Woman in Science / With an Introductory Chapter on Woman's Long Struggle for Things of the Mind

by J. A. Zahm

[256] Histoire des Sciences et des Savants, p. 271, Genève-Bale, 1885.

[257] Ibid., p. 270.

[258] A writer in the English magazine, Nature, under date of January 12, 1911, when the European press was discussing Mme. Curie's claims to membership in the French Academy of Sciences, makes the following sane observations on the admission of women to the various academies of the French Institute:

"There may be room for difference of opinion as to the wisdom or expediency of permitting women to embark on the troubled sea of politics, or of allowing them a determinate voice in the settlement of questions which may affect the existence or the destiny of a nation; but surely there ought to be no question that in the peaceful walks of art, literature and science, there should be the freest possible scope extended to them, and that, as human beings, every avenue to distinction and success should unreservedly be open to them.

"All academies tend to be conservative and to move slowly; they are the homes of privilege and of vested interest. Some of them incline to be reactionary. They were created by men for men and for the most part at a time when women played little or no part in those occupations which such societies were intended to foster and develop. But the times have changed. Women have gradually won for themselves their rightful position as human beings. We have now to recognize that academies as seats of learning were made for humanity and that, as members of the human race, women have the right to look upon their heritage and property no less than men. This consummation may not at once be reached, but, as it is based upon reason and justice, it is certain to be attained eventually."

A fortnight later the same magazine contained a second article, in which the matter is treated in an equally manly fashion.

"As scientific work," the writer pertinently observes, "must ultimately be judged by its merits, and not by the nationality or sex of its author, we believe that the opposition to the election of women into scientific societies will soon be seen to be unjust and detrimental to the progress of natural knowledge. By no pedantic reasoning can the rejection of a candidate for membership of a scientific society be justified, if the work done places the candidate in the leading position among other competitors. Science knows no nationality and should recognize no distinction of sex, color or creed among those who are contributing to its advancement. Believing that this is the conclusion to which consideration of the question must inevitably lead, we have confidence that the doors of all scientific societies will eventually be open to women on equal terms with men."

[259] Lettres et Opuscules Inédits du Comte Joseph de Maistre, Tom. I, p. 194, Paris, 1851.

It was this same brusque and original writer who asserted that "science was a most dangerous thing for women; that no woman should study science under penalty of becoming ridiculous and unhappy; that a coquette can more readily get married than a savante." And he it was who declared that women who attempted to emulate men in the pursuit of science are monkeys and donne barbute—bearded women—and who designated Mme. de Staël as "la science en jupons, une impertinente femelette"—science in petticoats, a silly, impertinent female.

He, however, met an opponent worthy of his steel in the person of the eloquent bishop of Orleans, Mgr. Dupanloup. In a lengthy and brilliant critique of De Maistre's views he shows them to be untenable, if not ridiculous. "I by no means," he writes, "agree with M. de Maistre that 'la science en jupons,' as he calls it, or talents of any kind whatsoever, militates in the slightest against a woman being a good wife or a good mother. Quite the contrary." And considering woman as the companion and aid of man—socia et adjutorium—he expresses a view which is quite the opposite of that championed by his distinguished adversary for, in words precise and pregnant, he asserts that the education of women cannot be too consistent, too serious, and too solid—"L'éducation des femmes ne saurait être trop suivie, trop sérieuse et trop forte." La Femme Studieuse, p. 160, Paris, 1895.