THE DOMINANT SEX.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—It would be difficult to add anything to the brilliant criticism of The Dominant Sex which appeared in the Spectator of September 15th, for I cannot remember ever having read wreview of any book with which I agreed more heartily than
I did with Mr. Julian Huxley's treatment of Mathilde and Mathias Vaerting's work. Nevertheless, a reviewer is naturally
limited to a certain amount of space beyond which he does not dare to venture, and it was possibly this circumstance which compelled Mr. Huxley to omit from his article what I believe to be one of the chief objections to the thesis advanced in The Dominant Sex. Those who have read this work will remember that the authors' arguments all tend to this conclusion : that when once one of the sexes, whether male or female, becomes dominant and determines conditions of existence for the other, it is the attitude and habit of subjection in the sub- ordinate sex which then proceeds, quite irrespective of innate tendencies, to develop that sex's characteristic virtues and vices. The obvious inference is that, whichever sex happens to become dominant, the other subordinate sex, whether male or female, will develop the virtues and vices which are associated with subordination ; and that, therefore, if we admit that men are now the dominant sex, the virtues and vices of women, far from constituting essentially feminine traits, are merely the features invariably developed by subordinates, whether men or women.
Now, it seems to me that, apart from the many cogent reasons adduced by Mr. Julian Huxley for disagreeing with this thesis, one of the gravest objections to it is surely that the authors assume that which has yet to be proved—namely, that environment is stronger than the nature of the organism in determining special characteristics. In his Origin of Species, speaking of the causes of variability, Darwin said : " There arc two factors—namely, the nature of the organism, and the nature of the conditions. The former seem to me to be much the more important* ; for nearly similar variations arise under, as far as we can judge, dissimilar conditions ; and, on the other hand, dissimilar variations arise under conditions which appear to be uniform."
But Mathilde and Mathias Vaerting depend for the prool of their thesis on the perfectly gratuitous assumption that the power of environment must be greater than that of the nature of the organism. On what authority do they do this ? If the virtues which we now associate with man and woman respectively are not really based upon innate differences, but merely upon the difference in their environmental conditions ; if, moreover, a complete reversal of these environmental conditions would rear the present feminine virtues and vices in man, and the present masculine vices and virtues in woman, then we may ask, What becomes of the nature of the organism ? which to Darwin seemed much the more important factor. On this ground alone it appears to me that the Vaertings' thesis is both superficial and frivolous ; it is, however, an interesting example of the way in which scientific method and research may be strained in order to support and promote a purely temporary social aberration. The general- tendency to-day is to try at all costs to achieve and to believe in the equality of the sexes. If, therefore, the virtues and vices hitherto associated with both sexes respectively may be shown to be purely adventitious and not essential to their physiological functions and the instincts and desires which arise out of them (which agglomeration of forces constitutes the only solid and unchanging root of all deep-seated vices and virtues), one more obstacle in the path of perfect sex equality is removed. The Vaertings come along and con. veniently offer to remove that obstacle with their work, The Dominant Sex, and we have no doubt that they will get a wide and sympathetic hearing.
Those of us, however, who believe that the nature of the organism is still the more important factor in the determination of special characters, and who, in contemplating the respec- tive natures of man and woman and their peculiar functions and physiological adaptations to these functions, still perceive profound differences which no alteration in environmental conditions can possibly modify, will be inclined to reject the Vaerting thesis as an entertaining paradox, devoid even of that slender modicum of foundation in fact which frequently lends to the most paradoxical utterances more than half their savour. I agree wholly with Mr. Julian Huxley, therefore, when he says that " their biological judgment is profoundly at fault " ; and, as to the evidence they adduce, I feel very strongly with him " that scholars will need a good many more facts before they are convinced that women were truly
• Tho- Italia -are- mine.—A. -
dominant in Ancient Egypt and Sparta and in the negro --tribes that are mentioned. --I am, Sir, &c.,
ANTHONY M. LUDOVICI.
Previous page
