CHAPTER XVIII! ! !THE EUGENIC ASPECT OF SOME SPECIFIC REFORMS!

CHAPTER XVIII!
!
!THE EUGENIC ASPECT OF SOME SPECIFIC REFORMS!
!
Nearly every law and custom of a country has an influence direct or
!remote on eugenics. The eugenic progress to be expected if laws and customs are gradually but steadily modified in appropriate ways, is vastly greater and more practicable than is any possible gain which could be made at present through schemes for the direct control of "eugenic marriages."

!In this present chapter, we try to point out some of the eugenic aspects of certain features of American society. It must not be supposed that we have any legislative panaceas to offer, or that the suggestions we make are necessarily the correct ones. We are primarily concerned with stimulating people to think about the eugenic aspects of their laws and customs. Once the public thinks, numerous changes will be tried and the results will show whether the changes shall be followed up or discontinued.

!The eugenic point of view that we have here taken is becoming rather widespread, although it is often not recognised as eugenic. Thinkers in all subjects that concern social progress are beginning to realise that the test of whether or not a measure is good is its effect.

!TAXATION

!To be just, any form of taxation should repress productive industry as little as possible, and should be of a kind that can not easily be shifted. In addition to these qualifications, it should, if possible, contribute directly to the eugenic strength of the nation by favouring, or at least by not penalising, useful families.

The inheritance tax seems less open to criticism. Very large inheritances should be taxed to a much greater degree than is at present attempted in the United States, and the tax should be placed, not on the total amount of the inheritance, but on the amount received by each individual beneficiary. This tends to prevent the unfair guarantee of riches to individuals regardless of their own worth and efforts. But to suggest, on the other hand, as has often been done, that inheritances should be confiscated by the government altogether, shows a lack of appreciation of the value of a reasonable right to bequeath in encouraging larger families among those having a high standard of living. It is not desirable to penalise the kind of strains which
!possess directing talent and constructive efficiency; and they certainly would be penalised if a man felt that no matter how much he might increase his fortune, he could not leave any of it to those who continued his stock.

The sum exempted should not be large enough to tempt the beneficiary to


give up work and settle down into a life of complacent idleness, but enough to be of decided assistance to him in bringing up a family:
$50,000 might be a good maximum. Above this, the rate should advance rapidly, and should be progressive, not proportional. A 50% tax on inheritances above $250,000 seems to us desirable, since large inheritances tend to interfere with the correlation of wealth and social worth, which is so necessary from a eugenic point of view as well as
!from that of social justice.

If the size of a family becomes more nearly proportional to the income, instead of being inversely proportional to it as at present, and if income is even roughly a measure of the value of a family to the
community--an assumption that can hardly be denied altogether, however much one may qualify it in individual cases,--then the problem of taxing family incomes will be easier. The effect of income differences will be,
on the whole, eugenic. It would then seem desirable to exempt from taxation all incomes of married people below a certain critical sum,
this amount being the point at which change in income may be supposed to not affect size of family. This means exemption of all incomes under
!$2,000, an additional $2,000 for a wife and an additional $2,000 for each child, and a steeply-graded advance above that amount, as very large incomes act to reduce the size of family by introducing a multiplicity of competing cares and interests. There is also a eugenic advantage in heavy taxes on harmful commodities and un-approvable luxuries.
!
!THE "BACK TO THE FARM" MOVEMENT

One of the striking accompaniments of the development of American civilisation, as of all other civilisations, is the growth of the
!cities. If (following the practice of the U. S. Census) all places with 2,500 or more population be classed as urban, it appears that 36.1% of the population of the United States was urban in 1890, that the percentage had risen to 40.5 in 1900, and that by 1910 not less than 46.3% of the total population was urban.

There are four components of this growth of urban population: (1) excess of births over deaths, (2) immigration from rural districts, (3) immigration from other countries, and (4) the extension of area by incorporation of suburbs. It is not to be supposed that the growth of
!the cities is wholly at the expense of the country; J. M. Gillette calculates[173] that 29.8% of the actual urban gain of 11,826,000 between 1900 and 1910 was due to migration from the country, the remaining 70.2% being accounted for by the other three causes enumerated.

Thus it appears that the movement from country to city is of
considerable proportions, even though it be much less than has sometimes been alleged. This movement has eugenic importance because it is generally believed, although more statistical evidence is needed, that families tend to "run out" in a few generations under city conditions;


!and it is generally agreed that among those who leave the rural districts to go to the cities, there are found many of the best representatives of the country families.

If superior people are going to the large cities, and if this removal
!leads to a smaller reproductive contribution than they would otherwise have made, then the growth of great cities is an important dysgenic factor.

!Until recently it has been impossible, because of the defective registration of vital statistics in the United States, to get figures which show the extent of the problem of urban sterilisation. But Dr. Gillette has obtained evidence along several indirect lines, and is convinced that his figures are not far from the truth.[175] They show the difference to be very large and its eugenic significance of corresponding importance.

!"When it is noted," Dr. Gillette says, "that the rural rate is almost twice the urban rate for the nation as a whole, that in only one division does the latter exceed the former, and that in some divisions the rural rate is three times the urban rate, it can scarcely be doubted that the factor of urbanisation is the most important cause of lowered increase rates. Urban birth-rates are lower than rural birth-rates, and its death-rates are higher than those of the latter."

!Considering the United States in nine geographical divisions, Dr. Gillette secured the following results:

RATE OF NET ANNUAL INCREASE

_Division_


_Rural_


_Urban_


_Average_

New England    5.0    7.3    6.8
Middle Atlantic    10.7    9.6    10.4
East North Central    12.4    10.8    11.6
West North Central    18.1    10.1    15.8
South Atlantic    18.9    6.00    16.0
East South Central    19.7    7.4    17.8
West South Central    23.9    10.2    21.6
Mountain    21.1    10.5    17.6
Pacific    12.6    6.6    9.8
----    ----    -----
!Average    16.9    8.8    13.65
!Even though fuller returns might show these calculations to be inaccurate, Dr. Gillette points out, they are all compiled on the same basis, and therefore can be fairly compared, since any unforeseen cause of increase or decrease would affect all alike.
It is difficult to compare the various divisions directly, because the racial composition of the population of each one is different. But the difference in rates is marked. The West South Central states would almost double their population in four decades, by natural increase alone, while New England would require 200 years to do so.


!
Dr. Gillette tried, by elaborate computations, to eliminate the effect
of immigration and emigration in each division, in order to find out the standing of the old American stock. His conclusions confirm the beliefs of the most pessimistic. "Only three divisions, all Western, add to
their population by means of an actual excess of income over outgo of native-born Americans," he reports. Even should this view turn out to be exaggerated, it is certain that the population of the United States is
!at present increasing largely because of immigration and the high fecundity of immigrant women, and that as far as its own older stock is concerned, it has ceased to increase.

To state that this is due largely to the fact that country people are moving to the city is by no means to solve the problem, in terms of eugenics. It merely shows the exact nature of the problem to be solved.
!The growth of cities might be an unavoidable feature of industrial civilisation, and direct attempts might be made, through eugenic propaganda, to secure a higher birth-rate among the superior parts of the city population.
!
!DEMOCRACY

By democracy we understand a government which is responsive to the will of a majority of the entire population, as opposed to an oligarchy where the sole power is in the hands of a small minority of the entire
population, who are able to impose their will on the rest of the nation. In discussing immigration, we have pointed out that it is of great importance that the road for promotion of merit should always be open,
!and that the road for demotion of incompetence should likewise be open. These conditions are probably favoured more by a democracy than by any other form of government, and to that extent democracy is distinctly advantageous to eugenics.

Yet this eugenic effect is not without a dysgenic after-effect. The very fact that recognition is attainable by all, means that democracy leads to social ambition; and social ambition leads to smaller families. This
influence is manifested mainly in the women, whose desire to climb the social ladder is increased by the ease of ascent which is due to lack of rigid social barriers. But while ascent is possible for almost anyone,
it is naturally favoured by freedom from handicaps, such as a large family of children. In the "successful" business and professional classes, therefore, there is an inducement to the wife to limit the
number of her offspring, in order that she may have more time to devote to social "duties." In a country like Germany, with more or less
stratified social classes, this factor in the differential birth-rate
is probably less operative. The solution in America is not to create an impermeable social stratification, but to create a public sentiment
!which will honour women more for motherhood than for eminence in the largely futile activities of polite society.

In quite another way, too great democratisation of a country is dangerous. The tendency is to ask, in regard to any measure, "What do


the people want?" while the question should be "What ought the people to want?" The vox populi may and often does want something that is in the long run quite detrimental to the welfare of the state. The ultimate
!test of a state is whether it is strong enough to survive, and a measure that all the people, or a voting majority of them (which is the significant thing in a democracy), want, may be such as to handicap the state severely.

In general, experts are better able to decide what measures will be desirable in the long run, than are voters of the general population, most of whom know little about the real merits of many of the most important projects. Yet democracies have a tendency to scorn the advice of experts, most of the voters feeling that they are as good as any one else, and that their opinion is entitled to as much weight as that of
!the expert. This attitude naturally makes it difficult to secure the passage of measures which are eugenic or otherwise beneficial in character, since they often run counter to popular prejudices.

!The initiative by small petitions, and the referendum as a frequent resort, are dangerous. They are of great value if so qualified as to be used only in real emergencies, as where a clique has got control of the government and is running it for its self-interest, but as a regularly and frequently functioning institution they are unlikely to result in wise statesmanship.

The wise democracy is that which recognises that officials may be effectively chosen by vote, only for legislative offices; and which recognises that for executive offices the choice must be definitely selective, that is, a choice of those who by merit are best fitted to fill the positions. Appointment in executive officers is not offensive when, as the name indicates, it is truly the best who govern. All
methods of choice by properly judged competition or examination with a free chance to all, are, in principle, selective yet democratic in the
best sense, that of "equality of opportunity." When the governing few are not the best fitted for the work, a so-called aristocracy is of
!course not an aristocracy (government by the best) at all, but merely an oligarchy. When officers chosen by vote are not well fitted then such a government is not "for the people."

!Good government is then an aristo-democracy. In it the final control rests in a democratically chosen legislature working with a legislative commission of experts, but all executive and judicial functions are performed by those best qualified on the basis of executive or judicial ability, not vote-getting or speech-making ability. All, however, are eligible for such positions provided they can show genuine qualifications.
!
!SOCIALISM

It is difficult to define socialism in terms that will make a discussion practicable. The socialist movement is one thing, the socialist


political program is another. But though the idea of socialism has as many different forms as an amoeba, there is always a nucleus that remains constant,--the desire for what is conceived to be a more equitable distribution of wealth. The labourer should get the value which his labor produces, it is held, subject only to subtraction of such a
part as is necessary to meet the costs of maintenance; and in order that as little as possible need be subtracted for that purpose, the
!socialists agree in demanding a considerable extension of the functions of government: collective ownership of railways, mines, the tools of production. The ideal socialistic state would be so organised, along these lines, that the producer would get as much as possible of what he produces, the non-producer nothing.

!This principle of socialism is invariably accompanied by numerous associated principles, and it is on these associated principles, not on the fundamental principle, that eugenists and socialists come into conflict. Equalitarianism, in particular, is so great a part of current socialist thought that it is doubtful whether the socialist movement as such can exist without it. And this equalitarianism is usually interpreted not only to demand equality of opportunity, but is based on a belief in substantial equality of native ability, where opportunity is equal.

Any one who has read the preceding chapters will have no doubt that such a belief is incompatible with an understanding of the principles of biology. How, then, has it come to be such an integral part of
!socialism?

Apparently it is because the socialist movement is, on the whole, made up of those who are economically unsatisfied and discontented. Some of the intellectual leaders of the movement are far from inferior, but they too often find it necessary to share the views of their following, in
!order to retain this following. A group which feels itself inferior will naturally fall into an attitude of equalitarianism, whereas a group which felt itself superior to the rest of society would not be likely to.

!Before criticising the socialistic attitude in detail, we will consider some of the criticisms which some socialists make of eugenics.

It is charged that eugenics infringes on the freedom of the individual. This charge (really that of the individualists more than of socialists strictly speaking) is based mainly on a misconception of what eugenics attempts to do. Coercive measures have little place in modern eugenics, despite the gibes of the comic press. We propose little or no
interference with the freedom of the normal individual to follow his own inclinations in regard to marriage or parenthood; we regard indirect measures and the education of public opinion as the main practicable methods of procedure. Such coercive measures as we indorse are limited to grossly defective individuals, to whom the doctrine of personal
liberty can not be applied without stultifying it.


Eugenists are further charged with ignoring or paying too little attention to the influence of the environment in social reform. This charge is sometimes well founded, but it is not an inherent defect in
!the eugenics program. The eugenist only asks that both factors be taken into account, whereas in the past the factor of heredity has been too often ignored. In the last chapter of this book we make an effort to balance the two sides.

Again, it is alleged that eugenics proposes to substitute an aristocracy for a democracy. We do think that those who have superior ability should be given the greatest responsibilities in government. If aristocracy means a government by the people who are best qualified to
!govern, then eugenics has most to hope from an aristo-democratic system. But admission to office should always be open to anyone who shows the best ability; and the search for such ability must be much more thorough in the future than it has been in the past.

Eugenists are charged with hindering social progress by endeavouring to keep woman in the subordinate position of a domestic animal, by opposing the movement for her emancipation, by limiting her activity to child-bearing and refusing to recognise that she is in every way fitted
to take an equal part with man in the world's work. This objection we have answered elsewhere, particularly in our discussion of feminism. We recognise the general equality of the two sexes, but demand a differentiation of function which will correspond to biological
!sex-specialisation. We can not yield in our belief that woman's greatest function is motherhood, but recognition of this should increase, not diminish, the strength of her position in the state.

Eugenists are charged with ignoring the fact of economic determinism, the fact that a man's acts are governed by economic conditions. To
!debate this question would be tedious and unprofitable. While we concede the important role of economic determinism, we can not help feeling that its importance in the eyes of socialists is somewhat factitious.

!Such are, we believe, the chief grounds on which socialists criticise the eugenics movement. All of these criticisms should be stimulating, should lead eugenists to avoid mistakes in program or procedure. But none of them, we believe, is a serious objection to anything which the great body of eugenists proposes to do.

!What is to be said on the other side? What faults does the eugenist find with the socialist movement?

Now this idea of the equality of human beings is, in every respect that can be tested, absolutely false, and any movement which depends on it will either be wrecked or, if successful, will wreck the state which it tries to operate. It will mean the penalisation of real worth and the endowment of inferiority and incompetence. Eugenists can feel no sympathy for a doctrine which is so completely at variance with the facts of human nature.


But if it is admitted that men differ widely, and always must differ, in ability and worth, then eugenics can be in accord with the socialistic desire for distribution of wealth according to merit, for this will make it possible to favour and help perpetuate the valuable strains in
!the community and to discourage the inferior strains. T. N. Carver sums up the argument[177] concisely:

"Distribution according to worth, usefulness or service is the system which would most facilitate the progress of human adaptation. It would, in the first place, stimulate each individual by an appeal to his own
self-interest, to make himself as useful as possible to the community. In the second place, it would leave him perfectly free to labor in the service of the community for altruistic reasons, if there was any altruism in his nature. In the third place it would exercise a beneficial selective influence upon the stock or race, because the
!useful members would survive and perpetuate their kind and the useless and criminal members would be exterminated."

In so far as socialists rid themselves of their sentimental and Utopian equalitarianism, the eugenist will join them willingly in a demand that the distribution of wealth be made to depend as far as feasible on the value of the individual to society.[178] As to the means by which this distribution can be made, there will of course be differences of
opinion, to discuss which would be outside the province of this volume. Fundamentally, eugenics is anti-individualistic and in so far a socialistic movement, since it seeks a social end involving some degree of individual subordination, and this fact would be more frequently
!recognised if the movement which claims the name of socialist did not so often allow the wish to believe that a man's environmental change could eliminate natural inequalities to warp its attitude.
!
!CHILD LABOUR

!It is often alleged that the abolition of child labor would be a great eugenic accomplishment; but as is the case with nearly all such proposals, the actual results are both complex and far-reaching.

!The selective effects of child labor obviously operate directly on two generations: (1) the parental generation and (2) the filial generation, the children who are at work. The results of these two forms of selection must be considered separately.

On the parental generation. The children who labor mostly come from poor families, where every child up to the age of economic productivity is an economic burden. If the children go to work at an early age, the parents can afford to have more children and probably will, since the children soon become to some extent an asset rather than a liability.
Child labor thus leads to a higher birth-rate of this class, abolition
of child labor would lead to a lower birth-rate, since the parents could no longer afford to have so many children.


On the filial generation. The obvious result of the abolition of child labor will be, as is often and graphically told, to give children
!a better chance of development. If they are of superior stock, and will be better parents for not having worked as children (a proviso which requires substantiation) the abolition of their labor will be of direct eugenic benefit. Otherwise, its results will be at most indirect; or, possibly, dysgenic, if they are of undesirable stock, and are enabled to survive in greater numbers and reproduce. In necessarily passing over the social and economic aspects of the question, we do not wish it thought that we advocate child labor for the purpose of killing off an undesirable stock prematurely. We are only concerned in pointing out that the effects of child labor are many and various.

The effect of its abolition within a single family further depends on whether the children who go to work are superior to those who stay at home. If the strongest and most intelligent children are sent to work and crippled or killed prematurely, while the weaklings and
!feeble-minded are kept at home, brought up on the earnings of the strong, and enabled to reach maturity and reproduce, then this aspect of child labor is distinctly dysgenic.
!
!COMPULSORY EDUCATION

!Whether one favours or rejects compulsory education will probably be determined by other arguments than those derived from eugenics; nevertheless there are eugenic aspects of the problem which deserve to be recognised.

!One of the effects of compulsory education is similar to that which follows the abolition of child labor--namely, that the child is made a source of expense, not of revenue, to the parent. Not only is the child unable to work, while at school, but to send him to school involves in practice dressing him better than would be necessary if he stayed at home. While it might fit the child to work more gainfully in later years, yet the years of gain are so long postponed that the parent can expect to share in but little of it.

These arguments would not affect the well-to-do parent, or the
high-minded parent who was willing or able to make some sacrifice in order that his children might get as good a start as possible. But they may well affect the opposite type of parent, with low efficiency and low ideals.[179] This type of parent, finding that the system of compulsory education made children a liability, not an immediate asset, would thereby be led to reduce the size of his family, just as he seems to
have done when child labor was prohibited in England and children ceased to be a source of revenue. Compulsory education has here, then, a
!eugenic effect, in discouraging the reproduction of parents with the least efficiency and altruism.

If this belief be well founded, it is likely that any measure tending to decrease the cost of schooling for children will tend to diminish this


effect of compulsory education. Such measures as the free distribution of text-books, the provision of free lunches at noon, or the extension to school children of a reduced car-fare, make it easier for the selfish or inefficient parent to raise children; they cost him less and
!therefore he may tend to have more of them. If such were the case, the measures referred to, despite the euthenics considerations, must be classified as dysgenic.

In another and quite different way, compulsory education is of service to eugenics. The educational system should be a sieve, through which all the children of the country are passed,--or more accurately, a series of sieves, which will enable the teacher to determine just how far it is profitable to educate each child so that he may lead a life of the
!greatest possible usefulness to the state and happiness to himself. Obviously such a function would be inadequately discharged, if the sieve failed to get all the available material; and compulsory education makes it certain that none will be omitted.

!We conclude that compulsory education, as such, is not only of service to eugenics through the selection it makes possible, but may serve in a more unsuspected way by cutting down the birth-rate of inferior families.
!
!VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING

!In arguments for vocational guidance and education of youth, one does not often hear eugenics mentioned; yet these measures, if effectively carried out, seem likely to be of real eugenic value.

!The need for as perfect a correlation as possible between income and eugenic worth, has been already emphasised. It is evident that if a man gets into the wrong job, a job for which he is not well fitted, he may make a very poor showing in life, while if properly trained in something suited to him, his income would have been considerably greater. It will be a distinct advantage to have superior young people get established earlier, and this can be done if they are directly taught efficiency in what they can do best, the boys being fitted for gainful occupations, and the girls for wifehood and motherhood in addition.

As to the details of vocational guidance, the eugenist is perhaps not entitled to give much advice; yet it seems likely that a more thorough study of the inheritance of ability would be of value to the educator. It was pointed out in Chapter IV that inheritance often seems to be highly specialised,--a fact which leads to the inference that the son might often do best in his father's calling or vocation, especially if his mother comes from a family marked by similar capacities. It is difficult to say how far the occupation of the son is, in modern conditions, determined by heredity and how far it is the result of chance, or the need of taking the first job open, the lack of any special qualifications for any particular work, or some similar environmental influence.


While inherited tastes and aptitude for some calling probably should carry a good deal of weight in vocational guidance, we can not share the exaggerated view which some sociologists hold about the great waste of ability through the existence of round pegs in square holes. This attitude is often expressed in such words as those of E. B. Woods: "Ability receives its reward only when it is presented with the opportunities of a fairly favourable environment, _its_ peculiarly
indispensable sort of environment. Naval commanders are not likely to be developed in the Transvaal, nor literary men and artists in the soft
coal fields of western Pennsylvania. For ten men who succeed as investigators, inventors, or diplomatists, there may be and probably are
!in some communities fifty more who would succeed better under the same circumstances."

While there is some truth in this view, it exaggerates the evil by ignoring the fact that good qualities frequently go together in an individual. The man of Transvaal who is by force of circumstances kept from a naval career is likely to distinguish himself as a successful colonist, and perhaps enrich the world even more than if he had been
brought up in a maritime state and become a naval commander. It may be that his inherited talent fitted him to be a better naval commander than anything else; if so, it probably also fitted him to be better at many
!other things, than are the majority of men. "Intrinsically good traits have also good correlatives," physical, mental and moral.

To sum up: vocational guidance and training are likely to be of much service to eugenics. They may derive direct help from heredity; and their exponents may also learn that a man who is really good in one thing is likely to be good in many things, and that a man who fails in one thing would not necessarily achieve success if he were put in some other career. One of their greatest services will probably be to put a
!lot of boys into skilled trades, for which they are adapted and where they will succeed, and thus prevent them from yielding to the desire for a more genteel clerical occupation, in which they will not do more than earn a bare living. This will assist in bringing about the high correlation between merit and income which is so much to be desired.
!
!THE MINIMUM WAGE

!Legal enactment of a minimum wage is often urged as a measure that would promote social welfare and race betterment. By minimum wage is to be understood, according to its advocates, not the wage that will support a single man, but one that will support a man, wife, and three or four children. In the United States, the sum necessary for this purpose can hardly be estimated at less than $2.50 a day.

A living wage is certainly desirable for every man, but the idea of giving every man a wage sufficient to support a family can not be considered eugenic. In the first place, it interferes with the
adjustment of wages to ability, on the necessity of which we have often insisted. In the second place, it is not desirable that society should


!make it possible for every man to support a wife and three children; in many cases it is desirable that it be made impossible for him to do so. Eugenically, teaching methods of birth control to the married unskilled labourer is a sounder way of solving his problems, than subsidising him so he can support a large family.

It must be frankly recognised that poverty is in many ways eugenic in its effect, and that with the spread of birth control among people below the poverty line, it is certain to be still more eugenic than at
present. It represents an effective, even though a cruel, method of keeping down the net birth-rate of people who for one reason or another are not economically efficient; and the element of cruelty, involved in high infant mortality, will be largely mitigated by birth control. Free
competition may be tempered to the extent of furnishing every man enough charity to feed him, if he requires charity for that purpose; and to
feed his family, if he already has one; but charity which will allow him to increase his family, if he is too inefficient to support it by his
!own exertions, is rarely a benefit eugenically.

The minimum wage is admittedly not an attempt to pay a man what he is worth. It is an attempt to make it possible for every man, no matter
!what his economic or social value, to support a family. Therefore, in so far as it would encourage men of inferior quality to have or increase families, it is unquestionably dysgenic.
!
!MOTHERS' PENSIONS

Half of the states of the Union have already adopted some form of pension for widowed mothers, and similar measures are being urged in nearly all remaining states. The earliest of these laws goes back only
!to 1911.

Laws of this character have often been described as being eugenic in effect, but examination shows little reason for such a characterisation. Since the law applies for the most part to women who have lost their husbands, it is evident that it is not likely to affect the differential
birth-rate which is of such concern to eugenics. On the whole, mothers' pensions must be put in the class of work which may be undertaken on humanitarian grounds, but they are probably slightly dysgenic rather than eugenic, since they favour the preservation of families which are, on the whole, of inferior quality, as shown by the lack of relatives
!with ability or willingness to help them. On the other hand, they are not likely to result in the production from these families of more children than those already in existence.
!
!HOUSING

At present it is sometimes difficult, in the more fashionable quarters of large cities, to find apartments where families with children are admitted. In other parts of the city, this difficulty appears to be much


less. Such a situation tends to discourage parenthood, on the part of young couples who come of good families and desire to live in the part of the city where their friends are to be found. It is at least likely
to cause postponement of parenthood until they feel financially able to take a separate house. Here is an influence tending to lower the
birth-rate of young couples who have social aspirations, at least to the extent of desiring to live in the pleasanter and more reputable part of their city. Such a hindrance exists to a much less extent, if at all,
!for those who have no reason for wanting to live in the fashionable part of the city. This discrimination of some apartment owners against families with children would therefore appear to be dysgenic in its effect.

!The growing use of the automobile, which permits a family to live under pleasant surroundings in the suburbs and yet reach the city daily, alleviates the housing problem slightly. Increased facilities for rapid transit are of the utmost importance in placing the city population (a selected class, it will be remembered) under more favourable conditions for bringing up their children. Zone rates should be designed to effect this dispersal of population.
!
!FEMINISM

The word "feminism" might be supposed to characterise a movement which sought to emphasise the distinction between woman's nature and that of man to provide for women's special needs. It was so used in early days
!on the continent. But at present in England and America it denotes a movement which is practically the reverse of this; which seeks to minimise the difference between the two sexes. It may be broadly described as a movement which seeks to remove all discrimination based on sex. It is a movement to secure recognition of an equality of the two sexes. The feminists variously demand that woman be recognised as the equal of man (1) biologically, (2) politically, (3) economically.

!Whether or not woman is to be regarded as biologically equal to man depends on how one uses the word "equal." If it is meant that woman is as well adapted to her own particular kind of work as is man to his, the statement will readily be accepted. Unfortunately, feminists show a tendency to go beyond this and to minimise differentiation in their claims of equality.

In forming a judgment on this proposition, it must be remembered that civilisation covers not more than 10,000 years out of man's history of
half a million or more. During 490,000 out of the 500,000 years, man was the hunter and warrior; while woman stayed at home of necessity to bear and rear the young, to skin the prey, to prepare the food and clothing.
He must have a small knowledge of biology who could suppose that this long history would not lead to any differentiation of the two sexes;
and the biologist knows that man and woman in some respects differ in every cell of their bodies: that, as Jacques Loeb says, "Man and woman are, physiologically, different species."


But the biologist also knows that sex is a quantitative character. It is
impossible to draw a sharp line and say that those on one side are in every respect men, and those on the other side in every respect women, as one might draw a line between goats and sheep. Many women have a
!considerable amount of "maleness"; numerous men have distinct feminine characteristics, physical and mental. There is thus an ill-defined "intermediate sex," as Edward Carpenter called it, whose size has been kept down by sexual selection; or better stated there is so much overlapping that it is a question of different averages with many individuals of each sex beyond the average of the other sex.

!We conclude that any claim of biological equality of the two sexes must use the word in a figurative sense, not ignoring the differentiation of the two sexes, as extreme feminists are inclined to do. To this differentiation we shall return later.

!In general, the demand for political equality, in a broad sense, seems to the eugenist to be the most praiseworthy part of the feminist program.

!Economic equality is often summed up in the catch phrase "equal pay for equal work." If the phrase refers to jobs where women are competing on piecework with men, no one will object to it. In practice it applies particularly to two distinct but interlocking demands: (a) that women should receive the same pay as men for any given occupation--as, stenography, for example; and (b) that child-bearing should be recognised as just as much worthy of remuneration as any occupation which men enter, and should be paid for (by the state) on the same basis.

At present, there is almost universally a discrimination against women
in commerce and industry. They sometimes get no more than half as much pay as men for similar grades of employment. But there is for this one
good reason. An employer needs experienced help, and he expects a man to remain with him and become more valuable. He is, therefore, willing to pay more because of this anticipation. In hiring a woman, he knows that she will probably soon leave to marry. But whatever may be the origin of this discrimination, it is justified in the last analysis by the fact
that a man is paid as the head of a family, a woman only as an
individual who ordinarily has fewer or no dependents to support. Indeed, it is largely this feature which, under the law of supply and demand,
!has caused women to work for low wages.

It is evident that real economic equality between men and women must be impossible, if the women are to leave their work for long periods of
time, in order to bear and rear children. It is normally impossible for a woman to earn her living by competitive labor, at the same time that she is bearing and rearing children. Either the doctrine of economic equality is largely illusory, therefore, or else it must be extended to
making motherhood a salaried occupation just as much as mill work or stenography.


The feminists have almost universally adopted the latter alternative.
They say that the woman who is capable of earning money, and who abandons wage-earning for motherhood, ought to receive from the state as nearly as possible what she would have received if she had not had children; or else they declare that the expense of children should be
!borne wholly by the community.

This proposal must be tested by asking whether it would tend to strengthen and perpetuate the race or not. It is, in effect, a proposal to have the state pay so much a head for babies. The fundamental
question is whether or not the quality of the babies would be taken into account. Doubtless the babies of obviously feeble-minded women would be excluded, but would it be possible for the state to pay liberally for
!babies who would grow up to be productive citizens, and to refuse to pay for babies that would doubtless grow up to be incompetents, dolts, dullards, laggards or wasters? The scheme would work, eugenically, in proportion as it is discriminatory and graded.

But the example of legislation in France and England, and the main trend of popular thought in America, make it quite certain that at present,
!and for many years to come, it will be impossible to have babies valued on the basis of quality rather than mere numbers. It is sometimes possible to get indirect measures of a eugenic nature passed, and it has been found possible to secure the passage of direct measures which prevent reproduction of those who are actually defective. But even the most optimistic eugenist must feel that, short of the remote future, any attempt to have the state grade and pay for babies on the basis of their quality is certain to fail to pass.

The married woman of good stock ought to bear four children. For many reasons these ought to be spaced well apart, preferably not much less than three years. She must have oversight of these children until they
!all reach adolescence. This means a period of about 12 + 13 = 25 years during which her primary, though by no means her only, concern will be mothercraft. It is hardly possible and certainly not desirable that she should support herself outside of the home during this period. As state support would pretty certainly be indiscriminate and dangerously dysgenic, it therefore appears that the present custom of having the father responsible for the support of the family is not only unavoidable but desirable. If so, it is desirable to avoid reducing the wages of married men too much by the competition of single women.

The true solution is rather to be sought in recognising the natural differentiation of the two sexes and in emphasising this differentiation by education. Boys will be taught the nobility of being productive and of establishing families; girls will have similar ideals held up to them but will be taught to reach them in a different way, through cultivation of the intellectual and emotional characters most useful to that division of labor for which they are supremely adapted, as well as those
that are common to both sexes. The home must not be made a subordinate interest, as some feminists desire, but it must be made a much richer,


!deeper, more satisfying interest than it is too frequently at present.
!
!OLD AGE PENSIONS

Pensions for aged people form an important part of the modern program of social legislation. What their merits may be in relieving poverty will
!not be discussed here. But beyond the direct effect, it is important to inquire what indirect eugenic effect they would have, as compared with the present system where the aged are most frequently supported by their own children when they have failed through lack of thrift or for other reasons to make provision for their old age.

!The ordinary man, dependent on his daily work for a livelihood, can not easily support his parents and his offspring at the same time. Aid given to the one must be in some degree at the expense of the other. The eugenic consequences will depend on what class of man is required to contribute thus to parental support.

It is at once obvious that superior families will rarely encounter this problem. The parents will, by their superior earning capacity and the exercise of thrift and foresight, have provided for the wants of their
old age. A superior man will therefore seldom be under economic pressure to limit the number of his own children because of the necessity of supporting his parents. In inferior families, on the other hand, the
parents will have made no adequate provision for their old age. A son
!will have to assume their support, and thus reduce the number of his own children,--a eugenic result. With old age pensions from the state, the economic pressure would be taken off these inferior families and the children would thus be encouraged to marry earlier and have more children,--a dysgenic result.

!From this point of view, the most eugenic course would perhaps be to make the support of parents by children compulsory, in cases where any support was needed. Such a step would not handicap superior families, but would hold back the inferior. A contributory system of old age pensions, for which the money was provided out of the individual's earnings, and laid aside for his old age, would also be satisfactory. A system which led to the payment of old age pensions by the state would be harmful.

The latter system would be evil in still another way because, as is the case with most social legislation of this type, the funds for carrying
!out such a scheme must naturally be furnished by the efficient members of the community. This adds to their financial burdens and encourages the young men to postpone marriage longer and to have fewer children when they do marry,--a dysgenic result.

It appears, therefore, that old age pensions paid by the state would be dysgenic in a number of ways, encouraging the increase of the inferior part of the population at the expense of the superior. If old age pensions are necessary, they should be contributory.


!
!
!THE SEX HYGIENE MOVEMENT

!Sexual morality is thought by some to be substantially synonymous with eugenics or to be included by it. One of the authors has protested previously[184] against this confusion of the meaning of the word "eugenics." The fallacy of believing that a campaign against sexual immorality is a campaign for eugenics will be apparent if the proposition is analysed.

For this purpose a distinction must be made between the individual who has been chaste till the normal time of marriage and whose sexual life
is truly monogamous, and that abnormal group who remain chaste and celibate to an advanced age. These last are not moral in the last analysis, if they have valuable and needed traits and are fertile, because in the long run their failure to reproduce affects adversely the welfare of their group. While the race suffers through the failure of
many of these individuals to contribute progeny, probably this does not happen, so far as males are concerned, as much as might be supposed, for such individuals are often innately defective in their instincts or, in
!the case of disappointed lovers, have a badly proportioned emotional equipment, since it leads them into a position so obviously opposed to race interests.

It follows then that sexual immorality is eugenic in its result for the species and that if all sexual immorality should cease, an important means of race
!progress might be lost. An illustration is the case of the Negro in America, whose failure to increase more rapidly in number is largely attributable to the widespread sterility resulting from venereal infection.[185] Should venereal diseases be eliminated, that race might be expected to increase in numbers very much faster than the whites.

!It may be felt by some that this position would have an immoral effect upon youth if widely accepted. This need not be feared. On the contrary, we believe that one of the most powerful factors in ethical culture is pride due to the consciousness of being one who is fit and worthy.

!The traditional view of sexual morality has been to ignore the selectional aspect here discussed and to stress the alleged deterioration of the germ-plasm by the direct action of the toxins of syphilis. The evidence relied upon to demonstrate this action seems to be vitiated by the possibility that there was, instead, a transmitted infection of the progeny. This "racial poison" action, since it is so highly improbable from analogy, can not be credited until it has been demonstrated in cases where the parents have been indubitably cured.

Is it necessary, then, to retain sexual immorality in order to achieve race progress? No, because it is only one of many factors contributing to race progress. Society can mitigate this as well as alcoholism, disease, infant mortality--all powerful selective factors--without harm, provided increased efficiency of other selective factors is ensured,


!such as the segregation of defectives, more effective sexual selection, a better correlation of income and ability, and a more eugenic distribution of family limitation.
!
!TRADES UNIONISM

A dysgenic feature often found in trades unionism will easily be understood after our discussion of the minimum wage. The union tends to standardise wages; it tends to fix a wage in a given industry, and
demand that nearly all workers in that classification be paid that wage. It cannot be denied that some of these workers are much more capable than others. Artificial interference with a more exact adjustment of wages to ability therefore penalises the better workmen and subsidises the worse ones. Economic pressure is thereby put on the better men to have fewer children, and with the worse men encourages more children, than would be the case if their incomes more nearly represented their
!real worth. Payment according to the product, with prizes and bonuses so much opposed by the unions, is more in accord with the principles of eugenics.
!
!PROHIBITION

It was shown in Chapter II that the attempt to ban alcoholic beverages on the ground of direct dysgenic effect is based on dubious evidence.
But the prohibition of the use of liquors, at least those containing
!more than 5% alcohol, can be defended on indirect eugenic grounds, as well as on the familiar grounds of pathology and economics which are commonly cited.

Unless it is present to such a degree as to constitute a neurotic taint, the desire to be stimulated is not of itself necessarily a bad thing. This will be particularly clear if the distribution of the responsiveness to alcoholic stimulus is recalled. Some really valuable strains, marked by this susceptibility, may be eliminated through the
!death of some individuals from debauchery and the penalisation of others in preferential mating; this would be avoided if narcotics were not available.

!In selection for eugenic improvement, it is desirable not to have to select for too many traits at once. If alcoholism could, through prohibition, be eliminated from consideration, it would just so far simplify the problem of eugenics.

!Drunkenness interferes with the effectiveness of means for family limitation, so that if his alcoholism is not extreme, the drunkard's family is sometimes larger than it would otherwise be.

On the other hand, prohibition is dysgenic and intemperance is eugenic in their effect on the species in so far as alcoholism is correlated
with other undesirable characters and brings about the elimination of
Dumbell Set with Personal Training

!undesirable strains. But its action is not sufficiently discriminating nor decisive; and if the strains have many serious defects, they can probably be dealt with better in some other, more direct way.

!We conclude, then, that, on the whole, prohibition is desirable for eugenic as well as for other reasons.
!
!PEDAGOGICAL CELIBACY

Whether women are more efficient teachers than men, and whether single women are more efficient teachers than married women, are disputed questions which it is not proposed here to consider. Accepting the
!present fact, that most of the school teachers in the United States are unmarried women, it is proper to examine the eugenic consequences of this condition.

!The withdrawal of this large body of women from the career of motherhood into a celibate career may be desirable if these women are below the average of the rest of the women of the population in eugenic quality.