It is idle to say that what is right for man is wrong for woman. Purereason, abstract right and wrong, have nothing to do with sex: theyneither recognize nor know it. They teach that what is right or wrongfor man is equally right and wrong for woman. Both sexes are bound bythe same code of morals; both are amenable to the same divine law.Both have a right to do the best they can; or, to speak more justly,both should feel the duty, and have the opportunity, to do theirbest. Each must justify its existence by becoming a completedevelopment of manhood and womanhood; and each should refuse whateverlimits or dwarfs that development.
The problem of woman's sphere, to use the modern phrase, is not to besolved by applying to it abstract principles of right and wrong. Itssolution must be obtained from physiology, not from ethics ormetaphysics. The question must be submitted to Agassiz and Huxley, notto Kant or Calvin, to Church or Pope. Without denying the self-evidentproposition, that whatever a woman can do, she has a right to do, thequestion at once arises, What can she do? And this includes thefurther question, What can she best do? A girl can hold a plough, andply a needle, after a fashion. If she can do both better than a man,she ought to be both farmer and seamstress; but if, on the whole, herhusband can hold best the plough, and she ply best the needle, theyshould divide the labor. He should be master of the plough, and shemistress of the loom. The _quæstio vexata_ of woman's sphere will bedecided by her organization. This limits her power, and reveals herdivinely-appointed tasks, just as man's organization limits his power,and reveals his work. In the development of the organization is to befound the way of strength and power for both sexes. Limitation orabortion of development leads both to weakness and failure.
Neither is there any such thing as inferiority or superiority in thismatter. Man is not superior to woman, nor woman to man. The relationof the sexes is one of equality, not of better and worse, or of higherand lower. By this it is not intended to say that the sexes are thesame. They are different, widely different from each other, and sodifferent that each can do, in certain directions, what the othercannot; and in other directions, where both can do the same things,one sex, as a rule, can do them better than the other; and in stillother matters they seem to be so nearly alike, that they caninterchange labor without perceptible difference. All this is so wellknown, that it would be useless to refer to it, were it not that muchof the discussion of the irrepressible woman-question, and many of theefforts for bettering her education and widening her sphere, seem toignore any difference of the sexes; seem to treat her as if she wereidentical with man, and to be trained in precisely the same way; as ifher organization, and consequently her function, were masculine, notfeminine. There are those who write and act as if their object were toassimilate woman as much as possible to man, by dropping all that isdistinctively feminine out of her, and putting into her as large anamount of masculineness as possible. These persons tacitly admit theerror just alluded to, that woman is inferior to man, and strive toget rid of the inferiority by making her a man. There may be somesubtle physiological basis for such views--some strange quality ofbrain; for some who hold and advocate them are of those, who, havingmissed the symmetry and organic balance that harmonious developmentyields, have drifted into an hermaphroditic condition. One of thisclass, who was glad to have escaped the chains of matrimony, but knewthe value and lamented the loss of maternity, wished she had been borna widow with two children. These misconceptions arise from mistakingdifference of organization and function for difference of position inthe scale of being, which is equivalent to saying that man is ratedhigher in the divine order because he has more muscle, and woman lowerbecause she has more fat. The loftiest ideal of humanity, rejectingall comparisons of inferiority and superiority between the sexes,demands that each shall be perfect in its kind, and not be hindered inits best work. The lily is not inferior to the rose, nor the oaksuperior to the clover: yet the glory of the lily is one, and theglory of the oak is another; and the use of the oak is not the use ofthe clover. That is poor horticulture which would train them allalike.
When Col. Higginson asked, not long ago, in one of his charmingessays, that almost persuade the reader, "Ought women to learn thealphabet?" and added, "Give woman, if you dare, the alphabet, thensummon her to the career," his physiology was not equal to his wit.Women will learn the alphabet at any rate; and man will be powerlessto prevent them, should he undertake so ungracious a task. The realquestion is not, _Shall_ women learn the alphabet? but _How_ shallthey learn it? In this case, how is more important than ought orshall. The principle and duty are not denied. The method is not soplain.
The fact that women have often equalled and sometimes excelled men inphysical labor, intellectual effort, and lofty heroism, is sufficientproof that women have muscle, mind, and soul, as well as men; but itis no proof that they have had, or should have, the same kind oftraining; nor is it any proof that they are destined for the samecareer as men. The presumption is, that if woman, subjected to amasculine training, arranged for the development of a masculineorganization, can equal man, she ought to excel him if educated by afeminine training, arranged to develop a feminine organization.Indeed, I have somewhere encountered an author who boldly affirms thesuperiority of women to all existences on this planet, because of thecomplexity of their organization. Without undertaking to indorse suchan opinion, it may be affirmed, that an appropriate method ofeducation for girls--one that should not ignore the mechanism of theirbodies or blight any of their vital organs--would yield a betterresult than the world has yet seen.
Gail Hamilton's statement is true, that, "a girl can go to school,pursue all the studies which Dr. Todd enumerates, except _adinfinitum_; know them, not as well as a chemist knows chemistry or abotanist botany, but as well as they are known by boys of her age andtraining, as well, indeed, as they are known by many college-taughtmen, enough, at least, to be a solace and a resource to her; thengraduate before she is eighteen, and come out of school as healthy, asfresh, as eager, as she went in."[1] But it is not true that she cando all this, and retain uninjured health and a future secure fromneuralgia, uterine disease, hysteria, and other derangements of thenervous system, if she follows the same method that boys are trainedin. Boys must study and work in a boy's way, and girls in a girl'sway. They may study the same books, and attain an equal result, butshould not follow the same method. Mary can master Virgil and Euclidas well as George; but both will be dwarfed,--defrauded of theirrightful attainment,--if both are confined to the same methods. It issaid that Elena Cornaro, the accomplished professor of six languages,whose statue adorns and honors Padua, was educated like a boy. Thismeans that she was initiated into, and mastered, the studies that wereconsidered to be the peculiar dower of men. It does not mean that herlife was a man's life, her way of study a man's way of study, or that,in acquiring six languages, she ignored her own organization. Womenwho choose to do so can master the humanities and the mathematics,encounter the labor of the law and the pulpit, endure the hardness ofphysic and the conflicts of politics; but they must do it all inwoman's way, not in man's way. In all their work they must respecttheir own organization, and remain women, not strive to be men, orthey will ignominiously fail. For both sexes, there is no exception tothe law, that their greatest power and largest attainment lie in theperfect development of their organization. "Woman," says a latewriter, "must be regarded as woman, not as a nondescript animal, withgreater or less capacity for assimilation to man." If we would giveour girls a fair chance, and see them become and do their best byreaching after and attaining an ideal beauty and power, which shall bea crown of glory and a tower of strength to the republic, we must lookafter their complete development as women. Wherein they are men, theyshould be educated as men; wherein they are women, they should beeducated as women. The physiological motto is, Educate a man formanhood, a woman for womanhood, both for humanity. In this lies thehope of the race.
The problem of woman's sphere, to use the modern phrase, is not to besolved by applying to it abstract principles of right and wrong. Itssolution must be obtained from physiology, not from ethics ormetaphysics. The question must be submitted to Agassiz and Huxley, notto Kant or Calvin, to Church or Pope. Without denying the self-evidentproposition, that whatever a woman can do, she has a right to do, thequestion at once arises, What can she do? And this includes thefurther question, What can she best do? A girl can hold a plough, andply a needle, after a fashion. If she can do both better than a man,she ought to be both farmer and seamstress; but if, on the whole, herhusband can hold best the plough, and she ply best the needle, theyshould divide the labor. He should be master of the plough, and shemistress of the loom. The _quæstio vexata_ of woman's sphere will bedecided by her organization. This limits her power, and reveals herdivinely-appointed tasks, just as man's organization limits his power,and reveals his work. In the development of the organization is to befound the way of strength and power for both sexes. Limitation orabortion of development leads both to weakness and failure.
Neither is there any such thing as inferiority or superiority in thismatter. Man is not superior to woman, nor woman to man. The relationof the sexes is one of equality, not of better and worse, or of higherand lower. By this it is not intended to say that the sexes are thesame. They are different, widely different from each other, and sodifferent that each can do, in certain directions, what the othercannot; and in other directions, where both can do the same things,one sex, as a rule, can do them better than the other; and in stillother matters they seem to be so nearly alike, that they caninterchange labor without perceptible difference. All this is so wellknown, that it would be useless to refer to it, were it not that muchof the discussion of the irrepressible woman-question, and many of theefforts for bettering her education and widening her sphere, seem toignore any difference of the sexes; seem to treat her as if she wereidentical with man, and to be trained in precisely the same way; as ifher organization, and consequently her function, were masculine, notfeminine. There are those who write and act as if their object were toassimilate woman as much as possible to man, by dropping all that isdistinctively feminine out of her, and putting into her as large anamount of masculineness as possible. These persons tacitly admit theerror just alluded to, that woman is inferior to man, and strive toget rid of the inferiority by making her a man. There may be somesubtle physiological basis for such views--some strange quality ofbrain; for some who hold and advocate them are of those, who, havingmissed the symmetry and organic balance that harmonious developmentyields, have drifted into an hermaphroditic condition. One of thisclass, who was glad to have escaped the chains of matrimony, but knewthe value and lamented the loss of maternity, wished she had been borna widow with two children. These misconceptions arise from mistakingdifference of organization and function for difference of position inthe scale of being, which is equivalent to saying that man is ratedhigher in the divine order because he has more muscle, and woman lowerbecause she has more fat. The loftiest ideal of humanity, rejectingall comparisons of inferiority and superiority between the sexes,demands that each shall be perfect in its kind, and not be hindered inits best work. The lily is not inferior to the rose, nor the oaksuperior to the clover: yet the glory of the lily is one, and theglory of the oak is another; and the use of the oak is not the use ofthe clover. That is poor horticulture which would train them allalike.
When Col. Higginson asked, not long ago, in one of his charmingessays, that almost persuade the reader, "Ought women to learn thealphabet?" and added, "Give woman, if you dare, the alphabet, thensummon her to the career," his physiology was not equal to his wit.Women will learn the alphabet at any rate; and man will be powerlessto prevent them, should he undertake so ungracious a task. The realquestion is not, _Shall_ women learn the alphabet? but _How_ shallthey learn it? In this case, how is more important than ought orshall. The principle and duty are not denied. The method is not soplain.
The fact that women have often equalled and sometimes excelled men inphysical labor, intellectual effort, and lofty heroism, is sufficientproof that women have muscle, mind, and soul, as well as men; but itis no proof that they have had, or should have, the same kind oftraining; nor is it any proof that they are destined for the samecareer as men. The presumption is, that if woman, subjected to amasculine training, arranged for the development of a masculineorganization, can equal man, she ought to excel him if educated by afeminine training, arranged to develop a feminine organization.Indeed, I have somewhere encountered an author who boldly affirms thesuperiority of women to all existences on this planet, because of thecomplexity of their organization. Without undertaking to indorse suchan opinion, it may be affirmed, that an appropriate method ofeducation for girls--one that should not ignore the mechanism of theirbodies or blight any of their vital organs--would yield a betterresult than the world has yet seen.
Gail Hamilton's statement is true, that, "a girl can go to school,pursue all the studies which Dr. Todd enumerates, except _adinfinitum_; know them, not as well as a chemist knows chemistry or abotanist botany, but as well as they are known by boys of her age andtraining, as well, indeed, as they are known by many college-taughtmen, enough, at least, to be a solace and a resource to her; thengraduate before she is eighteen, and come out of school as healthy, asfresh, as eager, as she went in."[1] But it is not true that she cando all this, and retain uninjured health and a future secure fromneuralgia, uterine disease, hysteria, and other derangements of thenervous system, if she follows the same method that boys are trainedin. Boys must study and work in a boy's way, and girls in a girl'sway. They may study the same books, and attain an equal result, butshould not follow the same method. Mary can master Virgil and Euclidas well as George; but both will be dwarfed,--defrauded of theirrightful attainment,--if both are confined to the same methods. It issaid that Elena Cornaro, the accomplished professor of six languages,whose statue adorns and honors Padua, was educated like a boy. Thismeans that she was initiated into, and mastered, the studies that wereconsidered to be the peculiar dower of men. It does not mean that herlife was a man's life, her way of study a man's way of study, or that,in acquiring six languages, she ignored her own organization. Womenwho choose to do so can master the humanities and the mathematics,encounter the labor of the law and the pulpit, endure the hardness ofphysic and the conflicts of politics; but they must do it all inwoman's way, not in man's way. In all their work they must respecttheir own organization, and remain women, not strive to be men, orthey will ignominiously fail. For both sexes, there is no exception tothe law, that their greatest power and largest attainment lie in theperfect development of their organization. "Woman," says a latewriter, "must be regarded as woman, not as a nondescript animal, withgreater or less capacity for assimilation to man." If we would giveour girls a fair chance, and see them become and do their best byreaching after and attaining an ideal beauty and power, which shall bea crown of glory and a tower of strength to the republic, we must lookafter their complete development as women. Wherein they are men, theyshould be educated as men; wherein they are women, they should beeducated as women. The physiological motto is, Educate a man formanhood, a woman for womanhood, both for humanity. In this lies thehope of the race.
No comments:
Post a Comment