A CHAT WITH WOMEN ABOUT WOMEN.

Hutt News, Volume 3, Issue 9, 24 July 1930, Page 11

A CHAT WITH WOMEN ABOUT WOMEN.

■CvV have already, iv previous ehapterV of tliis desultory chat about -women and their position in the economy of life, laid down certain premises of fact as they appear to us—simple facts that wms might think could be safely accepted as & foundation'for a more detailed consideration of the problem. Wo have willingly—and with.a good grace-;—yield ■ed to women the iilacc of greater, 'beoaufio subtler, power, and wo have Shown how, by the exercise of her finer fture and hor natural charms, she is le to wi-uld that power to the general nefit of the race of which she is the mother. But, like every other method, of ajiguxuent npon broad i incs, we have naturally failed to ajvpreeiate fcho gradations and the contradictions that sometimes veil and often obscure the simple facts upon which argument must be basod. Yet, for a complete understanding of the subject, we must fully appreciate the fact that there are, under the elemental Gharaotristics of sex, certain subtleties, certain evasions, certain ■complications which defy analysis. ... Wo "Snow that in the-.simplest and xno&t obvious characters there aTO skadoa, moods, motives, impulses, that «fton become obtrusive—so much so as to obscure the elemental truths. We are often made aware that weliave failod to understand even ourselves and find ourseleves wondering at out acts arid "words, unsupported as we know ~ them to >be by real motives or thoughts- We nro amazed when we find more than one personality in a single individual. This is the result, not so muck of the vagaries of eharacterer as of environment, or of occasion, 'or of some other influence outside ourselves. Also, in one individual there are unsuspected and undevelopel traits, the Tesult of heredity, of the ghostly influences of thousands of ancestors. No man or woman is himselif or 'herself alone, but often an instrument, so to speak, the chords of which, echo Tesponsive to many unsuspected influences, either, inside or outside his own individuality. Again, there is the inevitable but invisiibde veil which convention imposes

even upon those most intimate and mutually comprehending. The subtle reservations, the secretiveness caused often by kindliness, which, though weMi* meant, are often ill-advised, and which often attain dimensions out of all true nLportion and from the seed"" from waich misunderstandings, fostered 'by pride or sensitiveness, will grow into serious divisions which often a candid word would bridge over.

Still more must we recognise the bane fui influence of prejudice, of the disposition of one mind to colour the words or actions of another, to misinterpret motives, and to anticipate what is never intended. Natures mentally and physicall yact and react upon other, moat upon those most intimately situated, so that a complete comprehension must necessarily be impossible.

So it is that one person can more ■completely understand another. Misunderstandings are unavoidable even among the most intimate and united, and this is a difficulty which, perfect ■camaraderie must always strive to surmount. All understanding is merely relative; we can only partially know ourselves and , still more partially can we understand, others, for while wit!h ourselves we can -look into ocr inmost hearts, we cannot penetrate into th» soul of another. ' .

Yet the inmost self, this soul, Mis underlying spirit, is the true inner entity, the best part of us, and therefore the most worthy of study. It is not the part that 29 most intimately affected by others, or becomes most, apparent to them. It is not a familiar part of oux natures, and often it never becomes known to others, sometimes not even to. \ %' This inner entity is the foundation of the true disrmilarity of sex. - Itlilies at t&e root of what is called, tie-sex conflict. It is what makes.a woman womanly and a man manly. It is this that makes us take for granted the ancient axiom that the sexes are and must always be instinctively antagonistic—for we are always disposed ,to confuse antagonism with dissimlarity—tlhough it has nothing whatever to do with the equally ancient question of their equality. .

Such, however, is our social condition in these days tfcat we may safely take it. for granted that, while the sexes

must continue to bo physically and mentally alike, the question of theiT equality can never be really determined. But mere equality docs not presuppose v road union or an actual understanding. We can do better than that, we can find good cause for appreciation, which js better than understanding. The man, thoroughly recognising the dissimilarity of the feminine soul, her innermost heart, can 'the more fully appreciate her possession of ceTtain inner qualities that are to him alien- but by no means unknown or unrealised.

If we may accept it as true that the novelist is the best reader of char-., acter, that he possesses the power of realisation, and the instinct of subtle analysis, and can see more truly and. deeply, into this, inner entity, the spiritual 'part, wo find ourselves face to face with the curious fact v that it is t-ho men novelists. w.'ho have drawn the truest women characters in fiction, raarveilousdy subtle arid intimate, while women have not only failed. to realise the inner eaTt»h of women but have also failed .even more completely to draw a true i man.' The nearest approach to success lin the iatter task was made by Chariottlf Bronte, George Eliot,'and George Sand, but wihat .success they achieved vh drawing men is greatly exceeded by the marvellous intuition shown by Balzac, Meredith,. Hardy, Ha-wt'horne, Tolstoy, Hugo, Thackery and many more, in laying bare the innermost heart, the true hidden soul, of women and adsb of -men. . .. . So we may at least speculate, if we cannot safely dogmatise upon that interesting problem whether men of good Observation, gifted ,by impartial and sympathetic discernment, and a rea^h desire for truth, cannot possess something of this intuition which genius has given ' to masters of fiction, this same enlightening perception and . comprehension that makes it possible for them to realise something'mote of t&e womanly nature than women can ever realise of the masculine. . While men wild strive to understand something of this wonderfully 'elusive quality in women, because that is their own way of salvation, it may be per-: missib'lo to speculate that women's treatment of men reveals a disposition, not so much, to analyse as to accept tbese facts of difference, and to evade the difficult task of understanding them, contenting themselves by exercising a generoms, if undiseriminating, disposition to forgive what she considers inherent natural defects of character. A woman will not usually seek to probe very deeply into a man's inner nature; possibly she may be fearful to do so, more probably she believes that, there ia nothing really worthy of investigation. And for this perhaps men themselves may be held responsible and. blameworthy,' owing to their na^iral disinclination to give expression to thoughts or deductions which they copsid«.T too intimate and too deep for words. , "■