LADIES' COLUMN. PROFESSOR ARMSTRONG'S DENUNCIATION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 135, 4 December 1909, Page 11

LADIES' COLUMN. PROFESSOR ARMSTRONG'S DENUNCIATION.

AND SOME REPLIES. In the course of a remarkable address at the meeting of tho British Associa- I tion at Winnipeg Dr. H. E. Armstrong, professor of chemistry at tho City and Guilds of London Central Institute, South Kensington, delivered some striking obiter dicta on tho question of tho higher education of women. Ho declared that "tho revolt of- women against their womanhood, and their claim to bo on an j equality with men and to compete with men in every way," would tail, and that in her failure woman would "carry man with her to destruction." This is clearly a subject on which educated women should havo something to say, and a representative of the Daily Chronicle sought the views of Mrs. Ayrton, wife of Professor Ayrton, and the only woman membor of the Institution of Eleotrical Engineers. Mrs. Ayrton repudiated altogether tho idea of a revolt against womanhood on the part' of eduoated women. "We are not revolting against our womanhood," she said ; "we aro proclaiming our womanhood. We are saying that, beoause we are women, and havo a different point of view from men, that therefore wo shall arrange our lives from our own standpoint, and not from that of men. What Professor Armstrong and men of his type really want is that thore should bo no question of equality between men and women. They argue from a priori reasons, and wish to lay down tho law as to what wo women can and cannot do. Dr. Armstrong, quoting Longfellow, appeals to 'Nature, tho dear old nurse,' but Nature is quito capable of arranging what women can — and, I may say, should — do, and nothing Dr. Armstrong can say will make any difference. Ko says, with' regard to what he calls the 'revolt of women,' that woman 'will fail and carry man with her to destruction." "With regard to that utterance, I think I may say thai it is very foolish to prophesy until things have happened. Dr Armstrong's whole address is really mado up of prophecies which are suggested- to him by his own prejudices. Why should he and those who think with him bo tho persons to decide what Nature intended women to do? If Naturo, to which he makes his appeal, had not intended us to use our brains, she would not have given them to us." "In fact," suggested the reporter, "the boat answer to Professor Armstrong's appeal to Naturo is the appeal to Nature?" "Exactly," said Mrs. Ayrton. Nature is right all the time. Nature cannot do wrong. It is my nature — if I may be allowed a ipersonal reference — to work at scionoe, just as it is my nature to bo a wife and a mother These ' are both parts of my nature. I have not only one part of my nature; I havo several parts, and so has every other woman. "And for Dr. Armstrong to select for women what part of their naturo is to have scope is quite absurd. Nature, I must repeat, is working all right. A larger number of women arc making up their minds that it is their nature not to be mothers only, but that they have other things in them which they can develop. Women don't want to develop in one direction only as wives and mothors. They want to develop all round, to allow their natures to have full play, and they can do this without in the least interfering with tho functions of womanhood, to which Dr. Armstrong rightly attaches so much importance. In a word, I think Dr. Armstrong may well leave Naturo to itself in this matter. For my own part, I think the profossor is roally making for retrogression, and we women aro making for progress." Mrs. Ramsay Macdonald, wife of tho Labour mombor for Leicester, who was also seen, was equally emphatic. "I think," she said, "that so far from woman carrying 'man With her to destruction,' tho proof is all the other way. Indeed, I think tho danger comos from society women and the women, of tho so-called 'smart set.' I do notthmk that women gonerally will ever take the same part in scientific work, or any other work, that men do, but they ought to be porfeotly free to do so. In individual casos thoy havo dono so with Bucceso, and it has not in tho least interfered with their being good wives and mothers — on the contrary, they have made better helpmates to their husbands. "I certainly do not think any danger will arise from further developments m the education of women. I think that both husband and ohildren are likely to bo better looked after by a woman of hieh education, nnd tho woman herself is more likely to bo respected. Thoro will always ba a conflict between a woman and her profession — whatever it is — and marriage, and I do not think we should orect any artificial barriers such as preventing her becoming a tellow of the Chemical Society."