Sex and Society

쾂
Sex and Society

The Project Gutenberg eBook, Sex and Society, by William I. Thomas
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Title: Sex and Society
Author: William I. Thomas
Release Date: February 13, 2005 [eBook #15015]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SEX AND SOCIETY***
E-text prepared by Audrey Longhurst, William Flis, and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team

SEX AND SOCIETY
Studies in the Social Psychology of Sex
by
WILLIAM I. THOMAS
Associate Professor of Sociology in the University of Chicago
The University of Chicago Press Chicago, Illinois
1907 Fourth Impression 1913

AUTHOR'S NOTE
These studies have been published in various journals at different times. They are reprinted together because there is some demand for them, and they are not easily accessible. In preparing them for publication in the present form, some of them have been expanded and all of them have been revised.
While each study is complete in itself, the general thesis running through all of them is the same--that the differences in bodily habit between men and women, particularly the greater strength, restlessness, and motor aptitude of man, and the more stationary condition of woman, have had an important influence on social forms and activities, and on the character and mind of the two sexes.
"Organic Differences in the Sexes" appeared in the _American Journal of Sociology_, III, 31ff., with the title, "On a Difference in the Metabolism of the Sexes;" "Sex and Primitive Social Control," _ibid._, III, 754ff.; "Sex and Primitive Industry," _ibid._, IV, 474ff.; "Sex and Primitive Morality," _ibid._, IV, 774ff.; "The Psychology of Modesty and Clothing," _ibid._, V, 246ff.; "The Adventitious Character of Woman," _ibid._, XII, 32ff.; "The Mind of Woman and the Lower Races," _ibid._, XII, 435ff.; "The Psychology of Exogamy," in the _Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft_, V, 1ff., with the title, "Der Ursprung der Exogamie;" "Sex and Social Feeling," in the _Psychological Review_, XI, 61ff., with the title, "The Sexual Element in Sensibility." Portions of a paper printed in the _Forum_, XXXVI, 305ff., with the title, "Is the Human Brain Stationary?" are incorporated in the paper on "The Mind of Woman and the Lower Races," and portions of a paper printed in the _American Journal of Sociology_, IX, 593ff., with the title, "The Psychology of Race-Prejudice," are incorporated in the paper on "Sex and Social Feeling." I acknowledge the courtesy of the editors of these journals for permission to reprint.
W.I.T.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ORGANIC DIFFERENCES IN THE SEXES
SEX AND PRIMITIVE SOCIAL CONTROL
SEX AND SOCIAL FEELING
SEX AND PRIMITIVE INDUSTRY
SEX AND PRIMITIVE MORALITY
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EXOGAMY
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODESTY AND CLOTHING
THE ADVENTITIOUS CHARACTER OF WOMAN
THE MIND OF WOMAN AND THE LOWER RACES
INDEX

ORGANIC DIFFERENCES IN THE SEXES
A grand difference between plant and animal life lies in the fact that the plant is concerned chiefly with storing energy, and the animal with consuming it. The plant by a very slow process converts lifeless into living matter, expending little energy and living at a profit. The animal is unable to change lifeless into living matter, but has developed organs of locomotion, ingestion, and digestion which enable it to prey upon the plant world and upon other animal forms; and in contrast with plant life it lives at a loss of energy. Expressed in biological formula, the habit of the plant is predominantly anabolic, that of the animal predominantly katabolic.
Certain biologists, limiting their attention in the main to the lower forms of life, have maintained very plausibly that males are more katabolic than females, and that maleness is the product of influences tending to produce a katabolic habit of body.[1] If this assumption is correct, maleness and femaleness are merely a repetition of the contrast existing between the animal and the plant. The katabolic animal form, through its rapid destruction of energy, has been carried developmentally away from the anabolic plant form; and of the two sexes the male has been carried farther than the female from the plant process. The body of morphological, physiological, ethnological, and demographic data which follows becomes coherent, indeed, only on the assumption that woman stands nearer to the plant process than man, representing the constructive as opposed to the disruptive metabolic tendency.[2]
The researches of Düsing,[3] supplementing the antecedent observations of Ploss,[4] and further supplemented by the ethnological data collected by Westermarck,[5] seem to demonstrate a connection between an abundance of nutrition and females, and between scarcity and males, in relatively higher animal forms and in man. The main facts in support of the theory that such a connection exists are the following: Furriers testify that rich regions yield more furs from females and poor regions more from males. In high altitudes, where nutrition is scant, the birthrate of boys is