"Anti-Social."

White Ribbon, Volume 11, Issue 121, 15 June 1905, Page 1

"Anti- Social."

An ADDRESS HY I>K Kathk SciIVfIKMACHhk AT THE CONGRESS OF THE International Abolitionist Federation held in Dresden, SkpteviHER, 1904. Tritu»l*U«i from Utr AiolUumtti of February, 1006, by th* R*-v. C. 8. Macalpin* J (Abridged.) Civilisation means the slow victory of righteousness. It stands in direct opposition to the right of might, to the right of the stronger, which is not right at all, but merely force. In all regions of life to day the principles of civilization have conquered, at least as principles. Everywhere law and custom are definitely seeking to give effect to social principles, principles that make for the advance of society. They endeavour to make everyone responsible for the consequences of his own actions, to punish in common all who have a part in a common act, to guard right of the weaker, to prevent the encroachments of the stronger, to know* only one measure of right. One region only has not experienced these blessings of civilization. In only one region does the power of might reign almost unbroken. It is the region of sex. Here the most indispensable principles of right are constantly trodden under foot; here reigns a justice that

varies with sex ; here there are from the outset two standards ; here the law seeks to free the man entirely from the consequences of his actions ; here only ore of the parties to a common act is punished; the strong is protected

against the weak, the assailant against the assailed, the isjurer against the injured. The reason is clear. In all other regions man has met man, who can oppose might with might. Here only it ij not so. This is in the midst of a so-called civilised world, hut it is barbaric anarchy or anarchic barbarism, something of the original animal in man, whicn is not in accord with the demands of civilization. 1 know that the continuance of this

sexual brutality has l>een represented as honnge to woman. It has been said, 44 Do you not see that we love you at>ove all, that you are our most precious treasure, which we will keep by all means, even by those that are

barbarous and primitive, those that are unlawful ? M I can only reply to this, 14 You do not love where you place in subjection ; you do not keep where you destroy. We will t>e otherwise loved, otherwise kept. Ihe double morality, which you sanction by law- and cu tom, L the greatest misfortune of humanity. It sows, not love, but hate; not happiness, but misery.’

People have wished to Hatter themselves that if woman alone were com pelled to he pure, the morality of the wor’d would be secured For her there must l>e sexual limitation. The man, on the other hand, must have sexual freedom.

I stand speechless !>ef6re this masterpiece of logic. Do not, then, all sexual relationships presuppose two partners ? The first condition of the purity of woman is the purity of man. Only on this common path can the civilised ideal of mono gamy, of moral responsibility, of right eousness, be reached. With what right can we offer an impure husband to a pure wife ? With what right can we demand a pure wife for an impure husband? Tragic conflicts arise on the basis of a double morality. These conflicts arise, however, because it has always teemed to be too great self denial for the man to subject himself to the sexual limitations which he laid on the woman. He would not discipline himself to purity, and what he once would not, he now f declares that he cannot.

In the interests of society, marriage and the family must be maintained, the young girl must not be enlightened the deceived wife must regard the unfaithfulness of her husband as something natural, as a slight we akness; she* must not seek divorce. In the social inteiest the !>etrayed woman is o be consigned to her shame, the unmarried mother is to be cast out, the illegitimate child is to be branded, is to have no legal claim on the name, the position, the wealth of its father. In the interests of society, a class of prostitutes must be created, regulated and placed under exceptional law. We say, however, this is not true. It is not to the interests of society that worn out and diseased men should marry, that girls should be betrayed, that wives should be deceived. It is not to the interest ot society that there are unmarried mothers, that illegitimate children are counted by thousands, that a class of prostitutes is created, and that venereal disease is systematically spread. The very opposite is in the interest of society.

From what source, however, does this social evil, this moral anarchy arise ?

It comes from the always hurtful principle ot a double morality, from the anti-social doctrine of the right of man to sexual freedom. The man's licentiousness in the sexual region

creates these calamities; the man of impure life is a social nuisance.

If you, as a guardian of the public weal, would really protect the tamily and society, then begin at the man. His demand creates the supply; his want of moral education and responsibility causes that confusion of elementary ideas of right; his unbridled desire and

his immunity from punishment

create those social evils.

The man likes to boast of, claims oraise for, his active role. Let him have the courage to recognise it in this region also. The original disturbing element, the anti social element, in the sexual region is the man. This has been purposely overlooked. The renunciation and the responsibility, which l»elong to the man, have l>een imposed on the woman. That he might not be compelled to waive excessive privileges, he has taken from her the most elementary claims to tight. He makes a social heap of ruins, ami then blames the woman for it. Hut unrighteous harshness towards the innocent, towards the partner in guilt, towards the weaker one, will never take the place of the strict disi oline and the responsibility of the stronger one, who is the assailant, the chief offender. And therefore a different ideal must be given to the male sex in respect of these matters. In morals the education of man has been far too much neglected. We make these new demands on him, however, in the name of the same society to which he formerly falsely appealed in justification of his antisocial conduct. In the name of this very society we demand that he shall henceforth discipline himself. For whoever claims and exercises sexual freed >m in civilised stales is anti-social.

Once society has recogrised this, we have won. For what doctrine, what institutions, what individuals could possibly continue, if it were seen mat society itself was fundamentally antisocial ?