We’ve come a long way baby

As I was drifting off to sleep last night, still warm from the bath and smelling of Body Shop dewberry, I turned to my night stand and looked at my collection of books. I always have a high stack of half read novels, magazines and bits from the papers. I wanted something light. Not too heavy. Hmmm, this will do nicely. I picked up "What Every Woman Ought to Know". The author, Constance Mortimer, sent it to me a while back to check out.

After checking out the table of contents, I opened it up to about the middle of the book and landed in a minefield. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Well, actually, I could.

You read it, and let me know what you think.

I'm warning you now, put on your fighting gloves.

. . . . .

"Women Not Equal to Men — Scientist Says That Civilisation Makes the Gap Wider" by Dr. Charles Heydemann, PhD. Daily Mirror, 4 October 1909.

Women is not man's equal, never has been and never will. She is the complement of man, but the lesser one, as expressed in the term "minus". No one denies her great qualities, but if she is entitled to the sympathy of humanity, as such, she is not and never will be capable of understanding the duties of a citizen. (WTF?)

There is a certain section of women of the present day who claim equality with man, and more especially political equality. Now, woman can never be man's equal, either intellectually, morally or physically. (thanks for clearing that up you twat).

Of course, women are more precocious in their development than men, but the so are chimpanzees and all inferior races. Women have also a longer body or trunk compared to the lower members than men, in which they likewise are similar to monkey's and children's. (lower members?)

But in the intellectual sphere she may not only must remain inferior, but her inferiority or rather man's superiority must increase, if the race is to progress. That is the law of evolution, which has been proved in countless instances by the greatest scientists of the world. (looser)

It is said that brain capacity is not everything; that, intellectually, depends upon many other things, such as the senses and certain physiological functions. I am prepared to show that not only is woman man's inferior, but her senses are inferior in that she cannot see, hear, taste, feel and smell as well as a man can. (can't wait to see how you did that)

As a result, woman's mortality is inferior to that of a man. Her most powerful sentiment, and the one which dominates all others, is maternal love. What she loves in a man is not the lover, but the father of her children. As such, she will humour him; as such, she will tell lies for him — for a women's estimate of right or wrong is as easily altered to suit her convenience (or that of the individual she loves) as a new dress home from the dressmaker. (v. telling)

. . . . .

OMG, can you even imagine what it must have been like in 1909 for Dr. Highandmighty to think it was OK to write this? And the Mirror to publish it? What did his wife think? What about her friends and acquaintances? His mother? Sister? Did they secretly loathe him? Maybe his wife was a underground suffragette leader. Was this a last ditch PR effort of the anti-suffragettes. How sad. I'm so glad I wasn't born in that generation.

The article provoked loads of responses, including this one by F. L.D.

"Dr Charles Heydermann says that among inferior races man and women are very much of a par. This shows, I think, that it is education that has caused man's brain to develop. In these enlightened days women are being educated like men, and will, in about another century, have as much brain power as man. Girls are as intellectual as boys, when they are at school, but most women are obliged to give up their intellectual pursuits when they are married."

We've come a long way baby (sort of).