From an essay in the New Review.

THE ANCIENT Greeks as a rule gave their female statues relatively small foreheads, while, on the contrary, their representations of male figures, such as, for example, the Zeus of Phidias, exhibit the powerful forehead of intellectual ascendency. The strange fashion of wearing a “fringe” of hair over the brows is undoubtedly an endeavor to make the forehead appear as low as possible. This experience in daily life, which, like all rules, is of course limited by numerous exceptions, receives full confirmation from the observations made by Professor Huschke in brain and skull measurements, according to which the frontal bone of the female is less in area than that of the male by 2,000 millimetres, while, on the other hand, the female crown bones possess a proportionate advantage over the male. In the course of his measurements of the brains of Germans, who of all nations possess the largest crowns, Huschke found that in the male this part measured on an average 262 cubic centimetres, in the female only 208. He also ascertained that the “middle brain,” containing the “central gray” matter, which has no connection with the intelligence, and which in animals shows a considerable proportionate development compared to the rest of the brain, exhibits also in women a noticeable preponderance. In other words, the woman possesses more crown and middle brain, the man more forehead and thinking brain. Now, according to many scientific experiments, the details of which would lead us too far from our subject, it may be assumed that the front sections of the brain are the seat of the intelligence and higher intellectual activities, that is, the powers of imagination, proportion, and determination, while the locus operandi of the emotions and feelings lies in the crown or hinder part. Huschke sums up the result of his investigations as follows: The character of the masculine disposition is shown in the frontal bone, that of the feminine in the crown bones, and the woman whose physical character is a continuation of the childlike has remained a child in respect to her brain also, though more exceptions to the rule occur than in the case of the ordinary child, and though the difference between the crown and frontal bones is not marked in the same degree. This scientific result is therefore in accord with the view held for so many thousand years, that the woman is designed more for the life of the heart and of the emotions than for that of the mind and the higher intellectual activities….

  The opponents of the movement in favor of women always point out, as did even the otherwise unprejudiced Darwin, that the intellectual achievements of individual women do not amount to a very imposing total and that a comparison between the sexes on this point must result very unfavorably to the women. This is certainly the case, and in face of their social disadvantages it would be wonderful if it were otherwise. But we cannot here deduce the conclusion that nature has for all time ordained the intellectual inferiority of woman, but rather must we agree that nature has not here spoken at all, especially when we call to mind the important circumstance that the lower in the scale of civilization we look, the less do we find the difference in size between the brains of the sexes. This circumstance proves that in civilization and not in nature must lie the causes for this difference in development. The fact is that in the process of the division of labor which has ever accompanied the march of civilization, the intellectual or brain work has fallen more and more to the lot of the man, while the sphere of woman has been confined more and more to the domestic duties. It may in all probability be assumed that the difference which has been found to lie, in this respect, between the higher and lower human races will be found to be still further accentuated between the upper and lower classes in civilized society, though no examination of this point has as yet been made; because the man whose labor is entirely physical generally works under the same conditions as the woman.

  It must indeed be conceded that nature, while not directly causing the defect in woman’s brain, is not entirely free from responsibility in the matter, since from the very beginning she has confided to the female sex the duties of maternity and the care of the young, while giving to man that sphere of active labor from which woman has almost always been of necessity excluded. Nor has this fact tended to improve the brain of woman, as the exercise of the domestic duties calls for a less active exercise of the mind than the more exacting labors of man, who has to strain every nerve to find sustenance for himself and for all his weaker dependants in the struggle for existence—a process which by natural selection is bound to tell in favor of the race. On the other hand, again, among the higher classes in the United States, particularly in the New England States, the remarkable fact has been experienced that the women frequently excel their husbands in general culture and the higher intellectual powers, since side by side with their domestic occupations they retain sufficient leisure to pursue their intellectual education, whereas the men in the absorbing rush of American business life deteriorate in intellect and are able to continue their education only in a superficial manner. Hence it appears that the causes which suffice as a rule to exercise an impeding influence on the progress of the intellect of women will be found to have a similar effect when acting on men, and that not in the sex of the former, as sex, must the cause of her intellectual inferiority be sought. Indeed, all that has been said about the defective brain formation of women is not meant as a hard and fast rule for all women, but as a statement of a general fact; nor is there a lack of individual women who possess an intelligence far transcending the average of their more favorably circumstanced rivals.

  History and daily experience combine to confirm this and to show that there does not exist a sphere of intellectual activity in which individual women might not achieve the highest excellence. And similarly there have been, and still exist, men who might have been, and would be, better employed in sitting over the distaff or knitting needle than in attending the stern councils of men or in attempting the administration of affairs which require energy and discernment. Notwithstanding all this, the meanest of men, be he laborer or be he domestic, whose whole life has been spent in mere physical labor, stands, by virtue merely of his sex, as to his legal, political, and even social relations, far higher than the most intelligent and accomplished of women, and by exercising his right to vote takes his share in the government of his country while the whole female portion of the population has to remain dumb. To the great majority of women, who are accustomed to seek their whole life’s happiness within the family circle, this state of affairs is in no way irksome, nor do they desire any change in their condition. Quite otherwise is it with those women—and their number is considerable—who by force of intellect or character tower above the general level of their sex, and who feel the need of being, to others as to themselves, something more than a tolerably useful piece of family furniture.

  Now, the fact that such women as these, even should they be but exceptions, should be hindered from the free development and use of their powers solely by reason of their sex, and in compliance with political and social tradition, appears to the writer of this article a matter of great injustice; and he is therefore in favor of the introduction of absolutely free competition between the sexes, and of the removal of all the bars which at present restrain woman in her industrial life or in her legal, political, and social relations. He also holds that the dangers, arising from such an emancipation, which are apprehended to the dignity and modesty of the sex, are for the most part chimerical, and the dangers from the competition not even worth mentioning. For if, as so many men maintain, woman, by reason of her weaker nature, cannot stand the strain of competition with man, then surely the latter has little to fear from such competition; but if, as we have seen history has shown frequently, woman can stand the strain of the competition, and if so many highly cultivated nations think women capable of ruling a State and therefore admit them to the succession, why should they not also be allowed to aspire to less elevated positions of responsibility?

  In every way it would be a benefit to society were the many powers of woman which now lie fallow permitted to be cultivated and to bring forth their proper fruits. How many women, both in and out of the married state, now wear out their hearts in bitterness for want of some useful occupation, and how many of the complaints of hysteria and weak nerves owe their origin, at least in part, to this cause!

  Women so placed either fall into a state of fatal idleness which is considered a necessity to the social position, or seek compensation in gossip, in love of dress, and in toying with all sorts of unworthy objects; and if four-fifths or even nine-tenths of women find a sufficient object in life in the management of their own households, yet there still remains a large fraction of the sex for whom this is not the case.

  There are, as is well known, in nearly all European States, more women than men, an excess which on the whole is estimated at one million. To this we must add the increasing difficulty of material existence, the continual augmentation of the unmarried state, and the strain on the fathers of families owing to their having to bear the entire burden of the support of their children, so that, as far as we can see, the number of unmarried women will be ever on the increase. What, then, is to become of these? Or of those deprived of the husbands who now maintain them? Or, finally, of those women who are animated by the higher intellectual activities and who prefer personal independence, even if accompanied by work, to the chances of an uncertain marriage? Certainly no one can deny that the unmarried state is ten times preferable to a bad or uncertain marriage; yet at present, owing to the iron hand of prejudice, there are few things so much dreaded by girls as the prospect of remaining unmarried.

  In America it is otherwise, and in Boston particularly there are said to be not a few women who systematically shun marriage in order to enhance the value of their powers in all kinds of useful employments. Nor is the struggle which American women wage with singular energy and persistence for their emancipation, but particularly for the acquisition of a right to the political vote, in any way so ridiculous as European papers love to picture it; for with what feelings must a highly educated American woman view a dirty, idiotic negro shoeblack or street sweeper going to the ballot box, while she herself remains excluded from it! All this with us, too, would be quite different if woman were given the opportunity to develop her powers and capacities in all directions just as freely as the man; if the path to independence were not closed to her, either by custom, usage, or statute; if she stood face to face with man as his equal by right and by birth. Then, too, that boundless fear of the unmarried state, which at present still dominates the natures of our women, and which has already done so much mischief, would disappear. The number, too, of unhappy marriages would diminish, and with it amelioration in the conjugal life and the general welfare altogether be brought about. Liberty, spontaneity, and complete reciprocity form the vital air in which happy marriages and those promoting the general good alone can thrive.

  We close this article with the impressive words of Radenhausen, the spirited writer of “Isis”:—