The Project Gutenberg eBook of Women: an inquiry
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Women: an inquiry
Author: Willa Muir
Release date: June 27, 2025 [eBook #76398]
Language: English
Original publication: London: The Hogarth Press, 1925
Credits: Mairis, Laura Natal and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WOMEN: AN INQUIRY ***
WOMEN: AN INQUIRY
THE HOGARTH ESSAYS
I. MR. BENNETT AND MRS. BROWN.
By VIRGINIA WOOLF. 2_s._ 6_d._
II. THE ARTIST AND PSYCHO-ANALYSIS.
By ROGER FRY. 2_s._ 6_d._
III. HENRY JAMES AT WORK.
By THEODORA BOSANQUET. 2_s._ 6_d._
IV. HOMAGE TO JOHN DRYDEN.
By T. S. ELIOT. 3_s._ 6_d._
V. HISTRIOPHONE.
By BONAMY DOBRÉE. 3_s._ 6_d._
VI. IN RETREAT.
By HERBERT READ. 3_s._ 6_d._
VII. FEAR AND POLITICS: A DEBATE AT THE ZOO.
By LEONARD WOOLF. 2_s._ 6_d._
VIII. CONTEMPORARY TECHNIQUES OF POETRY.
By ROBERT GRAVES. 3_s._ 6_d._
IX. THE CHARACTER OF JOHN DRYDEN.
By ALAN LUBBOCK. 2_s._ 6_d._
X. WOMEN: An Inquiry.
By WILLA MUIR. 2_s._ 6_d._
XI. POETRY AND CRITICISM.
By EDITH SITWELL. 2_s._ 6_d._
WOMEN: AN INQUIRY
BY
WILLA MUIR
Published by
Leonard & Virginia Woolf at The Hogarth Press
52 Tavistock Square, London, W.C. 1
1925
TO
VIOLET SCHIFF
Printed in Great Britain by
NEILL & CO., LTD., EDINBURGH
“Methinks, brother,” replied my father, “you might, at least, know so
much as the right end of a woman from the wrong.”
_The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy._
WOMEN: AN INQUIRY
INTRODUCTORY
MEN and women are latecomers to this planet, but they have existed
for a very long time, judged by human standards. One might reasonably
expect the difference between them, if it is an essential difference,
to be now capable of formulation. An essential difference would be a
difference distinctively human, that is, spiritual as well as physical,
and at the same time distinctively sexual.
External differences, such as the presence or absence of beards and
other secondary sexual characteristics, do not satisfy the first
part of this definition, and are to be disregarded. Many so-called
differences in social behaviour are also not essential differences. A
valuable book written by the Vaertings[1] has made this clear. In a
State where men are dominant, as in most of our civilised States for
the past two thousand years, certain attributes are considered to be
characteristic of women which are equally characteristic of men in a
State where women are dominant, as it is said they were for some time
in ancient Egypt. The subordinate sex in each case is excluded from
complete development, and is considered to be less intelligent, less
courageous, and more domesticated than the dominant sex. In fact,
men and women share jointly in what is called human nature, and are
alike capable of courage, fear, cruelty, tenderness, intelligence,
and stupidity. When exhilarated by power and responsibility they
display the more dominating qualities, and in subordinate positions
they manifest a “slave psychology.” Therefore men and women are not to
be differentiated as brave or timid, intelligent or stupid, strong or
weak, because a classification of this kind is too broadly human and
not distinctively sexual.
It is not asserted that secondary physiological differences between
the sexes or social differences in behaviour have no significance.
Possibly sexual differentiation is so fundamental that it modifies
the least reactions of men and women; but to begin an investigation
of these would require exhaustive scientific information outside the
scope of this essay, which is an attempt to discover if the division
of the human race into men and women involves a division of spiritual
as well as of sexual functions, so that the creative work of women is
different in kind from the creative work of men. From this point of
view the differences mentioned are significant as effects rather than
causes, and a consideration of them must be dismissed as unfruitful.
The aim of this essay, then, is to find a conception of womanhood as
something essentially different from manhood. An essential difference
would persist through all the variations of behaviour caused by the
dominance of either sex: consequently the validity of this inquiry is
not impaired by the restriction of its material to the activities of
men and women in our present one-sided civilisation. The knowledge
that it is one-sided, because men have for so long been dominant over
women, is valuable in helping to distinguish what is essential from
what is accidental. The subordination of women makes it difficult but
not impossible to recognise the essential quality of womanhood. In a
masculine civilisation the creative work of women may be belittled,
misinterpreted, or denied: but if it is a reality, its existence will
be proved at least by the emotional colour of the denial.
I
It is therefore legitimate to consider the composite picture of
woman presented to us by the beliefs and opinions recorded by men.
These opinions are curiously contradictory and at the same time
generalised. In spite of the intense interest felt in individual
women, generalisations about women are common, whereas generalisations
about men are made warily, if at all. Men are fellow-creatures of many
different kinds: conclusions are drawn about classes of men, such as
kings, statesmen, or warriors, angry men, foolish men, or strangers;
but nothing less than a universal attribute of humanity is attached
to all men, such as that men are mortal, or subject to Fate, or
inconstant. But it is seriously believed by Moslems that women have no
souls. Thousands of Christians believe that women are not intelligent.
Mystics believe that women are on a lower plane of spiritual
development than men. Women have no sense of justice, no sense of
honour: women cannot be trusted with political power: women are all the
better for a good beating with a stick. These generalisations reflect
man as the dominant sex, conscious of his superiority. But one comes
at once upon contradictions. Every great man has been inspired by some
woman. The hand that rocks the cradle indisputably rules the world. A
woman was the first cause of original sin, but a woman was the Mother
of God. What does this mean? Half of the picture is tinged with vague
contempt, and the other half with vague reverence. Apparently the
average man sees woman alternately as an inferior being and as an angel.
One must conclude that he is looking at her through a distorting
medium. His conception of her as an inferior being is natural, in a
man-made State, and were she really inferior it would stop there.
His vague reverence for her remains to prevent this conclusion: it is
certainly a compensation for something, a distorted recognition of
some half-guessed-at power in women. It looks as if man knows that
the inferiority of woman is a fiction, that his domination of her and
his refusal to admit her to his own level are not justified. In the
background there lurks a fear of reprisals. The distorting medium
contains fear as one of its elements.
In men’s societies of a primitive or arrested type where the etiquette
of conduct betrays its origin, one can see clearly man’s fear of
woman. Woman possesses some mysterious power which must be averted
by elaborate taboos. A woman can ruin a man’s chances of success in
hunting or fishing by touching his gear. A woman’s shadow can blight a
religious ceremony. Women are particularly to be feared when they are
menstruating or in childbed. The most terrible ghost is that of a woman
who dies in childbed. In more developed societies men burn old crones
as witches in possession of the evil eye. And even to-day, especially
in politics, men find it difficult to rid themselves of the uneasy
suspicion that women are dangerous.
This fear proves the artificiality of man’s domination. One can be
sceptical of any claim to superiority which throws such a shadow.
Natural domination, that domination of skill and experience which is
expected of a physician in a sick-room, or of a captain on his ship,
establishes itself without arrogance and fear, and is exercised within
its natural limits in particular directions. The physician does not
interfere with navigation; the captain claims no divine right of
authority over medical prescriptions. But the domination claimed by
men over women has been a kind of magical quality, an absolute and
divine right of authority, a mass domination, and, like all other mass
dominations, rooted in fear.
But men’s fear of women proves only that women are not naturally
inferior and subordinate. It does not prove that they are different
from men. There remains the other side of the picture, however,
with its sentimentalised ideal of women. A reverence for woman as a
mother appears clearly: the mother is elevated to a place in heaven
and worshipped as the Mother of God, or as the Mother of the Gods.
Now motherhood is an undisputed function of women which they do not
share with men. At the lowest estimate of their powers all women are
potential mothers. Men are born of women, and of women only. It must be
an important function, for men have tried to belittle it. The theology
of the masculine world branded Eve as the first cause of evil, and
explained the pains of child-birth as a just punishment from heaven.
Still more significant, however, is the fact that Adam and Eve were
created by a masculine God in a garden, and that the theologians could
not leave them there. It was necessary to bring them from the plane of
abstract art on to the plane of humanity. But only a woman can create
human beings, and therefore it was the woman who had to bring them out
of the mythical garden into reality--a confession of failure for the
theologians, and they wreaked their revenge on Eve. Yet in spite of
themselves they were driven to attribute to a woman the decisive action
which transformed the figments of a male God into men and women.
But motherhood was smirched with original sin. Later on it was still
further belittled. Women were regarded as mere receptacles, passive
receptive bodies which created nothing. Men must have felt that
motherhood was important, or they would not have tried to explain it
away altogether. But the sentimental ideal of woman as the mother
still persisted, especially among men, and could not be explained
away: so, finally, motherhood was allowed by popular opinion to be a
creative function, but of a purely physical nature, and it was further
defined as the sole justifiable function of women. Mr. Rudyard Kipling
expressed this very neatly when he said that blind Nature made man for
several ends and woman for only one. In Oriental countries the still
more logical conclusion is drawn that women justify their existence
only by producing men-children. In a society committed to this point
of view childless women are failures in life, and the unmarried woman
is a ridiculous nuisance. If social remedies such as polygamy, suttee,
infanticide, or euthanasia are not put into practice, the phrase
“superfluous women” comes into existence, and the State is shaken by
the problem of what to do with its superfluous women.
II
Yet if motherhood can be defined, rightly or wrongly, as the sole
function of women, it must be a function which in some degree expresses
the quality of womanhood as distinct from manhood. Even in this
artificially narrowed field of activity one should be able to find some
clue to the essential nature of women. It is therefore advisable first
of all to compare motherhood and fatherhood.
Fatherhood seems the more casual relationship of the two. It cannot be
proved with the same certainty as motherhood. In a masculine State,
where the father is the only legal parent, the institution of marriage
is necessary to prevent fathers from successfully disclaiming their
children. Maternity is not so easily denied, and in a feminine State
it could be proved without the aid of a marriage contract. Where the
mother is the sole legal parent civil marriage is unnecessary. Hence,
as the Vaertings point out, bastardy is unknown in a feminine State. A
mother’s connection with her child is more obvious and immediate than a
father’s. A man can be a parent without knowing it: a woman cannot.
Motherhood is also a greater tax on vital energy than fatherhood, even
if we take motherhood merely as a physical function. The process of
bearing a child culminates in a crisis which exhausts a woman’s energy:
to such an extent, indeed, that women often die of it. Moreover, it is
a process which, once initiated, is not under conscious control, so
that the reserve of energy drawn upon is not deliberately assigned to
this purpose by its owner. It is not at her free disposal to grant or
to withhold; it cannot be exhausted by an act depending on conscious
volition. The race in this respect is stronger than the individual.
It may be that here we are on the track of an essential difference
between men and women in the distribution of energy. If fatherhood
is a more casual relationship and uses up less time and energy than
motherhood, it looks as if the specifically sexual life of men does not
require such a jealously guarded reserve of energy as that of women.
This would be true of all men and all women, for such a fundamental
process as the propagation of the human race could not be left to a
section of humanity. As far as the race is concerned, all women are
potential mothers, and must have the necessary reserve of energy for
this function whether they intend to become mothers or not. They cannot
waste it even if they would. Thus men have more energy to waste on
their own individual purposes than women: that is to say, men have more
energy at their conscious disposal.
III
The implications of this hypothesis must be considered. It is
attractive because it establishes an essential difference between men
and women which makes them complementary to each other. There can be
no question of absolute domination of one sex by the other when the
strength of each lies in a different direction. If man’s energy is
diverted more into conscious life, woman’s energy is diverted more into
unconscious life, and one is not more important than the other. It is
a relative, not an absolute difference; both men and women are human
beings, and all that concerns human beings is their joint affair. But
it means, as will be seen, a difference in the kind of creative work
done by each: they will tackle the same things from a different point
of view, and with different results. On this basis men and women would
each have an equal right, the right of the creative spirit to do its
work without let or hindrance.
Conscious life implies rational thinking. In thinking about things
we arrange them in patterns, we give them form and system. But we do
not give them content; conscious life modifies or seizes upon things
which it does not originate. Growth is a process which is already
well advanced before it enters consciousness at all. Our patterns of
thought, therefore, can never be final: they must from time to time be
broken and re-formed to admit new factors pushed into consciousness.
But the existence of thought-patterns makes it easier to recognise the
significance of new factors, since a thought, once formulated, can be
passed on, and becomes a permanent heritage for the human race, part of
the body of knowledge established by the processes of consciousness.
These processes are continuously at work extending the body of
knowledge, systematising thought, and endeavouring to systematise life.
Consciousness is thus the shaper of form, which is one aspect of life,
and its work tends to a permanence beyond the vicissitudes of living.
But its vitality depends upon its communion with the unconscious.
Obviously, unconscious life cannot be clearly defined. We can only
guess at its nature from the angle at which its processes enter
consciousness, from its disruptive action upon our systems of
thought, and from what we can remember of its manifestations in
dreams. We know that our emotions rise from it like bubbles through
water, that it determines our motives and our interests, and that it
is not homogeneous by conscious standards. Its interferences with
our conscious life are always spontaneous and strongly charged with
feeling. We can infer from such interferences that it has purposes.
From its manifestations in dreams and trance states we know that it
has access to knowledge by other than conscious means. This kind of
knowledge, when it makes its way into consciousness, we sometimes
recognise by its emotional force and unexpectedness, and call it
intuition. But for the most part we serve the purposes of our
unconscious without knowing that we do so, and admit its wisdom only
through the indirect channels of conscious rationalisation.
The processes of the unconscious can, however, be roughly described by
contrast with the conscious life. The unconscious is concerned with
growth rather than form; it is essentially emotional, spontaneous,
and irrational. As far as we know, it is concrete in its thinking and
not abstract; it creates living agents and not systems of thought.
Thus, while conscious processes supply form and permanence in our
world, unconscious processes supply growing vitality and change. The
creations of unconscious life are wrought in mortal substances, those
of conscious life in enduring patterns which are one step removed from
life. Unconscious life creates, for example, human beings: conscious
life creates, for example, philosophy. If men are stronger in conscious
life, and women in unconscious life, their creative powers must
express their strength. Men should excel in translating life into
conscious forms, women in fostering the growth of life itself. Men will
create systems of philosophy or government, while women are creating
individual human beings.
IV
The facts of human life tend to confirm this theory. Starting again
from the fundamental relationship of a mother to her child, we can see
that owing to the peculiar position of the human race, the physical act
of motherhood is only the merest beginning of motherhood as a function.
Man, because he is destined for a more complex life than the other
animals, is born more helpless than any of them, and takes a longer
time to come to maturity. His conscious life constructs itself slowly
out of the perceptions of every day, establishing at every point in
its development a working relationship with his unconscious life, a
relationship which is permanently biassed by the experiences of his
first years. He is terribly at the mercy of his mother. She can ruin or
strengthen that harmony between the conscious and the unconscious which
is a necessary condition of full human development. In short, she must
create not only a human body, but a human being, if she is to fulfil
her function as a mother. But if it is her business to foster growth
in her children, it must be equally her business to foster growth in
all the people with whom she is intimate. If she is a specialist in the
needs of the growing human spirit, her peculiar knowledge must be of
service to men and women of all ages who are still capable of growth.
And what is true in this respect of mothers must be true for all women:
a special equipment for motherhood does not descend suddenly by the
grace of Heaven upon the individual. All girls are potential mothers,
and whatever gifts of intuition are necessary for the creative work
of motherhood must be accessible to all women. If the full content of
motherhood is thus recognised, it must inevitably be recognised as
a special application of the creative power of women. Therefore the
concept “superfluous women” can only arise in a society which denies
the real functions of motherhood, and which consequently prevents
women from free expression and ignores the creative power of womanhood.
Creative power of any kind is, of course, the obverse of an equal power
for destruction. No one can put an engine out of action so deftly as
the man who designs engines. Woman’s power of fostering growth in
human life implies, therefore, an equal power of hindering it. We must
accept both sides of the hypothesis, and in doing so we find fresh
proof that it is true. If the average man sees woman alternately as an
angel and a devil, it is because she exercises both a creative and a
destructive influence upon his inner life. He would neither fear nor
reverence her so intensely if she were merely an inferior counterpart
of himself. Nor would he lay upon her such peculiar disabilities.
These disabilities are not only of the kind that would suffice to keep
an inferior class in subjection. Inferior classes, whether actually
enslaved or not, are kept in their place by being excluded from the
sources of external power, such as the possession of wealth, the
command of armies, the exercise of political rights. Certain moral and
religious sanctions always rise to reinforce the law on these points,
for the springs of human conduct lie in the unconscious, and morality
and religion deal directly with the emotions of unconscious life.
The ruling class seeks therefore to impose a morality consonant with
its own interests, and fears a new religion more than a revolution.
But it is always conscious of the expediency of the conventional
morality it imposes on inferiors, and attaches no ultimate value to
it. The model subordinate, obedient and loyal, is not reverenced or
idealised: he is not regarded by his superiors as a type of perfect
manhood, but only as a perfect subordinate. He may be a bad man
provided that he is a good servant. The position of women in a men’s
State does not correspond exactly to this. True, if we substitute the
function of motherhood in its narrow interpretation for the function
of servitude, the correspondence is exact up to a point. The wife and
mother is excluded from independent access to the sources of external
power: and she is expected to be obedient and loyal to her marriage
contract. Moral and religious sanctions are called in to transform her
marriage contract into a vow. The stock moral virtue required of her is
chastity; she must have sexual relationships only within the pale of
marriage. All women, because they are potential wives, must copy her
virtues and avoid what is forbidden to her. So far this is only another
aspect of the fact that men restrict the function of women to physical
motherhood, and define their own responsibilities by the institution
of marriage. Women are treated exactly as an inferior class with a
definite function, that of child-bearing. But the correspondence stops
here. The disabilities imposed upon women by conventional morality
cut deeper still. The sexually good woman must be not only good but
ignorant: whole tracts of human experience are withheld from her
knowledge. Moreover, her chastity and her ignorance are translated by
men themselves into an abstraction of artificial purity and reverenced
as their ideal of womanhood. An ideal of womanhood cherished in men’s
States, which has for its essential elements ignorance of life and
a debased conception of sex, can be regarded with scepticism. It is
noteworthy that intellectual ignorance does not have the same prestige,
and therefore cannot be so important. Even an “educated” woman is
conventionally more acceptable than a woman who is shocked at nothing.
The conventionally pure good woman is shocked at a great many things:
that is to say, she does not merely condemn certain phases of conduct,
which would be at least a forthright attitude, she is uncomfortable
and timid when they are brought to her notice. Now if man’s reverence
for women is an acknowledgment of her vaguely realised power, at the
same time in that very reverence, conventionalised into an ideal, he
obviously safeguards himself against her power. Apparently, women can
be kept in a subordinate position if ignorance of human conduct is
imposed upon them as a necessary condition of social approval. It can
be inferred that a fearless attitude towards human life is the first
essential quality of a free woman, and that conventional morality is
imposed with such emphasis upon women because the creation of moral
values is their own peculiar vocation. Men are more concerned to
prevent women from having untrammelled judgment and action in affairs
of morality than from having access to the possession of wealth. In
other words, women are hindered not only from external power, but from
the inward power of creating independent moral and religious values. It
is precisely this power which is exercised by creative women in their
treatment of others, and the conventionalised ideal of the ignorant
good woman is the deepest disability laid upon women in a men’s State.
The conventionally good woman helps to perpetuate the formal traditions
created by man, traditions which harden into empty shells unless they
are continuously vitalised by the independent judgments of women. She
accepts the masculine standpoint that human conduct is to be judged
entirely by the values of consciously organised life, which are devised
for the preservation of existing systems, and are not necessarily
humane. She acquiesces in repression and punishment instead of seeking
to understand and cherish. Men praise her for this subserviency and
unconsciously despise her.
But in preventing her from aggression upon their forms and traditions
men lose more than they gain. She is humbugged out of her womanhood,
but she is still a woman, and does not cease to influence their inner
life. The systems of society--such as marriage--are preserved, but
the individual man suffers. He meets hardness where he looks for
tolerance, and condemnation where he needs help. Worse still, for her
conventionality is borrowed and therefore unintelligent, he finds
himself imprisoned in traditions which he himself would destroy and
create anew were it not for the timidity of the conventional women.
Thus in a typical men’s State where the creative work of women is
ignored, where women are prevented by legal and economic barriers
from access to external sources of power and hampered by conventional
ignorance of life, they have an insidious influence which evades all
the means by which men try to keep it in check. The fabric of the
State, the organised systems, remain apparently intact, but the private
life of men becomes sour and stale. The more men deny the rights of
women in public, the more they are delivered over to the obscure
dissatisfactions of their women in private. The conventional women
whom men evoke for their own protection have in the end a more fatal,
because a thwarted, influence on human life than the fearless women.
Among the Hindus, for example, where the social systems of men have
hardened into cast-iron (perhaps because the women have been prevented
from free expression), the negative power of women is very great. Women
are not merely inferior imitations of men: they create men or destroy
them.
The question may be put, If the whole of human experience is the
natural concern of women, and if women are indeed endowed with the
capacity to understand and foster the growth of the human spirit, how
is it possible for women to accept a narrow conventional morality? It
is possible because unconscious life is remarkably suggestible, and in
a society where womanly traditions are mainly negative the continuous
pressure of conventional values is applied to girls almost from
childhood. Only rare women with a genius for womanhood can resist the
potency of such suggestions.
That it is a woman’s destiny to create human beings, whether she
fulfils it or not, is amply confirmed by the natural bias of her
interests. In spite of convention her interest in human beings is
stronger and more spontaneous than her interest in anything else.
Almost from the cradle a girl studies the people around her more
attentively than a boy does, and is quicker in imitating their tricks
of speech and behaviour. A little later she turns naturally to dolls,
not because of an absurdly precocious maternal instinct, but because
dolls are substitutes for human beings, and her creative fancy can
play upon them without restriction. A doll is not necessarily a son
or daughter: it is by turns a confidant, a scapegoat, and a talisman.
Later still her interest in other people becomes practically a ruling
passion: and since she is not merely a potential wife and mother but
a potential woman, she is interested not only in possible sweethearts
but in everybody. She is inquisitive about human relationships of every
kind. She is indifferent to things which have no human interest: she
values things for their associations, or the power they give her over
other people. The intimacy between an adolescent girl and her bosom
friend for the time being is based on a mutual interest in human nature
and a common standard of critical values which they apply to each other
as well as to the world. They analyse motives, provoke moods, love and
hate with such intensity that emotional explosions are inevitable.
Their interest is not that of mere spectators at the human comedy: they
are ready to play important parts in it; and they test at every point
their influence over others.
When fifteen-year-old girls write essays on “What I should like to
be,” the aspirations disclosed are rarely intellectual or material.
Nearly every girl wants to be popular, to be an influence for good,
to establish a reputation for cheerfulness and kindness, in short,
to be successful in handling human beings. When she leaves school
the same bias continues. The average girl is more interested in
the people around her than in her work, especially if her work has
little direct human interest. If her daily work does not consist of
personal relations to other people, her efficiency in it depends upon
the approval of her employers rather than upon her pride in the work
itself. She sees herself as the sunbeam in the office, or as the
comforter of her employer’s broken life, or as a moral influence--in
other words, where no human interest exists in her surroundings she
takes pains to invent it. It is this entirely womanly impulse which
generates most of the sentiment and scandal among women.
In married life women display the same passionate interest in other
people, even though husbands and families absorb a certain amount of
it. Neighbours, servants, and children are their dearest topics. No
woman is bored when she is discussing other people; and this is true of
both educated and uneducated women. The things which primarily concern
women as women are human affairs and experiences, material which helps
them more capably to scrutinise, to interpret, and to meddle with the
people they meet. The result is that they often meddle tediously with
other people’s lives. Like Hedda Gabler, they must have their fingers
in somebody’s destiny, destructively if not creatively. Destruction of
this kind instead of creation is tragic, but it arises at least from a
pre-occupation with humanity, and so, unlike war, it is womanly.
Thus the current of women’s interests sets definitely towards actual
human beings and concrete situations rather than abstract theories.
There are other aspects of womanhood which confirm the hypothesis that
women’s strength lies in unconscious rather than in conscious life, and
which can be briefly enumerated.
The first of these is too obvious to require comment. By general
consent of men, women are more irrational and impulsive than men are.
Secondly, women have a strong, if inarticulate, affinity with what is
called Nature; a fact which is symbolised by the personification of
Nature as a woman. Nature in this sense is the sum of that growing
life which has not reached the conscious level of humanity. To this
growing life, vegetable or animal, women are never indifferent:
their reactions to it are strongly emotional, whether sympathetic
or antipathetic. When because of some timidity they cannot exercise
their creative power on human beings, they readily foster plants or
animals instead, and there are women who can do so with the sureness
of intuitive knowledge. They are more obviously affected by natural
phenomena than men; their sexual life, for example, is governed by the
phases of the moon, and it is claimed that their fertility varies with
the rainfall and the earth’s magnetic currents. Thirdly, they have an
immediate sense of the significance of life: they have the same vivid
interest in even trivial affairs that one finds in dreams. Women have
none of the detachment which is equally prepared to prove that life
is significant or that it is meaningless. They assume without proof
that life, especially human life, is significant; they are so deeply
immersed in life that it is not possible for them to question its value
as men do. For this reason they are more tenacious of life than men.
Fourthly, they come to maturity earlier than men do, although they
live longer on the average. This does not mean that women remain in
a state of arrested development as compared with men: the advent of
puberty does not put a stop to mental and spiritual development. But
it may be interpreted as a sign that the creative work of womanhood
requires a less elaborate conscious equipment than that of men. The
wisdom of conscious life is a structure slowly built by the individual,
and needs a long apprenticeship; it is possible that the wisdom of
unconscious life exists independently of the individual and waits only
for admission. Incidentally, the fact that women have a reasonable
expectation of living for twenty-five years after they have ceased to
bear children is another proof--if proof be needed--that maternity is
not merely a physical function: women go on living as long as their
children need them. Lastly, although their creative work consists
in the handling of individuals, and although they are finely aware
of their own individual reactions, women rarely achieve a conscious
individuality. They are so largely unconscious of themselves that
they need emotional support for their personalities: it is their
danger that they tend to live in a state of perpetual reference to
other people; and when they express themselves as individuals, they
do so spontaneously and not deliberately. Thus women as a body show
a timidity which easily relapses into conservatism, and can only be
overcome by urgent necessity. Conservatism becomes the spiritual
death of women, as of men: but in women it springs from a timidity of
intellect, from a weakness in conscious life; in men from a timidity
of emotion, from a fear of the unconscious. This difference between
men and women is illustrated in dress, for example. As the consciously
organised life of men develops, their clothing expresses less of the
emotion, the temperament, the spontaneity of unconscious life: it
becomes a uniform, symbolic of their status as rational members of an
organised society. They are sure of themselves and of their traditions,
consequently fashion is a convention which sits as easily upon them
as other conventions, and changes as slowly. It is a reasonable law,
deliberately accepted for the sake of convenience and orderliness.
Women, on the other hand, are not afraid of temperament and colour
in dress; they express in their clothing the spontaneous, vivid, and
irrational qualities of unconscious life. But because they are unsure
of themselves as members of a public body, they need the assurance
of “being in the fashion” to give them the necessary confidence for
wearing even the most daring creations. Fashion among women is thus not
a law accepted for convenience; it is a kind of emotional support, and
it fluctuates as often and as widely as emotions.
V
In this weakness of women’s conscious life we have the key to men’s
domination over them. It is the domination of the more articulate over
the less articulate consciousness. Man is the intellectual organiser of
life. He arranges life in patterns, or, as has been already suggested,
translates it into conscious forms, and he is therefore more interested
in the nature of his patterns than in the material out of which he
composes them. He begins, where woman ends, with the individual human
being and individual experiences; his aim is to lift these into a
world of enduring and proved forms. The Platonic idea, for example,
is a purely masculine conception. It is possible that man’s world of
ultimate abstractions is another aspect of the world from which woman
works towards the individual, and that his consciously constructed
philosophy, if it were perfected, would coincide with the content
of her intuitive wisdom. Thus a circle would be completed in which
woman seeks to express the infinite in terms of the individual life,
while man seeks to express the individual in terms of the infinite.
The difference between them remains, however, not merely a difference
in aim but a difference in equipment. Woman is the gateway through
which the wisdom of the unconscious comes to be translated by man into
conscious form. Her wisdom, derived from unfathomable sources, must be
expended upon life incarnate and narrowed into the practical details of
everyday circumstance. Her intelligence is fettered, as it were, to
actual life, and is best stimulated by concrete situations. Man, on the
other hand, moves away from human life: his intelligence ranges freely
in a world of speculation and can create perfectly abstract universes
of knowledge. His work consequently takes visible shape beneath his
hand: it can be tested; it can be destroyed and shaped again; it can
achieve completion. The work of woman has none of these attributes: she
has no objective proof of success; in the last resort she must depend
upon her subjective valuations. Thus the more organised and objective
certainties of men impose themselves easily upon women. Men can prove
their theories even when they are wrong; women cannot prove their
intuitions even when they are right. In his world, that of organised
form, man dominates woman naturally.
But woman should dominate man in her own field, the creation of free
and harmonious individuals; for the potential progress of humanity may
be determined by man, but its actual progress is determined by woman.
In a society which recognises the domination of men and denies that of
women, the creative work of both is hampered. The danger for men lies
in that very quality of detachment which gives their work its value.
Left to themselves they become more and more detached, substituting
for the fluctuations of life a stable and systematic perfection of
theory which is rigidly imposed upon individual members of society.
Religion becomes a creed, morality a code of law, government a party
machine: even art, which is of all their activities the most accessible
to the vitality of unconscious life, is intellectualised and engenders
theories of æsthetics instead of works of art. Human beings become
mere pegs on which to hang the theories, economic units, and man,
the heir of all the ages, is in danger of being crushed under the
weight of his own machines. The financial machine in our own day is an
excellent example of masculine activity pushed to extremes: it has
been successfully detached from human values so that it exists for the
production of money and not for the production of goods and services
to humanity. The mere individual has ceased to be of any importance,
and even the inventions or discoveries of his intelligence are valued
only in terms of money. It is a curious paradox that men who, as
individuals, are surer of themselves than women, and who command their
conscious energies more freely, should inevitably create systems to
which the individual is subordinated. A system of this kind is not
necessarily an evil, but when it makes no allowance for women’s values,
for their sense of the significance of human life and the individual
human being, it moves to its extreme logical conclusion and becomes
inhuman.
This over-emphasis of masculine activities was conceivably necessary at
a point in history when civilisation was in its infancy and the need
for organisation was greater than the need for individual freedom.
Perhaps at such a point the domination of men over women began. But
the discrepancy between human and institutional values is now so great
that even men feel it acutely; it has disquieted women for some time
and is forcing them into the open. It looks as if during the next few
generations the really creative New Woman will emerge, for conventional
morality is no longer so powerful among women, and they are gradually
deserting the blind alleys into which they rushed in their first
efforts at self-assertion.
It does not follow that women by themselves can save humanity. Men
must face their own problems, and women are naturally ill-equipped
to create new forms of society. But it is the business of women to
create the creators of social forms, and they cannot escape a certain
responsibility for the present tension in our organised life. Absolute
domination by either sex is no longer necessary; the modern world
needs the creative work of both. Woman by herself loses a sense of
proportion, just as man by himself loses touch with reality. Man’s
intellectual conclusions must be checked by woman’s intuitive knowledge
of the human spirit, and woman’s spontaneous wisdom must be helped by
man’s intellectual vision. Both are creative although they depend upon
each other: there is no room on either side for false pride or humility.
VI
It is now advisable to consider attentively the statement that creative
women need new and independent moral values since conventional morality
expresses a man’s standpoint rather than a woman’s. If the latter
part of this statement can be proved, that conventional morality is
necessarily masculine, then the first part must inevitably be accepted.
It has already been postulated that women derive their greatest
strength from unconscious life and are concerned with growth. Their
energies and interests turn spontaneously towards the living human
beings upon whom their influence is exerted. This influence, because
it is largely unconscious, is not rational but emotional; when it is
directed positively towards other people it is best described as love.
Creative love is the fundamental attribute of womanhood, as perhaps
creative thought is of manhood. Its aim is to foster harmony and
strength in the individual.
Woman thus sees humanity as a collection of individuals of whom no two
are identical, growing separately like trees in a common direction,
expressing in visible forms, each of which is significant, a common
unseen life. If one may use a rough symbolism, women see humanity in
vertical lines, while men see it in horizontal strata. The perfection
of each individual is women’s business, and the combination of
individuals into social systems is man’s business. These two aspects
of life are necessarily continuous and inseparable: the difference
between them here, as throughout, is one of emphasis. Women emphasise
the wholeness of the individual in himself; men, the relation of the
individual to his neighbours. It follows that women cannot disregard
or eliminate anything which manifests itself in the life of the
individual. Man resembles a tree only by analogy; he cannot be lopped
of his branches; he can achieve strength and harmony only by carrying
everything with him. Nothing is accidental or superfluous in his
behaviour; virtues and vices are alike significant. From this point of
view whatever prevents the harmony of the complete individual is bad;
but it cannot be cut off, it must be fused into the whole, if possible.
Woman therefore cannot shirk any issue or turn from the investigation
of any human impulse, whatever its nature. She believes in the
significance and continuity of all that life which passes into human
consciousness, and to her goodness and badness are relative terms,
depending on the nature of the immediate problem. Thus she cannot
believe in original sin, although she recognises mistakes. Man, on
the other hand, believes in the significance of his systems which cut
across life horizontally, and he desires to fit the individual into his
patterns. Whatever disrupts his patterns is bad and must be cut off.
This condition naturally is uniform in its operation, and therefore
badness is a constant quantity, something definite which can be written
down in a code of prohibitions. Nonconformity with the law is original
sin, and arouses his indignation. But as there are many systems, each
system has its own code of offences and penalties, and each casts out
its own offenders. The Church excommunicates them, the State imprisons
them, Society boycotts them, professional bodies expel them; they are
dishonoured and ignored, thrust out of the system whose stability they
threaten. We penetrate to the very heart of the difference between men
and women when we observe that the outcast, whose individuality is
formally denied by his fellows, remains none the less an individual to
the women who love him. Obviously a morality which satisfies the one
point of view does not satisfy the other.
The morality honoured by men is thus a morality designed to preserve
the systems which men create. Because it upholds the values of
consciously organised life it distrusts the impulses of unconscious
life, which it calls original sin, or personifies as a devil. Less
civilised and more impulsive races are easily suspected of being direct
agents of the devil, as are also the adherents of rival or opposing
systems. Women, because they are natural supporters of spontaneous
action, are particularly to be distrusted, and masculine morality,
as we have seen, imposes a still more stringent code on women than
on men. So it happened that Eve, a creative woman vindicating the
importance of individual moral values and of an individual conscience
that should make each man the equal of God, was necessarily abhorrent
to an organised theology. So in the United States it happens that the
earnest business man regards negroes and Socialists as public dangers;
and in exactly the same way in Scotland the earnest Calvinist believes
that Roman Catholics are damned. The follower of a systematic morality
has always a black list. Each system produces its own code of offences
for nonconformity, and its moral standards are therefore valid only for
itself: they are not necessarily religious or universal.
In such a morality the individual is considered only as one who
conforms or does not conform to the code required, never as an
individual in himself. Further, because it distrusts the spontaneity of
unconscious impulses, systematic morality believes that all individuals
are bad in their hearts, that they are good only when they are
afraid to be bad, and that penalties for badness must be sufficiently
grievous to frighten them. Thus systematic morality depends upon fear
of punishment. The kind of punishment imposed has only an arbitrary
relation to the nature of the offence committed, and no relation at
all to the psychological problems in which the offender is involved:
it is designed merely to make him suffer, and, if he persists in
offending, to remove him. The public school imposes its two hundred
or its four hundred “lines” or so many strokes with the birch, or
resorts to expulsion; the State fines varying sums, or imprisons for
varying periods, or resorts to capital punishment; the business firm
reprimands, or fines, or resorts to dismissal. In each case the system
and the code which supports it are more important than the life of the
individual. Morality of this kind, when it is perfectly developed, is
quite impersonal; its abstract impersonality is revered by men as an
ideal, which they call Justice.
This systematic morality with its impersonal judgments, its definite
codes, its uniformly graded punishments, and its unquestioning
repudiation of the offender is a logical pendant to the systems which
men create. It is precisely what is usually called conventional
morality, and it is essentially masculine in its attitude to the
individual. Women, if they are to create free and harmonious
individuals, cannot sacrifice an individual to a code; they cannot
agree that goodness is only the fear of punishment; they cannot believe
in the efficacy of external punishment, and they cannot permit the
offender to be cut off. To the creative woman an offender is a question
which she must try to answer. Her morality must be psychological rather
than punitive, personal rather than impersonal, and fundamentally
religious. It is clear that many actions which systematic morality
considers bad must appear good to the creative woman, and inversely
what she considers good must often be condemned by systematic morality.
Women must therefore create their own independent moral values. It may
be objected that if each woman creates her own morality the result will
be confusion. This objection, however, arises out of a misapprehension.
It is not the business of women to condemn or to punish, or to exact
conformity with any definite code of conduct: it is their business to
understand the processes at work in the human soul and to help each
individual to the fullest and most harmonious expression of his powers.
There will always be enough men in the world to secure the existence
of systematic morality; any confusion produced by the action of women
will be only the rich confusion of life itself. Besides, creative love
is not mere sympathy or even affection; if women cannot sacrifice
an individual to a code they are equally unable to sacrifice their
intuitions about the human race to an individual. Creative love demands
a high discipline from those who would exercise it.
VII
The first condition that is required from women is that they shall
know themselves. A woman who is ignorant of her own weaknesses cannot
help others, for she is incapable of correcting distortions caused
by her own fear or anger. The conventional woman hangs conventional
ideas between herself and her own nature, thus negating her deepest
instincts. She despises and represses part of her own humanity;
consequently she has a repressive instead of a fostering effect on
other people. Women must therefore be frankly sincere with themselves
if they are to be creative, and must make allowances for their own
faults in dealing with others. One can only mete out to others the
measure one has already meted to oneself.
But though the instrument is imperfect the possibilities are great.
The second condition for the exercise of creative love is a boundless
faith in the capacity of the human soul for growth. This is where
women cannot let the doctrine of original sin stand between them and
the individuals with whom they have to deal. The gospel for women
is contained in the words, “the kingdom of Heaven is within you,”
qualified by the knowledge that Heaven is not a static condition of
bliss but a vital harmony of body and spirit. Such a belief demands the
fullest scientific knowledge of what promotes or hinders health of body
and of mind; and it is the business of the creative woman to get all
the information she can.
Religion and morality for women thus resolve themselves into a belief
that human life is significant, serving a destiny greater than itself,
and the interpretation of that belief into terms of conduct. Because
each individual is a unique problem the details of this conduct can
never be codified; therefore the morality of women is ultimately
spontaneous and individual, depending for guidance upon their creative
energies, expressed through love.
The whole world needs creative women, and seems to be unaware of its
need. Women themselves do not know how necessary they are. The result
is that many waste themselves in trying to be men, and many are content
to justify their existence by simple drudgery. There still remain many
who feel that a woman should be more to her husband than the keeper of
his house, and some of these reserve themselves for men with obvious
disabilities, because they think that the average man has no real need
of them. But, although the desire is unformulated, nearly all women
desire to have a creative influence on their husbands. If it were not
so, the “best-sellers” which circulate among women would not resemble
each other so strikingly in one respect: the hero is always at odds
with the world and is rescued from a gloomy fate by the great love of
the heroine. If he is a reputed villain so much the better; the field
of action for the heroine is all the clearer. Only a courageous woman
looking for really difficult work would marry an ordinary man instead
of a villain with a heart of gold.
Women’s creative work is implicitly recognised in many beliefs and
customs. The difference between the morality of men and women, for
example, is finely illustrated among the Syrian Arabs, where a
prisoner on his way to execution is absolved from his sentence if he
can lay hold of a woman’s skirts. It is felt, though not understood,
by those men of our own country who complain that women have no sense
of justice. It is exploited by commercial firms who establish women
welfare workers to humanise their business systems, within limits. And
the tradition that woman’s place is the home is possibly not entirely
determined by the subordinate position of women, but may arise from
a sound intuition about the nature of women and their functions. The
home is a strategic centre for the creation of human beings. Moreover,
a home does not imply a husband: marriage is a desirable but not a
necessary condition for women’s creative work. Nor is it bounded by the
four walls of a house; whatever affects the people within the home is a
woman’s proper business.
VIII
This raises the question of public life for women. There is certainly
room for creative womanhood in the public life of the State. The
modern State is a highly organised system of government resting upon
other systems, such as those of finance, law, and industry; but these
complicated organisations ramify downwards until they touch the lives
of all the individuals who compose the nation. The point at which
they do so is a fitting point for the public activities of women.
Women have already begun to mediate between the system of law and
the individuals upon whom punishment by imprisonment is imposed; they
have called attention to the impossibility of reforming offenders
in a prison which ignores individuality and the psychology of the
individual. It is true that such mediation is at present usually
subject to the veto of the controlling system, and is therefore
limited; a disability which is likely to hamper women until the value
of women’s work is recognised as equal to that of men. But the obscure
dissatisfactions of our time, caused by the discrepancy between
institutional and human values are, on the one hand, compelling women
to penetrate into public life, and, on the other hand, threatening the
stability of all institutions. If women are true to themselves their
full co-operation with men is inevitable.
This means that women must carry their womanhood with them into all
occupations, otherwise the advantage of their entry into public affairs
will be entirely lost. Besides, a woman who tries to do a man’s work
in a man’s way pays too high a price for the effort. A man can be
formal and abstract without losing his human qualities or ceasing to be
creative, since his energies are distributed in that way, but a woman
cannot. She must expend more energy than he does to achieve the same
formal outlook; she must abandon the creative love for the individual
which is essential for womanhood; and, because she has killed herself
spiritually, a formal woman is twice as formal as any man, and her
work is necessarily barren. Most women are instinctively aware of this
danger and protect themselves from the hardening of traditional routine
by simple indifference to their work and an escape into marriage
as soon as possible. But this is merely an evasion of the problem
which women must solve in the next generation or two, the problem
of leavening the organised systems of society with human values so
that mechanical routine is reduced to a minimum. Meanwhile, women are
obviously in their proper place in any occupation which deals directly
with human beings.
IX
The differences that have been indicated between the sexes in
this essay do not form a hard-and-fast dividing line. Men are not
all intellect and consciousness, nor are women all intuition and
unconsciousness. It would be juster to say that some men are more
intellectual than any woman, and some women more intuitive than any
man: but even this statement does not adequately cover the case. The
different determination of energy which hinders women from supreme
intellectual detachment, and men from supreme human understanding, is
subtly operative between these two extremes throughout the intervening
space where men and women have a common field of action. It should
therefore be traceable in their respective contributions to art.
It is perhaps unwise though interesting to attempt the drawing of
distinctions between men’s art and women’s: so much depends upon one’s
idea of the nature of art. But it may be possible without becoming
entangled in controversy to suggest tentatively some differences, and
it seems worth while to see how far the argument will carry us.
From the point of view of this inquiry a work of art ranks as a
supremely conscious creation. It has perfection of form and it is
permanent: _ars longa, vita brevis_. But it is also directly and
vitally connected with the forces of unconscious life; it depends
upon, or rather it is characterised by an intensity of emotion which
it transmits as if by magic to other people than its creator. Its form
can be judged dispassionately, but not its content. It is detached
from human life, and is at the same time a revelation of it in a way
which is more immediate and more moving than a mere explanation. Thus,
although it is as deliberate a product of conscious processes as a
mathematical theory or a philosophical idea, or an economic system, it
is more intimately linked to unconscious life than any of these; it is
perhaps closer to unconscious life than any other kind of conscious
creation. For this reason, because it belongs to both worlds, the
esteem in which it is held varies according to the values of the people
among whom it is practised. And in certain cases the place assigned
to art seems to confirm the general theory of this essay, that women
create unconscious more than conscious life, and that men associate the
values of unconscious life with women. For in communities which are too
rigidly organised, because entirely devoted to some system, and which
therefore distrust the personal values of unconscious life, communities
such as those of the business men here or in the United States, art
is distrusted, the artist is considered to be effeminate, and the
appreciation and culture of art are left half contemptuously, half
respectfully to the women. On the other hand, in communities where the
framework of conscious life has not hardened and unconscious values are
not depreciated, the formal perfection of art arouses men’s admiration,
and the artist is looked upon as the best type of manhood. The artist
must thus possess both masculine and feminine qualities; that is to
say, he has immediate access to the intuitions of unconscious life, as
a woman has, and he creates conscious form, as a man does.
It has been already admitted that the difference between men and
women is only a relative difference, that men have unconscious and
women conscious powers; the fact that art belongs to both worlds
therefore allows both men and women to be artists, while at the
same time it makes more difficult than ever the attempt to draw a
distinction between men’s art and women’s. There are, however, one or
two possibilities which suggest themselves. In the first place, if
the energy of women is more absorbed by unconscious life than that of
men, it can play less freely in the world of conscious form and is
therefore less able to achieve that perfect fusion of form and content
on a grand scale which is supreme art. Certainly the greatest artists
of historical times have been men, and there is no reason to think that
the domination of men is even partly responsible for the lack of great
women artists. But if women are handicapped in those arts, such as
literature, painting, and the composition of music, where the finished
product takes a permanent form detached from the human personality
of the artist, they should have an advantage in arts like dancing,
singing, and acting, where the actual personality is the medium of
expression. And as a matter of fact in arts of this kind women have
attained supreme rank. It seems permissible to say that the nearer they
are to concrete human life, the more freely and naturally they can
create.
Again, it may be suggested that the tendency to elaborate form at the
expense of content is a danger to which men are more susceptible in
art than women. Women’s greater vitality and comparative weakness in
conscious life expose them rather to the opposite fault, a failure to
achieve a strictness of form perfectly adequate to the intensity of
the emotion expressed. This weakness would be more likely to occur
in the rendering of a sustained than of a transient emotion or mood;
consequently one would expect perfection of form from women artists in
works of small compass and natural spontaneity, such as lyric poems,
rather than in an epic or a long descriptive poem. The more elastic the
form, the more shapeless it is, the more women are able to use it for
sustained work. In literature, at least, this seems to be true. The
loose bulk of the novel makes it attractive to women as a medium of
expression; and any long works of the first rank written by women are
to be found in this form.
Further, since it is women’s business to create individuals rather than
systems of society, one would expect the art of women to be concerned
largely with actual individual experience and concrete situations. In
one sense, of course, all art must do this; but individual experience
can be transmuted into symbols and so generalised, or projected into
future worlds, and that is precisely what women are unlikely to do. No
woman has ever written a great myth or a Utopia.
Finally, if women are essentially creators of human life, we may
surmise that they are more interested in the relation of art to life
than in art for art’s sake. But this supposition must be made with many
qualifications. It is not suggested that in the act of creating or
appreciating a work of art women pause to ask, “Of what use is this to
life?” If the emotion that they experience is authentic and vivid they
will accept its significance simply, as they accept the significance
of any vivid experience. But it is suggested that if they reflect upon
art at all, this is precisely the question, formulated or not, which
will decide their attitude to it. In estimating a work of art women are
more likely to be influenced by its content than by its form, and they
are capable of drawing practical conclusions from it which would hardly
occur to men.
Among the different kinds of art, those which express themselves in a
medium closely related to the normal activities of daily life seem to
be the most favourable for women. There are more great women artists
in literature than in sculpture or painting, and more in these than in
music. Literature is expressed through language, which is a medium in
constant use between individuals; a paint brush in our civilisation
is a less usual means of expression, and the making of music still
less usual. One might also hazard a guess that in literature the
vocabulary of women contains fewer unusual words than that of men. For
the difference between spoken and written language is roughly analogous
to the difference between women and men; a correspondence which may
influence the style of women both as speakers and writers and their
preferences as readers.
X
It may be affirmed, then, that women are more directly linked to
concrete life than men, and that they naturally incline to utilitarian
standards in judging the importance of things. Men create ideas, and
women make use of them: women create human beings, and men make use
of them: both men and women seize what they need for the service of
their own purposes. Is this difference discernible in the intellectual
work of educated women, in the subjects they deliberately choose
for research, and in the contributions they make to knowledge? This
question, and many others, remain to be answered; and, with them, the
fundamental question whether the education of women, and especially
their “higher education,” is planned to secure the development of
an enlightened womanhood, as distinct from manhood. The present
inquiry pretends to be nothing more than a stimulus to the further
investigation of essential differences between men and women; but it
is clear that if there is any truth in our conclusions, an honest
re-statement of women’s aims is necessary. The conception of womanhood
which has been adumbrated here, if it is accepted, demands so many
adjustments in the attitude of women towards themselves, towards
morality, religion, sex, and education that it is impossible within the
limits of this essay to give even a hint of them.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: _The Dominant Sex_, by Mathilde and Mathias Vaerting.
Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. (Geo. Allen & Unwin.)]
=TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES=
Simple typographical errors have been silently corrected.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WOMEN: AN INQUIRY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
