212 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



is in these considerations that we find the true explanation of what 

 has been from the beginning until now, and what must doubtless con- 

 tinue to be, though it be in a modified form. It may be a pity for 

 woman that she has been created woman, but, being such, it is as 

 ridiculous to consider herself inferior to man because she is not man, 

 as it would be for man to consider himself inferior to her because he 

 cannot perform her functions. There is one glory of the man, an- 

 other glory of the woman, and the glory of the one difiereth from 

 that of the other. 



Taking into adequate account the physiology of the female or- 

 ganization, some of the statements made by the late Mr. Mill in his 

 book on the subjection of women strike one with positive amazement. 

 He calls upon us to own that what is now called the nature of women 

 is an eminently artificial thing, the result of forced repression in some 

 directions, of unnatural stimulation in others ; that their character has 

 been entirely distorted and disguised by their relations with their 

 masters, who have kept them in so unnatural a state ; that if it were 

 not for this there would not be any material difference, nor perhaps 

 any difference at all, in the character and capacities which would un- 

 fold themselves ; that they would do the same things as men fully as 

 well on the whole, if education and cultivation were adapted to cor- 

 recting, instead of aggravating, the infirmities incident to their tem- 

 perament ; and that they have been robbed of their natural develop- 

 ment, and brought into their present unnatural state, by the brutal 

 right of the strongest which man has used. If these allegations con- 

 tain no exaggeration, if they be strictly true, then is this article an 

 entire mistake. 



Mr. Mill argues as if, when he has shown it to be j^robable that the 

 inequality of rights between the sexes has no other source than the 

 law of the strongest, he had demonstrated its monstrous injustice. 

 But is that entirely so ? After all, there is a right in might — the right 

 of the stronsj to be strono-. Men have the rig^ht to make the most of 

 their powers, to develop them to the utmost, and to strive for, and if 

 possible gain and hold, the position in which they shall have the freest 

 play. It would be a wrong to the stronger if it were required to limit 

 its exertions to the capacities of the weaker. And if it be not so lim- 

 ited, the result will be that the weaker must take a different position. 

 Men will not fail to take the advantage of their strength over women : 

 are no laws, then, to be made which, owning the inferiority of women's 

 strength, shall ordain accordingly, and so protect them really from 

 the mere brutal tyranny of might ? Seeing that the greater power 

 cannot be ignored, but in the long-run must tell in individual compe- 

 tition, it is a fair question whether it ought not to be recognized in 

 social adjustments and enactments, even if or the necessary protection 

 of women. Suppose that all legal distinctions were abolished, and 

 that women were allowed free play to do what they could, as it may 



