ON THE EQUALITY OF THE SEXES. 557 



inequality of sex for the same purpose, if it is a real inequality. Is it 

 one ? There are some propositions which it is difficult to prove, be- 

 cause they are so plain, and this is one of them. The physical differ- 

 ences between the two sexes affect every part of the human body, 

 from the hair of the head to the sole of the feet, from the size and 

 density of the bones to the texture of the brain and the character of 

 the nervous system. Ingenious people may argue about any thing, and 

 Mr. Mill does say a great number of things about women which, as I 

 have already observed, I will not discuss ; but all the talk in the world 

 will never shake the proposition that men are stronger than women in 

 every shape. They have greater muscular and nervous force, greater 

 intellectual force, greater vigor of character. This general truth, 

 which has been observed under all sorts of circumstances and in every 

 age and country, has also in every age and country led to a division 

 of labor between men and women, the general outline of which is as 

 familiar and as universal as the general outline of the differences be- 

 tween them. These are the facts, and the question is, whether the law 

 and public opinion ought to recognize this difference. How it ought 

 to recognize it, what difference it ought to make between men and 

 women as such, is quite another question. The first point to consider 

 is, whether it ought to ti - eat them as equals, although, as I have shown, 

 they are not equals, because men are the stronger. I will take one or 

 two illustrations. Men, no one denies, may, and in some cases ought 

 to, be liable to compulsory military service. No one, I suppose, would 

 hesitate to admit that, if we were engaged in a great war, it might be- 

 come necessary, or that if necessary it would be right, to have a con- 

 scription both for the land and for the sea service. Ought men and 

 women to be subject to it indiscriminately ? If any one says that they 

 ought, I have no more to say, except that he has got into the region 

 at which argument is useless. But if it is admitted that this ought not 

 to be done, an inequality of treatment founded on a radical inequality 

 between the two sexes is admitted, and, if this admission is once made, 

 where are you to draw the line ? Turn from the case of liability to 

 military service to that of education, which in Germany is rightly re- 

 garded as the other great branch of state activity, and the same ques- 

 tion presents itself in another shape. Are boys and girls to be edu- 

 cated indiscriminately, and to be instructed in the same things ? Are 

 boys to learn to sew, to keep house, and to cook, as girls unquestiona- 

 bly ought to be, and are girls to play at cricket, to row, and be drilled 

 like boys ? I cannot argue with a person who says Yes. A person 

 who says No admits an inequality between the sexes on which educa- 

 tion must be founded, and which it must therefore perpetuate and per- 

 haps increase. 



Follow the matter a step further to the vital point of the whole 

 question marriage. Marriage is one of the subjects with which it 

 is absolutely necessary both for law and morals to deal in some way 



