SEX AND SOCIETY 229 



sadly true, but it is the biologist's business to 

 consider things biologically not economically, 

 to point out inevitable consequences irrespec- 

 tive of costs. As a matter of fact, the con- 

 ditions of work for women, as for men, are 

 modifiable, and they have in many cases been 

 greatly improved. But what has to be steadily 

 faced is the fact that misadjustment leads to 

 biological inefficiency, which is terribly expen- 

 sive for the race. Biological efficiency is the 

 silver at least of our national wealth; while 

 money is but its bronze or nickel. 



Critics of the feminist movement have 

 urged that one of the most obvious mis- 

 differentiations of woman is seen in the absurd 

 attempts to over-educate her. This is much 

 more than a jibe. It must be admitted, for 

 instance, that one of the serious difficulties 

 that confronts us is the alleged relatively 

 great infertility of types and stocks of high in- 

 tellectual and social efficiency for it is urged 

 that the infertility is the nemesis of higher 

 education and of individuation generally. 

 Herbert Spencer argued that reproductivity 

 decreases as individuation increases, and there 

 is a considerable body of biological evidence 

 in support of this generalisation. It must be 

 observed, however, that we have no proof that 

 high individuation directly lessens fertility. 

 What the evidence from the animal kingdom 

 shows is this, that when birds, for instance, 

 were evolved with big brains and strong 

 parental care, it was possible to survive with 

 very much smaller families : those types that 

 varied towards better brains and more parental 



