The Feminist Movement/Chapter 5
CHAPTER V
THE STRUGGLE FOR EDUCATION
Great Britain is the present storm-centre of the modern feminist movement. For this reason the history of the movement in this country is of peculiar interest at the present time, and particularly to British readers. The foundation of the movement for sex-equality in this country was laid when Mary Wollstonecraft published her famous book, The Vindication of the Rights of Women, in 1792. This book might well be used, possibly is widely used, as a text-book by the woman suffrage movement, so well does the argument used more than a century ago fit the present situation. Mary Wollstonecraft spent some time in Paris during the most stormy period of French history, and drew her ideas in part from the leaders of the French Revolution. Being a woman of understanding she was able to strip the Revolution of all its terrible, but, in the circumstances, perfectly natural excrescences, and to lay hold upon the glorious idealism, the essential spirit of this great upheaval—the spirit of human freedom. The ideas thus gained she gave to her country in the form of a book.
The book was not well received. On the contrary, it was very severely handled by the critics, and its author doubly execrated. One statesman and writer of the times spoke of her as a 'hyena in petticoats,' and she was much abused, even by those more advanced members of her own sex from whom she had a right to expect better usage.
It must be remembered, however, that the women of those times were only emerging from the condition of degradation into which they had been thrust at the Restoration period. Probably the women of the period immediately following the overthrow of Puritan domination in this country, and for a couple of generations afterwards, suffered from the most complete degradation that has ever befallen the sex in this country through all its history. Acts of the grossest cruelty had, frequently before this time, been perpetrated upon women, stupid disabilities had hampered them, and unfair laws had disfigured the Statute Book before the days of Charles II.; but in no other period was the popular estimate so clearly in harmony with the basest laws, and at no other time did so many public men express in speech, verse, and prose, and through infamous cartoon, the general contempt felt for women. Out of this slough the women of the country had been slowly rising. At the time of Mary Wollstonecraft's publication, the blue-stockings had demonstrated the ability of women to write well. Lady Mary Wortley Montague, blessed with a parent who had the sense to give her a sound, private education, had pleased the world with her letters nearly half a century before the Rights of Women appeared. These famous letters sparkle with wit and humour, and occupy a position in the esteem of men of letters not lower than those of her brilliant contemporary, Horace Walpole. Hannah More, Fanny Burney, Elizabeth Montague, and Mrs Thrale are amongst the best-known women who wrote books and pamphlets and earned the invidious title of blue-stocking for daring so far to intrude upon the province of men, and, forgetting the native delicacy and modesty of woman, to appear before the public as authors, unrepentant and unashamed!
Contemporary with the blue-stockings were the pioneers of the education of women. It was wisely understood by the women reformers of the period that a sound education was a necessary preliminary to the opening of fresh spheres for women. It was realised that opposition is almost always more easily broken down by demonstration than by argument. It was of little use to claim that women could do this and that unless they received the training necessary to fit them for the work. Not half a century ago the education of girls in this country was little less than a disgrace. A century ago education for girls was scarcely thought to be necessary. It is quite true that there were educated women even in those horrible days of the Stuart régime. There have always been, even in the blackest periods of history, numbers of women as highly educated as, and sometimes better educated than the men of their time. The women of rank of pre-Reformation days were by no means second to the men in the number and excellence of their accomplishments. The Reformation itself owed almost as much to the sympathetic help of cultured women as to that of the men—to such women as Margaret of Navarre and Jeanne d' Albert. Lady Jane Grey was only sixteen years of age when she perished on the scaffold, the victim of family ambition. She spoke fluently in several tongues, and was able to argue with the gray-bearded theologians of her time on their own subjects and in language more in harmony with their years than her own. Women who could command private tuition through their private means, or whose enlightened parents or guardians provided them with the opportunity, took rank with the men of their times as learned and accomplished people.
But, compared with the whole number of women, these were exceptional. Most women were almost entirely uneducated until well into the nineteenth century. When their condition of ignorance was shared by the men the evil was not felt so keenly. As educational opportunity widened for boys and men, but not for women, the inevitable effect was the development of arrogance on the one side with a false humility on the other. Such girls' schools as existed in the eighteenth century were poor things indeed—'Academies for Young Ladies,' in which only those subjects were taught which would enhance their physical charms and win for them suitable husbands. Half the energy of unwedded girls and young women was devoted to 'plying' the sampler and teasing the housewife's wool. Dancing and deportment were the staples of most of these abodes of learning. To faint with grace at the sight of a mouse, and blush becomingly at the slightest provocation, were considered more womanly accomplishments than to figure correctly or read with intelligence. Witness the words of a learned divine of the period, who wrote to his daughters in the following absurd strain: 'When a girl ceases to blush she has lost the most powerful charm of beauty. That extreme sensibility and weakness which it indicates may be a weakness and encumbrance in our sex, as I have too often felt; but in yours it is peculiarly engaging. Pedants, who think themselves philosophers, ask why a woman should blush when she is conscious of no crime. It is sufficient to answer, that nature has made you to blush when you are guilty of no fault, and has forced us to love you because you do so.'
This same Dr Gregory probably represented very much the spirit of his times when he asserted in his dogmatic way that 'nothing is more fatal to a woman than to attempt to influence a man by reason or by anything but caresses.' One need not wonder, then, that educational facilities for women, and the opportunity such facilities offer for the development of the reasoning powers were of the scantiest description.
Broadly put, the argument of the anti-feminist of the Georgian and early Victorian periods was that the main purpose of woman (some declared the sole purpose) being the bearing of children, nothing was necessary that did not contribute to that end, and everything was harmful which might conceivably detract, either from the quantity or the quality of this work. It was assumed that education of the higher sort would be harmful, for it would put upon the future mothers of the race a strain greater than they could possibly bear. Moreover, it was feared that the charms of knowledge would prove a serious rival to those of a lover, that learning would make women esteem themselves too highly, and that the vocation of motherhood and home-making would thereby suffer. All these fears have been disproved; but it was the work of the pioneer women to win the opportunity of demonstrating their folly.
The earliest amongst the educational reformers was Mary Anstell, who sought in the seventeenth century to establish a school for poor girls and women. Her work was much misunderstood and abused, as was the work of each pioneer in turn; but it had the effect of first introducing the new idea of female public-school education to the nation. Of the individuals who have laboured to promote the well-being of the poor through education, mention ought to be made of Elizabeth Fry to raise the condition of the women prisoners of Newgate, and of Joseph Lancaster and Andrew Bell, who, through their respective religious agencies, were the means of bringing a certain amount of education within the reach of poorer boys and girls, and who were the pioneers of the great national scheme of education in England which had its beginning in the Education Act of 1870.
Meantime the struggle for the higher education of women went on. Controversy had raged for a century round the question of the exact kind of learning suitable for women. Step by step the young ladies, academies enlarged their sphere of work, and secured the services of visiting masters to teach extra subjects such as elementary geography, history, music, arithmetic, and the like. Since those days the visiting master has become a declining quantity in our educational scheme, his services being requisitioned chiefly by private schools for foreign languages, advanced science, or mathematics, and even these subjects are by no means his monopoly. The teaching profession in elementary schools shows a tendency at present to fall into the hands of women, and women teachers in Higher Grade and Secondary Schools and Colleges take unquestioned rank with the masters in the same circumstances, though the amount of their remuneration is not yet the same. There are 172,000 Elementary School teachers, 43,000 men and 129,000 women. The number of teachers in Secondary Schools is 13,000, of which 6800 are women and 6700 men. Women are also University Professors and Science Demonstrators. The nation has been won at last to a belief in the value to women of an equal educational opportunity with men, and the capacity of women to teach what they have learned has been proved a thousand times over. But to return to the story.
The first famous school for girls was founded by Miss Buss in 1850, and called the North London Collegiate School for Girls. Bedford and Queen's Colleges, it is true, had been founded two years before this in 1848, but their purpose was the training of governesses and the granting of the opportunity to those who desired it of a course of study supplementary to the ordinary school course. The school established by Miss Frances Buss has become the model for many of the girls' High Schools which have since sprung up all over the country. The Ladies' College at Cheltenham was founded in 1854, and owes everything to its first distinguished head, Miss Dorothea Beale. This college is famous all over the country, and indeed beyond the bounds of this land, for the excellence of its training, the high proficiency of its staff, and the magnificence of its appointment and general equipment.
In 1867 was held a Schools Inquiry Commission to inquire amongst other things into the condition of female higher education in Great Britain. The Commissioners found a woeful state of affairs on which to report. Some of the faults discovered were 'a want of system; a lack of thoroughness and foundation; slovenliness and showy superficiality; inattention to rudiments; too much attention paid to accomplishments, and those not taught thoroughly nor in a scientific manner; and a complete absence of proper organisation.' The need for improvement having been demonstrated, the next thing was to secure it. The Endowed Schools Act of 1869 contained a Clause which provided that 'In framing schemes under this Act provision shall be made, as far as conveniently may be, for extending to girls the benefits of endowments.' The immediate result of this was a widespread activity in the direction of the extension of educational facilities of a higher order to girls, and the establishment of a higher type of school than had previously existed, with the exception, of course, of those already named.
The most distinctive landmark in the progress of women in regard to education was furnished by the Universities. In 1867 and in 1871 attempts were made to found colleges for women which should be of University rank. The first was established at Hitchin, but removed to new premises at Girton in 1873. Miss Emily Davis, the aged woman suffrage leader, was one of the founders of Girton College, and Miss Anna Clough was the founder of the other, which, beginning in 1871 in a humble way to prepare young women for University examinations, is now world-famous as Newnham College. Both colleges made application to the University of Cambridge for the admission of women to the examinations for University degrees. With the utmost courtesy the University examiners undertook to test the women students in order that the excellence of their training might be demonstrated and certified. But in spite of all that can be done to prove their ability to win, and their fitness to wear, the honours that the University conferred on deserving students, it is still impossible for women to take their ordinary degrees at Cambridge. Similarly at Oxford. Three colleges for women were established at Oxford, and women who studied there have brilliantly distinguished themselves from time to time; but in the matter of conferring ordinary degrees upon women this University, like Cambridge, remains obdurate. The attempt to secure equality of treatment in respect of ordinary degree examinations was renewed in 1907, but with no effect. It was conceded as desirable that women should have all the opportunities of study and that they should be granted certificates of proficiency, but it was said that 'the advantage of allowing women to enter the General and Special Examination for the ordinary degree are less obvious.' What the exact difference is between the ordinary degree and the higher examinations open to women has never been clearly shown. The great Universities of England stand alone in their sex-prejudice, amongst the Universities of Great Britain. Probably they do not mind this inglorious distinction. It is quite conceivable that they are proud of it! But to the average Briton no less than to the intelligent foreigner it is a source of complete mystification, not to say of amused contempt. The Universities of London, Wales, Liverpool, St. Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and Dublin—in short, all the great centres of learning except Oxford and Cambridge have granted equality to women and men in the matter of taking degrees.
Women have still to gain the right to enter the various theological colleges to receive special training for the ministry of the gospel. At present the office of preacher, which is occupied by thousands of women in the Salvation Army and by a few in the Unitarian and Congregational Churches, does not command the laying-on of hands which is supposed to be the sign and symbol of divine ordination. It will be necessary to show to the satisfaction of the various churches that women may have the gift of tongues, the gift of prophecy, and, more than all, a divine commission to preach the gospel, ere they are allowed to enter those special schools where preparation for the ministry of religion is made.
Women may study law and take the necessary examinations, but they may not be called to the Bar. The profession of medicine is now open to women, but the story of the forcing open of that door is one which, for its cruelties, would appear incredible, if similar cruelties were not being practised against women reformers at the present time. When Elizabeth Blackwell was refused admission to the British Medical Schools, she went to America, and there took her degree as Doctor of Medicine. When a register of medical practitioners was prepared in 1858, it became necessary to include her name.
In 1865 Elizabeth Garrett applied for admission to the medical schools, and, being refused, passed the examination of the Society of Apothecaries. She had secured her training privately and by acting as a nurse in the hospitals—all this at considerable expense to herself; but having made herself competent she tried and passed. The rules of the Society of Apothecaries did not definitely provide for the exclusion of women who passed the tests they themselves had fixed, but this was a defect they speedily remedied. Dr Garrett thus became the first woman physician to practise in this country.
In 1869 Miss Jex-Blake endeavoured to obtain a doctor's degree at Edinburgh University. She along with others asked to be admitted to the medical schools there. It passes the wit of modern man to understand how there could possibly be any objection to this profession for women when more than half the patients of doctors are women, and when the profession of nursing had become one of honour and esteem. Yet the objections urged against the admission of Miss Jex-Blake and her colleagues were considered to be insuperable. Of most of these arguments it may at once be said that they cut both ways. If it were indecent for a woman-doctor to attend a man, it must also be indecent for a man-doctor to attend a woman. If it were thought improper for a woman-doctor to attend a man-patient it must be considered improper for a woman to nurse him. If the study of anatomy were regarded as indelicate for women, it was urged that it was no less indelicate for men. These brave pioneers of the medical women were subjected to unbelievable insults. They were accused of lewdness and indecent curiosity; they were taunted with choosing this way of getting husbands for themselves; they were suspected of wishing to carry on improper intrigues with men students. Objections of another class were those that sprang from professional exclusiveness and jealousy. The profession was already overcrowded, it was said, and the admission of women would tend to make things worse. This argument scarcely fitted in with the contention that women would never be able to qualify themselves for this work, since the examinations and tests were too severe and the standard too high for a feminine brain.
The women had a ready reply to all these objections. They pointed out very respectfully that they were not asking for any favouritism, but only for the opportunity of putting themselves to the same test as the men. If they failed, so much the worse for them; but if they succeeded they demanded the right to enjoy their success and to work at their chosen profession.
At first the Edinburgh University was tolerant, and, although no professor was compelled to give the women instruction, they were permitted to attend the classes in the ordinary subjects, and to pass the matriculation examination. There was little or no trouble until Miss Pechy passed an examination in chemistry which would have entitled her to a scholarship if she had been a regular member of the class. Miss Jex-Blake as leader of the women, demanded that Miss Pechy should have the prize, and thus raised the question of the equal treatment of men and women. The controversy raged with exceeding bitterness in both University and City for more than two years. There arose two factions, the one for and the other against the women. The professors of the University were forbidden to instruct the women. The students subjected them to every insult, actually throwing stones and filth at them in the public streets. Every woman was excluded from the Medical Schools and even the governing body of the infirmary for a long time excluded them from the wards.
On making her appeal to the law, Miss Jex-Blake secured the decision of Lord Gifford in the Court of First Instance, that the University was bound to admit the women to both classes and degrees, but this decision was reversed by a higher court, and the women were compelled to go abroad to more enlightened seats of learning to obtain the necessary qualifications.
The opinion of the medical profession for a long time lagged behind parliamentary and even public opinion on this question of the admission of women to their ranks. The London School of Medicine, including on its staff both men and women, was founded in 1874. In 1876 Parliament passed a law which permitted the Universities to grant medical degrees to women, and several colleges at once admitted women. In 1877 the British Medical Association declared women to be ineligible for membership, and it was many years later that this last rock of medical conservatism was shivered into atoms. There were in 1912 553 women physicians in Great Britain, and it is significant and worthy of note that, of this number, 518 have recently set their names to a petition claiming the parliamentary vote for women.
The admission of women to the medical profession has been one of the greatest possible boons to women. It may readily be believed that tens of thousands of women have neglected to consult a physician when there was real need for such a consultation because of their natural shrinking from exposing their weaknesses to a male doctor. There are those who laugh at this notion, and imply that indelicacy and not refinement is responsible for this reluctance. This is not so. It is with a very real sense of relief that many women turn to one of their own sex, specially qualified to treat their several complaints. An effect of the admission of women to this great order of public servants—and this is probably responsible for the large proportion of medical women who are on the side of woman suffrage—is the discovery of how large an evil the double standard of morality is in its effects upon the physical lives of women and their offspring. Medical etiquette forbids certain disclosures of the nature of their sufferings to be made to women; but nothing can be hidden from the doctor who comes to cure, and the awful extent to which depravity has poisoned the health of innocent human beings has so shocked the sensibility and stirred the conscience of women physicians, that they are to be found everywhere lifting up their voices against the social system that permits the creation of a class of slave-women for the selfish indulgence of the worst vices of men; and still more against the false teaching of the past, which has sought to excuse the failings of uncontrolled men by the false doctrine of physical needs. The woman-doctor stands for purity and self-control, whether in man or woman, for she knows that only in that way lies the health of the generations unborn.