PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SEXES. 31 



not, the social type will inevitably be changed by increase of feminine 

 influence. 



That men and women are mentally alike, is as untrue as that they 

 are alike bodily. Just as certainly as they have physical differences 

 which are related to the respective parts they play in the maintenance 

 of the race, so certainly have they psychical differences, similarly re- 

 lated to their respective shares in the rearing and protection of off- 

 spring. To suppose that along with the unlikenesses between their 

 parental activities there do not go unlikenesses of mental faculties, is 

 to suppose that here alone in all Nature there is no adjustment of spe- 

 cial powers to special functions. 1 



Two classes of differences exist between the psychical, as between 

 the physical, structures of men and women, which are both deter- 

 mined by this same fundamental need — adaptation to the paternal and 

 maternal duties. The first set of differences is that which results 



1 The comparisons ordinarily made between the minds of men and women are faulty 

 in many ways, of which these are the chief: 



Instead of comparing either the average of women with the average of men, or the 

 elite of women with the elite of men, the common course is to compare the elite of women 

 with the average of men. Much the same erroneous impression results as would result 

 if the relative statures of men and women were judged by putting very tall women side 

 by side with ordinary men. 



Sundry manifestations of nature in men and women are greatly perverted by existing 

 social conventions upheld by both. There are feelings which, under our predatory regime, 

 with its adapted standard of propriety, it is not considered manly to show ; but which, 

 contrariwise, are considered admirable in women. Hence, repressed manifestations in 

 the one case, and exaggerated manifestations in the other; leading to mistaken esti- 

 mates. 



The sexual sentiment comes into play to modify the behavior of men and women to 

 one another. Eespecting certain parts of their general characters, the only evidence 

 which can be trusted is that furnished by the conduct of men to men, and of women to 

 women, when placed in relations which exclude the personal affections. 



In comparing the intellectual powers of men and women, no proper distinction is 

 made between receptive faculty and originative faculty. The two are scarcely commen- 

 surable ; and the receptivity may, and frequently does, exist in high degree where there is 

 but a low degree of originality, or entire absence of it. 



Perhaps, however, the most serious error usually made in drawing these comparisons 

 is, that of overlooking the limit of normal mental power. Either sex under special stimu- 

 lations is capable of manifesting powers ordinarily shown only by the other ; but we are 

 not to consider the deviations so caused as affording proper measures. Thus, to take an 

 extreme case, the mammae of men will, under special excitation, yield milk : there are 

 various cases of gynecomasty on record, and in families, infants whose mothers have 

 died have been thus saved. But this ability to yield milk, which, when exercised, must 

 be at the cost of masculine strength, we do not count among masculine attributes. Simi- 

 larly, under special discipline, the feminine intellect will yield products higher than the 

 intellects of most men can yield. But we are not to count this as truly feminine if it 

 entails decreased fulfillment of the maternal functions. Only that mental energy is nor- 

 mally feminine which can coexist with the production and nursing of the due number of 

 healthy children. Obviously a power of mind which, if general among the women of a 

 society, would entail disappearance of the society, is a power not to be included in an 

 estimate of the feminine nature as a social factor. 



