To contemplate the principles which should regulate systems of
instruction, and consider how little those principles have been
regarded in educating our sex, will show the defects of female
education in a still stronger point of light, and will also afford a
standard, by which any plan for its improvement may be measured.
Education should seek to bring its subjects to the perfection of their
moral, intellectual and physical nature: in order, that they may be
of the greatest possible use to themselves and others: or, to use
a different expression, that they may be the means of the greatest
possible happiness of which they are capable, both as to what they
enjoy, and what they communicate.
Those youth have the surest chance of enjoying and communicating
happiness, who are best qualified, both by internal dispositions, and
external habits, to perform with readiness, those duties, which their
future life will most probably give them occasion to practice.
Studies and employments should, therefore, be selected, from one
or both of the following considerations; either, because they are
peculiarly fitted to improve the faculties; or, because they are such,
as the pupil will most probably have occasion to practise in future
life.
These are the principles, on which systems of male education are
founded; but female education has not yet been systematized. Chance
and confusion reign here. Not even is youth considered in our sex, as
in the other, a season, which should be wholly devoted to improvement.
Among families, so rich as to be entirely above labour, the daughters
are hurried through the routine of boarding school instruction, and at
an early period introduced into the gay world; and, thenceforth, their
only object is amusement.--Mark the different treatment, which the sons
of these families receive. While their sisters are gliding through the
mazes of the midnight dance, they employ the lamp, to treasure up for
future use the riches of ancient wisdom; or to gather strength and
expansion of mind, in exploring the wonderful paths of philosophy. When
the youth of two sexes has been spent so differently, is it strange,
or is nature in fault, if more mature age has brought such a difference
of character, that our sex have been considered by the other, as the
pampered, wayward babies of society, who must have some rattle put into
our hands, to keep us from doing mischief to ourselves or others?[1]
Another difference in the treatment of the sexes is made in our
country, which, though not equally pernicious to society, is more
pathetically unjust to our sex. How often have we seen a student, who,
returning from his literary pursuits, finds a sister, who was his equal
in acquirements, while their advantages were equal, of whom he is now
ashamed. While his youth was devoted to study, and he was furnished
with the means, she, without any object of improvement, drudged at
home, to assist in the support of the father’s family, and perhaps to
contribute to her brother’s subsistence abroad; and now, a being of a
lower order, the rustic innocent wonders and weeps at his neglect.
Not only has there been a want of system concerning female education,
but much of what has been done, has proceeded upon mistaken principles.
One of these is, that, without a regard to the different periods of
life, proportionate to their importance, the education of females has
been too exclusively directed, to fit them for displaying to advantage
the charms of youth and beauty. Though it may be proper to adorn this
period of life, yet, it is incomparably more important, to prepare
for the serious duties of maturer years. Though well to decorate the
blossom, it is far better to prepare for the harvest. In the vegetable
creation, nature seems but to sport, when she embellishes the flower;
while all her serious cares are directed to perfect the fruit.
Another errour is, that it has been made the first object in educating
our sex, to prepare them to please the other. But reason and religion
teach, that we too are primary existencies; that it is for us to move,
in the orbit of our duty, around the Holy Centre of perfection, the
companions, not the satellites of men; else, instead of shedding around
us an influence, that may help to keep them in their proper course, we
must accompany them in their wildest deviations.
I would not be understood to insinuate, that we are not, in particular
situations, to yield obedience to the other sex. Submission and
obedience belong to every being in the universe, except the great
Master of the whole. Nor is it a degrading peculiarity to our sex, to
be under human authority. Whenever one class of human beings, derive
from another the benefits of support and protection, they must pay its
equivalent, obedience. Thus, while we receive these benefits from our
parents, we are all, without distinction of sex, under their authority;
when we receive them from the government of our country, we must
obey our rulers; and when our sex take the obligations of marriage,
and receive protection and support from the other, it is reasonable,
that we too should yield obedience. Yet is neither the child, nor the
subject, nor the wife, under human authority, but in subservience to
the divine. Our highest responsibility is to God, and our highest
interest is to please him; therefore, to secure this interest, should
our education be directed.
Neither would I be understood to mean, that our sex should not seek to
make themselves agreeable to the other. The errour complained of, is
that the taste of men, whatever it might happen to be, has been made
a standard for the formation of the female character. In whatever we
do, it is of the utmost importance, that the rule, by which we work,
be perfect. For if otherwise, what is it, but to err upon principle? A
system of education, which leads one class of human beings to consider
the approbation of another, as their highest object, teaches, that
the rule of their conduct should be the will of beings, imperfect and
erring like themselves, rather than the will of God, which is the only
standard of perfection.
Having now considered female education, both in theory and practice,
and seen, that in its present state, it is in fact a thing “without
form and void,” the mind is naturally led to inquire after a remedy
for the evils it has been contemplating. Can individuals furnish this
remedy? It has heretofore been left to them, and we have seen the
consequence. If education is a business, which might naturally prosper,
if left to individual exertion, why have legislatures intermeddled
with it at all? if it is not, why do they make their daughters
illegitimates, and bestow all their cares upon their sons?
It is the duty of a government, to do all in its power to promote
the present and future prosperity of the nation, over which it is
placed. This prosperity will depend on the character of its citizens.
The characters of these will be formed by their mothers; and it is
through the mothers, that the government can control the characters
of its future citizens, to form them such as will ensure their
country’s prosperity. If this is the case, then it is the duty of our
present legislators to begin now, to form the characters of the next
generation, by controlling that of the females, who are to be their
mothers, while it is yet with them a season of improvement.
But should the conclusion be almost admitted, that our sex too are
the legitimate children of the legislature; and, that it is their
duty to afford us a share of their paternal bounty; the phantom of a
college-learned lady, would be ready to rise up, and destroy every good
resolution, which the admission of this truth would naturally produce
in our favour.
To shew that it is not a masculine education which is here
recommended, and to afford a definite view of the manner in which a
female institution might possess the respectability, permanency, and
uniformity of operation of those appropriated to males; and yet differ
from them, so as to be adapted to that difference of character and
duties, to which the softer sex should be formed, is the object of the
following imperfect