up the difficulty of distinguishing
between those differences that are fundamental and constitutional as
being directly dependent on the woman character and those that have, or
seem to have, arisen through distinction of training or environment,
which may be termed evolutionary differences, and are likely to be
changed by altered conditions. Even the trained biologist is unable to
draw an undisputed line of demarcation between the two kinds of
differences, and, even if it were drawn, the conclusion would not help
us very much. For with regard to these evolutionary differences that
are liable to change many questions have to be considered. Can they
safely be modified or disregarded? Do we want them changed? Will the
alteration really be of benefit to women? Only such qualities as can be
proved clearly to be mis-differentiations--_i.e._ directly harmful--can
be contemptuously dismissed. Thus the problem is an extraordinarily
difficult one. I can only touch its outer fringe.

It is held that men have greater mental variability and more
originality, while women have greater stability and more common sense.
In this connection may be noticed the characteristic male
restlessness; man is probably more inclined to experiment with his
body and his mind and with other people, while woman's constitution
and temper is relatively more conservative. It is held that women have
the greater integrating intelligence, while men are stronger in
differentiation. The thinking power of woman is deductive, that of
man inductive; woman's influence on knowledge is thus held to be
indirect rather than direct. But women have greater receptive powers,
retain impressions better and have more vivid and surer memories; for
which reason women are generally more receptive for facts than for
laws, more for concrete than for general ideas. The feminine mind
shows greater patience, more open-mindedness and tact, and keener
insight into character, greater appreciation of subtle details and,
consequently, what we call intuition. The masculine mind, on the other
hand, tends to a greater height of sudden efforts, of scientific
insight and experiment, greater frequency of genius, and this is
associated with an unobservant or impatient disregard of details, but
a stronger grasp of general ideas.

Now it is easy to make comparisons of this kind, but to accept them as
at all final calls for great caution. Let me take, as an instance, the
opinion so continuously a