Author: Lester Frank Ward
Lester
Frank
Ward
delivered
this
his
first
major
essay
on
Gynæcocentrism
Theory
in
1888,
entitled
Our
Better
Halves.
The
speech
was
delivered
at
the
Fourteenth
Dinner
of
the
Six
O’clock
Club
in
Washington
on
April
26,
1888,
at
Willard’s
Hotel,
where
Sex
Equality
was
selected
as
the
evening’s
topic.
Distinguished
women
in
Washington
on
that
day
were
invited
to
the
Club,
among
them
being
Mrs.
Elizabeth
Cady
Stanton,
Miss
Phoebe
Couzins,
Mrs.
Croly
(Jennie
June),
Mrs.
N.
P.
Willis,
and
a
number
of
others
equally
well
known.
–
PW
_________________
But
let
us
now
inquire
what
grounds
there
are
for
accepting
this
mental
and
physical
inferiority
of
women
as
something
inherent
in
the
nature
of
things.
Is
it
really
true
that
the
larger
part
taken
by
the
female
in
the
work
of
reproduction
necessarily
impairs
her
strength,
dwarfs
her
proportions,
and
renders
her
a
physically
inferior
and
dependent
being?
In
most
human
races
it
may
be
admitted
that
women
are
less
stalwart
than
men,
although
all
the
stories
of
Amazonian
tribes
are
not
mere
fictions.
It
is
also
true,
as
has
been
insisted
upon,
that
the
males
of
most
mammals
and
birds
exceed
the
females
in
size
and
strength,
and
often
differ
from
them
greatly
in
appearance.
But
this
is
by
no
means
always
the
case.
The
fable
of
the
hedgehog
that
won
the
race
with
the
hare
by
cunningly
stationing
Mrs.
Hedgehog
at
the
other
end
of
the
course,
instructed
to
claim
the
stakes,
is
founded
upon
an
exception
which
has
many
parallels.
Among
birds
there
are
cases
in
which
the
rule
is
reversed.
There
are
some
entire
families,
as
for
example
the
hawks,
in
which
the
females
exceed
the
males.
If
we
go
further
down
the
scale,
however,
we
find
this
attribute
of
male
superiority
to
disappear
almost
entirely
throughout
the
reptiles
and
amphibians,
with
a
decided
leaning
toward
female
supremacy;
and
in
the
fishes,
where
male
rivalry
does
not
exist,
the
female,
as
every
fisherman
knows,
is
almost
invariably
the
heavier
game.
But
it
is
not
until
we
go
below
the
vertebrate
series
and
contemplate
the
invertebrate
and
vegetable
worlds
that
we
really
begin
to
find
the
data
for
a
philosophical
study
of
the
meaning
of
sex.
It
has
been
frequently
remarked
that
the
laws
governing
the
higher
forms
of
life
can
be
rightly
comprehended
only
by
an
acquaintance
with
the
lower
and
more
formative
types
of
being.
In
no
problem
is
this
more
true
than
in
that
of
sex.
In
studying
this
problem
it
is
found
that
there
is
a
great
world
of
life
that
wholly
antedates
the
appearance
of
sex—the
world
of
asexual
life—nor
is
the
passage
from
the
sexless
to
the
distinctly
male
and
female
definite
and
abrupt.
Between
them
occur
parthenogenesis
or
virgin
reproduction,
hermaphroditism,
in
which
the
male
being
consists
simply
of
an
organ,
and
parasitic
males,
of
which
we
shall
presently
speak,
while
the
other
devices
of
nature
for
perpetuating
life
are
innumerable
and
infinitely
varied.
But
so
far
as
sex
can
be
predicated
of
these
beings,
they
must
all
be
regarded
as
female.
The
asexual
parent
must
be
contemplated
as,
to
all
intents
and
purposes,
maternal.
The
parthenogenetic
aphis
or
shrimp
is
in
all
essential
respects
a
mother.
The
hermaphrodite
creature,
whatever
else
it
may
be,
is
also
necessarily
a
female.
Following
these
states
come
the
numberless
cases
in
which
the
female
form
continues
to
constitute
the
type
of
life,
the
insignificant
male
appearing
to
be
a
mere
afterthought.
The
vegetable
kingdom,
except
in
its
very
lowest
stages,
affords
comparatively
few
pointed
illustrations
of
this
truth.
The
strange
behavior
of
the
hemp
plant,
in
which,
as
has
long
been
known,
the
female
plants
crowd
out
the
male
plants
by
overshadowing
them
as
soon
as
they
have
been
fertilized
by
the
latter,
used
to
be
frequently
commented
upon
as
a
perverse
anomaly
in
nature.
Now
it
is
correctly
interpreted
as
an
expression
of
the
general
law
that
the
primary
purpose
of
the
male
sex
is
to
enable
the
female,
or
type
form,
to
reproduce,
after
performing
which
function
the
male
form
is
useless
and
a
mere
cumberer
of
the
ground.
But
the
hemp
plant
is
by
no
means
alone
in
possessing
this
peculiarity.
I
could
enumerate
several
pretty
well
known
species
that
have
a
somewhat
similar
habit.
I
will
mention
only
one,
the
common
cud-weed,
or
everlasting
(
Antennaria
plantaginifolia
),
which,
unlike
the
hemp,
has
colonies
of
males
separate
from
the
females,
and
these
male
plants
are
small
and
short-lived.
Long
after
their
flowering
stalks
have
disappeared
the
female
plants
continue
to
grow,
and
they
become
large
and
thrifty
herbs
lasting
until
frost.
In
the
animal
kingdom
below
the
vertebrates
female
superiority
is
well-nigh
universal.
In
the
few
cases
where
it
does
not
occur
it
is
generally
found
that
the
males
combat
each
other,
after
the
manner
of
the
higher
animals,
for
the
possession
of
the
females.
The
cases
that
I
shall
name
are
such
as
all
are
familiar
with.
The
only
new
thing
in
their
presentation
is
their
application
to
the
point
at
issue.
The
superiority
of
the
queen
bee
over
the
drone
is
only
a
well-known
illustration
of
a
condition
which,
with
the
usual
variations
and
exceptions,
is
common
to
a
great
natural
order
of
insects.
The
only
mosquito
that
the
unscientific
world
knows
is
the
female
mosquito.
The
male
mosquito
is
a
frail
and
harmless
little
creature
that
swarms
with
the
females
in
the
early
season
and
passes
away
when
his
work
is
done.
There
are
many
insects
of
which
the
males
possess
no
organs
of
nutrition
in
the
imago
state,
their
duties
during
their
ephemeral
existence
being
confined
to
what
the
Germans
call
the
Minnedienst.1
Such
is
the
life
of
many
male
moths
and
butterflies.
But
much
greater
inequalities
are
often
found.
I
should,
perhaps,
apologize
for
citing
the
familiar
case
of
spiders,
in
some
species
of
which
the
miniature
lover
is
often
seized
and
devoured
during
his
courtship
by
the
gigantic
object
of
his
affections.
Something
similar,
I
learn,
sometimes
occurs
with
the
mantis
or
“praying
insect.”
Merely
mentioning
the
extreme
case
of
Sphaerularia,
in
which
the
female
is
several
thousand
times
as
large
as
the
male,
I
may
surely
be
permitted
to
introduce
the
barnacle,
since
it
is
one
of
the
creatures
upon
which
Prof.
Brooks
lays
considerable
stress
in
the
article
to
which
I
have
referred.
Not
being
myself
a
zoologist,
I
am
only
too
happy
to
quote
him.
He
says:
Among
the
barnacles
there
are
a
few
species
the
males
and
females
of
which
differ
remarkably.
The
female
is
an
ordinary
barnacle,
with
all
the
peculiarities
of
the
group
fully
developed,
while
the
male
is
a
small
parasite
upon
the
body
of
the
female,
and
is
so
different
from
the
female
of
its
own
species,
and
from
all
ordinary
barnacles,
that
no
one
would
ever
recognize
in
the
adult
male
any
affinity
whatever
to
its
closest
allies.
The
barnacle,
or
cirripede,
is
the
creature
which
Mr.
Darwin
so
long
studied,
and
from
which
he
learned
so
many
lessons
leading
up
to
his
grand
generalizations.
In
a
letter
to
Sir
Charles
Lyell,
dated
September
14,
1849,
he
recounts
some
of
his
discoveries
while
engaged
in
this
study.
Having
learned
that
most
cirripedes,
but
not
all,
were
hermaphrodite,
he
remarks:
The
other
day
I
got
a
curious
case
of
a
unisexual
instead
of
hermaphrodite
cirripede,
in
which
the
female
had
the
common
cirripedial
character,
and
in
two
valves
of
her
shell
had
two
little
pockets
in
each
of
which
she
kept
a
little
husband.
I
do
not
know
of
any
other
case
where
a
female
invariably
has
two
husbands.
I
have
one
still
odder
fact,
common
to
several
species,
namely,
that
though
they
are
hermaphrodite,
they
have
small
additional,
or,
as
I
call
them,
complemental
males.
One
specimen,
itself
hermaphrodite,
had
no
less
than
seven
of
these
complemental
males
attached
to
it.
Prof.
Brooks
brings
forward
facts
of
this
class
to
demonstrate
that
the
male
is
the
variable
sex,
while
the
female
is
comparatively
stable.
However
much
we
may
doubt
his
further
conclusion
that
variability
rather
than
supplementary
procreative
power
was
the
primary
purpose
of
the
separate
male
principle,
we
must,
it
would
seem,
concede
that
variability
and
adaptability
are
the
distinguishing
characteristics
of
the
male
sex
everywhere,
as
the
transmitting
power
and
permanence
of
type
are
those
of
the
female.
But
this
is
a
very
different
thing
from
saying
that
the
female
sex
is
incapable
of
progress,
or
that
man
is
destined
to
develop
indefinitely,
leaving
woman
constantly
farther
and
farther
in
the
rear.
Does
the
class
of
philosophers
to
which
reference
has
been
made
look
forward
to
a
time
when
woman
shall
become
as
insignificant
an
object
compared
to
man
as
the
male
spider
is
compared
to
the
female?
This
would
be
the
logical
outcome
of
their
argument
if
based
upon
the
relative
variability
of
the
male
sex.
We
have
now
seen
that,
whether
we
contemplate
the
higher
animals,
among
which
male
superiority
prevails,
or
the
lower
forms,
among
which
female
superiority
prevails,
the
argument
from
biology
that
the
existing
relations
between
the
sexes
in
the
human
race
are
precisely
what
nature
intended
them
to
be,
that
they
ought
not
to
be
disturbed
and
cannot
be
improved,
leads,
when
carried
to
its
logical
conclusion,
to
a
palpable
absurdity.
But
have
we,
then,
profited
nothing
by
the
thoughtful
contemplation
of
the
subject
from
these
two
points
of
view?
Those
who
rightly
interpret
the
facts
cannot
avoid
learning
a
most
important
lesson
from
each
of
these
lines
of
inquiry.
From
the
first
the
truth
comes
clearly
forth
that
the
relations
of
the
sexes
among
the
higher
animals
are
widely
abnormal,
warped,
and
strained
by
a
long
line
of
curious
influences,
chiefly
psychic,
which
are
incident
to
the
development
of
animal
organisms
under
the
competitive
principle
that
prevails
throughout
nature.
From
the
second
comes
now
into
full
view
the
still
more
important
truth
with
which
we
first
set
out,
that
the
female
sex
is
primary
in
point
both
of
origin
and
of
importance
in
the
history
and
economy
of
organic
life.
And
as
life
is
the
highest
product
of
nature
and
human
life
the
highest
type
of
life,
it
follows
that
the
grandest
fact
in
nature
is
woman.
But
we
have
learned
even
more
than
this,
that
which
is
certainly
of
more
practical
value.
We
have
learned
how
to
carry
forward
the
progress
of
development
so
far
advanced
by
the
unconscious
agencies
of
nature.
Accepting
evolution
as
we
must,
recognizing
heredity
as
the
distinctive
attribute
of
the
female
sex,
it
becomes
clear
that
it
must
be
from
the
steady
advance
of
woman
rather
than
from
the
uncertain
fluctuations
of
man
that
the
sure
and
solid
progress
of
the
future
is
to
come.
The
attempt
to
move
the
whole
race
forward
by
elevating
only
the
sex
that
represents
the
principle
of
instability,
has
long
enough
been
tried.
The
many
cases
of
superior
men
the
sons
of
superior
mothers,
coupled
with
the
many
more
cases
of
degenerate
sons
of
superior
sires,
have
taught
us
over
and
over
again
that
the
way
to
civilize
the
race
is
to
civilize
woman.
And
now,
thanks
to
science,
we
see
why
this
is
so.
Woman
is
the
unchanging
trunk
of
the
great
genealogic
tree;
while
man,
with
all
his
vaunted
superiority,
is
but
a
branch,
a
grafted
scion,
as
it
were,
whose
acquired
qualities
die
with
the
individual,
while
those
of
woman
are
handed
on
to
futurity.
Woman
is
the
race,
and
the
race
can
be
raised
up
only
as
she
is
raised
up.
There
is
no
fixed
rule
by
which
Nature
has
intended
that
one
sex
should
excel
the
other,
any
more
than
there
is
any
fixed
point
beyond
which
either
cannot
further
develop.
Nature
has
no
intentions,
and
evolution
has
no
limits.
True
science
teaches
that
the
elevation
of
woman
is
the
only
sure
road
to
the
evolution
of
man.
Reference
[1]
Service
of
love.
The
featured
image
is
under
Creative
Commons
Attribution-Share
Alike
3.0
and
is
courtesy
of
Wikimedia
Commons.
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)