A being who creates another being—­not in the fleeting moment of a voluptuous contact, but by the organic and psychical sacrifices of pregnancy, childbirth and giving suck—­cannot preserve for herself as much strength, physical and mental, as man whose only function in the reproduction of the species is infinitely less of a drain.

And so, aside from certain individual exceptions, woman has a lower degree of physical sensibility than man (the current opinion is just the opposite), because if her sensibility were greater, she could not, according to the Darwinian law, survive the immense and repeated sacrifices of maternity, and the species would become extinct.  Woman’s intellect is weaker, especially in synthetic power, precisely because though there are no (Sergi, in Atti della societa romana di antropologia, 1894) women of genius, they nevertheless give birth to men of genius.

This is so true that greater sensibility and power of intellect are found in women in whom the function and sentiment of maternity are undeveloped or are only slightly developed (women of genius generally have a masculine physiognomy), and many of them attain their complete intellectual development only after they pass the critical period of life during which the maternal functions cease finally.

But, if it is scientifically certain that woman represents an inferior degree of biological evolution, and that she occupies a station, even as regards her physio-psychical characteristics, midway between the child and the adult male, it does not follow from this that the socialist conclusions concerning the woman question are false.

Quite the contrary.  Society ought to place woman, as a human being and as a creatress of men—­more worthy therefore of love and respect—­in a better juridical and ethical situation than she enjoys at present.  Now she is too often a beast of burden or an object of luxury.  In the same way when, from the economic point of view, we demand at the present day special measures in behalf of women, we simply take into consideration their special physio-psychical conditions.  The present economic individualism exhausts them in factories and rice-fields; socialism, on the contrary, will require from them only such professional, scientific or muscular labor as is in perfect harmony with the sacred function of maternity.

KULISCIOFF, Il monopolio dell’uomo, Milan, 1892, 2d edition.—­MOZZONI, I socialisti e l’emancipazione della donna, Milan, 1891.

[5] B. MALON, Le Socialisme Integral, 2 vol., Paris, 1892.

[6] ZULIANI, Il privilegio della salute, Milan, 1893.

[7] LETOURNEAU, Passe, present et avenir du travail, in Revue mensuelle de l’ecole d’anthropologie, Paris, June 15, 1894.