Sex at Choice
[Illustration: _Cicely G. Erskine_]
Sex at Choice
By
Mrs. Monteith Erskine
With an Introduction by
James Monteith Erskine
M.P. for the St. George’s Division of Westminster
G. P. Putnam’s Sons
New York & London
The Knickerbocker Press
1925
Copyright, 1925
by
Cicely Erskine
Made in the United States of America
PREFACE
This book, written by a woman for women, is the result of twenty-five
years’ continuous study of the causes of Sex-determination and of the
most feasible method of controlling it. It represents also the work of
a life-time devoted to investigation into every symptom or indication,
however minute or apparently insignificant, manifested in the pregnancy
of male offspring as distinct from that of female.
This research, mainly practical and clinical, was undertaken as a result
of the close attention which, for some years, I had devoted to all
matters connected with the health of young girls.
At an early age I came to realise the fundamental truth of the _alternate
action of “sides.”_ I use this word advisedly, because in those days I
knew no other. It goes without saying that this fact was brought to my
notice solely by the physical disabilities from which many girls suffer,
and by the nature of the treatment which brought them relief. But, over
and above this, the recognition of this truth proved, in my case, to be
the key to the ultimate conclusions upon which my whole theory is based.
The study of anatomy and physiology attracted me so deeply, whilst I was
yet a schoolgirl at Geneva, that it led me to further pursuit along the
lines of medical enquiry. It was about this time that, by the merest
chance, certain works expounding theories on sex-causation of various
biologists in France and Germany came under my notice, and these I read
and studied with the keenest interest.
Here it may be well to answer the constantly repeated question, “What
on earth possessed you, at such an early age, to take up a subject of a
nature so peculiar or, at any rate, controversial?” It must be remembered
that, in the evolution of a certain train of thought, the mind is very
apt to be affected by an exceptional combination of circumstances. In my
own case a keen sense of the wrong which I had suffered from the start,
by being born a girl where a boy was desired, had led me to vague doubts
and questionings in early childhood. All this, undoubtedly, helped to
sow within me the seeds of a bitter dissatisfaction with prevailing
conditions. I despised the slipshod methods of biological ignorance, and
justified the saying, the truth of which has so often been proved before,
that “All striving towards betterment is the fruit of discontent.”
The helplessness of women in respect of any power to determine the sex
of their offspring I regarded as a gross injustice and as a palpable
reflection on the progress of science; not for one moment did I regard it
as really due to the haphazard working of Dame Nature in her least kindly
moods.
Then it was that the idea filtered slowly through my brain that it might
well be a woman who alone could solve the problem. Who but a woman could
have the insight, born of personal experience, the patience, produced
by the physical disability of her sex, the opportunity, offered by the
sympathy of her fellows, or the will, created by a burning desire to help
womankind, to undertake the task of unravelling the mystery?
And so I set to work to fathom the sex-theories hitherto advanced. Most
of them I speedily discarded as entirely futile and incompatible with
the rôle of woman as _the sole determining factor of the sexes_. For I
realised that even as _ten lunar months_ are needed for the formation
and perfection of the child before it is born, so also the mathematical
relation of twenty-eight days or _one lunar month_ must be applied to the
periods of fertilisation in the human species. Hence, in the scientific
use of these twenty-eight days must lie the predominant part of the
secret of pre-determination. It was at this point that the old question
“_Before or After?_” became a matter of very special interest and a vital
object of study.
Among competing theories there were, however, several which appeared
to present material for speculation of some practical value and seemed
worth testing in the light of my own observations. The results of such
tests were methodically compiled in statistical form, having regard to
the marked inclination of certain parents to procreate offspring of one
or the other sex only. Examples were selected and added to, hundred
by hundred, culled from many countries, and they represented in a
marked degree distinct conditions appearing in the pregnancies of women
according to the sex of the children they happened to bear.
The alternatives in connection with the time-honoured theory of “Lateral
Decubitus,” which means the use of position to right or left as an
assistance to sex-determination, were duly explored. And it must be borne
in mind, as regards the belief of the right side being male and the left
female, that this seems to have been widely accepted before any definite
conclusions as to sex-theory were ever mooted. The words of the first
Chapter of Genesis “Male and Female created He them,” appeared to have
been applied to the right or left sides of woman ever since the days
of Hippocrates. The evidence of tradition, at any rate, could be cited
overwhelmingly in support of it.
Again the modern suggestion that “each organ works in shifts,” was
another principle of equal significance, which impressed itself upon
me in the early stages of my inquiries, and I soon came to some
comprehension of the _alternate working of the ovaries_.
During this period of my life I can say that no single instance of
future maternity, still less of imminent motherhood, was discussed in my
hearing, in respect to the progress and result of which I did not collect
data and information. Perhaps it was owing to my keen interest in the
physical sufferings of women, and my exceptional devotion to the subject
of the upbringing of infants, that I so easily gained the confidence of
every mother I met. The intimate details then disclosed, in exchange for
the genuine sympathy I evinced in their maladies, real or even imaginary,
proved of immeasurable value in my researches. Every detail of gestation
and parturition was faithfully recorded, and this collection of notes
became of incalculable value in helping me to establish my conclusion.
I must not forget the debt I owe to certain medical friends, who, aware
of my desire for knowledge, and thinking I wished to become, in course of
time, a physician, were kind enough to help me to acquire such scientific
learning as might prove useful to my career.
Then came marriage with its attendant responsibilities. Five children
were born to me alive and healthy, and they proved to be, as I desired,
one girl and four boys. I suffered no lack of varied experiences, and
took every advantage offered by all those accidental occurrences and
disabilities that few mothers of large families entirely escape. Every
mishap, every trouble, became a step in the progress of my ever-widening
investigation.
Eventually, as the result of much valuable and varied experience, I
obtained a record of personal symptoms which might fairly claim to be
unique. To these I added the data collected from other similar cases I
had observed, my opportunities of observation having rapidly increased
as I displayed, with greater assurance, the zeal that possessed me for
more, and yet more, clinical experience and evidence. I think that an
exceptionally intuitive and even hypersensitive temperament, combined
with a capacity for patient plodding, helped me, as did also my complete
freedom from all the restraint of a hide-bound tradition, which in so
many cases hampers the outlook of the orthodox medical student.
It was in July, 1908, that, acting on the kindly advice of an eminent
gynæcologist, I deposited with my bankers the actual formula which I
had tested for the practical application of my theory, and which I had,
in many cases, used to my own complete satisfaction. I took this step
in order that I might prevent any doubt arising in later years over
my claim of priority. But even then my formula was not as complete as
I wished it to be. Since that time I have made good progress in many
directions, and more especially in the problem of safe-guarding from
female issue those women who are not entirely normal, in that the action
of their left ovary does not correspond with the laws that hold for the
absolutely healthy woman.
Since 1909, people from many countries have consulted me about their
future offspring. Letters of acknowledgment and testimony to the efficacy
of my plans have flowed in from every part of the world.
It has been objected by some that parts of my theory have the flavour
of an “old wives’ tale.” There is, indeed, some truth in this. But I
see nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that my experience has tallied
with that of scores of observant old ladies in past generations.
Our grandmothers lived so simply and so close to nature that they
were admirably equipped for observation. They made full use of the
opportunities offered them by the large families that they bore and
reared, unaided and unaffected by the artificialities of civilisation.
Then, as the years rolled by, the wisdom they had collected was passed on
from mother to daughter, and to daughter-in-law, to survive triumphantly
the passing ridicule hurled at them by cynics of all times.
But if there is in these fables much that deserves our consideration,
there is also much that is entirely worthless, based on mere superstition
or foolish surmise. Among these the _Diet_ theory, which boldly proposed
to change the sex of the infant in embryo by administering special food
to the mother, is conspicuous. Other suggestions there were which traced
the sex of the offspring to the relative ages of husband and wife, their
temperaments, or a comparison between the more robust health of one
parent and the weaker constitution of the other; and of all these we may
safely say that where six examples can be produced to prove any one of
them, half-a-dozen are forthcoming to establish the contrary.
On the other hand, the hundreds of documents I have received, and the
mass of evidence, direct and indirect, I have collected, go far to place
the theory of the action of the ovaries beyond question, while the very
prevalent belief in _Lateral Decubitus_ strengthened my hand considerably
in making the deductions necessary to elaborate and consolidate my own
theory.
And here I must touch on the far more important question of the exact
periods within the 28 days of the “Lunar month” which are of such
vital importance to sex-determination. I have received a vast amount
of testimony on this score, and in every case it has supported the
contention I have so long advanced. The conception of males would offer,
to many biologists, no difficult problem. There has been little dispute
as regards the times when the male ovum is capable of fertilisation. But
the stumbling block has always been the question of girl-conception, and
this I maintain, is due solely to ignorance of the workings of the left
ovary, as distinct from that of the right.
Some writers assert that “after the 15th day of the lunar month no
conception can take place.” Then how can one account for the thousands
of infants conceived in the week preceding the period—a fact so easily
proved, beyond all doubt? Others again suggest the use of “early
fertilisation for females” and “late fertilisation for males,” on the
principle used by many breeders for cows in their first or second “heat.”
But this is precisely where I am at variance with all preconceived ideas
and hitherto more or less accepted suggestions, for I maintain that woman
stands apart and is unique in the exercise of her creative functions.
In 1907 A. Pohlmann published a treatise on “the heredity of the upright
position and some of its disadvantages.” From the woman’s point of view
one of the greatest of these is perhaps the freak working of the left
ovary. It is frequently argued that if one sex-law holds good for all
other mammiferous animals, why not for woman also?
The answer is fourfold, and can hardly escape the notice of those who
stop to consider the actual nature of woman’s habits and to compare them
with those of the quadrupeds:
1. Woman enjoys the “disadvantages” of the upright position,
which throws infinitely more strain on the genital organs than
there would be, were she to live on all fours.
2. No analogy exists between her menstrual characteristics
and those of animals, her courses differing in substance and
quantity from the corresponding condition in quadrupeds.
3. Woman alone refrains naturally from all sexual co-habitation
at these times.
4. Ovulation and menstruation, though interdependent to a
great degree, are in no way simultaneous as with animals; on
the contrary, the further removed from the actual courses the
healthier the impregnation of the ovum.
The flagrant contradictions prevailing among the “Before and After”
theorists have also done their share for many years in baffling
those biologists who have pursued their enquiry into the domain of
pre-determination. It was the solution of this problem that I long ago
made my goal, _and it is upon this rock that my whole theory is built_.
Another point which gave me much trouble, was the apparent anomaly
of children of one or the other sex being born when either or both
ovaries had been removed. This seemingly unaccountable event was widely
discussed some generations ago, but insufficient evidence was produced
to convince sceptics who contented themselves with a superficial survey
of the problem. Now, for my own satisfaction, and that of all inquirers,
I can safely vouch for the fact that, after the removal of one ovary,
the ensuing children are, in all but the most exceptional cases, of the
sex belonging to the remaining organ. And for every two or three cases
supporting such an exception I have collected a hundred proving the rule.
Regarding the question of the increased activity of the one ovary
following the disability of the other, I may state that the study of
this momentous truth, and the collection of corroborative data, has been
not the least interesting part of my work. Perhaps I may be permitted to
point out that no doctor could possibly have had such opportunities as I
have had of examining, from the _one standpoint of sex-determination_,
hundreds and thousands of varied cases. Among these are women who have:
1. Been childless.
2. Had female issue only.
3. Had male issue only.
4. Had twins of the same sex.
5. Had twins of mixed sex.
Not a day passes without some fresh corroboration of the theory I here
maintain reaching me. Had I ever, among all this mass of confirmation,
received a single atom of conflicting evidence, it might have made me
doubtful of myself. But on the contrary, the letters which for many years
past, I have been continually receiving, while they often gave me food
for thought, have inspired my work and spurred me on to fresh efforts.
I have realised that the limitation of families is largely the result
of powerlessness to choose the sex of the offspring. The doubtful
methods used in “Birth Control” have no place in my scheme, and I refuse
to believe that Nature intended married life to be made _un_natural
by so-called “preventives.” Is it wholly absurd to believe that
self-restraint in men is not unattainable, and that the exercise of
self-control in conjugal life is altogether unnatural?
But, because I know so much of women’s lives, and believe implicitly in
the good that is implanted in the human heart, I am convinced that none
of the dire consequences foretold as the result of sex-determination
will ever happen. There will be no social chaos, such as has been
darkly hinted, following on a birth-rate of nothing but boys, no mothers
refusing to have girls or remaining sterile if they cannot bear boys. My
own evidence goes to show that out of every hundred women who long for
children quite 30 per cent. want nothing but girls, and 20 per cent. more
are indifferent as to the sex of the longed-for child. All they want is
to achieve motherhood under the most desirable and propitious conditions
for infant and parents alike.
It is with all sincerity that I say that, from the very beginning of my
studies, the sole object of my work has been to help women to avoid those
special sorrows and humiliations which so often fall to their lot and to
secure for them the privilege of choosing the sex of their offspring.
This book would be incomplete were I not to express my grateful thanks
for the kindly advice and sympathetic encouragement which I have
continuously received for the past twenty years from many members
of the medical profession. I would especially mention Sir Maurice
Abbot-Anderson, M.B., B.S., M.V.O., etc.; Major James Taylor (of Keith),
M.D., T.D., D.L., etc.; Edwin A. Neatby, Esq., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S.;
W. Ward Anderson, Esq., M.B., Ch.B. (Edin.); F. W. Lee, Esq., M.R.C.S.,
L.R.C.P.; and the late Dr. John Harley, formerly of Harley Street, London.
CICELY ERSKINE.
7 ECCLESTON SQUARE, LONDON, S.W. 1.
INTRODUCTION
BY JAMES MONTEITH ERSKINE, M.P.
It requires considerable courage on the part of my wife, and not a little
on my own, to face the publicity which a subject-matter of so delicate
a nature as is contained in this work necessarily involves. Although
the main essentials of the theory dealt with here were formulated over
twenty years ago, it is only now that the progressive spirit of the age,
in contrast with the prudishness of the last generation, has rendered it
possible and desirable that mankind should have the full advantage of the
knowledge of natural processes here disclosed.
Another more private and personal reason for withholding publication
so long was the fact that our five children were young at the time,
and it was obviously undesirable to ventilate this subject while their
educational careers were in progress.
These impediments exist no longer, and the enormous power for good that
must accrue to every potential mother possessing this knowledge far
outweighs any possible disadvantages resulting from publicity. The author
looks for her reward in the immeasurable benefit that others will derive
from her unflagging inquiry and research.
The generous and self-sacrificing assistance that my wife has invariably
afforded me throughout my public career renders insignificant by
comparison, but none the less a mere act of gratitude, any contribution I
have been able to make by way of encouragement in this, her life’s work.
J. M. E.
January, 1925.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v
INTRODUCTION xxiii
I.—SEX DETERMINATION 3
II.—THE EUGENIC POINT OF VIEW 11
III.—THE SELECTION OF THE FIT 20
IV.—THE MOTHERS’ RESPONSIBILITY 25
V.—PREMATURES 37
VI.—THE SUPERFLUOUS FEMALE 51
VII.—STERILITY 65
VIII.—SEX-CAUSATION 77
IX.—FOR A BOY 86
X.—THE “BLANK WEEK” 97
XI.—FOR A GIRL 106
XII.—THE FREAK OVARY 111
XIII.—LATERAL DECUBITUS 120
XIV.—SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS: AFTER-EFFECTS 131
XV.—SIDE-THEORY 141
XVI.—TWINS OF MIXED SEXES 152
XVII.—“BEFORE OR AFTER” 163
XVIII.—THE LENGTH OF GESTATION 173
APPENDIX 183
SEX AT CHOICE
I
SEX DETERMINATION
“Sex is the central problem of life.”—HAVELOCK ELLIS.
In reviewing the long and unenlightened past, one is tempted to ask
whether Woman was not in league with the god of mystery to hide one
of Nature’s simple laws from the knowledge and comprehension of man.
Between woman and the possibility of instructive observation and the
outward visible signs of its expression, there has seemed to exist an
impenetrable barrier, so formidable as to baulk successfully every
effort of the biologist. No doubt the educational system of bygone times
contributed to the difficulties under which scientists laboured in
dealing with the problems of sex. It was practically impossible for maid
or matron to allow her thoughts or conversation to stray from the beaten
track without subjecting herself to severe reproof from Mrs. Grundy. A
source of information was thus suppressed, for women as well as men have
as much right to use their own understanding in judging of truth as they
have to use their own eyes to see their way.
Now girls are allowed to learn, and encouraged to think, and women
allowed to speak and encouraged to act. Thus we are at last approaching
an explanation of the determination of sex, because, depending on woman,
and on woman alone, it can be solved only with her assistance. “Life,”
says Professor Lester Ward, “begins as female. Life is feminine. In the
woman is the ‘creative centre.’ That everything proceeds from the egg,
the ‘vital focus,’ is the verdict of Biology.”[1] In the ovum an egg
alone is the germinal spot, the dawn of the future life. The theory
that the sex of a child is fixed before the ovum is fertilised has now
become an absolute certainty as a result of thousands of successful tests
which have established it. The male, according to science, is not a
sex-determining begetter: he is simply and only a fertilising agent.
It is not necessary here to give a complete list of all the theories for
sex determination that have from time to time been advanced. One by one,
without ceremony, we can conscientiously demolish them, thus clearing
the ground of useless impedimenta and narrowing down the difficulties
to be overcome. Many of these theories were based on experiments and
observations made on rats, bees, tadpoles, ferns, and even sponges. Then
again the health, age, environment, habits, and diet of parents were
successively advanced, apparently on the principle that any peg is good
enough to hang a hat on.
Perhaps Schenk’s[2] theory beats the record for extravagance, though it
gained at one time many adherents. According to his curious doctrine, sex
is determined during the months of pregnancy or well after conception has
taken place. Surely as wild a proposition as endeavouring to grow a rose
from a poppy seed by cultivating the soil in which it is planted.
This does not mean that there is no such thing as paternal heredity, in
other words, that physical or moral characteristics do not descend from
father to son throughout the generations. On the contrary, modern biology
has demonstrated that a father does transmit any weakness he may possess
to his progeny in a heavy percentage of cases, and more especially that
the female members of a family will partake of this weakness; just
as the mother passes on any tendency to disease or weakness of her
own to her male offspring. These facts have a very important bearing
on the transmission of disease, and it is obvious that the power of
pre-determining sex would tend to result in a strong and healthy
race. If physical and mental deficiency in the male parent tends to be
reproduced in the female offspring, and conversely in the male by a like
deficiency in the female parent, it becomes simply imperative to ensure
that in the former case only male children should be born and in the
latter only female. A tubercular father need have little anxiety if he
confines himself to sons only. A mentally deficient mother might without
apprehension have a family of girls. With such possibilities open to us,
we might even be willing to admit with Marcus Aurelius that “an accident
is a misfortune, but bearing it well turns it to advantage.”
Since people who suffer from chronic disabilities will insist on
producing offspring, let them at least make use of the essentially
eugenic law which is offered here. Let them understand that henceforth,
if they produce a specimen of humanity inheriting their own defects, they
are alone to blame.
From time immemorial parents have accepted in silence, but in bitterness
of spirit, the advent of offspring of an unwanted sex. In 70 per cent.
of these cases, it is roughly estimated, a girl has arrived when a boy
was hoped for. In 30 per cent. only was a girl wished for and a boy born.
Prayer without some kind of forethought must surely be unavailing. Help
thyself, and Heaven will help thee. It would be of interest to turn for
a moment to the East—to India in particular—and survey the conditions
of life that prevail there. The abject plight of a great proportion
of the women is largely the result of their lack of childhood, for
among orthodox Hindus every girl must be married before her eleventh
year; great numbers are married earlier still, some as soon as—if not
before—they are born! The conditions under which the widows live—and
these number over 20,000,000—are too tragic to contemplate, so trivial
is their market value. In no country in the world is the Man-Child so
ardently desired, for he is regarded as the Salvation of the household,
as it is he who will ultimately be called upon to officiate at the
death-ceremonies of his parents, requisite for their re-birth, which to
them represents their whole eternity.
In this great Dependency the mere whisper of sex-control evokes unlimited
joy and enthusiasm among all who have heard of it and even faintly
realised its possibilities.
Hitherto the ignorance of parents has been shared by a whole world of
unobservant people, convinced “that the science of life and being is
unattained and unattainable by these weak organs.”
That this helpless and hopeless outlook has resulted in the voluntary
limitation of many families is illustrated to absolute demonstration by
almost innumerable correspondents. “Were I to be sure of providing my
husband with a son to carry on his name, I should most certainly bear
another child” is a typical assurance. Most poignant in its pathos is
the lament: “My husband refuses to let me start a child for fear it may
be a girl, and my heart is literally breaking for want of children.”
Yet another epistle, several pages long, expresses the sorrows of an
older woman, starved by an incomplete motherhood: “If only,” she writes,
“I could make sure of a girl to be a sister to my three growing boys, I
should willingly try my luck once more. But my husband absolutely refuses
to have a fourth son to rear and start in life.”
Do not these extracts, which can be multiplied indefinitely, prove
how essential is the choice of sex, in view of the perilous inroad
birth-control is making amongst the classes from which we draw our best
human material?
It behoves us, as human beings, to accept life with some degree of
responsibility, not as animals pushed along the path of procreation by
blind instinct alone. If, in the space of a generation or two, we have
secured to mankind a better equilibrium of birth-rate, we shall have
helped to make the world a far better place, and totally abolished that
crying social evil “the superfluous female.”
II
THE EUGENIC POINT OF VIEW
“The destiny of organised nature is amelioration, and who can
tell its limits?”—EMERSON.
Eugenics is the Science of producing offspring of as perfect a type as
possible, which must eventually result in the general betterment of
the human race. So closely allied is moral welfare to physical that
when the one is directly improved, the other, too, is proportionately
benefited. “Ideals are the very soul of life,” and when they are high,
the trend is towards progress. Unfortunately, between the theoretical
and the practical side of all things there is a huge gap. The essence of
practical eugenics lies in the application of rules, already in use for
the benefit of domestic animals, which, when applied to man, will bring
about a higher physical standard than has hitherto been reached.
According to Professor Punnett “permanent progress is a matter of
gametes, not of training—the man is not made, but born.”[3] Nature
must therefore be helped in the creation of a finer and stronger
human specimen by the selection of the fittest to fulfil the work of
procreation. The diseased, the weak-minded, the consumptive and the
crippled of the Universe would be prevented from producing offspring, and
the race thus purged of necessarily inferior strains. The flotsam and
jetsam of weakly humanity would die off after two or three generations,
and but for sin and vice, which, like the poor, are ever with us, an
utopian state of things would soon obtain. In other words, it only
needs that human nature should be instructed and directed for all to be
well with us, and eugenics, working on the principle that progress is a
question of breeding rather than of pedagogics, would accomplish what
has up to now defied us as impossible.
Unfortunately eugenists are all too apt to forget how great is the abyss
separating the moral from the animal being in man. Much can be done to
improve the physique of a whole nation, but it must be remembered that
“the character of a generation is moulded by personality.” Until the end
of time the morale of a people will be the cause rather than the effect,
and here alone lies the divine spark that animates our whole physical
being.
A happy antithesis to Eugenics is to be found—the science of
psychotherapy, the essence of which has been summed up in the words, “It
is fatal to trust in the squirrel-work of the industrious brain, instead
of the piercing vision of the desirous heart.” Here the moral being of
Man is placed far above his physical or even mental being, which are in
more or less complete subordination to his soul, according to the degree
of his spiritual development. Heredity is disregarded as a negligible
quantity. It is environment, suggestion, willpower, faith, that wholly
influence, compass, and direct the well-being of man.
With eugenics, on the other hand, heredity is the most potent factor, and
this is perhaps why the key-note of materialism runs through the whole
gamut of this idealistic striving towards a more flawless humanity.
Heredity allows for little freedom; so it must be curtailed. Human
nature must either be completely held in check, or transformed beyond
recognition. A check is provided by the simple method of isolating those
human beings who, as a result of disease, are unfit to bear or beget
children. Thus in time the birth of mentally deficient creatures, who are
prolific out of all proportion, would come to an end, and other forms of
inferiority might in time be enormously reduced, and finally eradicated.
So far, so good, but there are other whisperings in eugenist circles,
and particularly in their outer fringes, which deal with subjects so
intimately human and personal that one is inclined to question the
wisdom of attempting to rush in where angels have feared to tread. It
is, for instance, not unusual to speak of the perfect mating of two
physically superior beings who should produce perfect offspring. But so
conspicuously inconsistent is human nature that often a healthy man will
fall hopelessly in love with an inferior or even physically degenerate
woman, and vice versa.
Then polygamy is hinted at; the strong man, as in Eastern countries, may
remain mated to his love, but should wed another wife who will produce
fine human stock. So, after a war, the strong man who survives will
have two or even three wives to ensure the future welfare of the world.
Such proposals have latterly been mooted by more than one writer, with
so-called eugenists foremost among them. The decisive answer to all such
schemes has been given in advance by Montesquieu, in his great work
_L’esprit des Lois_. Very minutely and conclusively he has proved that
polygamy never did, and never will, accomplish the desired end, and that
it is invariably accompanied by race degeneracy and both mental and moral
deterioration. It has appealed to some of the oldest civilisations all
the world over, and, after devastating wars, plagues and famines, has
been solemnly tried and encouraged. But from the national point of view,
polygamy does not answer.
Family life, with all that it implies, is primarily responsible for the
healthy moral and physical upbringing of normal human beings, and true
family life can only exist in a state of unimpeachable monogamy. One
father and one mother, welded together in a common desire to work for the
good of their children, can alone produce a truly healthy and superior
race.
In polygamy wifehood becomes a farce, and motherhood a mere animal
function, generally limited to a single attempt, and followed usually by
a state of lymphatic inertia and gross self-indulgence. The parental
instinct here is blunted on both sides, and all that can reasonably be
looked for in an institution so closely resembling the farmyard is a
purely physical relationship between man and woman, mother and child.
Marvellous results have been achieved in animal breeding by the coupling
of superior males and females singled out for the sole purpose of
providing superior progeny. As regards humanity this can never become
a feasible condition and polygamy remains a form of barbarism or gross
degeneracy. Turkey gives us a fair example of civilised polygamy. In
her essay on the harem, Lady Cook describes the Turkish woman as being
“the most depraved in the world.”[4] My personal experience of Turkish
society, which is not slight, has led me to a similar opinion; indeed,
the results of polygamy on the race where it is practised to-day are too
obvious to require further comment.
Shortly before he died, Mr. Montague Crackanthorpe, the eminent
Eugenist, in a discussion on this subject, remarked, “There is no doubt
that animal life, in its natural state, is essentially monogamous. How
much more is man then by nature, let alone by civilisation, intended to
generate after the highest form of monogamy.”
It has been proved too often to admit of doubt that the moral influence
of the mother on her unborn infant is omnipotent. Prenatal sensations may
well account for the whole trend of the child’s life. In the words of Dr.
E. Sloan Chesser: “Socially, the mother is the basis of racial progress:
ethically, enlightened motherhood is the strongest force in the world.
Intelligent mother-love can alone bring about the inculcation of higher
ideals of citizenship and social obligations.” The need of the hour is
the training of mothers in the deeper questions of life, so that the new
generation of men and women may have a sane and strong sense of human
responsibility and a better understanding of international morality and
friendship and the unity of the human race.
Much can and should be done by encouraging those who are fit and healthy
to have larger families. The Malthusian theory has proved itself a
dangerous menace to civilisation. It is threatening the safety of
depopulated France, and in Great Britain it should be discouraged in
every possible way as an insidious and treacherous enemy to the laws of
God and man.
III
THE SELECTION OF THE FIT
“I do not fear to follow out the truth
Albeit along the precipice’s edge;
Let us speak plain.”—LOVELL.
In every kind of animal life, with but few exceptions, the males exceed
the females in number, so that for the female the field of choice
remains a wide one. Among birds it is the cock who acquires the outward
adornments of feathers and the sweet singing voice wherewith to woo the
hen. She, in her turn, selects the mate she prefers to help her build the
nest which is to receive the offspring of their union. Similarly, various
kinds of animals, when the mating season approaches, acquire new fur or
horns to help them with their courtship.
With us it is otherwise. In the civilised countries of to-day it is the
female element which exceeds the male, so that the choice of a mate
lies necessarily with the latter part of the community. The woman is
compelled to show some special advantage, whether beauty, wealth or
some other feature, which will make her peculiarly desirable to the man
she wishes to attract. For this reason we often see women lose their
self-respect or indulge in the most absurd extravagances in the hope of
distinguishing themselves from the mass of their own sex. In the poorer
classes, this condition prevails only to a minor degree, and for purely
economic reasons nature has her own way to a greater extent. But even
here, as everywhere, women are far too prone to take what they can get,
rather than remain unmarried. We still find the loafer, the diseased and
the drunkard, if like Barkis, they be willing, turned into benedicts,
almost before they realise it themselves. Hence the heavy percentage of
imbeciles, cripples and degenerates which burden the country and fill
the lunatic asylums, hospitals and prisons. This unfortunate condition
is due to the fact that in the British Isles there are, according to the
statistics of the Registrar-General for 1923, at least 107 women to every
100 men.
More men must be provided to ensure offspring as perfect as the human
race can create. Once the heart and imagination of the woman are
satisfied, she will spontaneously fulfil her great rôle of mother. Thus
equipped, she will carry on her work conscientiously, fully alive to the
importance of her child’s welfare. It is the mother’s morale that counts
in reproduction: she takes the giant share of the responsibility.
She represents the Sex, self-contained and all-containing; _Le sexe,
c’est la femme_. And yet, in preparing for the ordeal of motherhood—the
pivot on which the whole world revolves—her chance of selecting a
partner, worthy to become the father of her children, is comparatively
small.
The wonder is that more unhealthy children are not born as the result of
such a limitation of choice. By the subsequent exercise of great care,
many are reared to become useful citizens, but a vast army of permanent
inefficients is born into our midst every year. In a population of
40,000,000 there are 300,000 mentally defective persons, most of whom
are in asylums, but many still free to marry and procreate. Thus one
person in every 118 of England’s population is either mad, idiotic or
feeble-minded. Among criminals alone, the fruit of degeneracy, there are
in England 30,000 in the jails, besides some 5,000 classed as convicts.
There are also every year in England and Wales some 3,800 people who died
by their own hands. All these degenerates contribute but little benefit
to the State, which is in fact often called upon to support them and
their offspring entirely.
In these years of progressive enlightenment it should, above all,
be recognised that the general welfare of the nation is immediately
dependent on the common sense and morale of its women. It is of primary
importance that they should make use of all their intelligence and all
their forethought before embarking on the hazardous venture of matrimony.
IV
THE MOTHERS’ RESPONSIBILITY
“The only science of mankind is man.”—WARBURTON.
We have spoken of the advantages to be obtained from a eugenic point of
view for women and their children by providing a larger selection of
suitable males. But we must not forget how innumerable are the influences
which can affect the unborn infant. It has been asserted that the
phlegmatic and lazy woman is more prone to female offspring, whereas her
sanguine, hardworking sister is usually blessed with male children.
There is a reason for this. The natural state of every healthy woman is
to produce more males than females. In Russia, where the peasant-women
do heavy manual work on their homesteads, the percentage of male births
far exceeds that of female. Among the French peasantry the same condition
prevails. During the war it was commonly acknowledged that the male
birth-rate increased greatly. When one bears in mind the enormous amount
of hard physical work that was accomplished by women, who otherwise would
have led a sedentary, or at least a far more passive existence, one can
hardly be surprised at it. For this unusual outlay of muscular energy
resulted in the strengthening of the whole right side of these women, and
incidentally of that organ from which male issue springs.
Most decidedly it takes a stronger and more normal organism to bear male
progeny than female. Regular work and exercise, combined with favourable
moral and physical conditions, are necessary to the conceiving of boys.
There should be no exaggerated zeal in the pursuit of sports and games,
but a wife should take a moderate part in all her husband’s pleasures
and occupations, and reserve enough leisure to ensure a tranquil and
contented brain. To keep cheerful and happy is half the battle for the
unborn infant.
A lady I knew, who had thirteen sons and two daughters, was so strong and
muscular that up to the age of 85 she could take a very active part in
any furniture-moving that had to be done. A friend of my mother’s, who
had twelve sons, remarked one day, “I think I ought to have been a man, I
am so much more muscular and powerful than my husband.”
A certain amount of intellectual activity is desirable, such as reading,
music, or any form of accomplishment hitherto cultivated. Any talent to
which active expression is given during pregnancy greatly affects the
unborn child, in whom the seeds of so-called facility, talent, or genius
are thus sown. Once pregnant a woman should never forget for one minute
that her burden must be considered at every step she takes, just as later
on she will hope to watch over her infant’s welfare at every hour of its
existence.
Much can be done to ensure the safety of pregnancy, especially during the
first four months, by early hours, easy-going occupations, and above all
no giving way to worry, morbidity or temper. A morbid mother produces
a fretful baby, who may quite possibly develop a “kink” in his brain
or character. Here also should be underlined the necessity of guarding
against the fatal catastrophe of miscarriage, only too often brought
about by sheer carelessness.
The following are a few typical cases. A lady of my acquaintance, when
pregnant, was in the habit of riding in the Row every morning, up to
the sixth month. Three times in succession the child was a girl, and no
apparent trouble ensued. When, however, she became pregnant a fourth
time, I warned her against the risk that to my mind she was incurring.
But she continued to take the same exercise, and shortly after she
miscarried of a boy, which proved to be her only attempt at male issue.
A young woman who had a boy of two years, and was pregnant of a second
child, insisted, in spite of all the friendly advice offered to her, in
going to Switzerland for the winter sports. She skied all day and danced
all night. Shortly after she became ill, was seized with pains, and
miscarried of a four-month boy.
A lady, who already had a daughter, much needed a son to carry on her
husband’s title. She became pregnant, and went comfortably on till the
fourth month, when, at the time when quickening was due, she was invited
to join a party to go on a long excursion in a coach-and-four. Though
warned beforehand by all her friends, she persisted in accepting the
invitation. She came home worn out, and miscarried next day of a healthy
male fœtus.
A lady, who was inclined to feel ill for two or three days each month,
was warned by her doctor to lie up at these times. She insisted however,
on one such occasion, in taking a long train journey, with the result
that pains came on, and she was delivered of a four-month male child.
Another correspondent recently wrote:—“I started a baby immediately after
marriage, but stupidly did far too much and had a miscarriage in July and
another in December last.”
On the other hand, many of these mishaps may be due to unavoidable
accidents, shocks, and mental worry. But this only emphasises the
desirability of avoiding all imprudence at the first suspicion of
pregnancy, and of using the greatest foresight and self-control when
there is any smallest symptom of “bearing-down” or “malaise.” The old
saying, “A sick pregnancy is a safe one” is doubtless true.[5] But
sickness would appear to be more prevalent in girl-pregnancies, and this
goes far to support the fact of partial immunity in pregnancy from female
abortions.
A lady pregnant of a boy wrote to me as follows: “I am not a bit sick
this time ... but with my first and second babies (both girls) I was
terribly sick and could keep nothing down for weeks on end.” A lady in
Paris assured me that with her four girls she suffered very greatly from
nausea, but that with her two boys she was free from all such discomfort.
A woman who had eight daughters and four sons told me that she invariably
knew of which sex her baby would be, as sickness was always present
during the first three months of girl-pregnancies. Of such cases I could
quote many instances.
Here let me say that miscarriage is one of the direct causes of a lack of
males in the world. Statistics show that of the miscarriages within my
own experience no less than 80 per cent. are male. To this I must refer
later on.
There are other causes responsible for the dearth of boy-babies, all
more or less capable of adjustment. For instance, the fact that it is
more difficult to rear boys depends on two special causes. The first is
the boy’s digestion, which, in my opinion, is more delicate than that
of a girl. This I have noted in hundreds of cases, extending over many
years, and certainly boys are more inclined to sickness than girls.
An elderly monthly nurse of great experience used to say, “my _sick
babies_ are the fattest and the biggest, and are generally boys,” and
she always maintained that “small babies” were easier to rear than big
ones. A mother of ten children recently remarked to me, “My girls were no
trouble, but the boys were so difficult to suit with their foods.” This
is a matter of experience which I have confirmed in countless cases.
Therefore it is all-important that boys should be breast-fed, if only
for the first month of their existence. For the after-health of the
mother, wishful of further _male_ issue, this is also very desirable.
The infant’s best chance of life and health is that it should be born
of a robust mother capable of nursing her child during the first months
of its existence. Walsh, in his work on Psychotherapy says, “It is
well recognised that the reason why nurslings are protected from most
of the so-called children’s diseases is that their mothers have had
these diseases, have acquired an immunity to them, and this immunity is
transferred to the child so long as the nursing process is continued.”[6]
Every mother should, therefore, endeavour to take plenty of nourishment,
so that she may be able to feed her child as long as possible. In order
to be successful, a quart of rich milk should be taken daily; there will
be no difficulty in digesting this, so long as she continues to nurse.
Beer and stout, however, have been proved to be unnecessary and often
harmful for the creation of pure milk. To show how important it is to
nurse babies, it is only necessary to state that in London alone during
the summer 200 infants die every week from “hot weather” diseases, in
most cases propagated by flies which poison the milk.
The second cause of boy-mortality is the widespread, and often ignored,
necessity for circumcision. Every male infant should be circumcised
within the first week of its birth. If properly attended to, the child
does not feel the slight operation, and naturally no anæsthetic is
used. Circumcision is an insurance against many troubles later on.
It is cleanly and a real safe-guard to morality from early boyhood
upward. Every child thus attended benefits thereby, and it is especially
desirable for children of neurotic or tuberculous parentage. It has been
remarked that the Jews rear a much larger percentage of boys than do
Christians, and there can be no doubt that the circumcision universally
practised among them is one of the chief causes of this smaller mortality.