University of Virginia Library

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.

mother only. Subsequently to the conquest of Egypt by Alexander, the manners and customs of the Greeks were introduced, and it became usual to name children after both parents. For a time, however, the Egyptians still clung to the ancient practice, and there are many bilingual documents from this period in which the Egyptian text speaks of persons only by the matronymic, whereas the accompanying Greek text uses the patronymic. Greatly as their Men's-State ideology tends to restrict our investigators' understanding of Women's-State customs, in the case of Egypt numerous Egyptologists report the naming of children after the mother. Erman[2] tells us that it was customary among the Egyptians to engrave upon mortuary columns the matronymic of the deceased, "and not, as seems natural to us, the patronymic." Erman never recognises the connexion between monosexual dominance and the manner in which children are named after the father or the mother as the case may be, and he therefore never suspects that the use of the patronymic only appears to him more "natural" because he happens to have been brought up in a Men's State. E. Meyer[3] likewise points out that in Egypt the sons were usually named after the mother, and adds in explanation that the position of women in Egypt was "remarkably free." This expression is the circumlocution characteristically employed by Men's-State investigators to denote the dominance of women, for the explicit recognition of this dominance is repugnant to Men's-State prejudices.

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.

Men's State. According to Erman[4] in the mortuary monuments of the Old Kingdom the mother of the deceased and his wife were represented, but a representation of the father was almost always lacking. In contradistinction to Bachofen, MacLennan describes the naming of children after the mother as the outcome of promiscuity, and of the consequent uncertainty as to fatherhood. Our information concerning the Egyptians shows that this theory is erroneous. They were monogamists, and yet the children were named after the mother. The decisive factor in this respect was indubitably monosexual dominance.

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.

women prevailed among the Lycians. Heraclides Ponticus writes of them: "From of old they have been ruled by the women." Herodotus says of the same people: "They have . . . one singular custom in which they differ from every other nation in the world. They take the mother's and not the father's name. Ask a Lycian who he is, and he answers by giving his own name, that of his mother, and so on in the female line. Moreover, if a free woman marry a man who is a slave, their children are full citizens; but if a free man marry a foreign woman, or live with a concubine, even though he be the first person in the State, the children forfeit all the rights of citizenship."[7] Herodotus' account is confirmed by Fellows' Lycian researches and by the reports of other writers. According to Nicolaus Damascenus: "The Lycians pay more honour to women than to men. They name themselves after their mothers, and their possessions pass by inheritance to the daughters instead of to the sons," Parenthetically we may mention that by the time of Herodotus the Lycians had been Hellenised, and that they greatly transcended the other Asiatic Greeks in point of civilisation. Müller-Lyer tells us that in Germany under the Merovingian kings children still took their mother's social status. The Athenians, too, before the days of Cecrops, were under the dominance of women, and children took the name and rank of the mother. In the case of quite a number of peoples we are informed, not merely that children took their mother's name, but also that the husband assumed the wife's name. This was so among the Cantabri, the Locrians, etc.

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.

of the Men's State, the only difference being that the rôles of the sexes are reversed. It is obvious, therefore, that we are here concerned with the products of monosexual dominance. In every case the dominant sex safeguards its own privileged position, and assigns to the members of the subordinate sex the position of those who have neither name nor rights. Even in our own day there is ample evidence obtainable of the extent to which the naming of children is influenced by the relationships of power between the sexes. In the U. S., where women have already gained considerable influence, it is customary to give children the mother's maiden name as a second baptismal name. In other nations where an increasing tendency to equal rights for women is manifest, we find a growing disinclination among women to discard the maiden name on marriage. In some cases they prefix this name to the husband's surname, in others they use it as an adjunct. In either case, the children of the marriage bear the names of both parents.

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.

mary to speak of the motherland, not of the fatherland. According to Bachofen, this denomination is an unmistakable vestige of matriarchy. In countries where the dominance of men is firmly established, as was the case until recently in Germany and France, we generally find the masculine designation in use for the native land. Thus the Germans speak of das Vaterland and the French of la patrie. In England, however, neither the term fatherland nor the term motherland is in common use. People say "my native land," or still more often simply "my country." There can be little doubt that this neutral term, which gives precedence to neither parent, is a vestige from the phase of equal rights for the sexes. Survivals of this phase are much more rarely encountered than survivals of the phase of monosexual dominance, masculine or feminine as the case may be. For this very reason they deserve close attention. In England it seems probable that the phase of equal rights antecedent to the phase of masculine dominance was more strongly developed than in other noted countries, and therefore exercised a more enduring influence. The supposition is confirmed by the fact that in England male domination can hardly be said to have developed to the pitch of absolutism characterised by the entire abrogation of women's rights. Even under masculine dominance, the influence of women has never passed into complete abeyance in England. For instance, during the epoch when the sway of men was most fully developed in England, the right of women to succeed to the throne when there was no direct male heir was never disputed. In the days of Tacitus there were still queens both in Britain and Germany who led their troops to war.[9] The subsequent history of Germany was, however, characteriscd by the enforcement

[9] Cf. Dion Cassius, History of Rome. of the Salic Law whereby women were excluded from succession to the throne. In England, on the other hand, two of the most brilliant reigns have been those of queens—Elizabeth and Victoria.

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

of a boy. The influence of monosexual dominance in this matter is especially obvious in the manner in which both parents exhibit the same preference. Among ourselves to-day, both the father and the mother usually want to have a boy rather than a girl. If, however, natural or biological differences between the sexes were determinative, we should expect to find that the father would prefer to have children of one sex, and the mother to have children of the other.

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

nothing more than a product of that dominance, and nowise the outcome of a natural predisposition.

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-

sexual dominance is no longer at work and when natural predispositions have free scope, that there will be a tendency for fathers to want to have girls and for mothers to want to have boys. As far as direct evidence is concerned, there is little forthcoming, for our knowledge of earlier phases when equal rights prevailed is scanty.

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.

that country was in main essentials a Women's State. We have not hitherto been able to discover a corresponding instance in a Men's State. The question arises whether this failure is merely an oversight, or whether in actual fact such laws are a specialty of the Women's State. In the latter event, we may be on the track of a genuine biological difference between the sexes.

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.

domestic occupations, they would not have been in a position to maintain their parents. Nothing but extra-domestic occupations, with the opportunities for earning that these provide, could have enabled daughters to maintain parents. On the other hand, as regards the sons, whose work was chiefly done in the home, we are expressly informed that it was not incumbent on them to maintain their parents. This implies that when sons were exceptionally well off they might voluntarily accept such an obligation, just as girls sometimes do in a Men's State when their financial position permits.

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

to clergyman, would prophesy that it would suffer from a dearth of children. Scheler[14] opines that the struggle for equal rights is of itself directly unfavourable to fertility. Müller declares that the women of ancient Egypt were more modern and more advanced than the most modern women of the present day. But it is against the most modern women of the present day that the advocates of fecundity fulminate their warnings. These pundits of the Men's State tell us that the first prerequisite of maximum fertility for women is the recognition that "woman's place is the home." Yet when we turn our attention to ancient Egypt, where man's place was the home and woman engaged in outside occupations, we find that this reversed division of labour is associated with high fecundity. The fact is alone sufficient to prove that fecundity is independent of the sexual division of labour, and that the advocates of large families have no reason to fear that their wishes will be frustrated by the "modern" woman.

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.