Scanned and proofed by Thomas Pollock of The Mens TribunewwwmenstribunecomTHE UNEXPURGATED CASE AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGEBY SIR ALMROTH E WRIGHT MD FRS1913CONTENTSPREFACEINTRODUCTIONProgramme of This TreatiseMotives from which Women Claim theSuffrageTypes of Men who Support the SuffrageJohn Stuart MillPART IARGUMENTS WHICH ARE ADDUCED IN SUPPORT OF WOMANS SUFFRAGEIARGUMENTS FROM ELEMENTARY NATURAL RIGHTSSignification of the Term Womans RightsArgument fromJusticeJuridical JusticeEgalitarian EquityArgument fromJustice Applied to TaxationArgument from LibertySummary ofArguments from Elementary Natural RightsIIARGUMENTS FROM INTELLECTUAL GRIEVANCES OF WOMANComplaint of Want of ChivalryComplaint of InsultsComplaint ofIllogicaltiesComplaint of PrejudicesThe Familiar SuffragistGrievance of the Drunkard Voter and the Woman of Property Who is aNonVoterThe Grievance of Woman being Required to Obey ManMadeLawsIIIARGUMENTS WHICH TAKE THE FORM OF COUNSELS OF PERFECTION ADDRESSED TOMANArgument that Woman Requires a Vote for her ProtectionArgument thatWoman ought to be Invested with the Responsibilities of Voting inOrder that She May Attain Her Full Intellectual StaturePART IIARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONCESSION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SUFFRAGE TOWOMANIWOMANS DISABILITY IN THE MATTER OF PHYSICAL FORCEInternational Position of State would be Imperilled by WomansSuffrageInternal Equilibrium of State would be ImperilledIIWOMANS DISABILITY IN THE MATTER OF INTELLECTCharacteristics of the Feminine MindSuffragist Illusions withRegard to the Equality of Man and Woman as WorkersProspect forthe Intellectual Future of WomanHas Woman Advanced IIIWOMANS DISABILITY IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC MORALITYStandards by which Morality can be AppraisedConflict betweenDifferent MoralitiesThe Correct Standard of MoralityMoralPsychology of Man and WomanDifference between Man and Woman inMatters of Public MoralityIVMENTAL OUTLOOK AND PROGRAMME OF THE FEMALE LEGISLATIVE REFORMERVULTERIOR ENDS WHICH THE WOMANS SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT HAS IN VIEWPART IIIIS THERE IF THE SUFFRAGE IS BARRED ANY PALLIATIVE OR CORRECTIVE FORTHE DISCONTENTS OF WOMANIPALLIATIVES OR CORRECTIVES FOR THE DISCONTENT OF WOMANWhat are the Suffragists GrievancesEconomic and PhysiologicalDifficulties of WomanIntellectual Grievances of Suffragist andCorrectiveAPPENDIXLETTER ON MILITANT HYSTERIAPREFACEIt has come to be believed that everything that has a bearing upon theconcession of the suffrage to woman has already been brought forwardIn reality however the influence of women has caused man to leaveunsaid many things which he ought to have saidEspecially in two respects has woman restricted the discussionShe has placed her taboo upon all generalisations about women takingexception to these on the threefold ground that there would be nogeneralisations which would hold true of all women thatgeneralisations when reached possess no practical utility and thatthe element of sex does not leave upon women any general imprint suchas could properly be brought up in connexion with the question ofadmitting them to the electorateWoman has further stifled discussion by placing her taboo uponanything seriously unflattering being said about her in publicI would suggest and would propose here myself to act upon thesuggestion that in connexion with the discussion of womanssuffrage these restrictions should be laid asideIn connexion with the setting aside of the restriction upongeneralising I may perhaps profitably point out that allgeneralisations and not only generalisations which relate to womenare _ex hypothesi by hypothesis_ subject to individual exceptionsIt is to generalisations that the proverb that the exception provesthe rule really applies I may further point out that practicallyevery decision which we take in ordinary life and all legislativeaction without exception is based upon generalisations and againthat the question of the suffrage and with it the larger question asto the proper sphere of woman finally turns upon the question as towhat imprint womans sexual system leaves upon her physical framecharacter and intellect in more technical terms it turns upon thequestion as to what are the _secondary sexual characteristics_ ofwomanNow only by a felicitous exercise of the faculty of successfulgeneralisation can we arrive at a knowledge of theseWith respect to the restriction that nothing which might offendwomans _amour propre self love_ shall be said in public it may bepointed out that while it was perfectly proper and equitable that noevil and as Pericles proposed also no good should be said of womanin public so long as she confined herself to the domestic sphere theaction of that section of women who have sought to effect an entranceinto public life has now brought down upon woman as one of thepenalties the abrogation of that conventionA consideration which perhaps ranks only next in importance to thatwith which we have been dealing is that of the logical sanction ofthe propositions which are enunciated in the course of suchcontroversial discussions as that in which we are here involvedIt is clearly a precondition of all useful discussion that the authorand reader should be in accord with respect to the authority of thegeneralisations and definitions which supply the premisses for hisreasoningsThough this might perhaps to the reader appear an impractical ideal Iwould propose here to attempt to reach it by explaining the logicalmethod which I have set myself to followAlthough I have from literary necessity employed in my text some ofthe verbal forms of dogmatism I am very far from laying claim to anydogmatic authority More than that I would desire categorically torepudiate such a claimFor I do not conceal from myself that if I took up such a position Ishould wantonly be placing myself at the mercy of my reader For hecould then by merely refusing to see in me an authority bring downthe whole edifice of my argument like a house of cardsMoreover I am not blind to what would happen if after I claimed to betaken as an authority the reader was indulgent enough still to go onto read what I have writtenHe would in such a case the moment he encountered a statement withwhich he disagreed simply waive me on one side with the words Soyou sayAnd if he should encounter a statement with which he agreed he wouldin his wisdom censure me for neglecting to provide for thatproposition a satisfactory logical foundationIf it is far from my thoughts to claim a right of dictation it isequally remote from them to take up the position that I have in myarguments furnished _proof_ of the thesis which I set out toestablishIt would be culpable misuse of language to speak in such connexion of_proof_ or _disproof_Proof by testimony which is available in connexion with questions offact is unavailable in connexion