Vindication of the Rights of Woman - Chapters I-II



CHAPTER I. THE RIGHTS AND INVOLVED DUTIES OF MANKIND CONSIDERED.

IN the present state of society it appears necessary to go back to first 
principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some 
prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, I must be 
allowed to ask some plain questions, and the answers will probably appear 
as unequivocal as the axioms on which reasoning is built; though, when 
entangled with various motives of action, they are formally contradicted, 
either by the words or conduct of men.

In what does man's pre-eminence over the brute creation consist? The 
answer is as clear as that a half is less than the whole; in Reason.

What acquirement exalts one being above another? Virtue; we spontaneously 
reply.

For what purpose were the passions implanted? That man by struggling with 
them might attain a degree of knowledge denied to the brutes; whispers 
Experience.

Consequently the perfection of our nature and capability of happiness, 
must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and knowledge, that 
distinguish the individual, and direct the laws which bind society: and 
that from the exercise of reason, knowledge and virtue naturally flow, is 
equally undeniable, if mankind be viewed collectively.

The rights and duties of man thus simplified, it seems almost impertinent 
to attempt to illustrate truths that appear so incontrovertible; yet such 
deeply rooted prejudices have clouded reason, and such spurious qualities 
have assumed the name of virtues, that it is necessary to pursue the 
course of reason as it has been perplexed and involved in error, by 
various adventitious circumstances, comparing the simple axiom with casual 
deviations.

Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which 
they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root them out. 
The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its own principles; for a 
kind of intellectual cowardice prevails which makes many men shrink from 
the task, or only do it by halves. Yet the imperfect conclusions thus 
drawn, are frequently very plausible, because they are built on partial 
experience, on just, though narrow, views.

Going back to first principles, vice skulks, with all its native 
deformity, from close investigation; but a set of shallow reasoners are 
always exclaiming that these arguments prove too much, and that a measure 
rotten at the core may be expedient. Thus expediency is continually 
contrasted with simple principles, till truth is lost in a mist of words, 
virtue, in forms, and knowledge rendered a sounding nothing, by the 
specious prejudices that assume its name.

That the society is formed in the wisest manner, whose constitution is 
founded on the nature of man, strikes, in the abstract, every thinking 
being so forcibly, that it looks like presumption to endeavour to bring 
forward proofs; though proof must be brought, or the strong hold of 
prescription will never be forced by reason; yet to urge prescription as 
an argument to justify the depriving men (or women) of their natural 
rights, is one of the absurd sophisms which daily insult common sense.

The civilization of the bulk of the people of Europe is very partial; nay, 
it may be made a question, whether they have acquired any virtues in 
exchange for innocence, equivalent to the misery produced by the vices 
that have been plastered over unsightly ignorance, and the freedom which 
has been bartered for splendid slavery. The desire of dazzling by riches, 
the most certain pre-eminence that man can obtain, the pleasure of 
commanding flattering sycophants, and many other complicated low 
calculations of doting self-love, have all contributed to overwhelm the 
mass of mankind, and make liberty a convenient handle for mock patriotism. 
For whilst rank and titles are held of the utmost importance, before which 
Genius "must hide its diminished head," it is, with a few exceptions, very 
unfortunate for a nation when a man of abilities, without rank or 
property, pushes himself forward to notice. -- Alas! what unheard of 
misery have thousands suffered to purchase a cardinal's hat for an 
intriguing obscure adventurer, who longed to be ranked with princes, or 
lord it over them by seizing the triple crown!

Such, indeed, has been the wretchedness that has flowed from hereditary 
honours, riches, and monarchy, that men of lively sensibility have almost 
uttered blasphemy in order to justify the dispensations of providence. Man 
has been held out as independent of his power who made him, or as a 
lawless planet darting from its orbit to steal the celestial fire of 
reason; and the vengeance of heaven, lurking in the subtile flame, 
sufficiently punished his temerity, by introducing evil into the world.

Impressed by this view of the misery and disorder which pervaded society, 
and fatigued with jostling against artificial fools, Rousseau became 
enamoured of solitude, and, being at the same time an optimist, he labours 
with uncommon eloquence to prove that man was naturally a solitary animal. 
Misled by his respect for the goodness of God, who certainly -- for what 
man of sense and feeling can doubt it! -- gave life only to communicate 
happiness, he considers evil as positive, and the work of man; not aware 
that he was exalting one attribute at the expense of another, equally 
necessary to divine perfection.

Reared on a false hypothesis, his arguments in favour of a state of nature 
are plausible, but unsound. I say unsound; for to assert that a state of 
nature is preferable to civilization, in all its possible perfection, is, 
in other words, to arraign supreme wisdom; and the paradoxical 
exclamation, that God has made all things right, and that evil has been 
introduced by the creature, whom he formed, knowing what he formed, is as 
unphilosophical as impious.

When that wise Being who created us and placed us here, saw the fair idea, 
he willed, by allowing it to be so, that the passions should unfold our 
reason, because he could see that present evil would produce future good. 
Could the helpless creature whom he called from nothing break loose from 
his providence, and boldly learn to know good by practising evil, without 
his permission? No. -- How could that energetic advocate for immortality 
argue so inconsistently? Had mankind remained for ever in the brutal state 
of nature, which even his magic pen cannot paint as a state in which a 
single virtue took root, it would have been clear, though not to the 
sensitive unreflecting wanderer, that man was born to run the circle of 
life and death, and adorn God's garden for some purpose which could not 
easily be reconciled with his attributes.

But if, to crown the whole, there were to be rational creatures produced, 
allowed to rise in excellence by the exercise of powers implanted for that 
purpose; if benignity itself thought fit to call into existence a creature 
above the brutes,(1) who could think and improve himself, why should that 
inestimable gift, for a gift it was, if man was so created as to have a 
capacity to rise above the state in which sensation produced brutal ease, 
be called, in direct terms, a curse? A curse it might be reckoned, if all 
our existence was bounded by our continuance in this world; for why should 
the gracious fountain of life give us passions, and the power of 
reflecting, only to imbitter our days and inspire us with mistaken notions 
of dignity? Why should he lead us from love of ourselves to the sublime 
emotions which the discovery of his wisdom and goodness excites, if these 
feelings were not set in motion to improve our nature, of which they make 
a part,(2) and render us capable of enjoying a more godlike portion of 
happiness? Firmly persuaded that no evil exists in the world that God did 
not design to take place, I build my belief on the perfection of God. 

Rousseau exerts himself to prove that all was right originally: a crowd of 
authors that all is now right: and I, that all will be right.

But, true to his first position, next to a state of nature, Rousseau 
celebrates barbarism, and, apostrophizing the shade of Fabricius, he 
forgets that, in conquering the world, the Romans never dreamed of 
establishing their own liberty on a firm basis, or of extending the reign 
of virtue. Eager to support his system, he stigmatizes, as vicious, every 
effort of genius; and, uttering the apotheosis of savage virtues, he 
exalts those to demi-gods, who were scarcely human -- the brutal Spartans, 
who, in defiance of justice and gratitude, sacrificed, in cold blood, the 
slaves who had shewn themselves men to rescue their oppressors.

Disgusted with artificial manners and virtues, the citizen of Geneva, 
instead of properly sifting the subject, threw away the wheat with the 
chaff, without waiting to inquire whether the evils which his ardent soul 
turned from indignantly, were the consequence of civilization or the 
vestiges of barbarism. He saw vice trampling on virtue, and the semblance 
of goodness taking place of the reality; he saw talents bent by power to 
sinister purposes, and never thought of tracing the gigantic mischief up 
to arbitrary power, up to the hereditary distinctions that clash with the 
mental superiority that naturally raises a man above his fellows. He did 
not perceive that regal power, in a few generations, introduces idiotism 
into the noble stem, and holds out baits to render thousands idle and 
vicious.

Nothing can set the regal character in a more contemptible point of view, 
than the various crimes that have elevated men to the supreme dignity. -- 
Vile intrigues, unnatural crimes, and every vice that degrades our nature, 
have been the steps to this distinguished eminence; yet millions of men 
have supinely allowed the nerveless limbs of the posterity of such 
rapacious prowlers to rest quietly on their ensanguined thrones.(3)

What but a pestilential vapour can hover over society when its chief 
director is only instructed in the invention of crimes, or the stupid 
routine of childish ceremonies? Will men never be wise? -- will they never 
cease to expect corn from tares, and figs from thistles?

It is impossible for any man, when the most favourable circumstances 
concur, to acquire sufficient knowledge and strength of mind to discharge 
the duties of a king, entrusted with uncontrouled power; how then must 
they be violated when his very elevation is an insuperable bar to the 
attainment of either wisdom or virtue; when all the feelings of a man are 
stifled by flattery, and reflection shut out by pleasure! Surely it is 
madness to make the fate of thousands depend on the caprice of a weak 
fellow creature, whose very station sinks him necessarily below the 
meanest of his subjects! But one power should not be thrown down to exalt 
another -- for all power intoxicates weak man; and its abuse proves, that 
the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and 
happiness will reign in society. But this, and any similar maxim deduced 
from simple reason, raises an outcry -- the church or the state is in 
danger, if faith in the wisdom of antiquity is not implicit; and they who, 
roused by the sight of human calamity, dare to attack human authority, are 
reviled as despisers of God, and enemies of man. These are bitter 
calumnies, yet they reached one of the best of men,(4) whose ashes still 
preach peace, and whose memory demands a respectful pause, when subjects 
are discussed that lay so near his heart.

After attacking the sacred majesty of Kings, I shall scarcely excite 
surprise by adding my firm persuasion that every profession, in which 
great subordination of rank constitutes its power, is highly injurious to 
morality. 

A standing army, for instance, is incompatible with freedom; because 
subordination and rigour are the very sinews of military discipline; and 
despotism is necessary to give vigour to enterprizes that one will 
directs. A spirit inspired by romantic notions of honour, a kind of 
morality founded on the fashion of the age, can only be felt by a few 
officers, whilst the main body must be moved by command, like the waves of 
the sea; for the strong wind of authority pushes the crowd of subalterns 
forward, they scarcely know or care why, with headlong fury.

Besides, nothing can be so prejudicial to the morals of the inhabitants of 
country towns as the occasional residence of a set of idle superficial 
young men, whose only occupation is gallantry, and whose polished manners 
render vice more dangerous, by concealing its deformity under gay 
ornamental drapery. An air of fashion, which is but a badge of slavery, 
and proves that the soul has not a strong individual character, awes 
simple country people into an imitation of the vices, when they cannot 
catch the slippery graces, of politeness. Every corps is a chain of 
despots, who, submitting and tyrannizing without exercising their reason, 
become dead weights of vice and folly on the community. A man of rank or 
fortune, sure of rising by interest, has nothing to do but to pursue some 
extravagant freak; whilst the needy gentleman, who is to rise, as the 
phrase turns, by his merit, becomes a servile parasite or vile pander.

Sailors, the naval gentlemen, come under the same description, only their 
vices assume a different and a grosser cast. They are more positively 
indolent, when not discharging the ceremonials of their station; whilst 
the insignificant fluttering of soldiers may be termed active idleness. 
More confined to the society of men, the former acquire a fondness for 
humour and mischievous tricks; whilst the latter, mixing frequently with 
well-bred women, catch a sentimental cant. -- But mind is equally out of 
the question, whether they indulge the horse-laugh, or polite simper.

May I be allowed to extend the comparison to a profession where more mind 
is certainly to be found; for the clergy have superior opportunities of 
impovement, tho' subordination almost equally cramps their faculties? The 
blind submission imposed at college to forms of belief serves as a 
novitiate to the curate, who must obsequiously respect the opinion of his 
rector or patron, if he means to rise in his profession. Perhaps there 
cannot be a more forcible contrast than between the servile dependent gait 
of a poor curate and the courtly mien of a bishop. And the respect and 
contempt they inspire render the discharge of their separate functions 
equally useless.

It is of great importance to observe that the character of every man is, 
in some degree, formed by his profession. A man of sense may only have a 
cast of countenance that wears off as you trace his individuality, whilst 
the weak, common man has scarcely ever any character, but what belongs to 
the body; at least, all his opinions have been so steeped in the vat 
consecrated by authority, that the faint spirit which the grape of his own 
vine yields cannot be distinguished.

Society, therefore, as it becomes more enlightened, should be very careful 
not to establish bodies of men who must necessarily be made foolish or 
vicious by the very constitution of their profession.

In the infancy of society, when men were just emerging out of barbarism, 
chiefs and priests, touching the most powerful springs of savage conduct, 
hope and fear, must have had unbounded sway. An aristocracy, of course, is 
naturally the first form of government. But, clashing interests soon 
losing their equipoise, a monarchy and hierarchy break out of the 
confusion of ambitious struggles, and the foundation of both is secured by 
feudal tenures. This appears to be the origin of monarchical and priestly 
power, and the dawn of civilization. But such combustible materials cannot 
long be pent up; and, getting vent in foreign wars and intestine 
insurrections, the people acquire some power in the tumult, which obliges 
their rulers to gloss over their oppression with a shew of right. Thus, as 
wars, agriculture, commerce, and literature, expand the mind, despots are 
compelled, to make covert corruption hold fast the power which was 
formerly snatched by open force.(5) And this baneful lurking gangrene is 
most quickly spread by luxury and superstition, the sure dregs of 
ambition. The indolent puppet of a court first becomes a luxurious 
monster, or fastidious sensualist, and then makes the contagion which his 
unnatural state spread, the instrument of tyranny.

It is the pestiferous purple which renders the progress of civilization a 
curse, and warps the understanding, till men of sensibility doubt whether 
the expansion of intellect produces a greater portion of happiness or 
misery. But the nature of the poison points out the antidote; and had 
Rousseau mounted one step higher in his investigation, or could his eye 
have pierced through the foggy atmosphere, which he almost disdained to 
breathe, his active mind would have darted forward to contemplate the 
perfection of man in the establishment of true civilization, instead of 
taking his ferocious flight back to the night of sensual ignorance.

(1. Contrary to the opinion of the anatomists, who argue by analogy from 
the formation of the teeth, stomach, and intestines, Rousseau will not 
allow a man to be a carnivorous animal. And, carried away from nature by a 
love of system, he disputes whether man be a gregarious animal, though the 
long and helpless state of infancy seems to point him out as particularly 
impelled to pair.)

(2. What would you say to a mechanic whom you had desired to make a watch 
to point out the hour of the day, if, to show his ingenuity, he added 
wheels to make it a repeater, &c. that perplexed the simple mechanism; 
should he urge, to excuse himself -- had you not touched a certain spring, 
you would have known nothing of the matter, and that he should have amused 
himself by making an experiment without doing you any harm: would you not 
retort fairly upon him, but insisting that if he had not added those 
needless wheels and springs, the accident could not have happened?)

(3. Could there be a greater insult offered to the rights of man than the 
beds of justice in France, when an infant was made the organ of the 
detestable Dubois?)

(4. Dr. Price.)

(5. Men of abilities scatter seeds that grow up and have a great influence 
on the forming opinion; and when once the public opinion preponderates, 
through the exertion of reason, the overthrow of arbitrary power is not 
very distant.)



CHAPTER II. THE PREVAILING OPINION OF A SEXUAL CHARACTER DISCUSSED.

TO account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments 
have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the acquirement 
of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very different character: or, to 
speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of 
mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue. Yet it should 
seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by 
Providence to lead mankind to either virtue or happiness.

If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should they be 
kept in ignorance under the specious name of innocence? Men complain, and 
with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex, when they do not 
keenly satirize our headstrong passions and grovelling vices. Behold, I 
should answer, the natural effect of ignorance! The mind will ever be 
unstable that has only prejudices to rest on, and the current will run 
with destructive fury when there are no barriers to break its force. Women 
are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, 
that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness 
of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind 
of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they 
be beautiful, every thing else is needless, for, at least, twenty years of 
their lives.

Thus Milton describes our first frail mother; though when he tells us that 
women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot 
comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true Mahometan strain, he meant to 
deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed by 
sweet attractive grace, and docile blind obedience, to gratify the senses 
of man when he can no longer soar on the wing of contemplation.

How grossly do they insult us who thus advise us only to render ourselves 
gentle, domestic brutes! For instance, the winning softness so warmly, and 
frequently, recommended, that governs by obeying. What childish 
expressions, and how insignificant is the being -- can it be an immortal 
one? who will condescend to govern by such sinister methods! 'Certainly, 
says Lord Bacon, 'man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and if he be 
not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature!' Men, 
indeed, appear to me to act in a very unphilosophical manner when they try 
to secure the good conduct of women by attempting to keep them always in a 
state of childhood. Rousseau was more consistent when he wished to stop 
the progress of reason in both sexes, for if men eat of the tree of 
knowledge, women will come in for a taste; but, from the imperfect 
cultivation which their understandings now receive, they only attain a 
knowledge of evil.

Children, I grant, should be innocent; but when the epithet is applied to 
men, or women, it is but a civil term for weakness. For if it be allowed 
that women were destined by Providence to acquire human virtues, and by 
the exercise of their understanding, that stability of character which is 
the firmest ground to rest our future hopes upon, they must be permitted 
to turn to the fountain of light, and not forced to shape their course by 
the twinkling of a mere satellite. Milton, I grant, was of a very 
different opinion; for he only bends to the indefeasible right of beauty, 
though it would be difficult to render two passages which I now mean to 
contrast, consistent. But into similar inconsistencies are great men often 
led by their senses.

'To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adorn'd,
 My Author and Disposer, what thou bidst
 Unargued I obey; so God ordains;
 God is thy law, thou mine: to know no more
 Is Woman's happiest knowledge and her praise.'

These are exactly the arguments that I have used to children; but I have 
added, your reason is now gaining strength, and, till it arrives at some 
degree of maturity, you must look up to me for advice -- then you ought to 
think, and only rely on God.

Yet in the following lines Milton seems to coincide with me; when he makes 
Adam thus expostulate with his Maker.

'Hast thou not made me here thy substitute,
 And these inferior far beneath me set?
 Among unequals what society
 Can sort, what harmony or true delight?
 Which must be mutual, in proportion due
 Giv'n and receiv'd; but in disparity
 The one intense, the other still remiss
 Tedious alike: of fellowship I speak
 Such as I seek, fit to participate
 All rational delight --'

In treating, therefore, of the manners of women, let us, disregarding 
sensual arguments, trace what we should endeavour to make them in order to 
co-operate, if the expression be not too bold, with the supreme Being.

By individual education, I mean, for the sense of the word is not 
precisely defined, such an attention to a child as will slowly sharpen the 
senses, form the temper, regulate the passions, as they begin to ferment, 
and set the understanding to work before the body arrives at maturity; so 
that the man may only have to proceed, not to begin, the important task of 
learning to think and reason.

To prevent any misconstruction, I must add, that I do not believe that a 
private education can work the wonders which some sanguine writers have 
attributed to it. Men and women must be educated, in a great degree, by 
the opinions and manners of the society they live in. In every age there 
has been a stream of popular opinion that has carried all before it, and 
given a family character, as it were, to the century. It may then fairly 
be inferred, that, till society be differently constituted, much cannot be 
expected from education. It is, however, sufficient for my present purpose 
to assert, that whatever effect circumstances have on the abilities, every 
being may become virtuous by the exercise of its own reason; for if but 
one being was created with vicious inclinations, that is positively bad, 
what can save us from atheism? or if we worship a God, is not that God a 
devil?

Consequently, the most perfect education, in my opinion, is such an 
exercise of the understanding as is best calculated to strengthen the body 
and form the heart. Or, in other words, to enable the individual to attain 
such habits of virtue as will render it independent. In fact, it is a 
farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result from the 
exercise of its own reason. This was Rousseau's opinion respecting men. I 
extend it to women, and confidently assert that they have been drawn out 
of their sphere by false refinement, and not by an endeavour to acquire 
masculine qualities. Still the regal homage which they receive is so 
intoxicating, that till the manners of the times are changed, and formed 
on more reasonable principles, it may be impossible to convince them that 
the illegitimate power which they obtain, by degrading themselves, is a 
curse, and that they must return to nature and equality, if they wish to 
secure the placid satisfaction that unsophisticated affections impart. But 
for this epoch we must wait -- wait, perhaps, till kings and nobles, 
enlightened by reason, and, preferring the real dignity of man to childish 
state, throw off their gaudy hereditary trappings: and if then women do 
not resign the arbitrary power of beauty -- they will prove that they have 
less mind than man.

I may be accused of arrogance; still I must declare, what I firmly 
believe, that all the writers who have written on the subject of female 
education and manners, from Rousseau to Dr. Gregory, have contributed to 
render women more artificial, weak characters, than they would otherwise 
have been; and, consequently, more useless members of society. I might 
have expressed this conviction in a lower key; but I am afraid it would 
have been the whine of affectation, and not the faithful expression of my 
feelings; of the clear result, which experience and reflection have led me 
to draw. When I come to that division of the subject, I shall advert to 
the passages that I more particularly disapprove of, in the works of the 
authors I have just alluded to; but it is first necessary to observe, that 
my objection extends to the whole purport of those books, which tend, in 
my opinion, to degrade one half of the human species, and render women 
pleasing at the expense of every solid virtue. 

Though, to reason on Rousseau's ground, if man did attain a degree of 
perfection of mind when his body arrived at maturity, it might be proper, 
in order to make a man and his wife one, that she should rely entirely on 
his understanding; and the graceful ivy, clasping the oak that supported 
it, would form a whole in which strength and beauty would be equally 
conspicuous. But, alas! husbands, as well as their helpmates, are often 
only overgrown children; nay, thanks to early debauchery, scarcely men in 
their outward form -- and if the blind lead the blind, one need not come 
from heaven to tell us the consequence.

Many are the causes that, in the present corrupt state of society, 
contribute to enslave women by cramping their understandings and 
sharpening their senses. One, perhaps, that silently does more mischief 
than all the rest, is their disregard of order.

To do every thing in an orderly manner, is a most important precept, which 
women, who, generally speaking, receive only a disorderly kind of 
education, seldom attend to with that degree of exactness, that men, who 
from their infancy are broken into method, observe. This negligent kind of 
guess-work, for what other epithet can be used to point out the random 
exertions of a sort of instinctive common sense, never brought to the test 
of reason? prevents their generalizing matters of fact -- so they do to-
day what they did yesterday, merely because they did it yesterday.

This contempt of the understanding in early life has more baneful 
consequences than is commonly supposed; for the little knowledge which 
women of strong minds attain, is, from various circumstances, of a more 
desultory kind than the knowledge of men, and it is acquired more by sheer 
observations on real life, than from comparing what has been individually 
observed with the results of experience generalized by speculation. Led by 
their dependent situation and domestic employments more into society, what 
they learn is rather by snatches; and as learning is with them, in 
general, only a secondary thing, they do not pursue any one branch with 
that persevering ardour necessary to give vigour to the faculties, and 
clearness to the judgment. In the present state of society, a little 
learning is required to support the character of a gentleman; and boys are 
obliged to submit to a few years of discipline. But in the education of 
women, the cultivation of the understanding is always subordinate to the 
acquirement of some corporeal accomplishment; even when enervated by 
confinement and false notions of modesty, the body is prevented from 
attaining that grace and beauty which relaxed half-formed limbs never 
exhibit. Besides, in youth their faculties are not brought forward by 
emulation; and having no serious scientific study, if they have natural 
sagacity it is turned too soon on life and manners. They dwell on effects, 
and modifications, without tracing them back to causes; and complicated 
rules to adjust behaviour, are a weak substitute for simple principles.

As a proof that education gives this appearance of weakness to females, we 
may instance the example of military men, who are, like them, sent into 
the world before their minds have been stored with knowledge or fortified 
by principles. The consequences are similar; soldiers acquire a little 
superficial knowledge, snatched from the muddy current of conversation, 
and, from continually mixing with society, they gain, what is termed a 
knowledge of the world; and this acquaintance with manners and customs has 
frequently been confounded with a knowledge of the human heart. But can 
the crude fruit of casual observation, never brought to the test of 
judgment, formed by comparing speculation and experience, deserve such a 
distinction? Soldiers, as well as women, practise the minor virtues with 
punctilious politeness. Where is then the sexual difference, when the 
education has been the same? All the difference that I can discern, arises 
from the superior advantage of liberty, which enables the former to see 
more of life.

It is wandering from my present subject, perhaps, to make a political 
remark; but, as it was produced naturally by the train of my reflections, 
I shall not pass it silently over.

Standing armies can never consist of resolute, robust men; they may be 
well disciplined machines, but they will seldom contain men under the 
influence of strong passions, or with very vigorous faculties. And as for 
any depth of understanding, I will venture to affirm, that it is as rarely 
to be found in the army as amongst women; and the cause, I maintain, is 
the same. It may be further observed, that officers are also particularly 
attentive to their persons, fond of dancing, crowded rooms, adventures, 
and ridicule.(1) Like the fair sex, the business of their lives is 
gallantry -- They were taught to please, and they only live to please. Yet 
they do not lose their rank in the distinction of sexes, for they are 
still reckoned superior to women, though in what their superiority 
consists, beyond what I have just mentioned, it is difficult to discover.

The great misfortune is this, that they both acquire manners before 
morals, and a knowledge of life before they have, from reflection, any 
acquaintance with the grand ideal outline of human nature. The consequence 
is natural; satisfied with common nature, they become a prey to 
prejudices, and taking all their opinions on credit, they blindly submit 
to authority. So that, if they have any sense, it is a kind of instinctive 
glance, that catches proportions, and decides with respect to manners; but 
fails when arguments are to be pursued below the surface, or opinions 
analyzed.

May not the same remark be applied to women? Nay, the argument may be 
carried still further, for they are both thrown out of a useful station by 
the unnatural distinctions established in civilized life. Riches and 
hereditary honours have made cyphers of women to give consequence to the 
numerical figure; and idleness has produced a mixture of gallantry and 
despotism into society, which leads the very men who are the slaves of 
their mistresses to tyrannize over their sisters, wives, and daughters. 
This is only keeping them in rank and file, it is true. Strengthen the 
female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; 
but, as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and 
sensualists are in the right when they endeavour to keep women in the 
dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing. 
The sensualist, indeed, has been the most dangerous of tyrants, and women 
have been duped by their lovers, as princes by their ministers, whilst 
dreaming that they reigned over them.

I now principally allude to Rousseau, for his character of Sophia is, 
undoubtedly a captivating one, though it appears to me grossly unnatural; 
however, it is not the superstructure, but the foundation of her 
character, the principles on which her education was built, that I mean to 
attack; nay, warmly as I admire the genius of that able writer, whose 
opinions I shall often have occasion to cite, indignation always takes 
place of admiration, and the rigid frown of insulted virtue effaces the 
smile of complacency, which his eloquent periods are wont to raise, when I 
read his voluptuous reveries. Is this the man, who, in his ardour for 
virtue, would banish all the soft arts of peace, and almost carry us back 
to Spartan discipline? Is this the man who delights to paint the useful 
struggles of passion, the triumphs of good dispositions, and the heroic 
flights which carry the glowing soul out of itself? -- How are these 
mighty sentiments lowered when he describes the pretty foot and enticing 
airs of his little favourite! But, for the present I wave the subject, 
and, instead of severely reprehending the transient effusions of 
overweening sensibility, I shall only observe, that whoever has cast a 
benevolent eye on society, must often have been gratified by the sight of 
humble mutual love, not dignified by sentiment, nor strengthened by a 
union in intellectual pursuits. The domestic trifles of the day have 
afforded matter for cheerful converse, and innocent caresses have softened 
toils which did not require great exercise of mind or stretch of thought: 
yet, has not the sight of this moderate felicity excited more tenderness 
than respect? An emotion similar to what we feel when children are 
playing, or animals sporting,(2) whilst the contemplation of the noble 
struggles of suffering merit has raised admiration, and carried our 
thoughts to that world where sensation will give place to reason.

Women are, therefore, to be considered either as moral beings, or so weak 
that they must be entirely subjected to the superior faculties of men.

Let us examine this question. Rousseau declares that a woman should never, 
for a moment, feel herself independent, that she should be governed by 
fear to exercise her natural cunning, and made a coquetish slave in order 
to render her a more alluring object of desire, a sweeter companion to 
man, whenever he chooses to relax himself. He carries the arguments, which 
he pretends to draw from the indications of nature, still further, and 
insinuates that truth and fortitude, the corner stones of all human 
virtue, should be cultivated with certain restrictions, because, with 
respect to the female character, obedience is the grand lesson which ought 
to be impressed with unrelenting rigour.

What nonsense! when will a great man arise with sufficient strength of 
mind to puff away the fumes which pride and sensuality have thus spread 
over the subject! If women are by nature inferior to men, their virtues 
must be the same in quality, if not in degree, or virtue is a relative 
idea; consequently, their conduct should be founded on the same 
principles, and have the same aim.

Connected with man as daughters, wives, and mothers, their moral character 
may be estimated by their manner of fulfilling those simple duties; but 
the end, the grand end of their exertions should be to unfold their own 
faculties and acquire the dignity of conscious virtue. They may try to 
render their road pleasant; but ought never to forget, in common with man, 
that life yields not the felicity which can satisfy an immortal soul. I do 
not mean to insinuate, that either sex should be so lost in abstract 
reflections or distant views, as to forget the affections and duties that 
lie before them, and are, in truth, the means appointed to produce the 
fruit of life; on the contrary, I would warmly recommend them, even while 
I assert, that they afford most satisfaction when they are considered in 
their true subordinate light.

Probably the prevailing opinion, that woman was created for man, may have 
taken its rise from Moses's poetical story; yet as very few, it is 
presumed, who have bestowed any serious thought on the subject, ever 
supposed that Eve was, literally speaking, one of Adam's ribs, the 
deduction must be allowed to fall to the ground; or, only be so far 
admitted as it proves that man, from the remotest antiquity, found it 
convenient to exert his strength to subjugate his companion, and his 
invention to shew that she ought to have her neck bent under the yoke; 
because she, as well as the brute creation, was created to do his pleasure.

Let it not be concluded that I wish to invert the order of things; I have 
already granted, that, from the constitution of their bodies, men seem to 
be designed by Providence to attain a greater degree of virtue. I speak 
collectively of the whole sex; but I see not the shadow of a reason to 
conclude that their virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In 
fact, how can they, if virtue has only one eternal standard? I must 
therefore, if I reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain that they 
have the same simple direction, as that there is a God.

It follows then that cunning should not be opposed to wisdom, little cares 
to great exertions, or insipid softness, varnished over with the name of 
gentleness, to that fortitude which grand views alone can inspire.

I shall be told that woman would then lose many of her peculiar graces, 
and the opinion of a well known poet might be quoted to refute my 
unqualified assertion. For Pope has said, in the name of the whole male 
sex,

'Yet ne'er so sure our passion to create,
 As when she touch'd the brink of all we hate.'

In what light this sally places men and women, I shall leave to the 
judicious to determine; meanwhile I shall content myself with observing, 
that I cannot discover why, unless they are mortal, females should always 
be degraded by being made subservient to love or lust.

To speak disrespectfully of love is, I know, high treason against 
sentiment and fine feelings; but I wish to speak the simple language of 
truth, and rather to address the head than the heart. To endeavour to 
reason love out of the world, would be to out Quixote Cervantes, and 
equally offend against common sense; but an endeavour to restrain this 
tumultuous passion, and to prove that it should not be allowed to dethrone 
superior powers, or to usurp the sceptre which the understanding should 
very coolly wield, appears less wild.

Youth is the season for love in both sexes; but in those days of 
thoughtless enjoyment provision should be made for the more important 
years of life, when reflection takes place of sensation. But Rousseau, and 
most of the male writers who have followed his steps, have warmly 
inculcated that the whole tendency of female education ought to be 
directed to one point: -- to render them pleasing.

Let me reason with the supporters of this opinion who have any knowledge 
of human nature, do they imagine that marriage can eradicate the habitude 
of life? The woman who has only been taught to please will soon find that 
her charms are oblique sunbeams, and that they cannot have much effect on 
her husband's heart when they are seen every day, when the summer is 
passed and gone. Will she then have sufficient native energy to look into 
herself for comfort, and cultivate her dormant faculties? or, is it not 
more rational to expect that she will try to please other men; and, in the 
emotions raised by the expectation of new conquests, endeavour to forget 
the mortification her love or pride has received? When the husband ceases 
to be a lover -- and the time will inevitably come, her desire of pleasing 
will then grow languid, or become a spring of bitterness; and love, 
perhaps, the most evanescent of all passions, gives place to jealousy or 
vanity.

I now speak of women who are restrained by principle or prejudice; such 
women, though they would shrink from an intrigue with real abhorrence, 
yet, nevertheless, wish to be convinced by the homage of gallantry that 
they are cruelly neglected by their husbands; or, days and weeks are spent 
in dreaming of the happiness enjoyed by congenial souls, till the health 
is undermined and the spirits broken by discontent. How then can the great 
art of pleasing be such a necessary study; it is only useful to a 
mistress; the chaste wife, and serious mother, should only consider her 
power to please as the polish of her virtues, and the affection of her 
husband as one of the comforts that render her task less difficult and her 
life happier. -- But, whether she be loved or neglected, her first wish 
should be to make herself respectable, and not to rely for all her 
happiness on a being subject to like infirmities with herself. 

The amiable Dr. Gregory fell into a similar error. I respect his heart; 
but entirely disapprove of his celebrated Legacy to his Daughters.

He advises them to cultivate a fondness for dress, because a fondness for 
dress, he asserts, is natural to them. I am unable to comprehend what 
either he or Rousseau mean, when they frequently use this indefinite term. 
If they told us that in a pre-existent state the soul was fond of dress, 
and brought this inclination with it into a new body, I should listen to 
them with a half smile, as I often do when I hear a rant about innate 
elegance. -- But if he only meant to say that the exercise of the 
faculties will produce this fondness -- I deny it. -- It is not natural; 
but arises, like false ambition in men, from a love of power.

Dr. Gregory goes much further; he actually recommends dissimulation, and 
advises an innocent girl to give the lie to her feelings, and not dance 
with spirit, when gaiety of heart would make her feet eloquent without 
making her gestures immodest. In the name of truth and common sense, why 
should not one woman acknowledge that she can take more exercise than 
another? or, in other words, that she has a sound constitution; and why, 
to damp innocent vivacity, is she darkly to be told that men will draw 
conclusions which she little thinks of? Let the libertine draw what 
inference he pleases; but, I hope, that no sensible mother will restrain 
the natural frankness of youth by instilling such indecent cautions. Out 
of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; and a wiser than Solomon 
hath said, that the heart should be made clean, and not trivial ceremonies 
observed, which it is not very difficult to fulfil with scrupulous 
exactness when vice reigns in the heart.

Women ought to endeavour to purify their heart; but can they do so when 
their uncultivated understandings make them entirely dependent on their 
senses for employment and amusement, when no noble pursuit sets them above 
the little vanities of the day, or enables them to curb the wild emotions 
that agitate a reed over which every passing breeze has power? To gain the 
affections of a virtuous man is affectation necessary? Nature has given 
woman a weaker frame than man; but, to ensure her husband's affections, 
must a wife, who by the exercise of her mind and body whilst she was 
discharging the duties of a daughter, wife, and mother, has allowed her 
constitution to retain its natural strength, and her nerves a healthy 
tone, is she, I say, to condescend to use art and feign a sickly delicacy 
in order to secure her husband's affection? Weakness may excite 
tenderness, and gratify the arrogant pride of man; but the lordly caresses 
of a protector will not gratify a noble mind that pants for, and deserves 
to be respected. Fondness is a poor substitute for friendship!

In a seraglio, I grant, that all these arts are necessary; the epicure 
must have his palate tickled, or he will sink into apathy; but have women 
so little ambition as to be satisfied with such a condition? Can they 
supinely dream life away in the lap of pleasure, or the languor of 
weariness, rather than assert their claim to pursue reasonable pleasures 
and render themselves conspicuous by practising the virtues which dignify 
mankind? Surely she has not an immortal soul who can loiter life away 
merely employed to adorn her person, that she may amuse the languid hours, 
and soften the cares of a fellow-creature who is willing to be enlivened 
by her smiles and tricks, when the serious business of life is over.

Besides, the woman who strengthens her body and exercises her mind will, 
by managing her family and practising various virtues, become the friend, 
and not the humble dependent of her husband, and if she deserves his 
regard by possessing such substantial qualities, she will not find it 
necessary to conceal her affection, nor to pretend to an unnatural 
coldness of constitution to excite her husband's passions. In fact, if we 
revert to history, we shall find that the women who have distinguished 
themselves have neither been the most beautiful nor the most gentle of 
their sex.

Nature, or, to speak with strict propriety, God, has made all things 
right; but man has sought him out many inventions to mar the work. I now 
allude to that part of Dr. Gregory's treatise, where he advises a wife 
never to let her husband know the extent of her sensibility or affection. 
Voluptuous precaution, and as ineffectual as absurd. -- Love, from its 
very nature, must be transitory. To seek for a secret that would render it 
constant, would be as wild a search as for the philosopher's stone, or the 
grand panacea; and the discovery would be equally useless, or rather 
pernicious, to mankind. The most holy band of society is friendship. It 
has been well said, by a shrewd satirist, "that rare as true love is, true 
friendship is still rarer."

This is an obvious truth, and the cause not lying deep, will not elude a 
slight glance of inquiry.

Love, the common passion, in which chance and sensation take place of 
choice and reason, is, in some degree, felt by the mass of mankind; for it 
is not necessary to speak, at present, of the emotions that rise above or 
sink below love. This passion, naturally increased by suspense and 
difficulties, draws the mind out of its accustomed state, and exalts the 
affections; but the security of marriage, allowing the fever of love to 
subside, a healthy temperature is thought insipid, only by those who have 
not sufficient intellect to substitute the calm tenderness of friendship, 
the confidence of respect, instead of blind admiration, and the sensual 
emotions of fondness.

This is, must be, the course of nature: -- friendship or indifference 
inevitably succeeds love. -- And this constitution seems perfectly to 
harmonize with the system of government which prevails in the moral world. 
Passions are spurs to action, and open the mind; but they sink into mere 
appetites, become a personal and momentary gratification, when the object 
is gained, and the satisfied mind rests in enjoyment. The man who had some 
virtue whilst he was struggling for a crown, often becomes a voluptuous 
tyrant when it graces his brow; and, when the lover is not lost in the 
husband, the dotard, a prey to childish caprices, and fond jealousies, 
neglects the serious duties of life, and the caresses which should excite 
confidence in his children are lavished on the overgrown child, his wife.

In order to fulfil the duties of life, and to be able to pursue with 
vigour the various employments which form the moral character, a master 
and mistress of a family ought not to continue to love each other with 
passion. I mean to say, that they ought not to indulge those emotions 
which disturb the order of society, and engross the thoughts that should 
be otherwise employed. The mind that has never been engrossed by one 
object wants vigour -- if it can long be so, it is weak.

A mistaken education, a narrow, uncultivated mind, and many sexual 
prejudices, tend to make women more constant than men; but, for the 
present, I shall not touch on this branch of the subject. I will go still 
further, and advance, without dreaming of a paradox, that an unhappy 
marriage is often very advantageous to a family, and that the neglected 
wife is, in general, the best mother. And this would almost always be the 
consequence if the female mind were more enlarged: for, it seems to be the 
common dispensation of Providence, that what we gain in present enjoyment 
should be deducted from the treasure of life, experience; and that when we 
are gathering the flowers of the day and revelling in pleasure, the solid 
fruit of toil and wisdom should not be caught at the same time. The way 
lies before us, we must turn to the right or left; and he who will pass 
life away in bounding from one pleasure to another, must not complain if 
he neither acquires wisdom nor respectability of character.

Supposing, for a moment, that the soul is not immortal, and that man was 
only created for the present scene, -- I think we should have reason to 
complain that love, infantine fondness, ever grew insipid and pallid upon 
the sense. Let us eat, drink, and love, for to-morrow we die, would be, in 
fact, the language of reason, the morality of life; and who but a fool 
would part with a reality for a fleeting shadow? But, if awed by observing 
the improvable powers of the mind, we disdain to confine our wishes or 
thoughts to such a comparatively mean field of action; that only appears 
grand and important, as it is connected with a boundless prospect and 
sublime hopes, what necessity is there for falsehood in conduct, and why 
must the sacred majesty of truth be violated to detain a deceitful good 
that saps the very foundation of virtue? Why must the female mind be 
tainted by coquetish arts to gratify the sensualist, and prevent love from 
subsiding into friendship, or compassionate tenderness, when there are not 
qualities on which friendship can be built? Let the honest heart shew 
itself, and reason teach passion to submit to necessity; or, let the 
dignified pursuit of virtue and knowledge raise the mind above those 
emotions which rather imbitter than sweeten the cup of life, when they are 
not restrained within due bounds.

I do not mean to allude to the romantic passion, which is the concomitant 
of genius. -- Who can clip its wing? But that grand passion not 
proportioned to the puny enjoyments of life, is only true to the 
sentiment, and feeds on itself. The passions which have been celebrated 
for their durability have always been unfortunate. They have acquired 
strength by absence and constitutional melancholy. -- The fancy has 
hovered round a form of beauty dimly seen -- but familiarity might have 
turned admiration into disgust; or, at least, into indifference, and 
allowed the imagination leisure to start fresh game. With perfect 
propriety, according to this view of things, does Rousseau make the 
mistress of his soul, Eloisa, love St. Preux, when life was fading before 
her; but this is no proof of the immortality of the passion.

Of the same complexion is Dr. Gregory's advice respecting delicacy of 
sentiment, which he advises a woman not to acquire, if she has determined 
to marry. This determination, however, perfectly consistent with his 
former advice, he calls indelicate, and earnestly persuades his daughters 
to conceal it, though it may govern their conduct: as if it were 
indelicate to have the common appetites of human nature.

Noble morality! and consistent with the cautious prudence of a little soul 
that cannot extend its views beyond the present minute division of 
existence. If all the faculties of woman's mind are only to be cultivated 
as they respect her dependence on man; if, when she obtains a husband she 
has arrived at her goal, and meanly proud is satisfied with such a paltry 
crown, let her grovel contentedly, scarcely raised by her employments 
above the animal kingdom; but, if she is struggling for the prize of her 
high calling, let her cultivate her understanding without stopping to 
consider what character the husband may have whom she is destined to 
marry. Let her only determine, without being too anxious about present 
happiness, to acquire the qualities that ennoble a rational being, and a 
rough inelegant husband may shock her taste without destroying her peace 
of mind. She will not model her soul to suit the frailties of her 
companion, but to bear with them: his character may be a trial, but not an 
impediment to virtue.

If Dr. Gregory confined his remark to romantic expectations of constant 
love and congenial feelings, he should have recollected that experience 
will banish what advice can never make us cease to wish for, when the 
imagination is kept alive at the expense of reason.

I own it frequently happens that women who have fostered a romantic 
unnatural delicacy of feeling, waste their(3) lives in imagining how happy 
they should have been with a husband who could love them with a fervid 
increasing affection every day, and all day. But they might as well pine 
married as single -- and would not be a jot more unhappy with a bad 
husband than longing for a good one. That a proper education; or, to speak 
with more precision, a well stored mind, would enable a woman to support a 
single life with dignity, I grant; but that she should avoid cultivating 
her taste, lest her husband should occasionally shock it, is quitting a 
substance for a shadow. To say the truth, I do not know of what use is an 
improved taste, if the individual is not rendered more independent of the 
casualties of life; if new sources of enjoyment, only dependent on the 
solitary operations of the mind, are not opened. People of taste, married 
or single, without distinction, will ever be disgusted by various things 
that touch not less observing minds. On this conclusion the argument must 
not be allowed to hinge; but in the whole sum of enjoyment is taste to be 
denominated a blessing? 

The question is, whether it procures most pain or pleasure? The answer 
will decide the propriety of Dr. Gregory's advice, and shew how absurd and 
tyrannic it is thus to lay down a system of slavery; or to attempt to 
educate moral beings by any other rules than those deduced from pure 
reason, which apply to the whole species.

Gentleness of manners, forbearance and long-suffering, are such amiable 
Godlike qualities, that in sublime poetic strains the Deity has been 
invested with them; and, perhaps, no representation of his goodness so 
strongly fastens on the human affections as those that represent him 
abundant in mercy and willing to pardon. Gentleness, considered in this 
point of view, bears on its front all the characteristics of grandeur, 
combined with the winning graces of condescension; but what a different 
aspect it assumes when it is the submissive demeanour of dependence, the 
support of weakness that loves, because it wants protection; and is 
forbearing, because it must silently endure injuries; smiling under the 
lash at which it dare not snarl. Abject as this picture appears, it is the 
portrait of an accomplished woman, according to the received opinion of 
female excellence, separated by specious reasoners from human excellence. 
Or, they(4) kindly restore the rib, and make one moral being of a man and 
woman; not forgetting to give her all the 'submissive charms.'

How women are to exist in that state where there is to be neither marrying 
nor giving in marriage, we are not told. -- For though moralists have 
agreed that the tenor of life seems to prove that man is prepared by 
various circumstances for a future state, they constantly concur in 
advising woman only to provide for the present. Gentleness, docility, and 
a spaniel-like affection are, on this ground, consistently recommended as 
the cardinal virtues of the sex; and, disregarding the arbitrary economy 
of nature, one writer has declared that it is masculine for a woman to be 
melancholy. She was created to be the toy of man, his rattle, and it must 
jingle in his ears whenever, dismissing reason, he chooses to be amused.

To recommend gentleness, indeed, on a broad basis is strictly 
philosophical. A frail being should labour to be gentle. But when 
forbearance confounds right and wrong, it ceases to be a virtue; and, 
however convenient it may be found in a companion -- that companion will 
ever be considered as an inferior, and only inspire a vapid tenderness, 
which easily degenerates into contempt. Still, if advice could really make 
a being gentle, whose natural disposition admitted not of such a fine 
polish, something towards the advancement of order would be attained; but 
if, as might quickly be demonstrated, only affectation be produced by this 
indiscriminate counsel, which throws a stumbling-block in the way of 
gradual improvement, and true melioration of temper, the sex is not much 
benefited by sacrificing solid virtues to the attainment of superficial 
graces, though for a few years they may procure the individuals regal sway.

As a philosopher, I read with indignation the plausible epithets which men 
use to soften their insults; and, as a moralist, I ask what is meant by 
such heterogeneous associations, as fair defects, amiable weaknesses, &c.? 
If there is but one criterion of morals, but one archetype for man, women 
appear to be suspended by destiny, according to the vulgar tale of

Mahomet's coffin; they have neither the unerring instinct of brutes, nor 
are allowed to fix the eye of reason on a perfect model. They were made to 
be loved, and must not aim at respect, lest they should be hunted out of 
society as masculine.

But to view the subject in another point of view. Do passive indolent 
women make the best wives? Confining our discussion to the present moment 
of existence, let us see how such weak creatures perform their part? Do 
the women, who, by the attainment of a few superficial accomplishments, 
have strengthened the prevailing prejudice, merely contribute to the 
happiness of their husbands? Do they display their charms merely to amuse 
them? And have women, who have early imbibed notions of passive obedience, 
sufficient character to manage a family or educate children? So far from 
it, that, after surveying the history of woman, I cannot help agreeing 
with the severest satirist, considering the sex as the weakest as well as 
the most oppressed half of the species. What does history disclose but 
marks of inferiority, and how few women have emancipated themselves from 
the galling yoke of sovereign man? -- So few, that the exceptions remind 
me of an ingenious conjecture respecting Newton: that he was probably a 
being of superior order, accidentally caged in a human body. In the same 
style, I have been led to imagine that the few extraordinary women who 
have rushed in eccentrical directions out of the orbit prescribed to their 
sex, were male spirited, confined by mistake in a female frame. But if it 
be not philosophical to think of sex when the soul is mentioned, the 
inferiority must depend on the organs; or the heavenly fire, which is to 
ferment the clay, is not given in equal portions.

But avoiding, as I have hitherto done, any direct comparison of the two 
sexes collectively, or frankly acknowledging the inferiority of woman, 
according to the present appearance of things, I shall only insist that 
men have increased that inferiority till women are almost sunk below the 
standard of rational creatures. Let their faculties have room to unfold, 
and their virtues to gain strength, and then determine where the whole sex 
must stand in the intellectual scale. Yet let it be remembered, that for a 
small number of distinguished women I do not ask a place.

It is difficult for us purblind mortals to say to what height human 
discoveries and improvements may arrive when the gloom of despotism 
subsides, which makes us stumble at every step; but, when morality shall 
be settled on a more solid basis, then, without being gifted with a 
prophetic spirit, I will venture to predict that woman will be either the 
friend or slave of man. We shall not, as at present, doubt whether she is 
a moral agent, or the link which unites man with brutes. But, should it 
then appear, that like the brutes they were principally created for the 
use of man, he will let them patiently bite the bridle, and not mock them 
with empty praise; or, should their rationality be proved, he will not 
impede their improvement merely to gratify his sensual appetites. He will 
not, with all the graces of rhetoric, advise them to submit implicitly 
their understanding to the guidance of man. He will not, when he treats of 
the education of women, assert that they ought never to have the free use 
of reason, nor would he recommend cunning and dissimulation to beings who 
are acquiring, in like manner as himself, the virtues of humanity.

Surely there can be but one rule of right, if morality has an eternal 
foundation, and whoever sacrifices virtue, strictly so called, to present 
convenience, or whose duty it is to act in such a manner, lives only for 
the passing day, and cannot be an accountable creature.

The poet then should have dropped his sneer when he says,

"If weak women go astray,
 The stars are more in fault than they."

For that they are bound by the adamantine chain of destiny is most 
certain, if it be proved that they are never to exercise their own reason, 
never to be independent, never to rise above opinion, or to feel the 
dignity of a rational will that only bows to God, and often forgets that 
the universe contains any being but itself and the model of perfection to 
which its ardent gaze is turned, to adore attributes that, softened into 
virtues, may be imitated in kind, though the degree overwhelms the 
enraptured mind.

If, I say, for I would not impress by declamation when Reason offers her 
sober light, if they are really capable of acting like rational creatures, 
let them not be treated like slaves; or, like the brutes who are dependent 
on the reason of man, when they associate with him; but cultivate their 
minds, give them the salutary, sublime curb of principle, and let them 
attain conscious dignity by feeling themselves only dependent on God. 
Teach them, in common with man, to submit to necessity, instead of giving, 
to render them more pleasing, a sex to morals.

Further, should experience prove that they cannot attain the same degree 
of strength of mind, perseverence, and fortitude, let their virtues be the 
same in kind, though they may vainly struggle for the same degree; and the 
superiority of man will be equally clear, if not clearer; and truth, as it 
is a simple principle, which admits of no modification, would be common to 
both. Nay, the order of society as it is at present regulated would not be 
inverted, for woman would then only have the rank that reason assigned 
her, and arts could not be practised to bring the balance even, much less 
to turn it.

These may be termed Utopian dreams. -- Thanks to that Being who impressed 
them on my soul, and gave me sufficient strength of mind to dare to exert 
my own reason, till, becoming dependent only on him for the support of my 
virtue, I view, with indignation, the mistaken notions that enslave my sex.

I love man as my fellow; but his scepter, real, or usurped, extends not to 
me, unless the reason of an individual demands my homage; and even then 
the submission is to reason, and not to man. In fact, the conduct of an 
accountable being must be regulated by the operations of its own reason; 
or on what foundation rests the throne of God?

It appears to me necessary to dwell on these obvious truths, because 
females have been insulated, as it were; and, while they have been 
stripped of the virtues that should clothe humanity, they have been decked 
with artificial graces that enable them to exercise a short-lived tyranny. 
Love, in their bosoms, taking place of every nobler passion, their sole 
ambition is to be fair, to raise emotion instead of inspiring respect; and 
this ignoble desire, like the servility in absolute monarchies, destroys 
all strength of character. Liberty is the mother of virtue, and if women 
are, by their very constitution, slaves, and not allowed to breathe the 
sharp invigorating air of freedom, they must ever languish like exotics, 
and be reckoned beautiful flaws in nature; -- let it also be remembered, 
that they are the only flaw.

As to the argument respecting the subjection in which the sex has ever 
been held, it retorts on man. The many have always been enthralled by the 
few; and monsters, who scarcely have shewn any discernment of human 
excellence, have tyrannized over thousands of their fellow creatures. Why 
have men of superior endowments submitted to such degradation? For, is it 
not universally acknowledged that kings, viewed collectively, have ever 
been inferior, in abilities and virtue, to the same number of men taken 
from the common mass of mankind -- yet, have they not, and are they not 
still treated with a degree of reverence that is an insult to reason; 
China is not the only country where a living man has been made a God. Men 
have submitted to superior strength to enjoy with impunity the pleasure of 
the moment -- women have only done the same, and therefore till it is 
proved that the courtier, who servilely resigns the birthright of a man, 
is not a moral agent, it cannot be demonstrated that woman is essentially 
inferior to man because she has always been subjugated.

Brutal force has hitherto governed the world, and that the science of 
politics is in its infancy, is evident from philosophers scrupling to give 
the knowledge most useful to man that determinate distinction.

I shall not pursue this argument any further than to establish an obvious 
inference, that as sound politics diffuse liberty, mankind, including 
woman, will become more wise and virtuous.

(1. Why should women be censured with petulent acrimony, because they seem 
to have a passion for a scarlet coat? Has not education placed them more 
on a level with soldiers than any other class of men?)

(2. Similar feelings has Milton's pleasing picture of paradisiacal 
happiness ever raised in my mind; yet, instead of envying the lovely pair, 
I have, with conscious dignity, or Satanic pride, turned to hell for 
sublimer objects. In the same style, when viewing some noble monument of 
human art, I have traced the emanation of the Deity in the order I 
admired, till, descending from that giddy height, I have caught myself 
contemplating the grandest of all human sights; -- for fancy quickly 
placed, in some solitary recess, an outcast of fortune, rising superior to 
passion and discontent.)

(3. For example, the herd of novelists.)

(4. Vide Rousseau, and Swedenborg.)