Marriage as a Trade | Page 3

woman and breeding-machine. Did it occur to
him, I wonder, that the poor objects of his scorn might venture to take
some interest in themselves? Probably he did not credit them with so
much presumption.
The above has, I hope, explained in how far my idea of woman differs
from male ideas on the same subject and has also made it clear that I do
not look upon women as persons whose destiny it is to be married. On
the contrary, I hold, and hold very strongly, that the narrowing down of
woman's hopes and ambitions to the sole pursuit and sphere of
marriage is one of the principal causes of the various disabilities,
economic and otherwise, under which she labours to-day. And I hold,
also, that this concentration of all her hopes and ambitions on the one
object was, to a great extent, the result of artificial pressure, of unsound
economic and social conditions -- conditions which forced her energy
into one channel, by the simple expedient of depriving it of every other
outlet, and made marriage practically compulsory.
To say the least of it, marriage is no more essentially necessary to
woman than to man -- one would imagine that it was rather the other
way about. There are a good many drawbacks attached to the fulfilment
of a woman's destiny; in an unfettered state of existence it is possible
that they might weigh more heavily with her than they can do at present
-- being balanced, and more than balanced, by artificial means. I am
inclined to think that they would. The institution of marriage by capture,

for instance, has puzzled many inquirers into the habits of primitive
man. It is often, I believe, regarded as symbolic; but why should it not
point to a real reluctance to be reduced to permanent servitude on the
part of primitive woman -- a reluctance comprehensible enough, since,
primitive woman's wants being few and easily supplied by herself,
there was no need for her to exchange possession of her person for the
means of existence?
It is Nietzsche, if I remember rightly, who has delivered himself of the
momentous opinion that everything in woman is a riddle, and that the
answer to the riddle is child-bearing. Child-bearing certainly explains
some qualities in woman -- for instance, her comparative fastidiousness
in sexual relations -- but not all. If it did, there would be no riddle -- yet
Nietzsche admits that one exists. Nor is he alone in his estimate of the
"mysterious" nature of woman; her unfathomable and erratic character,
her peculiar aptitude for appearing "uncertain, coy, and hard to please",
has been insisted upon time after time -- insisted upon alike as a charm
and a deficiency. A charm because of its unexpected, a deficiency
because of its unreasonable, quality. Woman, in short, is not only a
wife and mother, but a thoroughly incomprehensible wife and mother.
Now it seems to me that a very simple explanation of this mystery
which perpetually envelops our conduct and impulses can be found in
the fact that the fundamental natural laws which govern them have
never been ascertained or honestly sought for. Or rather -- since the
fundamental natural laws which govern us are the same large and
simple laws which govern other animals, man included -- though they
have been ascertained, the masculine intellect has steadfastly and
stubbornly refused to admit that they can possibly apply to us in the
same degree as to every other living being. As a substitute for these
laws, he suggests explanations of his own -- for the most part flattering
to himself. He believes, apparently, that we live in a world apart,
governed by curious customs and regulations of our own -- customs
and regulations which "have no fellow in the universe." Once the first
principle of natural law was recognized as applying to us, we should
cease to be so unfathomable, erratic, and unexpected to the wiseacres
and poets who spend their time in judging us by rule of thumb, and

expressing amazement at the unaccountable and contradictory results.
I do not know whether it is essentially impossible for man to approach
us in the scientific spirit, but it has not yet been done. (To approach
motherhood or marriage in the scientific spirit is, of course, not in the
least the same thing.) His attitude towards us has been by turns -- and
sometimes all at once -- adoring, contemptuous, sentimental, and
savage -- anything, in short, but open-minded and deductive. The result
being that different classes, generations, and peoples have worked out
their separate and impressionistic estimates of woman's meaning in the
scheme of things -- the said estimates frequently clashing with those of
other classes, generations, and peoples. The Mahometan, for instance,
after careful observation