HYPATIA




           TO-DAY AND TO-MORROW SERIES


  _DÆDALUS, or Science and the Future_
      By J. B. S. Haldane

  _ICARUS, or The Future of Science_
      By the Hon. Bertrand Russell, F.R.S.

  _THE MONGOL IN OUR MIDST_
      By F. G. Crookshank, M.D. _Fully Illustrated_

  _WIRELESS POSSIBILITIES_
      By Prof. A. M. Low. _With four Diagrams._

  _NARCISSUS, or An Anatomy of Clothes_
      By Gerald Heard. _Illustrated_

  _TANTALUS, or The Future of Man_
      By Dr. F. C. S. Schiller

  _THE PASSING OF THE PHANTOMS_
      By Prof. C. J. Patten, M.A., M.D., Sc.D., F.R.A.I.

  _CALLINICUS, A Defence of Chemical Warfare_
      By J. B. S. Haldane

  _QUO VADIMUS? Some Glimpses of the Future_
      By E. E. Fournier d’Albe, D.Sc., F.Inst.P.

  _THE CONQUEST OF CANCER_
      By H. W. S. Wright, M.S., F.R.C.S.

  _HYPATIA, or Woman and Knowledge_
      By Dora Russell (Hon. Mrs. Bertrand Russell)

  _LYSISTRATA, or Woman’s Future and Future Woman_
      By A. M. Ludovici

  _WHAT I BELIEVE_
      By the Hon. Bertrand Russell, F.R.S.


                _In Preparation_

  _PERSEUS, of Dragons_
      By H. F. Scott Stokes, M.A.

  _THE FUTURE OF SEX_
      By Rebecca West

  _THE EVOCATION OF GENIUS_
      By Alan Porter

  _AESCULAPIUS, or Disease and The Man_
      By F. G. Crookshank, M.D.


         _Other Volumes in Preparation_

             E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY




                                HYPATIA
                                  OR
                          WOMAN AND KNOWLEDGE

                                  BY
                             DORA RUSSELL
                        (MRS. BERTRAND RUSSELL)


                            [Illustration]


                               NEW YORK
                        E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY




                            Copyright 1925
                       By E. P. Dutton & Company

                         _All Rights Reserved_

              First Printing                  July, 1925
              Second Printing                 July, 1925
              Third Printing              February, 1926

               _Printed in the United States of America_




                                  To
                              MY DAUGHTER
                              KATE RUSSELL




                                PREFACE


Hypatia was a University lecturer denounced by Church dignitaries and
torn to pieces by Christians. Such will probably be the fate of this
book: therefore it bears her name. What I have written here I believe,
and shall not retract or change for similar episcopal denunciations.

                                                        DORA RUSSELL.

_January, 1925._




TABLE OF CONTENTS


   I  JASON AND MEDEA
      _Is there a Sex War?_                   1

  II  ARTEMIS
      _The Early Struggles of Feminism_      13

 III  ASPASIA
      _The Younger Feminists_                26

  IV  HECUBA
      _Feminist Mothers_                     40

   V  JASON AND ADMETUS
      _Men_                                  71




                                HYPATIA




                                   I

                            JASON AND MEDEA
                         _Is there a Sex War?_


A feature of modern life is that matrimonial quarrels, like modern
war, are carried on on a large scale, involving not individuals, nor
even small groups of individuals, but both sexes and whole classes
of society. In the past, Jason and Medea, neither of them quite an
exemplary character, measured their strength against one another as
individuals; and, though each voiced the wrongs and the naked brutality
of their sex, it did not occur to either to seek in politics or in
social reform a solution or a compromise. Jason, indeed, as the
reactionary face to face with a turbulent and insurgent female, called
to his aid the powers of kingship and the State――to suppress and exile,
but not to remedy. Medea, driven mad――like so many able and remarkable
women――by the contempt and ingratitude of men as individuals or in the
mass, and aware that the law was a mockery where she was concerned,
expressed herself in savage protest after the manner of a militant
suffragette. While I can open my newspaper to-day and read of mothers
desperate with hunger, misery, or rage drowning themselves and their
children, I cannot bring myself to look upon Medea as some elemental
being from a dark and outrageous past. As for Jason, he never did
appear to anybody as other than an ordinary male.

During the last twenty or twenty-five years, when women were struggling
for their right as citizens to a vote and to a decent education, began
what has been called the sex war. No woman would deny that we began
it, in the sense that we were rebels against a system of masculine
repression which had lasted almost unbroken since the beginning of
history. In a similar sense, the proletarian to-day begins the class
war. Those who remember the heroic battles of suffrage days know that
the sequence of events was as follows: We made our just demands and
were met with ridicule. We followed with abuse――all the pent-up anger,
misery, and despair of centuries of thwarted instinct and intelligence.
Man retaliated with rotten eggs. We replied with smashed windows; he
with prison and torture. People forget so readily, that it is well to
remember that this was in the immediate past; it is not a nightmare
picture of one of those future sex wars with which our modern Jasons
delight to terrify the timorous of both sexes.

Is there a sex war? There has been. It was a disgraceful exhibition,
and would not have come to a truce so soon, but that it was eclipsed
by the still more disgraceful exhibition of the European War. In 1918
they bestowed the vote, just as they dropped about a few Dames and
M.B.E.’s, as a reward for our services in helping the destruction of
our offspring. Had we done it after the fashion of Medea, the logical
male would have been angry. They gave the vote to the older women,
who were deemed less rebellious. Such is the discipline of patriotism
and marriage, as it is understood by most women, that the mother will
sacrifice her son with a more resigned devotion than the younger
woman brings to the loss of her lover. There may be more in this
than discipline. If honesty of thought, speech, and action were made
possible for women, it might transpire that on the average a woman’s
love for her mate is more compelling than love for her offspring.
Maternal instinct――genuine, not simulated――is rarer, but, when found,
more enduring.

There was a promise, as yet unredeemed by any political party――for the
politician has yet to be found who will realize that the sex problem
is as fundamental in politics as the class war, and more fundamental
than foreign trade and imperial expansion――to extend this franchise
on equal terms with men. “Good fellowship” between the sexes as
between classes was the key-note of the war. It was held that women
had proved their mettle and that mutual aid was to be the basis of all
future activities, public and private. The sex question was deemed
settled, and everyone was led to suppose that all inequalities would
be gradually eliminated. On this partial victory and this promise
feminists called a truce, and abandoned the tactics of militarism.

But you never know where you have Jason. He was a soldier, mark you,
and a gentleman. Forbidden open warfare, he takes to sniping. He snipes
the married women out of those posts for which they are peculiarly
fitted――as teachers or maternity doctors――although it is against the
law to bar women from any public activity on the ground of marriage.
He cheats unemployed women out of their unemployment insurance more
craftily and brutally than he cheats his fellow-men. Instead of
realizing that the competition of women in industry and the professions
is a competition of population pressure rather than of sex, he seeks by
every means in his power to drive woman back to matrimonial dependence
and an existence on less than half a miserably inadequate income; and
then he mocks at her when she claims the right to stem the inevitable
torrent of children whose advent will but aggravate man’s difficulties
as well as her own. But worse than all the sniping is the smoke-screen
of propaganda. While feminists have, in a large measure, stayed their
hand, anybody who has anything abusive to say of women, whether ancient
or modern, can command a vast public in the popular press and a ready
agreement from the average publisher.

It is a very insidious propaganda. Thus the fashion-papers tell us
that grandmamma’s ways are coming back into their own; elsewhere
we are flattered for the frank honesty of the modern girl and then
warned not to ask for equal pay or opportunity.[1] Again, we hear that
woman, like the Labour Party when in office, has done nothing with
the opportunities given her by the vote; or that the country rejected
the women candidates wholesale. This, regardless of the fact that the
steady increase of the Labour poll has been due in great part to the
votes and more to the organization and propaganda of large numbers of
intelligent working women who know not only what they want, but how to
get it. They are backed now by many of the middle-class women who were
young enough to be revolted by war politics in 1914, and are old enough
to claim their citizenship in 1924. Hundreds of thousands of others,
now between twenty and thirty, mothers, professional and working women,
will make themselves heard before long. To them, the principle of
feminine equality is as natural as drawing breath――they are neither
oppressed by tradition nor worn by rebellion. I venture to think that,
had the Labour Party machine been less dominated by the masculine
perspective, to which the equal franchise bill was a matter of
secondary importance, they would not have lost so heavily in the 1924
election. Votes for women at 21 would have greatly increased the poll
of many Labour candidates. I have seen young mothers almost sobbing
outside the polling-station on polling-day because they had no vote to
cast for the future of themselves and their children. As for the defeat
of women candidates, everybody, including the leader-writers who spread
the adverse propaganda, knew perfectly well that the majority of them
stood in constituencies where even a man of their party would not have
had the ghost of a chance. Here again Jason at headquarters displayed
his well-known chivalry.

  [1] Lovat Fraser in a cunning article in _The Sunday Pictorial_,
      January 4, 1925.

It is no part of my thesis to maintain that women display their
feminism in proportion as they vote for any particular political
party――Labour, for example. But I do suggest that it is the progressive
working woman rather than the woman of the middle class who will in the
future make the most important contribution to the thought of feminism
and to a solution of our practical difficulties. One of the most
inveterate anti-feminists, the author of _Lysistrata_, as an avowed
anti-democrat, has based his thesis and his strictures on observations
that do not go beyond the bounds of upper- and middle-class people,
barely even beyond the bounds of the night club or the suburban
dance-hall. In his eyes we are to blame for everything. Our worst
crime is to “blaspheme life and man”; our next, not to have prevented
food being put into tins; our next, to have adhered faithfully to that
ascetic view of life and sex so firmly instilled into us by medieval
monks and bullying Puritan fathers and brothers. We are to blame for
the industrial revolution in that we let weaving, spinning, milling,
and baking go out of our hands. We are to blame for the iniquities of
doctors in that we did not maintain our position as the dispensers
of healing potions and simples. We are to blame in that we have not
learned to bring forth our children without pain, those children
whose brows bear the marks of obstetric instruments that were used
to spare their mothers, and whose lips have not been laid to those
inhuman mothers’ breasts. (There are no scars of war, O Jason!) Where
is salvation for us, and how shall we rid us of the burden of our
iniquity? We who have waxed so arrogant that we have even aspired to
let science build our children outside their mothers’ bodies must
humble ourselves once more and take upon us the whole duty of woman.
We must use our votes to restore aristocracy[2] and take the food out
of tins; spin and weave, no doubt, the while we nurse and bear our
yearly child, delivering it over to infanticide when necessary, since
birth-control is artificial and displeasing to the male. In our leisure
moments――of which, doubtless, we shall find many under this humane
_régime_――we are to discover by what means of diet, or exercise it
may be, we can fulfil our maternal functions with pleasure instead of
suffering.

  [2] An ingenious method of accomplishing this suggests itself.
      Since women do not sit in the House of Lords, suppose that
      all Peers’ wives, following the example of the Duchess of
      Atholl, stand for Parliament where their husbands have
      estates. This would obviate the necessity, now felt by
      Conservatives, of restoring the veto of the House of Lords.

A joke, you say? No, no, my poor Medea, it is a man called Rousseau,
risen from the dead. Not long ago he preached this sort of thing to
women who pinched their waists and wore a dozen petticoats. They were
not educated enough to follow Voltaire, so they listened to what
Rousseau called the Voice of Nature. Soon thereafter, they found they
were being abused for being less civilized, more ape-like than the
male, irrational and unsuited to take a part in public life. So they
tried again, poor things, and then there was an awful thing called
the Industrial Revolution, and the food got into tins. They may be
pardoned, as may all of us, if at this point they became a little
bewildered. Some people blamed science, some civilization, some the
meat-trusts and the millers, but the true culprit, as ever, was Woman.
A thousand voices cried her down――she hadn’t enough children; she
had too many; she was an ape; she was a dressed-up doll; she was a
Puritan; she was an immoral minx; she was uneducated; they had taught
her too much. Her pinched waist was formerly abused――now it was her
slim and boyish body. Eminent surgeons[3] committed themselves to the
view that the boyish figure with its pliable rubber bust-bodices and
corselets would be the ruin of the race, that race which had been
superbly undegenerate through four centuries of armour-plate corset
and eighteen-inch waists, that race which, then or now, can hardly
compete in toughness with the Chinese, among whom the boyish figure has
been for centuries the ideal, and whose women cannot conceivably be
accused of shirking any of the responsibilities of maternity. Others
told us that the woman-doctor has no nerve to tend confinements, and
conveniently forgot that, since the world began, and until quite modern
times, it is women who have ministered to one another in that agony
which now as in the past is the lot of every mother. Is there truth
in the words of Jason? Is there truth or justice in the passion of
Medea? Let us not ask the protagonists, but let us summon the inquiring
intelligence of Hypatia to find us a way out of the intolerable tangle
in which their quarrelling has landed us.

  [3] Sir Arbuthnot Lane, for whom I have hitherto entertained an
      entirely unqualified admiration, in a recent article. _Vide
      The Weekly Dispatch_, December 28, 1924.




                                  II

                                ARTEMIS
                   _The Early Struggles of Feminism_


When the feminist struggle began during the last century, ignorance and
beauty were the two qualities most admired in women. It is necessary
to remind our masculine critics what was the soil from which the
feminist movement sprang and what the current morality which influenced
its direction. It was customary in those days to make fun of old or
ugly women and to scorn those who showed any signs of intelligence.
A man chose a young, beautiful, and blushing creature for his bride,
and transformed her by one year of marriage and one childbirth into a
gentle and submissive matron. Ugly or intelligent women, for the most
part, paid a heavy price. Not only were they rejected in youth, and
starved of all their natural joys, but as “old maids” they were the
object of general scorn and derision. Small wonder that women adopted
artificial aids to beauty and artificial hindrances to their native
intelligence. Strongest of all the taboos laid by masculine custom and
religion on feminine minds was that regarding sex-knowledge. Their
purity was to be preserved only by ignorance, and even as matrons and
mothers it was scarcely decent for them to refer to any of the physical
changes of their bodies. It is impossible to over-estimate the strength
of this tradition, or the harm which has been worked by it to the cause
of women.

The feminists were, and are still, howled down by men on the pretence
that they invented chastity and scorn of bodily values. History
disproves such a ridiculous assertion. The early feminists were what
history and tradition made them, and could not at the time of their
rebellion have been otherwise. The origin of the stupid ideal of
womanhood against which men as well as women to-day are still fighting
was the asceticism of the Christian religion; and, unless St. Paul
was a woman in disguise, I fail to see how woman is to be blamed for
a conception of her place and duty from which she has suffered more
than anybody else. Before the conversion of the West to Christianity,
barbarian women of the North enjoyed a certain rough equality with
their husbands. They stride through the sagas, these fierce women,
brides of heroes, glad to reward the warrior with their favours, quick
to avenge an insult or a wrong. They had no need to stoop to cajolery.
Savage and untamed, they were the fit and equal mates of savage men.

Then came the monks, and the white wimples and courtly dresses and
chivalry, chants and cathedrals, and meek and reverent casting up and
casting down of eyes. The savage breast that had swelled and throbbed
untrammelled in love or anger learnt to flutter and to sigh. Quenched
were the fires of Brunhilde, her sunlit rock deserted. Agnes and
Mary, tamed and pious, sat cooing in the shade. But for meekness and
maternity, the early days of asceticism might have seen a crusade to
destroy that temptress――woman. Barely allowed a soul, she slipped
through a life of oblivion, praying that it might be a pretty crown
with which Heaven would reward her patience and submission at the last.
Then came the Puritans and denied her even that, substituting ugliness
in this life as well as the negation of body, and a heaven of people
in starched nightshirts, rendered oblivious to the horrid spectacle of
their figures by the still more horrid chanting of their nasal psalms.

A breath of rationalism――brief, soon choked, a breath of “nature”――and
so to crinolines, pantalettes, and a life still lived in terror of
hell-fire, terror of parents, dread of husband, horror of the least
breath of adverse public opinion. Anyone who reads the _Fairchild
Family_ must marvel that from such nerve-destroying parental tyranny
and the intolerable weight of prejudice and religious superstition the
nineteenth-century woman ever found the courage to rebel.

Was it astonishing that the revolt had in it something frenzied and
ascetic――that it seemed to express the anger of the spinster thwarted
and despised in the current schemes of values? I do not think the
pioneers were so much Puritan as votaries, hanging the tablet of
each achievement in the temple of Athene or of Artemis, pressing
on, breathless, swift of foot, sure of aim, in dread of the fate of
Atalanta whom the Golden Apples lured to destruction and the marital
embrace. “Chaste as the icicle, that hangs on Dian’s temple.” They had
need to be, perhaps, who, in an atmosphere of swoons and ringlets,
won for us schools and colleges, free limbs, health and the open air;
unlocked for us the classics, science, medicine, the history of our
world; drew us from our paltry, ladylike accomplishments; wrote upon
our school-books: “Knowledge is now no more a fountain sealed,” and
flung wide the gate into the world.

They, these pioneers, childless, unwed, created and bore thousands of
women, made them anew, body and soul, for lives of mental and physical
activity unknown in the past to any but the very exceptional few. Just
like the new learning of the Renaissance to men’s minds in Europe was
the opening of high school and university to the feminine mind of
to-day. Thousands of women of the last generation and this, who would
otherwise have passed their existence in genteel poverty and vacancy
of mind, have found their happiness in teaching, in medicine, or in
some other profession. Thousands of mothers have watched with delight
the unfolding of their children’s minds, and enjoyed co-operating over
“lessons” and arguing politics with the adolescent.

We, who in a sense are the children of the feminist pioneers, whose
thoughts embrace the universe, whose lives are one long round of mental
and physical delight, at times intense to ecstasy――we at least will pay
our tribute to those who lit the sacred fires, before we take up pen
and paper to criticize.

When one reads the lamentations of would-be intelligent men about
the iniquities of modern young people, chiefly those of the female
sex, one cannot but laugh at their method of approach. It would seem
according to them that our modern women just happened like that: no
one had a part in forming their bodies or in training their minds. In
so far as these people consider education or early training at all, it
is to blaspheme at the sex-hating feminists who have trained modern
women to dispense with their birth-right――the love of man. How this
squares with the wail of the Bishops against the sexual immorality of
the younger generation we will leave Jason or the eloquent author of
_Lysistrata_ to decide. Our business is not to condemn woman, past or
present, but to chronicle faithfully the forces that have made her, and
the aspirations which will mould her future. For she, and she alone,
shall be the arbiter of her fate, and neither man nor creed stand
between her and the realization of her ideals. Men have blasphemed
woman and life too long, and it will not be until the issues are
clearer, the battle more advanced, that the basis for co-operation
between man and woman can be finally established. There is too much
evidence at present that man, professing friendship and concern, is
still ready to snatch from us what little we have won.

To those elderly gentlemen, then, who watch with horror the upper- and
middle-class woman perpetrating similar follies to those of upper- and
middle-class men, the first question we would put is: “What education
did they give their daughters, and what was taught to their mothers
before them? What were the current ideas about feminine destiny which
encircled them in their impressionable years?” Many would answer,
still far too many, that their daughters were given the education of
a gentlewoman and fitted to become the wives of gentlemen. This we
know of old. The lady eats, drinks, digests, wears clothes, tinkles
the piano, dances, sings, handles a golf-club, submits to sex, bears
a child without the smallest notion of anatomy, turns from the whole
thing disgusted, and probably bears no more. Whose fault? Not hers.
They do not teach mothercraft or physiology in finishing schools for
gentlemen’s daughters, and it is no part of the duty of gentlemen’s
wives to reproduce their kind. Perhaps there is comfort in that.

A great many parents, however, would tell us that they gave their
daughters a good and liberal education in such schools as were
available, good ordinary boarding- and day-schools which have sprung
up during the last fifty years in response to the feminist propaganda.
Then we have the working woman, who has shared with her brothers in
what education is permitted to trickle through the elementary schools.
It must not be forgotten that this ends at fourteen.

Is there something wrong with this education of women, and if so, what?
I think we must judge that there is. The reason lies in the sense of
inferiority bred in women by so much oppression, and the natural result
that their chief aim as they struggled upwards was to prove that in
all respects they were just as good as men. The second aim was to
prove that they could jolly well do without them. In exactly the same
way the worker, rising in the social scale, seeks to prove himself a
_bourgeois_. Both efforts are mistaken. Each class and sex has that
to give to the common stock of achievement, knowledge, thought, which
it alone can give, and robs itself and the community by inferior
imitation. The feminist movement, like one dissentient voice in an
excited public meeting, was querulous, hysterical, uncertain of itself.
It dared not cry out that women had bodies. Its one hope of success
was to prove that women had minds. And it was right in this, that the
primary fact about men and women is not that they are two sexes apart,
but that they are human beings and as such should share all knowledge
in the world and make it the basis of their partnership and the rearing
of their children.

Many an ardent feminist spinster in a girls’ secondary school has
sighed over the state of public opinion which forced her to drive her
girls’ minds along channels for which they were not always suited, that
they might do well at college and show that women could surpass the
men. Many another, well drilled by a mother or tradition in ideals of
feminine virtue, gloried in the sexless learned women she was creating
and in the thought that one day they would force those savage, lustful
men to conform to the ideals which they set up for women. Why blame
her? Lay the blame where it is due. It will be but a just retribution
for that lustful male and his ideal of feminine virtue if one day, in a
world full of prohibitions, he finds himself forced to kneel before the
Mumbo-Jumbo[4] he himself built up to terrify his wives and daughters
to submission.

  [4] Mumbo-Jumbo was an idol set up by the men in Nigeria to
      terrify erring women. The men, but not the women, knew him
      to be a fake. See _Mungo Park’s Travels_.

Feminist ideals of education, then, had the defect that they did in a
certain measure deny sex, or ignore it. The feminists had a pathetic
hope that by so doing they would convince the dominant male that a
woman might be learned and yet remain a lady. But I wish to emphasize
the fact that this feature has belonged to all education of women,
especially of ladies, from time immemorial, and it is, therefore,
unbecoming in a male, whether young or old, to use this as a cause
for reproach to our sex. We went as far as we dared with an eye to
male hostility. Young feminists to-day would be the first to admit
that it would probably have paid us to go further. There never has
been a period when education has trained women for the possibility of
motherhood, and it is time that such training was begun. There never
was a period when the education of women was completely honest, and
it is time that that training was begun. What knowledge is of more
vital importance to women than anatomy and physiology? They were
allowed it if they were to be doctors, and then only with caution.
Turning casually the pages of a book on anatomy in a girls’ secondary
school library, I found the diagrams connected with sex and maternity
carefully stuck fast. What is more calculated to inspire prying and
prurience? We have no right to blame young women for shirking marriage,
sex, or motherhood, or for moulding their figures on boyish lines, when
we carefully treat them as boys and withhold from them as long as we
can all knowledge of the difference of their physique and possibly of
their destiny. I have no wish to go back on the great achievements of
feminism, or to drive women from the professions in which they have
a just right to be employed. I want to break down the last barriers.
Artemis is slim and bold; Athene is stately. We have done well to
worship at their shrines.

But the call of Demeter the Fruitful is insistent. If we would add
to the achievements of those who came before us, let us freely admit
that we have but been playing mock modesty, and that to us the body
is no mere box to hold the mind, but a temple of delight and ecstasy:
a temple to hold the future if we will. To me the important task of
modern feminism is to accept and proclaim sex; to bury for ever the
lie that has too long corrupted our society――the lie that the body is a
hindrance to the mind, and sex a necessary evil to be endured for the
perpetuation of our race. To understand sex――to bring to it dignity and
beauty and knowledge born of science, in place of brute instinct and
squalor――that is the bridge that will span the breach between Jason and
Medea.




                                  III

                                ASPASIA
                        _The Younger Feminists_


While we have admitted that the first aim of the feminist movement was
to open to women the stores of learning, to develop their minds and
to teach them to think, and that no attempt was made to handle the
problem of sex, it is not quite fair to say that even early feminism
has consistently denied or despised the body. The schools and colleges
made it their business to give to women opportunities for physical
development, for open-air exercise, swimming, tennis, hockey, lacrosse.
The Victorian young woman learnt gradually to be ashamed of her tiny
waist and fat hips. She learnt that a healthy appetite[5] as well
became a young woman as a young man, gave up her snacks in private
and did justice to good meals taken at proper intervals. Quietly, and
without mention of the fatal word “sex,” the spinster feminists, by
emphasis on health and vigour, built up a generation of young women who
were to be frank about other desires besides eating and drinking.

  [5] There may be a biological cause of the alleged smallness of
      feminine appetite. Watching a raven and his consort with
      fresh meat, I observed that she obtained only a minute
      portion beneath the contempt of the male. Can it be that,
      in the savage state, only those females survived who could
      exist on the little the male allowed them? Is this a case of
      sex-linked heredity?

I cannot see what is the matter with our figures. Steel rods and rubber
are more modern materials than oak beams and pink plaster. Neither
we nor our modern lovers admire the opulent Venuses, indolent and
rose-embowered, who adorned the ceilings of old-fashioned ballrooms.
They were stupid, self-indulgent creatures, not even good mothers,
whatever the sentimental elderly gentlemen in their top-hats and
whiskers may have to say. What is a good mother we will discuss in
a later chapter, but for the present it is enough to say that more
dangerous childbirths are due to narrow pelves caused by rickets than
to hips contracted by the corsets of vanity. Let the doctors turn
socialist and feed the poor, instead of spending their time lamenting
the inadequacy for childbirth of a few fashionable women who don’t
very much matter. Middle- and upper-class girls nowadays――and most
working-class girls, too――go corsetless up to maturity. They do
gymnastic exercises, and dances that give suppleness to the body.
They swim and they play out of doors. Those who are rich enough to be
adequately fed are graceful and active as kittens, and as healthy.
By the time adolescence brings, as it always does, a few years of
intensive sex-vanity, the corset can do very little harm. The muscular
little body does not tolerate it stiff, or very tight, and the bones
are well grown. The mystery of feminine dress helps the appearance of
slimness. There are few clothes, and no lumpy gathers. Beneath that
boyish outline are firm little breasts, clean arching hips, abdominal
curves and thighs, lovely as anything the Venus of Milo has to show.

Artemis fashioned this modern woman. That is admitted. Has Artemis her
vows?

I’m afraid for once we have to admit that the Bishops are right.
In spite of everything the Church can do, in spite of an education
committed, so far as the authorities can control it, to sour or
religious spinsters, the modern young woman is not very moral. It is
a pathetic picture which the author of _Lysistrata_ has drawn for us,
of sexless beings going to and fro in tube and bus-like shuttles in
a machine to dull work robbed of all joy, earning their livelihood
and turning their backs on man in response to feminist propaganda.
Man, the enemy――to be defeated in his own professions, to be repelled
in every onslaught upon feminine virtue: I wonder? I would hazard a
guess that, relatively to the population, fewer women retain their
virginity till death than in the Victorian period or the Middle Ages.
In all probability it is sex, not sexlessness, which makes women
cling so tenaciously to the right to earn their living. Marriage
brings a jealous intolerant husband, children, prying and impertinent
neighbours――degraded and humiliating slavery for the vast majority of
women. Thirty shillings a week and typing or working in a shop, a still
tongue, or a toss of the head and the assertion that independence is
the best; and, in the background a lover with whom somehow evenings are
spent――a lover who has no claim and cannot tyrannize. A lover, perhaps,
who pleads to become a husband, but has no chance unless his income is
good or secure. Marriage would change him: Aspasia knows it. Marriage
would also rob her of that thirty shillings a week, which alone stands
between her and the abyss of primeval submission. Or else Aspasia
teaches in a school or college. She is a skilled teacher, devoted to
her work and pupils. She may be a Research Fellow in some difficult
branch of learning which is to her the very breath of life. She may
be a doctor in the public service, tending and advising mothers and
children. She is lovely, vital, creative. Man approaches. There are
holidays of delight and secret dread of the scandal which will end the
work Aspasia loves――or marriage and the certainty of that end at once.
“Choose,” say the Bishops and the school-managers (often the same
thing): “Choose,” say the public authorities who support the Church
and rather wish women would get out of this indelicate profession of
surgery and medicine; “choose between love and duty to the male and
service to the community.” This is not feminism――feminists have fought
it persistently――it is medieval Christianity. It presents a choice
between physical pleasure and service to the mind or soul; it upholds
the time-honoured theory that renunciation of the world, the flesh, and
the devil is the path to duty and salvation. I am fully aware of all
the arguments about economic pressure, the primary right of married
men to work, the awful situation of their dependent children and their
wives. None of this is fundamental, and the jealous male knows it.
“Divide to conquer” is the principle in dealing with trade unions;
it works equally well in the feminist struggle. Persuade the single
women that the married woman is an unfair competitor,[6] terrify them
so far as you can into believing that to succumb to sex is something
unbecoming and disgraceful and punishable with misery everlasting,
whether in marriage or outside of it, and you can prevent the women
combining against you.

  [6] This scheme no longer works, as is evidenced by the attitude
      of the National Union of Women Teachers this year (1925).
      Intelligent women are more appreciated than they were, and
      teachers know they may all want to marry some day.

But not if Aspasia will speak. If she but would, and put an end to this
lie for ever. She could tell us how, especially during the years of
war, young women took the last step towards feminine emancipation by
admitting to themselves and their lovers the mutual nature of sex-love
between man and woman. It sounds a platitude, but is, in fact, a
revolution. Strange to say, the nearness of death from enemy bombs or
enemy fire did not intensify the thought of holiness and heaven. It
made the little footrules to measure morality look absurd; it mocked
the emptiness of female virtue. While poverty and parents forbade the
certainty of marriage, with nothing but instability and death around
them, our modern Aspasias took the love of man and gave the love of
woman, and found this union, free and full on either side, the most
priceless gift the immortal gods can bestow. There is nothing new in
this, the moralist will say――it is just wickedness. Yes, there is this
that is new: that, though these younger women may be driven from fear
of starvation to the outward acceptance of old codes and conventions,
inwardly they know they have done no wrong and will not admit a
conviction of sin. Sex, even without children and without marriage,
is to them a thing of dignity, beauty, and delight. All Puritans――and
most males so long as they can remember――have tried to persuade women
that their part in sex is pregnancy and childbirth, and not momentary
delight. As well tell a man his part is the hunting and skinning of
animals for food and clothing. To enjoy and admit we enjoy, without
terror or regret, is an achievement in honesty. We will go further
and say that polygamy, proffered by the male as a solution to our
sexless lives, is no solution at all when we are polyandrous. It is
useless to go on pretending, as both sexes do, about this question.
The plain truth is that there are as many types of lover among women
of all classes as among men, and that nothing but honesty and freedom
will make instinctive satisfaction possible for all. Grant each man
and woman the right to seek his or her own solution without fear of
public censure. Moral questions of this kind cannot be decided by some
abstract rule. It would not be wrong for a man to have six wives,
provided he and they all found mutual happiness in that arrangement;
nor for a woman to have six husbands and a child by each, if she and
they found such a life satisfactory. The wrong lies in rules that are
barriers between human beings who would otherwise reach a fuller and
more intense understanding of one another. And any man or woman of
intelligence and vitality can testify that to have known each other as
lovers is to have completed mental and spiritual, as well as physical,
understanding, and to have permanently enriched each other’s lives,
capacities, energies, imaginations. There is no need to make these
divisions into mind and body. There is no difference. A way of walking,
laughter, thoughts spoken or written, gestures of love or anger, colour
and light of eyes or hair――these are the human being, man or woman. It
is thus that modern individuals think of one another. When we think
so, it seems absurd to argue whether or no love between man and woman
should stop short of a certain kind of physical expression. It is
useless to say that a mental exchange is sufficient. On the contrary,
lovers know that it is through sexual understanding they best apprehend
the quality of each other’s minds. It is equally futile to argue that
woman is cheated of her full rights if children do not result. That is
not true.

It is said that modern human beings, by dint of not valuing the body,
are physically degenerate and lose the finest ecstasies of love. Their
digestions are poor, we are told, their breath foul, their teeth
bad. Was love more delightful, then, in the old days when baths were
unknown, when “sweet breath” in a woman was so rare as to be sung by
poets, and the reek of stale sweat was barely stifled by a strong
perfume? John Donne wrote verses to the flea he saw nestling in his
lady’s bosom. There is scarcely a fine gentleman to-day who could face
the prospect of making love to one of the fine ladies of the past six
or seven hundred years in Europe, if she could be presented to him just
as she was to her contemporary lovers. It is true that neither vermin,
filth, nor squalor――being equal for both――can stay the passion of sex
whether now or in the past, but I do not believe in the theory that
the rougher our physique the more intense our bodily delights. Health,
to be sure, is essential; but health is to be secured in the modern
world, not by a return to savagery, but by the use of intelligence. I
believe the bodies of young people of to-day to whom fair opportunities
have been given are more healthy within and without than they were
in past times. And I believe that the disappearance of religious and
moral dualism between mind and matter――not by an oppressive victory of
either, neither by rational and moral control, nor by abandonment to
sensual materialism, but by a better understanding of psychology and
physiology based on the discoveries of physical science――is bringing to
the whole of life, but especially to sex-love, maternity, the rearing
and education of children, joy and rapture and promise surpassing
anything known to the purely instinctive life of the past. Of course we
are bewildered. Civilization without decay is at last a possibility.
Let us have knowledge and patience: blaspheming and violence will ruin
all.

It is for modern women and for men who can understand the problem to
make an end to secrecy, shame, and starvation where sex is concerned.
There has been a good deal of freedom in action, but less boldness
in speech, because of the heavy penalties involved. For some women
speech is impossible; those who are secure must fight their battle.
How old and proper people love a vigorous and god-like young male!
How they look askance upon, brow-beat, and bully his equivalent in
the opposite sex! Here is a community for ever starving and choking
its finest women, stifling their voices in education and public life;
then turning and rending the submissive residue for being what years
of intimidation have made them. Let them marry, you say, and make a
success of that and their children. That would be well enough but for
the taboos and disabilities with which marriage is surrounded. Feminism
led women away from the home that they might return armed and unsubdued
to make marriage tolerable. Women who have been free remember the
horror of the approach to marriage: a barrier for most of us to free
public activity; a life-long contract only to be broken in disgrace
and public disgust; aunts, uncles, social duties that exasperate and
are totally unnecessary; the common view that henceforward husband and
wife are one and indivisible, and the wife for ever to be burdened with
her husband’s duties and affairs; looks of surprise and reproach if we
enjoy other male society; constraint in the manner of men formerly our
friends; income, if we have any or can still earn, taxed as a part of
our husband’s; children, which, had we had them illegitimate, would
have been our own but now are our husband’s; worst of all, the looks
and smiles from silly women broken in to slavery, congratulating us on
having done well and made ourselves secure for life.

Let no one think this is petulant abuse. It is the accumulation of
these details, and the pressure of public opinion which gradually
destroy the nerve and independent judgment of married women who, in
their free state, have been brilliant and remarkable. It is the fact
that, by marriage, we conform and place ourselves in a line with
millions of others whose view of what we have done is entirely foreign
to our own. As a Labour Minister is corrupted by Court dress, so is
a free woman by the marriage-contract. Nothing but our desire for
children would make us endure it. We, to whom the mutual nature of
sex-love is sacred, to whom a partnership involving children is of
equal dignity on both sides, to whom the surrender of our whole being
in love is a free gift――the highest we can bestow; who would neither
bind ourselves nor others where love is non-existent; we must submit
to a contract based on rights of property and possession, buying and
selling of our bodies; a law whose conception of conjugal wrongs is
sin, punishment, and just revenge; and a Church whose utmost concession
is to bid us “serve” instead of “obey” our husbands. Build, O Aspasia,
a trade union of lovers to conquer the world, and cry aloud that
feminism is nowhere so much needed as in the home.




                                  IV

                                HECUBA
                          _Feminist Mothers_


So far I have refrained from any detailed discussion of modern women
and maternity because it is still necessary to make it clear that a
full life of activity for women is perfectly possible and permissible
without it. I am quite aware that certain religious people assert
as a moral principle that the purpose of sex-love is not mutual
enjoyment but the perpetuation of the race. I am also aware that
militarists enjoin on women the necessity of marriage and large
families as a patriotic duty. Further, certain doctors have gone
out of their way to try to prove that the use of contraceptives is
contrary to health and nature. These same people, we may note, have
no aversion from the wearing by women of internal remedial rubber
supports for months on end nor to patching up with silver, papier
mâché, and other foreign materials, the insides and outsides of human
beings mutilated in the natural and healthy pursuit called war. I
am not concerned with the morals of convention or superstition, but
with the morals of experience. It is the experience of modern women
that sex is an instinctive need to them as it is to men, and further
that the prevention of conception brings to them no loss of poise,
health, or happiness. On the contrary, when once they embark on the
task of maternity, contraception is a blessed safeguard to health and
recovery in the periods of rest between pregnancies. I am not going
to deny that the most perfect delight known to human beings is the
completely reckless, mutually adoring union of two people of vitality
and intelligence who hope to create another human being as a constant
reminder of the beauty of that moment. But many considerations, which
we shall discuss, forbid a yearly child. I read recently in an article
by G. K. Chesterton, that sex without gestation and parturition is
like blowing the trumpets and waving the flags without doing any of
the fighting. From a woman such words, though displaying inexperience,
might come with dignity; from a man they are an unforgivable,
intolerable insult. What is man’s part in sex but a perpetual waving
of flags and blowing of trumpets and avoidance of the fighting? The
vast majority of men are not even tender or kindly to their pregnant or
nursing wives, nor will they give help or consideration to the care of
their young children.

A revolt against motherhood under present conditions is not surprising,
nor is it entirely regrettable. There are quite a number of women
whose minds and bodies are not fitted or have not been fitted by their
upbringing and education to produce and care for children. This is
a source of distress to many people, who, as was suggested earlier,
did not think of it at the right moment, when the education of women
in public and private schools was being developed. Even now these
same people stand in the way of the surest remedy: which is to teach
science, physiology, and the beauty of sex and maternity to boys and
girls at an early age. The London County Council, many of whom are
certainly distressed beyond measure at the falling birth-rate and the
discontent and irresponsibility of modern young people, have just, in
consultation with suitably selected moral headmasters and mistresses,
turned down the suggestion of sex-teaching in elementary and secondary
schools. We are always told that boys and girls of all classes nowadays
acquire this knowledge easily for themselves, but the mere knowledge
is not the only thing to the adolescent mind. Things not spoken of by
parents or teachers, things dealt with in hushed voices by moral and
spiritual leaders, surrounded by cant and humbug and false sentiment,
are bound to be thought nasty by mild young people and to provide
ribald laughter for the obstreperous.

This is not to say that sex-information should be given in a spirit of
evangelical solemnity and exhortation, nor even of soft sentimentality.
All that is needed is lessons in physiology, taught as a matter
of course, as botany or nature-study are often taught; and then
explanations to boys of the working of their bodies, how to keep them
in health, how not to dissipate and destroy their energies too soon.
Further, they should be told that woman is neither a chattel nor a
servant, nor even an inferior, but a partner in joy as in the business
of life; that there is no question or difficulty, public or private,
which cannot be brought to her for discussion and judgment; and that
she has a right to share in all decisions affecting a joint life,
children, money, and the conduct of affairs of State. To girls in the
same way could be explained the physical changes of puberty, marriage,
and maternity, how the child grows, what food and care the mother, and
afterwards the baby, will need. There is nothing in this too difficult
or shocking to young or adolescent minds. So many of us can remember
the secret conclaves with our friends when we puzzled out and pieced
together what scraps of information we could glean, awakening instinct
darkly supplementing this knowledge. Some of us can remember, perhaps,
having noticed obscene writing on school-walls, instantly reported by
shocked prefects, instantly effaced by school-mistresses with an awful
and portentous gravity which made us feel we had stumbled on the brink
of a secret of incredible wickedness and horror. One straightforward
lecture of concise information could have dispelled the lurking
mystery once and for all and imparted a sense of magic and wonder and
ambition. Some of the more fortunate of us, through study in libraries
and dreaming over poems, created for ourselves a finer attitude. With
no teaching other than that we might find someone who would marry us
some day, and that marriage was an excellent destiny even for educated
women, and with no belief in any of the moral taboos current around
us, some of us can none the less remember the pride of caring for the
body, safeguarding health and looks, avoiding excess, severe strain,
and overwork, because we cherished our dreams of the children that our
bodies were to make――not ordinary children, of course not: Promethean
creatures, endowed with every gift that mortal man could steal from
the jealous gods, strong, beautiful, intelligent and bold――kings and
conquerors, not of their fellow-creatures but of nature and the mystery
of the world. There is not a woman, unless completely warped by early
training, in whom such dreams and visions will not stir if we try to
wake them. If not, then let her pass: we do not need her to perpetuate
the race. And do not trick her into motherhood by false sentiment and
information, or by withholding from her the means to protect herself if
she is not fully resolved upon bearing a child.

We want better reasons for having children than not knowing how to
prevent them. Nor should we represent motherhood as something so common
and easy that everyone can go through it without harm or suffering
and rear her children competently and well. Without arousing dread
or horror, we should tell young women frankly the pain and agony of
childbirth, and the anxiety and griefs which are the fate of every
woman who is a mother by choice and therefore loves her children.
Nothing whatever is to be gained by driving the timorous and weak by
lies or compulsion into pain which they will resent and responsibility
which they will evade. Everything is to be gained by training a woman
in knowledge, courage, and physical strength, and leaving it then to
her own instinct and her mind to tell her that to create new human
beings is worth the discomfort and the suffering which she must
necessarily undergo. Those in whom the courage to create survives
when choice is free and all the facts are known are those best fitted
to bring children into the world, and breed in them eagerness and
intrepidity. The others will only pass on fear and distaste for life
from which individuals and the community suffer far too much already.[7]

  [7] The anti-feminists who see in emancipated women nothing but
      persecuting spinsters should take comfort from the fact that
      voluntary motherhood will ultimately destroy feminism, if
      they are right. The children of women passionately desirous
      of maternity will inherit strong parental and survival
      instincts, the occasional feminist “sport” not reproducing
      herself!

I do not mean by this that we should, scorning the aid of science,
return to natural childbirth, and let its pangs scare off the weaklings
and the cowards. In this matter the charges of our critics are
conflicting. They condemn us for having sought the aid of science to
mitigate our suffering, and in the same breath tell us that a return
to natural child-bed will bring back a primitive exhilaration and
freedom from pain lost for thousands of years. I do not believe that
for any comparatively civilized race, any race really worthy the name
of man, childbirth has ever been painless. The upright position, held
by eighteenth-century divines to be a source of pride in man, was the
first injustice to women. Nor do I believe that the sufferings of
modern women are any worse or their confinements any more difficult
than those of women in the past. They are more closely observed and the
difficulties known, and, where skill is available, the dangerous ones
are less likely to be fatal. In the past the fragile woman died, or
continued ailing, unobserved by a doctor and afraid to complain. People
who live and breed in a state of nature are by no means so healthy and
vigorous as our modern Rousseaus would have us believe: more children
die than survive, and those who are left have physical defects and
deformities which could have been remedied by knowledge and care. These
and the ravages of smallpox and other diseases, and the deformities
due to the natural accidents of life unmitigated by medical care,
produce far more ugliness than the mark of an obstetric instrument on
temple or forehead. Then, again, youth passes more quickly. The men
and women we see in modern life, still reasonably young and fresh with
rounded faces and teeth stopped or supplemented by art, would in a more
primitive community be dead, or else crouching useless and despised,
toothless and with sunken cheeks by the fireside of their sons and
daughters.

Decay and pain belong to nature. To arrest the one and mitigate the
other has been the task which the sciences that deal in physiology
have set themselves. Remedial at first, they pass on to the stage
of prevention. Already the principle of intelligent medicine is to
strengthen what is weak in the body by nourishment and exercise rather
than provide artificial substitutes. Paralysed limbs return to life;
women retain their teeth white and strong through several pregnancies.
This is not done by a return to nature, but by an increase in
civilization and knowledge. In that way our very landscapes have been
formed. We prune, we nourish the soil, we cross-breed our plants. The
vegetables upon which the enthusiast for nature urges us to live are
the product of science and artifice: thousands of years of cultivation,
nitrates from Chile, skill of the experimenter, skill of the gardener’s
hand. The same is true of the animals we breed for meat, eggs, or
milk supply. Agriculture and stock-breeding seem natural to us――they
were not natural in the distant past. As regards the human body, to
me at least it seems that we are now beginning to approach the right
attitude. There was more dosing and doctoring of petty ailments among
intelligent people in the last century. To-day we try to learn how best
to live in order that such ailments may not occur, and substitute a
well-balanced diet for aids to digestion and the normal functioning of
our bodies. We do the same in rearing our children. And this attitude
would become more general if those who rule us, Press, Church, rich men
and politicians, would consider it really important that every man,
woman, and child in the State should have health and happiness, and
therefore supply broadcast the necessary rules of life and sufficient
of healthy and staple foods for all, in place of advertisement of
quack remedies and patent substitutes prepared by profiteers.

To return to the application of science and nature to maternity. A
special sentimentality and superstition inherited from the completely
savage periods of history cling about this, as about sex. The avoidance
of suffering in childbirth is taboo in the Japanese moral code, as
it was until recently in Christian morals. Religion has persisted
in regarding the female body as unclean when engaged in its most
important functions, and purifying it afterwards by special prayers
to the Deity.[8] We find this savagery current in Judaism[9] as in
Christianity, together with an exhortation to be fruitful and multiply,
and therefore to pass through shame and uncleanness as often as we can.
It was thought a horror and an outrage when chloroform was used to
help us. It is a still greater horror when means are discovered of not
having children at all. To this day most doctors and dentists refuse
to give an anæsthetic and draw a rotten tooth which is wearing down a
pregnant mother’s strength by sleepless nights and days of agony. Yet
this can be done with reasonable care and skill. Behind all this there
is the mystic belief that somehow or other nature does the work best
unaided and unhindered; and this mysticism is rooted in a savage taboo.
Life is, indeed, so pertinacious that somehow some of us will survive
whatever we do, but this does not seem to me an adequate attitude for
the rational mother.

  [8] See the service for the _Churching of Women_ in the Prayer
      Book.

  [9] _Leviticus_, xii, 1–8.

The truth is that it is not desired or expected that mothers should
be rational. Maternal instinct is so wonderful, maternal devotion so
sublime, cry our sentimental brutes. Whatever we may have known of life
and the outside world, it is still expected in modern times that, once
married, we shall descend into a morass of instinct and ignorance from
which we shall never, if the male and the vindictively-minded spinster
can prevent it, emerge again. We are privileged, so we are told, in
that we may bear each year a child for the State, rock the cradle,
wash, mend, and make, pass on the lore of housekeeping and infant-care
to our daughters just as we received it from our mothers. It is such
a beautiful picture: a pity it is entirely false. The old-fashioned
mother had no lore, and her instinct was inadequate. She succeeded by
luck rather than by knowledge. She adored, or disciplined; she killed
by kindness or by severity and neglect. She would coddle when she
should have hardened, harden when she should have coddled; she would
over-feed and under-feed, or give the wrong kind of food. Since it has
been the fashion for women to have minds, the books for mothers have
become more scientific and our intelligent inquiries have been met by
research and more adequate replies. Every mother with any intelligence
who has reared one or more children through the first year of life and
up to five years of age would admit nowadays that scientific knowledge
was of more service to her than all the instinct and adoration at her
command. Indeed, I believe the so-called maternal instinct in handling
and understanding babies consists of habit almost imperceptibly learnt
in tending the first, blossoming into a smooth instinctive unity with
the coming of the second. The fashionable mother, said to be devoid of
maternal instinct because she neglects her child, has simply not learnt
it, because necessity does not compel her to practical duties. This is
even true, though less so, of well-to-do mothers who feed their babies
at the breast.

People will persist in imagining that uncivilized women were always
able to feed their children in natural fashion. Very often they were
obliged to seek the help of another mother, and, when that was not
forthcoming, the baby died. It is quite true that our adaptation to
modern conditions of life, nerve-stress, combined with overwork for
women in towns and industrial districts, has caused breast-feeding to
be less common than it was in the past. But here again the way of life
is not back to nature, which is impossible because we cannot at a blow
destroy industrialism and the towns――but onwards, to greater knowledge.
Instead of bullying the mothers and telling them it is wicked not to
feed their babies at the breast, let them know how, by pre-natal care
of health and strength, by diet, by deliberate nerve-control, they can
feed their babies with comfort and delight and without detriment to
their health and the work which they must necessarily do――or even to
their beauty. Here again, if choice is free and the child therefore
ardently desired, there is more chance of success with breast-feeding.
And knowledge of the chemical constituents of cow’s milk and patent
foods as compared with human milk is more likely to induce the modern
mother to suckle her child than volumes of abuse or sentimental twaddle.

Then as to the hygiene of pregnancy. Could our mothers have taught us
about the different food-values, about protein, nitrogenous foods,
calcium from the green foods for teeth and bones, avoidance of too
many albuminous foods? Knowledge of what diet can do to help us in
pregnancy and our children in early youth is in its infancy, but it
is there, none the less. Shall we fling it aside and return to pure
instinct? What massage and remedial exercises have taught can be
applied to our bodies during pregnancy and after childbirth. It is
probable that closer study of the functions of the muscles of the back
and the abdomen would enable us to teach women to exercise and control
them in a way that would make childbirth almost painless, and the
recovery of poise and activity afterwards more rapid and more thorough.
Under present conditions, muscles that are often too rigid or too
feeble expand and never recover their tone; others――the back muscles,
it may be――go out of use temporarily and similarly do not recover.
In the middle-class woman laziness is often the cause of difficult
confinements and poor recovery of the figure; in the working mother a
too speedy return to work which is too hard and does not exercise the
body harmoniously; in both the ignorance which leads to wrong kinds
of nourishment during pregnancy, and fear of doing harm to the child
which leads to rigid and over-careful movement, are responsible for a
good many troubles. Psychological effects may be serious. Most women
develop during pregnancy sensitiveness and a timidity protective to the
child. From this the very fertile mother has no opportunity to recover.
Hence many of the silly old ladies who cannot cross roads unaided by a
policeman. With birth-control, in two years a determined mother can
completely restore her nerve, her joy in life, and her full muscular
powers.

The author of _Lysistrata_ suggests that by diet we may produce thin
babies and therefore have easier confinements. This may be true, but
it is a curious fact that the experience of some mothers and doctors
goes to show that much protein (which Mr. Ludovici suggests we should
avoid) produces a thin baby and a corpulent mother; that, on the other
hand, light and nitrogenous foods, while keeping the mother slim
and supple, yield a plump 8 to 9 lbs. baby. I think the size of our
babies is perhaps not so much under our control as many might wish to
suggest. Heredity enters in. Children sometimes have large fathers. The
sheep-breeder knows that he dare not mate certain larger types of rams
with small-made ewes.

In all these problems, however, it is the frankness and intelligence
which feminism has made possible for women which will bring solution
and progress, rather than a return to the unguided instincts of
our forefathers. The lore of motherhood is a science which is now
beginning, but it is not following the lines which convention and
the moralists expect. It defies sentiment, ridicules unnecessary and
unintelligent sacrifice, is not content to suffer, but makes demands.
It begins with birth control, which to many seems the negation of
motherhood, but which to the creative mother is the key-stone of her
work.

Suppose we have educated our young women sanely about physical matters,
as suggested earlier in this chapter. As they reach the age of maturity
and activity, what will they find? If they are middle- or upper-class,
an existence that is not too intolerable. Feminism has won for them
the right of entry to most professions and, provided they are fairly
able, they can get work. None the less, it must be admitted that the
years since the War have borne hardly upon wage-earning women of all
classes. The lack of sexual freedom is a terrible burden, but the
remedy ultimately lies in their own hands. Life in marriage still
offers reasonable comfort and good food for man and wife and two or
three children. But late marriages, from the lack of opportunity for
men and the expense of living, cause girls’ young bodies to be worn
with longing unless they are bold enough to follow our modern Aspasias.
This waiting to marry is a real danger to young women’s health which
conventional, unimaginative people refuse to face. It produces nervous
disorders bordering at times on insanity.

As regards the care of her body in pregnancy and childbirth, and the
feeding of her children, the middle-class mother is in a position to
carry out what modern science has to teach. She cannot have a large
family, it is true, and the cry goes up on all sides that it is very
hard for the middle-classes to pay for the proper education of their
children.[10] The best stocks are being penalized and extinguished,
so we are told. This is part of a much bigger problem, and a problem
that involves the class-war. All ambitious mothers, from miners’ wives
to the aristocracy, would like to breed the fine types who receive a
thorough education and then enter one of the intellectual professions.
Obviously this cannot be. And, given equal ability in two children
of different classes of life, there is no just reason for driving
the worker’s child, who has less good food and conditions and is
therefore less fitted to stand the strain, through the worry of the
scholarship system, whilst the other child’s path is made smooth to a
ruling position. Man for man, woman for woman, the workers would be
the equals of the middle-class in strength and ability, given the same
nourishment, comfort and training. In actual fact, the middle-class is
perpetually being replenished in one generation, or two at most, from
below. Middle-class fathers and mothers have no right to claim the
privilege of a large family unless their children, if they are strong
but not clever, are prepared to work the railways or dig coal in the
mines. Professional people, scientists, artists, research workers, pure
mathematicians, as well as skilled engineers, are, indeed, the salt of
the earth, and the community that fails to produce them and give them
scope is doomed in this modern world. But they are supported by manual
labor, and it cannot be denied that their number cannot be indefinitely
extended except by an increase of productivity and wealth. A more equal
system of society will diminish drudgery and make it possible for all
to have a fine development of intelligence and understanding, whatever
the work on which they are employed.

  [10] An instance of the incredible snobbery surrounding this
       question is given by the decision of the conference of
       Headmasters of Secondary Schools, January, 1925, against
       free secondary education. While the middle-class parent
       groans against the cost of his children’s education, he also
       refuses to take the obvious remedy of making education free,
       for fear the working class should get some of it. Class
       difficulties would not exist if health and education were
       adequately dealt with.

Feminism in the mother has led us far from maternity. That is what
it is bound to do. The working mother to-day looks straight from her
kitchen, if she is lucky enough to have one, on to one of the most
complex situations in history. And the intelligent ones are not blind
to the situation. That is why I suggested that, though middle-class
feminism has conquered the professions, the feminism of working mothers
might bring a new and powerful contribution to our work.

The life of the working woman who intends maternity is becoming
well-nigh impossible, and she knows it. When she has found a husband
the community denies them a decent house. Possibly they find one room
or two at an exorbitant rent, with no water and a grate unsuited for
cooking. There are no restaurants at which the pair can afford to feed.
Therefore they exist on partially or casually-cooked food, innutritious
bread, and food from tins. Things may not be so bad if the wife can go
on with work at a mill and get food that is fairly good at the canteen,
her wages helping the meals taken at home.

The coming of a baby too often means a search for another lodging. The
Bishops and the Generals like babies, but landladies don’t. Another
room is found, perhaps. The mother works till the last moment, has a
difficult confinement and inadequate attention, and gets up too soon.
It is not easier for her than for a delicately-nurtured woman, and it
is not less painful. Probably it is worse, because the working mother
has from birth been underfed and has weaknesses and deformities――a
contracted pelvis, perhaps――that a woman well-fed and cared for
escapes. Then it goes on, baby after baby up to ten and eleven,[11]
always in one room and no more money coming in. The mother works
whenever she can to help keep the family. Frequently she is cursed or
beaten by her husband for her fertility. Should the husband die, she
must work continually and harder or send her children to the workhouse.
In the opinion of the Bishops, she deserves the “stigma of the Poor
Law,” and, in the opinion of all right-thinking people, anything done
for her by individuals or the State is in the nature of a charity.

  [11] A woman of 45 years of age gave birth recently at Queen
       Charlotte’s Hospital, Paddington, to her 23rd child. Ten
       children is not uncommon.

If I but had the eloquence of Hecuba mourning her slaughtered sons!
The crime of war is bad enough: this butchery of hope and promise and
human lives is one so black that the heart and mind of every woman
who has borne a child should revolt against it until it is tolerated
no more. It is easy to escape into an aristocratic theory of society.
It has been done before, and ends in the guillotine. These working
mothers are the people who must be lied to and terrified by bogies
for fear that they use their votes to help themselves. And it is they
who, when they sit in conference, demand of the State the right to stem
the tide of children, to endow mothers, to pension widows, to teach
and tend maternity and ensure rest for pregnant and nursing women; to
see that houses and schools are built, and to control and purify the
food-supply. Here is the most serious problem for the mothers, and
one which the middle-class politician does not touch, because for the
middle-class pure and fresh food is almost always obtainable. It is
for the working mother to tackle those tins. She cannot now destroy
industrialism, which dragged her work and her after it to the mill;
but she can claim her right to control it in the name of life and
the destiny of her children. Control of the population is essential
to solving the food-problem and improving national health. Women in
small houses know it. They know, moreover, that contraceptives are
better than infanticide and war. The survival of the fittest is a
false doctrine in child-bearing as in fighting. Every child which
starts with a reasonably good constitution can, by the right care up
to one year and food up to five, grow up to be strong and well. And,
if the weak and unhealthy are discouraged from breeding and healthy
mothers given proper care, great improvements are possible. Poor food
and over-crowding are the ladder down which we go to mental deficiency
and ultimate complete feebleness of mind.[12] If we cared for life,
the best food would by law go to the pregnant and nursing mothers
instead of, as at present, to clubs for fat old gentlemen and the
frequenters of palatial hotels. It is probable that at present we do
not produce enough milk, or produce and import enough butter and eggs
to distribute adequately to all.[13] But, by stabilizing or decreasing
our population, and by co-operation, intensive culture and control of
marketing abroad and of marketing and purity at home, we could see to
it that everybody had enough and that what they had was really good.

  [12] Professor MacBride, dealing recently with the “Inheritance
       of Defect” (_Daily Telegraph_, January 8, 1925) said: “The
       question of questions was whether the failure of the lowest
       strata of society was due to their surroundings or to their
       inborn characters. Such questions must be ultimately decided
       by experiment; and proper experimental work could only be
       done with animals; we were not entitled to make _corpora
       vilia_ of our fellow human beings. For this reason he
       would direct attention to the common goldfish, whose weird
       monstrosities were all originally due to the starvation
       of the eggs with respect to light and air in the earliest
       stages of development. The result of this starvation
       was to weaken the developmental power and to produce a
       disharmonious arrest of growth of various organs. Similar
       arrests of growth occurred in human beings, and were the
       causes of mental and bodily defects. Their original cause,
       however, must be sought in the starvation and poisoning
       of the blood of the mother, but, once started, they were
       hereditary.”

  [13] Working people live on tinned milk, margarine, and
       substitute eggs――all deficient in necessary vitamins.

To feed an industrial population in a small island is a peculiar and
special problem and one demanding expert care and advice. Food must
come long distances and must “keep.” Hence the preservatives and tins
and the need to be watchful beyond measure against poisoning and the
loss of what is vital to our well-being. With research, the problem
would be easy; but we must make it clear that it is important. Science
would easily enable us to produce more from the soil, and, as regards
the food of mothers, since the assimilation of extra minerals, salts,
etc., in their natural state is not always satisfactory or easy during
pregnancy, we might find ways of growing food, through treatment of the
soil, to provide for the special needs of their condition.

What then must feminist mothers demand? The right first of all to the
recognition of their work――the most dangerous of all trades and the
most neglected and despised. They should ask for endowment from the
community. This is opposed by many on the ground that fathers delight
to support their children, and it is they who should claim from the
community an adequate family-wage. But, after all, it is the mother
who bears and tends the child, and, although many women receive the
whole of their husbands’ wages, others must fight a humiliating battle
against drink and tobacco for the wherewithal to build their children’s
bodies. This struggle is exemplified on a large scale in the spending
of State revenue, most of which goes on armaments and the forces of
destruction, and an infinitesimal portion to aid and support life. If
Jason cannot give up his murderous playthings, let him have neither
sons to destroy nor daughters to drag through misery. His children
shall never be conceived. I have indicated that this is happening
already, not as a deliberate revolt, but as a counsel of despair in a
world which offers no hope, no joy, and no opportunity to the young.

The mother has a right to demand two years’ rest between pregnancies;
and the right to decide the number of her children. For some the call
of motherhood is insistent and its charm grows with experience; they
would be good mothers and might well have large families. They could
help others by superintending nursery-schools in which children from
one to five years might have their important meal of the day. But it is
imperative that the woman who has children should not be shut out from
public life. The ideal would be for a woman to continue her education
at least till eighteen, have the first child at twenty-four, then
perhaps three others at two-year intervals. This assumes that large
numbers of women do not choose to breed. At thirty-five every mother
of four children would, in a community of good schools, convenient
houses, and well-run restaurants, be free again to take part in public
life. It does not follow that she would be separated from her children;
they would go to day-schools. But the mother would do the work for
which she was best fitted in school,[14] kitchen, hospital, shop,
mill, or Parliament. In this way her opinion would count, and her
attitude to life help to permeate the community, which is otherwise
left to be guided by the outlook of the single woman and the male.
Problems of unemployment and competition due to married women’s work
are really questions of population pressure, muddled thinking, and bad
organization. To discuss all this in close detail is hardly within the
scope of this book.

  [14] I am strongly of opinion that experience of maternity, even
       more than of marriage alone, would help the teacher. Some
       women, even teachers, are bored by children until they have
       one of their own, whereupon all children of all ages become
       interesting.

In conclusion, it may be said that the community should never, except
on the strongest grounds, deny parenthood to man or woman. Therefore
marriages which after two years did not result in a child should be
dissoluble at the wish of either party to the contract. This, apart
from all other reasons for which the cancelling of marriage should
be allowed. Partnership in marriage should in effect be regarded as
a partnership for parenthood, and as such should not be entered upon
lightly.




                                   V

                           JASON AND ADMETUS
                                 _Men_


Before we pass on to an attempt at a summary and conclusion of the
argument, it may be as well to re-state briefly what is the matter
with men. Certainly they are not such fierce tyrants as when first
we fought them; certainly they have some grounds to complain of the
feminine arrogance which, not content with proving equality, wants to
go on and prove women the superior sex. We might, on grounds of science
perhaps, advance this claim, urging that, since a female being needs
one more chromosome for its creation than a male, it must, therefore,
be of higher importance. Should we do so, and seek to live alone on
the planet, producing our children by parthenogenesis, our pride would
be doomed to a fall. Such children, there is reason to believe, would
all be males. At least, that is what happens when the experiment is
tried by sea-urchins. Men, on the other hand, like to pretend that our
assumption of intelligence and independence is but a momentary spurt
in a race which must end in masculine victory and feminine submission.
They admit that the great development of our freedom in body and mind
has given us a serious advantage, and the more discerning among them
urge their fellows to press on and catch us up. Others trundle the
golden apples beseechingly, but still Atalanta runs.

I believe it to be true that the education and outlook of men is more
old-fashioned than that of women reared in the freedom of feminist
traditions. Men have not yet realized how women’s outlook is changing,
nor attempted very seriously to adapt themselves to the change. They
will do so, of a certainty; for, true as it may be that above all
desires in woman is that to be pleasing to men, it is still truer that
the desire of desires in man is to be pleasing to women. I believe that
Puritanism or asceticism, of which they accuse us, is very strong in
them. One of the compliments or insults that has been hurled during the
sex-war is that the feminine mind is pervaded by the physical harmony
of the feminine body. One may perhaps retort that the dualism of mind
and matter is a very masculine philosophy; and one which, moreover, men
have translated into their everyday lives by the sharp division they
like to make between fighters and thinkers, games-playing idiots and
thin intellectuals. Too often a woman of vitality and intelligence must
choose between a soldier-gentleman and Chaucer’s clerk.[15] Should she
choose the former, she takes a plunge into the past. This man exults in
murder, whether of animals or of his fellow-creatures; deep down within
him he is still convinced that women are divided into good and bad――and
both require the handling of a master. His wife must beware how she
responds to his advances; she may be thought forward or impure. Decency
must above all things be preserved. Though games and the classics may
have taught the English gentleman the beauty of paganism and the joy
of the naked body where man is concerned, he is still stuffy in his
approach to sex. He rarely brings the freshness of the morning and the
joy of the open skies to the love of mistress or of wife. Plush, gilt
and silk stockings express the one; pipe, the armchair at the fireside,
dinner, and a coldly furnished bedroom, the other. Conversation is
a masculine monologue, punctuated by assent. He will be good to his
children, provided they are not odd, and will protect his wife. He will
never lift her to rapture. She fears, and will probably deceive him.

  [15] A clerk ther was of Oxenford also

       That unto logyk hadde longe y-go.
       As leene was his hors as is a rake,
       And he nas nat right fat, I undertake,

          *       *       *       *       *

       And him was lever have at his beddes heed
       Twenty bokes clad in black or reed.

The intellectual――perhaps by reason of the monastic tradition of
learning, perhaps because he finds Jason so revolting――does all
that he can to forget the needs of the body. Woman counts as one of
them. She is a burden, a responsibility, a distraction, an incursion
of the material into a world of contemplation. As for children and
domestic life, they would make an end to all thought, to all art. An
instinctive life――so he thinks――is possible only in spasm, if at all,
for a man with serious mental work to accomplish. If woman persists in
keeping him company, then she must shoulder the burdens, tend him and
care for him, and leave him alone when he doesn’t want her. It is this
contempt for the natural play of instinct which eats the heart out of
life for many intellectuals, men and women, of to-day. They dread the
gift of themselves, the loss of independence which passion would bring,
and therefore they never give freely. In part, they are cherishing the
medieval tradition that to be worthy of spiritual or mental labour man
and woman must go aside and renounce; in part, they are inspired by a
tight conception of materialism, in which individuals are hurled like
lumps of matter by dynamic forces through space, unable to do more than
come near, but never mingle one with another. This view of life and the
medieval are combining to destroy our world in lovelessness and despair.

The old-fashioned mind clings to spiritual duties and consolations and
the framework of Church discipline, as a bulwark against personal
licence; the more modern mind is dominated by mechanism――which is,
after all, no more than the rational control of matter――and seeks in an
intelligent organization of the State, a framework within which each
individual is to perform the duties for which he is best fitted. To
neither conception is love between individuals, or sex-love between man
and woman, important. In effect, personal relationships do not matter.
The Christian doctrine of all-embracing love was once potent, but fails
to-day because of the foundation of God, dogma, and Church on which it
is built and which modern people cannot accept. “To love thy neighbour
as thyself” is also inadequate without knowledge and understanding.
But the rational materialists’ attitude――such, for instance, is that
of the Bolsheviks――to human relationships, in particular to women and
sex, is as lacking in the sense of human dignity as the Christian.
Monogamy and undiscriminating licence rest upon a common basis of
contempt for love and personality, both asserting that the desire
of a man is for a woman, of a woman for a man, but no matter whom.
Dualism, as ever, is the culprit. Sex-love is to be no more than a
physical need――no part of the serious business of life. Science has
brought a more modern attitude to matter which by its effect upon the
imagination may change our conception of personality and sex. Force,
struggle, solidity, contact, may yield to gentleness, non-resistance,
intermingling and uniting――not by an ethical change, but by a change
in scientific thought. We shall no longer think of mind and matter
as wronging or thwarting one another, because they are not different
forces; and we shall no longer be able to separate physical from mental
virtue or depravity. We shall no longer value a love that suppresses or
disregards the union of personality.

Taboos and superstitions, struggling dynamic individuals or States――how
may we set up a new vision? Perhaps what I have written above seems
far-fetched to the reader, but I do not think our life can be cut up
into compartments. Philosophy and sex are more important in politics
than General Elections. The revolt against the all-powerful Christian
State began in the assertion of certain people that their love of good
fruit and wine or their enjoyment of sex were not worthy of hell-fire.
On personal conduct, on our standards of personal relationship, man to
woman, parents to children, are built the customs and laws of States
and ultimately their national and international policy. It is here,
then, with man and woman, that we must begin. I have in mind, as I
write, a piece of Chinese porcelain, on which the sage or poet sits
with his book and long pipe; a lovely and elegant lady peeps over his
shoulder, and close at hand plays an impish child. I do not think that
the Chinese who conceived it expected that poet to write bad verses,
or, if a sage, to compose worthless philosophy. On the contrary, to
love with devotion, to be learned, to have children, are ideas which
have shaped the harmony of Chinese life. As compared with their
generous acceptance of instinct our Christian dread of sex and horror
of the body are obscene.

If we are to make peace between man and woman, and by their unity and
partnership change the ideas that govern our politics and our outlook
on the world, it is essential that men should make a more determined
attempt to understand what feminists are seeking. It is useless to go
on abusing, or pretending that this is a matter of minor importance.
It is essential also that women should think clearly and continue in
courage and honesty of word and action, neither abandoning all for the
pursuit of pleasure nor glorying in opportunities for an oppressive
morality belonging to past ages. First and foremost, man or woman, we
are human beings. There is a great deal of the work in the community
which we can each do with equal ability, given equal training and
opportunity. There are other tasks which we must agree to delegate to
one another, and neither despise the other for performing them. Life
and harmony, generosity and peace are the ideals which the best thought
of feminism has set before us. We believe that States and individuals
can put them into practice. Will man not pause to understand before he
continues on the path of destruction and strife, cupidity and war? Can
we not persuade Jason from barbarity and Admetus to the abandonment of
his fears? To live with vigour, body and mind and imagination, without
fear or shame or dread of death; to drive these baser passions from the
hold they have upon our morality and our politics――this is what we ask
of modern men and women. They can come to it only in a reckless love
of one another, a passion that gives again and again without fear of
hurt or exhaustion. It is not an abandonment to nature and to instinct
that we need. Pure and barbaric instinct is no more. Our bodies are
too much impregnated by inherited habit and knowledge, too much
surrounded in their growth by the findings of science. Men and women
are not creatures of clay, nor disembodied spirits; but things of fire
intertwining in understanding, torrents leaping to join in a cascade of
mutual ecstacy. There is nothing in life to compare with this uniting
of minds and bodies in men and women who have laid aside hostility and
fear and seek in love the fullest understanding of themselves and of
the universe. You cannot measure it in inches, nor turn it on and off
like a tap. You cannot stay it now and indulge it another time. You
cannot come to it by religion or by unaided reason, or by the brute
courage of sheer physical vitality. Jealousy is death. Dualism is
nonsense, compartments unavailing. You must have in you the thought
that is creation; life’s spring, and the daring of its unconquered
waters――so may you transform the world and people it with gods who know
no more the hates and littleness of men.


                   *       *       *       *       *


 Transcriber’s Notes:

 ――Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).

 ――A Table of Contents has been provided for the convenience of the
   reader, and is granted to the public domain.

 ――Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.

 ――Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.

 ――Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.