The Camouflagingof Eugenicistsas Eugenicism’s Opponents 95Leetethenaddsthatpeoplein his timesare healthierandmoresexuallyattractivethan
thoseof the nineteenthcenturybecausethe implementationof socialismhas encouraged
menand womento engagein a consensualtypeof eugenics.“Youwerespeaking.. .,” Dr.
Leetesaysto Mr. West“of the physicalsuperiorityof our peopleto yourcontemporaries.
Perhapsmoreimportantthananyof the causesI mentionedthenas tendingto race
purificationhas beenthe effectof untrammeledsexualselectionuponthe qualityof two
or threesuccessivegenerations.I believethatwhenyouhavemadea fullerstudyof our
peopleyouwillfindin themnot onlya physical,but a mentalandmoralimprove-
ment.... a profoundmoralsentimenthas cometo its support.... To-daythis senseof
responsibility,practicallyunrecognizedin all previousages,has becomeone of the great
ethicalideasof the race,reinforcing,withan intenseconvictionof duty,the natural
impulseto seekin marriagethe bestand noblestof the othersex.” Thiscan be translated
intosimplerwords.In decidingon a husband,a womanof Dr. Leete’s era considerseach
potentialsuitor’s genes.The manascertainedto havethe mostadvantageousgenesis the
one chosen;this is the maincriterion.Yet this criterioncontradictswhatDr. Leetesaid
mereparagraphsearlier—that menand womenformpairbondsbasedon love.Dr. Leete
cheersthatunderhis presentsystem,“sexualselection,withits tendencyto preserveand
transmitthe bettertypesof the race,andlet the inferiortypesdropout,has unhindered
operation.... The attributesthathumannatureadmiresare preserved,thosethatrepelit
are left behind.”^125
Bellamy’s eugenicsis a stepfar above,ethically,thoseof mostothergovernisteugeni-
cists.Bellamy’s is betterthanPearson’s, as Pearsonpropagandizedfor compulsorysteril-
izationandimmigrationcontrol.Nevertheless,Bellamy’s proposalstill countsas eugen-
ics. And,tellingly,Bellamy’s proposalgainedsupportfromyet anothersocialisteugeni-
cist—the manwhoco-discoverednaturalselectionwithCharlesDarwin,AlfredRussel
Wallace(1823–1913).^126
We shouldnot jumpto the conclusionthatHofstadteris rightto judgeBellamyas
ethicallysuperiorto Spencer,especiallynot on the premisethatBellamychampions“so-
cial equality” whereasSpencerdoesnot.Thereis somethingelseto ponder.Bellamy
proposesthe ratificationof lawsforbiddingwomenfromholdingdownspecificjobs.Dr.
Leeteboasts,“Theheaviersortsof workare everywherereservedfor men,the lighter
occupationsfor women.Underno circumstancesis a womanpermittedto followany
employmentnot perfectlyadapted,bothas to kindand degreeof labor,to her sex.... The
menof this day so wellappreciatethattheyoweto the beautyandgraceof womenthe
chiefzest of theirlivesand theirmainincentiveto effort,that theypermitthemto workat
allonlybecauseit is fullyunderstoodthat a certainregularrequirementof labor,of a sort
adaptedto theirpowers,is wellfor bodyandmind,duringthe periodof maximum
physicalvigor”^127 (emphasesadded).By contrast,Hofstadtergivesno mentionof Bella-
my recommendingsuchrestrictionsuponwhatwomencan do withtheirownbodiesand
mindsandlives.ButSDATat leastadmitsthatHerbertSpencerwrotea defenseof the
equal“rightsof women” thatwasdecidedly“radical” for its day.^128 In the nineteenth
century,a womanwasconsiderednot the exclusivepropertyof herself,but of her hus-
bandor father.Spencerboreno patiencefor suchchauvinism.In 1851he wrote,“Equity
knowsno differenceof sex.... The law of equalfreedommanifestlyappliesto the whole
race—femaleas wellas male.... Hencethe severalrightsdeduciblefromthatlaw must
appertainequallyto bothsexes.” Spencerfurtherpressed,
Marriedlife underthisultimatestateof thingswillnot be characterisedby perpetual
squabbles,but by mutualconcessions.Insteadof a desireon the partof the husbandto
asserthis claimsto the uttermost,regardlessof thoseof his wife,or on the partof the wife
to do the like,therewill be a watchfuldesireon bothsidesnot to transgress.Neitherwill