THE "HIGHER DEVELOPMENT" THEORY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF TEE "45mccrems."] SIR,—In the Spectator of October 27th, among many sensible•
remarks concerning women and their critics, 'I regret to find that you afford countenance to the theory (for which we are•
indebted to the physiologists) that the difference between men and women is one of, degree of development. You say I- " Just as physiology seems to show that sex is virtually one,. and that man is only the human being more highly develaped_ physically, so woman mentally is only the less developed man
It is, I believe, the received opinion of teratologists that monsters are only examples of arrested development, whether- single or dual. Taking this in view, the doctrine that woman is the less developed man would place her in the inglorious: station of the half-way house between monstrosity and perfect humanity,--a sad falling-off from Burns's gallant theory of' Nature, whose-
"'prentiee ban'
She tried on Man, And then she made the lasses, 0 !"
But, seriously, is there not a sound objection to this " sexual development " theory ? If it scientifically explained the-
differentiation of the masculine from the feminine in human nature, it could only be in virtue of a law which should be• found to pervade all animal life wherein sex is traceable.. Quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, fishes, insects, should, without exception, exhibit the same higher physical development in the- male. But let us look at a pair of eagles, hawks, owls, any members of the Raptor order of birds, and it will be seers that, so far from the male being largest and strongest, the- female has always greatly the advantage of him. The same holds good, I imagine, among fishes, and certainly does se among many insects,—e.g., bees, wasps, ants, and those spiders. amongst whom the female is in the habit of gobbling up a. lover or two as they timidly approach her mightiness, before• she makes up her mind to accept the conjugal yoke. I
submit that these notable exceptions among the lower animals. to the general rule of the superior size and strength of the- male over the female, prove that that difference cannot be due- to such a cause as a higher and a less complete development in the sexes, which, if it prevailed in one case, must pre- vail universally, but to other laws which we are not yet in a position to trace. I might add that throughout the-
order of Ilfammalia, the beautiful provision of Nature- for the nourishment of the young, so far from appearing- as a lower development in the female, would suggest a
more complex and perfect organisation. Let-us admit, then,. cheerfully the truth for which you contend, that in the human species, and in a great many other species of animals, the female is weaker and smaller physically than the male ; but let us not, I beg, refer this fact to so unpleasant a cause as inferior development. And let us further note that, as the female quadruped, bird, or insect is mentally quite the equal,, if not the superior, of the male, displaying more cleverness,.
courage, and devotion on behalf of its young, no indication can possibly be drawn from the analogy of Nature in favour of the- theory that woman is, or ought to be, " mentally the less. developed man." That some of the conditions of human life- have caused her to be actually mentally weaker, up to the present day, is a fact not to be gainsaid.—I am, Sir, &c.,
NEITHER MAN NOR MONSTER.
Previous page
