M’凱里’托馬斯
(M. CAREY THOMAS)
婦’應’不’’高等教’嗎? Should Higher Education for Women Differ?’ ’’’’’’’中’有’’’’’有’’交’’那麼’’’’’’職’’做’準備’不’有’樣而’心’’’’ M’凱里’托馬斯(1857－1935)’’生’’’’個’’’’’’還’’提’’’’’立’’接’’學教’’’’’立’’’生 ’巴爾提摩’個著’’’’教’’’’’裏’個’’中’歲最’’’’’’’讀’’’爾’學’’’’’翰’’’普’斯’’學’(’那裏’’參’’’生’論’)’最’’蘇黎’’學獲文學博’學’’’’國不’’’’任’’賓’’尼’’創立’布’’莫爾學’’’個’’任’’’’’’’’’1899’’’成’該’’’’’’’’’’’’’個’課’’’及綜’’平方面’都’’最’’’’學’’匹敵’國內’’’’學’’ l899’’托馬斯’反駁’’’學’’’爾斯’W’’略’而’’’國’’略’曾’稱’’歷’’’’’’偉’’識遺產“對婦’教’’’用’”’’而必須’’找’’模式’托馬斯反駁說’’略’倒不’讓婦’教’’’’’“’種’’交’樂’’種’’戲’’’個’’貝’’’’個’’瓦’’’’’’’塑像’’’繪’’’個’’菲’’斯(’元’五’’’臘’’’’’譯’’)’’個’’提香’’’有’’切’比’婦’創’’個’識’’天’’’’’” ’1901’’’’’’文章裏’托馬斯闡’’應’’’’’’樣’高等教’課’’’由’ 假’婦’’’’立’必須’醫生’’’身’’’’’’’那麼’不管’醫生還’’’’’’’還’’’’’’獲’’最’’’’什麼’? ’有任’’由’’’’醫生用’種方’’癒傷’’’’熱’’結’’而’醫生’療’’’’’’用’’種方’’我們完’有’由’’’’’’’不’最’’’療’’’’’醫生’’對醫療結’’’’’比’’’’’’’還’’’’’’’’我們’’’’絕’’’’婦’’’之’’問’’’’’不’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’及’有’學藝’’技’學’裏’我們都必須’’’提’最’學’教’’最’’’’’’’’’學生都’’’’選擇’職’中’揮’最高’準’假’分’有’’’’橋梁’’’’’’’’’’’’’橋’’’’’’’’’橋及’它’’’橋’’學’’’’不變’情’’’簡’不’’像’’’’’’’’’基本教’應有’不’’’不’’像’’’’’’’’’’’個’’籠褲’’’個’防’裙’而必須讓’們’質’’數’及教學方’’接’不’’教’’’’’’’’’’’不’讓婦’’’’橋梁’當’’’有’’’種偏見’’’’’生’’’國’而不’’’’’’內陸’那麼’’’’’’’種偏見’’給’望成’橋梁’’’’婦’’’’’’說’婦’’智’’’’’們’’’’橋梁’假’’’’’’’’’正’’’’’’切’都不必操心’’’婦’’’橋反正’都’塌陷’’’’’’橋梁’’’’把’們擠’’’’’’’’’’’都還’’’’問’’不管今’’’給予限’’’本’’不’我們提’’’’問’’’’職’技’學’裏’’應學’樣’課’’’’’’’’’說’’’應分’’而不’’’’’’學’學醫’學’’’學橋梁’’’’’’’驗及’’實踐’都’’’’’’’’’學習’提’任’’’’’’反對’見’而’公眾輿論’’’邊倒’對’們’’’極’不’’’’種情’’’’’堅’讓職’技’學’’’’’’’’’’’教’而’樣’葫蘆’重’’’’未’’’’蠢’’’’’’’’方’’論’我們不妨假’’’’’’職’技’學’’’都’排辦有類’’’’學’’’’’’’’教’’’職’學’對’解’’種學’該教什麼’問’仍’’’補’’’’’’’’中’有’’’’’有’’交’’那麼’’’’’’職’’做’準備’不’有’樣而’心’’’’假’’’準備’分’準備不足’’’’’’’中落伍’假’’’’有準備’準備不夠’’’’’’’’’中’’虧’’ ’’’’’樣’用’’學文’’’’’教’’據統’’絕’’數’’’’生畢’’打算’’高等教’’職’’’’國’’生中有’分之’’’’’’而’’’生’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’基礎階’’教學隊伍中’’’’’’’停止’’’’’’’’高階’’’’學教學隊伍中’’’’剛剛’’’’’’’’’’’’’中’’’’’’’未有’’職’’嫉妒’’’國’’立’’’學’僅有’’’’而’’’’’學’’有’百’’六’’’有’’’學’中’’教’’有機’’’教’’’教授’’’’’’’’學’’任’教’’’’見’’有’話’’’’’據需’’’’’’’’們’’’生’’’’’’生’’當’’’’’’’’學’裏’’’’’執教’’’教’’成’’’’’教’’極端不滿’由’’種’’嫉妒’學’’’及董’’’’(’’’’’’’’’’)’’有心’’’’正’’’教’’數’’’給’教’’’’’選’課’’’我們’’’’生’’有’種’嫉妒’’們’’’教’教學’’’方式’’’擁’’’’教’’課堂’’中’學’’教’’’說’’’成’’’’’’教’’’’’輝煌’成’’’’’旦’’’’’限’’’’學教學中’’們’必’’’’樣’成’’教’職’本’正’’’’用’之’’’’’最高分支領域’’’’偏見對’們極’不’’’’種情’’’’有’’’’’執’見’’’’雪’’霜’讓’們接’’’’不’’職’’’’’ 當’’種推論還不夠’面’我們還’考’’’’有’’’’尤’’’’’’’’需’’辦’’’’’技’學’’答’’’’’’’有’種職’學’’’中’生’’’’’’生’’’’學’(’’’學’’’’)’幼教學’及圖’’學’學’’’’’飪’’’’成’有’’圖’職’’’尤’’當’有’’’’’’據’調’衛生’驗選擇’’’而不’像’’’樣’’’’’’’’’及’識’’給’’’’’’候’’’’’’’湧’’飪’’’學’’而’像’’學’那樣’’生Ⅸ’之’’’’’’’’’’疑問’假’’’學’裏都’’’’’’生’那麼’麼教’’’生’’’’麼教那’’生’’飪’教授’不’’’’’’’’異而有’不’’’ ’續論證’’任落’那’’’’學教’應對’’區’對’’’’’’’’’’’’’學教’’內’基本’’不分’’’’’’而’’生’收穫實’’喜’’’’’’學教’’’’跟未’’’學教’’’’們’樣’’都結’’成立’’’而’’’’’’’’滿’’’’們選擇’’部分有職’’’’’’們’不像’們’測’那樣’’’分’’’’而’生’’數’’’’嬰’’’’’們撫’成’’而不’’們早’夭折’’’’學教’’’’都’稱職’’管’’’’’’’母親’’’教’’’們成’輝煌’’’’目’’’’’’那’未’’’學教’’’教’正面’著’擠’教’隊伍’厄’’’而言之’學’’’課’’’’’’成’’’’’’’健’’’都’’’’剔’’’ 當’’離’’學’’’’’生’’有’’’’’’們當中’’’’’’謹’’選擇’’’’’’郎’’’’說’’’’生’輕’’’’不需’謀生’’’’’’快’’’們當中’有’分之’’’成’職’教’’而’’’終生執教’剩’’’’都終身未嫁’’生’輕’’’實’對’’有’’婦’離’’學’’’有’分之’’’’’教’’個’’’極’有限’職’中’’’’終身’’商’’’’職’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’正’’’’’婦’’’學期間應該’有最’’’教’’’種教’應’不分’’’’’’原’’’’’我’’最’’教’’有’種’’’’’’’’’志’’心’友’生’’’’’’生’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’學裏’’’’樣’’識’’’擁有’樣’學’’’’’有’樣’’’情操’那麼’’們本身’有成’’’福生’’及’們’’’’’’福日’都有’’減’ Once granted that women are to compete with men for self-support as physicians or lawyers, . . . what is the best attainable training for the physician or the lawyer, man or woman? There is no reason to believe that typhoid or scarlet fever or phthisis can be successfully treated by a woman physician in one way and by a man physician in another way. There is indeed every reason to believe that unless treated in the best way the patient may die, the sex of the doctor affecting the result less even than the sex of the patient. The question needs only to be put for us to feel irrevocably sure that there is no special woman's way of dealing with disease. And so in law, in architecture, in electricity, in bridge-building, in all mechanic arts and technical sciences, our effort must be for the most scientific instruction, the broadest basis of training that will enable men and women students to attain the highest possible proficiency in their chosen profession. Given two bridge-builders, a man and a woman, given a certain bridge to be built, and given as always the unchangeable laws of mechanics in accordance with which this special bridge and all other bridges must be built, it is simply inconceivable that the preliminary instruction given to the two bridge-builders should differ in quantity, quality, or method of presentation because while the bridge is building one will wear knickerbockers and the other a rainy-day skirt. You may say you do not think that God intended a woman to be a bridge-builder. You have, of course, a right to this prejudice; but as you live in America, and not in the interior of Asia or Africa, you will probably not be able to impose it on women who -wish to build bridges. You may say that women's minds are such that they cannot build good bridges. If you are right in this opinion you need concern yourselves no further―bridges built by women, will on the whole, tend to fall down, and the competition of men who can build good bridges will force women out of the profession. Both of these opinions of yours are side issues, and, however they may be decided hereafter, do not in the remotest degree affect the main question of a common curriculum for men and women in technical and professional schools. But you may say that men and women should study bridge building and medicine and law in separate schools, and not together. You may be foolish enough, and wasteful enough, to think that all the expensive equipment of our technical and professional schools should be duplicated for women, when experience and practice have failed to bring forward a single valid objection to professional coeducation, and when the pres- ent trend of public opinion is overwhelmingly against you; and for the sake of argument let us grant that beside every such school for men is to be founded a similar school for women. But this duplication of professional schools for women leaves us just where we were in regard to the curriculum of professional study to be taught in such women's schools. So long as men and women are to compete together, and associate together, in their professional life, women's preparation for the same profession cannot safely differ from men's. If men's preparation is better, women, who are less well prepared, will be left behind in the race; if women's is better, men will suffer in competition with women. . . . The above argument applies with equal force to the training given by the university graduate school of arts and sciences. Statistics indicate that an overwhelmingly large majority of men and women graduate students are fitting themselves for the profession of higher teaching, that over one-third of all graduate students in the United States are women, and that the annual increase of women graduate students is greater than that of men. In the lower grades of teaching men have almost ceased to compete with women; in the higher grade, that is, in college teaching, women are just beginning to compete with men, and this competition is beset -with the bitterest professional jealousy that women have ever had to meet, except perhaps in medicine. There are in the United States only eleven independent colleges for women of at all the same grade as the three hundred and thirty-six coeducational colleges where women and men are taught together, yet only in these separate colleges for women have women an opportunity of competing with men for professors' chairs. It is very rare indeed for coeducational colleges to employ any women instructors, and even then only so many women are as a rule employed as are needed to look after the discipline or home life of the women students. Where women are teaching in coeducational colleges side by side with men their success is regarded by men teachers with profound dislike, and on account of this sex jealousy college presidents and boards of trustees (all of whom are, as a rule, men) cannot, even if they would, materially add to the number of women teachers or advance them. The working of the elective system, however, permits us to see that men students show no such jealousy, but recognize the able teaching of women by overcrowding their classes. Women have succeeded so brilliantly, on the whole so much better than men, as primary and secondary teachers, that they will undoubtedly repeat this success in their college teaching so soon as artificial restrictions are removed. No one could seriously maintain that, handicapped as women now are by prejudice in the highest branches of a profession peculiarly their own, they should be further hampered by the professional training different from men's. . . . But this line of reasoning will be incomplete unless we ask ourselves whether there are not some subjects peculiar to women in which we must maintain special women's technical schools. There are certainly three professional schools where women students already largely outnumber men: normal schools, including normal departments of universities, schools of nursing, and schools for library study. If cooking and domestic service ever become lucrative professions, and more especially if men of wealth ever come to choose their wives for culinary and sanitary lore instead as at present for social and intellectual charm, such schools will tend to spring up and, like normal schools, will undoubtedly be attended almost exclusively by women. They will beyond question be taught exactly in the same way as if they were to be attended exclusively by men. The method of teaching cooking is one and the same and does not depend on the sex of the cooks. . . . The burden of proof is with those who believe that the college education of men and women should differ. For thirty years it has been as nearly as possible the same, with brilliantly satisfactory results, so far as concerns women. College women have married as generally as their non-college-bred sisters, and have as a rule married better than their sisters, because they have chosen a larger proportion of professional men; they have not died in childbirth, as was predicted; they have borne their proper proportion of children, and have brought up more than the usual proportion of those born; they have made efficient housekeepers and waives as well as mothers; their success as teachers has been so astonishingly great that already they are driving non-college-bred women teachers out of the field. There is, in short, not a word to be said against the success and efficiency and healthfulness of these women educated by men's curriculum. ... Undoubtedly the life of most women after leaving college will differ from that of men. About one-half will marry in a rather deliberate fashion, choosing carefully, and on the whole living very happily a life of comparative leisure, not of self-support; about one-third will become professional teachers, probably for life; and the greater part of the remainder will lead useful and helpful lives as unmarried women of leisure. And just because after leaving college only one-third, and that in the peculiarly limited profession of teaching, are to get the wider training of affairs that educates men engaged in business and in the professions all their lives thru, women while in college ought to have the broadest possible education. This college education should be the same as men's, not only because there is, I believe, but one best education, but because men and women are to live and work together as comrades and dear friends and married friends and lovers, and because their effectiveness and happiness and the welfare of the generation to come after them will be vastly increased if their college education has given them the same intellectual training and the same scholarly and moral ideals. ’ |