The Prevailing View of Gender Differences Examined

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.

Many clever arguments have been made to explain and excuse the tyranny of men. These arguments claim that men and women should aim for very different characters as they develop virtue. To put it plainly, women are considered too weak-minded to acquire anything that truly deserves to be called virtue. Yet, if women have souls, it would seem that providence has appointed only one path to virtue or happiness for ALL HUMANITY.

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 groveling 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.

If women are not just a swarm of short-lived, frivolous creatures, why keep them ignorant under the false label of innocence? Men complain, with good reason, about the foolishness and whims of our sex. They also bitterly mock our reckless passions and degrading vices. Look, I would answer, at the natural effect of ignorance! A mind with only prejudices to rely on will always be unstable. And a current will flow with destructive force when nothing stands in its way. From infancy, women are told how to gain a man's protection. Their mothers teach them the same lesson by example. Women learn that they need a little knowledge of human weakness, rightly called cunning, a gentle manner, OUTWARD obedience, and careful attention to a childish sort of propriety. And if they are beautiful, they need nothing else 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.

This is how Milton describes our first frail mother. But he also says that women are made for softness and sweet, attractive grace. I cannot understand what he means unless, in the true Mahometan manner, he meant to deny us souls. Perhaps he meant to suggest that we were designed only to satisfy men's senses through sweet, attractive grace and blind, obedient submission. That would be our purpose when a man can no longer soar on the wings 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.

How outrageously those people insult us when they advise us to become nothing more than gentle, domestic brutes! Take, for example, the charming softness they so often and warmly recommend, which supposedly rules by obeying. What childish words! And how insignificant is the person who would stoop to ruling by such devious methods. Can such a person be immortal? "Certainly," says Lord Bacon, "man is related to beasts through his body. And if he is not related to God through his spirit, he is a low and dishonorable creature!" Men, indeed, seem to me to act very unphilosophically when they try to ensure women's good behavior by keeping them in a permanent state of childhood. Rousseau was more consistent when he wanted to stop the development of reason in both sexes. For if men eat from the tree of knowledge, women will get a taste too. But because their minds now receive such an incomplete education, women gain only 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 understandings, 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:—

I agree that children should be innocent. But when we call men or women innocent, it is merely a polite way of calling them weak. Suppose we accept that Providence intended women to acquire human virtues. Suppose, too, that women are meant to develop their minds and gain stability of character. Such stability is the firmest foundation for our future hopes. If we accept these things, women must be allowed to turn to the fountain of light. They must not be forced to chart their course by the twinkling of a mere satellite. I agree that Milton had a very different view. He bows only to the unquestionable right of beauty. Yet it would be difficult to reconcile two passages that I will now contrast. But great men are often led into similar inconsistencies by their senses:

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."

These are exactly the arguments I have used with children. But I have added, "Your ability to reason is growing stronger. Until it reaches some degree of maturity, you must look to me for advice. Then you should THINK, and rely only on God."

Yet, in the following lines, Milton seems to coincide with me, when he makes Adam thus expostulate with his Maker:—

Yet Milton seems to agree with me in the following lines, where he has Adam question his Maker:

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.

Therefore, as we consider women's conduct, let us set aside arguments based on sensual pleasure. Let us consider what we should strive to help women become, so that we may cooperate with the Supreme Being. I hope that expression is not too bold.

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.

The meaning of “individual education” is not precisely defined. By it, I mean giving a child the attention needed to gradually sharpen the senses and shape the temperament. This attention should help the child control passions as they begin to stir and engage the mind before the body matures. Then, as an adult, the child will only need to continue the important task of learning to think and reason, not begin it.

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?

To avoid any misunderstanding, I must add that I do not believe private education can work the wonders some hopeful writers claim. Men and women must be educated, to a great extent, by the opinions and customs of the society they live in. In every age, a current of popular opinion has swept everything along with it. It has given the century what might be called a family character. We may fairly conclude, then, that we cannot expect much from education until society is organized differently. For my present purpose, however, it is enough to say that every being can become virtuous by exercising its own reason, whatever effect circumstances have on its abilities. For if even one being was created with wicked inclinations, meaning positively bad, what can save us from atheism? Or, if we worship a God, is that God not 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, weaker 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.

Consequently, I believe the best education exercises the mind in ways that strengthen the body and shape the heart. In other words, it helps people develop habits of virtue that make them independent. In fact, it is absurd to call anyone virtuous if their virtues do not come from using their own reason. This was Rousseau's opinion about men. I extend it to women, and confidently assert that false refinement has drawn them out of their proper sphere. It is not an effort to acquire masculine qualities that has done so. Yet the royal treatment women receive is so intoxicating that it may be impossible to convince them of the truth. They gain illegitimate power by degrading themselves, and this power is a curse. If they wish to enjoy the calm satisfaction that comes from natural affections, they must return to nature and equality. But they may remain unconvinced until the customs of the times change and rest on more reasonable principles. We must wait for this new age. Perhaps we must wait until kings and nobles are enlightened by reason. They must prefer the true dignity of human beings to childish displays of rank and cast off their gaudy inherited trappings. If women then refuse to give up the arbitrary power of beauty, they will prove that they have LESS intelligence than men. I may be accused of arrogance, but I must declare what I firmly believe. All the writers on women's education and manners, from Rousseau to Dr. Gregory, have made women more artificial and weaker in character than they would otherwise have been. Consequently, these writers have made women more useless members of society. I might have expressed this conviction more mildly. But I fear that would have been an affected whine, not a faithful expression of my feelings. Nor would it have faithfully expressed the clear conclusion that experience and reflection have led me to draw. When I come to that part of the subject, I will discuss the passages I particularly disapprove of in these authors' works. But first I must say that I object to the whole message of those books. In my opinion, they tend to degrade half the human species. They make 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.

Though, if we reason from Rousseau's position, a man might reach a degree of mental perfection when his body matures. If he did, it might be right for his wife to rely entirely on his understanding, so that they could become ONE. Then the graceful ivy, clasping the oak that supported it, would form a whole displaying both strength and beauty. But, alas! Husbands, like their wives, are often only overgrown children. Indeed, thanks to early debauchery, they are scarcely even men in their outward appearance. And if the blind lead the blind, we do not need anyone to come from heaven to tell us what will happen.

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.

In today’s corrupt society, many things help enslave women by restricting their minds and sharpening their senses. One cause, perhaps, quietly does more harm than all the rest: women’s disregard for 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 guesswork, 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.

Doing everything in an orderly way is a very important rule. Yet women generally receive a disorderly education. As a result, they seldom follow this rule as precisely as men do, since men are trained in method from infancy. This is careless guesswork. What else can we call the random efforts of a kind of instinctive common sense that has never been tested by reason? This guesswork prevents women from drawing general conclusions from facts. So they do today 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 while 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.

This disregard for the development of the mind in early life has more harmful consequences than people generally realize. For various reasons, the little knowledge that strong-minded women acquire is less systematic than men’s knowledge. Women gain it more through direct observation of real life than by comparing their own observations with general conclusions drawn from experience through reflection. Their dependent position and domestic duties lead them to spend more time in society, so they learn in bits and pieces. Learning is generally only a secondary concern for them. As a result, they do not pursue any one subject with the sustained enthusiasm needed to strengthen their mental powers and clarify their judgment. In society as it is now, a little learning is needed to uphold the standing of a gentleman. Boys are therefore required to undergo a few years of disciplined study. But in women’s education, developing the mind is always less important than acquiring some physical accomplishment. Yet confinement and false ideas of modesty weaken their bodies. As a result, their bodies cannot attain the grace and beauty that weak, underdeveloped limbs never display. Besides, competition does not encourage women to develop their abilities in youth. Since they have no serious scientific study, any natural insight they possess is turned too early toward life and social behavior. They focus on effects and variations without tracing them back to their causes. And complicated rules for governing behavior are a poor 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, practice 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.

As proof that education gives women this appearance of weakness, we may look at military men. Like women, soldiers are sent into the world before their minds have been filled with knowledge or strengthened by principles. The results are similar. Soldiers pick up a little superficial knowledge from the muddy stream of conversation. By constantly mixing with others, they gain what is called knowledge of the world. This familiarity with manners and customs has often been mistaken for knowledge of the human heart. But does the crude fruit of casual observation deserve such a distinction? Those observations have never been tested by judgment, which is formed by comparing ideas with experience. Soldiers, like women, practice the minor virtues with meticulous politeness. Where, then, is the difference between the sexes when they have received the same education? The only difference I can see comes from the greater freedom that allows men 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.

Perhaps a political remark takes me away from my present subject. But it arose naturally from my reflections, so I will not pass over it in silence.

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. 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.

Standing armies can never be made up of determined, strong men. They may be well-disciplined machines, but they will seldom include men with strong passions or vigorous minds. As for depth of understanding, I dare say it is as rare in the army as among women. I maintain that the cause is the same. It is also worth noting that officers pay particular attention to their appearance. They are fond of dancing, crowded rooms, adventures, and mocking others. Like the FAIR sex, they make flirtation the business of their lives. They were taught to please, and they live only to please. Yet they do not lose their standing in the hierarchy of the sexes. They are still considered superior to women. But apart from the things I have just mentioned, it is hard to discover what makes them superior.

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.

The great misfortune is that both learn manners before morals. They learn about life before they have reflected on the broad ideal of human nature. The consequence is natural. Satisfied with human nature as they commonly see it, they fall prey to prejudices. They accept all their opinions on trust and blindly submit to authority. So, if they have any judgment, it is a kind of instinctive insight. It recognizes proportions and judges manners, but fails to follow arguments beneath the surface or analyze opinions.

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 in 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.

Might the same observation apply to women? Indeed, the argument can be taken further. Both are deprived of a useful place by the unnatural distinctions established in civilized life. Wealth and inherited titles have made women into zeros, giving importance to the digits beside them. Idleness has also produced a mixture of gallantry and tyranny in society. As a result, the very men who are slaves to their mistresses tyrannize over their sisters, wives, and daughters. This, it is true, is merely keeping women in line. Strengthen women’s minds by expanding them, and blind obedience will end. But those in power always seek blind obedience. So tyrants and sensualists are right to try to keep women ignorant. Tyrants want only slaves, and sensualists want only a plaything. Indeed, the sensualist has been the most dangerous kind of tyrant. Women have been deceived by their lovers while dreaming that they ruled over them, just as princes have been deceived by their ministers.

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 prettyfoot and enticing airs of his little favourite! But, for the present, I waive 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, 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.

I am thinking chiefly of Rousseau. His portrayal of Sophia is undoubtedly captivating, though it seems to me grossly unnatural. But I mean to attack not the finished character, but its foundation: the principles on which her education was based. I warmly admire the genius of this gifted writer, whose opinions I shall often have reason to quote. Yet when I read his sensual fantasies, indignation always replaces admiration. His eloquent sentences usually make me smile with pleasure. But his sensual fantasies make offended virtue frown sternly, wiping that smile away. Is this the man who, in his passion for virtue, would banish all the gentle arts of peace and almost take us back to Spartan discipline? Is this the man who delights in portraying the useful struggles of passion and the triumphs of good dispositions? Who delights in heroic flights that carry the passionate soul beyond itself? How these lofty sentiments are diminished when he describes the pretty foot and enticing manner of his little favorite! But for now I will set that subject aside. Instead of sharply condemning these passing expressions of excessive sensibility, I will make one observation. Anyone who has looked kindly on society must often have been pleased to see a humble couple’s mutual love. Such love is not dignified by lofty feeling or strengthened by shared intellectual pursuits. The small events of daily home life have given them something to talk about cheerfully. Innocent caresses have softened their labors, which required no great mental effort or deep thought. Yet has not the sight of this modest happiness stirred more tenderness than respect? It stirs a feeling like the one we have when children play or animals frolic. By contrast, watching the noble struggles of a deserving person who suffers has inspired admiration. It has carried our thoughts to that world where feeling will give way 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.

Therefore, women must be seen either as moral beings or as so weak that they must submit entirely to men’s superior abilities.

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, shall 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.

Let us examine this question. Rousseau declares that a woman should never feel independent, even for a moment. He says she should be ruled by fear so that she will exercise her NATURAL cunning. She should be made a flirtatious slave, a more alluring object of desire and a SWEETER companion to man whenever he chooses to relax. Rousseau takes his supposedly nature-based arguments even further. He suggests that truth and fortitude, the cornerstones of all human virtue, should be cultivated with certain restrictions. For women, he suggests, obedience is the great lesson that must be taught with relentless rigor.

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.

What nonsense! When will a great man have the strength of mind to blow away the fog of pride and sensuality surrounding this subject? If women are naturally inferior to men, their virtues must be the same in kind, if not in degree. Otherwise, virtue is a relative idea. Therefore, women’s conduct should be based on the same principles and have the same aim as men’s.

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.

As daughters, wives, and mothers, women are connected to men. Their moral character may be judged by how they fulfill the simple duties of those roles. But the great aim of their efforts should be to develop their own abilities and gain the dignity of conscious virtue. Women may try to make their path pleasant. But, like men, they should never forget that life does not offer happiness enough to satisfy an immortal soul. I do not mean that either sex should become so absorbed in abstract thoughts or distant prospects that they forget the affections and duties before them. In truth, those affections and duties are the appointed means of producing the fruit of life. On the contrary, I warmly recommend them. But I also maintain that they give the most satisfaction when we see them in their true, secondary place.

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 show 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.

The widespread belief that woman was created for man may have come from Moses's poetic story. Yet presumably very few people who have thought seriously about the subject have ever believed that Eve was literally one of Adam's ribs. So the conclusion that woman was created for man must be rejected. At most, it can be accepted only as proof that, since the earliest times, man found it convenient to use his strength to subjugate his companion. He also used his ingenuity to show that she ought to bow her neck under the yoke, because she, like the animals, was created for 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.

Do not conclude that I want to overturn the existing order. I have already conceded that, because of their physical constitution, men seem designed by Providence to attain a greater degree of virtue. I am speaking of men as a whole. But I see no reason whatsoever to conclude that men's and women's virtues should differ in nature. Indeed, how could they differ, if virtue has only one eternal standard? Therefore, if I am to reason consistently, I must insist that their virtues follow the same single course. I must insist on this as strongly as I insist that God exists.

It follows then, that cunning should not be opposed to wisdom, little cares to great exertions, nor insipid softness, varnished over with the name of gentleness, to that fortitude which grand views alone can inspire.

It follows that cunning should not be set against wisdom, nor petty concerns against great efforts. Nor should bland softness, dressed up as gentleness, be set against the courage that only a grand vision 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 assertions. For Pope has said, in the name of the whole male sex,

I will be told that women would then lose many of their distinctive charms. The opinion of a well-known poet might be quoted to refute my sweeping claims. For Pope has spoken on behalf of all men:

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.

I leave it to thoughtful readers to judge how this remark portrays men and women. Meanwhile, I will simply say that I cannot see why women should always be degraded by being made to serve love or lust, unless they are mortal.

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 ever coolly wield, appears less wild.

I know that speaking disrespectfully about love is high treason against sentiment and fine feelings. But I want to speak the plain truth and appeal to the head rather than the heart. Trying to reason love out of the world would be more Quixotic than Cervantes himself, and just as contrary to common sense. But it seems less wild to try to restrain this turbulent passion. We can also try to show that love should not be allowed to overthrow our higher powers or seize the authority that reason should always exercise calmly.

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.

Youth is the time for love for both women and men. But during those years of thoughtless pleasure, they should prepare for the more important years of life, when reflection replaces sensation. Rousseau, however, and most male writers who have followed him have strongly insisted that women’s education should have one aim: to make women 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 sun-beams, and that they cannot have much effect on her husband's heart when they are seen every day, when the summer is past 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.

Let me reason with those supporters of this opinion who know something of human nature. Do they imagine that marriage can erase the habits of a lifetime? A woman taught only to please will soon find that her charms are like the slanting rays of the sun. Once summer has passed, her charms will have little effect on her husband's heart when he sees them every day. Will she then have enough natural strength to find comfort within herself and develop her neglected abilities? Or is it more reasonable to expect her to try to please other men? In the excitement of hoping for new conquests, she may try to forget the hurt to her love or pride. The time will inevitably come when her husband is no longer a lover. Then her desire to please will either fade or become a source of bitterness. Love, perhaps the most fleeting of all passions, will give way 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 rely for all her happiness on a being subject to like infirmities with herself.

I now speak of women who are held back by principle or prejudice. Though they would shrink from an affair with genuine horror, they still want flattering attention from men. They want it to convince them that their husbands cruelly neglect them. Or they spend days and weeks dreaming of the happiness enjoyed by kindred spirits. Their discontent eventually undermines their health and breaks their spirits. How, then, can learning the great art of pleasing be so necessary? It is useful only to a mistress. A faithful wife and serious mother should regard her ability to please only as a refinement of her virtues. She should see her husband’s affection as one of the comforts that make her task less difficult and her life happier. But whether she is loved or neglected, her first wish should be to make herself worthy of respect. She should not depend for all her happiness on another person who is subject to the same weaknesses as herself.

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

The kind Dr. Gregory made a similar mistake. I respect his character, but I completely disapprove of his famous 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.

He advises women to cultivate a love of dress because, he claims, it is natural to them. I cannot understand what he or Rousseau mean when they so often use the vague word “natural.” Suppose they told us that the soul loved dress before birth and brought this inclination into a new body. I would listen with a half smile, as I often do when I hear a rant about innate elegance. But perhaps he only meant that exercising their abilities will make women love dress. I deny that. The love of dress is not natural. Like false ambition in men, it arises 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 fulfill with scrupulous exactness when vice reigns in the heart.

Dr. Gregory goes much further. He actually recommends pretending. He advises an innocent girl to hide her feelings and not dance with spirit. He says this even when her joy would make her feet expressive without making her movements immodest. In the name of truth and common sense, why should one woman not admit she can exercise more than another? In other words, why should she not admit that she is healthy? And why, to dampen her innocent liveliness, should she be given a dark warning? Why should she be told that men will draw conclusions she would never imagine? Let the libertine draw whatever conclusions he pleases. But I hope no sensible mother will restrain the natural openness of youth by teaching such indecent cautions. The mouth speaks what fills the heart. And someone wiser than Solomon has said that the heart should be made clean. We should not merely observe trivial ceremonies. Such ceremonies are not very difficult to perform with scrupulous exactness, even when vice rules the heart.

Women ought to endeavour to purify their hearts; 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?

Women should try to purify their hearts. But can they do so when their untrained minds leave them entirely dependent on their senses for occupation and amusement? What if no noble pursuit raises them above the petty vanities of the day? What if none helps them control the wild emotions that shake them like a reed in every passing breeze? Must a woman be affected to win the love of a virtuous man?

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!

Nature has given women weaker bodies than men. But must a wife pretend to be weak and sickly to secure her husband’s affection? Suppose she has exercised her mind and body while fulfilling her duties as a daughter, wife, and mother. As a result, her body has kept its natural strength and her nerves have stayed healthy. Must she stoop to deception to secure her husband’s affection? Weakness may arouse tenderness and satisfy a man’s arrogant pride. But the superior caresses of a protector will not satisfy a noble mind that longs for and deserves respect. 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 in 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.

I admit that in a seraglio, all these arts are necessary. A pleasure seeker must have his tastes indulged, or he will sink into apathy. But are women so lacking in ambition that they are satisfied with such a condition? Can they passively dream their lives away in the lap of pleasure or in weary idleness? Would they rather do that than claim their right to pursue rational pleasures? Would they rather do that than distinguish themselves by practicing the virtues that dignify humanity? Surely a woman has no immortal soul if she can idle her life away merely adorning herself. Her purpose is to amuse the idle hours and ease the cares of a fellow human being. After the serious business of life is over, he is willing to be entertained by her smiles and tricks.

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.

Besides, a woman who strengthens her body and exercises her mind will become her husband's friend, not his humble dependent. She will achieve this by managing her family and practicing various virtues. If she deserves his respect because of these substantial qualities, she will not need to hide her affection. Nor will she need to pretend to be naturally cold to stir her husband's passion. In fact, if we look back at history, we find that distinguished women have been neither the most beautiful nor the gentlest 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."

Nature, or more precisely God, has made all things right. But man has devised many ways to spoil his work. I am referring to the part of Dr. Gregory's treatise where he advises a wife to conceal the full extent of her feelings and affection from her husband. What a pleasure-seeking precaution, as useless as it is absurd. Love, by its very nature, must be temporary. To search for a secret that would make love last would be as wild as searching for the philosopher's stone or the universal cure. Finding such a secret would be just as useless, or rather harmful to mankind. The most sacred bond in society is friendship. As a shrewd satirist put it, "rare as true love is, true friendship is even rarer."

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

This is an obvious truth. Its cause is not hard to find, so even a brief investigation will reveal it.

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.

Most people feel the common passion of love to some degree. In this passion, chance and sensation take the place of choice and reason. For now, there is no need to discuss the emotions that rise above or sink below love. Suspense and difficulty naturally intensify love. They draw the mind out of its usual state and heighten the affections. But the security of marriage allows the fever of love to subside. Only those without enough intellect find the resulting healthy state dull. They cannot replace blind admiration and the sensual feelings of fondness with the calm tenderness of friendship and the confidence that comes from respect.

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 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.

This is, and must be, the course of nature. Friendship or indifference inevitably follows love. This pattern seems perfectly consistent with the way the moral world is governed. Passions spur us to action and open our minds. But once their object is gained and the satisfied mind rests in enjoyment, passions sink into mere appetites. They become a source of personal, momentary pleasure. A man who had some virtue while struggling for a crown often becomes a pleasure seeking tyrant once he wears it. Likewise, when the lover is not lost in the husband, the foolish man falls prey to childish whims and jealousies born of affection. He neglects the serious duties of life. Instead of giving his children the affection that should inspire their trust, he lavishes it on his wife, that overgrown child.

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.

To fulfill their duties in life, a husband and wife should not continue to love each other passionately. They must also be able to pursue energetically the various activities that shape moral character. I mean that they should not indulge feelings that disrupt society and consume thoughts that should be devoted to other things. A mind that has never been absorbed by one object lacks vigor. But if it can remain absorbed by one object for long, 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 was 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.

A misguided education, a narrow, undeveloped mind, and many prejudices about sex tend to make women more faithful than men. But for now, I will not explore this part of the subject. I will go further and claim, without thinking it a paradox, that an unhappy marriage often benefits a family greatly. A neglected wife is generally the best mother. And this would almost always be the result if women’s minds were more developed. For it seems to be the usual way of Providence that what we gain in immediate pleasure is taken from life’s treasure, experience. While we gather the day’s flowers and delight in pleasure, we cannot also seize the solid fruit of hard work and wisdom. The path lies before us, and we must turn right or left. Anyone who spends life leaping from one pleasure to another must not complain about gaining neither wisdom nor a respectable 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 palled 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 show 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.

Suppose for a moment that the soul is not immortal and that human beings were created only for this life. Then I think we would have reason to complain that love, that childlike fondness, ever grew dull and lost its appeal. Let us eat, drink, and love, for tomorrow we die. That would be the language of reason, the morality of life. Who but a fool would give up something real for a passing shadow? But the mind’s capacity for improvement fills us with awe. Suppose, then, that we refuse to limit our wishes or thoughts to such a comparatively humble sphere of action. This life seems grand and important only because it is connected to a boundless future and sublime hopes. Why, then, must we act falsely and violate the sacred majesty of truth? Why do so to hold on to a deceptive pleasure that undermines the very foundation of virtue? Why must a woman’s mind be corrupted by the arts of coquetry to gratify a person devoted to sensual pleasure? Why must she use those arts to keep love from settling into friendship or compassionate tenderness when the qualities needed for friendship are absent? Let an honest heart show itself, and let reason teach passion to accept what cannot be changed. Or let the dignified pursuit of virtue and knowledge raise the mind above those emotions. Unless those emotions are kept within proper bounds, they make life more bitter than sweet.

I do not mean to allude to the romantic passion, which is the concomitant of genius. Who can clip its wings? 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.

I do not mean the romantic passion that accompanies genius. Who can clip its wings? But this grand passion is too great for the small pleasures of life. It is true only to the feeling itself and feeds on itself. The passions celebrated for their lasting power have always been unhappy ones. They have grown stronger through absence and a naturally melancholy disposition. The imagination has lingered over a dimly glimpsed image of beauty. But familiarity might have turned admiration into disgust, or at least into indifference. It might also have given the imagination time to find a new pursuit. In keeping with this view, Rousseau quite fittingly makes Eloisa, the mistress of his soul, love St. Preux as her life was fading. But this is no proof that passion lasts forever.

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.

Dr. Gregory gives similar advice about delicacy of feeling. He advises a woman not to develop it if she has decided to marry. Yet he calls the decision to marry INDELICATE, though it is perfectly consistent with his earlier advice. He strongly urges his daughters to hide that decision, even though it may guide their conduct. He writes 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.

What noble morality! How fitting for the cautious prudence of a narrow mind that cannot see beyond this fleeting moment of life. Suppose all the abilities of a woman's mind are to be developed only in relation to her dependence on man. Suppose that, once she finds a husband, she has reached her goal. If she is basely proud and satisfied with such a worthless crown, let her grovel contentedly. Her occupations scarcely raise her above the animal kingdom. But if she is striving for the prize of her higher calling, let her develop her understanding. Let her do so without stopping to consider the character of the husband she is destined to marry. Let her resolve to acquire the qualities that ennoble a rational being, without worrying too much about present happiness. Then a rough, crude husband may offend her taste without destroying her peace of mind. She will not shape her soul to suit her companion's weaknesses, but to bear with them. His character may test her virtue, but it will not stand in its way.

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 expence of reason.

If Dr. Gregory meant only romantic expectations of lasting love and shared feelings, he should have remembered something. When imagination is kept alive at the expense of reason, advice can never make us stop wishing for such things. Experience will put an end to those wishes.

I own it frequently happens, that women who have fostered a romantic unnatural delicacy of feeling, waste their 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 be 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?

I admit that women often cultivate a romantic, unnatural sensitivity. They waste their lives IMAGINING how happy they would have been with a husband whose passionate love grew every day, all day. But they might just as well pine away married as single. They would be no unhappier with a bad husband than they are longing for a good one. I grant that a proper education, or more precisely, a well-stocked mind, would help a woman live with dignity as a single person. But she should not avoid developing her taste for fear that her husband might sometimes offend it. That would mean giving up something real for a mere shadow. In truth, I do not know what use refined taste is if it does not make a person more independent of life’s misfortunes. It should open up new sources of enjoyment that depend only on the mind’s activity when alone. People of taste, whether married or single, will always be disgusted by things that do not affect less observant minds. The argument must not be allowed to turn on that point. Instead, considering enjoyment as a whole, should taste be called a blessing?

The question is, whether it procures most pain or pleasure? The answer will decide the propriety of Dr. Gregory's advice, and show 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.

The question is whether it brings more pain or pleasure. The answer will show whether Dr. Gregory's advice is sound. It will also show how absurd and tyrannical it is to establish such a system of slavery. And it will show how absurd and tyrannical it is to educate moral beings by any rules other than those drawn from pure reason, which apply to the whole human 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 (Vide Rousseau, and Swedenborg) kindly restore the rib, and make one moral being of a man and woman; not forgetting to give her all the "submissive charms."

Gentle manners, patience, and enduring hardship are such lovable, godlike qualities that lofty poetry has attributed them to God. Perhaps no image of his goodness appeals more strongly to human affection than those that show him full of mercy and willing to forgive. Seen in this light, gentleness has all the marks of grandeur, combined with the appealing grace of graciously lowering oneself to others. But how different gentleness looks when it is the submissive behavior of someone dependent on others. This gentleness supports a weakness that loves because it needs protection and is patient because it must silently endure injuries. It smiles under the whip when it dares not even snarl. As degrading as this picture seems, it is the portrait of an accomplished woman, according to the accepted view of female excellence. Clever but misleading thinkers separate female excellence from human excellence. Or they kindly restore the rib and make one moral being out of a man and a woman (see Rousseau and Swedenborg). Of course, they do not forget 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.

We are not told how women are to exist in that future state where there will be neither marriage nor giving in marriage. Moralists agree that the course of life seems to show that various circumstances prepare MAN for a future state. Yet they always agree in advising WOMAN to prepare only for the present. On this basis, they consistently recommend gentleness, obedience, and a spaniel’s affection as the chief virtues of women. One writer has even declared that it is masculine for a woman to be melancholy, ignoring nature’s arbitrary arrangement. She was created to be man’s toy, his rattle. She must jingle in his ears whenever he sets reason aside and 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 toward 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 individual's regal sway.

Recommending gentleness on broad grounds is indeed sound philosophy. A frail being should strive to be gentle. But when tolerance blurs the difference between right and wrong, it is no longer a virtue. However convenient such tolerance may be in a companion, that companion will always be regarded as inferior. The companion will inspire only a weak affection that easily turns to contempt. Still, advice might actually make a person gentle, even if that person’s natural disposition did not allow such refinement. If so, some progress toward order would be made. But this indiscriminate advice can quickly be shown to produce only an affected manner. It also stands in the way of gradual improvement and genuine improvement of temperament. If so, women gain little by sacrificing solid virtues to acquire superficial graces. Those graces may give an individual woman queenly power for a few years, though.

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, etc.? 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.

As a philosopher, I am outraged by the flattering words men use to soften their insults. And as a moralist, I ask what such mismatched phrases as “lovely defects” and “charming weaknesses” mean. If there is only one standard of morality and one ideal for humanity, women seem suspended by fate. They are like Mahomet’s coffin in the popular tale. Women have neither the reliable instincts of animals nor permission to use reason to contemplate a perfect model. They were made to be loved and must not seek respect. Otherwise, they risk being driven out of society for being 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 a 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 spirits, 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 let us look at the subject from another angle. Do passive, idle women make the best wives? Let us consider only life as it is now and see how such weak creatures play their part. Some women have reinforced the prevailing prejudice by acquiring a few superficial accomplishments. Do they simply contribute to their husbands’ happiness? Do they display their charms only to amuse their husbands? And do women who learned passive obedience early in life have enough character to manage a household or educate children? Far from it. After surveying the history of women, I cannot help agreeing with the harshest satirist. I regard women as the weakest as well as the most oppressed half of the human race. What does history reveal but signs of inferiority? How few women have freed themselves from the oppressive yoke of man’s rule! So few have done so that the exceptions remind me of a clever guess about Newton. Perhaps he was a being of a higher order, accidentally caged in a human body. In the same spirit, I have imagined that the few extraordinary women who broke away from the path prescribed for their sex were MALE spirits, mistakenly confined in female bodies. But perhaps it is unphilosophical to think of sex when speaking of the soul. If so, the inferiority must depend on the body’s organs. Or else the heavenly fire that brings the clay to life 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.

But I will avoid directly comparing the two sexes as groups, as I have done so far. Or, if I frankly acknowledge that women appear inferior under present conditions, I will insist only on this: men have increased that inferiority until women have sunk almost below the level of rational beings. Let women have room to develop their abilities and strengthen their virtues. Then decide where the whole sex stands on the intellectual scale. Yet remember that I am not asking for a place on that scale for a small number of exceptional women.

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 understandings 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.

It is difficult for us short-sighted mortals to say how far human discovery and improvement may advance. Despotism casts a gloom that makes us stumble at every step, but that gloom may lift. When morality rests on a firmer foundation, I dare to make a prediction, even without a prophet’s gift. Women will be either the friends or the slaves of men. We will no longer doubt, as we do now, whether a woman is a moral being or the link between humans and animals. But it may then become clear that women, like animals, were created chiefly for men’s use. If so, men will let women patiently bite the bridle, rather than mock them with empty praise. Or, if women’s capacity for reason is proved, men will not hinder their improvement merely to satisfy their sensual appetites. Men will not use all the arts of rhetoric to advise women to submit their judgment completely to men’s guidance. When discussing women’s education, men will not claim that women should never be free to use their reason. Nor will men recommend cunning and deception to beings who, like themselves, are acquiring human virtues.

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.

Surely, if morality has an eternal foundation, there can be only one rule of right. Anyone who sacrifices virtue, in the strict sense, for immediate convenience lives only for the present day. So does anyone whose DUTY is to act that way. Neither can be a morally accountable being.

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

The poet should therefore have left out his sneer when he says,

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.

They are certainly bound by the unbreakable chain of destiny if it can be proved that they can never exercise their own reason. If so, they can never be independent, rise above opinion, or feel the dignity of a rational will. Such a will bows only to God. It often forgets that the universe contains anyone but itself and the model of perfection it gazes at so ardently. It adores God’s qualities, which may be imitated as virtues, though their greatness overwhelms the enthralled 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.

I say “if” because I do not want to persuade through grand speeches when reason offers its clear, steady light. If women really can act as rational beings, do not treat them like slaves. Nor treat them like animals, which depend on human reason when living with people. Instead, develop women’s minds and give them the beneficial, noble restraint of principle. Let them gain a sense of dignity by knowing they depend only on God. Teach them, like men, to accept necessity, rather than giving morals a gender to make women more pleasing.

Further, should experience prove that they cannot attain the same degree of strength of mind, perseverance 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.

Further, suppose experience shows that women cannot achieve the same strength of mind, perseverance, and courage as men. Let women’s virtues still be of the same kind, even if they struggle in vain to achieve the same degree. Men’s superiority will be just as clear, if not clearer. And truth would be shared by both, since truth is a simple principle that allows no modification. Nor would the present order of society be overturned. Women would then have only the rank that reason assigned them. And no clever methods could be used to even the balance, much less tip it in women’s favor.

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.

These ideas may be called Utopian dreams. I thank God for placing them in my soul. He gave me enough strength of mind to dare to use my own reason. Now I depend only on him to sustain my virtue, and I look with indignation on the mistaken ideas that enslave my sex.

I love man as my fellow; but his sceptre 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?

I love men as my fellow human beings. But their authority, whether rightful or seized, does not extend to me unless an individual man's reason commands my respect. Even then, I submit to reason, not to the man. In fact, a being accountable for its actions must be guided by its own reason. Otherwise, what is the foundation of God's throne?

It appears to me necessary to dwell on these obvious truths, because females have been insulted, 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.

I believe it is necessary to dwell on these obvious truths because women have, so to speak, been insulted. They have been stripped of the virtues that should clothe all humanity. Instead, they have been adorned with artificial graces that allow them to exercise a short-lived tyranny. In their hearts, love has taken the place of every nobler passion. Their only ambition is to be beautiful and stir emotion rather than inspire respect. This ignoble desire destroys all strength of character, just as servility does under absolute monarchies. Liberty is the mother of virtue. If women are slaves by their very nature, they are not allowed to breathe the sharp, invigorating air of freedom. They must then always languish like exotic plants and be considered beautiful flaws in nature. Let us also remember that women are the only such 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 have scarcely shown 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.

The argument that women have always been kept in subjection turns back on men. The many have always been enslaved by the few. Monsters who have barely shown any ability to recognize human excellence have tyrannized thousands of their fellow creatures. Why have men with superior abilities submitted to such degradation? Is it not universally acknowledged that kings, taken as a group, have always been less capable and virtuous than the same number of men drawn from humanity at large? Yet have kings not been treated, and are they not still treated, with a reverence that insults reason? China is not the only country where a living man has been made a god. MEN have submitted to greater strength so they could enjoy the pleasure of the moment without punishment. WOMEN have only done the same. Therefore, it cannot be proved that woman is inherently inferior to man because she has always been subjugated. That cannot be proved until it is shown that the courtier who slavishly gives up his birthright as a man is not a moral agent.

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.

Brute force has ruled the world until now. The science of politics is clearly still in its infancy. This is evident from philosophers' reluctance to give the knowledge most useful to humanity the distinct status of a science.

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.

I will pursue this argument only far enough to establish an obvious conclusion. As sound political practices spread liberty, humanity, including women, will become wiser and more virtuous.