University of Virginia Library

10. THE RESPECTIVE VIEWS OF MEN AND WOMEN CONCERNING BEAUTY AND INTELLIGENCE AS PRODUCTS OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE

WHERE men rule, the current belief is that women are more beautiful than men, and that men are more intelligent than women. These differences are numbered among the sexual peculiarities whose origin is supposed to be traceable from inborn qualities that vary in the two sexes. In reality, the theory is a pure product of monosexual dominance. Only in the Men's State is beauty regarded as a predominant attribute of women, and there alone is livelier intelligence ascribed to men. In the Women's State, the usual opinions are the reverse of these. As the tendency towards sex equality makes progress, beauty and intelligence are considered to belong in equal measure to the two sexes.

Proneness to regard women as gifted with more intelligence than men is very plainly manifest in the Women's State. Among the Kamchadales, for instance, both the men and the women considered it unquestionable that women are far more intelligent than men. The investigators who have failed to recognise the influence of monosexual dominance accept the prevailing view of the Kamchadales as a fact. They believe that the Kamchadale women really were more intelligent than the men, and that this is why they held sway over the men. Do we not seem to be studying the opinions of our own day, but seen looking-glass

fashion, so that the rôles of the sexes are reversed? Till quite recently every one among ourselves believed, and many still believe, that our men are more intelligent than our women, and that for this reason among us the men rule. It is the same error as that of the Kamchadales; we put the cart before the horse, mistaking effect for cause. Preponderating intelligence in one of the sexes is not the cause of monosexual dominance, but conversely monosexual dominance with its accompaniments creates a semblance of preponderating intelligence in the dominant sex. Or are we to believe that the contemporary waning of masculine hegemony depends upon a progressive waning in the intelligence of men and a progressive waxing in the intelligence of women? As will be shown in a later chapter, there are very different reasons to account for the way in which masculine dominance is yielding place to sex equality. Concurrently with a change in the relationships of power as between the sexes, there invariably occurs a change in the prevalent views concerning the comparative intelligence of the sexes. Georg Ebers, therefore, is quite mistaken when he writes that the Egyptian girls were treated as the equals of the boys because the girls were regarded as no less intelligent than the boys. The causal sequence runs the other way about. Because the Egyptian girls had equal rights with the boys, they were considered the boys' equals in intelligence.

The views that prevail concerning the intelligence of a class, a caste, or a sex, are purely the outcome of the relationships of power. The dominant class, caste, or sex, uses its power to diffuse the idea that its members are endowed with exceptional intelligence. Of course it may chance that the more intelligent win to power. But it may equally well happen that the less intelligent

gain dominion over the more intelligent. In either case the dominants, in order to stabilise their power, will spread the notion that they are more intelligent than the subordinates. Proofs of this abound. In almost all countries, the supreme rulers, the kings, have gone so far in the cultivation of the belief that they are cleverer than their subjects as to claim kinship with the divine. The pope is reputed infallible when he speaks as the ruler of Christendom. Perhaps the plainest proof that our valuations of intelligence run parallel with the actualities of power is to be found in extant opinions concerning the relationship between the congenital aptitudes of children and the social position of their parents. It is generally assumed, not merely that the upper classes, the rulers, are more intelligent than the lower classes, the ruled; but, in addition, that the scions of the well-to-do are from birth better endowed than the children of the working class. The same mistake is made as regards men and women. When men rule, they see to it that their sex enjoys the prestige attaching to superior intelligence; when women rule, they do exactly the same.

We do not need to go so far afield as Kamchatka to find instances. The first historical reports concerning the ancient Teutons unquestionably relate to a period when equality of rights was being established between the sexes, but when there were still obvious indications of the transition from the phase of female dominance.[1] At this epoch the women were considered cleverer and wiser than the men. On account of her wisdom, Veleda was almost universally looked upon as a goddess. Tacitus tells us of the Teutons that they believed there

[1] It is a matter of common knowledge that Lamprecht has demonstrated the existence of matriarchy among the ancient Teutons.

attached to woman a sacred and prophetic quality, so that "woman's counsel should be followed, her answers noted." The view that the wisdom of women excels the wisdom of men (a view characteristic of the earlier phase when women had held sway) had by this time undergone modification concurrently with the development of the phase of equal rights. Consequently in the days of Tacitus women were supposed to be seers. It is, of course, possible that the Roman historian, influenced by his Men's-State preconceptions, erred in his statement that the Teuton women were believed to possess the prophetic gift. This may merely have been his gloss upon a situation in which women were dominant, and were therefore believed to be actually more intelligent than men. However this may be, we learn from Tacitus' report that among the ancient Teutons there was manifest the tendency that is characteristic of a belief in the intellectual superiority of women, namely the tendency to rely on women's advice.

In ancient Egypt during the days of women's dominance, there was likewise a general belief in the intellectual superiority of women. This is shown by the allotment of rôles to Isis and Osiris. Isis, the female deity, was the legislator; Osiris, the male deity, was the benefactor. The goddess, therefore, is the incorporation of intellectual functions; the god, of affective. Diodorus[2] records from the pillars of the shrines of Isis and Osiris inscriptions which plainly indicate this reversal of what among ourselves is regarded as the natural antithesis between manly intelligence and womanly sympathy. Isis boasts: "What I have established as a law can be abrogated by no one." Osiris, on the other hand, says: "There is no place in the

[2] I, 27.

world which I have not visited to do my benefactions there."

Isis, the goddess, was mainly venerated as legislator; Osiris, the god, was mainly venerated as benefactor. Demeter, one of the oldest of the Greek goddesses, is described by Diodorus as "the legislator, the one who first prescribed the laws." To-day, under male hegemony, our views concerning the typical functions of the two sexes have developed in the opposite directions. Legislation is considered a specifically masculine function, whereas benefaction is assumed to be peculiarly accordant with the natural aptitudes of women. The relative positions of Isis and Osiris in ancient Egypt suffice to indicate that such views are the outcome of monosexual dominance. Isis takes precedence of her spouse Osiris, and is always named before him. Even Plutarch speaks of "Isis and Osiris." In the inscriptions reproduced by Diodorus, that relating to Isis begins, "I, Isis, am the Queen of all Lands," whereas that relating to Osiris begins, "My Father is Chronos." Whilst of Isis we are told that she rules all the countries of the world, of Osiris it is merely reported that he has visited them all. Indubitably at the time when these inscriptions were carved, Isis must have ranked higher than Osiris. Thus Isis was the personification of the dominant sex, which ascribed to her as her most characteristic quality that which was most highly esteemed among the attributes of the dominant sex.

In the case of beauty there is less abundant historical evidence than in the case of intelligence to indicate that its ascription in higher degree to members of the dominant sex is a direct outcome of sexual dominance.

Nevertheless, what was recorded in an earlier chapter concerning the predominance in the subordinate sex of the tendency to self-adornment, has a definite bearing upon this matter. It is natural that the sex which devotes more attention to self-adornment should be reputed the more beautiful. Moreover, the subordinate sex, especially among the well-to-do, has more time and opportunity for beauty culture and for care of the body, thanks to its restriction to domestic occupations.

There are factors which contribute in actual practice to make the subordinate sex better looking than the dominant sex. There are, in addition, psychological reasons why beauty should be speciously ascribed to the subordinate sex. At this stage the matter can be touched on only in passing. Each sex always looks upon the other sex as predominantly the embodiment of sexual qualities. Now, sexuality and beauty are intimately associated. Beauty plays a great part in stimulating the senses, in arousing sexual desire. The result is that, normally, each sex will regard the members of the other sex as better looking than the members of its own sex. In men, the physical excellencies of a man do not arouse a sexually tinged admiration; the charms of a woman leave another woman cold, or at most arouse a sexual envy. It is part of the essential nature of sexuality that we should tend to esteem intelligence more highly in members of our own sex, and to esteem physical beauty more highly in members of the opposite sex. What the average sensual man chiefly values in another man is the latter's wisdom; what he chiefly values in a woman is her physical "points." Conversely, what a woman finds interesting in another woman is intelligence, whereas in the case

of a man she thinks rather of his good looks. We see this in the representations of the Pharaohs during the days when the arts were most flourishing in ancient Egypt. As already mentioned, they are always depicted as young and handsome. Some of our historians have pointed out that the faces of these kings appear to lack intelligence. But we could hardly expect them to seem intelligent to a masculine eye, for they are artistic products of feminine taste. On the other hand, the features of Queen Hatshepsu exhibit remarkable intelligence.

Wherever one sex rules, one aspect of this duplex outlook will prevail. The standpoint of the dominant sex will dominate. When men rule, the masculine view that women are more beautiful than men, and that men are more intelligent than women, will be regarded as the natural opinion of all mankind. When women rule, the converse theory, equally subjective, equally one-sided, will be regarded as objective truth.