University of Virginia Library

7. THE INFLUENCE OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE ON BODILY DEVELOPMENT, THE SEXUAL IDEAL OF BEAUTY, CLOTHING, AND THE LOVE OF ADORNMENT, IN MEN AND WOMEN RESPECTIVELY

CERTAIN peculiarities of bodily form are to-day regarded as typically feminine characters. It is not only among the laity that "an agreeable rounding-off of the frame with fat" is considered characteristic of women as contrasted with the "angularity" of men, for a recognition of this contrast is believed to be one of the most stable among medical theories. In like manner, it is supposed to be a scientific fact, based upon biological differences between the sexes, that men are on the average considerably larger and stronger than women. Bucura,[1] in a recently published work, gives a renewed account of these differences between men and women, believing himself to be providing a scientific foundation for the popular opinion upon such matters. But a comparison of the bodily types of men and women in the Men's State and the Women's State shows that the current assumption is false. The differences with which we are familiar are not secondary sexual characters; they are the outcome of monosexual dominance, being closely connected with the division of labour.

The members of the subordinate sex always exhibit a comparative obesity no matter whether they be men or women. In the Men's State, this luxuriance of

[1] op. cit.

physique is characteristic of the women, who are here subordinate; in the Women's State, on the other hand, it is the subordinate males who display a roundness and exuberance of body. The more absolute the dominance of one sex, the more marked the roundness of shape in the members of the other sex. Obesity in women is especially conspicuous in the women of those oriental races among which the supremacy of the men is unchallenged. At the other extreme we find the Kamchadales during the days when the women were absolutely supreme, and when the men displayed a positively "negroid luxuriance" and obesity.

The cause of this difference between the sexes in the matter of bodily form when monosexual dominance prevails is unquestionably to be found in the sexual division of labour. The tendency to fatty deposit always affects the subordinate sex. As we have seen, this is the sex which finds its sphere of work in the home, and domestic avocations certainly tend to promote the deposit of fat. First of all, those who work in the house have charge of the cooking pots, and can gorge at will. For instance, Waitz reports that the Eskimo men were inclined to fat. But among the Eskimos, as we have already learned, the men did the housework. Furthermore, the sex which works at home has more rest and leisure, a less active and less exciting life, seeing that the care for the maintenance of the family is always the task of the dominant sex— the one that works away from home. But the more repose, the less active movement, and the less excitement, a human being has, the more marked the tendency to put on fat. On the other hand, leanness is promoted by an arduous life and by one full of anxiety.

The tendency to put on fat is especially conspicuous in those members of the subordinate sex who belong to the upper classes, for here the factors that favour this tendency are exceptionally powerful. Among the well-to-do, food is more plentiful, leisure is more abundant, and safe-guarding from cares is more effectual. Now we know that the popular ideal of beauty is mainly determined by the physical traits of the upper-class types. Since a rounded body is especially characteristic of the well-to-do members of the subordinate sex, we find that under monosexual dominance this is the type regarded as the ideal of beauty.

Concerning the Celtae likewise, we have facts showing how the bodily development of the sexes was influenced by monosexual dominance. We have already (see p. 87) quoted Strabo's account of the way in which, among this people, the sexual division of labour was the reverse of that with which we are familiar. Now among the Celtae of Strabo's time there must have been a marked tendency to obesity, for in another passage[2] he tells us that the men ran to fat, and that the youths had to attain a prescribed girth.

Under monosexual dominance, just as a considerable deposit of fat is typical of the subordinate sex, so are greater stature and greater strength characteristic of the dominant sex. Reports concerning these points are, indeed, scantier, both as regards Men's States and as regards Women's States. A few examples from the latter may be given, to show the reversal of what we know in our own Men's State. Aristotle expressly declares that, among the Spartans and the Athenians, the ideal of beauty for women was to be very tall.

[2] IV, 6.

Among the early Teutons, the women must have been well grown, for in ancient Teuton tombs female skeletons have been found ranging up to seven feet in length. Ammian[3] writes that among the Gauls the women were stronger than the men. In this case, too, a reversed division of labour seems to have obtained between the sexes. Strabo moreover says that the Gaulish women were taller than the men. We have reports as to the women being stronger and taller in the case of quite a number of primitive tribes. Joseph Thomson states this concerning the Wateita, an East African people. Writing of the Bosjesmans, Fritsch says that the women were on the average about 4 centimetres (more than 1 ½ inches) taller than the men. Ellis tells us that among the Andombis of the Congo the women are stronger and better developed than the men. They have a splendid physique. It is they who do all the more arduous work. Among the Papuans, likewise, the women are stronger than the men.

A parenthetical reference may be made to the amazing strength of the Tahitian queen Oberea. Jaeckel quotes Captain Wallis as saying that she could carry him about as if he had been a child.

There are probably two reasons why the members of the subordinate sex lag behind those of the dominant sex in stature and in bodily strength. In the first place, during childhood and youth, when the growth of the body is taking place, the former are not so well nourished as the latter. Among ourselves to-day the belief is still current that females need less food than males. When this theory is translated into practice during the years of growth, the effect on the physique must be considerable.

[3] XV, 12.

In the second place, from youth upwards, the members of the dominant sex enjoy greater freedom of movement and engage in more active physical exercise. These circumstances must favour the natural growth in height and strength.

Passing now to consider the ideal of beauty, we find that under monosexual dominance this has a sexual stress in the case of only one of the sexes, the one that is subordinate. The ideal which the dominant sex cherishes regarding the beauty of its own members is always characterised by neutrality in the sexual respect. The ultimate causes of this difference cannot be considered in the present work, and we must content ourselves with giving a few instances to show that it does actually exist. The ideal of beauty in the case of the subordinate sex, in so far as that ideal finds expression in art, must always have the charm of youth, whereas this element forms no necessary part of the artistic expression of the ideal of beauty in the case of the dominant sex. As soon as our attention has been directed to the matter, confirmatory instances from the contemporary art of the Men's State crowd upon our notice. Among the ancient Egyptians we find the obverse of the same trend. The kings were usually depicted as young men, although we know that in many cases they lived to a great age. Weber and Baldamus[4] write: "All the statues of the Pharaohs have the typical aspect of an amiable young man in the early twenties." Schneider goes so far as to say that often enough the statues of the kings exhibit a "sugary insipidity."

[4] Weltgeschichte.

Not merely do we find that the masculine and feminine bodily forms regarded in any age as typical are influenced by monosexual dominance and vary from one extreme to the other according as one sex or the other holds sway. In addition we have to note (and this is very remarkable) that the tendency to adornment and the inclination to wear finery, and therewith sexual differentiation in hairdressing and costume, are profoundly affected by monosexual dominance. To-day, for instance, the love of finery and the fondness for self-adornment are looked upon as specifically feminine. It is regarded as unquestionable that they are the manifestations of an inborn peculiarity of women. Runge[5] is merely expressing the universal opinion of his contemporaries when he writes: "Woman's love of adornment and her inclination to coquetry are manifestations of the sexual life." Nevertheless, the information we have concerning styles of hairdressing and prevalent costumes in the case of men and women of various lands and at various epochs where or when women held sway, suffices to show that in this respect no less than in others the theory of specifically feminine peculiarities is a Men's-State error. In ancient Egypt the love of adornment was a masculine, not a feminine, trait. Erman writes: "Whereas to us it seems appropriate that women, not men, should be fond of self-adornment, the ancient Egyptians would appear to have been of the opposite way of thinking. The fashions in men's clothing were greatly diversified, but women's dress remained strangely uniform throughout the ages. From the Fourth Dynasty to the Eighteenth, the women of

[5] Das Weib in seiner geschlechtlichen Eigenart.

Egypt, princess and peasant woman alike, continued to wear the same sort of dress—a simple garment, without folds." We learn from Herodotus that in his day the men of Egypt had two suits, but that the women had only one gown. This remarkable simplicity of women's dress, and the fondness of men for self-adornment, seem inexplicable to Erman, for they conflict so directly with our own experience of sex characteristics, and the influence of monosexual dominance was unknown to him. But that influence was the sole determinant, as we may learn from a comparison between the essentials of costume in the respective cases of the Egyptian woman of the Women's State in old days and the man of the modern Men's State. We shall find precisely the same trends in the dominant sex, female in one case and male in the other.

The dress of the women of ancient Egypt was identical for all classes. Among ourselves to-day we find a similar uniformity of dress in the case of the men of all classes. So remarkable is the identity of masculine clothing throughout all social strata of modern society that we are entitled to speak of "man's dress" without qualification as uniform in type. Even ceremonial costume is the same for all classes; on State occasions a man wears a frock-coat and a tall hat, whether he be sovereign prince or shopkeeper. Nor is there any change in this respect as a man grows older. He may be eighteen or he may be sixty, but irrespective of age he must turn up at a formal party in a suit of the same tint and the same cut. The trend towards uniformity in dress for the dominant sex would appear to be more marked in proportion as monosexual dominance is more completely established.

Uniformity of appearance extends in the case of the dominant sex to the manner of dressing the hair as well as to the clothing. To-day, nearly all men wear their hair in the same fashion. In Sparta a like uniformity in the matter of hairdressing prevailed among women, who were the dominant sex. But whereas among our men the mode of hairdressing is regulated by unwritten laws only, in the case of the Spartan women it was formally prescribed by written laws.[6]

A fondness in men for self-adornment, and a tendency on the part of women towards simplicity and uniformity in dress, are reported in the case of other peoples besides the ancient Egyptians. Such a reversal of the trends and customs of our own civilisation was marked among the Libyans. We have already noted that in Libya the dominance of women was absolute. Strabo relates that the men of this land were addicted to self-adornment and that they delighted in the care of their bodies. They curled the hair and the beard, wore plenty of gold ornaments, and were diligent in the care of the teeth and the finger-nails. "The men dress their hair in so artificial a fashion," writes Strabo, "that when they are on an excursion they are rarely seen to touch one another, for fear of disarranging their coiffure." The reader is involuntarily reminded of the extremes of artificiality in women's head-dressing, such as are preserved in pictures dating from the most diverse epochs of masculine dominance. Westermarck tells us that among the Khonds, where the women rule, the men wear their hair long, and spend much time dressing it. The men of Tanna, in the New Hebrides, wear their hair "twelve and

[6] Jaeckel, op. cit., p. 3.

eighteen inches long, and have it divided into some six or seven hundred little locks or tresses."[7] Some of the North American Indians wear the hair so long that it reaches to the feet. The Latuka men have an elaborate coiffure, and the hair takes ten years to reach its full length. Pliny[8] relates of the ancient Teutons that the men in especial were wont to dye their hair.

We may presume that the inclination towards self-adornment displayed by members of the subordinate sex, and the tendency of members of the dominant sex to dispense with ornaments and to wear drab clothing, are both intimately connected with the sexual division of labour. Those who belong to the sex which works in the home have more time and opportunity for self-adornment than those who belong to the sex which works away from home. The arts of the toilet become a pastime. But there is a supplementary factor which strengthens the pleasure and the interest in this pastime. Leisure increases erotic susceptibility. Since the members of the other sex have less leisure, the pent-up erotic passion of the home-keeping sex seeks an outlet in the practice of bodily adornment—which was primitively regarded (and is unquestionably still regarded to-day) as a preparatory love-act. There may also contribute an impulse accentuated by the heightened sensuality, the impulse to please the members of the other sex who are the objects of sexual desire.

This is why we find that to-day the women who have most leisure and least work are those who devote

[7] Turner, Samoa.

[8] Hist. xxviii, 12.

most time to the care of the body and to its adornment. On the other hand, the members of the sex that is predominantly occupied in extra-domestic concerns lack both time and inclination for self-adornment. In the latter, too, generally speaking, the impulse to exert a sexual attraction upon members of the opposite sex tends to pass into abeyance. The more absolute the dominion of one of the sexes, the more vigorously does it maintain its monopoly of extra-domestic avocations. As a consequence, it becomes increasingly over-burdened with work, with a concomitant decrease in leisure and a decline in interest for sexual matters. Herewith the main motives for bodily adornment disappear, and its practice tends to be discarded as superfluous and as merely a nuisance.

Dress is simplified as much as possible. This simplification is the basis of the prevalent uniformity. For, first of all, the trend towards simplification affects the majority of the dominant sex, seeing that the overwhelming majority is engaged in extra-domestic avocations, and has therefore to work very hard and with little leisure. Furthermore, the less energetic and diligent members of the dominant sex, those who might retain the inclination to self-adornment, have little or no influence, inasmuch as their lack of industry makes it impossible for them to win possessions and power. Those who devote their energies to work, and pay little heed to dress, have the best chance of gaining influential positions. These, therefore, are the persons most imitated; it is they who set the standard in matters of appearance. To the effects of the imitative impulse are superadded the effects of pressure from above in the direction of uniformity. It is in the interest of the influential to deprive those

who are less powerful of the sexual advantages which these might derive from neglecting work for bodily adornment. This is why the stamp of uniformity is impressed upon the younger members of the dominant sex; this is why the young are compelled to assimilate themselves in appearance to the old.

The way in which overwork, and the associated indifference to sexual concerns, lead to sobriety of aspect and to labour-saving in matters of appearance, is likewise illustrated by the way in which men do their hair in the contemporary Men's State. Modern styles of hairdressing for men are ugly but convenient. The conjunction of qualities is characteristic. To the overworked man, the ugliness is of little moment, since he has no great interest in arousing sexual liking in the members of the other sex. Convenience is the decisive factor for one whose long hours of work make time-saving of the utmost importance.

The desire to save time is the probable explanation of the fact that the men of States in which the rule of their sex is unchallenged usually let their beards grow. The men of ancient Egypt were invariably clean-shaven. Always, as the influence of women increases, we find among men a growing tendency to shave the beard. An accessory factor is probably at work here, for when women become more influential, youth in men is more highly valued, and the appearance of the young male becomes the ideal of masculine beauty.

The overburdening of the dominant sex with work is, it would seem, the explanation of what appears to be a fact—that tattooing is a practice peculiar to that sex. E. Meyer tells us that tattooing was rare in ancient Egypt, and that it was confined to women.

Among ourselves, tattooing is almost confined to men. As a means of adornment tattooing is distinguished by the fact that it is done once for all, so that no further time need be spent on adornment.

There are also certain sexual distinctions in dress which are probably not the outcome of the sexual division of labour, but are directly dependent upon the dominance.

Monosexual dominance invariably evokes a tendency towards the differentiation of dress into masculine and feminine types. For each sex there is one typical garment which diverges as markedly as possible from the typical garment of the other sex. In modern Europe the contrast between trousers and skirt is characteristic. But should any one be inclined to fancy that the wearing of trousers by men and skirts by women is connected with certain masculine and feminine biological peculiarities, a glance at contemporary fashions in other civilisations than our own (to say nothing of the costumes of past ages) will enable us to reduce the theory to absurdity. There exists to-day an extremely ancient nation in which sexual differentiation in dress has taken the opposite direction. In China, the men wear skirts (or at any rate long robes) and the women wear trousers. We see, then, that this particular difference of dress has nothing to do with the biology of sex. Those who imagine that it has are obviously creating an imaginary difference between the sexes. Such a tendency to create imaginary differences is the direct outcome of monosexual dominance. A basic principle of monosexual dominance is precisely this inclination to exaggerate sexual contrasts and to ignore sexual similarities. We must defer to

a later work, the sequel to the present study, our elucidation of the causes of this phenomenon.

It has been shown that the rôle of wooer is always assigned to members of the dominant sex. Since, as we have just learned, the dominant sex inclines to discard the arts of bodily adornment, the result is that, when monosexual dominance prevails, the wooer is as a rule soberly attired, whereas the members of the wooed sex are gaily adorned. This combination of drabness of attire and wooing, on the one hand, and of ornateness and being wooed, on the other, seems in striking contrast with the phenomena of animal life in general. If among the lower animals we find the members of one sex distinguished from those of the other by motley splendour, the more ornate sex is commonly the wooing sex—so far as our admittedly imperfect insight enables us to judge of these matters. Hitherto, at any rate, we have felt justified in assuming that among the lower animals the more ornate sex is the wooing sex. Liepmann,[9] for instance, gives an interesting demonstration that in the case of birds the sex which has the more splendid plumage, whether male or female, acts as wooer and is more combative than the other. The birds with duskier plumage look after the fledglings, even though these less ornate ones are the cocks. The question therefore arises whether man is in truth biologically distinguished from the lower animals in this respect, or whether monosexual dominance may not be a degenerative phenomenon— destined, as will be shown in the sequel, to lead to absurdities. In fact, equality of rights for the sexes seems accordant with natural trends, whereas mono-

[9] Die Psychologie der Frau.

sexual dominance always fosters tendencies that conflict more or less sharply with the inborn nature of human beings. It is, therefore, not merely possible but probable that monosexual dominance is invariably a degenerative phenomenon.