The Equality of Sexlessness
G. K. Chesterton
In almost all the modern opinions of women it is curious to observe how many lies have to be assumed before a case can be made. A young lady flies from England to Australia; another wins an air race; a Duchess creates a speed record in reaching India; others win motoring trophies; and now the King’s prize for marksmanship has gone to a woman. All of which is very interesting and possibly praiseworthy as means of spending one’s leisure time; and if it were left to that, even if no more were added than the perfectly plain fact that such feats could not have been achieved by their mothers and grandmothers, we would be content to doff our hats to the ladies with all courtesy and respect which courage, endurance and ability have always rightly demanded.
But it is not left to that; and considerably more is added. It is suggested, for example, that the tasks were beyond the mothers and grandmothers, nor for the very obvious reason that they had no motorcars and airplanes in which to amuse their leisure hours, but because women were then enslaved by the convention of natural inferiority to man. Those days, we are told, “in which women were held incapable of positive social achievements are gone forever.” It does not seem to have occurred to this critic that the very fact of being a mother or grandmother indicates a certain positive social achievement; the achievement of which, indeed, probably left little leisure for travelling airily about the hemispheres. The same critic goes on to state, with all the solemn emphasis of profound thought, that “the important thing is not that women are the same as men— that is a fallacy—but that they are just as valuable to society as men. Equality of citizenship means that there are twice as many heads to solve present-day problems as there were to solve the problems of the past. And two heads are better than one.” And the dreadful proof of the modern collapse of all that was meant by man and wife and the family council, is that this sort of imbecility can be taken seriously.
The London Times, in a studied leading article, points out that the first emancipators of women (whoever they were) had no idea what lay in store for future generations. “Could they have foreseen it they might have disarmed much opposition by pointing to the possibilities, not only of freedom, but of equality and fraternity also.”
And we ask, what does it all mean? What in the name of all that is graceful and dignified does fraternity with women mean? What nonsense, or worse, is indicated by the freedom and equality of the sexes?
We mean something quite definite when we speak of a man being a little free with the ladies. What definite freedom is meant when the freedom of women is proposed? If it merely means the right to free opinions, the right to vote independently of fathers and husbands, what possible connection does it have with the freedom to fly to Australia or score bulls-eyes at Bisley? If it means, as we fear it does, freedom from responsibility of managing a home and a family, an equal right with men in business and social careers, at the expense of home and family, then such progress we can only call progressive deterioration.
And for men too, there is, according to a famous authoress, a hope of freedom. Men are beginning to revolt, we are told, against the old tribal custom of desiring fatherhood. The male is casting off the shackles of being a creator and a man. When all are sexless there will be equality. There will be no women and no men. There will be but a fraternity, free and equal. The only consoling thought is that it will endure but for one generation.
—From GK’s Weekly, July 26, 1930
The Equality of Sexlessness
G. K. Chesterton
In almost all the modern opinions of women it is curious to observe how many lies have to be assumed before a case can be made. A young lady flies from England to Australia; another wins an air race; a Duchess creates a speed record in reaching India; others win motoring trophies; and now the King’s prize for marksmanship has gone to a woman. All of which is very interesting and possibly praiseworthy as means of spending one’s leisure time; and if it were left to that, even if no more were added than the perfectly plain fact that such feats could not have been achieved by their mothers and grandmothers, we would be content to doff our hats to the ladies with all courtesy and respect which courage, endurance and ability have always rightly demanded.
But it is not left to that; and considerably more is added. It is suggested, for example, that the tasks were beyond the mothers and grandmothers, nor for the very obvious reason that they had no motorcars and airplanes in which to amuse their leisure hours, but because women were then enslaved by the convention of natural inferiority to man. Those days, we are told, “in which women were held incapable of positive social achievements are gone forever.” It does not seem to have occurred to this critic that the very fact of being a mother or grandmother indicates a certain positive social achievement; the achievement of which, indeed, probably left little leisure for travelling airily about the hemispheres. The same critic goes on to state, with all the solemn emphasis of profound thought, that “the important thing is not that women are the same as men— that is a fallacy—but that they are just as valuable to society as men. Equality of citizenship means that there are twice as many heads to solve present-day problems as there were to solve the problems of the past. And two heads are better than one.” And the dreadful proof of the modern collapse of all that was meant by man and wife and the family council, is that this sort of imbecility can be taken seriously.
The London Times, in a studied leading article, points out that the first emancipators of women (whoever they were) had no idea what lay in store for future generations. “Could they have foreseen it they might have disarmed much opposition by pointing to the possibilities, not only of freedom, but of equality and fraternity also.”
And we ask, what does it all mean? What in the name of all that is graceful and dignified does fraternity with women mean? What nonsense, or worse, is indicated by the freedom and equality of the sexes?
We mean something quite definite when we speak of a man being a little free with the ladies. What definite freedom is meant when the freedom of women is proposed? If it merely means the right to free opinions, the right to vote independently of fathers and husbands, what possible connection does it have with the freedom to fly to Australia or score bulls-eyes at Bisley? If it means, as we fear it does, freedom from responsibility of managing a home and a family, an equal right with men in business and social careers, at the expense of home and family, then such progress we can only call progressive deterioration.
And for men too, there is, according to a famous authoress, a hope of freedom. Men are beginning to revolt, we are told, against the old tribal custom of desiring fatherhood. The male is casting off the shackles of being a creator and a man. When all are sexless there will be equality. There will be no women and no men. There will be but a fraternity, free and equal. The only consoling thought is that it will endure but for one generation.
—From GK’s Weekly, July 26, 1930
L’uguaglianza dell’assenza di sesso
G. K. Chesterton
In quasi tutte le opinioni moderne sulle donne è curioso osservare quante menzogne occorra dare per scontate prima che si possa costruire una tesi. Una giovane signora vola dall’Inghilterra all’Australia; un’altra vince una gara aerea; una duchessa stabilisce un primato di velocità nel raggiungere l’India; altre conquistano trofei automobilistici; e ora il premio del Re per il tiro di precisione è andato a una donna. Tutto ciò è assai interessante e forse degno di lode come modo di impiegare il proprio tempo libero; e se ci si fermasse a questo, anche senza aggiungere altro se non il fatto perfettamente evidente che simili imprese non avrebbero potuto essere compiute dalle loro madri e dalle loro nonne, saremmo lieti di levarci il cappello davanti a queste signore con tutta la cortesia e il rispetto che il coraggio, la resistenza e l’abilità hanno sempre giustamente preteso.
Ma non ci si ferma a questo; e si aggiunge parecchio di più. Si insinua, per esempio, che quei compiti fossero al di là delle madri e delle nonne, non per la ragione ovvissima che esse non avevano automobili né aeroplani con cui divertirsi nelle ore d’ozio, ma perché le donne erano allora rese schiave dalla convenzione di una naturale inferiorità rispetto all’uomo. Quei giorni, ci si dice, “in cui le donne erano ritenute incapaci di positivi traguardi sociali sono finiti per sempre.” Non pare essere venuto in mente a questo critico che il fatto stesso di essere madre o nonna indica un certo positivo traguardo sociale; un traguardo il cui conseguimento, in verità, lasciava probabilmente ben poco ozio per svolazzare leggeri per gli emisferi. Lo stesso critico prosegue dichiarando, con tutta la solenne enfasi del pensiero profondo, che “l’importante non è che le donne siano uguali agli uomini— ciò è una fallacia—ma che siano altrettanto preziose per la società quanto gli uomini. L’uguaglianza di cittadinanza significa che vi sono il doppio delle teste per risolvere i problemi odierni di quante ve ne fossero per risolvere i problemi del passato. E due teste valgono più di una.” E la prova spaventosa del moderno crollo di tutto ciò che si intendeva per marito e moglie e consiglio di famiglia è che simile imbecillità possa essere presa sul serio.
Il Times di Londra, in un meditato articolo di fondo, osserva che i primi emancipatori delle donne (chiunque essi fossero) non avevano idea di ciò che riserbava il futuro alle generazioni venture. “Se avessero potuto prevederlo, avrebbero forse disarmato molta opposizione additando le possibilità, non solo di libertà, ma anche di uguaglianza e fraternità.”
E noi chiediamo: che cosa significa tutto questo? Che cosa, in nome di tutto ciò che è aggraziato e dignitoso, significa fraternità con le donne? Quale insensatezza, o peggio, si allude con la libertà e l’uguaglianza dei sessi?
Intendiamo qualcosa di ben preciso quando diciamo che un uomo si prende qualche libertà con le signore. Quale precisa libertà si intende quando si propone la libertà delle donne? Se significa soltanto il diritto a libere opinioni, il diritto di votare indipendentemente da padri e mariti, quale possibile rapporto ha ciò con la libertà di volare in Australia o di centrare il bersaglio a Bisley? Se significa, come temiamo che significhi, libertà dalla responsabilità di governare una casa e una famiglia, un pari diritto con gli uomini nelle carriere professionali e sociali, a spese della casa e della famiglia, allora un simile progresso non possiamo che chiamarlo progressivo degrado.
E anche per gli uomini vi è, secondo una celebre scrittrice, una speranza di libertà. Gli uomini cominciano a ribellarsi, ci si dice, contro l’antico costume tribale del desiderio di paternità. Il maschio si scrolla di dosso le catene dell’essere un creatore e un uomo. Quando tutti saranno privi di sesso vi sarà l’uguaglianza. Non vi saranno donne né uomini. Non vi sarà che una fraternità, libera e uguale. L’unico pensiero consolante è che essa durerà soltanto per una generazione.