BIOLOGY AND " WOMAN'S RIGHTS:' 203 



seem, the organs for the nutrition of tiie young are exclusively confined 

 to the female. Are we to suppose that these sexual differences are de- 

 void of meaning, merely accidental, or artificial in their origin ? 



We must next inquire to what functional distinctions these struct- 

 ural differences correspond, and what is their signification ? It is gen- 

 erally admitted that among animals of one and the same species the 

 larger will be found to be the stronger, and generally speaking physi- 

 cally the superior. Exceptions doubtless occur, but, if we were to take 

 one hundred men in normal health whose "fighting-weight" ranged 

 from eleven to twelve stone each, and compare them with another hun- 

 dred averacrincr a stone less, we should find the former set able to lift 

 greater weights, strike harder blows, and in every way excel the second 

 lot in athletic performances. 



Again, it is found that the size of the chest, and consequent volume 

 of the lungs, affords a very good standard by which the general vigor, 

 the vital energy, of either man or beast, may be gauged. The more a 

 man, free from corpulence, measures round the chest, the better are his 

 stamina, and the greater his power to support fatigues and hardships. 

 Of this fact the military and the sporting world are perfectly aware, 

 and never fail to take it into account in estimating the eligibility of a 

 recruit or the probable performances of an athlete. 



Having seen, then, that male animals are not merely actually larger 

 than their respective females, but surpass them proportionally in the 

 size of the thorax, we naturally expect the former to be decidedly the 

 stronger, gifted with a more intense and exuberant vitality. Nor are 

 our expectations disappointed. The bodily strength of a cow is trifling 

 indeed compared with that of a bull of the same breed. In races a filly 

 is very frequently — merely as such — allowed to carry less weight than 

 a horse. A lady gorilla would be in evil case indeed if her husband 

 did not treat her with a gentleness and kindness which many of our 

 own species would do well to imitate. And as to mankind — is not, 

 perhaps, the most legitimate source of the very movement we are criti- 

 cising an attempt to secure women against the superior strength of 

 men ? Yet at a meeting at Manchester a male agitator actually sought 

 to deny the superior physical power of man, because it would be easy 

 to find a fish-wife stronger than a cotton-weaver. The argument, being 

 intensely illogical, was frantically applauded. 



Persons are not, however, wanting who — while admitting the gen- 

 eral inferiority of women to men in physical strength — contend that 

 this weakness is the result of continued and systematic repression. 

 Woman, they say, has been forcibly debarred from invigorating pur- 

 suits, and comparative feebleness is the natural result. We would ask 

 such advocates whether this systematic repression has been also carried 

 out among the lower mammals, and, if not, what is the origin of the 

 weakness of the female sex in their case, which is at least as well 

 marked as among mankind? Has the "subjugation" of woman had 



