University of Virginia Library

6. THE SOCIAL POSITION OF THE SEXES WHEN MEN AND WOMEN HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS

THE division of labour into a domestic sphere for one sex and an extra-domestic sphere for the other, is a definite criterion of monosexual dominance. Equality of rights for the sexes, on the other hand, with its concomitant bisexual dominance, necessarily leads to the abrogation of the division of labour on sexual lines.

In Egypt, during the later days of the ancient regime, at a time when the dominance of women had apparently given place to a phase of equal rights for the sexes, there are plain indications that various kinds of work were undertaken now by members of one sex and now by members of the other, so that there was no sharp delimitation of avocations as between the sexes. In marriage contracts belonging to the days of Darius, the wife, who alone is mentioned as the contracting party, expressly refers to "all that I may earn in conjunction with you." It seems clear that the husband was now a joint wage-earner. Later, under the Ptolemies, this joint bread-winning was still in vogue. By that time, when the Greeks had conquered Egypt under Alexander and had imposed their Men's-State customs,[1] the husband had become the contracting party. But the phrase "all that I may earn in conjunction with you" appears in the contract un-

[1] Revillout has shown that Amasis II had already instituted reforms on the Greek model, about two-and-a-half centuries before the beginning of the Ptolemaic era.

changed. When bisexual dominance became established in Egypt, the so-called Liturgies (see above, p. 77) passed by inheritance from father and mother to the children of both sexes. Characteristic is the fact that under the Ptolemaic regime, when ostensibly a masculine predominance had been established in Egypt after the model of the conquering State, wills of the period show that the liturgies could still pass by inheritance to the daughters—a fact which clearly proves that the artificially imposed male dominance was making but slow headway. In externals, the change was speedily made manifest in the wording of marriage contracts, which implied that wives were under their husband's tutelage. But as far as the essence of the matter was concerned, the transformation was tardy. Masculine guardianship might be established by law, but the women paid little attention to these regulations.

Down to a comparatively late period, the sexes followed the chase together, practising in common the sport of fowling, which was very popular in Egypt. In earlier days, as the old love-songs show, the women had gone fowling alone.

Just as the two sexes pursued their extra-domestic avocations in common, so do they seem, in these days when sex equality was being established, to have done housework together. Erman[2] reports that the wife helped her husband to look after the housekeeping. We see from this that the husband was still responsible for the housekeeping, but that the wife no longer regarded participation in such tasks as "unwomanly." Obviously we are here contemplating the early stages of a transition.

[2] Op. Cit., Vol. i, p. 217.

At this period, honours and distinctions were bestowed upon men and upon women in precisely the same form. In the new realm the rank of "fan-bearer on the king's right hand" was the highest of all dignities, which could be granted only to princes, judges-in-chief, treasurers-in-chief, generals, and other supreme officials. But the title of fan-bearer was now allotted both to men and to women; the members of either sex could display the insignia of this exalted office.

In Babylonia, concerning which Viktor Marx[3] has made a detailed study of the position of women, the period from 604 to 485 B.C. was manifestly one when equality of the sexes prevailed. Men and women worked together. In a lawsuit concerning an inheritance, a wife declares: "My husband and I carried on business with the money of my dowry, and we jointly purchased a building site." There are many allusions to this joint conduct of affairs by husband and wife. Women could also carry on business alone, could do so apparently whether married or single. At any rate, no mention is made in the documents of their status in this respect. The fact that both sexes engaged in extra-domestic occupations is indicated by the circumstance that in marriage contracts neither the wife nor the husband undertook any obligation in respect of a common residence. The same remark applies to Egypt.

At this period the sexes were quite independent of one another in social life. Men and women could both bring lawsuits, could both be sued, and could both act as witnesses. The wife was not under guardianship, and could freely dispose of her own property

[3] Beiträge zur Assyriologie, vol. iv.

(Kohler). Thus the right of property, like other rights, was common to the two sexes. Consequently a woman was just as competent to act as guarantor for a man as a man was to act as guarantor for a woman. The mother decided the amount of the dowry, and a son could not choose a wife without his father's permission.

Explorers have frequently encountered primitive folk living in the phase when there is no division of labour along sexual lines. They report instances in which men and women jointly care for the children and jointly participate in extra-domestic avocations. Among the Motu[4] the men stayed at home to care for the children when the women went fishing. But if the men went fishing, the women stayed at home to look after the children. In Australia, likewise, there are tribes among which both sexes tend the children.

Among the Battas the two sexes tilled the ground together, but the care of the children devolved exclusively on the men. This last example is especially instructive as an illustration of the way in which the division of labour develops during the transition from monosexual dominance to equality of rights between the sexes. Here we have obviously to do with a transition from feminine dominance, since the men were still charged with the duty of looking after the children. Characteristic are the two facts: that the men were already sharing in the extra-domestic work, the tilling of the soil; and that the women had not yet begun to do their share of the domestic occupations. Indubitably this is closely connected with the principle of dominance, for the avocations of the dominant sex are regarded as more exalted than those of the subor-

[4] Cf. Jaeckel, op. cit., pp. 90 et seq.

dinate sex. Consequently, during the transition to equal rights for the sexes, the members of the subordinate sex feel they are honoured by being allowed to participate in the work of the dominant sex, and this is an object of desire. Conversely, to the members of the dominant sex the avocations of the subordinate sex still appear debasing, so that for them there is not the lure of something that elevates, but, instead, the repulsion of something that degrades. Furthermore, the capacity for bringing in a monetary return attaches mainly, if not solely, to the occupations of the dominant sex, and this provides an additional reason for continuing to do that sort of work (in the case of members of the dominant sex), or for aspiring to undertake it (in the case of members of the subordinate sex).

We have, then, several factors which reinforce one another in impelling the members of the subordinate sex to push their way into the avocations of the dominant sex; and we have several factors tending to restrain the members of the dominant sex from sharing in the domestic avocations of the subordinate sex. The result is—when such a transition from monosexual dominance to equal rights is in progress—that the barriers between the respective spheres of activity of the two sexes are broken down more quickly in one direction than in the other. We have been studying, in the case of the Battas, a transition from feminine dominance to equal rights. Among ourselves to-day may be observed the same trends, the only difference being that the rôles of the sexes are reversed. Our civilisation is passing from the phase of masculine dominance to the phase of equal rights. Characteristic of the transition is the manner in which our women are pushing

their way into the extra-domestic occupations of the men, whilst the men are very slow to share in the domestic avocations of the women. In our own case, likewise, questions of wages and earning capacity play a considerable part in accentuating the speed with which the subordinate sex comes to share in the work of the dominant sex, and the slowness with which the dominant sex comes to participate in that of the subordinate sex.