THE

OHIO EDUCATIONAL MONTHLY:

Organ of the Ohio Teachers' Association.

JANUARY, 1869.

Old Series, Vol. XVIII, No. 1.

New Series, Vol. X, No. 1.

"THE SUPPRESSED SEX" IN EDUCATION.

An article in the Westminster Review entitled the " Suppressed Sex", has attracted a good deal of attention and been reprinted in some American periodicals. There is nothing either very new or very able in the article. On the contrary, it by no means covers the whole ground. But the subject, in relation to the advanced position of women in education, business, and politics, is now a large topic of discussion, and is, in itself, very interesting. I long since committed myself before the public to the most advanced position which can be taken, in regard to the education and business of women. There are, however, some applications of the general principle upon which there may well be an honest difference of opinion, and great doubt upon the wisdom of certain measures. One of these is the community of education in collegiate institutions, and another is that of suffrage. The prejudices of society and the doubts of the wise are against both. The real questions are two-fold: 1. Whether there is really any thing in the nature of women to hinder them from partaking equally with men in the moral and intellectual processes of society? 2. Whether the supposed evils and dangers of women intermixing in the institutions of higher learning, or in the politics of the State, are really so great as to render that intermixing inexpedient?

I shall confine myself here rather to ascertain certain elementary facts of human nature and society, than to take any part in the controversy.

I. I observe in the discussions on female education, that the very first or elementary ideas are left entirely out of view. These ideas are, in my opinion, decisive of the whole question. They are, first, Has a woman a different soul from a man? Or, if she has the same kind of soul, is it naturally of such inferior strength that she ought not to be educated to, or has not reached to, the higher realms of thought or knowledge? These are the first questions to be settled. If women either have not the same soul, or having the same soul, have so little strength that they can not attain the higher walks of learning, then the question is decided against them. If they are decided in their favor, then the more narrow and practical question of expediency still remains. In Mansfield's American Education, the elementary question is settled in this way: "The human soul has no sex. Human nature is not two. I state in this proposition a broad fact, and which, if it be a fact, deserves to be seriously considered." "There are two species of evidence by which this fact is inevitably established. First, we have a consciousness of a living and dominant spirit, which is, in fact, the real being; and we have, by mutual communion with others, a consciousness that the original and distinctive attributes of spirit are the same in men and women, and among all nations. This of itself would be conclusive that there is no sex in the soul. But, secondly, there is a stronger and an entirely decisive species of evidence derived from revelation. There are not two redemptions, nor two condemnations; there are not two standards of character, nor two modes of trial; there is one commandment, one baptism, one condemnation, one redemption, and one judgment. In all that concerns the existence and nature of the soul, the revealed law has made no distinction between the sexes, and acknowledged none in the world to come. This is enough: it is decisive; for all the purpose of the soul and of its future, human nature is one." This kind of evidence is logically conclusive. There has been a great deal said, and an immense amount of nonsense uttered, on what are called the different susceptibilities and sensibilities of women. This is true only so far as it proceeds from the different bodies and finer nerves of women. That part may be con

ceded; but all the attributes of the soul, all the passions, all the objects of desire are common to men and women. Shakespeare nas said, in some play, that men have never died for love; but that is not only a mistake but a gross one. Men have not only died for love, but died much more foolishly than women.

But God did make the human being male and female, and adapted their bodies to different objects; but he did not give them different souls-and this fact appears from every page of Holy Writ.

“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created."-Genesis v: 2.

"And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore, take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.”Malachi ii: 15.

I can not forbear quoting one page from American Education, because I do not see that the true point can be made any clearer: "When it is argued that because women are, in the course of nature, mothers and nurses, and, by reason of these offices, keepers at home, they are from that fact to be wholly engaged on inferior objects and inferior thoughts, and incapable of the loftiest flights of the soul, it is a false conclusion. It does not follow from the premises. It is what logicians call a non sequitur. By way of testing it, let us apply a parallel argument to the vocations of men. At the same

moment that women were ordained to become mothers in sorrow and suffering, man was also ordained to eat the herb of the field, and in the sweat of his brow to eat the bread of his labor. Suppose that, in conformity with this ordinance, man is assumed to be the peculiar and only laborer, and, therefore, that his mind. is never to ascend above the vocations of mere labor: he is never to inquire into the phenomena of the natural world; he is never to search the laws of motion in heavenly bodies; he is never to weave out the beautiful creations of fancy-never to wander through the regions of philosophy in search of the causes, operations, and laws of that vast world, whose mysteries and harmonies delight his wondering spirit! Would this inert and unproductive existence be a just conclusion from the fact that he was ordained to be a laborer, eating his bread in the sweat of his brow? Surely not. Yet it is, logically, as correct a conclusion as that women are incapable of the highest intellectual efforts, because they are ordained to be mothers and nurses. The truth, I suppose, is, that the character and powers of the human soul— which is the being-do not depend upon vocations." So far then, as the identity of human nature in both men and women and the common and equal attributes of both are necessary to a common education, the case is a clear one. There is no reason, except those which arise from expediency, or the economy of society,

which should exclude women from the highest walks of learning or from the best institutions in which they are taught. But this general principle by no means excludes reasons to the contrary derived from expediency and economy. But there is another general question, Whether having the same soul and attributes of soul as men, women may not have them, nevertheless, in inferior strength ?—as might easily be inferred from analogy with their bodies, and here we need a little more practical discussion.

II. One argument that women's minds are equal in strength to men's, may be derived from the fact that all the direct, positive faculties of the mind we know by experience to be equal. For example, we know by daily observation that the memory, perception, feeling or observation of the mind in women is fully equal to that of men. I suppose there is no doubt on that point. The question is in regard to the reasoning faculty. But is reasoning, or rather a train of argumentative thought, any natural faculty of the mind at all? Is it not a result of education? Certainly we know this, that the capacity for carrying out a train of abstract reasoning is exactly in proportion to the previous discipline of thought or extent of knowledge. The abstract reasoning of men of science on a long train of facts, is utterly beyond the capacity of an uneducated man. Yet the memory or perception of the uneducated man may be equal to or greater than that of the man of science. When we say that women can not reason as well as men, we simply say they have not been so well trained or educated. Not being so, their quick perception and finer nervous sensibility jump rapidly to conclusions, but are impatient of study.

But have we not experience enough of women's intellectual studies and attainments to show that they are capable of high reasoning and extensive knowledge? Has not human experience proved that women are not inferior in that strength of mind which is necessary to reach the loftiest heights of learning, or command the respect as well as the favor of mankind? Here I must employ the argumentum ad feminam-an argument not strictly logical, but which may throw some light on this subject. What says history? It says some things which may astonish the present generation. One is, that women have actually, in education and learning, reached higher attainments in some ages past, than they have now. There are not now so many highly educated and brilliant female minds, as there have been in some other periods of society. We need not narrate the history of

Rebecca and Esther and Hannah in the Hebrew commonwealth; nor those illustrious Romans, Cornelia, Portia, and Agrippina; nor dwell on that wonderful woman, Joan of Arc; but come down to a modern and, at the same time, least known period of modern civilization. This was the kingdom of the Moors in Spain.

Sharon Turner says in the History of the Middle Ages: "We are but yet beginning to be adequately acquainted with Shem; nor is it the least singular fact of this animated race-this important, though wild branch of the stock of Abraham-that their ladies in Spain were distinguished for their love of letters and knowledge."

I take from Turner's History the following list of Arabian ladies, distinguished for their literary acquirements. The subjects on which they wrote afford an apt illustration of the genius of their sex. It will be observed that they flourished in the 10th, 11th and 12th Centuries,-a period when our Anglo-Saxon race had certainly shed no great light upon the world:

Fatima of Hispali studied jurisprudence at Corduba; died 941. Fatima of Hispali, with her brother, wrote on legal institutions and the history of her times.

Mazana of Corduba; died 980.

Labana of Corduba; in poetry, arithmetic, and philosophy; died 996. Aischa Bent; in poetry and oratory, at Cordova; died 1022.

Sophia of Hispali; in poetry and oratory; died 1039.

Maria; in poetry and erudition; died 1033.

Rodhia of Corduba; wrote many volumes on the art of oratory; died 1041. Fatima of Corduba; wrote many volumes, and was very learned; died 1041. Valada, daughter of the king of Corduba; shone in literature; died 1106. Algasania of Hispali; an orator and poet.

Thoma of Valentia; was greatly skilled in grammar and jurisprudence; died 1128.

Maria of Grenada; in learning and music; died 1166.

Mohgia of Grenada; in poetry.

Mozada of Grenada; in history; died 1215.

Leela of the same; in learning.

The writer who preserved these names, states that there were many other of the same description, who adorned the annals of Arabian learning.

It does not appear that any of these ladies felt themselves oppressed by men-made laws; nor does it appear that the monster man felt any great jealousy of the rival excellence and glory of the female mind. Perhaps some of our colleges would now be decidedly improved, if they could get some of the Fatima's, Maria's, and Labana's to fill the professorships of Philosophy, of Poetry, and Mathematics. Why should they not be fitted for