In 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her now famous treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, in which she strenuously argued for the education of women. If the minds of women were cultivated, they would be less likely to be “blown about by every momentary gust of feeling.” They would care less about the trivialities of fashion and beauty. This would lead to happier marriages and improved child-rearing.

Though Wollstonecraft is often mistaken for a modern feminist, it is highly unlikely she would have been pleased at the state of education of women today. She did not advocate that woman be taught to venerate masculine achievement and thinking to the point of abandoning her sacred duties as mother and wife.

Presumably Wollstonecraft would have been appalled at the case of Emmie. No education is better than the mis-education of Emmie. Sensibility is better than this kind of sense.

Lisa Meyer writes:

One must define “education.” What good is taking top honors for high school seniors in my homestate in the subject of trigonometry if I cannot function as a feminine counterpart that will benefit a lovely Godly home and family, a community within a Biblically-based society? When “schooling” takes the place of the best in the realm of nuances now callously mislabeled “education,” and all at the Marxist’s behest, the feminine I.Q. (“Intuition Quotient,” as opposed to man’s I.Q.: “Intelligence Quotient”) is dealt a death blow.

By “intuition,” I refer to the ability to sense, without knowing exactly why, the true conditions and needs of those around them. For example, studies have shown that mothers are able to look at children and visually see that a child is developing a fever before a man is able to do so. It is now known that women are able to differentiate many more shades of red than men, so may be able to sense the flushing that occurs at the onset of a fever. We as women, however, can be educated out of our abilities in these areas, because we are distracted by an unsuitable “education.”

This is especially true in the area of meeting a husband’s needs. For example, I have heard a woman say that if her husband starves, it won’t be HER fault; it would be HIS fault. She meant she didn’t want to have to cook for him except when she felt like it. But a husband is MINISTERED to in a way we may not understand, but can intuitively sense, when nourishing, appealing, delicious food is prepared by the hand of the one he holds dearest. If she loves him, why wouldn’t she want to do that for him whether he asks for it or not?

Laura writes:

Well said.

Feminism reflects a veneration of the male mind. The empathizing mind of women, their intuition and its central role in civilization, have been slighted by modern mass schooling.

Please follow and like us: