THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER
The case for man, the defendant--Freemasonry between women--Which
is right?--Influence of plumage--The female bird--Man is not
invariably wrong--'What is good for the goose is good for the
gander'--But there is a difference between the goose and the
gander.
Women, who seldom miss an opportunity of picking one another to pieces,
invariably stand shoulder to shoulder (as much as the shape of their
sleeves will allow them to do) when the question to decide is whether
it is a man or a woman who is in the wrong. The freemasonry between
women goes as far as that and no further.
The Queen of Roumania, well known to literary fame as Carmen Sylva,
declares that the reason for a wife's infidelity is to be laid at her
husband's door, and the assertion is laid down as a rule by the royal
authoress. In so saying, the Queen of Roumania makes herself the
mouthpiece of her sex; for most women, if not absolutely all, are of
her opinion, that the wickedness of man is responsible for all the
vices, faults, and even shortcomings of woman.
On the other hand, I have always heard men say that a man will stay at
home if his wife makes his house attractive and cheerful, and herself
pleasant in it.
It is the same story, the eternally same story.
The man stays at his club and returns home at one o'clock a.m. because
Madame is dull and sulky. The woman is dull and sulky because Monsieur
stays at his club and does not return home before one o'clock.
Now, which is right? or rather, which of the two began? A prejudiced
person of the male gender will say:
'It is the women's fault.'
A prejudiced person of the female persuasion will answer:
'No, the men's, of course.'
(Women in their arguments always add, 'Of course.')
A fair-minded person of either sex will probably say: 'Out of that
equal number of men and women, half the women are right, and half the
men are not wrong.'
All this leads us to a very serious question: Of man or woman, which is
the more responsible of the two for the continuance and eventually the
long duration of happiness in matrimony?
And as women are ever airing their grievances on the subject, let us
try to plead a little the cause of that poor, often too much abused
creature that Madame Sarah Grand delights in calling 'Mere Man,' and
let us do so in a friendly spirit, in an unconventional, intimate sort
of way.
If women have their grievances against Nature, men have theirs, too.
Nature has, indeed, treated men in a far less generous manner than the
other male members of the animal kingdom. The female bird, for
instance, is plain. She has no voice and no glorious feathers. All the
fascinating power of beautiful song, gorgeous plumage and graceful
demeanour was given to the male. It is he who has to win, and Nature,
knowing this, has endowed him with the means of conquest. Not so with
us. Man is about the ugliest creature of all that breathes on the face
of the earth, and woman was intended to attract and charm him, and, in
order to enable her to do so, Nature has given her a beautiful face, a
divine figure and a taste for attractive plumage. During the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries men paid attention to their dress,
which, in many respects, was as attractive and fascinating as that of
women. But now! Man is a guy, a cure, a remedy for love-sickness, and I
sometimes wonder how it is that women think his conquest worth making.
To make himself lovable, man has to turn himself inside out; for only
his moral and intellectual qualities can help him to get at a woman's
heart. Soldiers are supposed to be more successful with women than any
other men because their profession appeals to the minds of women; but I
can't help thinking that their uniform has a great deal to do with it.
Now, if Nature has endowed woman with the powers of charming man by her
amiability and winning grace, who is to blame if she does not avail
herself of all these advantages, and does not use them carefully,
discreetly, skilfully, to prevent love from flagging and cooling in
matrimony?
Of course, intelligent women feel, after the wedding ceremony is over,
that a man's love is not secured by a few sacramental words pronounced
by a priest in solemn tones and in the presence of many witnesses. She
soon discovers that man is not like woman; she understands, as the male
bird does, that plumage has a great deal to do in order to excite
happiness and keep it alive in matrimony, and that her cheerfulness and
tactful ways will obtain what remonstrances and sulks will invariably
fail to secure.
There is no doubt that many women, women spoiled by loving husbands, by
lover-husbands especially, become dull and irritable when the husbands
do not exactly detach themselves from their wives, but, through
circumstances too numerous to enumerate, pass from the stage of lovers
to that of friends.
Women are, as a rule, the embodiment of prejudice, and they will not
understand. There is seldom any philosophy in them, and, when they do
understand, they will not resign themselves cheerfully to the
inevitable, and either make a careful study of the position and see the
only possible way to revive what appears to be dying, or make the best
of what, after all, is still worth having, the friendship and the
protection of a devoted husband who has worked for them and made their
life secure. No, they will sulk and make things wretched and hopeless.
Man is not invariably wrong, and he is not to be blamed for his
coldness any more than he is to be blamed or scolded for his want of
appetite. Perhaps if the dinner had been prepared with more care, he
would have eaten it with avidity.
A great French poet says that happy nights make happy days in
matrimony. I do not think that he is right. I rather believe in the
reverse: Cheerful days, spent in delightful companionship, will make
later meetings perfectly delicious. But it is on the woman, much more
than on the man, that this happy result depends. There is no conceit on
the part of a man in saying so. This line of conduct is dictated by the
difference which exists between a man and a woman.
I am ready to admit that women have grievances in this respect; but
they are not of man's making, they are of Nature's, and no blame can be
attached to man for it. How many couples, wretched and miserable, could
be happy if women could, or would, realize the truth of this statement!
But, as a rule, they will not. Their motto is, 'What is good for the
goose is good for the gander.'
But it isn't.
_Non_, madame, the gander, unfortunately for your sex, is not
constituted like the goose, and it is for him an impossibility to eat
the dish you offer him if his appetite is not tempted. _You_ can, but
he cannot. The whole problem of happiness in matrimony lies in this
nutshell.