The Same Subject Continued

Bodily strength from being the distinction of heroes is now sunk into such unmerited contempt, that men as well as women, seem to think it unnecessary: the latter, as it takes from their feminine graces, and from that lovely weakness, the source of their undue power; and the former, because it appears inimical with the character of a gentleman.

Physical strength was once a distinguishing quality of heroes. Now it is held in such undeserved contempt that both men and women seem to think it unnecessary. Women think so because strength diminishes their feminine graces and the lovely weakness that gives them undue power. Men think so because strength seems at odds with being a gentleman.

That they have both by departing from one extreme run into another, may easily be proved; but it first may be proper to observe, that a vulgar error has obtained a degree of credit, which has given force to a false conclusion, in which an effect has been mistaken for a cause.

It is easy to prove that both have gone from one extreme to another. But first, it may be worth noting that a common error has gained some acceptance. This has lent support to a false conclusion that mistakes an effect for a cause.

People of genius have, very frequently, impaired their constitutions by study, or careless inattention to their health, and the violence of their passions bearing a proportion to the vigour of their intellects, the sword's destroying the scabbard has become almost proverbial, and superficial observers have inferred from thence, that men of genius have commonly weak, or to use a more fashionable phrase, delicate constitutions. Yet the contrary, I believe, will appear to be the fact; for, on diligent inquiry, I find that strength of mind has, in most cases, been accompanied by superior strength of body, natural soundness of constitution, not that robust tone of nerves and vigour of muscles, which arise from bodily labour, when the mind is quiescent, or only directs the hands.

People of genius have often damaged their health through study or careless neglect. Their passions tend to be as intense as their minds are strong. The idea of the sword destroying its sheath has therefore become almost proverbial. Superficial observers have concluded that men of genius generally have weak, or, to use a more fashionable word, delicate constitutions. Yet I believe the opposite is true. Careful inquiry has shown me that strength of mind has, in most cases, been accompanied by superior physical strength and natural good health. I do not mean the sturdy nerves and strong muscles that come from physical labor, when the mind is at rest or merely directs the hands.

Dr. Priestley has remarked, in the preface to his biographical chart, that the majority of great men have lived beyond forty-five. And, considering the thoughtless manner in which they lavished their strength, when investigating a favourite science, they have wasted the lamp of life, forgetful of the midnight hour; or, when, lost in poetic dreams, fancy has peopled the scene, and the soul has been disturbed, till it shook the constitution, by the passions that meditation had raised; whose objects, the baseless fabric of a vision, faded before the exhausted eye, they must have had iron frames. Shakespeare never grasped the airy dagger with a nerveless hand, nor did Milton tremble when he led Satan far from the confines of his dreary prison. These were not the ravings of imbecility, the sickly effusions of distempered brains; but the exuberance of fancy, that "in a fine phrenzy" wandering, was not continually reminded of its material shackles.

Dr. Priestley has noted in the preface to his biographical chart that most great men lived beyond forty-five. They must have had bodies of iron, considering how thoughtlessly they spent their strength. When investigating a favorite science, they burned the lamp of life without noticing how late it was. Or they became lost in poetic dreams, and their imaginations filled the scene. The passions stirred by their thoughts disturbed their souls so deeply that their health suffered. The objects of those passions were as insubstantial as a vision, and they faded before the exhausted eye. Shakespeare never grasped the imaginary dagger with a powerless hand. Nor did Milton tremble when he led Satan far from the confines of his dreary prison. These were not the ravings of weak minds or the unhealthy outpourings of diseased brains. They were the overflowing products of imagination, which wandered "in a fine phrenzy" without constant reminders of its bodily restraints.

I am aware, that this argument would carry me further than it may be supposed I wish to go; but I follow truth, and still adhering to my first position, I will allow that bodily strength seems to give man a natural superiority over woman; and this is the only solid basis on which the superiority of the sex can be built. But I still insist, that not only the virtue, but the KNOWLEDGE of the two sexes should be the same in nature, if not in degree, and that women, considered not only as moral, but rational creatures, ought to endeavour to acquire human virtues (or perfections) by the SAME means as men, instead of being educated like a fanciful kind of HALF being, one of Rousseau's wild chimeras.

I know that this argument would take me further than people might suppose I wish to go. But I follow the truth, and I stand by my original position. I will admit that physical strength seems to give men a natural advantage over women. This is the only solid foundation for a claim that men are superior. But I still insist that the virtue and KNOWLEDGE of both sexes should be the same in kind, if not in degree. Women are not only moral beings but rational ones. They should therefore strive to acquire human virtues (or perfections) by the SAME means as men. Instead, they are educated as if they were an imaginary kind of HALF being, one of Rousseau's wild fantasies.

But, if strength of body be, with some show of reason, the boast of men, why are women so infatuated as to be proud of a defect? Rousseau has furnished them with a plausible excuse, which could only have occurred to a man, whose imagination had been allowed to run wild, and refine on the impressions made by exquisite senses, that they might, forsooth have a pretext for yielding to a natural appetite without violating a romantic species of modesty, which gratifies the pride and libertinism of man.

But if men have some reason to boast of their physical strength, why are women so foolish as to be proud of a weakness? Rousseau has given women a plausible excuse. It could only have occurred to a man who let his imagination run wild and elaborate on the impressions made by his exquisitely sensitive senses. And all this, supposedly, so that women could have a pretext for giving in to a natural appetite without violating a romantic kind of modesty, one that gratifies men’s pride and love of sexual freedom.

Women deluded by these sentiments, sometimes boast of their weakness, cunningly obtaining power by playing on the WEAKNESS of men; and they may well glory in their illicit sway, for, like Turkish bashaws, they have more real power than their masters: but virtue is sacrificed to temporary gratifications, and the respectability of life to the triumph of an hour.

Women misled by these ideas sometimes boast of their weakness. They cleverly gain power by playing on the weakness of men. They may well take pride in this improper power, for, like Turkish bashaws, they have more real power than their masters. But they sacrifice virtue for short-lived pleasures and a respectable life for a moment of triumph.

Women, as well as despots, have now, perhaps, more power than they would have, if the world, divided and subdivided into kingdoms and families, was governed by laws deduced from the exercise of reason; but in obtaining it, to carry on the comparison, their character is degraded, and licentiousness spread through the whole aggregate of society. The many become pedestal to the few. I, therefore will venture to assert, that till women are more rationally educated, the progress of human virtue and improvement in knowledge must receive continual checks. And if it be granted, that woman was not created merely to gratify the appetite of man, nor to be the upper servant, who provides his meals and takes care of his linen, it must follow, that the first care of those mothers or fathers, who really attend to the education of females, should be, if not to strengthen the body, at least, not to destroy the constitution by mistaken notions of beauty and female excellence; nor should girls ever be allowed to imbibe the pernicious notion that a defect can, by any chemical process of reasoning become an excellence. In this respect, I am happy to find, that the author of one of the most instructive books, that our country has produced for children, coincides with me in opinion; I shall quote his pertinent remarks to give the force of his respectable authority to reason.*

Women, like despots, now perhaps have more power than they would under laws based on reason. Those laws would govern a world divided and subdivided into kingdoms and families. But, to continue the comparison, women degrade their character in gaining power, and moral corruption spreads throughout society. The many become a pedestal for the few. I therefore venture to assert that, until women receive a more rational education, human virtue and knowledge will continually be held back. If we accept that woman was not created merely to satisfy man’s appetite, another conclusion must follow. Nor was she created to be his chief servant, preparing his meals and caring for his linen. Parents who truly attend to their daughters’ education should first seek to strengthen their bodies. If not, they should at least avoid damaging their health through mistaken ideas of beauty and female excellence. Nor should girls ever be allowed to absorb the harmful idea that any trick of reasoning can turn a defect into an excellence. On this point, I am happy to find that the author of one of our country’s most instructive children’s books agrees with me. I shall quote his relevant remarks, so that his respected authority may lend weight to reason.*

(*Footnote. A respectable old man gives the following sensible account of the method he pursued when educating his daughter. "I endeavoured to give both to her mind and body a degree of vigour, which is seldom found in the female sex. As soon as she was sufficiently advanced in strength to be capable of the lighter labours of husbandry and gardening, I employed her as my constant companion. Selene, for that was her name, soon acquired a dexterity in all these rustic employments which I considered with equal pleasure and admiration. If women are in general feeble both in body and mind, it arises less from nature than from education. We encourage a vicious indolence and inactivity, which we falsely call delicacy; instead of hardening their minds by the severer principles of reason and philosophy, we breed them to useless arts, which terminate in vanity and sensuality. In most of the countries which I had visited, they are taught nothing of an higher nature than a few modulations of the voice, or useless postures of the body; their time is consumed in sloth or trifles, and trifles become the only pursuits capable of interesting them. We seem to forget, that it is upon the qualities of the female sex, that our own domestic comforts and the education of our children must depend. And what are the comforts or the education which a race of beings corrupted from their infancy, and unacquainted with all the duties of life, are fitted to bestow? To touch a musical instrument with useless skill, to exhibit their natural or affected graces, to the eyes of indolent and debauched young men, who dissipate their husbands' patrimony in riotous and unnecessary expenses: these are the only arts cultivated by women in most of the polished nations I had seen. And the consequences are uniformly such as may be expected to proceed from such polluted sources, private misery, and public servitude.

(*Footnote. A respectable old man gives the following sensible account of how he educated his daughter. "I tried to make her mind and body stronger than is usual among women. As soon as she was strong enough for lighter farm and garden work, I made her my constant companion. Her name was Selene. She soon became skilled at all these rural tasks, and I watched her with equal pleasure and admiration. If women are generally weak in body and mind, education is more to blame than nature. We encourage a harmful laziness and inactivity, which we falsely call delicacy. Instead of strengthening women's minds through the stricter principles of reason and philosophy, we train them in useless arts. These arts lead only to vanity and sensuality. In most of the countries I visited, women are taught nothing higher than a few ways to use their voices or useless bodily postures. They spend their time in idleness or on trivial things. As a result, trivial things become the only pursuits that can interest them. We seem to forget that our own comforts at home and our children's education depend on women's qualities. What comfort or education can we expect from people corrupted from infancy and unfamiliar with all the duties of life? In most of the civilized nations I saw, women are trained only in these arts: playing a musical instrument with useless skill and displaying their natural or affected graces before idle and debauched young men. These women squander their husbands' inherited wealth on extravagant and unnecessary expenses. The results are always what we might expect from such corrupt sources: misery in private life and servitude in public life.

"But, Selene's education was regulated by different views, and conducted upon severer principles; if that can be called severity which opens the mind to a sense of moral and religious duties, and most effectually arms it against the inevitable evils of life."—Mr. Day's "Sandford and Merton," Volume 3.)

"But Selene's education was guided by different aims and stricter principles. That is, if principles can be called strict when they awaken the mind to moral and religious duties. For these principles also prepare the mind as effectively as possible against life's inevitable evils." (Mr. Day's "Sandford and Merton," Volume 3.)

But should it be proved that woman is naturally weaker than man, from whence does it follow that it is natural for her to labour to become still weaker than nature intended her to be? Arguments of this cast are an insult to common sense, and savour of passion. The DIVINE RIGHT of husbands, like the divine right of kings, may, it is to be hoped, in this enlightened age, be contested without danger, and though conviction may not silence many boisterous disputants, yet, when any prevailing prejudice is attacked, the wise will consider, and leave the narrow-minded to rail with thoughtless vehemence at innovation.

But even if women are proved naturally weaker than men, why should they try to become weaker than nature intended? Such arguments insult common sense and seem driven by passion. We may hope that, in this enlightened age, the DIVINE RIGHT of husbands can be challenged without danger, just like the divine right of kings. Convincing arguments may not silence many loud disputants. Yet when a widespread prejudice is challenged, the wise will consider the arguments. They will leave the narrow-minded to denounce new ideas with unthinking fury.

The mother, who wishes to give true dignity of character to her daughter, must, regardless of the sneers of ignorance, proceed on a plan diametrically opposite to that which Rousseau has recommended with all the deluding charms of eloquence and philosophical sophistry: for his eloquence renders absurdities plausible, and his dogmatic conclusions puzzle, without convincing those who have not ability to refute them.

A mother who wants to give her daughter a truly dignified character must ignore the sneers of the ignorant. She must follow a plan directly opposite to the one Rousseau recommended with all the deceptive charm of eloquence and philosophical sophistry. For his eloquence makes absurdities seem plausible. His dogmatic conclusions puzzle those who cannot refute them, without convincing them.

Throughout the whole animal kingdom every young creature requires almost continual exercise, and the infancy of children, conformable to this intimation, should be passed in harmless gambols, that exercise the feet and hands, without requiring very minute direction from the head, or the constant attention of a nurse. In fact, the care necessary for self-preservation is the first natural exercise of the understanding, as little inventions to amuse the present moment unfold the imagination. But these wise designs of nature are counteracted by mistaken fondness or blind zeal. The child is not left a moment to its own direction, particularly a girl, and thus rendered dependent—dependence is called natural.

Throughout the animal kingdom, every young creature needs almost constant exercise. In keeping with this sign from nature, children should spend their early years in harmless play. Such play exercises their hands and feet without requiring much guidance from their minds or a nurse’s constant attention. In fact, taking care of their own safety is the first natural exercise of their understanding. In the same way, inventing little ways to amuse themselves unfolds their imagination. But mistaken affection or blind zeal works against these wise designs of nature. A child, especially a girl, is never left to make decisions for herself. She is thus made dependent, and this dependence is called natural.

To preserve personal beauty, woman's glory! the limbs and faculties are cramped with worse than Chinese bands, and the sedentary life which they are condemned to live, whilst boys frolic in the open air, weakens the muscles and relaxes the nerves. As for Rousseau's remarks, which have since been echoed by several writers, that they have naturally, that is from their birth, independent of education, a fondness for dolls, dressing, and talking, they are so puerile as not to merit a serious refutation. That a girl, condemned to sit for hours together listening to the idle chat of weak nurses or to attend at her mother's toilet, will endeavour to join the conversation, is, indeed very natural; and that she will imitate her mother or aunts, and amuse herself by adorning her lifeless doll, as they do in dressing her, poor innocent babe! is undoubtedly a most natural consequence. For men of the greatest abilities have seldom had sufficient strength to rise above the surrounding atmosphere; and, if the page of genius has always been blurred by the prejudices of the age, some allowance should be made for a sex, who, like kings, always see things through a false medium.

To preserve personal beauty, woman’s glory, women’s limbs and abilities are confined more severely than by Chinese foot bindings. They are condemned to a sedentary life while boys play outdoors. This weakens their muscles and nerves. Rousseau claimed that girls naturally love dolls, dressing up, and talking. By naturally, he meant from birth and regardless of their education. Several writers have since repeated his claim. It is so childish that it does not deserve a serious refutation. A girl may be condemned to sit for hours, listening to the idle chatter of foolish nurses or watching her mother dress. Naturally, she will try to join the conversation. She will also imitate her mother or aunts and amuse herself by dressing her lifeless doll. That is undoubtedly a natural consequence of seeing them dress her, poor innocent baby! Even men of the greatest abilities have rarely been strong enough to rise above the influences around them. And if prejudice has always marred the writings of genius, we should make some allowance for women. Like kings, women always see things through a distorted lens.

In this manner may the fondness for dress, conspicuous in women, be easily accounted for, without supposing it the result of a desire to please the sex on which they are dependent. The absurdity, in short, of supposing that a girl is naturally a coquette, and that a desire connected with the impulse of nature to propagate the species, should appear even before an improper education has, by heating the imagination, called it forth prematurely, is so unphilosophical, that such a sagacious observer as Rousseau would not have adopted it, if he had not been accustomed to make reason give way to his desire of singularity, and truth to a favourite paradox.

In this way, women’s noticeable fondness for dress can easily be explained. We need not assume it comes from a desire to please the sex on which they depend. In short, it is absurd to suppose that a girl is naturally a flirt. Such a desire is connected to the natural impulse to reproduce. It is absurd to suppose it appears even before a poor education has stirred the imagination and brought it out prematurely. This idea is so unphilosophical that an astute observer like Rousseau would not have adopted it. But he was accustomed to sacrificing reason to his desire to be different, and truth to a favorite paradox.

Yet thus to give a sex to mind was not very consistent with the principles of a man who argued so warmly, and so well, for the immortality of the soul. But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an hypothesis! Rousseau respected—almost adored virtue—and yet allowed himself to love with sensual fondness. His imagination constantly prepared inflammable fuel for his inflammable senses; but, in order to reconcile his respect for self-denial, fortitude and those heroic virtues, which a mind like his could not coolly admire, he labours to invert the law of nature, and broaches a doctrine pregnant with mischief, and derogatory to the character of supreme wisdom.

Yet giving the mind a sex was hardly consistent with Rousseau's principles. He argued so passionately and so well that the soul is immortal. But how weak a barrier truth becomes when it stands in the way of a theory! Rousseau respected virtue, almost worshipped it, yet allowed himself to love with sensual passion. His imagination constantly provided fuel for his easily inflamed senses. But Rousseau also respected self-denial, courage, and those heroic virtues that a mind like his could not admire coolly. To reconcile this respect with his passions, he tries to turn the law of nature upside down. He puts forward a doctrine full of potential harm, one that discredits the character of supreme wisdom.

His ridiculous stories, which tend to prove that girls are NATURALLY attentive to their persons, without laying any stress on daily example, are below contempt. And that a little miss should have such a correct taste as to neglect the pleasing amusement of making O's, merely because she perceived that it was an ungraceful attitude, should be selected with the anecdotes of the learned pig.*

His ridiculous stories supposedly prove that girls are NATURALLY attentive to their appearance. They place no importance on the examples girls see every day. The stories are beneath contempt. One story claims that a little girl had such refined taste that she gave up the pleasant amusement of making O's. She did so merely because she noticed that her posture was ungraceful. That story belongs with the anecdotes about the learned pig.*

(*Footnote. "I once knew a young person who learned to write before she learned to read, and began to write with her needle before she could use a pen. At first indeed, she took it into her head to make no other letter than the O: this letter she was constantly making of all sizes, and always the wrong way. Unluckily one day, as she was intent on this employment, she happened to see herself in the looking glass; when, taking a dislike to the constrained attitude in which she sat while writing, she threw away her pen, like another Pallas, and determined against making the O any more. Her brother was also equally averse to writing: it was the confinement, however, and not the constrained attitude, that most disgusted him." Rousseau's "Emilius.")

(*Footnote. "I once knew a young person who learned to write before she learned to read. She began writing with her needle before she could use a pen. At first, she decided to make no letter but O. She kept making this letter in all sizes, and always the wrong way. Unfortunately, one day she saw herself in the mirror while she was busy writing. She disliked the awkward posture she sat in while writing. So, like another Pallas, she threw away her pen and resolved never to make an O again. Her brother was equally opposed to writing. But it was being confined, not the awkward posture, that he disliked most." Rousseau's "Emilius.")

I have, probably, had an opportunity of observing more girls in their infancy than J. J. Rousseau. I can recollect my own feelings, and I have looked steadily around me; yet, so far from coinciding with him in opinion respecting the first dawn of the female character, I will venture to affirm, that a girl, whose spirits have not been damped by inactivity, or innocence tainted by false shame, will always be a romp, and the doll will never excite attention unless confinement allows her no alternative. Girls and boys, in short, would play harmless together, if the distinction of sex was not inculcated long before nature makes any difference. I will, go further, and affirm, as an indisputable fact, that most of the women, in the circle of my observation, who have acted like rational creatures, or shown any vigour of intellect, have accidentally been allowed to run wild, as some of the elegant formers of the fair sex would insinuate.

I have probably had more opportunities than J. J. Rousseau to observe girls in early childhood. I can remember my own feelings, and I have observed the world around me closely. Yet I do not agree with him about the earliest signs of female character. I would venture to say that a girl will always be boisterous if inactivity has not dampened her spirits or false shame tainted her innocence. A doll will never interest her unless she is confined and has no alternative. In short, girls and boys would play harmlessly together if they were not taught about the distinction between the sexes long before nature makes any difference. I will go further and state an indisputable fact about most women I have observed who have acted like rational creatures or shown any intellectual vigor. They have, by chance, been allowed to run wild, as some of the elegant shapers of the fair sex would suggest.

The baneful consequences which flow from inattention to health during infancy, and youth, extend further than is supposed, dependence of body naturally produces dependence of mind; and how can she be a good wife or mother, the greater part of whose time is employed to guard against or endure sickness; nor can it be expected, that a woman will resolutely endeavour to strengthen her constitution and abstain from enervating indulgences, if artificial notions of beauty, and false descriptions of sensibility, have been early entangled with her motives of action. Most men are sometimes obliged to bear with bodily inconveniences, and to endure, occasionally, the inclemency of the elements; but genteel women are, literally speaking, slaves to their bodies, and glory in their subjection.

Neglecting health during infancy and youth has harmful consequences that reach further than people suppose. A dependent body naturally leads to a dependent mind. And how can a woman be a good wife or mother if she spends most of her time avoiding or enduring sickness? Nor can we expect a woman to make a determined effort to strengthen her health and avoid weakening indulgences if artificial ideas of beauty and false notions of sensitivity have shaped her motives from an early age. Most men must sometimes put up with physical discomfort and occasionally endure harsh weather. But women of genteel society are literally slaves to their bodies, and they take pride in their submission.

I once knew a weak woman of fashion, who was more than commonly proud of her delicacy and sensibility. She thought a distinguishing taste and puny appetite the height of all human perfection, and acted accordingly. I have seen this weak sophisticated being neglect all the duties of life, yet recline with self-complacency on a sofa, and boast of her want of appetite as a proof of delicacy that extended to, or, perhaps, arose from, her exquisite sensibility: for it is difficult to render intelligible such ridiculous jargon. Yet, at the moment, I have seen her insult a worthy old gentlewoman, whom unexpected misfortunes had made dependent on her ostentatious bounty, and who, in better days, had claims on her gratitude. Is it possible that a human creature should have become such a weak and depraved being, if, like the Sybarites, dissolved in luxury, every thing like virtue had not been worn away, or never impressed by precept, a poor substitute it is true, for cultivation of mind, though it serves as a fence against vice?

I once knew a foolish society woman who was unusually proud of her delicacy and sensitivity. She thought refined taste and a tiny appetite were the height of human perfection, and she acted accordingly. I saw this foolish, affected creature neglect all her duties in life. Yet she would lie smugly on a sofa and boast that her lack of appetite proved her delicacy. She claimed that this delicacy extended to her exquisite sensitivity, or perhaps arose from it. Such ridiculous jargon is hard to make sense of. Yet I have seen her, at that very moment, insult a worthy older gentlewoman. Unexpected misfortunes had made the gentlewoman dependent on her showy generosity. In better days, the gentlewoman had done things for which this woman owed her gratitude. Could a human being have become so weak and corrupt otherwise? Like the Sybarites, she had been ruined by luxury. Had luxury not worn away every trace of virtue, or had virtue never been taught to her? Teaching virtue is a poor substitute for cultivating the mind, though it does provide some protection against vice.

Such a woman is not a more irrational monster than some of the Roman emperors, who were depraved by lawless power. Yet, since kings have been more under the restraint of law, and the curb, however weak, of honour, the records of history are not filled with such unnatural instances of folly and cruelty, nor does the despotism that kills virtue and genius in the bud, hover over Europe with that destructive blast which desolates Turkey, and renders the men, as well as the soil unfruitful.

Such a woman is no more irrational a monster than some Roman emperors, who were corrupted by unchecked power. Yet kings have since been more restrained by law and by honour, however weakly honour restrains them. As a result, the records of history are not filled with such unnatural examples of folly and cruelty. Nor does the despotism that destroys virtue and genius before they can develop hang over Europe. Its destructive force devastates Turkey and makes both its people and its soil unproductive.

Women are every where in this deplorable state; for, in order to preserve their innocence, as ignorance is courteously termed, truth is hidden from them, and they are made to assume an artificial character before their faculties have acquired any strength. Taught from their infancy, that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and, roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison. Men have various employments and pursuits which engage their attention, and give a character to the opening mind; but women, confined to one, and having their thoughts constantly directed to the most insignificant part of themselves, seldom extend their views beyond the triumph of the hour. But was their understanding once emancipated from the slavery to which the pride and sensuality of man and their short sighted desire, like that of dominion in tyrants, of present sway, has subjected them, we should probably read of their weaknesses with surprise. I must be allowed to pursue the argument a little farther.

Women everywhere are in this miserable state. To preserve their innocence, as ignorance is politely called, the truth is hidden from them. They are made to adopt an artificial character before their minds have gained any strength. From infancy, they are taught that beauty is a woman’s scepter. Their minds take their shape from their bodies. They roam around their gilded cage, seeking only to decorate their prison. Men have various occupations and interests that engage their attention and shape their developing minds. But women are confined to one pursuit. Their thoughts are constantly directed toward the least important part of themselves, so they rarely look beyond the triumph of the moment. But suppose women’s understanding were freed from its slavery. Men’s pride and sensuality have subjected women’s understanding to this slavery. So has women’s own short-sighted desire for power in the present, like a tyrant’s desire to rule. If women’s understanding were freed, we would probably read about their weaknesses with surprise. I must be allowed to take this argument a little further.

Perhaps, if the existence of an evil being was allowed, who, in the allegorical language of scripture, went about seeking whom he should devour, he could not more effectually degrade the human character than by giving a man absolute power.

Perhaps there is an evil being who, in the symbolic language of scripture, goes about looking for someone to devour. If so, he could do no more effective harm to human character than by giving a man absolute power.

This argument branches into various ramifications. Birth, riches, and every intrinsic advantage that exalt a man above his fellows, without any mental exertion, sink him in reality below them. In proportion to his weakness, he is played upon by designing men, till the bloated monster has lost all traces of humanity. And that tribes of men, like flocks of sheep, should quietly follow such a leader, is a solecism that only a desire of present enjoyment and narrowness of understanding can solve. Educated in slavish dependence, and enervated by luxury and sloth, where shall we find men who will stand forth to assert the rights of man; or claim the privilege of moral beings, who should have but one road to excellence? Slavery to monarchs and ministers, which the world will be long in freeing itself from, and whose deadly grasp stops the progress of the human mind, is not yet abolished.

This argument has many implications. Birth, wealth, and every inherent advantage that raises a man above others without mental effort actually lowers him beneath them. The weaker he is, the more scheming men manipulate him, until the bloated monster has lost all traces of humanity. And that groups of men should quietly follow such a leader like flocks of sheep is absurd. Only a desire for immediate pleasure and a narrow understanding can explain it. Men have been raised in slavish dependence and weakened by luxury and idleness. Where, then, can we find men who will stand up for the rights of man? Where are those who will claim the privilege of moral beings, for whom there should be only one path to excellence? Slavery to monarchs and ministers has not yet been abolished. The world will take a long time to free itself from this slavery, whose deadly grip stops the progress of the human mind.

Let not men then in the pride of power, use the same arguments that tyrannic kings and venal ministers have used, and fallaciously assert, that woman ought to be subjected because she has always been so. But, when man, governed by reasonable laws, enjoys his natural freedom, let him despise woman, if she do not share it with him; and, till that glorious period arrives, in descanting on the folly of the sex, let him not overlook his own.

So let men not use their power as an excuse to repeat the arguments of tyrannical kings and corrupt ministers. Let them not falsely claim that women should be subject to men because they always have been. But when men enjoy their natural freedom under reasonable laws, let them despise women if women do not share that freedom. Until that glorious time arrives, let men not overlook their own foolishness when discussing the foolishness of women.

Women, it is true, obtaining power by unjust means, by practising or fostering vice, evidently lose the rank which reason would assign them, and they become either abject slaves or capricious tyrants. They lose all simplicity, all dignity of mind, in acquiring power, and act as men are observed to act when they have been exalted by the same means.

It is true that women sometimes gain power by unjust means, by practicing or encouraging vice. In doing so, they clearly lose the standing that reason would give them. They become either utterly submissive slaves or tyrants ruled by whim. In gaining power, they lose all simplicity and dignity of mind. They act just as men do when they have risen to power by the same means.

It is time to effect a revolution in female manners, time to restore to them their lost dignity, and make them, as a part of the human species, labour by reforming themselves to reform the world. It is time to separate unchangeable morals from local manners. If men be demi-gods, why let us serve them! And if the dignity of the female soul be as disputable as that of animals, if their reason does not afford sufficient light to direct their conduct whilst unerring instinct is denied, they are surely of all creatures the most miserable and, bent beneath the iron hand of destiny, must submit to be a FAIR DEFECT in creation. But to justify the ways of providence respecting them, by pointing out some irrefragable reason for thus making such a large portion of mankind accountable and not accountable, would puzzle the subtlest casuist.

It is time to revolutionize women’s behavior and restore their lost dignity. As members of the human species, women must work to reform themselves and, in doing so, reform the world. It is time to separate unchanging morals from local customs. If men are demigods, then let us serve them! And if women’s souls are as doubtful in dignity as those of animals, women are surely the most miserable of all creatures. They are most miserable if their reason does not give them enough light to guide their conduct, yet they are denied unerring instinct. Bent beneath the iron hand of destiny, they must submit to being a FAIR DEFECT in creation. But even the subtlest moral reasoner would struggle to justify providence’s treatment of women. Such a reasoner would have to give an undeniable reason for making such a large part of humanity both accountable and not accountable.

The only solid foundation for morality appears to be the character of the Supreme Being; the harmony of which arises from a balance of attributes; and, to speak with reverence, one attribute seems to imply the NECESSITY of another. He must be just, because he is wise, he must be good, because he is omnipotent. For, to exalt one attribute at the expense of another equally noble and necessary, bears the stamp of the warped reason of man, the homage of passion. Man, accustomed to bow down to power in his savage state, can seldom divest himself of this barbarous prejudice even when civilization determines how much superior mental is to bodily strength; and his reason is clouded by these crude opinions, even when he thinks of the Deity. His omnipotence is made to swallow up, or preside over his other attributes, and those mortals are supposed to limit his power irreverently, who think that it must be regulated by his wisdom.

The only solid foundation for morality seems to be the character of the Supreme Being. His character is harmonious because his qualities are in balance. And, speaking with reverence, one quality seems to make another NECESSARY. He must be just because he is wise. He must be good because he is all-powerful. To exalt one quality at the expense of another equally noble and necessary shows the distorted reasoning of human beings. It is a tribute paid to passion. In his savage state, man becomes accustomed to bowing before power. He can seldom shed this barbaric prejudice, even when civilization shows how much greater mental strength is than physical strength. These crude opinions cloud his reason even when he thinks about God. God's power is made to swallow up or govern his other qualities. And people who think his power must be guided by his wisdom are thought to limit it irreverently.

I disclaim that species of humility which, after investigating nature, stops at the author. The high and lofty One, who inhabiteth eternity, doubtless possesses many attributes of which we can form no conception; but reason tells me that they cannot clash with those I adore, and I am compelled to listen to her voice.

I reject the kind of humility that investigates nature but stops short of questioning its creator. The high and exalted one who lives in eternity undoubtedly has many qualities we cannot imagine. But reason tells me those qualities cannot conflict with the qualities I adore. I am compelled to listen to reason.

It seems natural for man to search for excellence, and either to trace it in the object that he worships, or blindly to invest it with perfection as a garment. But what good effect can the latter mode of worship have on the moral conduct of a rational being? He bends to power; he adores a dark cloud, which may open a bright prospect to him, or burst in angry, lawless fury on his devoted head, he knows not why. And, supposing that the Deity acts from the vague impulse of an undirected will, man must also follow his own, or act according to rules, deduced from principles which he disclaims as irreverent. Into this dilemma have both enthusiasts and cooler thinkers fallen, when they laboured to free men from the wholesome restraints which a just conception of the character of God imposes.

It seems natural for people to seek excellence. They either find it in what they worship or blindly dress it in perfection like a garment. But how can that second kind of worship improve the moral conduct of a rational being? Such a person bows to power. He worships a dark cloud that may reveal a bright view or burst over his head in angry, lawless fury. He does not know why either may happen. Suppose God acts on the vague impulse of a will with no guiding principles. Then a person must also follow his own will. Otherwise, he must act by rules drawn from principles he rejects as disrespectful to God. Both religious enthusiasts and more restrained thinkers have fallen into this dilemma. They fell into it when they tried to free people from the beneficial restraints that a just understanding of God's character places on them.

It is not impious thus to scan the attributes of the Almighty: in fact, who can avoid it that exercises his faculties? for to love God as the fountain of wisdom, goodness, and power, appears to be the only worship useful to a being who wishes to acquire either virtue or knowledge. A blind unsettled affection may, like human passions, occupy the mind and warm the heart, whilst, to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God, is forgotten. I shall pursue this subject still further, when I consider religion in a light opposite to that recommended by Dr. Gregory, who treats it as a matter of sentiment or taste.

It is not impious to examine the qualities of the Almighty in this way. In fact, who can avoid doing so if they use their faculties? Loving God as the source of wisdom, goodness, and power seems to be the only worship useful to anyone seeking virtue or knowledge. A blind, uncertain affection may occupy the mind and warm the heart, like human passions. Yet it may cause us to forget to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. I will explore this subject further when I consider religion in a way that differs from Dr. Gregory’s approach. He treats religion as a matter of feeling or taste.

To return from this apparent digression. It were to be wished, that women would cherish an affection for their husbands, founded on the same principle that devotion ought to rest upon. No other firm base is there under heaven, for let them beware of the fallacious light of sentiment; too often used as a softer phrase for sensuality. It follows then, I think, that from their infancy women should either be shut up like eastern princes, or educated in such a manner as to be able to think and act for themselves.

To return from this apparent digression, I wish women would love their husbands on the same principle that devotion should rest on. There is no other firm foundation under heaven. Women should beware of the deceptive glow of sentiment, a word too often used to soften the meaning of sensuality. It follows, I think, that from infancy women should either be confined like eastern princes or educated to think and act for themselves.

Why do men halt between two opinions, and expect impossibilities? Why do they expect virtue from a slave, or from a being whom the constitution of civil society has rendered weak, if not vicious?

Why do men waver between two opinions and expect the impossible? Why do they expect virtue from a slave, or from someone whom civil society has made weak, if not morally corrupt?

Still I know that it will require a considerable length of time to eradicate the firmly rooted prejudices which sensualists have planted; it will also require some time to convince women that they act contrary to their real interest on an enlarged scale, when they cherish or affect weakness under the name of delicacy, and to convince the world that the poisoned source of female vices and follies, if it be necessary, in compliance with custom, to use synonymous terms in a lax sense, has been the sensual homage paid to beauty: to beauty of features; for it has been shrewdly observed by a German writer, that a pretty woman, as an object of desire, is generally allowed to be so by men of all descriptions; whilst a fine woman, who inspires more sublime emotions by displaying intellectual beauty, may be overlooked or observed with indifference, by those men who find their happiness in the gratification of their appetites. I foresee an obvious retort; whilst man remains such an imperfect being as he appears hitherto to have been, he will, more or less, be the slave of his appetites; and those women obtaining most power who gratify a predominant one, the sex is degraded by a physical, if not by a moral necessity.

Still, I know that it will take considerable time to uproot the deeply held prejudices planted by those devoted to sensual pleasure. It will also take time to convince women that embracing or pretending to have weakness, calling it delicacy, goes against their broader interests. And it will take time to convince the world that the poisoned source of female vices and follies has been the sensual worship of beauty, especially beauty of features. Here I follow custom in using “vices” and “follies” loosely, as if they meant the same thing. A German writer has astutely observed that men of all kinds generally agree when a pretty woman is desirable. But a fine woman who inspires more elevated emotions by displaying intellectual beauty may be overlooked or regarded with indifference. This may happen with men who find happiness in satisfying their appetites. I can foresee an obvious reply. As long as man remains as imperfect as he has apparently been so far, he will be a slave to his appetites to some degree. And women who satisfy a dominant appetite gain the most power. Thus the female sex is degraded by physical necessity, if not moral necessity.

This objection has, I grant, some force; but while such a sublime precept exists, as, "be pure as your heavenly father is pure;" it would seem that the virtues of man are not limited by the Being who alone could limit them; and that he may press forward without considering whether he steps out of his sphere by indulging such a noble ambition. To the wild billows it has been said, "thus far shalt thou go, and no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." Vainly then do they beat and foam, restrained by the power that confines the struggling planets within their orbits, matter yields to the great governing Spirit. But an immortal soul, not restrained by mechanical laws, and struggling to free itself from the shackles of matter, contributes to, instead of disturbing, the order of creation, when, co-operating with the Father of spirits, it tries to govern itself by the invariable rule that, in a degree, before which our imagination faints, the universe is regulated.

I admit that this objection has some force. But such a sublime command exists: "be pure as your heavenly father is pure." This suggests that God, the only Being who could limit human virtue, has not done so. A person may therefore press forward without worrying that such a noble ambition takes them outside their proper sphere. To the wild waves it has been said, "thus far shalt thou go, and no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." The waves beat and foam in vain. They are restrained by the power that keeps the struggling planets within their orbits. Matter yields to the great governing Spirit. But an immortal soul is not restrained by mechanical laws. It struggles to free itself from the bonds of matter. In doing so, it contributes to the order of creation rather than disturbing it. The soul cooperates with the Father of spirits when it tries to govern itself by an unchanging rule. This same rule governs the universe to a degree beyond what our imagination can grasp.

Besides, if women are educated for dependence, that is, to act according to the will of another fallible being, and submit, right or wrong, to power, where are we to stop? Are they to be considered as viceregents, allowed to reign over a small domain, and answerable for their conduct to a higher tribunal, liable to error?

Besides, if women are educated to depend on others, where are we to stop? They are taught to obey the will of another fallible person and submit to power, whether it is right or wrong. Are women to be treated as deputies, allowed to rule over a small domain? Are they to answer for their conduct to a higher authority that can also make mistakes?

It will not be difficult to prove, that such delegates will act like men subjected by fear, and make their children and servants endure their tyrannical oppression. As they submit without reason, they will, having no fixed rules to square their conduct by, be kind or cruel, just as the whim of the moment directs; and we ought not to wonder if sometimes, galled by their heavy yoke, they take a malignant pleasure in resting it on weaker shoulders.

It will not be difficult to prove that such delegates will act like men ruled by fear. They will subject their children and servants to tyrannical oppression. Because they submit without reason, they have no fixed rules to guide their conduct. They will be kind or cruel according to the whim of the moment. And we should not be surprised if, chafing under their heavy burden, they sometimes take malicious pleasure in placing it on weaker shoulders.

But, supposing a woman, trained up to obedience, be married to a sensible man, who directs her judgment, without making her feel the servility of her subjection, to act with as much propriety by this reflected light as can be expected when reason is taken at second hand, yet she cannot ensure the life of her protector; he may die and leave her with a large family.

But suppose a woman has been raised to obey and marries a sensible man. He guides her judgment without making her feel how submissive her dependence is. Guided by his judgment, she acts as properly as can be expected when she relies on someone else’s reasoning. Even so, she cannot guarantee that her protector will live. He may die and leave her with a large family.

A double duty devolves on her; to educate them in the character of both father and mother; to form their principles and secure their property. But, alas! she has never thought, much less acted for herself. She has only learned to please men, to depend gracefully on them; yet, encumbered with children, how is she to obtain another protector; a husband to supply the place of reason? A rational man, for we are not treading on romantic ground, though he may think her a pleasing docile creature, will not choose to marry a FAMILY for love, when the world contains many more pretty creatures. What is then to become of her? She either falls an easy prey to some mean fortune hunter, who defrauds her children of their paternal inheritance, and renders her miserable; or becomes the victim of discontent and blind indulgence. Unable to educate her sons, or impress them with respect; for it is not a play on words to assert, that people are never respected, though filling an important station, who are not respectable; she pines under the anguish of unavailing impotent regret. The serpent's tooth enters into her very soul, and the vices of licentious youth bring her with sorrow, if not with poverty also, to the grave.

She has a double duty: to raise her children as both father and mother, shape their principles, and safeguard their property. But, alas, she has never thought for herself, much less acted for herself. She has learned only to please men and depend on them gracefully. Yet, burdened with children, how can she find another protector, a husband to take the place of reason? A rational man may think her a pleasant, docile creature. But we are not imagining a romantic world. He will not choose to marry a FAMILY for love when the world contains so many other pretty creatures. What, then, will become of her? She may fall easy prey to some unscrupulous fortune hunter, who cheats her children of their father’s inheritance and makes her miserable. Or she may become a victim of discontent and blind indulgence. She cannot educate her sons or earn their respect. It is no mere play on words to say that people who are not respectable are never respected, however important their position. She suffers the anguish of helpless, useless regret. The serpent’s tooth pierces her very soul, and the vices of unrestrained youth bring her to the grave in sorrow, if not in poverty too.

This is not an overcharged picture; on the contrary, it is a very possible case, and something similar must have fallen under every attentive eye.

This is not an exaggerated picture. On the contrary, it is a very possible case. Anyone who pays attention must have seen something similar.

I have, however, taken it for granted, that she was well disposed, though experience shows, that the blind may as easily be led into a ditch as along the beaten road. But supposing, no very improbable conjecture, that a being only taught to please must still find her happiness in pleasing; what an example of folly, not to say vice, will she be to her innocent daughters! The mother will be lost in the coquette, and, instead of making friends of her daughters, view them with eyes askance, for they are rivals—rivals more cruel than any other, because they invite a comparison, and drive her from the throne of beauty, who has never thought of a seat on the bench of reason.

I have, however, assumed that she was well intentioned. Yet experience shows that blind people can be led into a ditch as easily as along a familiar road. But suppose that a woman taught only to please must still find her happiness in pleasing. That is not an unlikely guess. What an example of folly, if not vice, she will be to her innocent daughters! The mother will disappear into the flirt. Instead of making friends of her daughters, she will look at them with suspicion, because they are rivals. They are crueller rivals than any others because they invite comparison. They drive her from the throne of beauty, though she has never thought of taking a seat among the reasonable.

It does not require a lively pencil, or the discriminating outline of a caricature, to sketch the domestic miseries and petty vices which such a mistress of a family diffuses. Still she only acts as a woman ought to act, brought up according to Rousseau's system. She can never be reproached for being masculine, or turning out of her sphere; nay, she may observe another of his grand rules, and, cautiously preserving her reputation free from spot, be reckoned a good kind of woman. Yet in what respect can she be termed good? She abstains, it is true, without any great struggle, from committing gross crimes; but how does she fulfil her duties? Duties!—in truth she has enough to think of to adorn her body and nurse a weak constitution.

It takes no vivid drawing or sharply outlined caricature to sketch the domestic misery and petty vices that such a woman spreads through her household. Yet she only acts as a woman raised according to Rousseau's system ought to act. She can never be accused of being masculine or stepping outside her proper sphere. Indeed, she may follow another of his great rules. By carefully keeping her reputation spotless, she may be considered a good sort of woman. Yet in what way can she be called good? It is true that she avoids committing serious crimes, without much struggle. But how does she fulfill her duties? Duties! In truth, she has enough to think about, adorning her body and tending to her weak health.

With respect to religion, she never presumed to judge for herself; but conformed, as a dependent creature should, to the ceremonies of the church which she was brought up in, piously believing, that wiser heads than her own have settled that business: and not to doubt is her point of perfection. She therefore pays her tythe of mint and cummin, and thanks her God that she is not as other women are. These are the blessed effects of a good education! these the virtues of man's helpmate. I must relieve myself by drawing a different picture.

When it comes to religion, she never dared to judge for herself. Instead, she followed the ceremonies of the church in which she was raised, as a dependent creature should. She piously believed that wiser minds than hers had settled the matter. For her, perfection means never doubting. So she pays her tithe of mint and cumin and thanks God that she is not like other women. These are the blessed effects of a good education! These are the virtues of man's helpmate. I must relieve myself by drawing a different picture.

Let fancy now present a woman with a tolerable understanding, for I do not wish to leave the line of mediocrity, whose constitution, strengthened by exercise, has allowed her body to acquire its full vigour; her mind, at the same time, gradually expanding itself to comprehend the moral duties of life, and in what human virtue and dignity consist. Formed thus by the relative duties of her station, she marries from affection, without losing sight of prudence, and looking beyond matrimonial felicity, she secures her husband's respect before it is necessary to exert mean arts to please him, and feed a dying flame, which nature doomed to expire when the object became familiar, when friendship and forbearance take place of a more ardent affection. This is the natural death of love, and domestic peace is not destroyed by struggles to prevent its extinction. I also suppose the husband to be virtuous; or she is still more in want of independent principles.

Now imagine a woman of adequate understanding. I do not wish to stray from the average. Exercise has strengthened her constitution and allowed her body to develop its full vigor. At the same time, her mind has gradually expanded to understand life's moral duties and what human virtue and dignity consist of. Shaped by the duties of her position and her relationships, she marries for love, without losing sight of prudence. She looks beyond the happiness of marriage and secures her husband's respect early on. She does so before she needs to resort to petty tricks to please him and sustain a dying passion. Nature destined that passion to fade as the couple became familiar with each other. Friendship and patience then take the place of a more ardent affection. This is the natural death of love, and struggles to prevent its fading do not destroy peace at home. I also assume that her husband is virtuous. If he is not, she needs independent principles even more.

Fate, however, breaks this tie. She is left a widow, perhaps, without a sufficient provision: but she is not desolate! The pang of nature is felt; but after time has softened sorrow into melancholy resignation, her heart turns to her children with redoubled fondness, and anxious to provide for them, affection gives a sacred heroic cast to her maternal duties. She thinks that not only the eye sees her virtuous efforts, from whom all her comfort now must flow, and whose approbation is life; but her imagination, a little abstracted and exalted by grief, dwells on the fond hope, that the eyes which her trembling hand closed, may still see how she subdues every wayward passion to fulfil the double duty of being the father as well as the mother of her children. Raised to heroism by misfortunes, she represses the first faint dawning of a natural inclination, before it ripens into love, and in the bloom of life forgets her sex—forgets the pleasure of an awakening passion, which might again have been inspired and returned. She no longer thinks of pleasing, and conscious dignity prevents her from priding herself on account of the praise which her conduct demands. Her children have her love, and her brightest hopes are beyond the grave, where her imagination often strays.

Fate, however, breaks this bond. She is perhaps left a widow without enough money to live on. But she is not utterly alone! She feels the natural pain of loss. In time, though, sorrow softens into a melancholy acceptance, and she turns to her children with twice the affection. Anxious to provide for them, she finds that love gives her duties as a mother a sacred, heroic character. She believes that God sees her virtuous efforts. All her comfort must now come from him, and his approval is life itself. But grief has also lifted her imagination a little above everyday life. She cherishes the hope that the eyes she closed with her trembling hand may still see her. Perhaps they see how she controls every unruly passion to fulfill the double duty of being both father and mother to her children. Her misfortunes raise her to heroism. She suppresses the first faint stirrings of natural attraction before they grow into love. In the bloom of life, she forgets that she is a woman. She forgets the pleasure of a new passion that might have been aroused and returned. She no longer thinks of pleasing others. Her sense of dignity keeps her from taking pride in the praise her conduct deserves. Her children have her love, and her brightest hopes lie beyond the grave, where her imagination often wanders.

I think I see her surrounded by her children, reaping the reward of her care. The intelligent eye meets her's, whilst health and innocence smile on their chubby cheeks, and as they grow up the cares of life are lessened by their grateful attention. She lives to see the virtues which she endeavoured to plant on principles, fixed into habits, to see her children attain a strength of character sufficient to enable them to endure adversity without forgetting their mother's example.

I think I can see her surrounded by her children, enjoying the reward of her care. Their intelligent eyes meet hers, and health and innocence shine in their chubby cheeks. As they grow up, their grateful care lightens her burdens. She lives to see the virtues she tried to instill through principles become habits. She sees her children develop enough strength of character to endure hardship without forgetting her example.

The task of life thus fulfilled, she calmly waits for the sleep of death, and rising from the grave may say, behold, thou gavest me a talent, and here are five talents.

Having fulfilled her task in life, she calmly waits for the sleep of death. Rising from the grave, she may say, look, you gave me one talent, and here are five talents.

I wish to sum up what I have said in a few words, for I here throw down my gauntlet, and deny the existence of sexual virtues, not excepting modesty. For man and woman, truth, if I understand the meaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful female character, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding the sacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea, having no other foundation than utility, and of that utility men pretend arbitrarily to judge, shaping it to their own convenience.

I want to sum up what I have said in a few words. I now issue a challenge: I deny that any virtues belong to one sex alone, including modesty. If I understand the word, truth must be the same for men and women. Yet poets and novelists paint a fanciful picture of women that demands they sacrifice truth and sincerity. As a result, virtue becomes a relative idea, with no foundation other than usefulness. And men claim the right to judge that usefulness as they please, shaping it to suit themselves.

Women, I allow, may have different duties to fulfil; but they are HUMAN duties, and the principles that should regulate the discharge of them, I sturdily maintain, must be the same.

I admit that women may have different duties, but those duties are HUMAN duties. And I firmly maintain that the same principles must guide how women carry them out.

To become respectable, the exercise of their understanding is necessary, there is no other foundation for independence of character; I mean explicitly to say, that they must only bow to the authority of reason, instead of being the MODEST slaves of opinion.

To become respectable, they must exercise their minds. There is no other foundation for independence of character. I mean explicitly that they must bow only to the authority of reason, rather than be the MODEST slaves of opinion.

In the superior ranks of life how seldom do we meet with a man of superior abilities, or even common acquirements? The reason appears to me clear; the state they are born in was an unnatural one. The human character has ever been formed by the employments the individual, or class pursues; and if the faculties are not sharpened by necessity, they must remain obtuse. The argument may fairly be extended to women; for seldom occupied by serious business, the pursuit of pleasure gives that insignificancy to their character which renders the society of the GREAT so insipid. The same want of firmness, produced by a similar cause, forces them both to fly from themselves to noisy pleasures, and artificial passions, till vanity takes place of every social affection, and the characteristics of humanity can scarcely be discerned. Such are the blessings of civil governments, as they are at present organized, that wealth and female softness equally tend to debase mankind, and are produced by the same cause; but allowing women to be rational creatures they should be incited to acquire virtues which they may call their own, for how can a rational being be ennobled by any thing that is not obtained by its OWN exertions?

Among the upper classes, how rarely do we find a man of exceptional ability, or even ordinary knowledge? The reason seems clear to me. The social position into which these men were born was unnatural. Human character has always been shaped by the activities a person or class pursues. If necessity does not sharpen people’s abilities, those abilities must remain dull. The argument can fairly be extended to women. Women are rarely occupied with serious business. Their pursuit of pleasure gives them the same trivial character that makes the company of the GREAT so dull. The same lack of firmness, produced by a similar cause, drives both women and the wealthy to escape themselves. They turn to noisy pleasures and artificial passions. In time, vanity replaces every feeling of affection for others, and the traits of humanity can hardly be recognized. Such are the blessings of civil governments as they are now organized. Wealth and feminine softness both tend to degrade humanity, and both are produced by the same cause. But if we accept that women are rational creatures, they should be encouraged to develop virtues they can call their own. How can a rational being be ennobled by anything not gained through their OWN efforts?