THE CANONS OF THE SEXUAL LIFE UNDER
MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE The Dominant Sex: The Sociology of Sex Differentiation | ||
2. THE CANONS OF THE SEXUAL LIFE UNDER MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE
THE working of the principle of reversal, of the
exchange of sexual rôles, under masculine and
feminine dominance respectively, is extremely conspicuous
in connection with love and marriage. Courtship
is, for example, to-day regarded as a specifically
masculine function, as one for which man is especially
adapted by the peculiarities of his nature. But from
the love poems of the ancient Egyptians we learn that
among them woman was the wooer.[1] In fifteen of the
nineteen songs in the so-called London Manuscript the
woman courts the man; in four only is man the wooer.
We may infer that most of the poems were written
by women, although that possibility is not even considered
by modern Egyptologists. Owing to the nature
of the intellectual life in the contemporary Men's
State, their masculine authorship is assumed without
question by investigators. This Men's-State viewpoint
leads Müller so far astray that he minimises the significance
of the feminine wooing, although the internal
evidence of the poems is too strong for him to be able
to deny the reality of the phenomenon. He writes,
characteristically enough, that to a modern poet it
must seem "as if Egyptian women had been over-
[1] Wilhelm Max Müller, Die Liebespoesie der alten Aegypter.—
The practice of courtship by women continued as late as 1400 B.C., if
we accept Müller's estimate of the date when the poems were
written. Some Egyptologists, however, regard them as of much
earlier date.
Not all investigators, of course, take so biased and subjective a view. Reitzenstein[2] for instance, recognises that in Egypt the women were the wooers. W. von Bissing,[3] too, says: "The peculiarity of these poems is that they always exhibit the girls as taking the initiative; it is they who come to their lovers, or endeavour to catch them." Yet neither Reitzenstein nor Bissing recognises that the practice of courtship by the women is the outcome of the Women's State. Meyer[4] seems to have been on the track of this recognition, though he does not express himself very clearly on the point. He writes: "Among the Egyptians the women were remarkably free. . . . As late as the fourth century B.C., there existed, side by side with patriarchal marriage, a form of marriage in which the wife chose the husband, and could divorce him on payment of compensation." We note that Meyer does not plainly declare that this reversal of patriarchal marriage is matriarchal marriage. But the idea is implicit in the phrases he employs.
The following facts likewise contribute to sustain
the conviction that the custom of women acting as
wooers is the outcome of feminine dominance. The
farther back we go in the literature of a people, the
more frequent are the indications of women as wooers.
But the older a literature, the greater the probability
that it arises from phases of an earlier dominance of
women, or from times which in manners and customs
were at least closely akin to such phases. Among the
Lydians, where the reversal of rôles in the division
of labour is an additional indication that the dominance
of women prevailed, the women sought out their
[2] Liebe und Ehe im alten Orient.
[3] Die Kultur des alten Aegypten, p. 39.
[4] Geschichte des Alterthums, vol, i, p. 51.
Among the Garos, women were dominant, and
[5] Herodotus, i, 93.
[6] Cf. V. Jaeckel, Studien zur vergleichenden Völkerkunde, p. 65.
[7] Cf., among others, Schmeing, Flucht and Werbungssagen in der
Legende.
[8] Deutsche Geschichte.
A yet plainer indication that dominance is the origin of the practice of courtship by women is found in the fact that sovereign princesses always woo and choose husbands for themselves. Examples are frequent in history. A like tendency is observable in priestesses whenever they have considerable power.[11]
An interesting psychological point is that when, in
a Women's State, women are the wooers, we encounter
once again the individual customs that are characteristic
of male wooers in a Men's State—these ranging
from the making of assignations to the use of such
artificial stimuli as wine and narcotics.[12] Typical and
psychologically significant is the fact that, when
[9] The History of Human Marriage.
[10] Die Vierlande und deren Bewohner.
[11] Cf., among others, Meiners, Geschichte des weiblichen Geschlechts,
vol. i; also Müller-Lyer, Die Familie.
[12] Cf., for instance, Müller, op. cit., p. 40.
Jaeckel[13] speaks of an Indian tribe in Assam (probably
the Garos are referred to) among whom the
girls are the wooers. The courted male "has to make
a vigorous resistance, culminating in flight; he is captured
and led back to the nuptial residence amid the
lamentations of the parents." Among the Kamchadales,
where the dominance of women prevailed and
women were the wooers, the women positively fought
for the possession of the men (Klemm). In ancient
saga, too, the motif of courtship by women is encountered.
S. Hänsch[14] relates the myth of Solmacis.
The nymph fell in love with Hermaphroditus, the son
of Hermes and Aphrodite, having espied the beautiful
youth bathing. We see, then, that the character traits
with which we are familiar in women who are wooed
by men, have their counterpart in the character traits
of men where women rule, and consequently woo the
males. The reversal extends, as we have seen, even
to what appear to be mere superficialities, and this
[13] Op. cit., p. 62.
[14] Mythologisches Taschenwörterbuch.
The psychological correspondence between the contemporary
masculine peculiarities in the Men's State
and the feminine peculiarities in the Women's State,
is as conspicuous, or even more conspicuous, in the
case of marriage. The very qualities we regard to-day
as specifically masculine, are regarded in the Women's
State as specifically feminine; conversely, qualities that
we look upon as womanly are in the Women's State
looked upon as manly. Consider, for example, the
fundamental law of Men's-State marriage, that the
wife shall obey her husband. Down to the present
day, attempts have always been made to base this law
upon psychological arguments concerning the differences
between men and women. The tendency to
accept subordination has been described as specifically
feminine; the subordination of the wife to the husband
has been supposed to be in the best accord with
woman's nature. Man, on the other hand, we are
[15] Müller, op. cit., p. 24.
The conformity to type displayed by the sexes goes
so far that the dominant partner, when entering upon
marriage, demands an express pledge of obedience
from the chosen mate. To-day men receive from
their wives a promise that they will "love, honour,
and obey." In ancient Egypt the wife exacted a
promise of obedience from the husband. Diodorus[16]
says in plain terms: "Among the people,[17] too, the
wife has authority over the husband, and in the marriage
contract the husband has expressly to pledge
himself to obey his wife." We see that the ruling
sex, whether male or female, is never so firmly convinced
of the other sex's natural disposition towards
[16] I. 27. The accuracy of the passage has been confirmed by recently
discovered papyri. To this matter we shall return.
[17] That is to say, not only in the royal family, whose customs in
this respect he has already described.
If additional evidence be demanded in support of, the contention that in ancient Egypt women held sway over men, it may be found in the fact that the Egyptian texts frequently denote women by the epithets "lady" or "mistress."[18] In the songs, the man addresses his inamorata as "lady" [in the sense explained in the note]. In business letters the husband speaks of his wife as "the mistress" [in the sense explained in the note]. Characteristic is the fact that such Egyptologists as Müller and Erman, whose minds are permeated with the ideology of the Men's State, cannot allow these words to pass without attempting to interpret them in the terms of that ideology. Müller[19] writes that the appellations seem quite incomprehensible when applied to women. Erman and Krebs[20] attach to the word "mistress" a footnote to the effect that it is "an affected designation for wife."
In Sparta, likewise, the men were subject to the
women. Plutarch states in several passages[21] that the
Spartan women were the only wives who held sway
over their husbands. Aristotle,[22] too, says in a phrase
quite free from ambiguity: "Contentious and warlike
peoples such as the Lacedæmonians always pass under
the dominion of women." Plutarch[23] tells us that
[18] The feminine equivalents of "lord" and "master," definitely connoting
the idea of command. In the German original, "Herrin" and
"Herrscherin."
[19] Liebespoesie der alten Aegypter.
[20] Aus den Papyrus der königlichen Museen.
[21] Lycurgus. Spartan Apophthegms.
[22] Politics, II. 6, 6.
[23] Lycurgus, 4
To the men of a community where the males are dominant, the accounts of the earlier extensive prevalence of a social system in which the men were subject to the women are as annoying as a red rag to a bull. Witness Meiners,[24] when confronted with the fact of the dominance of women among the Lacedæmonians. He writes that the Spartan women had absolute authority over their "degenerate" husbands. The husbands treated the wives as mistresses, and termed them such. The women of other parts of Greece esteemed the Spartan wives fortunate, and did not hide their envy of the latter's "spurious happiness." The "regiment of women" in Sparta, as in all "noble" but "corrupt" peoples, was an unmistakable indication that the men who submitted to female authority were no longer fitted to rule other men.
The author's summarisation is obviously full of
Men's-State prejudices. The men who belonged to
the opposite phase of the distribution of the power
of the sexes, and who were subject to the canons of
that phase, seem "degenerate" to a man who is a
member of a community where masculine dominion
prevails; he considers the sway exercised by women
over men a "spurious happiness"; and he describes
the whole race as "corrupt." And yet the husband
[24] Op. cit, vol. i, pp. 355 et seq.; English transl., Vol. i, pp. 291
et seq.
Meiners[27] gives a similar description of the complete
subordination of the husband in a Chamorro
marriage. The Chamorro men, who were famous for
their bodily strength, were kept by their wives in a
state of abject subjection. The wives ruled, and the
husbands could do nothing without their consent. If
[25] Op. cit., vol. i, pp. 19 et seq.; Eng. transl., vol. i, pp. 17 et seq.
[26] Anthropologie der Naturvölker, vol. v, p. 107.
[27] Vermischte philosophische Schriften, p. 267.
The same duty of subordination was imposed upon married men among the Iroquois, where the dominance of women likewise prevailed. Lewis Morgan tells us that the wife was the head of the family, and that at any time she could order her husband out of the house. According to Livingstone, among the Balonda the husband was so completely subject to the wife that he could do nothing whatever without her approval—neither enter into an agreement, nor do any one some trifling service. So was it, too, among the Cantabri and the Zambesis, where the men had absolutely no independence, and were entirely subject to their wives. Müller-Lyer writes of the Pani-Kooch of Hindustan that the husband had to obey the orders of his wife and his mother-in-law. Among the Khonds and the Sakai, also, the wife lorded it over the husband.
We see, then, that one-sided obedience on the part of one sex in marriage is the outcome of monosexual dominance, and that it is manifested quite independently of the question which of the two sexes holds sway. Volney[28] writes: "Domestic despotism lay at the foundation of political despotism." Maybe Volney was right. But the reverse may be true. It is possible that political despotism brought domestic despotism in its train. Whatever the causal sequence, one thing is certain, that the two varieties of despotism are invariably associated, be their primal origin what it may.
An additional proof that the subordination of one
[28] Les Ruines.
Westermarck tells us that among the people of Loango the queens kill their paramours when these allow their affections to stray. From Meiners we quote the following passage concerning the privileges of the women of the reigning house among the Natchez—a people among whom, according to Waitz, the women were greatly honoured, and could discharge the functions of royalty. "They exercised the power of life and death, and could order their guards to put to death summarily any one who was unlucky enough to incur their displeasure. If a queen should do a subject the honour of choosing him as a husband, the latter had to obey his exalted partner in all things, and to preserve inviolable fidelity towards her. The queen could punish a disobedient or unfaithful husband, just like any other commoner, by ordering his instant execution. But the queens regarded it as their traditional privilege to live precisely as they pleased. Their husbands had no say in the matter, no ground
Meiners reports the exercise of similar unrestricted authority over husbands by the sovereign princesses of many other tribes. In almost all the instances it is expressly stated that this authority included the power of life and death. Jaeckel tells us that in the case of a general social predominance of women, no less than where a woman occupied the throne, conjugal despotism by women went so far that the husbands had to kneel in the presence of their wives, or to adopt some like posture of humility when serving their wives' needs. Who that reads of such humiliations inflicted upon men by women, can fail to recall the precisely similar humiliations inflicted upon the female sex by the male? Monosexual dominance degenerates in the same fashion whichever sex rules; it blossoms in the same poison-flowers, indifferently whether men or women hold sway.
This conformity recurs in respect of other exaggerated manifestations of conjugal authority on the part of the dominant sex. At the height of its power, a dominant sex is not satisfied with insisting that in married life the members of the subordinate sex shall obey their partners; in addition it reserves to itself the right of divorce. In absolutist Men's States, the right of the husband to put away his wife is often regarded as self-evident—was so regarded, for instance, among the Old Testament Jews. Historians willingly record such facts, but they are less inclined to allude to the right of wives in a Women's State to put away their husbands. Nevertheless such a right has been just as freely conceded to and exercised by wives as the corresponding right of husbands in the Men's State. In
Even certain notorious customs connected with the
termination of a marriage by the death of the dominant
partner are the same whether the deceased was
a man or a woman. Every one knows that, in the
case of certain ruling princes, when the sovereign died
his widow or widows had either to join the husband
in the tomb, or else were condemned to practise some
extraordinarily harsh form of mourning; every one,
too, has heard of the practice of suttee in Hindustan,
where the widow was burned alive on the husband's
funeral pyre. But, in accordance with the peculiarities
of the Men's-State ideology, few of our contemporaries
are aware that these customs have their obverse
[29] Der Papyrus Libbey, etc., Schriften der wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft in Strassburg, 1907.
However, we need not turn to such morbid outgrowths and degenerations of marriage customs in order to show that the sexes have similar characteristics, whether the husband or the wife plays the despot in conjugal life. The little tokens of affection that are displayed in marriage suffice to prove that these characteristics are not fundamentally different in the two sexes, but are determined by the form of sexual dominance. It is noteworthy, for example, that in ancient Egyptian representations of a married pair, the wife's arm always rests upon that of the husband.[31] This position corresponds to feminine dominance in marriage, whereas the reverse position represents masculine dominance. We may further note that in ancient Egypt when a man became betrothed he was said "to hide himself behind a girl"; when he had married, the phrase ran "a wife sits by him."[32]
Duplex sexual morality, with which we are all
familiar as an accompaniment of male predominance,
[30] Nouveaux voyages aux Indes, vol. ii, p. 44.
[31] Müller, op. cit., p. 23; Revillout, L'ancienne Egypte, vol. ii, La
femme.
[32] Müller, op. cit., pp. 3 et seq.
It is a familiar fact that in modern civilised countries
under masculine domination a duplex sexual
morality prevails, despite the recognition of the monogamic
principle. There, in the life of sex, the men
have preferential rights. But hitherto it has not been
generally recognised that where women rule, sexual
morality develops in the inverse sense, so that the
women have more sexual freedom than the men.
Here likewise there is an infringement of the monogamic
principle, but this time in favour of the wife.
The phenomenon is met with wherever the dominance
of women obtains, whether among civilised nations or
among primitive folk. During the most flourishing
period of Sparta, monogamy became the recognised
form of marriage in that country. Herodotus[33] tells
us that among the Spartans a man had only one wife.
According to Plutarch[34] there were no male adulterers
in Lacedæmon. But as regards the fidelity of Spartan
wives, history tells a very different tale. Meyer[35]
declares that polyandry was common in Sparta. The
[33] V. 39.
[34] I. 196.
[35] Op. cit., vol. i, p. 28.
We still possess but little information concerning the
[36] Life of Pyrrhus.
[37] Andromache, 596.
[38] Op. cit., vol. i, pp. 352 et seq.
[39] In this connexion, cf. Schulte-Vaerting, Die Friedenspolitik des
Perikles, ein Vorbild für den Pazifismus, p. 195.
The only erotic document at our disposal is in the so-called Turin papyrus. Here are pictures of sexual scenes. They do not warrant any inferences as to the polyandry of Egyptian women, but (as we shall see presently) they show obvious characteristics of feminine dominance. Monogamy developed early in Egypt. In the days of Herodotus, the features of this institution were still well marked. But although monogamy prevailed, women had more sexual freedom than men. Many investigators are of opinion that "upon women in ancient Egypt the obligation of conjugal fidelity was not imposed." This view is confirmed by the fact that in Egypt no stigma attached to the mother of an illegitimate child, and that the position of illegitimate children was just as good as that of children born in wedlock.[40]
According to quite a number of authorities, polygamy
must also have been practised in ancient
Egypt, at least in isolated instances. In proof, such
writers point first of all to the royal harems. These
harems, however, are among the contentious points
of Egyptian history. Wilkinson expressly denies that
the Egyptian monarchs practised polygamy. In his
view the harem did not contain the king's wives, but
prisoners of war or purchased slaves who had been
adopted into the family and were employed as domestic
servants by the queen or her friends. Rameses'
wives at Medeenet Haboo were probably maid-servants,
and not the monarch's wives at all.[41] The children
of these women were children of the royal house-
[40] Diodorus. I, 80. See also, Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of
the Ancient Egyptians, vol. ii, p. 64.
[41] Wilkinson, Op. cit., vol. i, p. 319, vOl. ii, p. 60.
It is probable that ignorance of the conditions of ancient Egyptian life accounts for the apparently authentic instances of polygamy practised by the Egyptian kings. For instance, it was formerly believed that Rameses II married his own daughters, since these bore the title of "royal spouses." Later researches have shown that all the daughters of the royal house received this title at birth. The contrast between Egypt with its monogamic and moral laws, and surrounding peoples whose customs were more or less polygamous, has been overlooked. In outward appearance Egypt conformed to the practices of these other nations, but did not do so in reality. For example, the king of Babylon sent one of his daughters to wed Amenhotep III. The lady's brother subsequently lodged a complaint, on the ground that no Babylonian envoy had ever seen her again. It is evident that Amenhotep, not wishing to refuse the proffered alliance, had ostensibly wedded the Babylonian
Among primitive folk where the dominance of women prevailed, there was the same tendency towards the maintenance of a duplex code of sexual morality, according to which the duty of conjugal fidelity was enforced on men only. Women could follow their own bent in sexual matters. In the case of the Chamorros conjugal infidelity was severely punished in men, even when the offence was merely suspected, not proved. The accused husband was dealt with by the women of the neighbourhood. But if the wife proved unfaithful, her husband had no right to lay a finger on her. Meiners declares that among the Chamorros it was only the women who were privileged libertines. This phrase gives us a clear insight into the characteristics of family life among this people.[42]
Conditions were precisely similar among the Kamchadales.
Meiners[43] tells us that the married men of
this race had to conceal their amours with extreme
care. But wives bestowed their favours quite openly,
not considering it worth while to hide their infidelities
from their husbands. We cannot fail to be struck by
the way in which this duplex morality of the Women's
State finds its counterpart in the Men's State. Among
the Mingrelians and the Circassians, where women
[42] Meiners, Geschichte, etc., vol. i, pp. 105 et seq.; History, vol. i,
pp. 89 et seq.
[43] Ibid., vol. i, pp. 19 et seq, and vol. i, pp. 17 et seq.
Among the Arabs, too, in the days when women
were dominant, polyandry prevailed.[44] Even in
Mohammed's time, the Arab woman was essentially
polyandrous. According to Reitzenstein, Mohammed
once exhorted a married woman to be faithful to her
husband, and admonished her not to indulge in whoredom.
She made answer: "A free woman does not
practise whoredom." The implication was that a free
woman might have carnal relations with as many men
as she liked. Children born out of wedlock secured
full recognition, and were not regarded as bastards.
On the Malabar coast, where also women were dominant,
polyandry was practised, not only by the queens,
but throughout the population. Among the Cascovins,
where the women were dominant, a wife usually had,
in addition to her husband-in-chief, a supplementary
husband to whom various duties were assigned.
[44] Strabo, xii, 31.
In like manner, the value placed upon pre-conjugal chastity in men and women respectively is sharply contrasted in the Men's State and the Women's State. Only in the Men's State is feminine continence before marriage highly esteemed; in the Women's State the unmarried girls enjoy (openly or secretly) sexual freedom, just as unmarried men do in the Men's State. Meiners[45] writes of the Kamchadales that they do not prize virginity at all. "The greatest recommendation an unmarried girl can have, is that she has bestowed her favours upon an exceptionally large number of lovers. Such a girl is supposed to have exceptionally good grounds for expecting that she will be able to count upon the love of her future husband, since she has given plain proof of her experience in love." Even to-day we can see quite clearly that the value placed upon pre-conjugal chastity is an outcome of monosexual dominance. H. Wega[46] recently wrote: "Virginity is no longer highly esteemed; it has ceased to play a part in the amatory life of the male. . . . Purity and chastity are obsolete notions. Women demand in sexual matters the same standard of values as men, and men concede this standard." The decline and disappearance of the old one-sided estimate of the value of pre-conjugal chastity in women, however, are not (as is commonly supposed) manifestations of the decay of morality; they are the outcome of a waning of masculine predominance. Since the valuation is merely a product of male supremacy, it must perforce be reduced in proportion as male supremacy becomes less marked.
In the Women's State, conversely, masculine chastity
[45] Vermisihte philosophische Schriften, p. 174.
[46] "Nord und Süd," 1920, Unsere gesunkene Moral und ihre
Ursachen.
We see, then, that pre-conjugal chastity and also
a "maidenly" reserve and bashfulness are, when monosexual
dominance prevails, displayed only by members
of the subject sex. In another respect, sexual customs
prove to be wholly dependent upon the wielding of
power. Dominant males and dominant females have
harems whenever this accords with the established
code of sexual morals. The resemblance between the
respective practices of the male and the female owners
of harems is so close as to seem almost incredible. In
the male harems of negro queens, for instance, we find
the precise counterparts of the female harems of the
rulers of Persia.[47] The same aberrations of jealousy
and the same abuses of power are encountered in both
cases. The negro queens could choose for their
[47] Meiners, Geschichte, vol. i, pp. 74 et seq. and pp. 160 et seq.;
History, pp. 62 et seq., and pp. 134 et seq. It need hardly be said
that Meiners himself fails to note the resemblance.
Exactly similar precautions, exaggerated in like manner to the pitch of cruelty, were observed in Persia when the ladies of the harem were on a journey. The only difference was that the sex rôles were reversed. When the royal harem was on its way through a town, all the male inhabitants of the houses along the line of route had to leave their homes, and the side streets were cut off by curtains. If the harem was to pass through a country district, all the men were hunted out of the roadside villages several hours before. Two hours before the coming of the harem, muskets were fired as an additional warning. Then, an hour before the harem came, the eunuchs rode along the highway and killed every male that they encountered. Chardin reports a number of tragical incidents; he tells how old men, who imagined that their years would give them a eunuch's immunity and who tried to present petitions to the monarch, were butchered by the latter or his eunuchs. Unsuspecting travellers,
Seeing that the vagaries of love in the two sexes, when these respectively hold sway, are so closely akin psychologically, are indeed identical, all over the world, we can no longer doubt that sex differentiation is merely the outcome of the position of dominance or subjection, and is not a product of inborn biological characteristics.
Above all it is plain to us that the views previously held as to the causation of polygamy are utterly erroneous.
Again, the customary relationship between husband and wife in the matter of age, far from being dependent upon biological and psychical sexual differentiation, is simply a consequence of monosexual dominance. The supremacy of either sex tends to establish a particular age relationship between husband and wife, the rule being that in marriage the member of the dominant sex is in almost all cases considerably older than the member of the subordinate sex. Where men dominate, therefore, husbands are older than their wives; and where women dominate, wives are older than their husbands. The chief determinant here is the duty of providing for the spouse, inasmuch as we shall see that this duty devolves upon the dominant sex.
In Egypt, for instance, it was the young man, not the maiden, who was exhorted to marry early. Müller translates from the Bulak papyrus: "Get thyself a wife while thou art young, so that thou mayst procreate a son in thine own likeness. If she bear thee a child while thou art still young, that is as it should be."
Among the Iroquois, where the women were dominant, the wife was usually older than her husband. Waitz[48] reports that a young man was often assigned by his mother to a wife older than himself—for the mothers were supreme in matrimonial arrangements. There have been many other peoples among which, during the phase of feminine dominance, the marriage of a young man to an older woman was customary. Jaeckel[49] gives numerous instances of this. In some cases, 15 was regarded as the best age for a young man to marry, and 19 for a young woman. "Youths who have not married before they are 16 are derided, whereas it is no shame to a girl to remain unmarried until she is 20 or more." The age contrast that obtains between husband and wife in the contemporary Men's State is here faithfully reflected, of course with the usual reversal of rôles; the same remark applies to the one-sided social valuation of early marriage, for we see that it is always the members of the subordinate sex that must be married off while still quite young.
Among the Otomacos of South America the young men were first wedded to elderly women; and subsequently, after these had died, to young girls. Among the Fuegians, "the young men would rather marry an experienced woman of a certain age, than a young and even beautiful girl." Among the Khonds, the father usually chooses for his son a wife about six years older than the lad. In Burma, the difference is even greater, for here the wife is apt to be from ten to fifteen years older than her husband.
There is but a scanty tradition concerning social
[48] Op. cit., p. 102.
[49] Op. cit., p. 60.
In bringing to a close our account of the differential psychology of love and marriage in the Men's State and the Women's State, a reference maybe made to the valuation of celibacy. In this matter, also, opinion receives its stamp from monosexual dominance. It is always the members of the subordinate sex who are derided for being unmarried. A one-sided contempt for the "old maid" is purely a product of the Men's State. Where women rule, it is the "old bachelor" who is an object of derision, the target of popular wit—though attention has not hitherto been directed to the fact. Among the Koreans a lad is already subjected to ridicule if he reaches the age of 16 without being married. Such an "old bachelor" is refused the title of man, and receives the contumelious name of "jatau." Who can fail to be reminded of our Men's-State usage of the term "old maid"?
Among the Santals, unmarried men are similarly
scorned. They are regarded with contempt by both
sexes, and are compared with thieves and witches.
They are "not men." In Sparta, during the days of
the dominance of women, unmarried men were utterly
despised. A Spartan bachelor was actually deprived
[50] "Archiv für Frauenkunde," 1918.
But the unmarried are only contemned when they belong to the subordinate sex. This one-sided restriction of scorn to members of the subject sex is doubtless connected with the division of labour that obtains under monosexual dominance, and also perhaps with the consequent differentiation in social position. The fuller consideration of this topic must be deferred.
THE CANONS OF THE SEXUAL LIFE UNDER
MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE The Dominant Sex: The Sociology of Sex Differentiation | ||