<doc.id=0101.a5>
<title> Why spoil a good mother to make an ordinary grammarian? </title>
In this essay I will write about a very important subject, namely women's education or rather the debate that was going on prevalent to women's education. The question arose, as well as in other countries, in the Victorian England and this debate is what I will concentrate on. I will consider both the arguments for and against as they were presented at that time. 

The arguments against women educating themselves were many and carefully worked out by men and surprisingly also women. At this time in history, a woman was regarded merely as a life companion to man. She was supposed to produce healthy children and take care of the home while the man pursued his career. To be able to run a household and raise children, certain knowledge was demanded that the woman (i.e. the middle- and upper-class woman) usually acquired as a young girl. One of the arguments against women's education was that the school did not teach things useful to the girls. The school simply did not prepare them for their future roles as wives. All that was expected of the girls was to get married and form a family. The opponents would have agreed somewhat to women's education if the school taught things that women were expected to know. Women studied mostly things useful in the social life, as dancing and music. Of course, these were knowledge appreciated by the society, but it was not useful in everyday life. 

Another concern of the opponents was women's health. Schooling was said to put too much strain on the woman's body (it was regarded weak and inferior compared to man's) and cause bad health. As Mrs. Sarah Ellis puts it in 'The women of England': ". . . few of the young ladies who return home after a highly-finished education, are possessed of health and energy sufficient to make use of their attainments. . ." (p. 3) This was of course disturbing since bad health and weakness could endanger the woman's ability of producing children, it was said. Since that was her main duty in life, education should not be open to her. 

The one profession open to women was the one as governess. Usually, the governessess had an education, but not a very thorough one. The situation for retired and unemployed governessess was tough since they did not have husbands to support them financially. To improve the financial situation for governessess, the Reverend Frederick Denison Maurice founded an institution that helped these women. Later (in 1848), the same group of people from the institution founded the first college for women, Queen's College, to improve the quality of the governessess' education. Naturally, the competence of the governessess improved a great deal. Since the reformation of governessess' education was such a success, the idea of restructuring the schooling system for all girls was born. New schools for girls were opened and the girls had at least a couple of universities to choose from when they finished. Later, a woman named Emily Davies founded a women's college where the female students studied the same courses as men and were expected to complete them in the same amount of time. This certainly proved that women were just as capable as men were when it came to higher education. 

The opponents seemed almost desperate to find arguments that would stop the, in their opinion, unpleasant development. One topic that was thoroughly debated was the differences of intellectual capacity of men and women. It was said that men were ponderous, did not rush to conclusions and had the ability of developing new ideas. Women were sensitive and intuitive but could not concentrate and flew to conclusions. Some people even claimed that all women had a tendency to err and that the only way to save them from erring was to not let them make any own decisions. And in spite of women being intuitive, they were not the least creative, because they did not have the energy and stability that were needed for creative thoughts. This was said to be a psychological fact. Women who possessed the same abilities as men were considered ill developed and strange, they were not real women. Studies that dealt with the physical aspects of intelligence were made, for example on the differences between the female and the male brain. The male brain is, quite naturally, bigger and heavier than the female brain. The convenient conclusion that the bigger the brain is, the more intelligent person, was drawn. These conclusions were said to be based on known facts, but the so-called known facts were never mentioned. The Victorian prudery effectively covered the truth up.

For us living today, the right for women to educate themselves are self-evident. But this was in a time when there were no such thing as a working, self-providing woman. Thus, it is understandable that the suggestion met resistance. The arguments for education open for women were neither as many, nor as concrete as the ones opposed. One of the main arguments was that unmarried women needed to be able to support themselves. An unmarried woman had but one choice (if she did not get financial support from her family), and that was to work as a governess. Before the governess reform, it was a badly paid and low-status occupation.

Feminists like Emily Davies, Maria Grey and Josephine Butler pointed out that middle-class women should, like men, contribute to society through work. The competence of women should be used. The growing middle classes meant that more female teachers were required for girls' schools. These teachers must have an education, and so the demand for women's schools and colleges rose. 

It was very hard for the opponents to see the use for a woman to educate herself since it had nothing to do with her future life. The possibility that society would change and woman take a leap out into the working world seemed unlikely. They were used to women being only mothers and wives and thus it is understandable why they were sceptic. But as Plato once said: "A society that do not use the competence of women is like a man that uses only one arm." This was something that the middle class as well as others understood. It was not possible in the modern world to keep all women at home, not making use of their capacity. Times changed, and so after a while, did society.
</doc>