CHAPTER XIV! ! !THE COLOUR LINE!

CHAPTER XIV!

!

!THE COLOUR LINE!

!

"A young white woman, a graduate of a great university of the far North,

where Negroes are seldom seen, resented it most indignantly when she was threatened with social ostracism in a city farther South with a large

!Negro population because she insisted upon receiving upon terms of social equality a Negro man who had been her classmate.[128]"

!The incident seems trivial. But the phenomenon back of it, the "colour line," is so far-reaching that it deserves careful examination.

As the incident suggests, the colour line is not a universal phenomenon. The Germans appear to have little aversion to receiving Negroes--in Germany--on terms of equality. These same Germans, when brought face to face with the question in their colonies, or in the southern United

!States, quickly change their attitude. Similarly a Negro in Great Britain labours under much less disadvantage than he does among the British inhabitants of Australia or South Africa.

!The colour line therefore exists only as the result of race experience. This fact alone is sufficient to suggest that one should not dismiss it lightly as the outgrowth of bigotry. Is it not perhaps a social adaptation with survival value?

!The purpose of this chapter is to analyse society's "unconscious reasoning" which has led to the establishment of a colour line--to the denial of social equality--wherever the white[129] and black races have long been in contact during recent history; and to see whether this discrimination appears to be justified by eugenics.

!M. Mecklin[130] summarises society's logic as follows:

"When society permits the free social intercourse of two young persons of similar training and interests, it tacitly gives its consent to the possible legitimate results of such relations, namely, marriage. But

marriage is not a matter that concerns the contracting parties alone; it is social in its origin and from society come its sanctions. It is

society's legitimatised method for the perpetuation of the race in the larger and inclusive sense of a continuous racial type which shall be the bearer of a continuous and progressive civilisation. There are, however, within the community, two racial groups of such widely divergent physical and psychic characteristics that the blending of the two destroys the purity of the type of both and introduces

confusion--the result of the blend is a mongrel. The preservation of the unbroken, self-conscious existence of the white or dominant ethnic group is synonymous with the preservation of all that has meaning and inspiration in its past and hope for its future. It forbids by law,

!therefore, or by the equally effective social taboo, anything that would tend to contaminate the purity of its stock or jeopardise the integrity of its social heritage."

!It is needless to say that the "social mind" does not consciously go through any such process of reasoning, before it draws a colour line. The social mind rarely even attempts to justify its conclusions. It merely holds a general attitude of superiority, which in many cases appears to be nothing more than a feeling that another race is different.

!In what way different?

!The difference between the white race and the black (or any other race) might consist of two elements: (1) differences in heredity--biological differences; (2) differences in traditions, environment, customs--social differences, in short. A critical inquirer would want to know which kind of difference was greater, for he would at once see that the second kind might be removed by education and other social forces, while the first kind would be substantially permanent.

It is not difficult to find persons of prominence who will assert that all the differences between white and Negro are differences of a social nature, that the differences of a physical nature are negligible, and that if the Negro is "given a chance" the significant differences will

disappear. This attitude permeates the public school system of northern states. A recent report on the condition of Negro pupils in the New York City public schools professes to give "few, perhaps no, recommendations that would not apply to the children of other races. Where the application is more true in regard to coloured children, it seems largely to be because of this lack of equal justice in the cases of their

!parents. Race weakness appears but this could easily be balanced by the same or similar weakness in other races. Given an education carefully adapted to his needs and a fair chance for employment, the normal child of any race will succeed, unless the burden of wrong home conditions lies too heavily upon him."[131]

As the writer does not define what she means by "succeed," one is obliged to guess at what she means: Her anthropology is apparently similar to that of Franz Boas of Columbia University, who has said that, "No proof can be given of any material inferiority of the Negro

!race;--without doubt the bulk of the individuals composing the race are equal in mental aptitude to the bulk of our own people."

If such a statement is wholly true, the colour line can hardly be justified, but must be regarded, as it is now the case sometimes, as merely the expression of prejudice and ignorance. If the only differences between white and black, which can not be removed by education, are of no real significance,--a chocolate hue of skin, a certain kinkiness of hair, and so on,--then logically the white race

should remove the handicaps which lack of education and bad environment have placed on the Negro, and receive him on terms of perfect equality,

!in business, in politics, and in marriage.

!The proposition needs only to be stated in this frank form, to arouse an instinctive protest on the part of most Americans. Yet it has been urged in an almost equally frank form by many writers, from the days of the abolitionists to the present, and it seems to be the logical consequence of the position adopted by such anthropologists as Professor Boas, and by the educators and others who proclaim that there are no significant differences between the Negro and the white, except such as are due to social conditions and which, therefore, can be removed.

But what are these social differences, which it is the custom to dismiss in such a light-hearted way? Are they not based on fundamental incompatibilities of racial temperament, which in turn are based on differences in heredity? Modern sociologists for the main part have no illusions as to the ease with which these differences in racial

!tradition and custom can be removed.

!The social heritage of the Negro has been described at great length and often with little regard for fact, by hundreds of writers. Only a glance can be given the subject here, but it may profitably be asked what the Negro did when he was left to himself in Africa.

"The most striking feature of the African Negro is the low forms of social organisation, the lack of industrial and political cooperation, and consequently the almost entire absence of social and national self-consciousness. This rather than intellectual inferiority explains

!the lack of social sympathy, the presence of such barbarous institutions as cannibalism and slavery, the low position of woman, inefficiency in the industrial and mechanical arts, the low type of group morals, rudimentary art-sense, lack of race-pride and self-assertiveness, and in intellectual and religious life largely synonymous with fetishism and sorcery."[132]

An elementary knowledge of the history of Africa, or the more recent and much-quoted example of Haiti, is sufficient to prove that the Negro's own social heritage is at a level far below that of the whites among

whom he is living in the United States. No matter how much one may admire some of the Negro's individual traits, one must admit that his development of group traits is primitive, and suggests a mental development which is also primitive.

!

If the number of original contributions which it has made to the world's

!civilisation is any fair criterion of the relative value of a race, then the Negro race must be placed very near zero on the scale.[133]

!The following historical considerations suggest that in comparison with some other races the Negro race is germinally lacking in the higher developments of intelligence:

!That the Negro race in Africa has never, by its own initiative, risen much above barbarism, although it has been exposed to a considerable range of environments and has had abundant time in which to bring to expression any inherited traits it may possess.

That when transplanted to a new environment--say, Haiti--and left to its own resources, the Negro race has shown the same inability to rise; it has there, indeed, lost most of what it had acquired from the

!superior civilisation of the French.

That when placed side by side with the white race, the Negro race again fails to come up to their standard, or indeed to come anywhere near it. It is often alleged that this third test is an unfair one; that

the social heritage of slavery must be eliminated before the Negro can be expected to show his true worth. But contrast his career in and after slavery with that of the Mamelukes of Egypt, who were slaves, but slaves of good stock. They quickly rose to be the real rulers of the country.

Again, compare the record of the Greek slaves in the Roman republic and empire or that of the Jews under Islam. Without pushing these analogies too far, is not one forced to conclude that the Negro lacks in his

germ-plasm excellence of some qualities which the white races possess, and which are essential for success in competition with the

!civilisations of the white races at the present day?

!If so, it must be admitted not only that the Negro is different from the white, but that he is in the large eugenically inferior to the white.

!This conclusion is based on the relative achievements of the race; it must be tested by the more precise methods of the anthropological laboratory. Satisfactory studies of the Negro should be much more numerous, but there are a few informative ones. Physical characters are first to be considered.

!As a result of the careful measurement of many skulls, Karl Pearson[134] has come to the following conclusions:

!"There is for the best ascertainable characters a continuous relationship from the European skull, through prehistoric European, prehistoric Egyptian, Congo-Gaboon Negroes to Zulus and Kafirs.

"The indication is that of a long differentiated evolution, in which the Negro lies nearer to the common stem than the European; he is nearer to

!the childhood of man."

This does not prove any mental inferiority: there is little or no

!relation between conformation of skull and mental qualities, and it is a great mistake to make hasty inferences from physical to mental traits. Bean and Mall have made studies directly on the brain, but it is not possible to draw any sure conclusions from their work. A. Hrdlicka found physical differences between the two races, but did not study traits of any particular eugenic significance.

On the whole, the studies of physical anthropologists offer little of interest for the present purpose. Studies of mental traits are more to the point, but are unfortunately vitiated in many cases by the fact that no distinction was made between full-blood Negroes and mulattoes, although the presence of white blood must necessarily have a marked influence on the traits under consideration. If the investigations are discounted when necessary for this reason, it appears that in the more

elementary mental processes the two races are approximately equal. White and "coloured" children in the Washington, D. C., schools ranked equally well in memory; the coloured children were found to be somewhat the more sensitive to heat.[135] Summing up the available evidence, G. O. Ferguson concludes that "in the so-called lower traits there is no great

!difference between the Negro and the white. In motor capacity there is probably no appreciable racial difference. In sense capacity, in perceptive and discriminative ability, there is likewise a practical equality."

This is what one would, probably expect. But it is on the

"higher" mental functions that race progress largely depends, and the Negro must be judged eugenically mainly by his showing in these higher functions. One of the first studies in this line is that of M. J.

!Mayo,[136] who summarises it as follows:

!"The median age of white pupils at the time of entering high school in the city of New York is 14 years 6 months: of coloured pupils 15 years 1 month--a difference of 7 months. The average deviation for whites is 9 months; for coloured 15 months. Twenty-seven per cent of the whites are as old as the median age of the coloured or older.

"Coloured pupils remain in school a greater length of time than do the whites. For the case studied [150 white and 150 coloured], the average time spent in high school for white pupils was 3.8 terms; for coloured

!4.5 terms. About 28% of the whites attain the average time of attendance for coloured.

!"Considering the entire scholastic record, the median mark of the 150 white pupils is 66; of the 150 coloured pupils 62; a difference of 4%. The average deviation of white pupils is 7; of coloured 6.5. Twenty-nine per cent. of the coloured pupils reach or surpass the median mark of the whites.

"The white pupils have a higher average standing in all subjects ...

!the coloured pupils are about 3/4 as efficient as the whites in the pursuit of high school studies."

!This whole investigation is probably much too favourable to the Negro race, first because Negro high school pupils represent a more careful selection than do the white pupils; but most of all because no distinction was made between Negroes and mulattoes.

!B. A. Phillips, studying the public elementary schools of Philadelphia, found[137] that the percentage of retardation in the coloured schools ranged from 72.8 to 58.2, while the percentage of retardation in the districts which contained the schools ranged from 45.1 to 33.3. The average percentage of retardation for the city as a whole was 40.3. Each of the coloured schools had a greater percentage of retardation than any of the white schools, even those composed almost entirely of foreigners, and in those schools attended by both white and coloured pupils the percentage of retardation on the whole varied directly with the percentage of coloured pupils in attendance.

These facts might be interpreted in several ways. It might be that the curriculum was not well adapted to the coloured children, or that they came from bad home environments, or that they differed in age, etc. Dr. Phillips accordingly undertook to get further light on the cause of retardation of the coloured pupils by applying Binet tests to white and coloured children of the same chronological age and home conditions, and found "a difference in the acceleration between the two races of 31% in favour of the white boys, 25% in favour of the white girls, 28% in favour

!of the white pupils with boys and girls combined."

!A. C. Strong, using the Binet-Simon tests, found[138] coloured school children of Columbia, S. C., considerably less intelligent than white children.

!W. H. Pyle made an extensive test[139] of 408 coloured pupils in Missouri public schools and compared them with white pupils. He concludes: "In general the marks indicating mental ability of the Negro are about two-thirds those of the whites”

"Perhaps the most important question that arises in connection with the results of these mental tests is: How far is ability to pass them dependent on environmental conditions? Our tests show certain specific differences between Negroes and whites. What these differences would have been had the Negroes been subject to the same environmental influences as the whites, it is difficult to say. The results obtained

by separating the Negroes into two social groups would lead one to think that the conditions of life under which the negroes live might account for the lower mentality of the Negroes. On the other hand, it may be

!that the Negroes living under better social conditions are of better stock. They may have more white blood in them."

The most careful study yet made of the relative intelligence of Negroes and whites is that of G. O. Ferguson, Jr.,[140] on 486 white and 421

coloured pupils in the schools of Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Newport News, Va. Tests were employed which required the use of the "higher" functions, and as far as possible (mainly on the basis of skin-colour)

!the amount of white blood in the coloured pupils was determined. Four classes were made: full-blood Negro, 3/4 Negro, 1/2 Negro (mulatto) and 1/4 Negro (quadroon). It was found that "the pure Negroes scored 69.2% as high as the whites; that the 3/4 pure Negroes scored 73.2% as high as the whites; that the mulattoes scored 81.2% as high as the whites; and that the quadroons obtained 91.8% of the white score." This confirms the belief of many observers that the ability of a coloured man is proportionate to the amount of white blood he has.

Summarising a large body of evidence, Dr. Ferguson concludes that "the intellectual performance of the general coloured population is approximately 75% as efficient as that of the whites," but that pure Negroes have only 60% of white intellectual efficiency, and that even this figure is probably too high. "It seems as though the white type has

attained a higher level of development, based upon the common elementary capacities, which the Negro has not reached to the same degree." "All of

!the experimental work which has been done has pointed to the same general conclusion."

!This is a conclusion of much definiteness and value, but it does not go as far as one might wish, for the deeper racial differences of impulse and inhibition, which are at present incapable of precise measurement, are likewise of great importance. And it is the common opinion that the Negro differs in such traits even more than in intellect proper. He is said to be lacking in that aggressive competitiveness which has been responsible for so much of the achievement of the Nordic race; it is alleged that his sexual impulses are strongly developed and inhibitions lacking; that he has "an instability of character, involving a lack of foresight, an improvidence, a lack of persistence, small power of serious initiative, a tendency to be content with immediate satisfactions." He appears to be more gregarious but less apt at organisation than most races.

The significance of these differences depends largely on whether they are germinal, or merely the results of social tradition. In favour of the view that they are in large part racial and hereditary, is the fact that they persist in all environments. They are found, as Professor Mecklin says, "Only at the lower level of instinct, impulse and temperament, and do not, therefore, admit of clear definition because they are overlaid

in the case of every individual with a mental superstructure gotten from the social heritage which may vary widely in the case of members of the same race. That they do persist, however, is evidenced in the case of

the Negroes subjected to the very different types of civilisation in Haiti, Santo Domingo, the United States, and Jamaica. In each of these cases a complete break has been made with the social traditions of Africa and different civilisations have been substituted, and yet in temperament and character the Negro in all these countries is essentially the same. The so-called 'reversion to type' often pointed

out in the Negro is in reality but the recrudescence of fundamental,

!unchanged race traits upon the partial breakdown of the social heritage or the Negro's failure successfully to appropriate it."

Again, as Professor Ferguson points out, the experimental tests above cited may be thought to give some support to the idea that the emotional characteristics of the Negro are really inherent. "Strong and changing

emotions, an improvident character and a tendency to immoral conduct are not unallied," he explains; "They are all rooted in uncontrolled

!impulse. And a factor which may tend to produce all three is a deficient development of the more purely intellectual capacities. Where the implications of the ideas are not apprehended, where thought is not lively and fertile, where meanings and consequences are not grasped, the need for the control of impulse will not be felt. And the demonstrable deficiency of the Negro in intellectual traits may involve the dynamic deficiencies which common opinion claims to exist."

!There are other racial and heritable differences of much importance, which are given too little recognition--namely, the differences of disease resistance. Here one can speak unhesitatingly of a real inferiority in respect to the environment of North America.

As was pointed out in the chapter on Natural Selection, the Negro has been subjected to lethal selection for centuries by the Negro diseases, the diseases of tropical Africa, of which malaria and yellow fever are

the most conspicuous examples. The Negro is strongly resistant to these and can live where the white man dies. The white man, on the other hand, has his own diseases, of which tuberculosis is an excellent example.

!Compared with the Negro, he is relatively resistant to phthisis and will survive where the Negro dies.

When the two races are living side by side, it is obvious that each is proving a menace to the other, by acting as a disseminator  of  infection. The white man kills the Negro with tuberculosis and typhoid fever. In North America the Negro can not kill the white man with malaria or yellow fever, to any great extent, because these diseases do not flourish here. But the Negro has brought some other diseases here and given them to the white race; elephantiasis is one example, but the

!most conspicuous is hookworm, the extent and seriousness of which have only recently been realised.

In the New England states the average expectation of life, at birth, is

50.6 years for native white males, 34.1 years for Negro males. For native white females it is 54.2 years and for Negro females 37.7 years, according to the Bureau of the Census (1916). These very considerable differences can not be wholly explained away by the fact that the Negro is crowded into parts of the cities where the sanitation is worst. They indicate that the Negro is out of his environment. In tropical Africa,

!to which the Negro is adapted by many centuries of natural selection, his expectation of life might be much longer than that of the white man. In the United States he is much less "fit," in the Darwinian sense.

In rural districts of the South, according to C. W. Stiles, the annual

!typhoid death rate per 100,000 population is:

_Whites_

_Negroes_

Males  37.4     75.3

!Females         27.4     56.3

These figures again show, not alone the greater intelligence of the white in matters of hygiene, but probably also the greater inherent resistance of the white to a disease which has been attacking him for many centuries. Biologically, North America is a white man's country,

!not a Negro's country, and those who are considering the Negro problem must remember that natural selection has not ceased acting on man.

!From the foregoing different kinds of evidence, we feel justified in concluding that the Negro race differs greatly from the white race, mentally as well as physically, and that in many respects it may be said to be inferior, when tested by the requirements of modern civilisation and progress, with particular reference to North America.

!We return now to the question of intermarriage. What is to be expected from the union of these diverse streams of descent?

The best answer would be to study and measure the mulattoes and their posterity, in as many ways as possible. No one has ever done this. It is

!the custom to make no distinction whatever between mulatto and Negro, in the United States, and thus the whole problem is beclouded.

There is some evidence from life insurance and medical sources, that the mulatto stands above the Negro but below the white in respect to his health. There is considerable evidence that he occupies the same relation in the intellectual world; it is a matter of general

!observation that nearly all the leaders of the Negro race in the United States are not Negroes but mulattoes.

!Without going into detail, we feel perfectly safe in drawing this conclusion: that in general the white race loses and the Negro gains from miscegenation.

This applies, of course, only to the germinal nature. Taking into consideration the present social conditions in America, it is doubtful whether either race gains. But if social conditions be eliminated for

!the moment, biologists may believe that intermarriage between the white and Negro races represents, on the whole, an advance for the Negro; and that it represents for the white race a distinct loss.

!If eugenics is to be thought of solely in terms of the white race, there can be no hesitation about rendering a verdict. We must unhesitatingly condemn miscegenation.

But there are those who declare that it is small and mean to take such a narrow view of the evolution of the race. They would have America open its doors indiscriminately to immigration, holding it a virtue to

sacrifice one's self permanently for someone else's temporary happiness; they would equally have the white race sacrifice itself for the Negro,

!by allowing a mingling of the two blood-streams. That, it is alleged, is the true way to elevate the Negro.

!The question may well be considered from that point of view, even though the validity of such a point of view is not admitted.

To ensure racial and social progress, nothing will take the place of leadership, of genius. A race of nothing but mediocrities will stand still, or very nearly so; but a race of mediocrities with a good supply

!of men of exceptional ability and energy at the top, will make progress in discovery, invention and organisation, which is generally recognised as progressive evolution.

!If the level of the white race be lowered, it will hurt that race and be of little help to the Negro. If the white race be kept at such a level that its productivity of men of talent will be at a maximum, everyone will progress; for the Negro benefits just as the white does from every forward step in science and art, in industry and politics.

Remembering that the white race in America is nine times as numerous as the black race, we conclude that it would be desirable to encourage amalgamation of the two races only in case the average of mulattoes is superior to the average of the whites. No one can seriously maintain

!that this supposition is true. Biologically, therefore, there is no reason to think that an increase in the number of mulattoes is desirable.

There is a curious argument in circulation, which points out that mulattoes are almost always the offspring of Negro mothers and white fathers, not of Negro fathers and white mothers. Therefore, it is said, production of mulattoes does not mean at all a decrease in the number of white births, but merely substitutes a number of mulatto births for an equivalent number of pure Negro births. It is therefore alleged that the production of mulattoes is in the long run a benefit, elevating the

!Negro race without impairing the white race.

But this argument assumes that most mulatto births are illegitimate,--a condition which eugenists do not sanction, because it tends to disintegrate the family. Rather than such a condition, the legitimate production of pure-blood Negroes is preferable, even though they be inferior in individual ability to the illegitimate mulattoes offered as

!a substitute. There are not at the present time enough desirable white fathers in the country. If desirable ones are set aside to produce mulattoes, it would be a great loss to the nation; while if the mulattoes are the offspring of eugenically undesirable white fathers, then the product is not likely to be anything America wants.

From whatever standpoint we take, we see nothing good to be said for miscegenation.[141] We have discussed the problem as a particular one between the blacks and whites but the argument will hold good when

!applied to any two races between which the differences are so marked that one may be considered decidedly inferior to the other.

!

The following policy seems to us to be in accordance with modern

!science, and yet meet all the legitimate arguments of the National Association. We will state our attitude as definitely as possible:

!We hold that it is to the interests of the United States, for the reasons given in this chapter, to prevent further Negro-white amalgamation.

!The taboo of public opinion is not sufficient in all cases to prevent intermarriage, and should be supplemented by law, particularly as the United States have of late years received many white immigrants from other countries (e. g., Italy) where the taboo is weak because the problem has never been pressing.

But to prevent intermarriage is only a small part of the solution, since most mulattoes come from extramarital miscegenation. The only solution of this, which is compatible with the requirements of eugenics, is not that of laissez faire, suggested by the National Association,

!but an extension of the taboo, and an extension of the laws, to prohibit all sexual intercourse between the two races.

We believe it to be highly desirable that such laws should be enacted and enforced by all states. A necessary preliminary would be to standardise the laws all over the Union, particularly with a view to agreement on what a "Negro" legally is; for

!in some states the legislation applies to one who is one-sixteenth, or even less, Negro in descent, while in other states it appears to refer only to full-blood or, at the most, half-blood individuals.

Such legislation, and what is more important, such public opinion, leading to a cessation of Negro-white amalgamation, we believe to be in the interests of national eugenics, and to further the welfare of both

!of the races involved. Miscegenation can only lead to unhappiness under present social conditions and must, we believe, under any social conditions be biologically wrong.

!We favour, therefore, the support of the taboo which society has placed on these mixed marriages, as well as any legal action which can practicably be taken to make miscegenation between white and black impossible. Justice requires that the Negro race be treated as kindly and considerately as possible, with every economic and political concession that is consistent with the continued welfare of the nation. Such social equality and intercourse as might lead to marriage are not compatible with this welfare.

Fertility Fitness – Increase your chance of Pregnancy | Manchester

CHAPTER XIII! ! !INCREASE OF THE BIRTH-RATE OF THE SUPERIOR!

CHAPTER XIII!

!

!INCREASE OF THE BIRTH-RATE OF THE SUPERIOR!

!

It is at once evident that a decline, rather than an increase, in the

birth-rate of some sections of the population, is wanted. There are some strata at the bottom that are a source of weakness rather than of strength to the race, and a source of unhappiness rather than of

!happiness to themselves and those around them. These should be reduced in number, as we have shown at some length earlier in this book.

!The other parts of the population should be perpetuated by the best, rather than the worst. In no other way can the necessary leaders be secured, without whom, in commerce, industry, politics, science, the nation is at a great disadvantage. The task of eugenics is by no means what it is sometimes supposed to be: to breed a superior caste. But a very important part of its task is certainly to increase the number of leaders in the race.

As every one knows, race suicide is proceeding more rapidly among the native whites than among any other large section of the population; and it is exactly this part of the population which has in the past

!furnished most of the eminent men of the world.

It has been shown in previous chapters that eminent men do not appear wholly by chance in the population. The production of eminence is largely a family affair; and in America, "the land of opportunity" as

well as in older countries, people of eminence are much more interrelated than chance would allow. It has been shown, indeed, that in America it is at least a 500 to 1 bet that an eminent person will be

!rather closely related to some other eminent person, and will not be a sporadic appearance in the population.[118]

Taken with other considerations advanced in earlier chapters, this means that a falling off in the reproduction of the old American best strains means a falling off in the number of eminent men which the United States will produce. No improvement in education can prevent a serious loss,

!for the strong minds get more from education.

The old American stock has produced a vastly greater proportion of eminence, has accomplished a great deal more proportionately, in modern times, than has other any stock whose representatives have been coming in large numbers as immigrants to these shores during the last generation. It is, therefore, likely to continue to surpass them, unless

!it declines too greatly in numbers. For this reason, we feel justified in concluding that the decline of the birth-rate in the old American stock represents a decline in the birth-rate of a superior element.

There is another way of looking at this point. The stock under discussion has been, on the whole, economically ahead of such stocks as

are now immigrating. In competition with them under equal conditions, it appears to remain pretty consistently ahead, economically. Now,

although we would not insist on this point too strongly, it can hardly be questioned that eugenic value is to some extent correlated with economic success in life, as all desirable qualities tend to be correlated together. Within reasonable limits, it is justifiable to

!treat the economically superior sections of the nation as the eugenically superior. And it is among these economically superior sections of the nation that the birth-rate has most rapidly and dangerously fallen.

The constant influx of highly fecund immigrant women tends to obscure the fact that the birth-rate of the older residents is falling below

!par, and analysis of the birth-rate in various sections of the community is necessary to give an understanding of what is actually taking place.

In short, the birth-rate of the old American stock is now so low that that stock is dying out and being supplanted by immigrants. In order that the stock might even hold its own, each married

!woman should bear three to four children. At present the married women of the old white American race in New England appear to be bringing two or less to maturity.

Dr. Cattell's investigation of the families of 1,000 contemporary

American men of science all of which were probably not complete however, shows that they leave, on the average, less than two surviving children.

!Only one family in 75 is larger than six, and 22% of them are childless. Obviously, as far as those families are concerned, there will be fewer men of inherent scientific eminence in the next generation than in this.

!The decline in the birth-rate is sometimes attributed to the fact that people as a whole are marrying later than they used to; we have already shown that this idea is, on the whole, false. The idea that people as a whole are marrying less than they used to is also, as we have shown, mistaken. The decline in the general birth-rate can be attributed to only one fact, and that is that married people are having fewer children.

A. Hill[124] found, from the 1910 census figures, that one in eight of the native-born wives is childless, as compared with one in five

!among the Negroes, one in nineteen among the foreign born. Childlessness of American wives is therefore a considerable, although not a preponderant factor, in this decline of the birth rate.

!Dr. Hill further found that from 10 marriages, in various stocks, the following numbers of children could be expected:

Native-born women    27

Negro-born women    31

English-born women  34

Russian-born women 54

French Canada-born women 56

!Polish-born women   62

!The women of the old American stock are on the whole more sterile or, if not sterile, less fecund, than other women in the United States. Why?

In answer, various physiological causes are often alleged. It is said

that the dissemination of venereal diseases has caused an increase of sterility; that luxurious living lowers fecundity, and so on. It is impossible to take the time to analyse the many explanations of this sort which have been offered, and which are familiar to the reader; we must content ourselves with saying that evidence of a great many kinds, largely statistical and, in our opinion, reliable, indicates that physiological causes play a minor part in the decrease of the

!birth-rate.[125]

!Or, plainly, women no longer bear as many children, because they don't want to.

This accords with Dr. Cattel's inquiry of 461 American men of science; in 285 cases it was stated that the family was voluntarily limited, the cause being given as health in 133 cases, expense in 98 cases, and various in 54 cases. Sidney Webb's investigation among "intellectuals"

in London showed an even greater proportion of voluntary limitation. The exhaustive investigation of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics leaves little room for doubt that in England the decline in the

birth-rate began about 1876-78, when the trial of Charles Bradlaugh and the Theosophist leader, Mrs. Annie Besant, on the charge of circulating "neo-Malthusian" literature, focused public attention on the

!possibility of birth control, and gradually brought a knowledge of the means of contraception within reach of many. In the United States statistics are lacking, but medical men and others in a position to form opinions generally agree that the limitation of births has been steadily increasing for the last few decades; and with the propaganda at present going on, it is pretty sure to increase much more rapidly during the next decade or two.

And in so explaining the cause of the declining birth-rate among

native-born Americans, we have also found the principal reason for the differential nature of the decline in the nation at large, which is

the feature that alarms the eugenist. The more intelligent and well-to-do part of the population has been able to get and use the

!needed information, and limit its birth-rate; the poor and ignorant has been less able to do so, and their rate of increase has therefore been more natural in a large percentage of cases.

It is not surprising, therefore, that many eugenists should have advocated wider dissemination of the knowledge of means of limiting births, with the idea that if this practice were extended to the lower classes, their birth-rate would decrease just the same as has that of

!the upper classes, and the alarming differential rate would therefore be abolished.

!Against this it might be argued that the desired result will never be wholly attained, because the most effective means of birth control involve some expense, and because their effective use presupposes a certain amount of foresight and self-control which is not always found among the lower strata of society.

Despite certain dangers accompanying a widespread dissemination of the knowledge of how to limit births, it seems to be the opinion of most eugenists that if free access to such information be not permitted that

at least such knowledge ought to be given in many families, where it would be to the advantage of society that fewer children be produced. Such a step, of course, must be taken on the individual responsibility of a doctor, nurse or other social worker. A propaganda has arisen during recent years, in the United States, for the repeal of all laws which prohibit giving knowledge about and selling contraceptives.

Whether or not it succeeds in changing the law it will, like the

!Bradlaugh-Besant episode, spread contraception widely. This propaganda is based largely on social and economic grounds, and is sometimes unscientific in its methods and avowed aims. But whatever its nature may be, there seems little reason (judging from analogy in European countries) to believe that it can be stopped.

The "infant mortality movement" also has an effect here which is rarely recognised. It is a stock argument of birth control propagandists that a high birth-rate means a high rate of infant mortality; but A. O. Powys has demonstrated that cause and effect are to some extent reversed in this statement, and that it is equally true that a high rate of infant mortality means a high birth-rate, in a section of the population where birth control is not practiced. The explanation is the familiar fact

!that conception takes place less often in nursing mothers. But if a child dies early or is bottle-fed, a new conception is likely to occur much sooner than would otherwise be the case. By reducing infant mortality and teaching mothers to feed their babies naturally, the infant mortality movement is thereby reducing the birth-rate in the poorer part of the population, a eugenic service which to some extent offsets the dysgenic results that, as we shall show in the last chapter, follow the "Save the Babies" propaganda.

With the spread of the birth control and infant mortality movements one may therefore look forward to some diminution of the differential element in the birth-rate, together with a further decline in that

!birth-rate as a whole.

Such a situation, which seems to us almost a certainty within the next decade or two, will not change the duty of eugenics, on which we have been insisting in this chapter and, to a large extent, throughout the present book. It will be just as necessary as ever that the families which are, and have been in the past, of the greatest benefit and value to the country, have a higher birth-rate. The greatest task of eugenics, as we see it, will still be to find means by which the birth-rate among such families can be increased. This increase in the birth-rate among superior people must depend largely on a change in public sentiment. Such a change may be brought about in many ways. The authority of religion may be invoked, as it is by the Roman Catholic and Mormon

churches[127] whose communicants are constantly taught that fecundity is a virtue and voluntary sterility a sin. Unfortunately their appeal fails

to make proper discriminations. Whatever may be the theological reasons for such an attitude on the part of the churches, its practical eugenic

!significance is clear enough.

Nothing can be more certain than that, if present conditions continue, Roman Catholics will soon be in an overwhelming preponderance in the eastern United States, because of the differential birth-rate, if for no other reason; and that the Mormon population will steadily gain ground in the west. Similarly, it is alleged that the population of France is gradually assuming the characteristics of the Breton race, because that race is the notably fecund section of the population, while nearly all

the other components of the nation are committing race suicide (although not so rapidly as is the old white stock in New England). Again, the

role of religion in eugenics is shown in China, where ancestor worship leads to a desire for children, and makes it a disgrace to be childless.

A process analogous to natural selection applies to religions much as it does to races; and if the Chinese religion, with its requirement of a high birth-rate, and the present-day American Protestant form of the Christian religion, with its lack of eugenic teaching, should come into

direct competition, under equal conditions of environment, it is obvious that the Chinese form would be the eventual survivor, just because its adherents would steadily increase and those of its rival would as steadily decrease. Such a situation may seem fanciful; yet the leaders

of every church may well consider whether the religion which they preach is calculated to fill all the needs of its adherents, if it is silent on

!the subject of eugenics.

Fertility Fitness – Increase your chance of Pregnancy | Manchester

The influence of economic factors on the birth-rate is marked. The child, under modern urban conditions, is not an economic asset, as he was on the farm in earlier days. He is an economic liability instead.

!And with the constant rise of the standard of living, with the increase of taxation, the child steadily becomes more of a liability. Many married people desire children, or more children, but feel that they can not have them without sacrificing something that they are unwilling to sacrifice.

!Analysis of this increase in the cost of children, reveals not less than five main elements which deserve attention from eugenists.

!It costs more to clothe children than it used to. Not only does clothing of a given quality cost more now than it did a decade or two ago, but there are more fabrics and designs available, and many of these, while attractive, are costly and not durable. Compliance to fashion has increasingly made itself felt in the clothing of the child.

!It costs more to feed them than it used to. Not only has food for everyone increased in price, but the standards for feeding children have been raised. Once children were expected to be content with plain fare; now it is more frequently the custom to give them just what the rest of the family eats.

The cost of medical attention has increased. All demand more of the doctors now than they did in the last generation. The doctors are able to do more than they formerly could, and particularly for his children,

!every man wants the best that he can possibly afford. Hence medical attendance for a child is constantly becoming more costly, because more frequent; and further, the amount of money which parents spend on medical attendance for their children usually increases with any increase in their income.

The cost of domestic labor is greater. Most kinds of domestic service have more than doubled in price within the memory of relatively young people. Moreover, it is gradually being realised that a high standard is desirable in selecting a nurse for children. As a fact, a children's

nurse ought to have much greater qualifications than the nurse whose duty is to care for sick adults. If a mother is obliged to delegate part

of the work of bringing up her children to some other woman, she is beginning to recognise that this substitute mother should have superior ability; and the teachers of subconscious psychology have emphasised the importance of giving a child only the best possible intellectual surroundings. Ignorant nursemaids are unwillingly tolerated, and as the number of competent assistants for mothers is very small, the cost is correspondingly high. An increase in the number of persons trained for such work is to be anticipated, but it is likely that the demand for

!them will grow even more rapidly; hence there is no reason to expect that competent domestic help will become any less costly than it is now.

The standards of education have risen steadily. There is perhaps no other feature which has tended more to limit families. Conscientious parents have often determined to have no more children than they could afford to educate in the best possible way. This meant at least a

!college education, and frequently has led to one and two-child families. It is a motive of birth control which calls for condemnation. The old idea of valuable mental discipline for all kinds of mental work to be gained from protracted difficult formal education is now rejected by educational psychologists, but its prevalence in the popular mind serves to make "higher education" still something of a fetish, from which marvellous results, not capable of precise comprehension, are anticipated. We do not disparage the value of a college education, in saying that parents should not attach such importance to it as to lead them to limit their family to the number to whom they can give 20 years of education without pecuniary compensation.

The effect of these various factors in the increasing cost of children

!is to decrease fecundity not so much on the basis of income of parents, as on the basis of their standards. The prudent, conscientious parent is therefore the one most affected, and the reduction in births is greatest in that class, where eugenics is most loth to see it.

The remedy appears to be a change in public opinion which will result in a truer idea of values. Some readjustments in family budgets are called for, which will discriminate more clearly between expenditure that is worth while, and that which is not. Without depriving his children of

the best medical attention and education, one may eliminate those invidious sources of expense which benefit neither the children nor anyone else,--overdressing, for instance. A simplification of life would

!not only enable superior people to have larger families, but would often be an advantage to the children already born.

On the other hand, the fact that higher standards in a population lead to fewer children suggests a valuable means of reducing the birth-rate of the inferior. Raise their low standards of living and they will reduce their own fertility voluntarily (the birth control movement

furnishing them with the possibility). All educational work in the slums therefore is likely to have a valuable though indirect eugenic outcome. The poor foreign-speaking areas in large cities, where immigrants live huddled together in squalor, should be broken up. As these people are given new ideas of comfort, and as their children are educated in American ways of living, there is every reason to expect a decline in their birth-rate, similar to that which has taken place among the

!native-born during the past generation.

This elevation of standards in the lower classes will be accomplished without any particular exertion from eugenists; there are many agencies at work in this field, although they rarely realise the result of their

!work which we have just pointed out.

But to effect a discriminating change in the standards of the more intelligent and better educated classes calls for a real effort on the part of all those who have the welfare of society at heart. The difficulties are great enough and the obstacles are evident enough; it

is more encouraging to look at the other side, and to see evidences that the public is awakening. The events of every month show that the ideals of eugenics are filtering through the public mind more rapidly than some of us, a decade ago, felt justified in expecting. There is a growing recognition of the danger of bad breeding; a growing recognition in some quarters at least of the need for more children from the superior part

of the population; a growing outcry against the excessive standards of luxury that are making children themselves luxuries. The number of those who call themselves eugenists, or who are in sympathy with the aims of eugenics, is increasing every year, as is evidenced by the growth of

such an organisation as the American Genetic Association. Legislators show an eager desire to pass measures that as they (too often wrongly) believe will have a eugenic result. Most colleges and universities are teaching the principles of heredity, and a great many of them add definite instruction in the principles of eugenics. Although the

ultimate aim of eugenics--to raise the level of the whole human race--is perhaps as great an undertaking as the human mind can conceive, the American nation shows distinct signs of a willingness to grapple with it. And this book will have failed in its purpose, if it has not

!convinced the reader that means are available for attacking the problem at many points, and that immediate progress is not a mere dream.

!One of the first necessary steps is a change in educational methods to give greater emphasis to parenthood.

Perhaps the time is not so far distant when babies will be considered an integral part of a girl's curriculum. If educators begin systematically

to educate the emotions as well as the intellect, they will have taken a long step toward increasing the birth-rate of the superior. The next step will be to correlate income more truly with ability in such a way as to make it possible for superior young parents to afford children earlier. The child ought, if eugenically desirable, to be made an asset rather than a liability; if this can not be done, the parents should at least not be penalised for having children. In this chapter, emphasis has been laid on the need for a change in public opinion; in future

!chapters some economic and social reforms will be suggested, which it is believed would tend to make superior parents feel willing to have more children.

!

Fertility Fitness – Increase your chance of Pregnancy | Manchester

!INCREASING THE MARRIAGE RATE OF THE SUPERIOR!

CHAPTER XII!

!

!INCREASING THE MARRIAGE RATE OF THE SUPERIOR!

!

No race can long survive unless it conforms to the principles of

!eugenics, and indisputably the chief requirement for race survival is that the superior part of the race should equal or surpass the inferior part in reproduction.

It follows that the superior members of the community must marry, and at a reasonably early age. If in the best elements of the community

!celibacy increases, or if marriage is postponed far into the reproductive period, the racial contribution of the superior will necessarily fall, and after a few generations the race will consist mainly of the descendants of inferior people, its eugenic average being thereby much lowered.

!If one sought, for example, to find a group of women distinctly superior to the average, he might safely take the college graduates. Their superior quality as a class lies in the facts that:

!They have survived the weeding-out process of grammar and high school, and the repeated elimination by examinations in college.

!They have persevered, after those with less mental ability have grown tired of the strain and have voluntarily dropped out.

!Some have even forced their way to college against great obstacles, because attracted by the opportunities it offers them for mental activity.

!Some have gone to college because their excellence has been discovered by teachers or others who have strongly urged it.

!All these attributes can not be merely acquired, but must be in some degree inherent. Furthermore, these girls are not only superior in themselves, but are ordinarily from superior parents, because

(a) Their parents have in most cases co-operated by desiring this higher

!education for their daughters.

!Therefore, if marriage within such a selected class as this is being avoided, or greatly postponed, the eugenist can not help feeling concerned.

!Statistics compiled on marriages among college women (1901) showed that: 45% of college women marry before the age of 40.

90% of all United States women marry before the age of 40.

96% of Arkansas women marry before the age of 40.

!80% of Massachusetts women marry before the age of 40.

!In Massachusetts, it is further to be noted, 30% of all women have married at the age when college women are just graduating.

It has, moreover, been demonstrated that the women who belong to Phi Beta Kappa and other honour societies, and therefore represent a second selection from an already selected class, have a lower marriage rate

!than college women in general.

Particularly pernicious in tending to prevent marriage is the influence of certain professional schools, some of which have come to require a college degree for entrance. In such a case the aspiring physician, for example, can hardly hope to obtain a license to practice until he has reached the age of 27 since 4 years are required in Medical College and 1 year in a hospital. His marriage must in almost every case be

!postponed until a number of years after that of the young men of his own class who have followed business careers.

This is enough to prove that the best educated young women

(and to a less extent young men) of the United States, who for many reasons may be considered superior, are in many cases avoiding marriage altogether, and in other cases postponing it longer than is desirable.

!The women in the separate colleges of the East have the worst record in this respect, but that of the women graduates of some of the coeducational schools leaves much to be desired.

It is difficult to separate the causes which result in a postponement of marriage, from those that result in a total avoidance of marriage. To a large extent the causes are the same, and the result differs only in degree. The effect of absolute celibacy of superior people, from a eugenic point of view, is of course obvious to all, but the racial

!effect of postponement of marriage, even for a few years, is not always so clearly realised.

!

Certainly the object of eugenics is not to merely increase human

numbers. Quality is more important than quantity in a birth-rate. But it must be evident that other things being equal, a group which marries early will, after a number of generations, supplant a group which marries even a few years later. And there is abundant evidence to show

!that some of the best elements of the old, white, American race are being rapidly eliminated from the population of America, because of postponement or avoidance of marriage.

!Taking the men alone, we find that failure to marry may often be ascribed to one of the following reasons:

!The cultivation of a taste for sexual variety and a consequent unwillingness to submit to the restraints of marriage.

!Pessimism in regard to women from premature or unfortunate sex experiences.

!Infection by venereal disease.

!Deficiency in normal sexual feeling, or perversion.

!Deficiency of one kind or another, physical or mental, causing difficulty in getting an acceptable mate.

The persons in groups 4 and 5 certainly and in groups 1, 2, and 3 probably to a less extent, are inferior, and their celibacy is an advantage to the race, rather than a disadvantage, from a eugenic point of view. Their inferiority is in part the result of bad environment. But since innate inferiority is so frequently a large factor, the bad

!environment often being experienced only because the nature was inferior to start with, the average of the group as a whole must be considered innately inferior.

!Then there are among celibate men two other classes, largely superior by nature:

!Those who seek some other end so ardently that they will not make the necessary sacrifice in money and freedom, in order to marry.

!Those whose likelihood of early marriage is reduced by a prolonged education and apprenticeship. Prolongation of the celibate period often results in life-long celibacy.

!Some of the most important means of remedying the above conditions, in so far as they are dysgenic, can be grouped under three general heads:

!Try to lead all young men to avoid a loose sexual life and venereal disease. A general effort will be heeded more by the superior than by the inferior.

Hold up the role of husband and father as particularly honourable, and proclaim its shirking, without adequate cause, as dishonourable. Depict it as a happier and healthier state than celibacy or pseudo-celibacy.

For a man to say he has never met a girl he can love simply means he has not diligently sought one, or else he has a deficient emotional equipment; for there are many, surprisingly many, estimable, attractive,

!unmarried women.

Cease prolonging the educational period past the early twenties. It is time to call a halt on the schools and universities, whose constant lengthening of the educational period will result in a serious loss to

the race. External circumstances of an educational nature should not be allowed to force a young man to postpone his marriage past the age of

25. This means that students must be allowed to specialise earlier. If there is need of limiting the number of candidates, competitive entrance

examinations may be arranged on some rational basis. Superior young men should marry, even at some cost to their early efficiency. The high efficiency of any profession can be more safely kept up by demanding a minimum amount of continuation work in afternoon, evening, or seasonal classes, laboratories, or clinics. No more graduate fellowships should

!be established until those now existing carry a stipend adequate for marriage. Those which already carry larger stipends should not be limited to bachelors, as are the most valuable awards at Princeton, the ten yearly Proctor fellowships of $1,000 each.

The causes of the remarkable failure of college women to marry can not be exhaustively investigated here, but for the purposes of eugenics they may be roughly classified as unavoidable and avoidable. Under the first heading must be placed those girls who are inherently un-marriageable, either because of physical defect or, more frequently, mental

defect,--most often an over-development of intellect at the expense of the emotions, which makes a girl either unattractive to men, or inclines her toward a celibate career and away from marriage and motherhood.

Opinions differ as to the proportion of college girls who are inherently

un-marriageable. Anyone who has been much among them will testify that a large proportion of them are not inherently un-marriageable, however, and their celibacy for the most part must be classified as avoidable. Their

!failure to marry may be because

!They desire not to marry, due to a preference for a career, or development of a cynical attitude toward men and matrimony, due to a faulty education, or

!They desire to marry, but do not, for a variety of reasons such as:

!They are educated for careers, such as school-teaching, where they have little opportunity to meet men.

!Their education makes them less desirable mates than girls who have had some training along the lines of home-making and mothercraft.

!They have remained in partial segregation until past the age when they are physically most attractive, and when the other girls of their age are marrying.

Due to their own education, they demand on the part of suitors a higher degree of education than the young men of their acquaintance possess. A girl of this type wants to marry but desires a man who is

!educationally her equal or superior. As men of such type are relatively rare, her chances of marriage are reduced.

!Their experience in college makes them desire a standard of living higher than that of their own families or of the men among whom they were brought up. They become resistant to the suit of men who are of ordinary economic status. While waiting for the appearance of a suitor who is above the average in both intelligence and wealth, they pass the marriageable age.

!They are better educated than the young men of their acquaintance, and the latter are afraid of them. Some young men dislike to marry girls who know more than they do, except in the distinctively feminine fields.

These and various similar causes help to lower the marriage-rate of college women and to account for the large number of alumnæ who desire to marry but are unable to do so. In the interest of eugenics, the

!various difficulties must be met in appropriate ways.

Marriage is not desirable for those who are eugenically inferior, from weak constitutions, defective sexuality, or inherent mental deficiency.

But beyond these groups of women are the much larger groups of celibates who are distinctly superior, and whose chances of marriage have been reduced for one of the reasons mentioned above or through living in

cities with an undue proportion of female residents. Then there are, besides these, superior women who, because they are brought up in families without brothers or brothers' friends, are so unnaturally shy

that they are unable to become friendly with men, however much they may care to. It is evident that life in a separate college for women often intensifies this defect. There are still other women who repel men by a manner of extreme self-repression and coldness, sometimes the result of parents' or teachers' over-zealous efforts to inculcate modesty and

!reserve, traits valuable in due degree but harmful in excess.

When will educators learn that the education of the emotions is as important as that of the intellect? When will the schools awake to the fact that a large part of life consists in relations with other human beings, and that much of their educational effort is absolutely valueless, or detrimental, to success in the fundamentally necessary practice of dealing with other individuals which is imposed on every one? Many a college girl of the finest innate qualities, who sincerely desires to enter matrimony, is unable to find a husband of her own

class, simply because she has been rendered so cold and unattractive, so over-stuffed intellectually and starved emotionally, that a typical man does not desire to spend the rest of his life in her company. The same indictment applies in a less degree to men. It is generally believed

!that an only child is frequently to be found in this class.

On the other hand, it is equally true--perhaps more important--that many innately superior young men are rejected, because of their manner of

life. Superior young men should be induced to keep their physical records clean, in order that they may not suffer the severe depreciation

!which they would otherwise sustain in the eyes of superior women.

But in efforts to teach chastity, sex itself must not be made to appear an evil thing. This is a grave mistake and all too common since the rise

!of the sex-hygiene movement. Undoubtedly a considerable amount of the celibacy in sensitive women may be traced to ill-balanced mothers and teachers who, in word and attitude, build up an impression that sex is indecent and bestial, and engender in general a damaging suspicion of men.[115]

Level heads are necessary in the sex ethics campaign. Whereas the venereal diseases will probably, with a continuation of present progress in treatment and prophylaxis, be brought under control in the course of a century, the problem of differential mating will exist as long as the race does, which can hardly be less than tens of millions of years.

Lurid presentation, by drama, novel, or magazine-story, of dramatic and highly-coloured individual sex histories, is to be avoided. These often impress an abnormal situation on sensitive girls so strongly that aversion to marriage, or sex antagonism, is aroused. Every effort should be made to permeate art--dramatic, plastic, or literary--with the

!highest ideals of sex and parenthood. A glorification of motherhood and fatherhood in these ways would have a portentous influence on public opinion.

"The true, intimate chronicle of an everyday married life has not been written. Here is a theme for genius; for only genius can divine and reveal the beauty, the pathos, and the wonder of the normal or the commonplace. A felicitous marriage has its comedy, its complexities, its element, too, of tragedy and grief, as well as its serenity and fealty.

!Matrimony, whether the pair fare well or ill, is always a great adventure, a play of deep instincts and powerful emotions, a drama of two psyches. Every marriage provides a theme for the literary artist. No lives are free from enigmas."[116]

More "temperance" in work would probably promote marriage of able and ambitious young people. Walter Gallichan complains that "we do not even recognise love as a finer passion than money greed. It is a kind of

!luxury, or pleasant pastime, for the sentimentally minded. Love is so undervalued as a source of happiness, a means of grace, and a completion of being, that many men would sooner work to keep a motor car than to marry."

Men should be taught greater respect for the individuality of women, so that no high-minded girl will shrink from marriage with the idea that it means a surrender of her personality and a state of domestic servitude. A more discriminating idea of sex-equality is desirable, and a recognition by men that women are not necessarily creatures of inferior mentality. It would be an advantage if men's education included some instruction along these lines. It would be a great gain, also if

intelligent women had more knowledge of domestic economy and mothercraft, because one of the reasons why the well-educated girl is handicapped in seeking a mate is the belief all too frequently well

!founded of many young men that she is a luxury which he can not afford.

!Higher education in general needs to be reoriented. It has too much glorified individualism, and put a premium on "white collar" work. The trend toward industrial education will help to correct this situation.

Professor Sprague[117] points out another very important fault, when he says: "More strong men are needed on the staffs of public schools and women's colleges, and in all of these institutions more married instructors of both sexes are desirable. The catalogue of one of the [women's] colleges shows 114 professors and

instructors, of whom 100 are women, of whom only two have ever married. Is it to be expected that the curriculum created by such a staff would idealise and prepare for family and home life as the greatest work of

!the world and the highest goal of woman, and teach race survival as a patriotic duty? Or, would it be expected that these bachelor staffs would glorify the independent vocation and life for women and create employment bureaus to enable their graduates to get into the offices, schools and other lucrative jobs? The latter seems to be what occurs."

Increase of opportunity for superior young people to meet each other, as discussed in our chapter on sexual selection, will play a very large

part in raising the marriage rate. And finally, the delayed or avoided marriage of the intellectual classes is in large part a reflection of

!public opinion, which has wrongly represented other things as being more worth while than marriage.

"The promotion of marriage in early adult life, as a part of social hygiene, must begin with a new canonisation of marriage," Mr. Gallichan declares. "This is equally the task of the fervent poet and the

!scientific thinker, whose respective labours for humanity are never at variance in essentials.... The sentiment for marriage can be deepened by a rational understanding of the passion that attracts and unites the sexes. We need an apotheosis of conjugal love as a basis for a new appreciation of marriage. Reverence for love should be fostered from the outset of the adolescent period by parents and pedagogues."

If, in addition to this "diffusion of healthier views of the conjugal relation," some of the economic changes suggested in later chapters are put in effect, it seems probable that the present racially disastrous

!tendency of the most superior young men and women to postpone or avoid marriage would be checked.

• The importance of Relaxation
• The importance of Relaxation