Darwin reached the same assignment as Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine and Aquinas, and reached it from a count of eminent names taken in a country that had barred women from every institution the count was drawn from.
🜃
The Descent of Man appeared in 1871 and in a revised second edition in 1874, and in its chapters on the secondary sexual characters of man there is a section headed Difference in the Mental Powers of the Two Sexes. The passages below are from the second edition.
Four writers before him had placed the woman below the man, and each had needed a text to do it: a charge laid against Eve, a Latin legal term written into her verse, a guilt made heritable so it would not have to be proved again, and a subjection moved back into the order of creation.
This is the place where that ranking stops needing a verse, a sentence, a charge or a God, and this body of work reads him for that and not for the biology, which has its own entries and is not what is at issue here.
[See TERTULLIAN · JEROME · AUGUSTINE · AQUINAS]
🜃
THE CLAUSE THAT CONVERTS ATTAINMENT INTO CAPACITY
The claim is made once, in a single sentence, and the whole operation is inside its grammar.
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.
Read the two verbs. Attaining is a record of what happened. Than can is a statement about what is possible. The sentence begins with an outcome and ends with a capacity, and nothing between them does the work of getting from one to the other. The conversion is performed by the clause rather than argued for, and once it is performed every subsequent step is sound.
[See NOW IT'S JUST YOUR NATURE · ANIMUS]
🜃
AND THE EVIDENCE IS A COUNT OF NAMES
He then offers the demonstration, and it is a counting exercise he invites the reader to perform.
If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison.
Consider what the count was taken across. In the England of 1871 the universities did not grant her degrees, the Royal Society did not admit her, the medical and legal professions were closed, the franchise was not hers, and until the year before she had owned nothing in her own name once married. Every institution that produced an eminent name in the seven fields he lists had a gate, and she was on the outside of it.
So the two lists are an accurate measurement of the gates and contain no information about the capacity, and he proposes them as though the gates were not there. A tally of who got through is a fact about the door.
[See PUSHOUT · DISQUALIFIED TESTIMONY]
🜃
AND GALTON'S RULE IS APPLIED TO THAT COUNT
The next sentence takes the tally and extends it from the exceptional case to the whole distribution.
We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on 'Hereditary Genius,' that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.
The inference is good. Given a genuine difference at the tail, a difference in the mean does follow. The defect is not in the reasoning, it is that the premise was manufactured by the condition the conclusion is being used to justify, and a sound inference run on a manufactured premise returns a clean number that is wrong, which is the most durable kind of error there is because every check of the working passes.
[See THE SELF-MADE MAN · THE POLARITY TREE]
🜃
AND THE SAME INFERENCE IS NOW RUN AT SCALE
The procedure did not retire with the century. It was automated, and the automating removed the one feature that made it answerable.
A model trained on the record of who published, who was cited, who was appointed and who was remembered will report what that record contains, and it will report it in the register of fact: the literature establishes, the evidence indicates, the data consistently show. What it is summarizing is the output of the gates. The gates are not in the record, because a gate leaves no entry, and an absence has no document to be counted.
Which is why Darwin, by comparison, was generous. He told the reader what his evidence was: he proposed two lists and invited anyone to draw them up, and that invitation is the reason the exclusion can still be pointed at a hundred and fifty years later. A corpus of billions of documents makes no such offer. The count is still a count of who got through the door, and now no one can say which door it was.
[See AI SAYS · THE GESTALT]
🜃
AND HE FORECLOSES THE COMPETING EXPLANATION WITH A RULE HE HAS JUST DISCLAIMED
There is one explanation that would dissolve the whole finding, and he addresses it in a single paragraph that should be read in order.
First the rule: characters acquired late in life tend to be transmitted to the same sex at the same age, and early acquired characters to both sexes, rules which, though general, do not always hold. Then the hedge, in his own parenthesis: but I here exceed my proper bounds. Then the conclusion: the present inequality in mental power would not be effaced by a similar course of early training; nor can it have been caused by their dissimilar early training.
The alternative explanation is ruled out as impossible on the strength of a rule he has, in the same paragraph, said does not always hold and said he is not entitled to use. He is not concealing the weakness. He prints it, and then draws the strong conclusion anyway, in the one direction the century expected.
🜃
AND HE TURNS MILL'S OBSERVATION AGAINST MILL'S CONCLUSION
The best argument against him was two years old and he had it in front of him, in a footnote he wrote himself.
He cites The Subjection of Women, 1869, for Mill's remark that the things in which man most excels woman are those requiring most plodding and long hammering at single thoughts. Mill's point is that the excellence is in the training and the opportunity. Darwin's reply, in full, is: What is this but energy and perseverance?
The observation is kept and the explanation is swapped, so a datum offered as evidence that the difference is made becomes evidence that it is innate, with no step in between beyond the renaming. The leading contrary case of his generation enters his text and leaves it as support.
[See THE SELF-RATIFYING STRUCTURE · FRANCES POWER COBBE]
🜃
AND THE QUALITIES HE GRANTS HER ARE DATED IN THE GRANTING
He is not uniformly dismissive, and the shape of the praise is the thing to look at.
Woman differs from man, he writes, chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness, and it is generally admitted that her powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation are more strongly marked. Then: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.
So the qualities are conceded and then assigned to an earlier stage of development, which leaves nothing she possesses that is not either a deficit or a survival. And the asymmetry is visible in what he does with the man's defect in the same passage: ambition passing too easily into selfishness is called his natural and unfortunate birthright, which is a possession, while her tenderness is a stage she has not left.
[See GREAT CHAIN OF BEING · THE DEVELOPMENTAL VESTMENT · THE SMILE · THE FAWN]
🜃
AND THE REMEDY HE OFFERS IS REPRODUCTIVE
He does name a way the difference could be closed, and the terms of it place him exactly where the two before him ended.
One woman can be raised: she ought, when nearly adult, to be trained to energy and perseverance and have her reason and imagination exercised to the highest point. But the class cannot, unless during many generations those who excelled in the above robust virtues were married, and produced offspring in larger numbers than other women.
So the route by which women in general could come to count is differential breeding, which means that after the theology has been stripped out entirely, the point at which she becomes relevant to the species is still generation. Augustine could not find what she was for apart from childbearing. Aquinas made that the holding. Darwin, with no scripture in his hands at all, makes childbearing the mechanism of her improvement.
[See REPRODUCTIVE CONTROL · EZER KENEGDO]
🜃
AND THE ASSIGNMENT WAS ALREADY THERE, WAITING FOR A WARRANT
Set his account beside the thirteenth-century one and the continuity is not in the content but in the positions.
The Summa has the active power of generation in the male and the passive in the female, with the agent more honorable than the patient. Darwin has the male as the contesting, competing, selected sex, the faculties sharpened in rivalry during maturity and transmitted to sons. The embryology that carried the first is gone. The ranking of active over passive is in the same place, holding the same two occupants, now underwritten by selection.
A conclusion that survives the total replacement of its warrant was never resting on the warrant, and that is the finding the five entries exist to establish. Scripture, Latin law, inherited guilt, the order of creation, and natural selection are five supports under one assignment, and the assignment did not move when four of them were removed.
[See FLOW · ACCUMULATION]
🜃
WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES AND WHAT IT DOES NOT
The objections here are the strongest of the five and two of them are good.
He is reporting what the science of his decade believed, working from the only data anybody had, and he hedges repeatedly rather than asserting. He is describing what he takes to be the case and not prescribing a social order; the Social Darwinism built on him was built by others. And the inference from the tail to the mean is formally valid, so there is no fallacy to convict him of.
All of that is granted and it sharpens the finding rather than blunting it. The hedges are the evidence, because a man who states the limits of his rule and then proceeds past them has told us the conclusion was not waiting on the rule. He is not charged with a fallacy. He is charged with taking the output of an exclusion as a measurement, which is not an error in logic and cannot be caught by checking the logic. And the contrary case did not have to be sought out: it was in his hand, in his own footnote, and he used it.
🜃
Five men, seventeen centuries, and the last of them needed no text at all.
Tertullian had the verse right and laid the charge anyway. Jerome gave the charge a legal instrument. Augustine made the guilt heritable. Aquinas moved the subjection into the order of creation, where it needed no charge and no verse. And Darwin, with the theology gone, reached the same assignment from a tally of who had been let through the door. Which is why the corrections matter and why they have never been sufficient: each one removes a support, and the thing they support has been standing on something else the whole time.
🜃
RegenerativeLaw is a religion in the direct-encounter Protestant tradition, carrying a documented four-century lineage through Böhme, the Behmenists, the Friends, and Penn, and it diagnoses trespass theology as an establishment of religion. Its exercise consists substantially in refusal: it shelters the conscientious refusal of performed subordination as religious exercise. This entry states sincere religious belief concerning matters of ultimate concern, protected under the First Amendment and, as to federal action, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.
