In Harvey C. Mansfield’s Manliness, he makes reference to Rudyard Kipling’s 1911 poem “The Female of the Species.” It is not as great a poem as the manly favorite, “If,” and it’s a bit over the top and perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it somehow seemed relevant to present to you fellows here at The Spearhead.

The Female of the Species

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other’s tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthrall but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

Mansfield uses the poem to illustrate the idea that pragmatic women, whose nature in some partially Darwinian sense seeks security (in theory for her offspring), have little patience for man’s concern with “abstract justice,” “ideals” or “causes.”

Of course, we are seeing that women are less interested in having children, and more interested in gain for gain’s sake, but this is slightly different from something more male and more abstract–winning for winning’s sake.

How many times have men understood you when you wanted to take a path that offered less security but which served your passion or greater goals, while the women in your life advised you to take the financially or physically safe route?

One area where I see a possible contradiction is religion–women tend to attend church more regularly and are more likely to give to the church, occasionally to the tune of their own financial ruin. It often seems, though, that when this is happening there is a smooth talking male preacher on the other side of the pulpit giving her, or appearing to give her, attention she isn’t getting elsewhere. Traditionally, a wealthy matriarch would give away her husband’s money to various causes–this is probably why many art museums exist today–but this may be more a case of status seeking behavior among females.

Is the “female of the species” deadlier? Is she more materialistic, more apt to seek security, less interested in higher ideals? Is this a matter related to the survival of our species? How so, and how is this idea relevant today, if at all?