PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE 



which may be expressed as follows, taking the male for 

 type: the female is smaller and has less muscular force, 

 she has longer head hair, but in contrast the hair- 

 system is very little developed over the rest of her body, 

 excepting in the armpits and pubis; aside from the 

 teats, belly and hips, whose form is sexual, she is normally 

 fatter than the male, and in direct consequence of this, 

 her skin is finer; her skull-capacity is inferior by about 

 15% (man=ioo; woman=8s) and her intelligence, 

 less spontaneous, inclines in general to activities entirely 

 practical. There is hardly any difference in the male and 

 female skulls of every inferior human species, the con- 

 trary is true of civilized races. Civilization has certainly 

 accentuated the initial dimorphism of man and woman 

 at least unless one of the very conditions of civilizations 

 be not precisely a notable difference, morphologic and 

 psychologic, between the two sexes. In that case civiliza- 

 tion has but accentuated a native dimorphism. This 

 is more probable, for one does not see how civilization 

 could have caused the dimorphism, not at least unless it 

 had already existed as a very strong tendency. Identical 

 work, the same utilization of instinctive activities have 

 managed greatly to reduce dimorphism of forms, for 

 example, in dogs and horses, but this has had no in- 

 fluence on the psychologic dimorphism. Cultivation of 

 instinct has never been able to efface, in the most spe- 

 cialized breeds of dogs, the peculiar tonality which instinct 

 receives from sex. It is improbable that intellectual 

 culture could fashion women in such a way as to rid 

 them of the characteristic colour which sex imparts to 

 their intelligence. 



Si 



