signs that this time is approaching. There is little doubt that woman
will be as amenable to these newer and more rationalized mores as human
nature has always been to the irrationally formed customs and traditions
of the past.

To ignore the female specialization involved in furnishing the
intramaternal environment for three children, on an average, to the
group, is simply foolish. If undertaken at maturity--say from
twenty-two to twenty-five years of age--and a two-year interval left
between the three in the interest of both mother and children, it puts
woman in an entirely different relation toward extra-reproductive
activities than man. It does imply a division of labour.

In general, it would seem socially expedient to encourage each woman to
have her own three children, instead of shifting the burden upon the
shoulders of some other. If such activities of nursing and caring for
the very young can be pooled, so much the better. Doubtless some women
who find them distasteful would be much more useful to society at other
work. But let us not disregard fundamentals. It is obviously
advantageous for children of normal, able parents to be cared for in the
home environment. In a _biologically healthy_ society the presumption
must be that the average woman has some three children of her own. Since
this obviously includes nurses and governesses, we see at once the
futility of the oft-proposed class solution of hiring single women to
care for the children of the fortunate. If such a servant is
undesirable, she is not hired; if normal, in a biologically healthy
society she would have her own children.

The female handicap incident to reproduction may be illustrated by the
case of Hambletonian 10 mentioned in Chapter II. We saw that a female