The Truth About Woman Part 2

It is worth while to wait to learn something of this first stage in the development of life, for in this way we shall gain a clue as to the origin of s.e.x and the real purpose it fulfils in the service of reproduction. In the very simplest forms of unicellular organisms propagation is effected at what is known as "the limit of growth"; when the cell has attained as much volume as its surface can adequately supply with food, a simple division of the cell takes place into two halves or daughter cells, each exactly like the other, which then become independent and themselves repeat the same rupture process. But in some slightly more complex cases differences occur between the two cells into which the organism divides, as in the _slipper animacule_, where one-half goes off with the mouth, while the other has none. In a short time, however, the mouthless half forms a mouth, and each half grows into a replica of the original. We have here one of the earliest examples of differentiation. That injured multicellular organisms should be able by regrowth to repair their loss in an a.n.a.logous phenomenon; thus an earth-worm cut by a spade does not necessarily suffer loss, but the head part grows a tail and the decapitated portion produces a head; sponges, which do not normally propagate by division, may be cut in pieces and bedded out successfully; the arms of a star-fish, torn asunder by a fisherman, will almost always result in several perfect star-fish. Similarly among plants a cut-off portion may readily give rise to new plants--a potato-tuber is one of hundreds of instances. This ability to effect complete repair is one of the powers that life has lost; it persists as high in the scale as reptiles, and a lizard is able to regrow an amputated leg.

It is certainly not the least interest in studying these early forms that one is able to trace the a.n.a.logy they bear with the higher forms.

No rigid line can be drawn between the successive stages of growth.

And it should be borne in mind that, simple as is the life-process in these single-celled organisms, many of them are highly differentiated and show great complexity of structure within the narrow limits of their size. Thus among the _protozoa_, the basis of all animal life, we find very definite and interesting modes of behaviour, such as seeking light and avoiding it, swimming in a spiral, approaching certain substances and retreating from others; the organisms often, indeed, trying one behaviour after another.[10] If we realise this it becomes easier to understand how the higher types of life have developed from these primitive types. Indeed, all the bodies of the most complex animals--including ourselves--originate as simple cells, and in the individual history of each of us divide and multiply just as do the cells which exist independently; only in multicellular organisms each cell must be regarded as an individual, modified to serve a special purpose, one cell differentiated to start a lineage of nerve cells, another a lineage of digestive cells, yet another for the reproduction of the species, and so on, each group of cells taking on its special use, but the power of division remaining with the modified cell. Thus a new life is built up--a child becomes an adult, by multiplication of these differentiated cells, repeating the original single-cell development.

Budding, the second, and perhaps the most usual mode of as.e.xual propagation, may be said to mark a further step in the development of the reproductive process. Here the mother-cell, instead of dividing into two equal parts and at once rupturing, protrudes a small portion of its substance, which is separated by a constriction that grows deeper and deeper until the bulk becomes wholly detached. This small bud then grows until it attains the size of the parent, when it, in turn, repeats the same process. This mode of reproduction is common to the great majority of plants. In animal life it is not confined to single-celled organism, but takes place in certain multicellulars, such as worms, bryozoans, and ascidians; one very interesting example being the sea-worm (_myrianida_) which buds off a whole chain of individuals.

Nearly allied with budding is the third stage, in which the division is multiple and rapid within the limited s.p.a.ce of the mother-cell.

This is known as spore formation. The cells become detached, and do not further develop until they have escaped from the parent. They then increase by division and growth to form independent individuals. This spore reproduction is found among certain types of vegetation; it also occurs in the _protozoa_.

It is probable that these three stages of as.e.xual reproduction are not all the steps actually taken by Nature in the development of the early life-process. There must have been intermediate steps, perhaps many such, but the forms in which they occur either have not persisted, or have not yet been studied.[11] The feature common to all ordinary forms of as.e.xual multiplication is that the reproductive process is independent of s.e.x; what starts the new life is the half, or a liberated portion of the single parent cell. It will be readily seen that by this process the offspring are identical with the parent. Life continues, but it continues unchanged. Thus the power of growth is restricted within extremely narrow limits. Any further development required a new process. With the life-force pus.h.i.+ng in all directions every possible process would be tried. We are often met with striking phenomena of adjustments to new conditions, which in some cases, when found to be advantageous to the organism, persist. There is, in fact, abundant evidence that Nature in these early days of life was making experiments. In pursuance of this policy it naturally came about that any process by which the organism gained increased power of growth had the greater likelihood of survival. The number of devices in the way of modification of form and habit to secure advantage is practically infinite; but there was one principle that was eagerly seized upon at a very early stage, and, persisting by this law of advantage, was utilised by all progressive types as an accessory of success. This was the principle of fertilisation, which arose in this way from what would almost seem the chance union of two cells, at first alike, but afterwards more and more highly differentiated, and from whose primordial mating have proceeded by a natural series of ascending steps all the developed forms of s.e.x.

The ways in which this was brought about we have now to see. But even at this point it becomes evident that the true office of s.e.x was not the first need of securing reproduction--that had been done already--rather it was the improving and perfecting of the single-cell process by introducing variation through the commingling of the ancestral hereditary elements of two parents, and, by means of such variations, the production of new and higher forms of life--in fact, progress by the mighty dynamic of s.e.x.[12]

As we should expect, the pa.s.sing from the s.e.xless mode of reproduction to the definite male and female types is not sharply defined or abrupt. Even among many unicellular organisms the process becomes more elaborate with distinct specialisation of reproductive elements. In some cases conjugation is observed, when two individuals coalesce, and each cell and each nucleus divides into two, and each half unites with the half of the other to form a new cell. This is as.e.xual, since the uniting cells are exactly similar, but the effect would seem to be the strengthening of the cells by, as it were, introducing new blood. In somewhat more complex cases these cells do not part company when they divide, but remain attached to one another, and form a kind of commonwealth. Here one can see at once that some cells in a little group will be less advantageously placed for the absorption of nourishment than others. By degrees this differentiation of function brings about differentiation of form, and cells become modified, in some cases, to a surprising extent, to serve special purposes. The next advance is when the uniting cells become somewhat different in themselves. In the early stages this difference appears as one of size; a small weakly cell, though sometimes propagating by union with a similar cell, in other cases seeks out a larger and more developed cell, and by uniting with it in mutual nourishment becomes strong.

This may be seen among the _protozoa_ where we can trace the distinct beginnings of the male and female elements. A very instructive example is furnished by the case of _volvox_, a multicellular vegative organism of very curious habits. The cells at first are all alike; they are united by protoplasmic bridges and form a colony. In favourable environmental conditions of abundant nutrition this state of affairs continues, and the colony increases only by multiplication and without fertilisation. But when the supply of food is exhausted, or by any cause is checked, s.e.xual reproduction is resorted to, and this in a way that ill.u.s.trates most instructively the differentiation of the female and male cells. Some of the cells are seen acc.u.mulating nourishment at the expense of the others and grow larger, and if this continues, cells which must be regarded as ova, or female cells, result; while other cells, less advantageously placed with more compet.i.tors struggling to obtain food, grow smaller and gradually change their character, becoming, in fact, males. In some cases distinct colonies may in this way arise, some composed entirely of the large well-nourished cells, and others of small hungry cells, and may be recognised as completely female or male colonies.[13]

We are now in a position to gain a clue to the difficult problem of the origin of the s.e.xes. It would be easy as well as instructive to acc.u.mulate examples.[14] I am tempted to linger over the life-histories of these early organisms that are so full of suggestion; but the case I have selected--the _volvox_--really answers the question. s.e.x here is dependent on, and would seem to have arisen through, differences in environmental conditions. We find the well-nourished, larger, and usually more quiescent cell is the female, the hungrier and more mobile cell the male; the one concerned with storing energy, the other with consuming it, the one building up, the other breaking down; or expressed in biological formula, the female cell is predominantly anabolic, that of the male predominantly katabolic. Thus we find that the male, through a want of nutrition, was carried developmentally away from the well-fed female cell, which it was bound to seek and unite with to continue life. This relation between the food supply and the s.e.xes is found persisting in higher forms, and, in this connection, the well-known experiments of Young on tadpoles and of Siebald on wasps may be cited. By increasing the nutrition of tadpoles the percentage of females was raised from the normal of about fifty per cent. to ninety, while similarly among wasps the number of females was found to depend on warmth and food supply, and to decrease as these diminished. Mention also may be made of the plant-lice, or aphides, which infest our rose-bushes and other plants, which, during the summer months, when conditions are favourable, produce generation after generation of females, but on the advent of autumn, with its cold and scarcity of food, males appear and s.e.xual reproduction takes place. Similarly brine-shrimps when living under favourable conditions produce females, but when the environment is less favourable males as well are found. Another significant fact is the simple and well-known one that within the first eight days of larval life the additions of food will determine the striking and functional differences between the workers and queen-bee.[15] Among the higher animals the difficulties of proving the influence of environment upon s.e.x are, of course, much greater. There are, however, many facts which point to a persistence of this fundamental differentiation. Among these it is sufficient to mention the experiments of stock-breeders, which show that good conditions tend to produce females; and the testimony of furriers that rich regions yield more furs from females, and poor regions more from males. Even when we reach the human species facts are not wanting to suggest a similar condition. It is usual in times of war and famine for more boys to be born; also more boys are born in the country than in cities, possibly because the city diet is richer, especially in meat. Similarly among poor families the percentage of boys is higher than in well-to-do families. And although such evidence is not conclusive and must be accepted with great caution, it seems safe to say that the facts--of which I have given a few only of the most common--are sufficient to suggest that the relation among the lower forms of life persists up to the human species, and that the female is the result of surplus nutrition and the male of scarcity.

This is sufficient for our present purpose; all other questions and theories brought forward regarding the determination and conditions of the s.e.xes are outside our purpose. Those who will survey the evidence in detail will find ample confirmation of the point of view I wish to make clear. (1) All species are invented and tolerated by Nature for parenthood and its service; (2) the demands laid upon the female by the part required from her are heavier than those needed for the part fulfilled by the male. The female it is who is mainly responsible to the race. And for this reason the progress of the world of life has always rested upon and been determined by the female half of life.

What I wish to establish now is that the male developed after and, as it were, from the female. The female led, and the male followed her in the evolution of life.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Haeckel, _Generelle Morphologie der Organismen_, Vol. II. p. 16.

[9] Thomson, J. Arthur, _Heredity_, p. 29.

[10] Thomson, J. Arthur, _Heredity_, p. 33.

[11] Ward, _Pure Sociology_, p. 307.

[12] See Ward, _op. cit._, pp. 304-314, from whose chapter on this subject I have taken these facts.

[13] _Evolution of s.e.x_, pp. 137-138, 161.

[14] Geddes and Thomson, in _The Evolution of s.e.x_, pp. 117-123, 135-140, give many interesting and corroborative examples.

[15] Geddes and Thomson, _The Evolution of s.e.x_, pp. 40-52, 249-250; give a complete exposition of this theory with many examples. See also Thomas, _s.e.x and Society_, pp. 4-43.

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER III

GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION

I.--_The Early Position of the s.e.xes_

A further examination into the opinion of the superiority of the male--Contradictions to the accepted view of female inferiority--A new way of stating the problem--The female as the creator of the male--Examples of the simplest types of the s.e.xes--Predominance of the female in the animal kingdom below the invertebrates--Superiority of the female in size and often in power of function--Complemental male husbands--Ill.u.s.trations of male parasites--Corroborative evidence from the s.e.x-elements--The primary service of the male to a.s.sist the female in the race-work--s.e.x-parasitism among females--This explained by the conditions under which the species live--The lessons to be drawn from s.e.x-parasitism--Structural modifications acquired for adapting the s.e.xes to different modes of life--Care of offspring not always confined to the female--Among fishes it is the father who gives any attention to the young--The superiority of the female persists among higher forms--Examples--s.e.x-equality among birds--Conclusion--The s.e.xual relations.h.i.+p may a.s.sume almost any form to suit the varying conditions of life.

II.--_Two Examples--The Beehive and the Spider_

The case of the beehive--The drones--The queen-mother--The sterile-workers--The sacrifice of the s.e.xes to the Life-Force--The maternal instinct among the workers--This has persisted after the atrophy of the s.e.xual needs--Maternal love has expanded out into social affection--Application of the lessons of the beehive--a.n.a.logy with modern society--The Intellectuals among women--Do they understand what they really want--The organic necessity of love--The price of sterility--The courts.h.i.+p of the Spider--Mr. Bernard Shaw's Ann--The part played by woman in courts.h.i.+p--Her pa.s.sivity only apparent--Female superiority with which s.e.xuality began remains in every courts.h.i.+p--The fierce hunger of the male--His absorption by the female--Nothing can, or should, alter this--The importance of woman's activity in love in connection with her claim for emanc.i.p.ation--General observations and conclusion.

CHAPTER III

GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION

"s.e.xually Woman is Nature's contrivance for perpetuating its highest achievement. s.e.xually Man is Woman's contrivance for fulfilling Nature's behest in the most economical way. She knows by instinct that far back in the evolution process she invented him, differentiated him, created him in order to produce something better than the single-cell process can produce."--Don Juan in h.e.l.l--_Man and Superman._

I.--_The Early Position of the s.e.xes_

The opinion of the superiority of the male s.e.x has been so widely, and without question, accepted that it is necessary to emphasise the exact opposite view which was brought forward in the last chapter. From the earliest times it has been contended that woman is undeveloped man.[16] This opinion is at the root of the common estimation of woman's character to-day. Huxley, who was in favour of the emanc.i.p.ation of women, seems to have held this opinion. He says that "in every excellent character the average woman is inferior to the average man in the sense of having that character less in quant.i.ty or lower in quality;" and that "the female type of character is neither better nor worse than the male, only weaker." Few have maintained that the s.e.xes are equal, still fewer that women excel.[17] The general bias of opinion has always been in favour of men. Woman almost invariably has been accorded a secondary place, the male has been held to be the primary and essential half of life, all things, as it were, centering around him, while the female, though necessary to the continuance of the race, has been regarded as otherwise unimportant--in fact, a mere accessory to the male.

The causes that have given rise to such an opinion are not far to seek. The question has been approached from the wrong end; we have looked from above downwards--from the latest stages of life back to the beginning, instead of from the beginning on to the end. We find among the higher forms of life--the animals with which we are all familiar--that the males are as a rule larger and stronger, more varied in structure, and more highly ornamented and adorned than the females. And when we rise to the human species these s.e.x differences persist and are even emphasised, though finding their expression in a greater number of less strongly marked characters, not on the physical side alone, but on the mental and psychical. It is difficult to divest the mind of facts with which it is most familiar. Thus it is easy to understand the widely-held opinion of the superiority of the male half of life, and that the female is the s.e.x sacrificed to the reproductive process.

Now, were this true, the question of woman's place in life would indeed be settled. There can be no upward change which is not in accord with the laws of Nature. If the female really started and had always remained secondary to the male, necessary to continue life, but otherwise unimportant, in such position she must be content to stay.

Her struggles for advancement may be heroic, yet would they be doomed to failure, for no individual growth can persist which injures the growth of the race-life. Well it is for women that there need be no such fear, even among the most timid-hearted; woman's position and advancement is sure because it is founded with deepest roots in the organic scheme of life.

As once more we search backwards, tracing the differences of s.e.x function to their earliest appearance in the humblest types of life, we find the exact opposite of this theory of the inferiority of the female to be true. The female is of more importance than the male from Nature's point of view. We have seen that life must be regarded as essentially female, since there is no choice but to look upon as.e.xual reproduction as a female process; the single-cell being the mother-cell with the fertilising element of the father or male-cell wanting. We know further that a similar process, but much more highly developed, is possible in what is called parthenogenesis, or virgin-birth, which can only be explained as a survival of the early form. For long life continued without the a.s.sistance of the male-cell, which, when it did arise, was dependent on the ova, or female-cell, and was driven by hunger to unite with it in fatigue to continue life.

We are thus forced to regard the male-cell as an auxiliary development of the female, or as Lester Ward ingenuously puts it, "an after-thought of Nature devised for the advantage of having a second s.e.x."

Now, if we examine the simplest types of the s.e.xes in the lower reaches of the animal kingdom,[18] below the vertebrates we find the same conditions prevailing. The male is frequently inconspicuous in size, of use only to fertilise the female, and in some cases incapable of any other function; the female, on the other hand, remains unchanged and carries on the life of the species. So marked is this difference among some species that the male must be regarded as a fallen representative of the female, having not only greatly diminished in size, but undergone thorough degeneration in structure.[19] In certain extreme cases what have been well called "pigmy males" ill.u.s.trate this contrast in an almost ridiculous degree.

This is well seen among the common rotifers, where the males are much smaller than the females and very degenerate. Sometimes they seem to have dwindled out of existence altogether, as only females are to be seen; in other cases, though present they fail even to accomplish their proper function of fertilisation, and as reproduction is carried on by the females, they are not only minute but useless. Nor are such cases of male degeneration confined to this group. The whole family of the _Abdominalia_ (cirripedes) have the s.e.xes separate; and the males, comparatively very small, are attached to the body of each female, and are entirely pa.s.sive and dependent upon her.[20] Some of these male parasites are so far degenerated as to have lost their digestive organs and are incapable of any function except fertilisation: the male _Sygami_ (menatodes), for instance, being so far effaced that it is nothing but a t.e.s.t.i.c.l.e living on the female.[21] A yet more striking instance is furnished by the curious green worm _Bonellia_, where the male appears like a remote ancestor of the female, on whom it lives parasitically. Somewhat similar is the cocus insect, among whom the males are very degenerate, small, blind and wingless.

This phenomenon of minute parasitic male fertilisers in connection with normally developed females was noticed by Darwin, and his observations have been confirmed by Van Beneden, by Huxley, Haeckel, Milne Edwards, Fabre, Patrick Geddes, and many other eminent entomologists.[22] A full study of these early forms of s.e.xuality should be made by all who wish to understand the problem of woman; their life-histories furnish prophecies of many large facts. I wish it were possible for me to bring forward further examples. It is the difficulty of treating so wide a subject within narrow limits that so many things that are of interest have to be hurried over and left out.

But there is one delightful case that I cannot refrain from mentioning. The facts are given in a letter from Darwin to Sir Charles Lyell, dated September 14, 1849. It is quoted by Professor Lester Ward. This instance of the s.e.xual relations.h.i.+p among the cirripedes ill.u.s.trates very vividly the early superiority of the female.

The letter runs thus--

"The other day I got a curious case of a unis.e.xual, instead of hermaphrodite cirripede, in which the female had the common cirripedial character, and in two valves of her sh.e.l.l had two little pockets, in each of which she kept a little husband; I do not know of any other case in which the female invariably has two husbands. I have still one other fact, common to several species, namely, that though they are hermaphrodite, they have small additional, or shall I call them, complemental males, one specimen, itself hermaphrodite, had no less than seven of these complemental males attached to it. Truly the schemes and wonders of Nature are illimitable,"[23]

Here, indeed, is a knock-down blow to the theory of the natural superiority of the male. These cases we have examined are certainly extreme, the difference between the s.e.xes is, as we shall see, less marked in many early types. But the existence of these helpless little husbands serves to show the true origin of the male. How often he lived parasitically on the female, his work to aid her in the reproductive process, useful to secure greater variation than could be had by the single-celled process. In other words, the male is of use to the life-scheme in a.s.sisting the female to produce progressively fitter forms. She, indeed, created him, his sole function being her impregnation.

Corroborative evidence appears in the contrast which persists in all the higher forms between the relatively large female-cell or germ and the microscopical male-cell or sperm, as also in the absorption of the male cellule by the female cellule. In the s.e.xual cells there is no character in which differentiation goes so far as that of size.[24]

The female cell is always much larger than the male; where the former is swollen with the reserve food, the spermatozoa may be less than a millionth of its volume. In the human species an ovum is about 3000 times as large as spermatozoa.[25] The male cellule, differentiated to enable it to reach the female, impregnates and becomes fused within her cellule, which, unlike hers, preserves its individuality and continues as the main source of life.

It is true that exceptions occur, s.e.x-parasitism appearing in both s.e.x forms, and in some cases it is the female who degenerates and becomes wholly pa.s.sive and dependent, but this is usually under conditions which afford in themselves an explanation. Thus, in the troublesome thread-worm (_Heterodera schachtii_), which infests the turnip plant, the s.e.xes are at first alike, then both become parasitic, but the adult male recovers himself, is agile and like other thread-worms, while the female remains a parasitic victim without power of function--a mere pa.s.sive, distended bag of eggs. Another extreme but well-known example is that of the cochineal insect, where the female, laden with reserve products in the form of the well-known pigment, spends much of its life like a mere quiescent gall on the cactus plant; the male, on the other hand, is active, though short-lived.

Among other insects--such, for example, as certain ticks--a very complete form of female parasitism prevails; and while the male remains a complex, highly active, winged creature, the female, fastening itself into the flesh of some living animal and sucking its blood, has lost wings and all activity and power of locomotion, having become a mere distended bladder, which, when filled with eggs, bursts and ends a parasitic existence that has hardly been life.[26] In many crustaceans, again, the females are parasitic, but this also is explained by their habit of seeking shelter for egg-laying purposes.[27]

The whole question of s.e.x-parasitism as it appears in these first pages of the life-histories of s.e.xes is one of deep suggestion; and one, moreover, that casts forward sharp side-lights on modern s.e.x problems. In some early forms, where the conditions of life are similar for the two s.e.xes, the male and the female are often like one another. Thus it is very difficult to distinguish a male starfish from a female starfish, or a male sea-urchin from a female sea-urchin. It becomes abundantly clear that degeneration in active function, whether it be that of the male or the female, is the inevitable nemesis of parasitism. The males and females in the cases we have examined may be said to be martyrs to their respective s.e.xes.