The Book of Women’s Rights.

1860.

THE SECOND CHAPTER.

English translation copyrighted 2nd April 2023.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE

EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN.

Part A.

What arguments do the adversaries of the Emancipation of Women use to deny the equality of the sexes before the Law? Some old-school theosophists claim that half of humanity is condemned by god himself to submit to the other because, they say, the first woman sinned. Not wanting to leave the solid ground of Justice, reason, and proven facts, we will not argue with this class of adversaries. The others, who claim to be of the modern spirit, and display the claim of being disciples of the doctrines of freedom, condemn a woman to inferiority and obedience because, they say, she is weaker physically, and intellectually than man;

Because it fulfills functions of a lower order;

Because it produces less than the man from an industrial point of view;

Because his temperament prevents him from fulfilling certain functions;

Because the man protects her and nourishes her;

Because the man is her mandatary and exercises the law for her and for him;

Because the woman has neither the time nor the ability to exercise certain rights.

A woman's rights are in her beauty and our Love, add some, making their mouths hug.

The woman does not claim; many women themselves are outraged at the claim made by some, continuing other males.

And one spares neither mockery, nor slander, nor insults to the courageous women who plead the cause of Right, and to the men who support them, hoping, thereby, to intimidate the former and disgust the latter.

Vain hope; the times are past when we could be intimidated. If it is permissible to fear the opinion of those whom one believes to be more just and more intelligent than oneself, it would be madness to be disturbed before those to whom one feels able to demonstrate their irrationality and their injustice.

We are going to try to demonstrate this double demonstration by taking up the arguments of these gentlemen one by one.

Women cannot have the same rights as man, because she is inferior to them in intellectual faculties, you say, gentlemen. From this proposition, we are entitled to infer that you consider the human faculties as the basis of Law;

That the law, proclaims the equality of Rights for your sex, you are all equal in qualities, all as strong, and as intelligent as each other.

That finally, no woman is as strong, as intelligent as you; I cannot say: only the least of you, since, if the law is founded on qualities, as it is equal, your qualities must be equal.

Now, Gentlemen, what becomes of these pretensions in the presence of the facts, which show you all to be unequal in strength and intelligence? What becomes of these pretensions in the presence of facts, which show us a crowd of women stronger than many men; a crowd of women smarter than the great mass of men?

Being unequal in strength and intelligence, and yet declared equal in law, it is therefore evident that you have not founded the law on qualities.

And if you did not take these qualities into account when it came to your Law, why do you speak of them so loudly when it comes to that of women?

If faculties were the basis of law, gentlemen, as qualities are unequal, the law would be unequal; and, to be just, it would be necessary to grant the Right to those who justify necessary faculties and to exclude the others: on this account, many women would be called and an infinity of men excluded.

See where we go when we don't have the intellectual energy to realize the principles! You have only one way to oust us from equality, it is to prove that we do not belong to the same species as you.

The woman, you add, cannot have the same rights as the man because, as mother and housekeeper, she fulfills only functions of an inferior order.

From this second proposition, we are entitled to infer that functions are the basis of law;

That your functions are equivalent since the right is equal;

That the functions of women are not equivalent to those of men.

You have therefore to prove, Gentlemen, that the functions individually fulfilled by each of you are equivalent; that, for example, Cuvier, Geoffroy St-Hilaire, Arago, Fulton, Jacquard, a certain number of inventors and scientists have not done more, do not do more for humanity and Civilization than an equal number pinhead manufacturer.

You then must prove that the work of maternity, that of the household to which the worker owes his life, his health, his strength, the possibility of accomplishing his task; that these functions without which there would be no humanity, are not equivalent, that is to say as useful to the social body as those of the manufacturer of jewelry or children's toys.

Finally, you must prove that the functions of a teacher, merchant, bookkeeper, clerk, seamstress, milliner, cook, chambermaid, etc., are not equivalent to those of a teacher, merchant, accountant, clerk, tailor, hatter, cook, valet, etc.;

I agree that it is a pity for your triumphant argumentation to frustrate the thousands of facts that show us the real woman fulfilling, in competition with you, very numerous functions; but in the end, things are like that, and we must take this into account.

Gentlemen, I hold you to the horns of this dilemma: if the functions are the basis of the Law, as the Law is equal, the functions are equivalent, and then the woman does not fulfill any inferior ones, since there are no. Those that it fills are then equivalent to yours and, by this equivalence, it returns to equality.

Either function is not the basis of law; you did not take it into account when it was a question of establishing your Law: then why do you speak of the functions when it is a question of the Woman's Law?

Get out of there as best you can: it is not me who will get you down.

The Second Chapter continued>

English translation copyrighted 2nd April 2023.

The Book of Women’s Rights. 1860.