the other, or perhaps both. It defies the Roman maxim, which
physiology has fully justified, _mens sana in corpore sano_. The
sustained regimen, regular recitation, erect posture, daily walk,
persistent exercise, and unintermitted labor that toughens a boy, and
makes a man of him, can only be partially applied to a girl. The
regimen of intermittance, periodicity of exercise and rest, work
three-fourths of each month, and remission, if not abstinence, the
other fourth, physiological interchange of the erect and reclining
posture, care of the reproductive system that is the cradle of the
race, all this, that toughens a girl and makes a woman of her, will
emasculate a lad. A combination of the two methods of education, a
compromise between them, would probably yield an average result,
excluding the best of both. It would give a fair chance neither to a
boy nor a girl. Of all compromises, such a physiological one is the
worst. It cultivates mediocrity, and cheats the future of its
rightful legacy of lofty manhood and womanhood. It emasculates boys,
stunts girls; makes semi-eunuchs of one sex, and agenes of the other.

The error which has led to the identical education of the two sexes,
and which prophecies their identical co-education in colleges and
universities, is not confined to technical education. It permeates
society. It is found in the home, the workshop, the factory, and in
all the ramifications of social life. The identity of boys and girls,
of men and women, is practically asserted out of the school as much as
in it, and it is theoretically proclaimed from the pulpit and the
rostrum. Woman seems to be looking up to man and his development, as
the goal and ideal of womanhood. The new gospel of female development
glorifies what she possesses in common with him, and tramples under
her feet, as a source of weakness and badge of inferiority, the
mechanism and functions peculiar to herself. In consequence of this