Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-10-25
Women and her Shoes.


The progress which has been made in our day
in scientific research IS something wonderful.
There seems to be no such thing as contented
scientific person, who feels that he has solved
all possible problems, and henceforth has moth
ing to do but sit down and contemplate his own
eXcellenceS. No sooner has the modern scientific
person solved one problem than he haStenS to
attack another AS fast as he upsetS one old
fashioned belief he begins to undermine another.
The result is that every day some new discovery
is made, or at least some new topic attracts the
attention of the scientific mind. 1t seems only
the other day that Mr. Darwin was investigating
the nature and ORIGIN Of the once familiar femf-
nine habit OF bluSh1ng, and wrote his famous
circular to British missionaries, asking them, in
the interest of science, TO observe whether their
heather acquaintance blushed except so far as
their faces were concerned. And now, close upon
the settlement Of the bluShing question, we find
Mr.. Darwin and his llow-philosopherS investi-
eating the reason why the female Of our species
always sits down ON the floor to remove her
shoes The question may not seem an important
one to lght-minded and ignorant persons, but
the thoughtful man knows that all truth is
precious, and that to search for the truth con-
corning the origin OF any custom Is grand and
noble work.
1t is universally known that when man de-
sres to take off his shoes he adopts one OF two
methods. Either he sits on chair or sofa and
rests one foot on his knee while christening and
removing its shoe, or he stands up, and, by
placing his foot on chair brings the shoe read
methods is ever employed-SO we are assured
on the authority Of scientific personS-b women.
MI DdiWlu asserts tlldI tDe IlaDlu SlIUlnS DOWN
on the floor in order to unlace or unbuttOn shoes
is peculiarly characteristic OF women, and is, so
he believes, an element, or, at all events a sign
OF sex. 1t is not the business of the public to
inquire how Mr.. Darwin and his scientific friends
acquired the data upon which they base their as
sertionS as to this alleged feminine habit. Per-
haps they wrote to the late DR.. JudSon, an emil
nent missionary, who, having been married four
times, must have collected a vast and awful
quantity of facts. However this may be, we
need not now inquire, since it is with the investi
CATION as to the origin OF the alleged custom that
we are at present concerned.
Mr.. Darwin has prejudice in favor of the
doctrine which he invented concerning the sur
vival of the fitteSt and naturally brings 1t into
service whenever there is an opportunity. He
claims that chairs had not been Invented when
women began to wear shoes, and that hence they
were necessarily obliged to sit on the floor when
they wished to take them of. When chairs first
came into use they were very expensive, and
were handled with great care. The thoughtful
young man, of course, preferred to marry girl
who would never put her foot on chair, and
therefore selected wife whom he knew would
sit on the floor to take off her shoes. instead of
using one OF his precious chairs. Thus, it was
only the girls who practiced that judicious habit
that secured husbands. They married, being the
ftteSt for matrimOny, and the occasional women
who used chairs in connection with removing
their shoes gradually became extinct. This Is
an1ngenious theory, and, coming from the source
that 1t does 1t deserves respectful consideration.
At the same time it must be noticed that it is
based upon the gratuftOuS assumption that fem
mime shoes preceded chairs in the order of devel
Opment. This still remains to be proved, and
until 1t Is proved, Mr.. Darwin'S theory cannot be
regarded as anything but an ingenious hypothe
sis
MI. John Stuart Mills insists that the dtfferenc,
between the two sexes In their manner OF re-
moving shoes is due to distinctive mental pecu-
larlt1eS. Man, so he asserts, delights to make
all things SubSeryfent to him, while women pre-
fers to be herself subservient. Hence, man.
when he proceeds to take Off shoe, compelS his
foot to approach his hand, whether by placing
1t on chair or by laying 1t across his knee.
Women, on the contrary, is perfectly contented
to sink gracefully and gently to the level OF her
foot by sitting down on the floor 1.-THE mascu-
Unity of man" says Mr.. Mill, triumphs over his
foot 1t is another Illustration of the fact that
man is made to rule and women to obey"
4 course, Prof. Huxley has something to say
about the matter, but he cannot be said to add
TO his reputation by the theory which he offers
in opposition to Mr.. Darwins theory. Prof Hux-
ley maintains that the eXigencieS Of feminine
anatomy are such that it is physically mpossi-
Bile for women to assume the position which
on a chair: II this is so, will that learned gen
teman please tell us what woman does with one
OF her feet when she sits down on a sofa? And
II she can so completely dispose of one foot when
sitting on sofa, could she not with equal ease
dispose OF it In very nearly similar way when
sitting on chair? Prof. Huxley has evidently
Jumped to conclusion without waiting to COL
lect the necessary data. He may be extremely
learned in the anatomy of extinct animals, but
he needs to attend a course of demonstrations at
the opera bOuffe for a season, and correct his
ideas as to feminine anatomy
Equally inadmtssible is the explanation given
by Chicago Scientific Person, who pretendS
that the weight of the feminine shoe is such that
1t cannot be readily raised to the height of a
chair, and that it is therefore, easier for the
wearer to sit down on a level with it. He had
better not publish his theory in Chicago unless
he l1mitstt application exclusively to the women
Of ST. Louis. It would be better for that Scen-
titc Person to let his hair grow long and to then
go and visit the Utes, than to remain within
reach OF the women of Chicago after thus refer
ring to the pretended weight of their shoes. AS
for the theory it is, Of course, utterly untena-
ble and probably has not one single fact to sup
port it. Indeed it is only mentioned here in Or
der that 1t may be hurled back with scorn and
nailed to the counter, as though it were mere
political speech.
When the ablest scientific authorities thus diff
fer, what are we to believe? Probably the best
thing we can do is to take the broad, general
ground that the whole discussion proceeds upon
mistake, and that how woman takes off her
shoe is something which, in the nature Of things
Mr.. Darwin, Mr. Mill and Prof Huxley have no
means, and do not deserve to have any means.
Of ascertaining.
Consumption i'm the United States.
Consumption is, as has long been known par
ttcularly prevalent on and near the sea-coast of