CHAPTER 6.
Comparisons Are Odious
I had always been proud of my country, of course. Everyone is. Compared
with the other lands and other races I knew, the United States of
America had always seemed to me, speaking modestly, as good as the best
of them.
But just as a clear-eyed, intelligent, perfectly honest, and
well-meaning child will frequently jar one’s self-esteem by innocent
questions, so did these women, without the slightest appearance of
malice or satire, continually bring up points of discussion which we
spent our best efforts in evading.
Now that we were fairly proficient in their language, had read a lot
about their history, and had given them the general outlines of ours,
they were able to press their questions closer.
So when Jeff admitted the number of “women wage earners” we had, they
instantly asked for the total population, for the proportion of adult
women, and found that there were but twenty million or so at the
outside.
“Then at least a third of your women are--what is it you call them--wage
earners? And they are all _poor_. What is _poor_, exactly?”
“Ours is the best country in the world as to poverty,” Terry told them.
“We do not have the wretched paupers and beggars of the older countries,
I assure you. Why, European visitors tell us, we don’t know what poverty
is.”
“Neither do we,” answered Zava. “Won’t you tell us?”
Terry put it up to me, saying I was the sociologist, and I explained
that the laws of nature require a struggle for existence, and that in
the struggle the fittest survive, and the unfit perish. In our economic
struggle, I continued, there was always plenty of opportunity for the
fittest to reach the top, which they did, in great numbers, particularly
in our country; that where there was severe economic pressure the lowest
classes of course felt it the worst, and that among the poorest of all
the women were driven into the labor market by necessity.
They listened closely, with the usual note-taking.
“About one-third, then, belong to the poorest class,” observed Moadine
gravely. “And two-thirds are the ones who are--how was it you so
beautifully put it?--‘loved, honored, kept in the home to care for the
children.’ This inferior one-third have no children, I suppose?”
Jeff--he was getting as bad as they were--solemnly replied that, on the
contrary, the poorer they were, the more children they had. That too, he
explained, was a law of nature: “Reproduction is in inverse proportion
to individuation.”
“These ‘laws of nature,’” Zava gently asked, “are they all the laws you
have?”
“I should say not!” protested Terry. “We have systems of law that go
back thousands and thousands of years--just as you do, no doubt,” he
finished politely.
“Oh no,” Moadine told him. “We have no laws over a hundred years old,
and most of them are under twenty. In a few weeks more,” she continued,
“we are going to have the pleasure of showing you over our little land
and explaining everything you care to know about. We want you to see our
people.”
“And I assure you,” Somel added, “that our people want to see you.”
Terry brightened up immensely at this news, and reconciled himself to
the renewed demands upon our capacity as teachers. It was lucky that we
knew so little, really, and had no books to refer to, else, I fancy we
might all be there yet, teaching those eager-minded women about the rest
of the world.
As to geography, they had the tradition of the Great Sea, beyond the
mountains; and they could see for themselves the endless thick-forested
plains below them--that was all. But from the few records of their
ancient condition--not “before the flood” with them, but before that
mighty quake which had cut them off so completely--they were aware that
there were other peoples and other countries.
In geology they were quite ignorant.
As to anthropology, they had those same remnants of information about
other peoples, and the knowledge of the savagery of the occupants of
those dim forests below. Nevertheless, they had inferred (marvelously
keen on inference and deduction their minds were!) the existence and
development of civilization in other places, much as we infer it on
other planets.
When our biplane came whirring over their heads in that first scouting
flight of ours, they had instantly accepted it as proof of the high
development of Some Where Else, and had prepared to receive us as
cautiously and eagerly as we might prepare to welcome visitors who came
“by meteor” from Mars.
Of history--outside their own--they knew nothing, of course, save for
their ancient traditions.
Of astronomy they had a fair working knowledge--that is a very old
science; and with it, a surprising range and facility in mathematics.
Physiology they were quite familiar with. Indeed, when it came to the
simpler and more concrete sciences, wherein the subject matter was at
hand and they had but to exercise their minds upon it, the results were
surprising. They had worked out a chemistry, a botany, a physics,
with all the blends where a science touches an art, or merges into
an industry, to such fullness of knowledge as made us feel like
schoolchildren.
Also we found this out--as soon as we were free of the country, and
by further study and question--that what one knew, all knew, to a very
considerable extent.
I talked later with little mountain girls from the fir-dark valleys
away up at their highest part, and with sunburned plains-women and agile
foresters, all over the country, as well as those in the towns, and
everywhere there was the same high level of intelligence. Some knew far
more than others about one thing--they were specialized, of course; but
all of them knew more about everything--that is, about everything the
country was acquainted with--than is the case with us.
We boast a good deal of our “high level of general intelligence” and our
“compulsory public education,” but in proportion to their opportunities
they were far better educated than our people.
With what we told them, from what sketches and models we were able to
prepare, they constructed a sort of working outline to fill in as they
learned more.
A big globe was made, and our uncertain maps, helped out by those in
that precious yearbook thing I had, were tentatively indicated upon it.
They sat in eager groups, masses of them who came for the purpose, and
listened while Jeff roughly ran over the geologic history of the earth,
and showed them their own land in relation to the others. Out of that
same pocket reference book of mine came facts and figures which were
seized upon and placed in right relation with unerring acumen.
Even Terry grew interested in this work. “If we can keep this up,
they’ll be having us lecture to all the girls’ schools and colleges--how
about that?” he suggested to us. “Don’t know as I’d object to being an
Authority to such audiences.”
They did, in fact, urge us to give public lectures later, but not to the
hearers or with the purpose we expected.
What they were doing with us was like--like--well, say like Napoleon
extracting military information from a few illiterate peasants. They
knew just what to ask, and just what use to make of it; they had
mechanical appliances for disseminating information almost equal to ours
at home; and by the time we were led forth to lecture, our audiences
had thoroughly mastered a well-arranged digest of all we had previously
given to our teachers, and were prepared with such notes and questions
as might have intimidated a university professor.
They were not audiences of girls, either. It was some time before we
were allowed to meet the young women.
“Do you mind telling what you intend to do with us?” Terry burst
forth one day, facing the calm and friendly Moadine with that funny
half-blustering air of his. At first he used to storm and flourish quite
a good deal, but nothing seemed to amuse them more; they would gather
around and watch him as if it was an exhibition, politely, but with
evident interest. So he learned to check himself, and was almost
reasonable in his bearing--but not quite.
She announced smoothly and evenly: “Not in the least. I thought it was
quite plain. We are trying to learn of you all we can, and to teach you
what you are willing to learn of our country.”
“Is that all?” he insisted.
She smiled a quiet enigmatic smile. “That depends.”
“Depends on what?”
“Mainly on yourselves,” she replied.
“Why do you keep us shut up so closely?”
“Because we do not feel quite safe in allowing you at large where there
are so many young women.”
Terry was really pleased at that. He had thought as much, inwardly; but
he pushed the question. “Why should you be afraid? We are gentlemen.”
She smiled that little smile again, and asked: “Are ‘gentlemen’ always
safe?”
“You surely do not think that any of us,” he said it with a good deal of
emphasis on the “us,” “would hurt your young girls?”
“Oh no,” she said quickly, in real surprise. “The danger is quite the
other way. They might hurt you. If, by any accident, you did harm any
one of us, you would have to face a million mothers.”
He looked so amazed and outraged that Jeff and I laughed outright, but
she went on gently.
“I do not think you quite understand yet. You are but men, three men,
in a country where the whole population are mothers--or are going to be.
Motherhood means to us something which I cannot yet discover in any
of the countries of which you tell us. You have spoken”--she turned to
Jeff, “of Human Brotherhood as a great idea among you, but even that I
judge is far from a practical expression?”
Jeff nodded rather sadly. “Very far--” he said.
“Here we have Human Motherhood--in full working use,” she went on.
“Nothing else except the literal sisterhood of our origin, and the far
higher and deeper union of our social growth.
“The children in this country are the one center and focus of all our
thoughts. Every step of our advance is always considered in its effect
on them--on the race. You see, we are _Mothers_,” she repeated, as if
in that she had said it all.
“I don’t see how that fact--which is shared by all women--constitutes
any risk to us,” Terry persisted. “You mean they would defend their
children from attack. Of course. Any mothers would. But we are not
savages, my dear lady; we are not going to hurt any mother’s child.”
They looked at one another and shook their heads a little, but
Zava turned to Jeff and urged him to make us see--said he seemed to
understand more fully than we did. And he tried.
I can see it now, or at least much more of it, but it has taken me a
long time, and a good deal of honest intellectual effort.
What they call Motherhood was like this:
They began with a really high degree of social development, something
like that of Ancient Egypt or Greece. Then they suffered the loss of
everything masculine, and supposed at first that all human power and
safety had gone too. Then they developed this virgin birth capacity.
Then, since the prosperity of their children depended on it, the fullest
and subtlest coordination began to be practiced.
I remember how long Terry balked at the evident unanimity of these
women--the most conspicuous feature of their whole culture. “It’s
impossible!” he would insist. “Women cannot cooperate--it’s against
nature.”
When we urged the obvious facts he would say: “Fiddlesticks!” or “Hang
your facts--I tell you it can’t be done!” And we never succeeded in
shutting him up till Jeff dragged in the hymenoptera.
“‘Go to the ant, thou sluggard’--and learn something,” he said
triumphantly. “Don’t they cooperate pretty well? You can’t beat it. This
place is just like an enormous anthill--you know an anthill is nothing
but a nursery. And how about bees? Don’t they manage to cooperate and
love one another?
As the birds do love the Spring,
Or the bees their careful king,
as that precious Constable had it. Just show me a combination of male
creatures, bird, bug, or beast, that works as well, will you? Or one of
our masculine countries where the people work together as well as they
do here! I tell you, women are the natural cooperators, not men!”
Terry had to learn a good many things he did not want to. To go back to
my little analysis of what happened:
They developed all this close inter-service in the interests of their
children. To do the best work they had to specialize, of course; the
children needed spinners and weavers, farmers and gardeners, carpenters
and masons, as well as mothers.
Then came the filling up of the place. When a population multiplies
by five every thirty years it soon reaches the limits of a country,
especially a small one like this. They very soon eliminated all the
grazing cattle--sheep were the last to go, I believe. Also, they worked
out a system of intensive agriculture surpassing anything I ever heard
of, with the very forests all reset with fruit- or nut-bearing trees.
Do what they would, however, there soon came a time when they were
confronted with the problem of “the pressure of population” in an acute
form. There was really crowding, and with it, unavoidably, a decline in
standards.
And how did those women meet it?
Not by a “struggle for existence” which would result in an everlasting
writhing mass of underbred people trying to get ahead of one
another--some few on top, temporarily, many constantly crushed out
underneath, a hopeless substratum of paupers and degenerates, and no
serenity or peace for anyone, no possibility for really noble qualities
among the people at large.
Neither did they start off on predatory excursions to get more land from
somebody else, or to get more food from somebody else, to maintain their
struggling mass.
Not at all. They sat down in council together and thought it out. Very
clear, strong thinkers they were. They said: “With our best endeavors
this country will support about so many people, with the standard of
peace, comfort, health, beauty, and progress we demand. Very well. That
is all the people we will make.”
There you have it. You see, they were Mothers, not in our sense of
helpless involuntary fecundity, forced to fill and overfill the land,
every land, and then see their children suffer, sin, and die, fighting
horribly with one another; but in the sense of Conscious Makers
of People. Mother-love with them was not a brute passion, a mere
“instinct,” a wholly personal feeling; it was--a religion.
It included that limitless feeling of sisterhood, that wide unity in
service, which was so difficult for us to grasp. And it was National,
Racial, Human--oh, I don’t know how to say it.
We are used to seeing what we call “a mother” completely wrapped up in
her own pink bundle of fascinating babyhood, and taking but the faintest
theoretic interest in anybody else’s bundle, to say nothing of the
common needs of _all_ the bundles. But these women were working all
together at the grandest of tasks--they were Making People--and they
made them well.
There followed a period of “negative eugenics” which must have been an
appalling sacrifice. We are commonly willing to “lay down our lives” for
our country, but they had to forego motherhood for their country--and it
was precisely the hardest thing for them to do.
When I got this far in my reading I went to Somel for more light. We
were as friendly by that time as I had ever been in my life with any
woman. A mighty comfortable soul she was, giving one the nice smooth
mother-feeling a man likes in a woman, and yet giving also the clear
intelligence and dependableness I used to assume to be masculine
qualities. We had talked volumes already.
“See here,” said I. “Here was this dreadful period when they got far too
thick, and decided to limit the population. We have a lot of talk about
that among us, but your position is so different that I’d like to know a
little more about it.
“I understand that you make Motherhood the highest social service--a
sacrament, really; that it is only undertaken once, by the majority of
the population; that those held unfit are not allowed even that; and
that to be encouraged to bear more than one child is the very highest
reward and honor in the power of the state.”
(She interpolated here that the nearest approach to an aristocracy
they had was to come of a line of “Over Mothers”--those who had been so
honored.)
“But what I do not understand, naturally, is how you prevent it. I
gathered that each woman had five. You have no tyrannical husbands to
hold in check--and you surely do not destroy the unborn--”
The look of ghastly horror she gave me I shall never forget. She started
from her chair, pale, her eyes blazing.
“Destroy the unborn--!” she said in a hard whisper. “Do men do that in
your country?”
“Men!” I began to answer, rather hotly, and then saw the gulf before
me. None of us wanted these women to think that _our_ women, of whom we
boasted so proudly, were in any way inferior to them. I am ashamed
to say that I equivocated. I told her of certain criminal types of
women--perverts, or crazy, who had been known to commit infanticide. I
told her, truly enough, that there was much in our land which was
open to criticism, but that I hated to dwell on our defects until they
understood us and our conditions better.
And, making a wide detour, I scrambled back to my question of how they
limited the population.
As for Somel, she seemed sorry, a little ashamed even, of her too
clearly expressed amazement. As I look back now, knowing them better, I
am more and more and more amazed as I appreciate the exquisite courtesy
with which they had received over and over again statements and
admissions on our part which must have revolted them to the soul.
She explained to me, with sweet seriousness, that as I had supposed, at
first each woman bore five children; and that, in their eager desire
to build up a nation, they had gone on in that way for a few centuries,
till they were confronted with the absolute need of a limit. This fact
was equally plain to all--all were equally interested.
They were now as anxious to check their wonderful power as they had
been to develop it; and for some generations gave the matter their most
earnest thought and study.
“We were living on rations before we worked it out,” she said. “But we
did work it out. You see, before a child comes to one of us there is a
period of utter exaltation--the whole being is uplifted and filled with
a concentrated desire for that child. We learned to look forward to that
period with the greatest caution. Often our young women, those to whom
motherhood had not yet come, would voluntarily defer it. When that deep
inner demand for a child began to be felt she would deliberately engage
in the most active work, physical and mental; and even more important,
would solace her longing by the direct care and service of the babies we
already had.”
She paused. Her wise sweet face grew deeply, reverently tender.
“We soon grew to see that mother-love has more than one channel of
expression. I think the reason our children are so--so fully loved, by
all of us, is that we never--any of us--have enough of our own.”
This seemed to me infinitely pathetic, and I said so. “We have much that
is bitter and hard in our life at home,” I told her, “but this seems to
me piteous beyond words--a whole nation of starving mothers!”
But she smiled her deep contented smile, and said I quite misunderstood.
“We each go without a certain range of personal joy,” she said, “but
remember--we each have a million children to love and serve--_our_
children.”
It was beyond me. To hear a lot of women talk about “our children”! But
I suppose that is the way the ants and bees would talk--do talk, maybe.
That was what they did, anyhow.
When a woman chose to be a mother, she allowed the child-longing to
grow within her till it worked its natural miracle. When she did not so
choose she put the whole thing out of her mind, and fed her heart with
the other babies.
Let me see--with us, children--minors, that is--constitute about
three-fifths of the population; with them only about one-third, or
less. And precious--! No sole heir to an empire’s throne, no solitary
millionaire baby, no only child of middle-aged parents, could compare as
an idol with these Herland children.
But before I start on that subject I must finish up that little analysis
I was trying to make.
They did effectually and permanently limit the population in numbers, so
that the country furnished plenty for the fullest, richest life for all
of them: plenty of everything, including room, air, solitude even.
And then they set to work to improve that population in quality--since
they were restricted in quantity. This they had been at work on,
uninterruptedly, for some fifteen hundred years. Do you wonder they were
nice people?
Physiology, hygiene, sanitation, physical culture--all that line of work
had been perfected long since. Sickness was almost wholly unknown among
them, so much so that a previously high development in what we call the
“science of medicine” had become practically a lost art. They were a
clean-bred, vigorous lot, having the best of care, the most perfect
living conditions always.
When it came to psychology--there was no one thing which left us so
dumbfounded, so really awed, as the everyday working knowledge--and
practice--they had in this line. As we learned more and more of it, we
learned to appreciate the exquisite mastery with which we ourselves,
strangers of alien race, of unknown opposite sex, had been understood
and provided for from the first.
With this wide, deep, thorough knowledge, they had met and solved the
problems of education in ways some of which I hope to make clear later.
Those nation-loved children of theirs compared with the average in our
country as the most perfectly cultivated, richly developed roses compare
with--tumbleweeds. Yet they did not SEEM “cultivated” at all--it had all
become a natural condition.
And this people, steadily developing in mental capacity, in will power,
in social devotion, had been playing with the arts and sciences--as
far as they knew them--for a good many centuries now with inevitable
success.
Into this quiet lovely land, among these wise, sweet, strong women, we,
in our easy assumption of superiority, had suddenly arrived; and now,
tamed and trained to a degree they considered safe, we were at last
brought out to see the country, to know the people.