Having been bested by Davison’s superior citations and trenchant response, A. Knox in

his letter of November 1 decides to abandon the professional authority of doctors in

favor of observation. He retreats to generality and to a rhetoric of “usually,” “seems,”

and “in general” before embracing the evidence of physicians near the end of the letter.

His sexist attitude is exemplified in his word choice at the end of the letter where he

refers to “our womenfolk.”

Friday, Nov. 1, 1912, To the Editor of The Morpeth Herald, “The Woman Suffrage

Question”

Sir, –Miss Davison’s letter in your last issue will doubtless be read by many

with interest, for the opinion of a woman upon a subject which she has such

fine opportunities of judging cannot fail to command attention. She devotes

the main part of her letter to refuting the old theory that women’s brains are

smaller than men’s. Miss Davison’s contention carries with it some great names,

and is a weighty one, which not only impresses your readers with confidence,

but predisposes them to accept her arguments with something more than

acquiescence. But her weakness, as well as mine, lies in the fact that she relies

too much on doctors’ evidence, seeing that other medical authorities can be

brought to disprove it. Therefore, to the opinion I have already expressed, I still

adhere. And yet I cannot deny that if I had written in the light of the evidence

which Miss Davison has brought forward, I should have been less confident in

expressing it. For if doctors disagree, how can a poor layman be expected to

judge?

I am, however, pleased to see Miss Davison refuting the old theory

with all the evidence at her command. Let us for a moment waive all doctor’s

evidence, as it does not carry with it complete conviction, and trust a little to our

own observation. We naturally would ask ourselves that if a woman has, as Miss

Davison contends, larger brains than a man, would she not have in a greater

measure more will power? We think so: and yet it is not so. Do we not find in

the male that firm tenacity of purpose and determination to overcome obstacles

which are sadly lacking in the female mind? When a woman is urged to any

prolonged exercise of volition, the prompting cause may be found in the

emotional side of her nature; whereas, in a man, the intellectual is alone

sufficient to supply the needed motive. A similar deficiency may be noted in

close reading or studious thought. Women are usually less able to concentrate

their attention, their minds are more prone to wander, and they have not

specialized their studies or pursuits the same as man.

This comparative weakness of will is further manifested by indecision

of character. The ready firmness of decision in man is rarely to be met with in

women. It is no unusual thing to find among women indecision of character, so

habitual and pronounced, leading to timidity and diffidence in adopting almost

any line of conduct where important matters are concerned, and leaving them in

the condition of not knowing their own minds. And have we not observed that

women are almost always less under the control of the will than men, more apt

to break away from the restraint of reason, which sometimes takes the shape

of hysteria or childishness. These we recognize as feminine rather than as

masculine characteristics.

It would take too great a space to specify more of the failings of the

female; but we can draw our conclusions that where women are deficient in will

power, there must also be considered a deficiency in brain power. In justice, it

may be admitted that there are instances where women display better judgment

than men. But as a general rule that the judgment of women is inferior to that of

men has been a matter of universal recognition from the earliest times. The man

has always been regarded as the rightful lord of the woman to whom she is by

nature subject, as both mentally and physically the weaker vessel.

Miss Davison will probably tell us that giving a woman the same

education and the same social advantages as men will enable her to rise in time

to the level of man. As the movement for revolutionizing the education of women

in this country is of recent date, we are not able to speak from experience. But in

America woman has been subject for many years past to the same kind of

training as man in schools and in college. While advocates of woman suffrage

have borne favourable witness, American physicians are raising their voices in

warnings and protests. The girls have ambition: they succeed in running the

intellectual race set before them; but do they do it at the cost of their strength

and health, which often incapacitates them for the adequate performance of the

natural function of their sex. Without pretending to endorse these assertions I

may point out they are entitled to our consideration, for they come from

physicians of high popular standing, and they agree, moreover, with what

perhaps might have been feared on physiological grounds.

So long as the differences of physical power and organization between

man and woman are what they are, it does not seem possible that they should

have the same type of mental development. Women are entitled to have all

the mental culture and all the freedom necessary to their nature. But the

education, Miss Davison, should be in the development, not of manhood, but

of womanhood; so may women reach as high a grade of development as men,

though it be of a different type.

I have been told by many people who do me the honour to read me that

I under-rate women, that I do not recognize the political value and the capacity

of the fair sex. That is not so. Keeping apart from politics, I give in to no one in

respect for the virtues and commonsense which characterize our womenfolk, and

no one more clearly discerns and more ungrudgingly confesses their real merits.

–Yours, etc.,

A.KNOX

Bedlington Colliery