Women at Fights.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 39, 1 December 1911, Page 16

Women at Fights.

a rejo

NO£R.

In oontending that women should attend man-fights, "Esttjlle Mendelsohn" (in last Sunday's "Sun") presents her arguments with such a characteristically feminine lack of correlation and sequence that it is difficult to be quite categorical in reply. So I shall just take her pretty well as she comes, "always provided"—as the legal instruments say—that the "Sun's" fair correspondent will bear in mind two points which entitle my views to serious consider atkxnu In the first place I am so far from being a "wowser" that I have often, in my own proper person, provided one end of a real hard "go"—and not always with gloves, either. So much for what some people would call the disreputable side of mc. But there is also an eminently respectable and professional side which maintains —for reasons presently to be supplied—that the witnessing of man-fights, so far from being "beneficial" to a woman, is likely to do her both moral and physical injury With the approximate physiological causes of this phenomenon —well known to every competent practitioner—l cannot, of course, deal in a public print, but the psychological aspect of the question presents itself as follows: — .Woman, being by nature a much more cruel and vindictive animal than man, is thrown by the sight of a man-fight into a state of violent psychic disturbance which is likely to cause permanent damage to her imperfect nervous equipment. Here somebody may exclaim: "Imperfect nervous equipment? Why, I always understood that a woman's nervous organisation is more perfect than a man's." To this the answer of advanced physiology is, briefly—No. Woman is more primitive than Man —less •highly evolved —more dependent upon her instincts, which are more unerring than Man's —simply because her intelligence is lower. The higher the reasonins power the less acute the instinctive judgment. fiven in this matter of fighting, Man has evolved a fair-play code which bars certain methods of attack, whereas Woman still fights as did her prehistoric ancestress —like a wild cat. It is no answer to this to say that "ladies" do ■not fight. Women of every class are more quarrelsome amongst themselves than men, but they are,also more the alaves of usage, and, though a woman of the "upper classes" may fiaid herself debarred by convention from a thoroughly congenial use of tooth and claw, she generally contrives to scratch pretty hard with her tongue. And men who have closely studied the subject try hard, nevertheless, to preserve the illusion that Woman is aniore soft-hearted than Man, becaxise they know that the savage in her lies nearer to the surface than it does in them, and then do not wish to see her revert to the methods of the prehistoric lady aforesaid, who, when her hairy hubby was at grips with a, foe, used to settle the matter by bashing in the *ther fellow's head from behind with a Itonp. That Avomen are naturally crueller than men is no more modern libel on the sex. The fact was observed nearly twenty centuries before it became as'S , o.ciatecT^t€lr : fc"iiat otnerfacb that woman is lower than man in the evolutionary scale. "The thumbs of the

" Why They Should Not Go.

Romanj women in the ampitheatre' gave nearly always the death-verdict for the already half-slaughtered gladiator, whereas the men, ir the stricken wretch had fought even reasonably well, generally gave the signal of mercy." Then take the aristocratic Spanish women who, at the bullfight, clamour always for more blood. "I speak whereof I do know," for I have frequently witnessed that form of "entertainment," and I observed that while the men applauded most the dexterity of the banderilleros in evading the infuriated bull, the cry of the women was still for more horses, which meant simply that they highly enjoyed, the ghastly slaughter of the old and worn-out creatures besbridden by the picadors. A decent moke is never seen in a Spanish bullring. The wretched animals used are practically brought there to be disembowelled and the women revel in the sight. To go back a bit. Possibly I am in error as to what "E.M." means by a "fight." It seems that she was present at the McVea-Lang fiasco. A tew well-delivered punches by the black ■man, and all was over. There wasn't much "realisation of the infinite 6apabilities of human nature" about.that. Neither, without mere abuse of language, could it be called "a truly edifying spectacle." "Harmless" is certainly was, and. from the expert's point of view, ridiculous as well. But "E.M." was naturally not looking at it from the expert's point of view. All she saw was "two strong men valiantly contesting for the supremacy of race." Well, there wasn't any valor in the matter. Lang certainly took his gruel without grunting, but that was a mere commonplace of the ring. The man who can't do that has no business inside the ropes, and as a matter of fact, is very seldom seen there. Of course, if "E.M." considered the performance she witnessed a fight, ' it might be said with reason that she, or any woman, might harmlessly be present on such an occasion, but I have my suspicions that she would have found a still more "edifying spectacle" in a slashing finish-fight, with plenty of gore, and a clean knock-out to top- off with. I may, of course, be mistaken in "E.M.'s" special case, but I have closely watched women at fights, and I have seen what it was not pleasant to look upon —the tigress unconsciously self-revealed. It was blood they wanted —not boxing. Their parallels amongst men were found in those blatant ring-siders who, being mostly curs at heart themselves, have come to see stouch and not science, and are prono to comment upon anything brilliant in the way of avoidance with the raucous cry of "Get to it! Get to it!" ' Mrs. Clement Soott (wife of the wellknown dramatic critic) not long ago amused London with the theory—-quite gravely propounded—that the real reason why men didn't like their womankind to witness fights was that they dreaded a comparison of their own physique with that of the trained athlete. Of course, one cannot say that this is not sometimes true.,...- 6ut my personal experiences ie "that it is the manliest- men who most appreciate the womanliest women, and who are, therefore ; most anxious to keep their own feminine belonging away from all unfeminine surroundings.—"Montalex," in Sydney "Sun."