Originally reproduction is a part of the function of all
protoplasm; and in the primitive life-forms an individual becomes
two by the "simple process" of dividing itself into halves. Had
this method continued into the higher forms most of the trouble
as well as most of the pleasure of human existence would never
occur. Or had the hermaphrodite method of combining two sexes in
the one individual, so frequent in the plant world, found its way
into the higher animals, the moral struggles of man would have
become simplified into that resulting from his, struggles with
similar creatures. Literature would not flourish, the drama would
never have been heard of, dancing and singing would not need the
attention of the uplifter, dress would be a method of keeping
warm, and life would be sane enough but without the delicious
joys of sex-love.
Why are there two sexes?[1] I must refer the reader to the
specialists in this matter, but can assure him that no one knows.
With the rise of Mandel's theory of heredity, it has been assumed
that such a scheme offers a wider variety of possible character
combinations. At present it is safe to say that no one can give a
valid reason for the existence of male and female, and that while
this elaboration of the reproducing individual into two parts may
be necessary for some purpose, at first glance it appears like an
interesting but mysterious complication.
[1] See Lloyd Morgan's book on sex.
I refer the reader to textbooks in anatomy and embryology, and to
the specialists on sex like Krafft-Ebbing, Havelock Ellis and
Ploss for details as to the differences between man and woman.
There are first the essential organs of generation, differing in
the two sexes, the ovary furnishing the egg, the testes
furnishing the seed or sperm; then the organs of sexual contact;
the secondary sex characteristics, such as stature, distribution
of hair, deposits of fat, shape of body and especially of the
pelvis, the voice, smoothness of skin, muscular development, etc.
There is an orderly evolution in the development of sex
characters which starts with earliest embryo life and goes on
regularly until puberty, when there is an extraordinary
development of latent characters and peculiarities. After puberty
maturity is reached by easy stages, and then comes involution or
the recession of sex characters. This is reached in woman rather
suddenly and in man more gradually. The completely differentiated
man differs from his completely differentiated mate in the
texture of his hair, skin, nails; in the width and mobility of
pupils, in the color of his sclera, etc., as well as in the more
essential sex organs.
Indeed there are very essential bodily differences that are
obviously important though not well understood. One is that the
bodily temperature of man is slightly higher than that of woman,
and that he has five million red blood corpuscles to every cubic
millimeter of his blood, while she has four and a half million;
that his brain weighs considerably more but is not heavier
proportionately; that her bodily proportions resemble those of
the child-form[1] more than do his, which some interpret as a
point of superiority for her, while others interpret it as a sign
of inferiority. On the whole, the authorities consider that man
is made for the discharge of energy at a high rate for a short
time, he is the katabolic element, while woman stores up energy
for her children and represents the anabolic element of the race.
[1] See Havelock Ellis.
As a corollary to the above, it is necessary to know that each
human being (and also each higher animal) starts out with the
potential sex organs of both sexes, and that each individual
becomes sexually differentiated at about the eleventh week of
intra-uterine life. Moreover every male has female organs, and
every female has male organs, though in the normal conditions
these are mere vestiges and play no part in the sex life of the
person. Yet this indicates that the separation of male and female
is not absolute, and logically and actually a male may have
female characters, physically and mentally, and vice versa a
female may resemble the male in structure and character.
The sex relations have in the racial sense reproduction as their
object, but it is wise to remember that in the whole living world
only man knows this, and he has known it for only a relatively
short time. Furthermore, in youth, when the sexual life is at its
intensest, this fact, though known, is not really realized, and
in the individual's plans and desires parenthood figures only
incidentally, if at all. Society, in its organization, places its
emphasis on child-bearing, and so indirectly reproduction becomes
a great social aim rather than an individual purpose.
1. The feeling of parenthood is, as every one knows, far stronger
in woman than in man. But here again generalizations are of no
use to us, since there are women who develop only a weak maternal
feeling, while there are men whose intensity of response to
children is almost as great as any woman's. Undoubtedly
occupation in other than the traditional woman's field is
weakening the maternal feeling or is at least competing with it
in a way that divides the modern mother's emotions and purposes
and is largely responsible for her restless nervousness. This I
think may safely be stated: that industry, athleticism,
education, late marriage, etc., are not making for better
physical motherhood.[1] On the contrary, the modern woman has a
harder time in bearing her children, and worst of all she is
showing either a reluctance or an inability to nurse them. Small
families are becoming the rule, especially among the better to
do. On the other hand, the history of the home is the gradual
domestication of the man, his greater devotion to the children
and to his wife. The increase in divorce has its roots in social
issues too big to be discussed with profit here, but perhaps the
principal item is the emancipation of woman who is now freer to
decline unsatisfactory relations with her mate.
[1] "The Nervous Housewife."
2. The sex passion, as a direct feeling, is undoubtedly stronger
in the male, as it is biologically necessary it should be, since
upon him devolves the active part in the sex relationship.[2] The
sexologists point out two types of sex feeling, one of which is
supposed to be typically male, the other typically female.
[2] See Havelock Ellis, Krafft-Ebbing, Freud.
The male feeling is called sadism, after an infamous nobleman who
wrote on the subject. It is a delight in power, especially in
cruelty, and shows itself in a desire for the subjection of the
female. In its pathological forms it substitutes cruelty for the
sexual relation, and we have thus the horrible Jack the Rippers,
etc. The Freudians go to the extreme of seeing in all love of
power a sadism, but the truth is that the sadistic impulse is the
love of power, cruelly or roughly expressed in sex. The cave man
of the stories is a sadist of a type, and one generally approved
of, at least in theory. A little of sadism is shown in the
delight in pinching and biting so often seen; and the expression
"I'd like to eat you up" has a playful sadism in it.
The opposite of sadism is masochism. This is a delight in being
roughly used, in being the victim of aggression. The typical
female is supposed to rejoice in the power and strength of the
male as exerted on her. The admiration women often give to the
uncouthly strong, their praise of virility, is masochistic in its
origin. The desire of the peasant woman to be beaten as a mark of
man's love is supposed to be masochistic, a pleasure in pain,
which is held to be a primitive female reaction.
Sex psychopathology discloses innumerable cases where extreme
sadism and masochism exist in both sexes; that is, not only males
but females are sadistic, and so not only females but males are
masochistic. Undoubtedly in minor degree both qualities express
themselves in male and female; undoubtedly the male is more
frequently a sadist than is the female. Though the majority of
women may thrill in the strength and power of the lover, there
are relatively few American women who will tolerate real
roughness or cruelty. As a matter of fact the basic feelings in
sex love, aside from the sexual urge itself, are tenderness and
admiration. Naturally men desire to protect, and this becomes
part of their tenderness; they admire and love the beauty of
women and are attracted by the essential (or supposed essential)
feminine qualities. And as naturally women desire to be
protected; this enhances their tenderness, and their admiration
is elicited by the peculiar male characters of strength,
hardihood and aggressiveness, as well as by beauty and human
qualities generally. Though the love of conquest is a part of sex
feeling, it is neither male nor female, but is that feeling of
superiority and power so longed for in all relations. Men like to
conquer the proud, reserved, haughty woman because she piques
them, and women often set out to "win" the reserved "woman hater"
for the same reason. Thus tenderness and sex passion, with sadism
and masochism in lesser degree, are basic in sex feeling, but
other qualities enter so largely that any complete analysis is
almost impossible. The belief, engendered by romance and
teaching, that happiness lies in love, spurs youth on. Admiration
for achievement, love of beauty, desire for the social standing
that winning some one gives, desire for home and perhaps even for
children are some of the factors of love.
Sex passion varies enormously in people. In some men it is an
almost constant desire, obsessive, and is relatively uncritical
and unchoosing. Occasionally, though much more rarely, the same
condition is found in women. Such abnormal individuals are almost
certain of social disaster, and when married their conduct
usually leads to divorce or desertion. Then there is a wide range
of types down to the almost sexless persons,[1] the frigid, who
are much more commonly found among women than men. In fact, with
many women active sex desire may never occur, and for others it
is a rarity, while still others find themselves definitely
desirous only after pregnancy. Not only are women less
passionate, but their desire is more "finicky," more in need of
appropriate circumstances, the proper setting and the chosen mate
than with man. In other words, sex desire is more physical and
urgent in the man and more psychical and selective in the woman.
[1] Some claim that the "frigid" woman is such because her mate
is ignorant of the art of love. This is true of some frigid
women. Instruction to men and women about to be married on the
technique of sexual life might well take a fine place in the
curriculum of life.
A curious by-product of the sexual feeling is fetichism. To do it
justice, fetichism is found in all feeling toward others, but is
most developed in sex relation. The fetich is a symbol of the
desired person, thus the handkerchief and glove of the woman or
the hat of the man. Pathologically any part of the dress--the
shoe or the undergarments--may become so closely associated with
sexual feeling as to evoke it indiscriminately or even to
displace it. Normal fetich formation may become a bit foolish and
sentimental but never becomes a predominant factor in sex
relationship.
The history of modesty is the history of the sex taboo. As
pointed out, the sex feelings are the most restricted of any of
the instincts. I despair of giving an adequate summary of this,
but it may be best stated by declaring that all the restrictions
we hold as imperative have, at one time or another in some place,
been regarded as sacred and desirable. Brother and sister
marriages were favored by Egyptian royalty, prostitution was a
rite in Phoenician worship, phallic worship frankly held as a
symbol that which to-day we hold profane (in a silly way), plural
marriage was and is countenanced in a large part of the world
to-day, marriage for love is held as foolish in most countries,
even now. The practice of child restriction now prevalent in
Europe and America would be looked at with horror in those
countries where children of ten or eleven are allowed to marry.
Exogamy, endogamy, monogamy, polygamy,--all these are customs and
taboos, and though in our day and country monogamy has the social
and religious sanction, there is nothing to indicate that this is
a permanent resting place for marriage. Certainly the statistics
of divorce indicate a change in the permanent status of marriage.
What this is meant to emphasize is the social nature of sexual
modesty. Modesty of other kind rests either on a moderate
self-valuation or a desire to avoid offense by not emphasizing
one's own value, or it is both. However sexual modesty
originated, practically it consists in the concealing of certain
parts of the body, avoiding certain topics of conversation,
especially in the presence of the other sex, and behaving in such
fashion as to restrict sexual demonstration. There is a natural
coyness in women which has been socially emphasized by
restrictions in dress, conduct and speech to a ridiculous degree.
Thus it was immodest in our civilization for women to show their
legs, and the leg became the symbol of the femaleness of the
woman or girl, as also did the breast.[1] The body became taboo,
and at present, when women are commencing to dress so that the
legs are shown, the arms are bare, and the back and shoulders
visible, the cry of immodesty, immorality and social
demoralization is raised, as if real morality rested in these
ridiculous, barbaric taboos.
[1] All the anthropologists, Tyler, McLennan, Ellis and
especially Frazier, deal at length with this fascinating subject.
The psychopathologists relate the most extraordinary stories of
fetich love.
But no matter how much one emphasizes the arbitrary nature of
modesty, of the restrictions placed on dress, speech and conduct,
it still remains true that their function is at present to act as
inhibitors. Ridiculous as it is to believe that morality resides
in the length of the skirt or in the degree of paint and powder
on the face, the fact is that usually they who depart too widely
from the conventional in these matters are uninhibited and are as
apt to depart from the conventional in deed as they are in
deportment. There are those who say that we would be far more
moral if we went about naked; that clothes suggest more than
nakedness reveals. This is true of some kinds of clothes--the
half nakedness of the stage or the ballroom, or the coquettish
additions to clothes represented by the dangling tassels --but it
is not true of the riding breeches, or the trim sport clothes, or
the walking suit. The dress of men, though ugly, is useful,
convenient and modest, and there is no doubt that a generation of
free women, determined to become human in appearance, could
evolve a modest and yet decorative costume. All of the
present-day extravagance in female attire, with its ever-changing
fashion, is a medley of commercial intrigues, female competition
and sex excitement. Though the modesty restrictions are absurd,
the motive that obscurely prompts it is not, and the
transgressors either seek notice in a risky way, are foolish, to
speak bluntly, or else are inviting actual sexual advances.
Though we may actually restrict the sex life so that some men and
women become pure in the accepted sense, it will always be true
that men and women will be vaguely or definitely attracted to
each other. Like the atmospheric pressure which though fifteen
pounds to the square inch at the sea level is not felt, so there
exists a sex pressure, excited by men and women in each other.
There is a smoldering excitement always ready to leap into flame
whenever the young and attractive of the sexes meet. The
conventions of modesty tend to restrict the excitement, to
neutralize the sex pressure, but they may be swept aside by
immodesty and the suggestive. The explanation of the anger and
condemnation felt by the moral man in the presence of the
"brazen" woman lies in the threat to his purposes of
respectability and faithfulness; he is angered that this creature
can arouse a conflict in him. The bitterness of the "saint"
against the wanton originates in the ease with which she tempts
him, and his natural conclusion is that the fault lies with her
and not with his own passions. The respectable woman inveigles
against her more untrammeled sister, not so much through her
concern for morality, as through the anger felt against an
unscrupulous competitor who is breaking the rules.
In so far as women are concerned, the sex pressure on them is
increased in many ways. For two years I examined, mentally, the
girls who were listed as sex offenders by the various social
agencies of Boston. As a result of that experience, plus that of
a physician and citizen of the world, a few facts of importance
stand out in my mind.
1. There is a group of men whom one may call sex adventurers.
These are not all of one kind in education, social status and
age, but they seek sex experiences wherever they go and are
always alert for signs that indicate a chance to become intimate.
They take advantage of the widespread tendency to flirt and haunt
the places where the young girls tend to parade up and down
(certain streets in every large city), the public dance halls,
the skating resorts, the crowded public beaches, etc. They regard
themselves as connoisseurs in women and think they know when a
girl is "ripe"; they are ready to spend money and utilize
flattery, gifts and bold wooing, according to their nature and
the way they size up their prey.
2. The female sex adventurer is not so common, except in the
higher criminal classes where the effort to ensnare rich men
calls forth the abilities of certain women. In a limited way the
prostitute, professed or clandestine, is a sex adventurer, but
ordinarily she is merely supplying a demand and has only to exert
herself physically, rarely needing to conquer men's inhibitions.
We omit here the schemes of conquest of girls and women seeking
marriage as too complex for any one but a novelist, and also
because the moral code regards them as legitimate. Women who are
ready to accept sexual advances are common enough in the
uninhibited girl, the dissatisfied married woman, the young
widow, the drug habitue; but aside from the woman who has
capitalized her sex, the sex adventurer is largely male.
What attracts him? For he rarely pesters the good woman, and
ordinarily the average woman is not solicited.
The girl usually "picked up" dresses immodestly or in the extreme
of style, even though she is essentially shabby and poorly clad.
To-day business sees to it that fripperies are within the reach
of every purse.
She usually corresponds to a type of prettiness favored in the
community, often what is nowadays called the chicken type. Plump
legs and fairly prominent bosom and hips are symbols of those
desired among all grades of men, together with a pretty face. The
homely girl finds it much easier to walk unmolested.
If she appears intelligent and firm, the above qualities will
only entitle her to glances, respectful and otherwise. The sex
adventurer hates to be rebuffed, and he is not desperately in
love, so that he will not risk his vanity. If she appears of that
port vivacious type just above the moron level--in other words if
she is neither bright nor really feeble-minded--then sex pressure
is increased. The feeble-minded girl of the moron type, or the
over-innocent and unenlightened girl, is always in danger.
There is further the sexually excited or the uninhibited girl. We
must differentiate between those who attempt no control, and
those whose surge of desire is beyond the normal limits. The
uninhibited of both sexes are a large group, and the bulk of the
prostitutes are deficient in this respect rather than in
intelligence. Sometimes inhibition arrives late, after sexual
immorality has commenced. In men this is common, but
unfortunately for women, society stands in their way when this
occurs with them. "Youth must have its fling" is a masculine
privilege denied to feminine offenders.
The desire for a good time plays havoc with the uninhibited girl.
Unable to find interest in her work, which too often is
uninteresting, desiring good clothes and excitement, she
discovers that these are within her reach if she follows her
instincts. What starts out as a flirtation ends in social
disaster, and a girl finds out that some men who give good times
expect to be paid for them.
Since our study is not a pathological treatise, we must omit
further consideration of the offender and dismiss without more
comment the whole range of the perverter. It suffices to say that
the perverted are often such congenitally, in which case nothing
can be done for them, and others are the results of certain
environments, which range all the way from girls'
boarding-schools to the palaces of kings.
In ancient times, and in many countries to-day, certain
perversions were so common as to defy belief, and we are
compelled to associate with some of the greatest names,
practices[1] that shock us. These same ancients would denounce as
unnatural in as hearty terms the increasing practices of
child-limitation among us.
[1] I pass over as out of the range of this book the question
raised by Freud, whether or not we are all of us homosexual as
well as heterosexual.
The sex desires and instincts struggle with, overcome or
harmonize with the social instincts. It would be impossible to
portray even the simplest sex life from the mental standpoint.
The chastest woman who is unconscious of sex desire is motivated
by romance and the sex feelings and customs of others in her
ideas of happiness and right behavior. The cynical profligate,
indulging every sensual urge, in so far as he can, must guide
himself by the resistance of society, by the necessity of
camouflage, the fear of public opinion and often the impediment
of his own early training. Men and women start out perhaps as
romantic idealists, enter marriage, and in the course of their
experiences become almost frankly sensual. And in the opposite
direction, men and women wildly passionate in youth develop
counter tendencies that swing them into restraint and serene
self-control. There are those to whom sex is mere appetite, to be
indulged and put out of the way, so as not to interfere with the
great purposes of success; there are those to whom it is a
religion, carried on with ceremonials and rites; there are those
to whom it is an obsession, and their minds are in a sexual stew
at all times. There are the under-inhibited, spoken of above, and
there are the over-inhibited, Puritanical, rebelling at the flesh
as such, disguising all their emotions, reluctant to admit their
humanness and the validity of pleasure.
The romantic ideal, glorifying a sort of asexual love of perfect
men and women, asceticism which permits sex only as a sort of
necessary evil and sensuality which proclaims the pleasure of sex
as the only joy and scoffs at inhibition influence the lives of
us all. The effect of the forbidden, the tantalizing curiosity
aroused and the longing to rise above the level of lust make the
sex adjustment the most difficult of all and produce the queerest
results. Sex is a road to power and to failure, a road to health
and sickness. As in all adjustments, there are some who are
conscious of but few difficulties, who are moral or immoral
without struggle or discontent. Contrasted with these are the
ones who find morality a great burden, and those who, yielding to
desire, find continuous inner conflict and dissatisfaction and
lowered self-valuation as a result.
Our society is organized on chastity and continence prior to
marriage, purity and constancy after marriage. That noble ideal
has never been realized; the stories of Pagan times, of the
Middle Ages and of the present day, as well as everyday human
experience, show that the male certainly has not lived up to his
part of the bargain. Legalized prostitution in most countries,
illegal prostitution in the United States and England, in
addition to the enormous amount of clandestine relationships, are
a sufficient commentary on the results. The increasing divorce
rate, the feminist movement, the legalizing of the "illegitimate"
child in Norway and Sweden and the almost certain arrival of
similar laws in all countries indicate a softer attitude toward
sex restrictions. The rapidly increasing age of marriage means
simply that continence will be more and more difficult, for I am
not one of those who believe that the repression of this vital
instinct is without harm. Continence is socially necessary, but
beyond a certain age it is physically and mentally harmful. Man
is thus placed on the horns of a dilemma from which it will take
the greatest wisdom and the finest humanity to extricate him. But
I cannot lay claim to any part of the knowledge and ability
necessary to formulate the plan. Let us at least be candid; let
us not say grandiloquently that the sexual urge can be
indefinitely repressed without harm to the average individual. We
may safely assert that there are people, men and women both, to
whom the sex impulses are vague and of little force, but to the
great majority, at least of men, sex desire is almost a hunger,
and unsatisfied it brings about a restlessness and
dissatisfaction that enters into all the mental life. On what
basis society will meet this situation I do not pretend to know,
but this is certain,--that all over the civilized world there is
apparent an organizing rebellion against the social impediment to
sexual satisfaction.
For it must be remembered that sexual satisfaction is not alone
naked desire. It is that--but sublimated into finer things as
well. It is the desire for stability of affection, for a
sympathetic beloved, an outlet for emotion, a longing for
respectable unitary status. The unit of respectable human life is
the married couple; the girl wants that social recognition, and
so does her man. Both yearn to cast off from their old homes and
start a new one, as an initial step in successful living. The
thought of children--a little form in a little bed, and the man
and woman gazing in an ecstasy of pride and affection upon
it--makes all other pleasures seem unworthy and gives to the ache
for intimacy a high moral sanction.
This brings us to the point where we must consider those
characteristics that make up domesticity and homekeeping. Early
impressions and the consistent teaching of literature, stage,
press and religion have given to the home a semi-sacred
character, which is one of the great components of the desire to
marry, especially for women. The home is, in the minds of most of
those who enter into marriage, a place owned, peculiarly
possessed, and it offers freedom from the restraints of society
and the inhibitions of ceremony and custom. Both the man and
woman like to think that here is the place where their love can
find free expression, where she will care for him and he will
provide for her, and where their children can grow in beauty,
intelligence and moral worth under their guidance. But this is
only the sentimental side of their thought, the part they give
freest expression to because it is most respectable and "nice."
In the background of their minds is the desire for ownership, the
wish to say, "This is mine and here I rule." Into that comes the
ideal that the stability of society is involved and the
homekeeper is its most important citizen, but when we study the
real evolution of the home, study the laws pertaining to the
family, we find that the husband and father had a little kingdom
with wife and children as subjects, and that only gradually has
there come from that monarchical idea the more democratic
conception cherished to-day.
Men and women may be considered as domestic or non-domestic. The
domestic type of man is ordinarily "steady" in purpose and
absorbed more in work than in the seeking of pleasure, is either
strongly inhibited sexually or else rather easily satisfied;
cherishes the ideal of respectability highly; is conventional and
habituated, usually has a strong property feeling and is apt to
have a decided paternal feeling. He may of course be seclusive
and apt to feel the constraints of contact with others as
wearying and unsatisfactory; he is not easily bored or made
restless. All this is a broad sketch; even the most domestic find
in the home a certain amount of tyranny and monotony; they yearn
now and then for adventure and new romance and think of the
freedom of their bachelor days with regret over their passing.
They may decide that married home life is best, but the choice is
not without difficulty and is accompanied by an irrepressible,
though hidden dissatisfaction. On the whole, however, the
domestic man finds the home a haven of relief and a source of
pleasurable feeling.
The non-domestic man may be of a dozen types. Perhaps he is
incurably romantic and hates the thought of settling down and
putting away for good the search for the perfect woman. Perhaps
he is uninhibted sexually or over-excitable in this respect, and
is therefore restless and unfaithful. He may be bored by
monotony, a restless seeker of new experiences and new work,
possessed by the devils of wanderlust. He may be an egoist
incapable of the continuous self-sacrifice and self-abnegation
demanded by the home,--quarrelsome and selfish. Sometimes he is
wedded to an ideal of achievement or work and believes that he
travels best who travels alone. Often in these days of late
marriage he has waited until he could "afford" to marry and then
finds that his habits chain him to single life. Or he may be an
unconventional non-believer in the home and marriage, though
these are really rare. The drinker, the roue, the wanderer, the
selfish, the nonconventional, the soarer, the restless, the
inefficient and the misogynist all make poor husbands and fathers
and find the home a burden too crippling to be borne.
One of the outstanding figures of the past is the domestic woman,
yearning for a home, assiduously and constantly devoted to it,
her husband and her numerous children. Fancy likes to linger on
this old-fashioned housewife, arising in the early morning and
from that time until her bedtime content to bake, cook, wash,
dust, clean, sew, nurse and teach; imagining no other career
possible or proper for her sex; leading a life of self-
sacrifice, toil and devotion. Poet, novelist, artist, and
clergyman have immortalized her, and men for the most part
cherish this type as their mother and dream of it as the ideal
wife.
Perhaps (and probably) this woman rebelled in her heart against
her drudgery and dreamed of better things; perhaps she regretted
the quickly past youth and dreaded the frequent child-bearing.
Whether she did or not, the appearance of a strongly non-domestic
type is part of the history of the latter nineteenth century and
the early twentieth.
The non-domestic women are, like their male prototypes, of many
kinds, and it would be idle to enumerate them. There is the kind
of woman that "has a career," using this term neither
sarcastically nor flatteringly. The successful artist of whatever
sort--painter, musician, actress--has usually been quite spoiled
for domesticity by the reward of money and adulation given her.
Nowhere is the lack of proportion of our society so well
demonstrated as in the hysterical praise given to this kind of
woman, and naturally she cannot consent to the subordination and
seclusion of the home. Then there is the young business woman,
efficient, independent, proud of her place in the bustle and stir
of trade. She is quite willing to marry and often makes an
admirable mother and wife, but sometimes she finds the menial
character of housework, its monotony and dependence too much for
her. The feminist aglow with equality and imbued with too vivid a
feeling of sex antagonism may marry and bear children, but she
rarely becomes a fireside companion of the type the average man
idealizes. Then the vain, the frivolous, the sexually
uncontrolled,--these too make poor choice for him who has set his
heart on a wife who will cook his meals, darn his stockings and
care for the children. To be non-domestic is a privilege or a
right we cannot deny to women, nor is there condemnation in the
term,--it is merely a summary characterization.
Though to remain single is to be freer than to be married and
domestic, yet the race will always have far more domestic
characters. These alone will bear children, and from them the
racial characters will flow rather than from the exceptional and
deviate types, unless the home disappears in the form of some
other method of raising children. After all, the home is a
costly, inefficient method of family life unless it has
advantages for childhood. This it decidedly has, though we have
bad homes aplenty and foolish ones galore. Yet there is for the
child a care, and more important, an immersion in love and tender
feeling, possible in no other way. We should lose the sacred
principles of motherhood and fatherhood, the only example of
consistent and unrewarded love, if the home disappeared. The only
real altruism of any continuous and widespread type is there
found. It is the promise and the possibility of our race that we
see in the living parents. We know that unselfishness exists when
we think of them, and the idealist who dreams of a world set free
from greed and struggle merely enlarges the ideal home.
But we must be realistic, as well as idealistic. A silent or
noisy struggle goes on in the home between the old and the new,
between a rising and a receding generation. An orthodox old
generation looks askance on an heretical new generation; parents
who believe that to play cards or go to theater is the way of
Satan find their children leaving home to do these very things.
Everywhere mothers wonder why daughters like short skirts, powder
and perhaps rouge, when they were brought up on the corset,
crinoline and the bustle; and they rebel against the indictment
passed out broadcast by their children. "You are old-fashioned;
this is the year 1921." When children grow up, their wills clash
with their parents', even in the sweetest, and most loving of
homes. Behind many a girl's anxiety to marry is the desire for
the unobstructed exercise of her will. Parents too often seek in
their children a continuation of their own peculiarities, their
own characters and ideals, forgetting that the continuity of the
generations is true only in a biological sense, but in no other
way. And children grown to strength, power and intelligence think
that each person must seek his experiences himself and forget
that true wisdom lies in what is accepted by all the generations.
Just as we have the types of husbands and the types of wives, so
we judge men and women by the wisdom, dignity and faithfulness of
their parenthood; so we judge them by the kind of children they
are to their parents. In this last we have a point in character
of great importance and one upon which the followers of Freud
have laid much--over-much--stress.
The effect of too affectionate a home training, too assertive
parenthood, is to dwarf the individuality of the child and make
him a sort of parasite, out of contact with his contemporaries,
seclusive and odd. There is a certain brand of goody-goody boy,
brought up tied to his mother's apron strings, who has lost the
essential capacities of mixing with varied types of boys and
girls, who is sensitive, shy and retiring, or who is naively
boorish and unschooled in tact. According to some psychiatrists
this kind of training breeds the mental disease known as Dementia
Praecox, but I seriously doubt it. One often finds that the
goody-goody boy of fifteen becomes the college fullback at
twenty,--that is, once thrown on the world, the really normal get
back their birthright of character. I think it likely that now
and then a feeling of inferiority is bred in this way, a feeling
that may cling and change the current of a boy's life. The real
danger of too close a family life, in whatever way it manifests
itself, is that it cuts into real social life, narrows the field
of influences and sympathies, breeds a type of personality of
perhaps good morals but of poor humanity.
The home must never lose its contact with the world; it should
never be regarded as the real world for which a man works. It is
a place to rest in, to eat in, to work in; in it is the spirit of
family life, redolent of affection, mutual aid and
self-sacrifice; but more than these, it is the nodal point of
affections, concerns and activity which radiate from it to the
rest of the world.