96 Chapter 4
haveto standon the defensive,becauseeachwillbe solicitousfor the rightsof the
other....
Thereis nothingUtopianin this.... An attitudelike thatdescribedis not uncommonly
maintainedin the dealingsof honourablemenwitheachother;andif so, whyshouldit
not existbetweenthe sexes?Hereand there,indeed,maybe found,evennow,a wedded
pairwhopreservesucha relationship.Andwhatis at presentthe exceptionmayone day
be the rule.AndthenSpencerwenton to preach,“The extensionof the law of equalfreedomto both
sexeswill doubtlessbe objectedto, on the groundthat the politicalprivilegesexercisedby
menmusttherebybe cededto womenalso.Of coursetheymust;and whynot?Is it that
womenare ignorantof stateaffairs?Whythentheiropinionswouldbe thoseof their
husbandsand brothers;and the practicaleffectwouldbe merelythatof givingeachmale
electortwo votesinsteadof one.Is it thattheymightby-and-bybecomebetterinformed,
andmightthenbeginto act independently?Why,in suchcase,theywouldbe pretty
muchas competentto use theirpowerwithintelligenceas the membersof our present
constituencies.We are told,however,that a woman’s missionis a domesticone—that her
characterandpositiondo not admitof her takinga partin the decisionof publicques-
tions—thatpoliticsare beyondher sphere.But this raisesthe question—Whoshallsay
whather sphereis?... Whonowwilltell us whatwoman’s spherereallyis?” Here,
Spenceranticipatesthe argumentthatwomenbeingtreatedequallywithmenwould
allowwomento participatein the politicalprocess.Criticsof women’s rightsscoffthat
this wouldbe whollyunfeminineand unattractive.In rebuttalto suchan objection,Spen-
cer writes,“Howevermuch... the givingof politicalpowerto womenmaydisagreewith
our notionsof propriety,we mustconcludethat,beingrequiredby that firstpre-requisite
to greatesthappiness—the law of equalfreedom—sucha concessionis unquestionably
rightand good.” The Britishthinkerthenclosesthe chapterby assertingthat “the rightsof
womenmuststandor fall withthoseof men;derivedas theyare fromthe sameauthor-
ity;... demonstratedby the sameargument.”^129 Thesewordsarrivevia Spencer’sSocial
Statics. Thisis the samephilosophictreatisethat PC academiciansuniversallycondemnas
a right-wingreactionary’s apologiafor old-fashionedtraditionalism—an apologiathat
wasclose-mindedtowardanysuggestionsabouthowsocietymaybe improved.Yet,
subsequentto concedingthe radicalismof Spencer’s thoughtson genderequity,Hofstad-
ter feelsobligedto pronounceSocialStatics“ultra-conservative.”^130 Thispiquesmy curi-
osityas to whatHofstadtermeansbyultra-conservative. Spencer’s wordswerenot within
an inchof beingconservativeby the standardsof 1851.If the Science-for-the-People
organizationthatchastisedE. O. Wilson’s sociobiologyconsidersSpencera socialDar-
winist,thenthatdoesnot comportwithits accusationthatsocialDarwinismper se at-
temptsto presenta “geneticjustification” for “existingprivileges” on the basisof “class”
or “sex.”^131 In any case,Spencer’s supportfor femalerightsand women’s suffrageposesa
challengefor PC, Spencer-hating,Bellamy-approvingacademicianswhoconsiderthem-
selvesfeminists.Wouldtheyratherlive in a worldengulfedin the genderequityextolled
by the Spencertheydespise?Or wouldthoseallegedfeministsprefera societythat imple-
mentedpolicesprescribedby a fellowprogressive—Bellamy?RecallthatBellamy’s soci-
ety wouldimposerestrictionson whatsortsof occupationswomenmaychoosefor them-
selves.
Likelyignorantof thesefacts,evolutionarypsychologistandRiceUniversityanthro-
pologistSarahBlafferHrdyblithelyremarksthatthe grandayatollahof socialDarwin-
ism—HerbertSpencer—”thoughtfemalesneverhadbeeninherentlyequalto malesand
couldneverbe; subordinationof womenwas not onlynaturalbut, in his view,desirable.”
HrdyfulminatesthatSpencer’s horrendoussocialDarwinism“becamepopularlyasso-
ciatedwithevolutionarybiology.. .” She believesthis “helpsto explainwhyfeminists