The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1882-10-17

| tdlt0F Ft0TtdIdR.' When | saw some time
since, that the Board of Education had abolished
the Male and Female Departments of West
Florida Seminary, regretted the stepE but as
the matter, before knew il was under discus
sion, was unfisH acco,nPI, | slil nothing. As
Progress, in the issue OF your paper of Sep
tember 9Th, has begun public defence of the
system of co-education of the sexes, beg that
you will grant me space to present another side
of the question.
| have TWO reasons for interfering with what
might seem to I've none of my business: 1st. The
momentous importance OF ihequestions involved
to the present and future generations, indeed. to
the State and Nation; and, ID an abiding inter-
est in the people of Tallahassee, and of Middle
| Florida, where SO long had happy home and
still have many friends.
| Though having decided opinions adverse To
| the system about 10 be inaugur,lted al TaIla-
hassee, aud 10 every system which does not re-
| cognize the difference in The anatomy and pbys
lology OF the sexes, and believing that the argu
ment urged in It's favor-that increased stimu-
! lus 10 application is furnished thereby is one of
the best reasons against it, l shall not attempt
an argument, but will only furnish few quota
iions from those whose opinions must be con-
trolling upon the subjects on which they write.
In Justification of panness Of speech, the late
Prof E. II. Clarke, in the preface to his invalua-
ble work, Sex in Education" which passed
through five editions in as many years, said
The nature of the subject it discusses, the gen
eral misrepresentation both of the strong and
weak point in the physiology of the woman
question, and the ignorance displayed by many
of what the co-education of the sexes really
means, all forbid that ambiguity of language or
euphemisms of expression should be employed in
the discussion" Proceeding with the argument,
he says:
=" Ii is idle to say that what is right for man
| is wrong for woman. Pure reason, abstract right
and wrong have nothing to do with sex, they
| neither recognize nor know il. They teach that
| what is right or wrong for man is equally right
and wrong foF-woman- Both sexes are bound
! by the same code OF morals both are amenable
| To the same divine law. Beth have right TO do
the best they can; or TO speak more justly, both
should feel the duty, and have the opportunity
10 do their best. The problem of
woman's sphere, to use the modern phrase. is
not to be solved by applying to it abstract prin-
| ciples OF right and wrong. Its solution must be
obtained from physiology, not from ethics or
metaphysics The question must be submitted
10 ARdSSlL anu AAuAtcy, uOt I'D h00l or C8IVlO.
| to Church or Pope. Without denying the self
evident proposition, that whatever u woman can
do. she has right TO do, the question at once
arises, what can she do? And this includes the
further question, what can she best do! A girl
can hold plough and ply a needle after fash
ion. If she can do both better than a man. she
ought to he both farmer and seamstress; but if
ON the whole her husband can hold the plough
and she ply best the needle, they should divide
the labor He should be master of the plough
and she mistress of the loom The gucstio uerdta
of womans sphere will be decided by her organ
iZation. This limits her power and reveals her
dvinely appointed tasks just as mans organiza-
tion limits his power and reveals his work. In
the development of the organization Is to be
found the way of strength and power for both
sexes. Neither is there any such thing
as inierioIy or superiority in this matter. Man
| is not inferior TO woman, nor woman to man.
The relation Of the sexes is one of equality not
| of better and worse, or Of higher and lower Bv
| this it is not intended to say that the sexes
| are the same They are different, widely differ
| ent from each other. and so different that each
can do in certain directions what the other can
| not and IN other directions, where both Can do
| the same thing. one sex as . rule can do them
better than the other; and in still other matters
| they seem TO be 30 nearly alike that they can
interchange labor without perceptihle difference
All this Is SO well known thatit would be useless
to refer to II were it not that much of the dis
many of the efforts for lettering her education
aud widening her sphere, seem to ignore any
difference Of the sexes seem to treat her as If
she were Identical with man, and to be trained in
| the same way; as il her organization, and con-
sequently her functions, were masculine not fem
| inine. Gail Hanilton's statement is
true, that girl can go TO school, pursue all the
| studies which DR.. Ladd enumerates, except od
| inJinitNHs. know them not wen as q chemist
knows chemistry, or botanist botany. but as
| well as they are known by boys of her age and
| training; rs well, indeed, as they are known by
college taught men, enough at least, to be So
lace 10 her then graduate befnre she is eighteen,
and come out of school as fresh, as eager, as she
went In. But II is not true that she can do all
| this and retain uninjured health and future &C.
cure from neuralgia, uterine disease. hysferia and
| other arrangements Of the nervous system, II
sbs foIlocs tie same method that boys are trained
in. Boys must study and work 10 boys way.
| and girls in girls way. They may study the
same books and attain an equal result; bat
| should not follow the same method.
/ The physiological motto b. educate man for
manhood, woman for womanhOod both Tor
| humanity. In this lies the hope Of The race
The beat educational training for boy is not
| boy. The delicate bloom and singular pAlor
OF American girls and women have almost passed
| into . prvEesb. The fiFst ohservatiqn of Euro
pean that lands upon cur shOres b, that our wc-