Follies Caused by Women's Ignorance and the Moral Benefits of Changing Their Behavior

There are many follies, in some degree, peculiar to women: sins against reason, of commission, as well as of omission; but all flowing from ignorance or prejudice, I shall only point out such as appear to be injurious to their moral character. And in animadverting on them, I wish especially to prove, that the weakness of mind and body, which men have endeavoured by various motives to perpetuate, prevents their discharging the peculiar duty of their sex: for when weakness of body will not permit them to suckle their children, and weakness of mind makes them spoil their tempers—is woman in a natural state?

Many follies are, to some degree, peculiar to women. These include actions and failures to act that offend reason. But all arise from ignorance or prejudice, so I will point out only those that seem harmful to women's moral character. In criticizing these follies, I especially want to show how weakness of mind and body prevents women from fulfilling the particular duty of their sex. Men have sought to perpetuate this weakness for various reasons. But when physical weakness prevents women from nursing their children, and mental weakness leads them to spoil their children's tempers, are women in a natural state?

One glaring instance of the weakness which proceeds from ignorance, first claims attention, and calls for severe reproof.

One glaring example of the weakness caused by ignorance deserves attention first and calls for severe criticism.

In this metropolis a number of lurking leeches infamously gain a subsistence by practising on the credulity of women, pretending to cast nativities, to use the technical phrase; and many females who, proud of their rank and fortune, look down on the vulgar with sovereign contempt, show by this credulity, that the distinction is arbitrary, and that they have not sufficiently cultivated their minds to rise above vulgar prejudices. Women, because they have not been led to consider the knowledge of their duty as the one thing necessary to know, or, to live in the present moment by the discharge of it, are very anxious to peep into futurity, to learn what they have to expect to render life interesting, and to break the vacuum of ignorance. I must be allowed to expostulate seriously with the ladies, who follow these idle inventions; for ladies, mistresses of families, are not ashamed to drive in their own carriages to the door of the cunning man. And if any of them should peruse this work, I entreat them to answer to their own hearts the following questions, not forgetting that they are in the presence of God.

In this city, many lurking leeches disgracefully make a living by exploiting women’s gullibility. They pretend to cast horoscopes, to use the technical term. Many women who are proud of their rank and wealth look down on ordinary people with utter contempt. Yet their gullibility shows that the distinction is arbitrary. It also shows that they have not developed their minds enough to rise above common prejudices. Women have not been taught that knowing their duty is the one thing they need to know. Nor have they been taught to live in the present by fulfilling that duty. As a result, they are eager to glimpse the future and learn what awaits them. They hope to make life interesting and fill the emptiness of ignorance. I must be allowed to speak seriously to the ladies who follow these idle practices. Ladies who run households are not ashamed to drive in their own carriages to a fortune-teller’s door. If any of them read this work, I beg them to answer the following questions honestly. Let them not forget that they are in the presence of God.

Do you believe that there is but one God, and that he is powerful, wise, and good?

Do you believe there is only one God, and that he is powerful, wise, and good?

Do you believe that all things were created by him, and that all beings are dependent on him?

Do you believe that he created all things and that all beings depend on him?

Do you rely on his wisdom, so conspicuous in his works, and in your own frame, and are you convinced, that he has ordered all things which do not come under the cognizance of your senses, in the same perfect harmony, to fulfil his designs?

Do you trust his wisdom, which is so clear in his works and in your own body? And are you convinced that he has arranged all things beyond your senses in the same perfect harmony to fulfill his designs?

Do you acknowledge that the power of looking into futurity and seeing things that are not, as if they were, is an attribute of the Creator? And should he, by an impression on the minds of his creatures, think fit to impart to them some event hid in the shades of time, yet unborn, to whom would the secret be revealed by immediate inspiration? The opinion of ages will answer this question—to reverend old men, to people distinguished for eminent piety.

Do you acknowledge that the Creator can look into the future and see things that do not yet exist as if they did? Suppose he chooses to reveal a future event by impressing it on the minds of his creatures. To whom would he reveal the secret through direct inspiration? The opinion of ages answers this question: to respected old men, to people known for their exceptional piety.

The oracles of old were thus delivered by priests dedicated to the service of the God, who was supposed to inspire them. The glare of worldly pomp which surrounded these impostors, and the respect paid to them by artful politicians, who knew how to avail themselves of this useful engine to bend the necks of the strong under the dominion of the cunning, spread a sacred mysterious veil of sanctity over their lies and abominations. Impressed by such solemn devotional parade, a Greek or Roman lady might be excused, if she inquired of the oracle, when she was anxious to pry into futurity, or inquire about some dubious event: and her inquiries, however contrary to reason, could not be reckoned impious. But, can the professors of Christianity ward off that imputation? Can a Christian suppose, that the favourites of the most High, the highly favoured would be obliged to lurk in disguise, and practise the most dishonest tricks to cheat silly women out of the money, which the poor cry for in vain?

In ancient times, oracles were delivered by priests devoted to the god who was believed to inspire them. These impostors were surrounded by a dazzling display of worldly grandeur. Cunning politicians also showed them respect. These politicians knew how to use the oracles to bring the strong under the control of the cunning. Together, the grandeur and respect covered the priests’ lies and abominations with a sacred, mysterious veil of holiness. A Greek or Roman lady might be impressed by such a solemn religious display. If she consulted the oracle to learn about the future or an uncertain event, she might be excused. However unreasonable her questions were, they could not be considered impious. But can people who profess Christianity escape that accusation? Can a Christian suppose that those most favored by the Most High would have to hide in disguise? Would they have to use the most dishonest tricks to cheat silly women out of money that the poor beg for in vain?

Say not that such questions are an insult to common sense for it is your own conduct, O ye foolish women! which throws an odium on your sex! And these reflections should make you shudder at your thoughtlessness, and irrational devotion, for I do not suppose that all of you laid aside your religion, such as it is, when you entered those mysterious dwellings. Yet, as I have throughout supposed myself talking to ignorant women, for ignorant ye are in the most emphatical sense of the word, it would be absurd to reason with you on the egregious folly of desiring to know what the Supreme Wisdom has concealed.

Do not say that such questions insult common sense. Foolish women, it is your own behavior that brings disgrace on your sex! These thoughts should make you shudder at your thoughtlessness and irrational devotion. For I do not suppose that all of you set aside your religion, such as it is, when you entered those mysterious dwellings. Yet I have assumed throughout that I am speaking to ignorant women. For you are ignorant in the strongest sense of the word. So it would be absurd to reason with you about the outrageous folly of wanting to know what Supreme Wisdom has concealed.

Probably you would not understand me, were I to attempt to show you that it would be absolutely inconsistent with the grand purpose of life, that of rendering human creatures wise and virtuous: and that, were it sanctioned by God, it would disturb the order established in creation; and if it be not sanctioned by God, do you expect to hear truth? Can events be foretold, events which have not yet assumed a body to become subject to mortal inspection, can they be foreseen by a vicious worldling, who pampers his appetites by preying on the foolish ones?

You probably would not understand me if I tried to show you that it would be completely inconsistent with life's great purpose. That purpose is to make human beings wise and virtuous. And if God approved of it, it would disturb the order he established in creation. If God does not approve of it, do you expect to hear the truth? Can events be predicted before they have taken shape and become open to human observation? Can a wicked, worldly person foresee them while satisfying his appetites by preying on the foolish?

Perhaps, however, you devoutly believe in the devil, and imagine, to shift the question, that he may assist his votaries? but if really respecting the power of such a being, an enemy to goodness and to God, can you go to church after having been under such an obligation to him. From these delusions to those still more fashionable deceptions, practised by the whole tribe of magnetisers, the transition is very natural. With respect to them, it is equally proper to ask women a few questions.

Perhaps, however, you devoutly believe in the devil and, to shift the question, imagine that he may help his followers. But if you really believe in the power of such a being, an enemy of goodness and of God, can you go to church after accepting his help? From these delusions, it is a very natural step to the even more fashionable deceptions practiced by the whole tribe of magnetizers. It is equally fitting to ask women a few questions about them.

Do you know any thing of the construction of the human frame? If not, it is proper that you should be told, what every child ought to know, that when its admirable economy has been disturbed by intemperance or indolence, I speak not of violent disorders, but of chronical diseases, it must be brought into a healthy state again by slow degrees, and if the functions of life have not been materially injured, regimen, another word for temperance, air, exercise, and a few medicines prescribed by persons who have studied the human body, are the only human means, yet discovered, of recovering that inestimable blessing health, that will bear investigation.

Do you know anything about how the human body works? If not, you should be told what every child ought to know. When excess or inactivity has disrupted the body’s admirable functioning, it must be restored to health gradually. I am speaking of chronic diseases, not severe illnesses. And if the vital functions have not been seriously damaged, only certain human means of recovering health, that priceless blessing, have been discovered that can stand up to scrutiny. These are a regimen, another word for moderation, fresh air, exercise, and a few medicines prescribed by people who have studied the human body.

Do you then believe, that these magnetisers, who, by hocus pocus tricks, pretend, to work a miracle, are delegated by God, or assisted by the solver of all these kind of difficulties—the devil.

Do you believe these magnetisers are sent by God or helped by the devil? They claim to work miracles with hocus-pocus tricks. And the devil, of course, explains away all such difficulties.

Do they, when they put to flight, as it is said, disorders that have baffled the powers of medicine, work in conformity to the light of reason? Or do they effect these wonderful cures by supernatural aid?

They are said to cure illnesses that medicine has failed to treat. When they do so, are they acting according to reason? Or do they achieve these wonderful cures with supernatural help?

By a communication, an adept may answer, with the world of spirits. A noble privilege, it must be allowed. Some of the ancients mention familiar demons, who guarded them from danger, by kindly intimating (we cannot guess in what manner,) when any danger was nigh; or pointed out what they ought to undertake. Yet the men who laid claim to this privilege, out of the order of nature, insisted, that it was the reward or consequence of superior temperance and piety. But the present workers of wonders are not raised above their fellows by superior temperance or sanctity. They do not cure for the love of God, but money. These are the priests of quackery, though it be true they have not the convenient expedient of selling masses for souls in purgatory, nor churches, where they can display crutches, and models of limbs made sound by a touch or a word.

An adept may answer that they communicate with the world of spirits. A noble privilege, one must admit. Some ancient writers mention familiar demons who protected them from danger. These demons kindly warned them when danger was near, though we cannot guess how. They also pointed out what the writers should undertake. Yet the men who claimed this privilege, outside the natural order, insisted that it rewarded or resulted from exceptional temperance and piety. But today’s wonder workers do not rise above their fellows through greater temperance or holiness. They do not heal for the love of God, but for money. These are the priests of quackery. It is true, though, that they cannot resort to selling masses for souls in purgatory. Nor do they have churches where they can display crutches and models of limbs healed by a touch or a word.

I am not conversant with the technical terms, nor initiated into the arcana, therefore I may speak improperly; but it is clear, that men who will not conform to the law of reason, and earn a subsistence in an honest way, by degrees, are very fortunate in becoming acquainted with such obliging spirits. We cannot, indeed, give them credit for either great sagacity or goodness, else they would have chosen more noble instruments, when they wished to show themselves the benevolent friends of man.

I do not know the technical terms or the mysteries of the subject, so I may speak incorrectly. But clearly, men who will not follow reason and gradually earn an honest living are very fortunate to meet such helpful spirits. We cannot, however, credit these spirits with much wisdom or goodness. Otherwise, when they wished to show themselves as generous friends of humanity, they would have chosen nobler agents.

It is, however, little short of blasphemy to pretend to such power.

However, claiming to have such power is almost blasphemy.

From the whole tenor of the dispensations of Providence, it appears evident to sober reason, that certain vices produce certain effects: and can any one so grossly insult the wisdom of God, as to suppose, that a miracle will be allowed to disturb his general laws, to restore to health the intemperate and vicious, merely to enable them to pursue the same course with impunity? Be whole, and sin no more, said Jesus. And are greater miracles to be performed by those who do not follow his footsteps, who healed the body to reach the mind?

The whole course of Providence makes it clear to any reasonable person that certain vices have certain consequences. Can anyone so grossly insult God’s wisdom as to suppose he would allow a miracle to disrupt his general laws? Would he restore the intemperate and vicious to health merely so they could continue in the same way without consequences? “Be healed, and sin no more,” said Jesus. Are greater miracles to be performed by those who do not follow in his footsteps? He healed the body to reach the mind.

The mentioning of the name of Christ, after such vile impostors may displease some of my readers—I respect their warmth; but let them not forget, that the followers of these delusions bear his name, and profess to be the disciples of him, who said, by their works we should know who were the children of God or the servants of sin. I allow that it is easier to touch the body of a saint, or to be magnetised, than to restrain our appetites or govern our passions; but health of body or mind can only be recovered by these means, or we make the Supreme Judge partial and revengeful.

Mentioning Christ after such vile frauds may offend some of my readers. I respect their strong feelings. But they should not forget that the followers of these delusions bear his name and claim to be his disciples. He said that we would know by their actions who were children of God and who were servants of sin. I admit that touching a saint’s body or being magnetized is easier than restraining our appetites or controlling our passions. But we can recover the health of body or mind only by restraining our appetites and controlling our passions. Otherwise, we make the Supreme Judge partial and vengeful.

Is he a man, that he should change, or punish out of resentment? He—the common father, wounds but to heal, says reason, and our irregularities producing certain consequences, we are forcibly shown the nature of vice; that thus learning to know good from evil, by experience, we may hate one and love the other, in proportion to the wisdom which we attain. The poison contains the antidote; and we either reform our evil habits, and cease to sin against our own bodies, to use the forcible language of scripture, or a premature death, the punishment of sin, snaps the thread of life.

Is he a man, that he should change or punish out of resentment? Reason tells us that he, the common father, wounds only to heal. Our wrong actions have certain consequences, which force us to see the nature of vice. By learning through experience to distinguish good from evil, we may hate one and love the other, as we grow wiser. The poison contains its own antidote. We either reform our evil habits and stop sinning against our own bodies, to use the forceful language of scripture, or premature death, the punishment for sin, cuts short our lives.

Here an awful stop is put to our inquiries. But, why should I conceal my sentiments? Considering the attributes of God, I believe, that whatever punishment may follow, will tend, like the anguish of disease, to show the malignity of vice, for the purpose of reformation. Positive punishment appears so contrary to the nature of God, discoverable in all his works, and in our own reason, that I could sooner believe that the Deity paid no attention to the conduct of men, than that he punished without the benevolent design of reforming.

Here our inquiry comes to a troubling halt. But why should I hide what I think? Considering God’s nature, I believe that whatever punishment may follow will reveal the evil of vice. Like the pain of disease, it will do so to bring about reform. Punishment for its own sake seems so contrary to God’s nature as revealed in all his works and in our own reason. I would sooner believe that God paid no attention to human conduct than that he punished without the benevolent purpose of reforming people.

To suppose only, that an all-wise and powerful Being, as good as he is great, should create a being, foreseeing, that after fifty or sixty years of feverish existence, it would be plunged into never ending woe—is blasphemy. On what will the worm feed that is never to die? On folly, on ignorance, say ye—I should blush indignantly at drawing the natural conclusion, could I insert it, and wish to withdraw myself from the wing of my God! On such a supposition, I speak with reverence, he would be a consuming fire. We should wish, though vainly, to fly from his presence when fear absorbed love, and darkness involved all his counsels.

It is blasphemy even to suppose that an all-wise, all-powerful Being, as good as he is great, would create a being while foreseeing its fate. After fifty or sixty years of feverish life, that being would be plunged into endless misery. What will the worm that never dies feed on? Folly and ignorance, you say. I would blush with indignation at drawing the natural conclusion, if I could bring myself to state it. And I would wish to withdraw from the shelter of my God! On such a supposition, I say with reverence, he would be a consuming fire. We would wish, though in vain, to flee his presence. Fear would swallow up love, and darkness would obscure all his plans.

I know that many devout people boast of submitting to the Will of God blindly, as to an arbitrary sceptre or rod, on the same principle as the Indians worship the devil. In other words, like people in the common concerns of life, they do homage to power, and cringe under the foot that can crush them. Rational religion, on the contrary, is a submission to the will of a being so perfectly wise, that all he wills must be directed by the proper motive—must be reasonable.

I know that many devout people boast that they blindly submit to the will of God, as if it were an arbitrary show of power. They do so on the same principle that Indians worship the devil. In other words, they are like people in everyday life who bow to power and cower beneath the foot that can crush them. Rational religion, by contrast, means submitting to the will of a being who is perfectly wise. Everything he wills must therefore be guided by the right motive and must be reasonable.

And, if thus we respect God, can we give credit to the mysterious insinuations which insult his laws? Can we believe, though it should stare us in the face, that he would work a miracle to authorize confusion by sanctioning an error? Yet we must either allow these impious conclusions, or treat with contempt every promise to restore health to a diseased body by supernatural means, or to foretell, the incidents that can only be foreseen by God.

And if we respect God in this way, can we believe mysterious claims that insult his laws? Even if we saw it with our own eyes, could we believe that he would perform a miracle to endorse an error and thereby cause confusion? Yet we must either accept these impious conclusions or treat every such promise with contempt. These include promises to restore a diseased body to health by supernatural means or to predict events that only God can foresee.

Another instance of that feminine weakness of character, often produced by a confined education, is a romantic twist of the mind, which has been very properly termed SENTIMENTAL.

Another example of feminine weakness of character is a romantic turn of mind, rightly called SENTIMENTAL. A restricted education often produces this weakness.

Women, subjected by ignorance to their sensations, and only taught to look for happiness in love, refine on sensual feelings, and adopt metaphysical notions respecting that passion, which lead them shamefully to neglect the duties of life, and frequently in the midst of these sublime refinements they plunge into actual vice.

Ignorance leaves women at the mercy of their feelings, and they are taught to seek happiness only in love. As a result, they dwell on sensual feelings and develop abstract ideas about love. These ideas lead them to shamefully neglect the duties of life. Often, while absorbed in these lofty ideas, they plunge into actual vice.

These are the women who are amused by the reveries of the stupid novelists, who, knowing little of human nature, work up stale tales, and describe meretricious scenes, all retailed in a sentimental jargon, which equally tend to corrupt the taste, and draw the heart aside from its daily duties. I do not mention the understanding, because never having been exercised, its slumbering energies rest inactive, like the lurking particles of fire which are supposed universally to pervade matter.

These are the women who are entertained by the fantasies of stupid novelists. These writers know little about human nature. They rework stale stories and describe flashy, tawdry scenes, all in sentimental jargon. These stories and scenes corrupt women’s taste and distract their hearts from their daily duties. I do not mention their intellect, because it has never been exercised. Its dormant powers remain inactive, like the hidden particles of fire thought to exist throughout all matter.

Females, in fact, denied all political privileges, and not allowed, as married women, excepting in criminal cases, a civil existence, have their attention naturally drawn from the interest of the whole community to that of the minute parts, though the private duty of any member of society must be very imperfectly performed, when not connected with the general good. The mighty business of female life is to please, and, restrained from entering into more important concerns by political and civil oppression, sentiments become events, and reflection deepens what it should, and would have effaced, if the understanding had been allowed to take a wider range.

Women are denied all political rights. As married women, they have no legal standing, except in criminal cases. Their attention is therefore naturally drawn away from the interests of the whole community and toward those of its smallest parts. Yet any member of society must perform private duties very imperfectly when those duties are not connected to the general good. The great task of a woman’s life is to please. Political and civil oppression keep women from taking part in more important matters. As a result, feelings become events, and reflection deepens feelings that it should erase. It would erase them if women’s minds were allowed a wider range.

But, confined to trifling employments, they naturally imbibe opinions which the only kind of reading calculated to interest an innocent frivolous mind, inspires. Unable to grasp any thing great, is it surprising that they find the reading of history a very dry task, and disquisitions addressed to the understanding, intolerably tedious, and almost unintelligible? Thus are they necessarily dependent on the novelist for amusement. Yet, when I exclaim against novels, I mean when contrasted with those works which exercise the understanding and regulate the imagination. For any kind of reading I think better than leaving a blank still a blank, because the mind must receive a degree of enlargement, and obtain a little strength by a slight exertion of its thinking powers; besides, even the productions that are only addressed to the imagination, raise the reader a little above the gross gratification of appetites, to which the mind has not given a shade of delicacy.

But when women are confined to trivial occupations, they naturally absorb the opinions inspired by their reading. That reading is the only kind likely to interest an innocent, frivolous mind. Unable to grasp anything great, is it surprising that they find history very dry? Or that they find works addressed to their understanding unbearably dull and almost impossible to understand? So they must depend on novelists for entertainment. Yet when I criticize novels, I mean in comparison with works that exercise the understanding and guide the imagination. I think any kind of reading is better than leaving an empty mind empty. Even a slight exercise of the thinking powers must broaden the mind somewhat and give it a little strength. Besides, even works that appeal only to the imagination lift readers a little above the crude satisfaction of appetites. In such satisfaction, the mind has added no touch of refinement.

This observation is the result of experience; for I have known several notable women, and one in particular, who was a very good woman—as good as such a narrow mind would allow her to be, who took care that her daughters (three in number) should never see a novel. As she was a woman of fortune and fashion, they had various masters to attend them, and a sort of menial governess to watch their footsteps. From their masters they learned how tables, chairs, etc. were called in French and Italian; but as the few books thrown in their way were far above their capacities, or devotional, they neither acquired ideas nor sentiments, and passed their time, when not compelled to repeat WORDS, in dressing, quarrelling with each other, or conversing with their maids by stealth, till they were brought into company as marriageable.

This observation comes from experience. I have known several capable household managers, and one woman in particular. She was a very good woman, as good as her narrow mind allowed her to be. She made sure her three daughters never saw a novel. Because she was wealthy and fashionable, various tutors taught them, and a governess treated like a servant watched their every step. From their tutors, they learned the French and Italian words for tables, chairs, and so on. But the few books made available to them were either far beyond their understanding or religious works. So they gained neither ideas nor feelings. When they were not forced to repeat WORDS, they spent their time dressing, quarrelling with one another, or secretly talking with their maids. This continued until they were introduced into society as young women ready for marriage.

Their mother, a widow, was busy in the mean time in keeping up her connexions, as she termed a numerous acquaintance lest her girls should want a proper introduction into the great world. And these young ladies, with minds vulgar in every sense of the word, and spoiled tempers, entered life puffed up with notions of their own consequence, and looking down with contempt on those who could not vie with them in dress and parade.

Meanwhile, their mother, a widow, was busy maintaining her “connections,” as she called her many acquaintances. She wanted to make sure her daughters had the right introduction to high society. And these young ladies entered adult life with minds that were vulgar in every sense of the word and spoiled tempers. They were full of their own importance and looked down on those who could not match their fine clothes and showy display.

With respect to love, nature, or their nurses, had taken care to teach them the physical meaning of the word; and, as they had few topics of conversation, and fewer refinements of sentiment, they expressed their gross wishes not in very delicate phrases, when they spoke freely, talking of matrimony.

As for love, nature or their nurses had taught them what the word meant physically. They had few topics of conversation and even less refinement of feeling. So, when they spoke freely about marriage, they expressed their crude desires in less than delicate language.

Could these girls have been injured by the perusal of novels? I almost forgot a shade in the character of one of them; she affected a simplicity bordering on folly, and with a simper would utter the most immodest remarks and questions, the full meaning of which she had learned whilst secluded from the world, and afraid to speak in her mother's presence, who governed with a high hand; they were all educated, as she prided herself, in a most exemplary manner; and read their chapters and psalms before breakfast, never touching a silly novel.

Could reading novels have harmed these girls? I almost forgot one detail about one of them. She pretended to be so innocent that she seemed almost foolish. Yet, with a simper, she would make the most improper remarks and ask the most improper questions. She had learned their full meaning while sheltered from the world and afraid to speak in her mother's presence. Her mother ruled with a heavy hand. The mother prided herself on having given all the girls a most exemplary education. They read chapters of the Bible and psalms before breakfast and never touched a silly novel.

This is only one instance; but I recollect many other women who, not led by degrees to proper studies, and not permitted to choose for themselves, have indeed been overgrown children; or have obtained, by mixing in the world, a little of what is termed common sense; that is, a distinct manner of seeing common occurrences, as they stand detached: but what deserves the name of intellect, the power of gaining general or abstract ideas, or even intermediate ones, was out of the question. Their minds were quiescent, and when they were not roused by sensible objects and employments of that kind, they were low-spirited, would cry, or go to sleep.

This is only one example, but I remember many other women who were not gradually introduced to proper studies or allowed to choose for themselves. They really were grown-up children. Or, by mixing with others in the world, they acquired a little of what is called common sense. That is, they learned to see ordinary events clearly, but only as separate occurrences. What deserves to be called intellect was out of the question. They could not form general or abstract ideas, or even ideas between the particular and the abstract. Their minds were inactive, and when they were not stirred by things they could sense or by activities of that kind, they were low-spirited. They would cry or go to sleep.

When, therefore, I advise my sex not to read such flimsy works, it is to induce them to read something superior; for I coincide in opinion with a sagacious man, who, having a daughter and niece under his care, pursued a very different plan with each.

So when I advise women not to read such shallow works, I do so to encourage them to read something better. I agree with a wise man who had a daughter and a niece in his care. He took a very different approach with each of them.

The niece, who had considerable abilities, had, before she was left to his guardianship, been indulged in desultory reading. Her he endeavoured to lead, and did lead, to history and moral essays; but his daughter whom a fond weak mother had indulged, and who consequently was averse to every thing like application, he allowed to read novels; and used to justify his conduct by saying, that if she ever attained a relish for reading them, he should have some foundation to work upon; and that erroneous opinions were better than none at all.

The niece was very capable. Before she was placed under his guardianship, she had been allowed to read whatever caught her interest. He tried to guide her toward history and essays on morality, and he succeeded. But his daughter had been indulged by a loving, weak mother. As a result, she disliked anything that required sustained effort, so he allowed her to read novels. He used to justify this by saying that if she ever developed a taste for novels, he would have some foundation to work on. He also said that mistaken opinions were better than none at all.

In fact, the female mind has been so totally neglected, that knowledge was only to be acquired from this muddy source, till from reading novels some women of superior talents learned to despise them.

In fact, women's minds had been so completely neglected that they could gain knowledge only from this muddy source. But by reading novels, some exceptionally talented women learned to despise them.

The best method, I believe, that can be adopted to correct a fondness for novels is to ridicule them; not indiscriminately, for then it would have little effect; but, if a judicious person, with some turn for humour, would read several to a young girl, and point out, both by tones and apt comparisons with pathetic incidents and heroic characters in history, how foolishly and ridiculously they caricatured human nature, just opinions might be substituted instead of romantic sentiments.

I believe the best way to correct a fondness for novels is to make fun of them. But this should not be done indiscriminately, because that would have little effect. Instead, a sensible person with a sense of humor might read several novels to a young girl. Through their tone of voice and fitting comparisons with moving events and heroic figures in history, they could show her how foolishly and ridiculously the novels distort human nature. In this way, sound judgments might replace romantic sentiments.

In one respect, however, the majority of both sexes resemble, and equally show a want of taste and modesty. Ignorant women, forced to be chaste to preserve their reputation, allow their imagination to revel in the unnatural and meretricious scenes sketched by the novel writers of the day, slighting as insipid the sober dignity and matronly grace of history,* whilst men carry the same vitiated taste into life, and fly for amusement to the wanton, from the unsophisticated charms of virtue, and the grave respectability of sense.

In one respect, however, most men and women are alike. Both equally show a lack of taste and modesty. Ignorant women are forced to remain chaste to protect their reputations. Yet they let their imaginations revel in the unnatural and tawdry scenes described by contemporary novelists. They dismiss the sober dignity and mature grace of history* as dull. Men bring the same corrupted taste into their lives. For amusement, they turn away from the unaffected charms of virtue and the serious respectability of good sense. Instead, they seek out sexually unrestrained women.

(*Footnote. I am not now alluding to that superiority of mind which leads to the creation of ideal beauty, when life surveyed with a penetrating eye, appears a tragi-comedy, in which little can be seen to satisfy the heart without the help of fancy.)

(*Footnote. I am not referring here to the superior mind that creates ideal beauty. This happens when a penetrating look at life reveals it as a tragicomedy. In that tragicomedy, little can be seen to satisfy the heart without the help of imagination.)

Besides, the reading of novels makes women, and particularly ladies of fashion, very fond of using strong expressions and superlatives in conversation; and, though the dissipated artificial life which they lead prevents their cherishing any strong legitimate passion, the language of passion in affected tones slips for ever from their glib tongues, and every trifle produces those phosphoric bursts which only mimick in the dark the flame of passion.

Besides, reading novels makes women, especially fashionable ladies, very fond of using strong expressions and superlatives in conversation. Their frivolous, artificial lives prevent them from feeling any strong, genuine passion. Yet the language of passion constantly slips from their glib tongues in affected tones. Every trifle produces these phosphorescent bursts, which only imitate the flame of passion in the dark.

Ignorance and the mistaken cunning that nature sharpens in weak heads, as a principle of self-preservation, render women very fond of dress, and produce all the vanity which such a fondness may naturally be expected to generate, to the exclusion of emulation and magnanimity.

Ignorance and misguided cunning make women very fond of dress. Nature sharpens this cunning in weak minds as a means of self-preservation. Fondness for dress produces all the vanity one might naturally expect, leaving no room for ambition or generosity of spirit.

I agree with Rousseau, that the physical part of the art of pleasing consists in ornaments, and for that very reason I should guard girls against the contagious fondness for dress so common to weak women, that they may not rest in the physical part. Yet, weak are the women who imagine that they can long please without the aid of the mind; or, in other words, without the moral art of pleasing. But the moral art, if it be not a profanation to use the word art, when alluding to the grace which is an effect of virtue, and not the motive of action, is never to be found with ignorance; the sportiveness of innocence, so pleasing to refined libertines of both sexes, is widely different in its essence from this superior gracefulness.

I agree with Rousseau that the physical side of pleasing others consists in adornment. For that very reason, I would warn girls against the infectious love of dress so common among weak women. They should not stop at the physical side. Yet women who imagine they can please others for long without the help of their minds are weak. In other words, they need the moral art of pleasing. But I hesitate to call it an art. The grace I mean comes from virtue, rather than being the motive for virtuous action. This moral art is never found alongside ignorance. Innocent playfulness is very pleasing to sophisticated libertines of both sexes. But it is fundamentally different from this higher kind of grace.

A strong inclination for external ornaments ever appears in barbarous states, only the men not the women adorn themselves; for where women are allowed to be so far on a level with men, society has advanced at least one step in civilization.

In barbaric societies, people always have a strong desire for personal adornment, but only men adorn themselves. For where women are allowed even this much equality with men, society has taken at least one step toward civilization.

The attention to dress, therefore, which has been thought a sexual propensity, I think natural to mankind. But I ought to express myself with more precision. When the mind is not sufficiently opened to take pleasure in reflection, the body will be adorned with sedulous care; and ambition will appear in tattooing or painting it.

I think that attention to dress, which has been considered a female trait, is natural to all people. But I should be more precise. When the mind is not sufficiently developed to enjoy reflection, the body will be adorned with great care. And ambition will show itself in tattooing or painting the body.

So far is the first inclination carried, that even the hellish yoke of slavery cannot stifle the savage desire of admiration which the black heroes inherit from both their parents, for all the hardly-earned savings of a slave are commonly expended in a little tawdry finery. And I have seldom known a good male or female servant that was not particularly fond of dress. Their clothes were their riches; and I argue from analogy, that the fondness for dress, so extravagant in females, arises from the same cause—want of cultivation of mind. When men meet they converse about business, politics, or literature; but, says Swift, "how naturally do women apply their hands to each others lappets and ruffles." And very natural it is—for they have not any business to interest them, have not a taste for literature, and they find politics dry, because they have not acquired a love for mankind by turning their thoughts to the grand pursuits that exalt the human race and promote general happiness.

This first impulse is so strong that even the hellish yoke of slavery cannot stifle the savage desire for admiration. Black heroes inherit this desire from both their parents. For a slave commonly spends all their hard-earned savings on a little gaudy finery. And I have seldom known a good servant, male or female, who was not especially fond of clothes. Their clothes were their wealth. By analogy, I argue that women's extravagant fondness for clothes arises from the same cause: a lack of mental cultivation. When men meet, they talk about business, politics, or literature. But, as Swift says, "how naturally do women apply their hands to each others lappets and ruffles." And this is very natural. Women have no business to interest them and no taste for literature. They find politics dry because they have not learned to love humanity. They have not turned their thoughts to the great pursuits that elevate the human race and promote happiness for all.

Besides, various are the paths to power and fame, which by accident or choice men pursue, and though they jostle against each other, for men of the same profession are seldom friends, yet there is a much greater number of their fellow-creatures with whom they never clash. But women are very differently situated with respect to each other—for they are all rivals.

Besides, men follow many paths to power and fame, whether by chance or choice. Men on these paths clash, and men in the same profession are seldom friends. Yet there are far more people with whom they never clash. Women are in a very different position with respect to one another, for they are all rivals.

Before marriage it is their business to please men; and after, with a few exceptions, they follow the same scent, with all the persevering pertinacity of instinct. Even virtuous women never forget their sex in company, for they are for ever trying to make themselves AGREEABLE. A female beauty and a male wit, appear to be equally anxious to draw the attention of the company to themselves; and the animosity of contemporary wits is proverbial.

Before marriage, their business is to please men. After marriage, with a few exceptions, they pursue the same goal with all the persistence of instinct. Even virtuous women never forget their sex in company, because they are always trying to make themselves AGREEABLE. A beautiful woman and a witty man seem equally eager to draw everyone’s attention to themselves. And the hostility between rival wits is well known.

Is it then surprising, that when the sole ambition of woman centres in beauty, and interest gives vanity additional force, perpetual rivalships should ensue? They are all running the same race, and would rise above the virtue of mortals if they did not view each other with a suspicious and even envious eye.

Is it surprising, then, that women are constantly rivals when their only ambition is beauty and self-interest strengthens their vanity? They are all running the same race. They would have to be more virtuous than ordinary mortals not to view one another with suspicion and even envy.

An immoderate fondness for dress, for pleasure and for sway, are the passions of savages; the passions that occupy those uncivilized beings who have not yet extended the dominion of the mind, or even learned to think with the energy necessary to concatenate that abstract train of thought which produces principles. And that women, from their education and the present state of civilized life, are in the same condition, cannot, I think, be controverted. To laugh at them then, or satirize the follies of a being who is never to be allowed to act freely from the light of her own reason, is as absurd as cruel; for that they who are taught blindly to obey authority, will endeavour cunningly to elude it, is most natural and certain.

An excessive love of dress, pleasure, and power is characteristic of savages. These passions occupy uncivilized people who have not yet developed their minds. They have not even learned to think with the energy needed to connect the abstract ideas that produce principles. I think it cannot be disputed that women are in the same condition because of their education and the present state of civilized life. It is therefore as absurd as it is cruel to laugh at women or mock their follies. Women are never allowed to act freely according to their own reason. And people who are taught to obey authority blindly will naturally and certainly try to evade it through cunning.

Yet let it be proved, that they ought to obey man implicitly, and I shall immediately agree that it is woman's duty to cultivate a fondness for dress, in order to please, and a propensity to cunning for her own preservation.

Yet if it can be proved that women should obey men without question, I will immediately agree. A woman must then learn to love dressing up to please men, and to be cunning to protect herself.

The virtues, however, which are supported by ignorance, must ever be wavering—the house built on sand could not endure a storm. It is almost unnecessary to draw the inference. If women are to be made virtuous by authority, which is a contradiction in terms, let them be immured in seraglios and watched with a jealous eye. Fear not that the iron will enter into their souls—for the souls that can bear such treatment are made of yielding materials, just animated enough to give life to the body.

Virtues supported by ignorance, however, must always be unstable. A house built on sand could not withstand a storm. The conclusion hardly needs to be spelled out. If women are to be made virtuous through control, which is a contradiction in terms, then lock them in harems and watch them jealously. Do not fear that such treatment will cause them deep suffering. Souls that can bear such treatment are made of pliable material, with just enough spirit to keep the body alive.

The most cruel wounds will of course soon heal, and they may still people the world, and dress to please man—all the purposes which certain celebrated writers have allowed that they were created to fill.

Even the cruelest wounds will of course soon heal, and women may still bear children and dress to please men. These are all the purposes that certain celebrated writers have said women were created to fulfill.

Women are supposed to possess more sensibility, and even humanity, than men, and their strong attachments and instantaneous emotions of compassion are given as proofs; but the clinging affection of ignorance has seldom any thing noble in it, and may mostly be resolved into selfishness, as well as the affection of children and brutes. I have known many weak women whose sensibility was entirely engrossed by their husbands; and as for their humanity, it was very faint indeed, or rather it was only a transient emotion of compassion, "Humanity does not consist in a squeamish ear," says an eminent orator. "It belongs to the mind as well as the nerves."

Women are thought to be more sensitive and even more humane than men. Their strong attachments and sudden feelings of compassion are offered as proof. But the clinging affection born of ignorance is seldom noble. Like the affection of children and animals, it can mostly be explained as selfishness. I have known many weak women whose husbands claimed all their sensitivity. As for their humanity, it was very faint indeed. It was really only a passing feeling of compassion. As a distinguished speaker says, "Humanity does not consist in an ear easily upset by suffering. It belongs to the mind as well as the nerves."

But this kind of exclusive affection, though it degrade the individual, should not be brought forward as a proof of the inferiority of the sex, because it is the natural consequence of confined views: for even women of superior sense, having their attention turned to little employments, and private plans, rarely rise to heroism, unless when spurred on by love; and love as an heroic passion, like genius, appears but once in an age. I therefore agree with the moralist who asserts, "that women have seldom so much generosity as men;" and that their narrow affections, to which justice and humanity are often sacrificed, render the sex apparently inferior, especially as they are commonly inspired by men; but I contend, that the heart would expand as the understanding gained strength, if women were not depressed from their cradles.

But although this kind of exclusive affection degrades the individual, it should not be taken as proof that women are inferior. It is the natural result of a limited outlook. Even women of superior intelligence rarely rise to heroism when their attention is directed toward small tasks and private plans, unless love spurs them on. And love as a heroic passion, like genius, appears only once in an age. I therefore agree with the moralist who says, "that women are seldom as generous as men." Their narrow affections often lead them to sacrifice justice and humanity, making women appear inferior, especially since men commonly inspire those affections. But I maintain that women's hearts would grow more generous as their understanding grew stronger, if they were not held down from infancy.

I know that a little sensibility and great weakness will produce a strong sexual attachment, and that reason must cement friendship; consequently I allow, that more friendship is to be found in the male than the female world, and that men have a higher sense of justice. The exclusive affections of women seem indeed to resemble Cato's most unjust love for his country. He wished to crush Carthage, not to save Rome, but to promote its vain glory; and in general, it is to similar principles that humanity is sacrificed, for genuine duties support each other.

I know that a little emotional sensitivity and great weakness can produce a strong sexual attachment. I also know that friendship must be held together by reason. So I admit that there is more friendship among men than among women, and that men have a stronger sense of justice. Women’s exclusive affections do seem to resemble Cato’s deeply unjust love for his country. He wanted to crush Carthage, not to save Rome, but to promote Rome’s empty glory. In general, humanity is sacrificed to similar motives, for genuine duties support one another.

Besides, how can women be just or generous, when they are the slaves of injustice.

Besides, how can women be fair or generous when they are slaves to injustice?

As the rearing of children, that is, the laying a foundation of sound health both of body and mind in the rising generation, has justly been insisted on as the peculiar destination of woman, the ignorance that incapacitates them must be contrary to the order of things. And I contend, that their minds can take in much more, and ought to do so, or they will never become sensible mothers. Many men attend to the breeding of horses, and overlook the management of the stable, who would, strange want of sense and feeling! think themselves degraded by paying any attention to the nursery; yet, how many children are absolutely murdered by the ignorance of women! But when they escape, and are neither destroyed by unnatural negligence nor blind fondness, how few are managed properly with respect to the infant mind! So that to break the spirit, allowed to become vicious at home, a child is sent to school; and the methods taken there, which must be taken to keep a number of children in order, scatter the seeds of almost every vice in the soil thus forcibly torn up.

Raising children has rightly been considered a woman’s special role. This means laying the foundation for sound physical and mental health in the next generation. So the ignorance that makes women unable to do this must be contrary to the natural order. I argue that women’s minds can take in much more, and should do so. Otherwise, they will never become sensible mothers. Many men pay attention to breeding horses and managing the stable. Yet they would think it beneath them to pay any attention to the nursery. What a strange lack of sense and feeling! And yet, how many children are actually killed by women’s ignorance! Even when children escape death from unnatural neglect or blind affection, how few have their young minds properly cared for! As a result, a child whose spirit has been allowed to become corrupt at home is sent to school to break that spirit. At school, the methods needed to keep many children in order scatter the seeds of nearly every vice in the soil so forcibly torn up.

I have sometimes compared the struggles of these poor children who ought never to have felt restraint, nor would, had they been always held in with an even hand, to the despairing plunges of a spirited filly, which I have seen breaking on a strand; its feet sinking deeper and deeper in the sand every time it endeavoured to throw its rider, till at last it sullenly submitted.

I have sometimes compared the struggles of these poor children to the desperate plunges of a spirited young mare. The children should never have felt restricted. They would not have felt that way if they had always been treated with a steady hand. I once saw such a mare being trained on a beach. Each time she tried to throw her rider, her feet sank deeper into the sand. At last, she sullenly gave in.

I have always found horses, an animal I am attached to, very tractable when treated with humanity and steadiness, so that I doubt whether the violent methods taken to break them, do not essentially injure them; I am, however, certain that a child should never be thus forcibly tamed after it has injudiciously been allowed to run wild; for every violation of justice and reason, in the treatment of children, weakens their reason. And, so early do they catch a character, that the base of the moral character, experience leads me to infer, is fixed before their seventh year, the period during which women are allowed the sole management of children. Afterwards it too often happens that half the business of education is to correct, and very imperfectly is it done, if done hastily, the faults, which they would never have acquired if their mothers had had more understanding.

I have always been fond of horses. I have found them very easy to handle when treated with kindness and consistency. So I doubt whether the violent methods used to break them do not seriously harm them. But I am certain that a child should never be forcibly tamed after being unwisely allowed to run wild. Every violation of justice and reason in the treatment of children weakens their ability to reason. Children develop a character so early that, in my experience, its moral foundation is fixed before their seventh year. During those years, women are given sole responsibility for children. Afterwards, it too often happens that half the work of education is correcting faults. Children would never have acquired those faults if their mothers had had more understanding. And if the correction is done hastily, it is done very imperfectly.

One striking instance of the folly of women must not be omitted. The manner in which they treat servants in the presence of children, permitting them to suppose, that they ought to wait on them, and bear their humours. A child should always be made to receive assistance from a man or woman as a favour; and, as the first lesson of independence, they should practically be taught, by the example of their mother, not to require that personal attendance which it is an insult to humanity to require, when in health; and instead of being led to assume airs of consequence, a sense of their own weakness should first make them feel the natural equality of man. Yet, how frequently have I indignantly heard servants imperiously called to put children to bed, and sent away again and again, because master or miss hung about mamma, to stay a little longer. Thus made slavishly to attend the little idol, all those most disgusting humours were exhibited which characterize a spoiled child.

One striking example of women’s foolishness must not be overlooked. They treat servants in front of children in a way that allows children to think servants should wait on them and put up with their moods. A child should always be taught to accept help from a man or woman as a favor. As a first lesson in independence, children should learn from their mother’s example not to demand personal service. When they are healthy, such demands are an insult to humanity. Instead of being encouraged to act important, children should first learn from their own weakness to feel the natural equality of human beings. Yet how often have I indignantly heard servants ordered to put children to bed, then sent away again and again. The young master or miss would cling to their mother, hoping to stay up a little longer. As servants were made to wait slavishly on the little idol, the child displayed all the most disgusting moods that characterize a spoiled child.

In short, speaking of the majority of mothers, they leave their children entirely to the care of servants: or, because they are their children, treat them as if they were little demi-gods, though I have always observed, that the women who thus idolize their children, seldom show common humanity to servants, or feel the least tenderness for any children but their own.

In short, most mothers leave their children entirely in the care of servants. Or they treat their children as if they were little demigods, simply because they are their own. Yet I have always observed that women who idolize their children this way seldom show common humanity to servants. They rarely feel the slightest tenderness for any children but their own.

It is, however, these exclusive affections, and an individual manner of seeing things, produced by ignorance, which keep women for ever at a stand, with respect to improvement, and make many of them dedicate their lives to their children only to weaken their bodies and spoil their tempers, frustrating also any plan of education that a more rational father may adopt; for unless a mother concurs, the father who restrains will ever be considered as a tyrant.

However, these narrow affections and the personal way of seeing things that comes from ignorance keep women from ever improving. They also lead many women to devote their lives to their children, only to weaken their bodies and spoil their tempers. In doing so, they also undermine any plan of education that a more rational father may adopt. For unless a mother agrees with the father, the children will always see him as a tyrant when he sets limits.

But, fulfilling the duties of a mother, a woman with a sound constitution, may still keep her person scrupulously neat, and assist to maintain her family, if necessary, or by reading and conversations with both sexes, indiscriminately, improve her mind. For nature has so wisely ordered things, that did women suckle their children, they would preserve their own health, and there would be such an interval between the birth of each child, that we should seldom see a house full of babes. And did they pursue a plan of conduct, and not waste their time in following the fashionable vagaries of dress, the management of their household and children need not shut them out from literature, nor prevent their attaching themselves to a science, with that steady eye which strengthens the mind, or practising one of the fine arts that cultivate the taste.

But a healthy woman can fulfill her duties as a mother and still keep herself scrupulously neat. If necessary, she can also help support her family. Or she can improve her mind by reading and talking with both men and women, without distinction. For nature has arranged things so wisely that if women breastfed their children, they would preserve their own health. There would also be enough time between births that we would seldom see a house full of babies. And if women followed a plan for their lives, rather than wasting time chasing fashionable whims in dress, managing their homes and children would not keep them from literature. Nor would it prevent them from devoting themselves to a science with the steady attention that strengthens the mind. Nor would it prevent them from practicing one of the fine arts that cultivate taste.

But, visiting to display finery, card playing, and balls, not to mention the idle bustle of morning trifling, draw women from their duty, to render them insignificant, to render them pleasing, according to the present acceptation of the word, to every man, but their husband. For a round of pleasures in which the affections are not exercised, cannot be said to improve the understanding, though it be erroneously called seeing the world; yet the heart is rendered cold and averse to duty, by such a senseless intercourse, which becomes necessary from habit, even when it has ceased to amuse.

But visits to show off fine clothes, card games, and balls draw women away from their duties. So does the idle bustle of wasting time in the morning. These activities make women insignificant and pleasing to every man but their husband, according to the current meaning of “pleasing.” A round of pleasures that does not engage the affections cannot be said to improve the understanding. Yet people mistakenly call it seeing the world. Such pointless socializing makes the heart cold and unwilling to do its duty. Through habit, it becomes necessary even when it has stopped being enjoyable.

But, till more equality be established in society, till ranks are confounded and women freed, we shall not see that dignified domestic happiness, the simple grandeur of which cannot be relished by ignorant or vitiated minds; nor will the important task of education ever be properly begun till the person of a woman is no longer preferred to her mind. For it would be as wise to expect corn from tares, or figs from thistles, as that a foolish ignorant woman should be a good mother.

But we will not see dignified happiness at home until society becomes more equal, class distinctions are broken down, and women are free. Ignorant or corrupted minds cannot appreciate the simple grandeur of such happiness. Nor will the important task of education ever properly begin until a woman’s mind is valued more than her appearance. Expecting a foolish, ignorant woman to be a good mother would be like expecting wheat from weeds or figs from thistles.

It is not necessary to inform the sagacious reader, now I enter on my concluding reflections, that the discussion of this subject merely consists in opening a few simple principles, and clearing away the rubbish which obscured them. But, as all readers are not sagacious, I must be allowed to add some explanatory remarks to bring the subject home to reason—to that sluggish reason, which supinely takes opinions on trust, and obstinately supports them to spare itself the labour of thinking.

As I begin my concluding reflections, I need not tell the perceptive reader what this discussion involves. It merely sets out a few simple principles and clears away the rubbish that obscured them. But not all readers are perceptive, so I must be allowed a few more explanatory remarks. These will bring the subject home to reason, that sluggish faculty which lazily accepts opinions on trust. Reason then stubbornly defends those opinions to spare itself the work of thinking.

Moralists have unanimously agreed, that unless virtue be nursed by liberty, it will never attain due strength—and what they say of man I extend to mankind, insisting, that in all cases morals must be fixed on immutable principles; and that the being cannot be termed rational or virtuous, who obeys any authority but that of reason.

Moralists all agree that unless virtue is nurtured by liberty, it will never become strong enough. I extend what they say about men to all humanity. I insist that morals must always rest on unchanging principles. I also insist that anyone who obeys any authority other than reason cannot be called rational or virtuous.

To render women truly useful members of society, I argue, that they should be led, by having their understandings cultivated on a large scale, to acquire a rational affection for their country, founded on knowledge, because it is obvious, that we are little interested about what we do not understand. And to render this general knowledge of due importance, I have endeavoured to show that private duties are never properly fulfilled, unless the understanding enlarges the heart; and that public virtue is only an aggregate of private. But, the distinctions established in society undermine both, by beating out the solid gold of virtue, till it becomes only the tinsel-covering of vice; for, whilst wealth renders a man more respectable than virtue, wealth will be sought before virtue; and, whilst women's persons are caressed, when a childish simper shows an absence of mind—the mind will lie fallow. Yet, true voluptuousness must proceed from the mind—for what can equal the sensations produced by mutual affection, supported by mutual respect? What are the cold or feverish caresses of appetite, but sin embracing death, compared with the modest overflowings of a pure heart and exalted imagination? Yes, let me tell the libertine of fancy when he despises understanding in woman—that the mind, which he disregards, gives life to the enthusiastic affection from which rapture, short-lived as it is, alone can flow! And, that, without virtue, a sexual attachment must expire, like a tallow candle in the socket, creating intolerable disgust. To prove this, I need only observe, that men who have wasted great part of their lives with women, and with whom they have sought for pleasure with eager thirst, entertain the meanest opinion of the sex. Virtue, true refiner of joy! if foolish men were to fright thee from earth, in order to give loose to all their appetites without a check—some sensual wight of taste would scale the heavens to invite thee back, to give a zest to pleasure!

To make women truly useful members of society, I argue that they need a broad education. This would lead them to develop a rational love of their country, founded on knowledge. Clearly, we take little interest in what we do not understand. I have also tried to show why this broad knowledge matters. We never properly fulfill our private duties unless understanding enlarges the heart. And public virtue is simply the sum of private virtues. But social distinctions undermine both. They hammer the solid gold of virtue so thin that it becomes a mere glittering cover for vice. As long as wealth makes a man more respected than virtue does, people will seek wealth before virtue. And as long as women are admired for their looks when a childish smile reveals an empty mind, their minds will remain undeveloped. Yet true sensual pleasure must come from the mind. What can equal the feelings produced by mutual affection supported by mutual respect? The cold or feverish caresses of desire are like sin embracing death, compared with the modest outpourings of a pure heart and a lofty imagination. Let me tell the imaginative libertine who despises understanding in women: the mind he disregards gives life to passionate affection. Only from that affection can rapture flow, short-lived as it is. Without virtue, sexual attachment must die out like a tallow candle burning down in its holder, creating intolerable disgust. To prove this, I need only point to men who have spent much of their lives with women, eagerly seeking pleasure with them. Such men have the lowest opinion of women. Virtue, true refiner of joy! If foolish men drove you from the earth so they could give free rein to all their appetites, some lover of sensual pleasure with good taste would climb to heaven to invite you back and give pleasure its zest!

That women at present are by ignorance rendered foolish or vicious, is, I think, not to be disputed; and, that the most salutary effects tending to improve mankind, might be expected from a REVOLUTION in female manners, appears at least, with a face of probability, to rise out of the observation. For as marriage has been termed the parent of those endearing charities, which draw man from the brutal herd, the corrupting intercourse that wealth, idleness, and folly produce between the sexes, is more universally injurious to morality, than all the other vices of mankind collectively considered. To adulterous lust the most sacred duties are sacrificed, because, before marriage, men, by a promiscuous intimacy with women, learned to consider love as a selfish gratification—learned to separate it not only from esteem, but from the affection merely built on habit, which mixes a little humanity with it. Justice and friendship are also set at defiance, and that purity of taste is vitiated, which would naturally lead a man to relish an artless display of affection, rather than affected airs. But that noble simplicity of affection, which dares to appear unadorned, has few attractions for the libertine, though it be the charm, which, by cementing the matrimonial tie, secures to the pledges of a warmer passion the necessary parental attention; for children will never be properly educated till friendship subsists between parents. Virtue flies from a house divided against itself—and a whole legion of devils take up their residence there.

I think it cannot be disputed that ignorance now makes women foolish or vicious. This observation also makes it seem at least likely that a REVOLUTION in women’s behavior could greatly improve humankind. Marriage has been called the source of those tender bonds that draw people away from the brutality of the herd. Yet wealth, idleness, and folly corrupt relations between the sexes. This corruption does more widespread harm to morality than all the other vices of humankind combined. The most sacred duties are sacrificed to adulterous lust. This happens because, before marriage, men have learned through casual sexual relationships with women to regard love as selfish pleasure. They have learned to separate love not only from respect, but also from affection based merely on habit. Even such habitual affection brings a little humanity into love. Justice and friendship are also defied. The purity of taste that would naturally lead a man to enjoy an unaffected display of affection is spoiled. Instead, he prefers artificial manners. But that noble simplicity of affection, which dares to show itself without adornment, holds little attraction for the libertine. Yet such affection strengthens the marriage bond. In doing so, it secures the necessary attention of both parents for their children, the offspring of a warmer passion. Children will never be properly educated until friendship exists between their parents. Virtue flees a house divided against itself, and a whole legion of devils takes up residence there.

The affection of husbands and wives cannot be pure when they have so few sentiments in common, and when so little confidence is established at home, as must be the case when their pursuits are so different. That intimacy from which tenderness should flow, will not, cannot subsist between the vicious.

The love between husbands and wives cannot be pure when they share so few feelings and have so little trust at home. This must be the case when their pursuits are so different. The closeness that should give rise to tenderness will not, cannot exist between people who are morally corrupt.

Contending, therefore, that the sexual distinction, which men have so warmly insisted upon, is arbitrary, I have dwelt on an observation, that several sensible men, with whom I have conversed on the subject, allowed to be well founded; and it is simply this, that the little chastity to be found amongst men, and consequent disregard of modesty, tend to degrade both sexes; and further, that the modesty of women, characterized as such, will often be only the artful veil of wantonness, instead of being the natural reflection of purity, till modesty be universally respected.

I argue, then, that the distinction between the sexes, which men have insisted on so strongly, is arbitrary. I have focused on an observation that several sensible men I have spoken with agreed was well founded. There is little chastity among men, and the resulting disregard for modesty degrades both sexes. Furthermore, until modesty is respected by everyone, what is called modesty in women will often be an artful disguise for sexual immorality, rather than a natural reflection of purity.

From the tyranny of man, I firmly believe, the greater number of female follies proceed; and the cunning, which I allow, makes at present a part of their character, I likewise have repeatedly endeavoured to prove, is produced by oppression. Were not dissenters, for instance, a class of people, with strict truth characterized as cunning? And may I not lay some stress on this fact to prove, that when any power but reason curbs the free spirit of man, dissimulation is practised, and the various shifts of art are naturally called forth? Great attention to decorum, which was carried to a degree of scrupulosity, and all that puerile bustle about trifles and consequential solemnity, which Butler's caricature of a dissenter brings before the imagination, shaped their persons as well as their minds in the mould of prim littleness. I speak collectively, for I know how many ornaments to human nature have been enrolled amongst sectaries; yet, I assert, that the same narrow prejudice for their sect, which women have for their families, prevailed in the dissenting part of the community, however worthy in other respects; and also that the same timid prudence, or headstrong efforts, often disgraced the exertions of both. Oppression thus formed many of the features of their character perfectly to coincide with that of the oppressed half of mankind; for is it not notorious, that dissenters were like women, fond of deliberating together, and asking advice of each other, till by a complication of little contrivances, some little end was brought about? A similar attention to preserve their reputation was conspicuous in the dissenting and female world, and was produced by a similar cause.

I firmly believe that male tyranny causes most of women's follies. I admit that cunning is now part of women's character, but I have repeatedly tried to show that oppression produces it. For example, were not dissenters accurately described as cunning? May I not give some weight to this fact as evidence? It suggests that when any power other than reason restrains the human spirit, people practice deception and naturally resort to various tricks. Butler's caricature of a dissenter brings certain habits to mind. These include an almost painfully strict attention to proper behavior, a childish fuss over trifles, and an air of self-important solemnity. Such habits shaped dissenters' bodies as well as their minds into a mold of prim smallness. I speak of dissenters as a group, for I know that many among them have been ornaments to human nature. Yet I maintain that dissenters, however worthy in other respects, shared a narrow prejudice in favor of their sect. Women have the same prejudice in favor of their families. The efforts of both groups were also often marred by the same timid caution or headstrong action. Oppression thus shaped many features of dissenters' character to match those of the oppressed half of humanity. For is it not well known that dissenters, like women, were fond of consulting together and asking one another for advice? They would continue until a series of small schemes achieved some small goal. Dissenters and women were also conspicuously attentive to preserving their reputations, and a similar cause produced this concern in both groups.

Asserting the rights which women in common with men ought to contend for, I have not attempted to extenuate their faults; but to prove them to be the natural consequence of their education and station in society. If so, it is reasonable to suppose, that they will change their character, and correct their vices and follies, when they are allowed to be free in a physical, moral, and civil sense.

In asserting the rights that women, like men, ought to fight for, I have not tried to excuse women’s faults. Instead, I have tried to show that these faults are the natural result of their education and position in society. If this is true, it is reasonable to suppose that women will change their character and correct their vices and follies when they are allowed physical, moral, and civil freedom.

Let woman share the rights, and she will emulate the virtues of man; for she must grow more perfect when emancipated, or justify the authority that chains such a weak being to her duty. If the latter, it will be expedient to open a fresh trade with Russia for whips; a present which a father should always make to his son-in-law on his wedding day, that a husband may keep his whole family in order by the same means; and without any violation of justice reign, wielding this sceptre, sole master of his house, because he is the only being in it who has reason; the divine, indefeasible, earthly sovereignty breathed into man by the Master of the universe. Allowing this position, women have not any inherent rights to claim; and, by the same rule their duties vanish, for rights and duties are inseparable.

Let women share men’s rights, and they will strive to match men’s virtues. For once freed, women must become more perfect, or else justify the authority that chains such a weak being to her duty. If women justify that authority, it would be wise to start a new trade with Russia for whips. A father should always give his son-in-law a whip on his wedding day. With it, a husband could keep his whole family in order by the same means. Wielding this scepter, he could rule as the sole master of his house without any injustice. For he would be the only being in the house with reason. Reason is the divine, unchallengeable earthly sovereignty breathed into man by the Master of the universe. If we accept this argument, women have no inherent rights to claim. By the same rule, their duties also vanish, because rights and duties are inseparable.

Be just then, O ye men of understanding! and mark not more severely what women do amiss, than the vicious tricks of the horse or the ass for whom ye provide provender, and allow her the privileges of ignorance, to whom ye deny the rights of reason, or ye will be worse than Egyptian task-masters, expecting virtue where nature has not given understanding!

So be fair, you men of understanding! Judge women’s mistakes no more harshly than the bad habits of the horses or donkeys you feed. If you deny women the rights of reason, allow them the privileges of ignorance. Otherwise, you will be worse than Egyptian taskmasters, expecting virtue where nature has not given understanding!