Christianity tended to modify this. Whenever in later Europe the Canon or Ecclesiastical law prevailed, the status of the married woman was degraded; whenever the secular Roman Law prevailed it was raised." 12 From this older philosophy there has been a swing almost to the opposite pole. For a century all men in public life have been praising woman and exalting her as the embodiment of all virtue as compared to man the villain. It remains to be seen how successful she will be in the new rôle. Ignoring this more or less effervescent condemnation and laudation, the beginning of the modern era found society organized about the family. People not only lived in private households but there carried on most of their industry. Law must recognize actual conditions and the father was the legal head of the household, no matter whether he or his wife dominated. Doubtless some wives were abused, certain too that some men were henpecked. The merits or weaknesses of the actual law do not concern us here. Woman's work was at home. Prostitution or the nunnery were about the only pos sible ways of escape from household life. To the men fell the professional opportunities. Came the industrial revolution. Industry, save in a few cases like agriculture, left the household. It dragged out the workers, including women and children. New conditions arose and slowly custom and law were modified, not on any theoretical basis but to meet actual facts. From a family basis we have swung to an individualism involving woman as well as man. The result is that the position of woman under the law is becoming almost identical with that of man. Amusingly enough the opposition to protective legislation for women in industry is coming from a group of supposedly emancipated women rather than from men. One by one the professions have been opened to women with the significant exception of the priesthood of the orthodox churches. Woman's educational opportunities are approximately those of man. At first woman wanted to demonstrate her capacity to take any course or pass any examination prepared for man. That having proved to be easier than was anticipated there is some uncertainty what to do next. This is equivalent to saying that we are living in a period of great readjustments and neither in practice nor in theory have we come to any definite solution of the question as to the best arrangement of the sexes in daily life. Looking backward we can see, as Maine stated, that woman has passed from a condition of status to one of contract. Once her position was fixed and others carried the responsibility. Now she may exercise her choice. It is clear that this involves the possibility that she may choose to smoke, swear, steal, even to slay, things not permitted or thinkable to the angelic creature of a generation ago. The entrance into all professions means direct competition with man. How desirable such competition is no one knows. How woman can run a profession and rear a family no man sees. Our task is to state, not to solve, the problems. The present situation may be summarized in a paragraph. There are differences between the sexes affecting every cell of the body but we do not understand all these differences and to emphasize them in all the relations of life is foolish. Most of past and current philosophy of sex is based on half truths. What every sane person wants is the greatest possiblę individual development along with the best social organization. The main problem arises not in statements of ideals but in actual life. Here there is great difference of opinion. Because woman may do everything that man does is no reason for her so doing. In the 572 occupations listed in our last census women were reported as engaging in all but 35. Possibly therefore she ought to emphasize as her highest contribution the service that no man can render. Not as Luther crudely put it: "If a woman becomes weary, or at last dead from bearing, that matters not; let her only die from bear ing. She is there to do it." In reality many women, as well as many men, ought never to have children. Yet group preservation remains as important as individual preservation. It may be that experience will show us that woman's primary ideal should concern the former; man's, the latter. From man's standpoint the woman who denies this is foolish. But what woman will do she must decide-and what she will decide no man knows. REFERENCES 1. G. A. DORSEY, Why We Behave Like Human Beings, p. 106. 2. T. H. MORGAN, Heredity and Sex, pp. 230ff. 3. S. J. HOLMES and J. C. GOFF, "Selective Elimination of Male Infants," Eugenics in Race and State, pp. 249-250. 4. H. ELLIS, Man and Woman, pp. 32-36. 5. W. HASTINGS, Conference on Race Betterment, Proceedings, p. 618. 6. H. ELLIS, op. cit., pp. 225-230. 7. W. I. THOMAS, Sex and Society, p. 42. 8. H. PLOSS, Das Weib, p. 238. 9. T. OLIVER, Occupations, pp. 34-35. 10. H. ELLIS, op. cit., p. 103. II. W. I. THOMAS, op. cit., pp. 50-51. 12. J. LANGDON-DAVIES, A Short History of Women, p. 236. CHAPTER XIV RACE DIFFERENCES In innate qualities men resemble each other; -CHINESE TRIMETRICAL CLASSIC If a large number of specimens of any variety of plant or animal are examined closely, it will be found they may be divided into groups, all fundamentally alike, but one group differing from another in regard to certain details. To such groups the terms strains, breeds, varieties, and races, are applied. Such races are very common among domestic plants and animals and in the wild stock too, though we seldom know the latter as intimately. Often we apply different names to these races to avoid the necessity of constant description. If an expert is told that a certain peony root is Thérèse he knows at once just what sort of a plant and flower will be produced. These plant races differ then in flower color, in size, in time of bloom, etc. We value them as they meet our needs or tastes. Often we know when the first specimen of a new race appeared and we know just what older races were crossed to produce it, or we know the wild form from which it is a mutant. PRINCIPLES OF RACE CLASSIFICATION Limitation to Physical Traits It is wholly possible—indeed, the custom is almost universal -to classify mankind on a basis of race. The trouble is that a little examination will reveal that these popular classifica tions are not exact and are often misleading. We have no adequate knowledge of the background of any so-called human race nor do we know its relation to other races. Moreover every group of human beings has its language, culture, habits and social organization which may be quite distinct from those of a neighboring group. There is always present the danger that the word race will be made to cover some of these social matters. This is improper. If we are to use the term race with reference to man we must limit it to the physical traits which any group may possess. It is evident that this limitation has not been observed in ordinary discussions, or, more correctly stated, so unevenly observed that one can seldom be sure just what is or is not included. Furthermore, it is common to speak of the races as superior and inferior rather than as different. Thus we start in with eyes dimmed, with judgments twisted by preconceived ideas, old traditions and prejudices. We speak of the Negroes and the Chinese as if but two races were involved whereas there are several races among the Chinese and there may be as many races of Negroes as of whites. We refuse citizenship to Japanese ignoring the fact that the Ainu of northern Japan seem to be more closely related to our ancestors than to those of the other Japanese. By contrast, in the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire there was a remarkably uniform dominant physical group in all the rival states, but the discord in their political relations has given us a mental image of distinct racial groups. In the actual world, then, we may find people of widely different racial backgrounds united under one government, accepting a common religion, speaking one language, as in the United States, or we may find people of the same or related racial groups scattered over the earth and as widely separated culturally as geographically, like the Negroes of America and Africa. Emphasis on race as such appears to be a very recent phenomenon. The ancient Egyptian artists were able to por |