position of the monogamous husband, now rendered increasingly
uncomfortable by the laws of most Christian states. I do not think
that the more intelligent sort of women, faced by a perilous
shortage of men, would object seriously to that amelioration.
They must see plainly that the present system, if it is carried much
further, will begin to work powerfully against their best interests, if
only by greatly reinforcing the disinclination to marriage that already
exists among the better sort of men. The woman of true discretion,
I am convinced, would much rather marry a superior man, even on
unfavourable terms, than make John Smith her husband, serf and
prisoner at one stroke.




The law must eventually recognize this fact and make provision for
it. The average husband, perhaps, deserves little succour. The
woman who pursues and marries him, though she may be moved by
selfish aims, should be properly rewarded by the state for her
service to it--a service surely not to be lightly estimated in a military
age. And that reward may conveniently take the form, as in the
United States, of statutes giving her title to a large share of his real
property and requiring him to surrender most of his income to her,
and releasing her from all obedience to him and from all obligation
to keep his house in order. But the woman who aspires to
higher game should be quite willing, it seems to me, to resign some
of these advantages in compensation for the greater honour and
satisfaction of being wife to a man of merit, and mother to his
children. All that is needed is laws allowing her, if she will, to
resign her right of dower, her right to maintenance and her