THE INFLUENCE OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE ON THE
POSITION OF CHILDREN The Dominant Sex: The Sociology of Sex Differentiation | ||
11. THE INFLUENCE OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE ON THE POSITION OF CHILDREN
IN the Men's State, children bear the father's name. In the Women's State, they receive the mother's name. The dominant sex transmits the name to the offspring, and the name of the subordinate sex disappears from the line of succession. Transmission of the mother's name to the offspring is one among the few phenomena whose significance has heretofore been recognised as "matriarchal." For Bachofen, this transmission of the mother's name was a criterion of the dominance of women, but very few investigators have followed him here. Almost universally there has been an attempt to draw a sharp distinction between matriarchy[1] and the dominance of women. This tendency is the outcome of the Men's-State ideology of contemporary investigators.
In the case of almost all peoples who lived under the
dominance of women, we are informed that the children
bore the mother's name. It was so among the
Iroquois, the Lycians, the Cantabri, the Acharnians,
and others. According to Lamprecht, the Germans in
the days of Tacitus were still named after the mother.
We have incontrovertible evidence that among the
Egyptians it was the custom to call children after the
[1] It is unfortunate that the accepted English equivalent of Mutterrecht
(literally, mother-right) is matriarchy, which derivatively
connotes the idea of dominion. The German term we have translated
by "dominance of women," and analogous phrases is Frauenberrschaft
(women's rule). There is no terminological contradiction
in German when a distinction is drawn between Mutterrecht
and Frauenherrschaft.—TRANSLATORS' NOTE.
In the Women's State of ancient Egypt, descent was
traced through the mother, precisely as it is traced
through the father in the genealogical trees of the
[2] Op. Cit., Vol. i, p. 22,4.
[3] Ibid., p. 51.
The privileged position of the dominant sex is shown in other ways besides that of naming the children. We know that in our own Men's States the social status and the nationality of a child are exclusively determined by the social status and the nationality of the father. We find the obverse of this custom in Women's States. If an Iroquois woman wedded a man belonging to another tribe, the offspring were accounted Iroquois. But if an Iroquois man married out of the tribe, his children were looked upon as aliens.[5] It was the same with social status. We encounter like customs in ancient Egypt. If a free woman married a slave, the children were free. The legal position of the children was solely determined by that of the mother. Bachofen's[6] investigations concerning matriarchy among the Lycians show that, in relation to the child, the mother in the Women's State exercises precisely the determinative influence that is exercised by the father in the Men's State.
We have definite information that the dominance of
[4] Op. cit., vol. i, pp. 224 et seq.
[5] Lewis Morgan, op. cit., p. 293.
[6] Verhandlungen deutscher Philologen, Stuttgart, 1856, p. 42.
Thus we see that the institutions of the Women's
State are in these respects a faithful reflection of those
[7] I, 173. Rawlinson's Translation.
The general name used for "native land" varies, as
a rule, in accordance with the prevalent type of monosexual
dominance. When the expression "fatherland"
is current, we can trace its origin to the existence of
masculine domination. Conversely, the use of the term
"motherland" is rooted in feminine hegemony. We
learn from Diodorus[8] that the previously quoted inscription
on one of the columns of the temple of Isis
concludes with the words: "Hail to thee, Egypt, my
motherland." In Egypt women held sway, and their
rule was reflected in the word motherland. Herodotus
tells us that the Lycians originally came to Asia Minor
from Crete. Now, among the Cretans it was custo-
[8] I, 27.
[9] Cf. Dion Cassius, History of Rome.
We have already noted that the children of the dominant sex are favoured in the matter of inheritance. Where monosexual dominance is absolute, we usually find that only members of the dominant sex can inherit. Among the Lycians, for instance, there were no male heirs. In the case of the Cantabri, property passed to the eldest daughter; her brothers were under her tutelage; she gave them a small dowry when they married. Strabo states that among the Arabs inheritance was determined by primogeniture independently of sex, and this suggests that equality of rights prevailed. In Germany, the Men's State, the eldest son had a privileged position in matters of inheritance. This is indicated by the right of [male] primogeniture, in accordance with which all real estate passed to the eldest son. In this matter as in others we find that under monosexual dominance there is a tendency to give to members of the dominant sex, from the cradle, privileges which they will enjoy till the day of their death. On the other hand, members of the subordinate sex are in a less advantageous position from earliest childhood onwards.
Children of the dominant sex are more highly esteemed than children of the subordinate sex. In the Men's State, for instance, the birth of a boy arouses more rejoicing than the birth of a girl. In the Women's State, of course, it is the other way about. Thus we are expressly told of the Pelew Islanders, who were under the dominance of women, that the birth of a girl was a more joyful event than the birth
We cannot decide a priori what would be the general wish of parents in this matter under a system of equal rights for the sexes; we cannot tell whether the members of each sex would tend to exhibit a preference for having offspring of their own sex, or conversely. It might be supposed that the wishes of the dominant sex under monosexual dominance would furnish us with a clue. In that case, under equal rights, men would wish mainly to have boys and women to have girls. But the argument is fallacious, for the freedom of choice of the dominant sex is illusory, and the wishes of the dominant sex where monosexual dominance prevails are no index to a natural taste. The influence of monosexual dominance greatly transcends the power of inborn inclinations. This is indicated by the way in which, under monosexual dominance, the tendency to play the wooer and the tendency to neglect the arts of self-adornment are always conjoined in the dominant sex, whereas the natural or biological trend would seem to be for the impulse of self-adornment to evolve out of the inclination to play the wooer. In this matter, too, we therefore find that something unnatural has developed as a product of monosexual dominance. It follows from this train of reasoning that the desire of the dominant sex for offspring of its own sex may be
When we remember that the parents' initial desire for offspring of the dominant sex is often reversed after a time, when they have had two or three children of that sex, our doubt whether there is any natural predisposition on the part of a parent to desire a child of his or her own sex is strengthened. Indeed, it would seem more probable that by nature a man is predisposed to a preference for having daughters, and a woman to a preference for having sons; and that this tendency would become apparent should monosexual dominance give place to equality of rights.
It is, however, also possible that as far as natural inclinations are concerned there is no difference in this matter between parental wishes, for every one has two soul sides, one sexually tinged, and the other neutral or universally human. As a sexual being, a man would desire girl children and a woman boy children. But should the sexual trend pass into the background, and should the universally human inclinations predominate, we should find a natural tendency for each parent to prefer having children of his or her own sex. In the event of an equilibrium of forces, there would be a corresponding balance as regards the desire for children of one sex or the other. Both the father and mother would wish indifferently for girls and boys, although the balance in the two cases would be attained by an inverse route. There would be an ostensible identity, concealing a contrast, and this is a point of great psychological interest. Inasmuch as, however, in married life the sexual trends incline as a rule to predominate over the universally human trends, we may perhaps expect to find, when the influence of mono-
There is, nevertheless, sufficient evidence that in
Women's States girl children were in general more
highly esteemed, just as boys are more highly esteemed
in Men's States. The study of the practice of infanticide,
and of the practice of mutilating children, shows
that the dominant sex was always inclined to deal
harshly with children of the subordinate sex and to
spare children of the dominant sex. The general belief
is to-day that where infanticide prevails or has
prevailed, the victims invariably are or were girls.
This view is simply an expression of Men's-State ideology.
A more careful examination of the question
shows that there have been peoples among which the
boys were the only victims of infanticide, and that
these peoples lived under the dominance of women. In
the Old Testament, for example, we read (Exodus,
Chap. I) that the king of Egypt ordered the Hebrew
midwives to kill the male children of the Jews, but to
spare the girls. Hegel,[10] referring to a negro State
where women held sway, writes: "One Women's State
became greatly celebrated for its conquests. It was
ruled by a woman. In childbirth, the women had to go
outside the settlement, and should the offspring be a
male infant they had to make away with it."
[10] The Philosophy of History. Introduction, The Geographical
Bases of Universal History.
Meiners[11] reports the same of the Gagers, another African tribe. Their laws and constitution were established by queens, and it was under queens that they made their greatest conquests. One of the queens issued an ordinance that no male children were to be brought up. All of them were to be put to death. To set the example she killed her own son, who was still at the breast. Thereupon, all the new-born boys and all the immature sons were slaughtered, and the custom continued in force apparently until the conversion to Christianity. We see, then, that among savages under the dominance of women, contempt for children of the subordinate sex may be accentuated to the pitch of infanticide. The infanticide of females is so familiar an occurrence that proof is superfluous. But what has hitherto been invariably overlooked in this connexion is that female infanticide is a specialty of the Men's State.
A not infrequent custom is the mutilation of children,
and here it is extremely significant that in Women's
States the male infants are the victims of such mutilations
whereas in Men's States the female children are
the victims. In China down to our own day the practice
of foot-binding is confined to females. On the
other hand, during the reign of Libussa in Bohemia
only male children were mutilated.[12] The following
fact seems also worth noting in this connexion. Among
the before-mentioned Gagers, the queen issued a decree
that all congenitally deformed children were to be
killed. This applied to both sexes. It is well known
that a similar law prevailed in Sparta at a time when
[11] Geschichte, vol. i, pp. 79 et seq.; History, pp. 66 et seq. Meiners'
authority is Cavazzi (see Bibliography).
[12] Ploss and Bartels, op. cit.
It may seem strange at the first glance that children
belonging to the dominant sex, notwithstanding their
privileged position, should be compelled to accept
responsibility for the maintenance of parents, whereas
no such responsibility is imposed upon children of the
subordinate sex. But when we enquire into the causes
of the difference, we find that the determinants are not
psychological but social. The members of the subordinate
sex are not in a position, economically speaking,
to support the parents. The more absolute the monosexual
dominance, the more completely are the ownership
of property and the opportunity for earning an
income reserved to members of the dominant sex. In
these circumstances, the duty of maintaining parents is
necessarily imposed on the dominant sex. In the Men's
State, therefore, the sons have to maintain their
parents; whereas in the Women's State this obligation
is mainly incumbent on the daughters. Herodotus[13]
writes concerning the Egyptians: "Sons need not support
their parents, but daughters are compelled to
whether they like it or not." We may infer from this
passage that in ancient Egypt during the days of
women's dominance the reversal of the sexual division
of labour as we know it must have been thorough. Had
the daughters, as among ourselves, been restricted to
[13] I, 35.
Among the by-products of monosexual dominance, manifest both in the Men's State and in the Women's State, is a restriction of the right of children to choose their own mates. We find in this case that it is especially the subordinate sex whose freedom is curtailed by the authority of the dominant sex. Where women rule, the mother arranges her son's marriage, as we learn happened among the Iroquois and among the Guatemala Indians. Where men rule, the father arranges the marriage of his daughter. Sometimes, as in ancient Rome, a parent of the dominant sex continues to exercise uncontrolled authority over the children of both sexes even when the latter have grown up.
A word may be said, in conclusion, concerning fecundity in Men's States and Women's States respectively. It is not easy to speak positively as to whether fecundity is likely to be greater in one kind of State or in the other. Worth mentioning is the fact that in ancient Egypt a high fecundity prevailed. Were we to outline an imaginative description of some future State in which women should play as great a part as they played in ancient Egypt, nearly all the members of the contemporary intelligentsia, from woman doctor
More important than the question of fecundity is the question—which form of sexual dominance ensures a happier childhood. The present writers have studied the life of the most diverse peoples, described by investigators of the most various dispositions. Once only have they come across the words: "This is the paradise of children." To what happy people does the statement refer? To the Cingalese. But reports concerning this people show that among them there was almost perfect equality between the sexes. It would seem as if happiness could be assured for children neither by the Men's State nor by the Women's State, but only by the Humanist State characterised by equal rights for the sexes.
[14] Abhandlungen und Aufsätze, vol. i, p. 265.
THE INFLUENCE OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE ON THE
POSITION OF CHILDREN The Dominant Sex: The Sociology of Sex Differentiation | ||