-State prejudices cloud his judgment.

[10] Kultur und Denken der alten Aegypter, p. 17.

    The Men's-State tendency to falsify the record when evidence of female sovereignty offers itself, is manifest in relation to other lands besides Egypt. Let us consider, for example, the case of Semiramis, queen of Assyria. Whereas Herodotus and Diodorus report her doings without hesitation, Alexander Polyhistor initiated the tendency to attribute her exploits to male sovereigns. Modern historians incline, either to follow Alexander Polyhistor by adopting the Men's-State method of a transformation of sex, or else to relegate Semiramis' doings to the realm of fable. Meyer describes as "pure saga," the ascription to a woman of such a part as Semiramis is supposed to have played.

    Nevertheless, the historicity of this queen whom it had been proposed to banish to the twilight of fable has of late been rehabilitated by inscriptions and other discoveries. Thereupon our Men's-State pundits seek another way out of the difficulty. Although Semiramis

    A study of the special aptitudes of men and women, respectively, for reigning and ruling must be postponed to another book. John Stuart Mill, Fourier, and others, consider that women's capacity in this respect is superior to that of men. Platen goes so far as to say: "Ever and again women have founded powerful realms, for they excel men in wisdom." All that has been written in the present work must serve to emphasise the warning against being too ready to attribute differences between the sexes to inborn biological causes. Enough, for the nonce to remind the reader of this warning in connexion with any such assumption that women have by nature a peculiar gift for reigning and ruling.

   ACCORDING to current opinion concerning the special characteristics of the female sex, we should be inclined to expect that under the dominance of women society would exhibit an exceptionally powerful trend towards peace. History teaches, however, that, under the dominance of women, just as under the dominance of men, some States are pacifically inclined, whereas others are bellicose and prone to display a fondness for wars of conquest. The Egyptians, for example, were a most unwarlike people. In almost all works on Egypt we find direct references to the pacifist disposition of the Egyptians, and this especially applies to the Old Kingdom. Müller[1] says that the Old Kingdom did not make any of those great campaigns of conquest which have been the source of most of the geographical information we possess concerning early days. He considers that the Egyptians must have been less spirited than the Nubian negroes, his reason being that the Egyptians endured so many thrashings -- though he gives no proof of the latter assertion. Bolko Stern[2] expresses himself still more strongly. He writes: "We are entitled to maintain (and here we touch the chief weakness in the mentality of the ancient Egyptians) that they were unwarlike,

[1] Op. cit., p. 2.

[2] Aegyptische Kulturgeschichte, p. 28.

    It might seem natural to attribute to the dominance of women this disinclination of the Egyptians for war. But there are two excellent reasons for rejecting such a view.

    First of all, there have been Men's States which were averse from war. For instance, in the days of Julius Cæsar the ancient Britons were strongly inclined to peace. But we read in Hume's History of England that at this date the men were dominant among the Britons rather than the women.

    In the second place, and this is a decisive point, there have been Women's States in which the lust for war and the desire for conquest were unquestionably rife. The Libyans, who were under the dominance of women, were a most warlike people; so were the Ethiopians, whose queens led them to war. The Gagers, among whom women held sway, were also continually engaged in wars of conquest. The Spartans, again,

    We infer that monosexual dominance is not the decisive factor in rendering the disposition of a people warlike or peaceful. Nevertheless, it would seem that the more extreme forms of monosexual dominance, whether masculine or feminine, tend to favour the growth of a bellicose tendency. Perhaps the two most perfect instances of extreme monosexual dominance known to us are that of the Amazons as far as Women's States are concerned and that of the former realm of Prussia as far as Men's States are concerned.

    No Men's State ever enforced the dominance of men with the same perfection of absolutism as the legendary Amazons are said to have enforced the dominance of women. The Amazons went so far as practically to exclude men from the national life. They devoted themselves entirely to war and training for war. Their army consisted solely of women soldiers. To them men were merely embodiments of the procreative principle, whose existence must be tolerated in order to ensure a sufficiency of female offspring. Since the boys played no part in the national life, they were left to the fathers to take care of. Of course, in the former realm of Prussia, Men's-

    It is easy to understand why warlike propensities should become accentuated among peoples where monosexual dominance is carried to an extreme. Men have less sympathy for men, and women have less sympathy for women, than men have for women or women for men. The more exclusively power is vested in one sex, the more callous does the mentality of the dominant sex tend to become towards the horrors of war.

    The sex of the troops under monosexual dominance is worthy of further consideration. In some instances we find that monosexuality is strictly enforced in the army, whereas in other instances there are soldiers of both sexes. Moreover, whilst under monosexual dominance soldiers are more often of the dominant sex, this rule is not universal.

    Examples are familiar of the cases in which, now in Men's States and now in Women's States, the army is exclusively recruited from the dominant sex. In

    We cannot decide whether this participation of both sexes in military service is typical of the phase of equal rights. It is not uncommon to read of the two

[3] Germania. 18.

    There have also been peoples among which the troops consisted, mainly at least, of members of the subordinate sex. In Dahomey[5] the sovereign was a man, and men appear to have been dominant. The king had a bodyguard consisting of one hundred heavily armed warrior women and a large number of elephant huntresses. This force was commanded by a woman general. The army was for the most part

[4] Egyptological Researches, vol. ii, p. 175.

[5] Jaeckel, op. cit., pp. 111, 115

    Here is another striking point of similarity. These warrior women regarded men as cowards and weaklings. When reproaching one another for cowardice or weakness they would say: "You are a man." Herein we have a precise counterpart of the mentality of men soldiers. Every one knows that when one male warrior says to another, "You are a woman," the taunt of cowardice is implied.

    Among the Spartans the institutions of Dahomey were reversed. Women were dominant, but the fighters apparently were all males. The women seem to have participated in defensive operations, but not in hand-to-hand warfare. Plutarch, indeed, tells us that the Lacedæmonian women were no less valiant than the men, for they had the same title to honour. Nor must we forget that in this question of the existence of women warriors, as in so many others, Men's-State historians have been inclined to suppress or distort uncongenial details. In earlier days many

    Furthermore, in the land of Sesostris the prestige of women was great, and they were more highly honoured than men. According to Nymphodorus, Sesostris was the king who introduced the dominance of women into Egypt. He it was who, erecting columns in honour of his wife and himself, made the two columns of the same height. We are expressly told that when in danger he sought counsel of his wife and followed her advice. The epithet "womanish" could not therefore have had among the Egyptians of his day a derogatory Men's-State signification. When we recall, in addition, that the Egyptian women were spoken of as "lionesses," the credibility of the foregoing interpretation is still further reduced. The

    The deeds of women conquerors show that women can unfortunately exhibit a no less warlike disposition than men. Some women rulers have been fierce and bellicose, whilst others have been lovers of peace. The legends of Semiramis describe her as a great conqueror. Tomyris, the queen who defeated and slew Cyrus, seems to have been a lover of peace. It is recorded that after the victory, angered by Cyrus' onslaught, she had the body of her defeated enemy dipped in blood, saying. "Drink thy fill, conqueror!" Whereas Hatshepsu preserved the peace in the realm of Egypt for decades and bridled her husband's lust for conquest, Elizabeth of England laid the foundations of that country's political predominance by strenuous fighting quite as much as by shrewd statecraft. When Elizabeth ascended the throne, England was a State of the second rank, but by the time of her death it had become one of the leading countries of Europe. Maria Theresa detested war, but Elizabeth of Russia delighted in it. Jaeckel[6] gives a long list of female sovereigns, and quite a number of these were warmongers. Zenobia, wife of Odenathus of Palmyra, was co-ruler during her husband's lifetime, and after his death was monarch of a realm embracing Syria and most of the provinces of Asia Minor.

[6] Op. cit., pp. 155 et seq.

    But no more do we find among all these great queens a general love of peace, than among the kings

    To-day the notion of courage is intimately associated with the idea of war. Before all, courage is the courage of the soldier: next it is courage in bodily

[7] Politische Ethik, p. 468.

[8] The Day of the Saxon, etc.

    Among unwarlike peoples, neither sex seems to attach much value to courage -- or at any rate to the qualities that warlike nations denote by that term. For this reason historians have often accused the Egyptians of cowardice, for to peoples of bellicose inclinations a pacifist disposition and cowardice seem identical. For example Bolko Stern[9] writes: "The modern Egyptians are reputed cowardly. Their behaviour during the Mahdist campaigns justified the accusation. In ancient Egypt things seem to have

[9] Op. cit., p. 28.

    It is unfortunately very difficult to institute any comparisons between respect for authority in Men's States on the one hand and Women's States on the other, for owing to the bellicose complexion of history details are lacking. Concerning the Chamorros, the indigens of the Ladrone Islands, among whom the dominance of women was absolute, we know from the reports of various travellers that they were of a peaceful disposition, but were very proud, and were easily affronted. Here we find a peaceful disposition in conjunction with a high spirit, with a mentality that is free from an undue respect for authority. We are told that the Cingalese had a great love of liberty, and also that they were peacefully disposed. Respect for authority is probably an outcome of the frame of mind associated with a bellicose disposition, just as contempt for authority flourishes most in connexion with the mentality of peace. In Prussia, the most bellicose State of modern times, respect for authority was already so highly developed in the days of Bismarck's power as to arouse uneasiness even in this absolutist, notwithstanding his general esteem for subordination and obedience. This is why Bismarck reproached the Germans for their "lack of civil

    There does however seem to exist one difference between Men's States and Women's States which must be charged to the account of masculine or feminine influence, as the case may be. We refer to the appraisement of the fear of death. In the Women's State the fear of death is considered an estimable quality, a positive virtue; in the Men's State, on the other hand, the fear of death is considered shameful, and contempt for death is deemed a virtue. In the Men's State the phrase runs, "Life is not the greatest good"; but in the Women's State life is regarded as the greatest good. Such an utterance as "navigare necesse cst, vivere non necesse" is a typical Men's-State utterance. A woman would say: "Unless I go on living, I cannot journey by sea, so life must take the first place." But in the Men's State life is so lightly regarded that the undervaluation leads to logical contradiction.

    Both in Egypt and in Sparta, the two civilised Women's States, the fear of death was highly esteemed. Plutarch[10] says of the Spartans that they honoured the god of fear, but not in order that they might overcome their feelings of fear, for they regarded fear as in itself a power for good. "Courage," continues Plutarch, "seems to me to be regarded here

[10] Cf. Schulte-Vaerting, op. cit., p. 203; Plutarch, Cleomenes, 9.

    In the songs of ancient Egypt, the fear of death is openly acclaimed. "The fast runner hurries away to a strange land. . . . He is afraid of the lions and of the Asiatics." Amongst us the emphasis would be laid upon the courageous desire to fight with the lions and the Asiatics. To the general taste of our day, it seems a grave defect that a nation should have no songs in praise of martial courage. H. Oldenberg gives open expression to his discontent with India on this account. In ancient Hindustan, where matriarchy is known to have prevailed, we find in the battle songs neither lust of combat nor praise of martial courage. In this connexion Oldenberg[11] remarks: "How different are the moods from those that seem natural to us when we sing of war and victory. There is no challenging note, such as can awaken a virile longing

[11] Die Literatur des alten Indien.

    Thus both in warlike and in unwarlike Women's States the fear of death was looked upon as a virtue, whereas in Men's States it is contempt for death that is a virtue. Unquestionably this difference is the outcome of differing valuations of life. We must not jump to the conclusion that we have evidence here of a congenital difference between men and women. Probably there is no difference in this matter between the inborn characteristics of the two sexes. There is another way in which the difference we are now considering might originate. The sexual and psychical constitution exhibits in the two sexes unequal powers of resistance to the dangers of monosexual dominance.[12] The vital energy is more readily impaired in the sex that has less powers of resistance. But the more the vital energy is impaired, the greater will be the contempt for death. For this very reason Kammerer has regarded contempt for death as a stigma of degeneration. It may further be pointed out that the statistics of the Men's State show that suicide is far more common in men than in women. And suicide is the highest and the last expression of the lack of vital energy.

    Aristotle had already noted a peculiarity as regards the attitude towards war where women were dominant. He says that the dominance of women produced an aptitude for the offensive only, but was ineffective as far as the defensive was concerned. The difference is apparent merely, as we can show from a comparison drawn from the late war. What Aristotle, generalis-

[12] The authors propose to prove this assertion in a later work.

   IN almost all parts of the civilised world society is now in the phase of transition from the dominance of men to equality of the sexes. Of vital interest, therefore, is the question, what changes are likely to ensue when women acquire equal rights with men.

    First of all let us consider the fears and the hopes that are entertained in connexion with the effects the acquisition of equal rights is expected to have upon women. In accordance with their personal attitude towards what is spoken of as the woman's question, some dread the destruction of feminine peculiarities, whilst others hope for a fuller unfolding of these. Both expectations will be fulfilled, although not in the precise way that is anticipated. Feminine peculiarities will vanish in so far as they are products of the Men's State. But inborn feminine peculiarities will undergo a richer development.

    What we speak of to-day as feminine peculiarities are the specific peculiarities of women in the Men's State. Were men and women as different in their inborn aptitudes as is to-day generally assumed, there would be much less variation both in feminine characteristics and in masculine according as one sex or the other is dominant. The characteristics of women would be almost the same under both types of sexual

    The mere fact that the members of the respective sexes exhibit almost identical peculiarities as dominants or as subordinates, shows that there must be a very close similarity in the inborn psychical aptitudes of men and women. Seeing that masculine peculiarities where men rule resemble very closely feminine peculiarities where women rule, we may infer that the same great impulses are operative in the mentality of both sexes. The psychical trends that appear both in men and in women when one sex dominates the other, are universally human, and not specifically masculine or feminine.

    Alike under masculine and under feminine dominance we have seen that there are two tendencies moulding the sexual types both physically and mentally. In the first place there is a tendency towards the artificial widening of the divergency between the sexes by the utmost possible stressing and encouragement of the differences between them. Secondly there is a tendency to promote a similarity of type within each of the respective sexes. In every possible way men are stand-

    All these influences combine to favour the development of different capacities in the two sexes. The result is that such primary sexual aptitudes as may exist do not secure expression in accordance with their intrinsic strength, for they are modified by the need for adaptation to the masculine or feminine norms prescribed by the prevalent type of monosexual dominance. A good many years ago this became plain to the insight of Havelock Ellis, among others. Ellis wrote: "By showing us that under varying conditions men and women are, within certain limits, indefinitely modifiable, a precise knowledge of the life of men and women forbids us to dogmatise rigidly concerning the respective spheres of men and women" [quoted from the 5th edition of Man and Woman, p. 513]. W. Stern has given a general demonstration of the possibility of modifying inborn psychical aptitudes. Thus what manifests itself as a sexual difference is not wholly the outcome of congenital peculiarities, but is in part the expression of a compulsory adaptation brought about

[1] The authors believe themselves to have been the first to formulate these two laws, which are of the utmost importance in the study of the comparative psychology of the sexes. They will be fully considered in a subsequent work.

    Another point worth alluding to is that the extent of sexual differentiation has hitherto been believed to be determined by the level of civilisation. Fehlinger[2] adduces in proof of such a contention the fact that in the days of Tacitus the Teutons were but little differentiated in matters of sex, whereas there was a high degree of differentiation in this respect among oriental nations. We have learned, however, in this book that the degree of differentiation between the sexes is quite independent of the level of civilisation, and that it is exclusively determined by the relationships of power between the sexes. Under monosexual dominance, sexual differentiation is at its height; where equality of rights prevails, there is a minimum of sexual differentiation. In the Germany of Tacitus' days, the rights of the sexes were fairly equal, whereas among the orientals the dominance of men was in force.

    We are therefore entitled to expect of the establishment of equal rights for the sexes that it will involve a slow but sure disappearance of the artificial sexual differentiation that has been induced by monosexual dominance, and that it will provide fuller opportunities for the development of individual peculiarities -- including sexual peculiarities in so far as these are inborn. Liepmann, the well-known gynecologist, has shown that until quite recently, owing to the constrict-

[2] "Archiv für Frauenkunde," 1918.

    The liberation of women will signify liberation for men also, an enfranchisement from the slavery of the prescribed sexual ideal of "manliness." The general accusation against the dominance of men has been that it did violence to women and involved the martyrdom of the female sex. People have been prone to overlook that concurrently an ideal was forcibly imposed upon the masculine nature, that violence was done to the individuality of men, and that their freedom of development was restricted. Enfantin is quite wrong in maintaining that "the brutal rule of males has led to an exaggeration of masculine individualism." Monosexual dominance subordinates individual development to sexual development; and the latter development is not free, but has to follow the lines imposed by the prevailing type of dominance. Shelley saw to the root

    Men have often been blamed for oppressing women. But we have to remember the truth embodied in the following passage from Rosa Mayreder:[4] "The female protagonists of the woman's movement are too apt to rail against men without qualification, forgetting what they owe to the kindness, the magnanimity, and the justice of individual men. If these individual men have found it impossible to make their own personal attitude towards women prevail throughout the social order, it was because they could not make headway against the majority, any more than this has been possible for those exceptional women who excelled the average of their sex." During the days when monosexual dominance attains its apogee, neither men nor women can prevail against the majority. When men hold sway, the mass of males perforce follow the laws of their own dominance just as blindly as the mass of females accept the laws of their own subordination. The result is as unhappy for men as for women. The ties between the sexes are so intimate that neither sex in the mass can repine or rejoice alone. The unhappiness, the martyrdom, of one sex casts its shadow upon the other and is a hindrance to the latter's joy. From one point of view it is an advantage for women as compared with the working class, that the martyrdom of women entails the martyrdom of men, whereas the capitalists are not necessarily involved in the miseries of the workers.

    Equality of rights will bring the golden age of the highest possible development of individuality and the

[3] Laon and Cythna, canto ii, stanza 43, line I.

[4] Op. Cit., p. 211.

    The epoch of the transition from monosexual dominance to equality is, ostensibly at least, the period when the struggle between the sexes is most intense. The fight to maintain traditions that are hallowed by ancient custom is natural enough, but in the end proves futile. Evolution marches inexorably over all the traditions in its path, be they never so venerable. That path is strewn with the ruins of scientific errors and false popular beliefs which are apt to seem quaint to a later age. We may instance two assertions dating from the eighteen-eighties. Scherr[5] ' wrote: "As for the craze of women becoming students, a craze imported from America and Russia, we can safely allow it to burn itself out. It is simply a fashion in the moral (or immoral) sphere, just as the wearing of chignons is a fashion in the physical sphere." E. Reich[6] wrote: "The butter falls off the bread and belief in beauty is destroyed when female students imperil the streets of our university towns."

    Many other hopes and fears have arisen in connexion with the movement towards equal rights for the sexes. On the one hand people have dreaded that family life will be broken up or at any rate injured, that sexual morality will decay,[7] and that births will be greatly restricted. There are not a few persons who will still

[5] Geschichte der deutschen Frauen, p. 308.

[6] Die Emanzipation der Frauen. -- This work contains abundant material similar to that quoted in the text.

[7] Kisch, in his work Die sexuelle Untreue der Frau, writes: "The emancipation of women involves great dangers for the maintenance of conjugal fidelity by the wife."

    The outcome of our researches enables us to decide with a considerable degree of probability to what extent these hopes and fears will be realised. There is no serious reason to expect that family life will be profoundly disordered by the liberation of women; on the contrary, we may anticipate that it will attain a climax of intimacy and happiness. Among the Egyptians, and also among the Chamorros and the Cingalese, marriage and family life were notably tender and intimate. This suffices to suggest that the liberation of women is unlikely to have an injurious influence upon family life. We may suppose, rather, that the influence upon family life will be in the direction of its perfectionment.

    The dread of a decline in sexual morality is perhaps even more ill-founded. It is true that during the transition from monosexual dominance to equal rights, sexual morality will undergo a fundamental change; duplex sexual morality, with its differing standards for

[8] La pornocratic ou les femmes dans les temps modernes.

    Even polygamy, as the sanctioned form of sexual relationships for both sexes, is more moral than the

    On the other hand those women who, where the duplex sexual morality of monosexual dominance prevails, preserve their own chastity, do little to raise the general level of sexual morality if their personal purity is all they care about, while ignoring the morality of

    To-day we are still too profoundly enmeshed in the ideology of duplex sexual morality to be able to detach the notion of morality from its one-sided application to the female sex. We thoughtlessly speak of a nation as highly moral if the purity of its women is conspicuous -- at least in externals. Its men may be as immoral as you please in sexual matters, yet this does not disturb our general estimate of the nation's morality. But when the phase of equal rights for the sexes has been entered upon, new conceptions of morality will become established. The morality of men will be judged by the same standards as the morality of women.

    The abolition of duplex sexual morality will be a most valuable and most wonderful achievement, and it is one which we are entitled to expect with confidence from the establishment of equal rights for the sexes. With the disappearance of the duplex code there will disappear the source of disharmonies between the sexes which menace with pain and unhappiness the joys of the most intimate union between man and woman. Furthermore, as the writers have repeatedly endeav-

    The abolition of prostitution will go hand in hand with the abolition of duplex sexual morality. We have learned that there is no prostitution under the dominance of women. Thus the liberation of women is accompanied by the development of a tendency to do away with prostitution. Herein likewise there is a great advance towards Morality. Even more important, however, may be considered the gain to the public health and the improvement in the quality of the offspring. Prostitution is one of the most destructive evils from which mankind suffers, one of the greatest hindrances to the advance of humanity.

    Enfantin prophesied that a woman would free the world from the curse of prostitution.[9] He wrote: "We all hope that the future will bring a woman, the Messiah of her sex, who will free the world from prostitution as Jesus freed it from slavery. I regard myself as the precursor of this woman; I am to her what John the Baptist was to Jesus. This is for me the whole of life; this is the tie connecting all my doings and all my thoughts; my faith is centred upon women. God has sent me to summon woman to her liberation." Enfantin put his trust in the female Messiah who was to bring salvation from prostitution. Not in vain would he have grounded his hopes upon the female sex. For it will not be one woman who will deliver mankind from prostitution; the deliverance will come from the female sex as a whole, the sex which, on its way towards equal rights, will take up the struggle against prostitution.

[9] Quoted by Reinhold Jaeckel, Die Stellung des Sozialismus zur Frauenfrage im 19ten Jahrhundert.

    Only the female sex will be able, through the establishment of equal rights or of feminine dominance, to do away with prostitution. The example of the State of Wyoming shows that equality of rights suffices. Wyoming was the first American State to proclaim the equality of the sexes. In this State to-day, though nothing like a century has passed since women began to participate in dominion, prostitution no longer exists. Quite recently in Germany, Marie Elisabeth Laders has adjured women, in connexion with the impending reform of the criminal code, to concentrate their attention upon the abolition of what is termed "professional unchastity." If the co-regency of women were to do nothing more than effect the eradication of this sexual plague, its inauguration would have been sufficiently justified.

    Those whose views concerning men and women are the reflection of existing institutions, may readily incline to believe that ethical motives determine the hostility of the sexually healthy and free woman towards prostitution. There is no ground for such an opinion. As far as any inborn moral excellence is concerned, woman is no more competent than man to fight against prostitution. We showed in an earlier chapter that the dominance of women, no less than the dominance of men, has a tendency to originate prostitution. Under monosexual dominance, the tendency is always towards the establishment of a class of prostitutes belonging to the subordinate sex. Where duplex sexual morality prevails, the general trend under masculine dominance is towards the establishment of female prostitution, and under feminine dominance towards the establishment of male prostitution. Simultaneously, the dominant sex carries on a campaign against the prostitution

    Here is an additional reason for the belief that it is not a loftier morality that makes women hostile to prostitution. The free woman is not content with attacking prostitution, which she regards as a focus of immorality; with no less vigour she conducts an onslaught on institutions which in the Men's State are esteemed highly moral. The most notable instances of this are the endeavour to remove the disabilities which in the Men's State are imposed upon illegitimate children, and the movement to demand the right to procure abortion. We know that both these movements take effect where free women are dominant. There are no historical data to show how far the two trends are fulfilled where the sexes have equal rights. We know that under the dominance of men disabilities are imposed on illegitimate children, and that the right to procure abortion is denied. There may be a doubt,

    There is, however, a psychological factor at work, one which may lead us to expect that both these demands of free women will be granted when equality of rights is established. Equality of rights implies equal justice for men and for women; it implies that neither favour nor disfavour shall be shown to the members of either sex. Now there can be no doubt that women are unfairly treated as compared with men when the illegitimate child and its mother are allotted an inferior position, and when the right to procure abortion is refused. Havelock Ellis says with perfect truth that so long as motherhood can be treated as a crime it is impossible to contend that women have won to their due place in social life. We may presume, therefore, that equality of rights, doing away with the injustice of treating the members of one sex differently from those of another, will necessarily involve the redress of both the before-mentioned grievances.

    As regards the fear that the liberation of women will result in an undue curtailment of offspring, reference has already been made to the experience of the ancient Egyptians as an indication to the contrary. The number of the offspring is determined by very different factors than the relationships of power between the sexes. We have seen, however, that enormous eugenic advantages are to be expected from the establishment of equal rights. In this connexion, in addition to the advantages which will result from the abolition of duplex sexual morality and from doing away with prostitution, we have to think of the benefit

    Furthermore, equality of rights will encourage the development of the paternal sentiment. The epigram of Franz Servaes, "Fatherhood is no less holy and natural than motherhood," will attain the dignity of a general moral rule.

    Equality of rights will bring about far-reaching changes in public life. Where monosexual dominance prevails, whether masculine or feminine, society invariably has a subjective monosexual orientation, and might masters right. Under equality for the sexes, one of the most notable characteristics of monosexual dominance, the adoption of different criteria for the two sexes, will have vanished. Thus will be rendered possible the realisation of the supreme ideal that might and right shall be one. Where the sexes are equal, Pascal's saying will be fulfilled that justice will be power and power justice. Proudhon held that sexual

   UNDER monosexual dominance there necessarily and invariably prevails a powerful inclination to obliterate all traces of any earlier dominance exercised by the sex that is now subordinate. This tendency is psychologically determined; it is the inevitable outcome of the ideology of monosexual dominance. The members of the ruling sex feel affronted by every reminder of the fact that in former days their sex was under tutelage, and the sentiment is accentuated by the reflection that rule was then exercised by those who are now subordinate. Monosexual dominance, therefore, at its zenith, is always characterised by the spread of a tradition that the hegemony of the sex actually in power is eternal and unalterable. All the historical vestiges that conflict with this tradition are deliberately or unconsciously expunged from the record. Sometimes they are glossed over or falsified; sometimes they are erased; sometimes they are ignored. The inclination to get rid of the evidence somehow or other is stronger in proportion as the monosexual dominance is more absolute.

    Furthermore, quite apart from the particular type of monosexual dominance, we all have a natural disposition which imperils the preservation of such reminiscences of the past as conflict with the manners and customs of the present. As Bacon[1] says, we are led by

[1] Novum Organum.

    Not merely do we argue from ourselves to others; we also argue from our own times to all earlier epochs. The pictures from the past have to adapt themselves to the minds formed by the present in which we live. The historian Bossier once said of the historian Mommsen, that Mommsen, in his studies of the past, was always guided by the prejudices of the present. The statement may be generalised; it is true of us all, and it is especially true where questions of monosexual dominance are involved. Psychologists, ethnographers, and historians have hitherto regarded the relationships of power between the sexes exclusively from the outlook of masculine dominance. Their minds have been influenced by the prejudices of the present, by Men's-State ideology. For this reason, down to the present day, their accounts of the position of women in earlier times have been coloured by a Men's-State subjectivity. The result is that under an absolutist monosexual dominance the belief generally prevails that the extant type of sexual dominance has always existed.

    The foregoing considerations account for the campaign, in our own Men's State, against the historical traces of the dominance of women; they account for the numerous misinterpretations of the evidence of such

    A glance at some of the studies made during recent decades will show how strong has been the influence of the Men's-State prejudices characteristic of the society in which the investigators happen to have been born. They take it as self-evident that they are entitled to measure with the yardstick of their own days epochs that lie thousands of years back in the past. For example, Breysig, E. Meyer, and many others, try to prove the impossibility of the dominance of women even in the earliest periods of human history on the ground that, precisely in those ruder times, men must have been more ruthless in taking advantage of their superior bodily strength. L. von Wiese says that the characteristics of women under the conditions of the primal age are explicable on the ground that they had then the cruel and difficult task of adapting themselves to the more powerful males. To-day the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. Inferences from this are uncritically applied to the conditions of the primal age. We have shown, however, that the ratios between the stature of men and women are not constants, but vary concomitantly with changes in the relationships of power between the sexes. We have shown that among many peoples the women were stronger than the men, and that this occurred in periods when women were dominant. It is obvious that these investigators' Men's-State ideology has led them into the fallacy of making what happened to be the conditions of their own day a standard for past times.

    Curtius makes the same mistake of measuring the past by the standards of the present when he writes

    Again, Lewis Morgan's opinion, that paternal authority was at first weak, but that its growth steadily

    Besides, as we have learned, Diodorus tells us in so many words that the women of Egypt ruled their husbands, for the husbands had to give a pledge of obedience when they married. This passage from Diodorus is a very sore point with our Men's-State investigators, for there is no ambiguity about its implication that wives were absolutely supreme. In many German works on ancient Egypt the passage is completely ignored, as in the writings of Duncker, Wiedemann, Ebers, and Reitzenstein, and in the first edition of Meyer's book. In other works, as in Max Müller's, for instance, the text is referred to as quite incredible -- though no reasons are offered for such an assumption. Yet other authorities interpret the passage solely by the standards of modern life.

    Wilckens' writings furnish an example of the last method. He says: "In this connexion historiographers have been wrongly supposed to have declared that

[2] Ancient Society, p. 466.

    It is most characteristic that modern authors should have no hesitation in reproducing marriage formulas wherein the wife promises to obey the husband. No one expresses any doubt as to the authenticity of these. Whereas the marriage formulas which accord with the time spirit of the Men's State are regarded as obviously accurate, the marriage formulas of the Women's State, which conflict with the time spirit of the Men's State, are received with the utmost incredulity.

    These conflicting standards are almost universally apparent in the reports concerning marriage contracts. The marriage contracts belonging to the pre-Ptolemaic era, when women were dominant, are known to us from the reports of Spiegelberg.[3] They show that women alone had the right to divorce a sexual partner, and that this right could be exercised on payment of an indemnity, and upon the refund of half the dowry which the husband had brought into the marriage. Although in the earlier Egyptian records no evidence has been discovered of any contract giving similar rights to the

[3] Op. cit.

    The marriage contracts of the pre-Ptolemaic era, as made known to us by Spiegelberg, contain another clause which seems incomprehensible or repugnant to those whose minds are dominated by Men's-State ideology. In both these documents the woman promises the man that in the event of divorce she will not merely return to him half of the dowry, but she says "in addition I will pay you a share of everything I may have

    Viktor Marx,[6] who studied the position of women in Babylonia from the days of Nebuchadnezzar to those of Darius (604-485 B.C.), furnishes a similar example. He translates a document in which an unmarried girl has the disposal of a large sum of money, and adds: "It is rather difficult to understand how a Babylonian girl could possess a sum of money and dis-

[4] Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, Vol. ii, p. 211.

[5] Spiegelberg, op. cit.. p. 9.

[6] Op. cit., Vol. iv.

    In Plato's Menexenus we read that Aspasia was the teacher of many famous orators, and above all of one of the most noted personalities in ancient Greece, Pericles, son of Xanthippus. But Diehlmann[7] assures us that "the irony is manifest" when, in Plato's Menexenus, Aspasia is described as training Pericles in oratory and as even writing his speeches for him. Still more trenchantly does Karl Steinhart[8] endeavour to show that there can have been no warrant for Aspasia's reputation in this matter. He writes: "The idle chatter to the effect that Aspasia used to help Pericles prepare his speeches was doubtless a popular witticism, the outcome of the universal inclination to take the shine off a splendid reputation." To possess a "splendid reputation" is self-evidently a purely masculine prerogative, and it is mortifying to the male sentiment of dominance that any mention should be made of feminine achievements which seem to put those of a man into the shade. Steinhart does not realise that he is himself playing the detractor's part that he ascribes to the common people, is himself taking the shine off a splendid reputation. According to the testimony of the ancients, Aspasia was fully Pericles' equal in capacity, her genius being no less outstanding than his. Ebers says of her: "But for the aid of her wings, Pericles would never have reached the heights which in her

[7] Forsebungen auf dem Gebiete der Geschichte.

[8] Einleitung zu Platons Werken.

    Strabo[9] records that in his day there were numerous nations in which the division of labour between the sexes was the reverse of that with which we are familiar to-day and which prevailed in the geographer's own land. The women, he says, worked away from the home, whilst the men attended to domestic affairs. The present authors have never come across any comment on this observation. It has been utterly ignored.

    Here is another instance. Plutarch, in his account of the prosecution of Phocion, tells us that recourse was had to the law by which women voted as well as men. It follows that at that date women must still to a degree have functioned as co-rulers in Greece. But modern histories of Hellas are silent as to the point; Bachofen, the jurist, is the only writer who refers to it. A similar silence prevails anent the participation of women in the popular assemblies under Cecrops. It is noteworthy, by contrast, that the writers of much earlier days, when the phase of the dominance of women was less remote, did not fail to allude to the matter. For example, there is a reference to it in Augustine's De Civitate Dei. The philosopher Mein-

[9] IV, 2.

    Even more dangerous to the recognition that women were formerly dominant is the distortion of meaning in the translation of ancient texts. To misinterpret is worse than to ignore. Here is an instructive illustration. Strabo[10] reports that among the Medes, not only did the kings have a plurality of wives, but the custom of polygamy prevailed also among the common people, and that it was considered desirable for a man to have at least five wives. But Strabo goes on to say that it was likewise a point of honour with the women to have many husbands, and that a woman who had

[10] XI, 13.

    Another instructive example of a Men's-State gloss is found in the writings of Erman.[11] He says: "Once only does a king of Egypt give us any light on the life of his wives. In the portico of the great temple of Medeenet Haboo, King Rameses III had himself de-

[11] Aegypten, vol. i, p. 115.

    Among some of the peoples where women held sway, the mothers chose wives for their sons without consulting the latter. Bancroft remarks in this connexion that it seems incredible the sons should have complied. We do not find that any investigators express incredulity when they read of daughters being married off by their fathers and accepting their lot without demur. This use of the power of masculine dominance seems quite a natural thing, because it accords with Men's-State sentiments.

    Wilkinson and Westermarck both question the accuracy of Herodotus' statement that in Egypt sons were not responsible for the maintenance of their parents. Inasmuch as filial duties were held in high regard, we may assume (say these modern critics) that sons in especial were educated to respect the obligation. But it would not have occurred to Wilkinson or Westermarck to express any doubt if Herodotus had written that daughters were under no obligation to maintain their parents. Such doubts do not arise unless the incident conflicts with the familiar canons of the Men's State.

    Let us give another instance. Bunsen[13] says that according to the hieroglyphs "Osiris" signified "Hes-Iri," that is, "the Eye of Isis." "But in this case the chief deity, the leading embodiment of the divine spirit,

[12] Der Kampf zwischen Bagdad und Suez im Altertum.

[13] Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte.

    Still more misleading than the suppressions and misinterpretations of facts that bear witness to unfamiliar relationships of power between the sexes, is the way in which reports that bear a Women's-State complexion are filled out in the spirit of the Men's-State ideology. In such cases it is extremely difficult to get at the truth. When an author who tendentiously expands his reports is good enough to mention the original sources, an independent examination of these is possible. Thus Max Müller:[14] writes of the Egyptians: "The Greeks mockingly relate concerning the common people that the women left their homes on business affairs, for petty trade presumably, whilst the men did the housework." In a footnote Max Müller adds: "Cf. the description of this topsy-turvy world in Herodotus, ii, 35." When we turn up the passage in the original we find, first, that there is no trace of mockery, and, secondly, that there is not a word to show that the historian is speaking only of "the common people." Both of these are interpolations by Max Müller, but it would have been difficult, nay, impossible, to prove the fact had he failed to refer his readers to the original. We see, then, how

[14] Die Liebespoesie der alten Aegypter, p. 6.

    A few typical examples may be adduced, in conclusion, to show how quickly, when men become dominant, the memories of the antecedent dominance of women are expunged. By the time of Aristophanes, the remembrance that women had once held sway in Athens was so utterly extinct that the dramatist assures us in his Ecclesiazusoe, (The Parliament of Women) that gynecocracy was the only "cracy" which Athens had never known. Bachofen's comment is: "Gynecocracy had in fact been the first form of rule in Athens." We learn from Meiners (who wrote, it will be remembered, in 1788) that women were then dominant among the Kamchadales. Kennan[15] when he visited Kamchatka about a century later, found among the Kamchadales "a far more chivalrous regard for the wishes and views of the fair sex than might have been expected in such a condition of society." The memory of the absolute dominance of women that prevailed in Meiners' day had been so completely obliterated (at any rate to the eye of the foreign observer) at the time of Kennan's visit that the latter could discern nothing more than an unexpected chivalry in the men's attitude towards the women.

    We may learn another very important lesson from the foregoing incident. It shows how imperfectly travellers are able at times to understand the characteristics of the peoples they are studying, for the simple reason that they measure all manners and customs by their Men's-State standards. Just as historians tend to modify the records of the dominance of women so

[15] Tent Life in Siberia.

    Kennan is merely voicing a general opinion when he implies that the chivalry of men towards women is the the outcome of advanced civilisation. What we know of the Kamchadales is enough to prove the theory erroneous. The "chivalry" displayed by one sex towards the other is quite independent of the level of civilisation. It is a product of monosexual dominance, and it varies as power waxes or wanes.

    The instances we have given of the campaign which is carried on during the phase of masculine dominance for the obliteration of the vestiges of feminine dominance will give an idea of the difficulties encountered in founding the new science of the comparative psy-

[16] Aegyptische Studien.

    This utterance applies with especial force to monosexual dominance, which tends in the highest degree to stimulate caprice and emotion. Such dominance is prone to develop caprice among the dominants; and monosexual dominance in a society of persons composed of both sexes fosters the growth of strong emotional bias. Hence monosexual dominance always modifies the records of the past in the light of its own caprice. By a psychological determinism, male dominants perforce demand of history that it shall be the history of male dominance. Perchance this is why extant historical records extend back for so few thousand years. Winckler[18] has shown that history really began much earlier than we usually suppose: "Every one inclines to look for the beginnings of civilised States in that grey primal age (3000 B.C.), which is in

[17] Novum Organum.

[18] Op. cit., p. 76.

   THE current views and theories concerning matriarchy and masculine dominance may be grouped under three heads. A few investigators, those whose Men's-State ideology is absolutely imperturbable, are still convinced that among all peoples since the human race first came into existence men have been dominant and women subordinate.[1] A larger number have come to recognise, since Bachofen's writings were published, that in the primal age women were dominant among many or most peoples, but that with the advance of civilisation men became dominant. They regard the dominance of men as definitive and inalterable. Nietzsche may be mentioned as one who took this view. He wrote: "There are historical as well as ethnological grounds for denying that woman is per se the weaker sex. Almost universally there are, or have been, types of civilisation in which women are dominant. The definitive subjugation of women may be regarded as an incidental occurrence, or, if you prefer the phrase, as a climax in the destiny of the nations." The third group comprises the most recent investigators, those who have noted the success of women's endeavours to shake off the dominance of men. They believe that the struggle between the sexes will end in the establishment of equality between men and women. Müller-Lyer and

[1] Breysig, Ziegler, etc.

    All three theories bear the impress of the time spirit that gave them birth. Absolute masculine dominance is parent of the view that the hegemony of men is established from all eternity as an immutable law of God and nature. The theory persists to-day as a vestige from a past epoch -- much as, according to Gray, there is still to be found in androcratic China a gynecocratic oasis where the ancient dominance of women has been preserved without change. In every period there are manifest, not only in practical life but also in the domain of scientific theory, residues from an obviously outworn epoch, preserved with pious zeal by a few investigators. They are vestigial traits. The theory that masculine dominance is immutable and eternal is a vestige of this kind.

    The second outlook owes its origin to the recent endeavours of women to liberate themselves from male domination. During this phase it has been discovered that in earlier days women held sway. It was however believed that the period of feminine dominance had been restricted to the primal ages of human development. The hegemony of men was still contemplated as definitive, as henceforward immutably established, seeing that the rule of men still persisted unchanged in the world of fact, and was assailed by the champions of women's rights solely in the field of theory.

    But this theory that matriarchy was restricted to primitive society, to the childhood of the nations, though general to-day, is hardly tenable in view of the immense antiquity of the human race in comparison with the brevity of the period which we are accustomed to distinguish as historical. Many hundreds of thou-

    The third view, that the struggle between the sexes will come to an end with the establishment of equality between the sexes -- that equality, once attained, will be the immutable form of the relationships of power between men and women -- has been born out of our most recent experiences. The highest aim of women has been and to-day is the attainment of equality with men. Already in many States there is at any rate a nominal equality of rights for the sexes, and the ultimate achievement of equality would seem to be assured. Hence the tendency to regard equality of rights as the permanent phase of sex relationships.

    This triple set of outlooks shows plainly that in none of the phases of monosexual dominance has there yet been secured a view which transcends that dominance. It is characteristic of every phase to look upon itself as an immutable norm, as something that is permanently valid. To this inertia may be mainly ascribed the prevalence of three outlooks all of which are

    There is, indeed, a tendency towards fixity in the relationship of power between the sexes, whatever that relationship may be. But there is a still stronger countervailing tendency towards change, towards progressive modification. The relationship of power is subject to the laws of motion. The present authors' researches seem to justify the contention that the movement of the relationships of power between the sexes is undulatory, or that it resembles the swing of a pendulum. Automatically, masculine dominance is replaced by feminine, and feminine by masculine. In the swing from the prevalence of one form of sexual dominance to the other, the pendulum necessarily traverses the stage in which there is a balance of power between the sexes. This is the phase of equal rights.

    The movement, however, does not seem to be a simple oscillation. We do not find that the power of one of the sexes continuously diminishes, while that of the other continuously increases. The main swing of the pendulum is complicated by minor oscillations. The subordinate sex experiences from time to time reverses in its march to power, these reverses being followed by fresh advances which bring it a stage nearer to its goal. The dominant sex, on the other hand, the one whose power is declining, will win occasional victories even during that decline, and such a victory may be so extensive that the power of the heretofore dominant sex seems thoroughly reestablished. Nevertheless these victories during the phase of declining power are

    Why is it that this pendulum movement in the relationships of power between the sexes has not hitherto been recognised? Probably for the following reasons. In the first place the movements are extremely slow, for they occupy enormous periods of time. To them applies what Charlotte Perkins Gilman[2] has written of great social transformations in general, that, like the flow of the tide, they take place through the movement of a thousand wavelets, and never through one great forward sweep.

    In the second place we have shown that, in virtue of a psychological determinism, the dominant sex invariably tries to expunge from the record the historical vestiges of the antecedent period when it was itself subordinate and when the other sex was dominant. This is what renders so difficult the demonstration of the pendulum movement. During any stroke of the pendulum, the erasure of the evidence of the previous stroke in the opposite direction is effected as completely as possible. The dominance of one sex involves the suppression of the proof that the other sex antecedently held sway, and this is what makes it so difficult to perceive the unceasing recurrence of the oscillations in the relationships of power between the sexes. Those who are unable to see beyond the narrow horizon of

[2] Women and Economics.

    There is a considerable amount of historical and ethnological evidence to confirm our theory of a pendulum movement, even though this evidence may not be sufficient to establish absolute proof. In the course of the present study we have seen that among diverse peoples the pendulum of power was simultaneously in the most different positions, so that while in some cases men and in some cases women were supreme, in some the powers of the sexes were approximately equal.

[3] Die Bedeutung der Phönizier im Völkerleben, in "Ex Oriente Lux," vol. i, edited by H. Winckler.

    Again, when we study the history of particular peoples at varying times, we find great differences in the relationships of power between the sexes. One of the earliest civilisations known to us is that of the Egyptians. If we are to credit the account given by Nymphodorus, at the outset of the historical epoch men were dominant in Egypt, for he tells us that in that land the introduction of gynecocracy was attributed to King Sesostris. This obviously implies that before the days of Sesostris androcracy must have been in force. We know that under Greek influence androcracy was revived. Thus there was an oscillation from androcracy to gynecocracy and back to androcracy again.

    Lamprecht showed that matriarchy existed among the ancient Teutons. We have seen that in the days of Tacitus the sexes appear to have had equal rights, but that there were plain traces of an antecedent dominance of women. The phase of equality was gradually succeeded by one in which males were dominant; but now, under our very eyes, the absolutism of masculine dominance is passing away. Amid continuous

    There are also psychological reasons in support of the view that the relationships of power between the sexes must be the subject of continual oscillations, that the pendulum will not stop swinging unless some new force brings its movement to a standstill. Noteworthy is the way in which this discovery of the pendulum movement was foreshadowed by Cato and by Hippel. Cato, addressing men, writes: "In the moment when they [women] begin to be your equals, they will become supreme over you." Hippel says: "Beyond question, woman will catch us up some day; but then we shall never be able to overtake her."

    Among the influences that inevitably lead to the overthrow of monosexual dominance, two psychological factors are conspicuous.

    The main cause of the overthrow is the abuse of power. Hegemony degenerates into absolutism, and thus gives itself its own death blow. By abusing its powers, the dominant sex evokes the forces that will put an end to its dominance. Power always tends to outreach itself in this way. As Plato says: "Rarely do we find in one who possesses unrestricted power the greatness of mind which will enable him to refrain

    Another reason why abuse of power is so apt to occur in mass domination is that such domination is responsible to no one. Plato recognised how responsibility exercises a controlling influence upon those who wield power. He wrote: "No mortal is fit to exercise irresponsible power over his fellows." Those who wield mass dominion become the slaves of their own power. This tragedy always recurs when one sex rules the other. Hence, under the dominance of men, men too are subject to the mass dominion of their own sex. Power becomes stronger than those who wield it and brings even them under its sway. The subordinates are oppressed, not by any deliberate intention on the part of the dominants, but owing to the natural tendency of irresponsible power to increase itself to the utmost. That is why abuse of power always occurs in monosexual dominance, and it is this abuse of power which puts a term to power. Bachofen[4] recognised this in the case of the dominance of women. He said: "The material power which formed the central feature of matriarchy brought an abundance of sorrows and

[4] Verhandlungen deutscher Philologen, Stuttgart, 1856.

    The explanations that have hitherto been offered to account for the transition from gynecocracy to androcracy have invariably been biased by the ideology of the extant Men's State. The favourite theory is that women were subordinated by men because men are physically stronger than women. Even Kemnitz,[5] who will not admit that this was the main factor, considers it to have been contributory to the overthrow of the dominance of women. She writes: "It was, before all, owing to the comparative physical weakness of women that the dominance of women could not be se-

[5] Das Wel und seine Bestimmung, p. 120.

    Kemnitz, however, attempts to discover new explanations for the transition from the dominance of men to the dominance of women. She considers that the cause of the dominance of women was the temporary sexual dependence of men upon women. In her opinion, the dominance was dictated by sexuality. But this sexual dependence of the male was in conflict with his natural character traits. When property became established as a permanent institution, inasmuch as property could only be acquired and kept through,the superior bodily strength of the males, the masculine will-to-power asserted itself and women were subjugated. With the flourishing of science and industry, extensive claims were made on masculine energy, and there was thus provided "a sedative for sensuality." To-day, therefore, equality of the sexes can be intro-

    Kemnitz' explanations do not transcend the outlooks of the Men's State. She believes that the will-to-power, the longing for independence, is a specifically masculine quality. But in reality we are not concerned with an inborn characteristic of males, but with a view which is simply the effect of monosexual dominance. The dominant sex is invariably supposed to be peculiarly characterised by the will-to-power and the desire for independence. Upon such an assumed natural predisposition the dominants base their claim to rule, believing it to be justified by God's will and the laws of nature.

    Such outlooks are buttresses of the dominance. Moreover, the rise of property as a permanent institution, which Kemnitz believes to have been one of the decisive factors in the transition, can have hardly anything to do with the matter. For the acquisition of property and its preservation were not, as Kemnitz opines, due to the superior bodily strength of the males. Property has always been acquired and preserved by the dominant sex. It was a permanent institution among the Egyptians for thousands of years, although women held sway. The same association may be noted in the case of the Spartans, the Kamchadales, the Chamorros, the Iroquois, and the Cantabri.

    The change in the relationships of power between the sexes is not brought about by external factors, but by internal. There is at work, in addition to the law of overstrain or expansion we have just been demon-

    When we study the psychological law of action and reaction as it manifests itself in the pendulum movement, we note the following phenomena. In the first phase of domination, the pressure exercised by the dominant sex brings about the subordination of the other sex. This subordination leads on the dominants to a continual increase in the pressure they exercise. At length the moment arrives when the pressure becomes so strong that it begins to arouse resistance instead of subordination. The pendulum of monosexual dominance has reached its highest point, and with the reversal of the movement a decline sets in. All pressure exercised by the dominant sex henceforward arouses in the members of the other sex resistance as well as subordination, incites them to a struggle against the dominants, initiates among the subordinates endeavours to secure power for themselves. As long as the pendulum of masculine dominion is still in the ascendant, the subordinate sex reacts to the growing power of the males by the display of an increasing tendency to subordination. If the bow has been overstrained, if the power has been pushed to the pitch of absolutism, the pendulum movement is reversed. In such circumstances, not only do we find that the subordinates grow insurgent and demand equal rights, but also that some of the dominants encourage them in their endeavours to secure equality.

    The struggle is all the fiercer in proportion as the dominants persevere more obstinately in their attempts to enforce subordination. This rigid conservatism, this determination to defend the traditional privileges

    Power alone can make woman free. Nevertheless, the acquisition of power entails the danger that it may be pushed to an extreme, so that dominance over the other sex may be secured, this bringing in its train a recurrence of the abuses of power that seemed to have been abolished by the victory over those who were formerly dominant. That is the tragedy of every struggle of the subordinate sex against the dominant sex. It is absolutely essential that humanity should discover ways and means for the permanent realisation of the ideal of sex equality, and for the permanent prevention of either type of monosexual dominance. In default, the millenniums that lie before us will be no less wretched than those which are now drawing to a close. But to-day our knowledge is sufficiently advanced to encourage us in the attempt to nullify what has hitherto been the law of social evolution. Should it prove possible to do this, there will open for mankind a future better and happier than the past has been -- the future of permanent sex equality.