61
speech has pointed out what a part is played by solicitors in the promotion of divorce suits.
The essential thing, therefore, to remember is that the legal subjection of women in England, if it ever existed, has gone, and long gone. It is succeeded by a state of sordid subjection of the man to a biased public opinion, to a hysterical press, and to sentimental administrators of a corrupted law.
There are, however, some signs that the legal subjection of men in England is not destined to live for ever. The law, after all, is the shadow of public opinion.
MUSCULAR INFERIORITY AND SEX-PRIVILEGE.
We must once more refer, on account of its wide-spreading popularity, to the cheap sneer by which some small but "gallant" wits may endeavour to turn the edge of the foregoing observations, namely, the attempt to play off the muscular inferiority of women to men as an answer to any allegation of oppression exercised or behalf of the so-called weaker sex. When looked at fairly in the face, the point in question will be seen so preposterously absurd as to be hardly worth answering. But, nevertheless, absurd as it is, it undoubtedly plays a part, half unconsciously, in the apathy of most men on the question of female privilege. Because men are muscularly stronger than women, it is felt by many, and the feeling is supported by the class of cheap witticism above referred to, that therefore it is impossible for men to be seriously oppressed by women. A moment's reflection suffices to show that the question of muscular strength or weakness is absolutely immaterial to the issue. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that because the Czar of Russia and his high officials were less muscularly developed than the average Russian peasant, that the possibility of the Russian peasant being seriously oppressed by the Czar or his government was a proposition to be laughed
