AN INTERESTING SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 27, 31 January 1880, Page 5

AN INTERESTING SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.

' ' "[« New York Times."] The progress which has been made in our day in scientific research is something wonderful. There seems to be no such thing as a contented scientific person, who feels that he has solved all possible problems, and henceforth has nothing to do but sit down „ and contemplate his own excellences, '"■ No sooner has the modern scientific person solved one problem than he hastens to attack another. As fast as '•' he upsets one old-fashioned belief he 1 begins to undermine another. The result is that every day some new discovery is made, or at least, some new topic attrac's the attention of the : scientific mine?. Ib ■ seems only the other days since Mr Darwin was investigating the nature and origin of the once-familiar feminine habit- of blushing, and wrote his famous circular to British missionaries asking them, in the nterests of science, to observe whether their heathen acquaintanoee blushed, except so far as their faces were concerned. And now, close upon the settlement of, the blushing question, we find Mr Darwin and bis fellow-philosophers investigating .. the reason why the female of oar ' species always sits down on the floor to remove her shoes. The question may not seem an important one to light-minded and ignorant persons ; but the thoughtful man knows that all truth is precious, and that to search for the truth concerning the origin of ■ any custom is a grand and noble work. It is universally known that when a : man desires to take off his shoes he ■ adopts one of two methods. Either he sits ;„. ion a chair or sofa and rests one foot on : uhis knee while unfastening or remov* , ing his shoe; or he stands, up, and by placing his foot on a ohair, brioga the . shoe readily within the reach of his ' hand. Neither of these methods is ever employed— -so we are assured on the authority of scientifio persona — by women. Mr Darwin asserts that the habitof sitting down on the floorira order to unlace or unbutton aboes is peculiarly , characteristic 6f women, and is, so he ' believes, an element — qr, at all events. : ' a sign— of sex. It is not the business of the public to enquire how Mr Darwin and his scientific friends acquired the data upon which they base their *~ ' assertions as to this alleged feminine .habit. Perhaps x .tbey wrote to the lat'e Dr Judson, an eminent* missionary, who > haviog been married four times, tnu&t have collected a vast and awful quantity of facts.- However this may be^ we need not now enquire, since it is with the investigation at to the origin of the alleged custom that we are at present concerned. Mr Darwin has a prejudice ia favor of the doctrine which he in- . vented copcerning the survival, of the fittest, and naturally brings it into service whenever there is an opportunity. He claims (hit chairs had not been invented when women began to • wear, shoes, and that hence they were necessarily obliged to sit down on the floor when they wished to take them onV When chairs first came into use they were very expensive; and were handled with great care. The thoughtful young win, of course, preferred to marry a girl who would never put her foot on a chair, and therefore selected a wife whom he knew would Bit oq the fljor to take off her shoes instead of using one of his pre«cipus phairs. Thus, it- was only the girls who practised this judicious habit that secured husbands. Tfc^y married, being the fittest for matrimony, and the occasional women who used chairs , in connection with removing their -ehoeß gradually became extinot. This ia an ingenious theory, and; c:ming t „ from the source that it does, it deI'i serves, respectful consideration. At *'"' the same time, it must be noticed that it is based upon a. gratuitous .asßump:j '' ti>! 'tSby ; that ifemißi ! n,e./sh6feß .preceded - chairs' in the order^ofdeyelbpmant. This still remains to' be proved, i£rid until it is proved Mr Darwin's theory cannot be regarded as anything but^an hypothesis. Mr John Stuart Mill 'insists, that the difference 1 between * ehe two sexes ijj their manner of re-: moving shoes is due to distinctive mental peculiarities.. Man, so he asstris, Relights to make all things subservient to him while woman prejers to be herself

subservient. Hence, man, wheel he proceeds to take off a shoe, compels his foot to approach his hand, whether by placing it on a chair or by laying it across his knee. Woman oh ' the contrary, is perfectly contented to sink gracefully and gently to the level of the floor. " The masculinity of man," \says Mr Mill, " triumphs over his foot; the. femininity of woman descends to meet her foot. It is another illustration of the fact that man is made, to rule and woman to obey; Of course Professor Huxley has something to; say ; about the matter, hut he cannot be said to add to his reputation by the theory which he offers in opposition to Mr Darw.in'a theory. , Professor Huxley maintains that the exigencies of feminine anatomy are such that it is physically impossible for a woman to assume 'the position which a man assumes' who takes off his shoe while sitting on a ohair. If this is so, will that learned geutleman please tell us what woman does with one of her feet when eh9 sits down on a sofa ? And if she can so completely dispose of one . foot when sitting on a sofa, could she riot with equal ease dispose of it in a very nearly similar way when sitting on a chair? Professor Huxley has evidently jumped to a conclußfon without waiting to collecj the, necessary .data. He may be extremely learned in the anatomy of. extinct animals, but he needs to attend a course of demonstrations at the opera bouffa for a season and to correct; his ideas as to feminine anatomy. Equally inadmissible is the explanation given by- a Chicago .scientific person, who pretends lhat the weight of Jihe femioine shoe is such that it cannot be readily raised to the height of a chair, and that it is therefore, easier for the wearer to sit down on a level with it. He had better not publish this theory in Chicago, unless he limits' Its applicacation exclusively to the women of St Louis. It < would be better for that scientifio person to let his hair grow long, and then go and visit the Ute Indians than to remain within' reach of the women of Chicago after tbu,s teferring to the pretended weight of their shoes. As for the theory, it is of course utterly untenable, and probably has not once single fact to support it. In fact it ib only mentioned here in order that it may be hurled back with scorn, and nailed to the counter, as' though it wlere a mere political speech. When the ablest scientific authorities thus differ, what are we to believe ? Pro.baMy'the bept thing we can dp is t'o; take the broad general ground that, the! whole discussion proceeds from a mistake, and how woman takes, off her shoe is sojnaJhing which, in the nature of things, Mr Darwin, .Mr Mill, and Professor Huxley have no mean 8, and do not deserve to have any means, of ascertaining. . ,