to prevent them, should he undertake so ungracious a task. The real
question is not, _Shall_ women learn the alphabet? but _How_ shall
they learn it? In this case, how is more important than ought or
shall. The principle and duty are not denied. The method is not so
plain.

The fact that women have often equalled and sometimes excelled men in
physical labor, intellectual effort, and lofty heroism, is sufficient
proof that women have muscle, mind, and soul, as well as men; but it
is no proof that they have had, or should have, the same kind of
training; nor is it any proof that they are destined for the same
career as men. The presumption is, that if woman, subjected to a
masculine training, arranged for the development of a masculine
organization, can equal man, she ought to excel him if educated by a
feminine training, arranged to develop a feminine organization.
Indeed, I have somewhere encountered an author who boldly affirms the
superiority of women to all existences on this planet, because of the
complexity of their organization. Without undertaking to indorse such
an opinion, it may be affirmed, that an appropriate method of
education for girls--one that should not ignore the mechanism of their
bodies or blight any of their vital organs--would yield a better
result than the world has yet seen.

Gail Hamilton's statement is true, that, "a girl can go to school,
pursue all the studies which Dr. Todd enumerates, except _ad
infinitum_; know them, not as well as a chemist knows chemistry or a
botanist botany, but as well as they are known by boys of her age and
training, as well, indeed, as they are known by many college-taught
men, enough, at least, to be a solace and a resource to her; then
graduate before she is eighteen, and come out of school as healthy, as