Sex and Sin — Gender Differences and Morality

1902

Sex and Sin

An Interesting Discussion of an Old, Old Subject

"The woman thou gavest to be with me tempted me and I did eat." Such was the plea of Adam — and Adam has always been regarded by civilized people as a bit of a sneak for thus attempting to shift the burden of responsibility upon the sex which the highest development of chivalry demands that the male should protect. Bishop Spaldlng of Peoria is hardly to be classed with Adam when he characterizes the women of America as the source of three-quarters of the crime committed in this country, for he has no personal motive in making the accusation. He seems to be animated, rather, by a broad spirit of philosophical inquiry.

His impressions are evidently gained largely from the confessional and from the intimate observation of the details of family and social life permitted to a priest of his church. Physicians who, in a way, often serve as father confessors to the unfortunate, draw facts from their own experience which would lead to a similar conclusion. But in saying that women are the source of a large percentage of the crime we would not understand either the priest or the physician as saying that the women were culpably so. Eve may have had no intention of tempting Adam to sin. Manlike, he may have followed the lure of her beauty and her charm on his own responsibility, and resolved to tread the path of disobedience in her company, though it led to death.

The philosophic statement of the broad truth would be that the sex motive is at the bottom of seventy-five per cent of the crime in the world. Next to alimentiveness, amativeness is the strongest instinct in human nature. The race first seeks the means of continuing the individual existence, and next the means of continuing the species. Woman is at once the tempted and the temptress. The lawless passions of man wreak themselves on her, and she in her weakness protects herself with subtlety, oftentimes with deception. The consequences of common sin are more fearful to her than to the man, and she is taught from her childhood to protect her virtue at the sacrifice, if necessary, of other noble qualities — or that failing to do so she is utterly lost. Hence the reckless abandon of impure women. The boy, on the other hand, is taught that truth, courage, honor are of more importance than bodily purity. As society is largely constituted, the man violates the law of purity lightly, but holds to his other standards of honor, while the woman who shares his sin is dragged to utter degradation. The man perhaps recovers his balance; finds his standing in society not impaired, and leads a useful and honorable life, as worldly honors go. Thus the contrast between the two classes of sinners becomes accentuated to the disadvantage of the woman and the advantage of the man.

The scientist Lombroso accounts woman the immoral sex, because she has not the same standards of truth and honor and courage that men have. If she has not, it is the fault of her education and not of nature. Under existing standards she has not a fair chance in the world. But in spite of this a large percentage of the sex rise to moral heights of which men are incapable. Bishop Spalding's arraignment at first blush excites indignation; but when properly construed it is in reality more an arraignment of men and the false standards of education and morality, than of women as women. The fair sex may be the source of crime, through their attraction and fascination, without being themselves the responsible sinners. If the reader will keep this fact in view he (or she) will he able to appreciate the force of the bishop's observation without mentally accusing him of either false diagnosis or intentional slander. — Minneapolis Tribune.

—The Daily Northwestern, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, June 11, 1902, p. 3.