As agents provocateurs women have never been surpassed by men. Cornelia trained up her two brilliant sons, with a view to hurl them against and overturn the Roman Oligarchs; a city harlot led the Sans-Cullotes of the French Revolution. Queen Boadicea led her own army of painted Britons against the, then all-conquering Legions of Rome. A female epileptoid (since canonized) dressed herself in iron armor, mounted a war-horse, and urged her demoralized countrymen — to the forcible expulsion of an alien army. In American wars the feminine has also played her part with eclat; and she delights (above all other women) in tracing her own and her family’s pedigree to Revolutionary Soldiers, Pirates, Filibusters; and through them to the mailclad knights and heroes of long ago. No Public Library in this Republic is without its complete set of Stud-Books, and none are deeper students thereof then — woman. Instinctively comprehending the determinant power of heredity, these students are vaguely endeavoring (in their own peculiar way), to solve the renowned Spencerian Synthetic: — “Having seen that matter is indestructible, motion continuous, and Force persistent — having seen that Forces are everywhere undergoing transformation; that motion always follows the line of least resistance; is invariably rhythmic; it remains to discover the similarly invariable formula, expressing the combined consequences of actions, thus separately formulated.”
Herod’s wife and daughter, and their secret alliance for getting John the Baptizer’s head chopped off, must not be overlooked; nor the calculated ‘brutality’ with which Jael drove that tent-peg into General Sisera’s cranium, when he slept. The folk-fable of Delilah and Samson is also to the point. In many respects women have proved themselves more cruel, avaricious, bloodthirsty and revengeful than men.
Women are also remarkably good liars. Deception is an essential and necessary part of their mental equipment. They are inherently deceitful. Men however reckon upon that and discount it well in advance. Without deception of some sort, a woman would have no defense whatever, against rivals, lovers, or husbands. We must not forget that women really hate each other — intensely.
It is as natural for women to prevaricate, as it is for man to resent a blow on the face. It is their weapon. Hence they take up with false religions, priestcrafts, superstitions, much more readily than men. They like to play the hypocrite, and pretend to be “O so holy,” when their secret thoughts are carnal, self-centered and materialistic. When women think, they think falsely — when they follow their instinct, they do exactly what nature intended them to do — limited of course by the inevitable ‘man’ — ‘the brute that he is.’
Women are beautiful animals, delightful companions, affectionate mothers, sisters, and wives, kind-hearted friends; but they are — born dissimulators.
A woman is primarily a reproductive cell-organism, a womb structurally embastioned by a protective, defensive, osseous network; and surrounded with the antenæ, and blood vessels, necessary for supplying nutriment to the growing ovum or embryo. Sexualism and maternity dominate the lives of all true women. To such an extent is this so, that they have little time left (or the inclination) to “think” and therefore they’ve never fitted out ab-initio with reasoning organs. Probably this is what Mahomet alluded to, when he sententiously affirmed that “women have no soul.” (Even in man, the soul is probably a fiction, but in women its absence is an absolute certainty). Women are made sexually attractive to equilibrate their lesser masculinity. It is man — the warrior’s — business to supply their wants; and select the best of them, for his own enjoyment and the propagation of his seed. They will not object — except in a giggling, semi-sentimental sort of a way, because they comprehend their own incapacity for self-mastership, and logical business methods. They are never touched with any sense of personal responsibility; are mere babies in worldly concerns — hysterical, well supplied with tear glands, verbal mechanism — but lovable always. Slaves and women are notoriously incompetent of self-control — of holding their own in ‘business’ — when not inspired and assisted by male friends. They are intended by nature to be loved and defended but not to be “equalized.”
When their passions are stirred, women have performed deeds of heroism (and of terror), that even a man with nerves of steel, would hesitate at. They have fought on sea and land, the bravest of the brave. They have led armies and ruled empires, and been criminals of the darkest dye. Messalina, Aggrepina, Amestes, Charlotte Corday, Elizabeth of Russia, Jael, Fulvia, Theroigne de Mericourt, Jezebel — the Borgias; have all made themselves more or less infamous. ‘Terrible is the rage of the billows — terrorizing is the fear of poverty, but more terrorizing than all things is the hate of a woman.’ (Euripides). Pseudo scientists have lately investigated “The Female Offender” with anthropometric accuracy, but their methods are puerile and unsatisfactory. Their very ‘first principle’ is false. They begin by assuming that the “criminal type” is to be found in gaols — a most superficial and unscientific assumption. Only criminals who fail are found there; and by far the largest proportion of them do not fail. Naturally enough, successful criminals have not been “investigated” by Messrs Ferreri, Lombroso, Havelock, Ellis, et. al. That being so, their sagest conclusions are vitiated. Indeed it is an accepted truism among criminals and police, that ‘only the fools are caught.’ Many of our most eminent men in law, medicine, science, religion and statesmanship, are criminals — criminals of the most atrocious description. The difference between the man who rules in the Castle, and the other man who is chained in the castle-dungeon, is the difference between success and failure. There is a strong affinity between the criminal and the conqueror. If Washington for example, had failed, he would (most probably) have been hunted-down, and hung as an outlaw and traitor. However he ‘won’ by Force, and consequently became a mighty potentate. King David was a sheep-stealer and blackmailer, until he triumphed. Then he became “a man after God’s own heart.” William the Norman was also a criminal, and fifty per cent of his invading army were exiled outlaws; but by conquest he became king of England, and his followers blossomed into nobles.
Hence the Spencerian dictum: — “the sole truth that transcends experience, by underlying it, is the Persistence of Force. This being the basis of experience, must be the basis of any scientific organization of experiences. To this an ultimate analysis brings us down; and on this a rational synthesis must be built up.” (First Principles, page 62). Criminals and statesmen are visible embodiments of the Persistence of Force? Now that being so; scientists should define, unmistakably, what they mean by “crime,” before commencing to elaborately tabulate ‘the criminal type.’
But whether a criminal is successful or not, he seems to have a peculiar fascination for women. He who “risks his life to advance his fortunes” may reckon beforehand upon unlimited feminine approval. If he succeeds and becomes a millionaire, a chancellor, a president, or a king; he has only to ‘hold up his hand’ to be literally ‘rushed’ by the handsomest feminines in the land: and even if he fails bravely, women will gather in shoals to visit him in gaol, besieging him with bouquets and proposals of marriage, even at the gallows. In Michigan a law has lately been enacted, to prohibit female adorers, from sending flowers to condemned murderers, burglars, and bank wreckers. Lombroso says somewhere that “good and passionate women have a fatal propensity to love bad men;” but with characteristic want of the logical faculty, he abstains enthusiastically, from defining ‘good’ and ‘bad.’