A Vindication of the Rights of Woman | Page 7

teaching men, not only to respect modesty in women, but to acquire it
themselves, as the only way to merit their esteem.
Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this
simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the
companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge, for truth
must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its
influence on general practice. And how can woman be expected to
co-operate, unless she know why she ought to be virtuous? Unless
freedom strengthen her reason till she comprehend her duty, and see in
what manner it is connected with her real good? If children are to be
educated to understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother
must be a patriot; and the love of mankind, from which an orderly train
of virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and

civil interest of mankind; but the education and situation of woman, at
present, shuts her out from such investigations.
In this work I have produced many arguments, which to me were
conclusive, to prove, that the prevailing notion respecting a sexual
character was subversive of morality, and I have contended, that to
render the human body and mind more perfect, chastity must more
universally prevail, and that chastity will never be respected in the male
world till the person of a woman is not, as it were, idolized when little
virtue or sense embellish it with the grand traces of mental beauty, or
the interesting simplicity of affection.
Consider, Sir, dispassionately, these observations, for a glimpse of this
truth seemed to open before you when you observed, "that to see one
half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of
government, was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract
principles, it was impossible to explain." If so, on what does your
constitution rest? If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and
explanation, those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink
from the same test: though a different opinion prevails in this country,
built on the very arguments which you use to justify the oppression of
woman, prescription.
Consider, I address you as a legislator, whether, when men contend for
their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves, respecting
their own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate
women, even though you firmly believe that you are acting in the
manner best calculated to promote their happiness? Who made man the
exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift of reason?
In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination from the weak king to
the weak father of a family; they are all eager to crush reason; yet
always assert that they usurp its throne only to be useful. Do you not
act a similar part, when you FORCE all women, by denying them civil
and political rights, to remain immured in their families groping in the
dark? For surely, sir, you will not assert, that a duty can be binding
which is not founded on reason? If, indeed, this be their destination,
arguments may be drawn from reason; and thus augustly supported, the
more understanding women acquire, the more they will be attached to
their duty, comprehending it, for unless they comprehend it, unless
their morals be fixed on the same immutable principles as those of man,

no authority can make them discharge it in a virtuous manner. They
may be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its constant effect,
degrading the master and the abject dependent.
But, if women are to be excluded, without having a voice, from a
participation of the natural rights of mankind, prove first, to ward off
the charge of injustice and inconsistency, that they want reason, else
this flaw in your NEW CONSTITUTION, the first constitution founded
on reason, will ever show that man must, in some shape, act like a
tyrant, and tyranny, in whatever part of society it rears its brazen front,
will ever undermine morality.
I have repeatedly asserted, and produced what appeared to me
irrefragable arguments drawn from matters of fact, to prove my
assertion, that women cannot, by force, be confined to domestic
concerns; for they will however ignorant, intermeddle with more
weighty affairs, neglecting private duties only to disturb, by cunning
tricks, the orderly plans of reason which rise above their
comprehension.
Besides, whilst they are only made to acquire personal
accomplishments, men will seek for pleasure in variety, and faithless
husbands will make faithless wives; such ignorant beings, indeed, will
be very excusable when, not taught to respect public good, nor allowed
any civil right, they attempt to do themselves justice by retaliation.
The box of mischief