Now this is precisely the kind of way man feels about
woman. He recognises that she is by virtue of
her sex for certain purposes an incompatible person;
and that, quite apart from this, her secondary sexual
characters might in certain eventualities make her
an impossible person.
We may note, before passing on, that these considerations
would seem to prescribe that woman should be admitted
to masculine institutions only when real humanitarian
grounds demand it; that she should—following
here the analogy of what is done in the learned societies
with respect to foreigners—be invited to
co-operate with men only when she is quite specially
eminent, or beyond all question useful for the particular
purpose in hand; and lastly, that when co-opted into
any masculine institution woman should always be placed
upon a special list, to show that it was proposed to
confine her co-operation within certain specified
limits.
>From these general questions, which affect only the
woman with intellectual aspirations, we pass to consider
what would be the effect of feminism upon the rank
and file of women if it made of these co-partners
with man in work. They would suffer not only because
woman’s physiological disabilities and the restrictions
which arise out of her sex place her at a great disadvantage
when she has to enter into competition with man, but
also because under feminism man would be less and
less disposed to take off woman’s shoulders a
part of her burden.
And there can be no dispute that the most valuable
financial asset of the ordinary woman is the possibility
that a man may be willing—and may, if only
woman is disposed to fulfil her part of the bargain,
be not only willing but anxious—to support
her and to secure for her, if he can, a measure of
that freedom which comes from the possession of money.
In view of this every one who has a real fellow-feeling
for woman, and who is concerned for her material welfare,
as a father is concerned for his daughter’s,
will above everything else desire to nurture and encourage
in man the sentiment of chivalry, and in woman that
disposition of mind that makes chivalry possible.
And the woman workers who have to fight the battle
of life for themselves would indirectly profit from
this fostering of chivalry; for those women who are
supported by men do not compete in the limited labour
market which is open to the woman worker.
>From every point of view, therefore, except perhaps
that of the exceptional woman who would be able to
hold her own against masculine competition—and
men always issue informal letters of naturalisation
to such an exceptional woman—the woman suffrage
which leads up to feminism would be a social disaster.
IS THERE, IF THE SUFFRAGE IS BARRED, ANY PALLIATIVE
OF CORRECTIVE FOR THE DISCONTENTS OF WOMAN?
