A WOMAN'S WOMAN.
THERE are two phrases that are often used in common speech, but which for some reason or other have rarely found their way into print ; possibly because every one who uses or hears them attaches an understanding to them of his -own, and in the case of different persons that understanding is not always identical. What do people mean exactly when they speak of "a man's woman "or "a lady's man"? In nearly every ease, the words are apparently intended to be slighting, and the expressions may be taken more or less as terms of reproach ; and yet there is nothing in the words themselves that reflect any particular discredit upon the persons of whom they are spoken, and very often it is with an air of humility that mem- bers of either sex disclaim any right to the possession of the titles. With regard, too, to the converse of these expressions, there seems to be even more confusion of meaning, and it is impossible to be sure, without knowing of whom the words are spoken, whether the terms, "a man's man" or "a woman's woman," are intended to be complimentary or not ; the only general rule that can be laid down with regard to them is, that they have a totally different significance in the mouth of the different sexes, and that when a man intends a -compliment, a woman intends the reverse. There is no doubt whatever about the sense in which one of these expressions is used in an article that has just appeared in the pages of an American publication, Literary Life, which has suggested to us the present inquiry. Miss Cleveland, a sister of the late _President, in writing an account of another well-known American lady, Mrs. Frank Leslie, describes her as being "that most gracious and attractive of all human beings,—a woman's woman." Now, that is, we believe, the sense in which .every woman would read the words—indeed, we too would willingly confess that a woman who finds favour in the sight -of other women must of necessity be somewhat above the -average of womankind—why, then, do they apply the expres- sion, "a man's man," only to those of the other sex who are the least gracious and attractive of human beings, and the most uncouth of their kind ? And why is it that :they are so sure that the qualities that recommend them- selves to a woman can never recommend themselves to a man, and that a woman's woman and a man's woman can never be found in the same person? As a matter of fact, the expressions, wherever and however they may be used, will nearly always be found to be based upon the contempt that one sex has for the judgment and powers of discrimination of
the other, when the character of one of themselves is in ques- tion. When one man speaks of another as being a ladies' man, he means to imply that he is a poor creature, deficient in both body and spirit, who is better fitted to adorn a lady's drawing- -room than to fight in the rough battle of life. When, on the other hand, a woman says of another woman that she "gets on very well with gentlemen," or that she is the kind of girl that men admire, she means that she is a flaunting, flirting young person whose manners are as free as her speech. It is merely the way in which one sex is accustomed to libel the other ; and yet, just as there is hardly any libel that does not contain some measure of truth, and the greater the measure of truth the more cruel the libel, so there is a certain amount of reason in this mutual accusation, and it is only when the reason is apparently just that the accusation is resented.
We honestly believe that, as a general rule, the qualities that stand highest in a woman's estimation of her own sex, are those that also stand highest in a man's estimation, and vice versd; that no woman, for instance, can have more regard for modesty and tenderness than a man has, and that no man puts a higher value upon courage and honesty than a woman does. And yet, although both sexes seem thoroughly agreed as to what is desirable in the other, they still continue to show a curious perversity, not in admiring, but in ex- cusing and condoning the want of what is desirable, even the actual existence of what is undesirable. The failing which in a man's eyes is the unpardonable sin, is one which a woman most readily forgives, and very naturally, because in a woman the same offence is hardly a failing ; but it does not follow, because a woman is merciful to a man who shows a want of courage, that she prefers cowardice in the other sex, any more than it follows that because a man is most willing to excuse a certain recklessness of demeanour and freedom of speech—which, after all, are but faint shadows of his own—he does not prefer ways that are more modest and guarded. The apparent divergence of opinion on this subject arises, not from the fact that the two sexes admire different qualities, but that they do not attach the same amount of blame to the want of those qualities ; and the misunderstanding which results is almost entirely upon the woman's side. With a woman, condonation always means approval. Any man who ventures to condone, or find excuses for, what seems to her to be unseemly, must of necessity, in her eyes, not only approve it but admire it. She never applies the same rule to herself. And why ? Because she says that she is a woman, and ought not to be expected to be logical. A man, apparently, is expected not only to be logical, but to be capable of no half-way feelings. It is for this reason that the expression, "a woman's woman," as it is used by Miss Cleve- land, rankles in the manly breast. In calling Mrs. Leslie by that name, she intended not only to give the highest praise that was possible to her subject, but also to deal a back-handed blow at the other sex. This is a woman,' she seems to say, of such rare excellence as only another woman can appreciate, a woman's woman, not such as men admire, whose eyes are proverbially blind to what is really beautiful, but such a woman as we ourselves know to be best and most desirable,—in fact, the most gracious and attractive of all human beings.' Why should Miss Cleveland, or any other woman, assume this dullness and shortsightedness on the part of men, or suppose that they cannot be attracted by real grace? Is not the supposition a little unfair upon the part of the fair sex ? In common justice to the male sex, we would ask if any one has ever heard a man use the expression, "a man's man," in the same invidious sense, or, indeed, has ever heard a man make use of that expression at all ? That, too, is a woman's phrase, and means generally something the reverse of complimentary,—an uncouth being, savage, and devoid of gentle merits. We have already admitted that the term, "a lady's man," is used by men to denote something that does not seem to them to be altogether admirable; but we humbly submit that no man would ever have the arrogance to suppose that woman is incapable of appreciating his highest qualities, however much he may be perplexed to account for the toleration which she displays towards qualities which he considers de- testable. However, inasmuch as womankind is most to blame in bringing about this misapprehension of man's ideal of femi- nine graces, so upon their heads have fallen the deplorable consequence. Probably there is hardly one man in a hundred who has such a mistaken idea of what a woman likes and dislikes, that he would deliberately try to ingratiate himself with her by pretending to qualities that are more proper to her sex than to his. There are many men, it is true, who incur the reproach of effeminacy, and whose lack of manliness succeeds in procuring them that pity which is but one step
towards the affection of womankind ; but the role that they play is not the outcome of premeditation, but the unfortunate result of their own temperament. On the other hand, there are very many women who, victims to their own fond imaginings, deliberately discard their most womanly charac- teristics for the purpose of seeking man's favour, and really believe that by assuming a mannish swagger and—want of delicacy, we will say—they more easily commend themselves to his good graces. They may perhaps attract the attention and favour of certain men of the baser sort ; but we will do them the charity to believe that it is not the baser sort that they wish to attract.
Really, some lady-novelists have much to answer for. The persistent way in which they have decried man's judgment, and misrepresented his feelings, is enough by itself to have demoralised their readers' ideas. No great novelist of the other sex has ever ventured to make his heroine anything but most womanly. Perhaps "Diana of the Crossways" may be cited as a woman who, in woman's parlance, "got on very well with gentlemen," and who did not get on very well with her own sex ; but Mr. George Meredith has been careful to endow Diana with graces and failings that make her the most feminine of women, and prove that either result was rather her misfortune than her fault. We cannot honestly say that we should have fallen in love with Amelia Sedley, whose womanly virtues have been rather caricatured in Thackeray's hands, but at least we should have preferred her to Becky Sharp, who was the very opposite to what Miss Cleveland and others term a woman's woman. It is necessary in the commerce between men and women, that one side should attempt to meet the other half-way; but if the meeting is impracticable at that distance, it is better that it should never take place at all. The man or the woman, who crosses that mark, who goes a greater distance to meet a member of the other sex upon their own ground, only suffers a loss of dignity, and justly incurs the reproach that is contained in the contemptuous phrases which we have quoted. For if Miss Cleveland, and other ladies who write, would only believe it, we would respectfully assure them that it is not by man's wish or invitation that women cross the line. They really are most to blame for keeping alive a delusion which is perfectly unfounded, and which cruelly misrepresents the humbler sex.
Previous page
