ABSTRACT
From the 1870s to the turn of the 20th Century, notable physicians and psychologists railed against the increasing prevalence of coeducation in the United States. Psychologist G. Stanley Hall, president of Clark University, and Dr. Edward H. Clark, of Harvard Medical School, argued that the rigors of secondary and post-secondary education would bring about “race suicide” by damaging the reproductive organs of girls and women and subsequently masculinizing them (Hansot, 1993; Rury, 1991; Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Tyack & Hansot, 1990). Dr. Clark claimed that there was a limited amount of blood in women’s bodies and when it was diverted to their brains during the thought process, the reproductive organs were deprived and consequently injured. His Harvard pedigree and his use of “scientific” studies which detailed the relationship between girls’ anemia and mental exertion gave his pronouncements an authoritative voice. To help alleviate their physical hardships, he advised that girls in school should receive monthly rest periods, work a third less than boys, and pursue a less demanding curriculum. Finally, girls should avoid competition with boys since it could lead to the loss of their distinctively feminine characteristics. This paternalistic concern for girls’ physical and mental well being was not directed to all girls; specifically, the discussion was about white middle-class girls whose families did not require the additional income or labor that youth could provide. Further, worries about “race suicide” did not include non-whites, immigrants, or adolescent girls of low social and economic status. Popular discourses, then as now, constructed a particular type of ideal girlhood, one that was and is not inclusive of all girls.
