but there is a further fact; forgotten also because we moderns forget that there is a female point of view. the woman’s wisdom stands partly, not only for a wholesome hesitation about punishment, but even for a wholesome hesitation about absolute rules. there was something feminine and perversely true in that phrase of wilde’s, that people should not be treated as the rule, but all of them as exceptions. made by a man the remark was a little effeminate; for wilde did lack the masculine power of dogma and of democratic cooperation. but if a woman had said it it would have been simply true; a woman does treat each person as a peculiar person. in other words, she stands for anarchy; a very ancient and arguable philosophy; not anarchy in the sense of having no customs in one’s life (which is inconceivable), but anarchy in the sense of having no rules for one’s mind. to her, almost certainly, are due all those working traditions that cannot be found in books, especially those of education; it was she who first gave a child a stuffed stocking for being good or stood him in the corner for being naughty. this unclassified knowledge is sometimes called rule of thumb and sometimes motherwit. the last phrase suggests the whole truth, for none ever called it fatherwit.

now anarchy is only tact when it works badly. tact is only anarchy when it works well. and we ought to realize that in one half of the world—the private house—it does work well. we modern men are perpetually forgetting that the case for clear rules and crude penalties is not self-evident, that there is a great deal to be said for the benevolent lawlessness of the autocrat, especially on a small scale; in short, that government is only one side of life. the other half is called society, in which women are admittedly dominant. and they have always been ready to maintain that their kingdom is better governed than ours, because (in the logical and legal sense) it is not governed at all. “whenever you have a real difficulty,” they say, “when a boy is bumptious or an aunt is stingy, when a silly girl will marry somebody, or a wicked man won’t marry somebody, all your lumbering roman law and british constitution come to a standstill. a snub from a duchess or a slanging from a fish-wife are much more likely to put things straight.” so, at least, rang the ancient female challenge down the ages until the recent female capitulation. so streamed the red standard of the higher anarchy until miss pankhurst hoisted the white flag.

it must be remembered that the modern world has done deep treason to the eternal intellect by believing in the swing of the pendulum. a man must be dead before he swings. it has substituted an idea of fatalistic alternation for the mediaeval freedom of the soul seeking truth. all modern thinkers are reactionaries; for their thought is always a reaction from what went before. when you meet a modern man he is always coming from a place, not going to it. thus, mankind has in nearly all places and periods seen that there is a soul and a body as plainly as that there is a sun and moon. but because a narrow protestant sect called materialists declared for a short time that there was no soul, another narrow protestant sect called christian science is now maintaining that there is no body. now just in the same way the unreasonable neglect of government by the manchester school has produced, not a reasonable regard for government, but an unreasonable neglect of everything else. so that to hear people talk to-day one would fancy that every important human function must be organized and avenged by law; that all education must be state education, and all employment state employment; that everybody and everything must be brought to the foot of the august and prehistoric gibbet. but a somewhat more liberal and sympathetic examination of mankind will convince us that the cross is even older than the gibbet, that voluntary suffering was before and independent of compulsory; and in short that in most important matters a man has always been free to ruin himself if he chose. the huge fundamental function upon which all anthropology turns, that of sex and childbirth, has never been inside the political state, but always outside of it. the state concerned itself with the trivial question of killing people, but wisely left alone the whole business of getting them born. a eugenist might indeed plausibly say that the government is an absent-minded and inconsistent person who occupies himself with providing for the old age of people who have never been infants. i will not deal here in any detail with the fact that some eugenists have in our time made the maniacal answer that the police ought to control marriage and birth as they control labor and death. except for this inhuman handful (with whom i regret to say i shall have to deal with later) all the eugenists i know divide themselves into two sections: ingenious people who once meant this, and rather bewildered people who swear they never meant it—nor anything else. but if it be conceded (by a breezier estimate of men) that they do mostly desire marriage to remain free from government, it does not follow that they desire it to remain free from everything. if man does not control the marriage market by law, is it controlled at all? surely the answer is broadly that man does not control the marriage market by law, but the woman does control it by sympathy and prejudice. there was until lately a law forbidding a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister; yet the thing happened constantly. there was no law forbidding a man to marry his deceased wife’s scullery-maid; yet it did not happen nearly so often. it did not happen because the marriage market is managed in the spirit and by the authority of women; and women are generally conservative where classes are concerned. it is the same with that system of exclusiveness by which ladies have so often contrived (as by a process of elimination) to prevent marriages that they did not want and even sometimes procure those they did. there is no need of the broad arrow and the fleur-de lis, the turnkey’s chains or the hangman’s halter. you need not strangle a man if you can silence him. the branded shoulder is less effective and final than the cold shoulder; and you need not trouble to lock a man in when you can lock him out.

the same, of course, is true of the colossal architecture which we call infant education: an architecture reared wholly by women. nothing can ever overcome that one enormous sex superiority, that even the male child is born closer to his mother than to his father. no one, staring at that frightful female privilege, can quite believe in the equality of the sexes. here and there we read of a girl brought up like a tom-boy; but every boy is brought up like a tame girl. the flesh and spirit of femininity surround him from the first like the four walls of a house; and even the vaguest or most brutal man has been womanized by being born. man that is born of a woman has short days and full of misery; but nobody can picture the obscenity and bestial tragedy that would belong to such a monster as man that was born of a man.