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

SECTION 13.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 13.2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 13.3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Matter too soft a lasting mark to bear,
And best distinguish'd by black, brown, or fair."

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

SECTION 13.4.

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

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

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

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

SECTION 13.5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 13.6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Can you write an appropriate summary of the above paragraphs?
A:

completion: There are plenty of follies particular to women, and Wollstonecraft explains that her goal here is to point out those follies most harmful to women's moral character. She divides this chapter into smaller sections on specific topics. In the first section she calls attention to people who prey on women by predicting the future using astrology. Women flock to them ignorantly, not seeing them as the charlatans they are. Wollstonecraft adds that going to a soothsayer belies the Christian religion in that this activity violates God's commands. A Christian woman cannot really believe God would allow his prophets to lurk in cities and charge money to dabble in astrology. Women are also swayed by magnetizers, who are mesmerists or hypnotists who claim to treat bodily or spiritual infirmities. Actual physicians should be aware of the basics of medicine and anatomy; they should adhere to a regimen, "another word for temperance, air, exercise, and a few medicines, prescribed by persons who have studied the human body" as "the only human means, yet discovered, of recovering that inestimable blessing health." The swindlers, however, are motivated merely by money, not "superior temperance or sanctity." They are merely "priests of quackery." It is even worse when they claim to be Christians. Rational religion must be based on reason, not these devilish pursuits. One cannot respect God and give credence to such manipulative liars. In the second section, Wollstonecraft turns to women's romantic, "sentimental" twist of the mind. They read stupid and silly novelists who know nothing of real human life and spin sordid, tawdry tales to draw the heart and mind away from real duties. Women's attention is focused not on important community issues but on these minute fictions. Their "sentiments become events." They shy away from reading history, which they find boring. Of course, it is better to read something than nothing, but novels are quite dangerous. Women should not read such silly and irrelevant works but instead "read something superior." The way to get women to avoid these novels is to ridicule them, but this should not be done indiscriminately, throwing away the good with the bad, and the proper discrimination should come from someone whom they admire. In the third section, ignorance and cunning lead to a woman's over-fondness of dress. When a mind is not open to reflection or rumination, extra care is given to one's outward appearance. This can be observed in slaves and servants as well. The author adds that whereas men have friendships, women are all rivals. Even virtuous women are concerned, nonetheless, with trying to be agreeable above all else. The "immoderate fondness for dress, for pleasure, and for sway" is the passion of savages as well as civilized women. In section four, Wollstonecraft states that women are supposed to possess more humanity and sensibility, but there is nothing noble about ignorance. They usually become selfish, no different than children or animals. This affection is the result of their confined status and views; even sensible, smart women can rarely rise to heroism in their circumstances. Friendship is more commonly found in the male world than the female world, and men also tend to have a higher sense of justice. And she points out, "how can women be just or generous, when they are the slaves of injustice?" In section five, the subject of childrearing is heeded. Children are unutterably affected by a mother's ignorance. Education's job is usually to correct the abuses perpetrated by a silly mother. Women treat their servants poorly in front of their children and set a bad example, yet they often rely on those servants to practically raise their children. Conversely, they also treat their children like little idols or demigods and give them whatever they desire. Nature has made it the duty of women to raise their children, but they are not equipped to do so by the current state of sexual relations. Women cannot be more affectionate until equality is achieved, until "ranks are confounded and women freed." In section six, Wollstonecraft begins her concluding remarks. Moralists agree, she writes, that virtue needs liberty to develop. Women's minds should be cultivated to love their country; one cannot be expected to love what one does not understand. Public virtue is only an aggregate of private virtue. There must be a revolution in female manners. Husbands and wives also must have more in common to strengthen their marriages because "virtue flies from a house divided against itself--and a whole legion of devils take up their residence there." Most of these follies stem from the tyranny of man, and women's cunning is produced by their oppression. Most of women's faults are a "natural consequence of their education and station in society." If women could share with men fundamental rights and freedoms, they would more likely become virtuous and progress toward perfection.


prompt:
Chapter: In the present state of society, it appears necessary to go back to
first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to
dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground.  To
clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and
the answers will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on
which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various
motives of action, they are formally contradicted, either by the
words or conduct of men.

In what does man's pre-eminence over the brute creation consist?
The answer is as clear as that a half is less than the whole; in
Reason.

What acquirement exalts one being above another?  Virtue; we
spontaneously reply.

For what purpose were the passions implanted?  That man by
struggling with them might attain a degree of knowledge denied to
the brutes:  whispers Experience.

Consequently the perfection of our nature and capability of
happiness, must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and
knowledge, that distinguish the individual, and direct the laws
which bind society:  and that from the exercise of reason,
knowledge and virtue naturally flow, is equally undeniable, if
mankind be viewed collectively.

The rights and duties of man thus simplified, it seems almost
impertinent to attempt to illustrate truths that appear so
incontrovertible:  yet such deeply rooted prejudices have clouded
reason, and such spurious qualities have assumed the name of
virtues, that it is necessary to pursue the course of reason as it
has been perplexed and involved in error, by various adventitious
circumstances, comparing the simple axiom with casual deviations.

Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices,
which they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root
them out.  The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its own
principles; for a kind of intellectual cowardice prevails which
makes many men shrink from the task, or only do it by halves.  Yet
the imperfect conclusions thus drawn, are frequently very
plausible, because they are built on partial experience, on just,
though narrow, views.

Going back to first principles, vice skulks, with all its native
deformity, from close investigation; but a set of shallow reasoners
are always exclaiming that these arguments prove too much, and that
a measure rotten at the core may be expedient.  Thus expediency is
continually contrasted with simple principles, till truth is lost
in a mist of words, virtue in forms, and knowledge rendered a
sounding nothing, by the specious prejudices that assume its name.

That the society is formed in the wisest manner, whose constitution
is founded on the nature of man, strikes, in the abstract, every
thinking being so forcibly, that it looks like presumption to
endeavour to bring forward proofs; though proof must be brought, or
the strong hold of prescription will never be forced by reason; yet
to urge prescription as an argument to justify the depriving men
(or women) of their natural rights, is one of the absurd sophisms
which daily insult common sense.

The civilization of the bulk of the people of Europe, is very
partial; nay, it may be made a question, whether they have acquired
any virtues in exchange for innocence, equivalent to the misery
produced by the vices that have been plastered over unsightly
ignorance, and the freedom which has been bartered for splendid
slavery.  The desire of dazzling by riches, the most certain
pre-eminence that man can obtain, the pleasure of commanding
flattering sycophants, and many other complicated low calculations
of doting self-love, have all contributed to overwhelm the mass of
mankind, and make liberty a convenient handle for mock patriotism.
For whilst rank and titles are held of the utmost importance,
before which Genius "must hide its diminished head," it is, with a
few exceptions, very unfortunate for a nation when a man of
abilities, without rank or property, pushes himself forward to
notice.  Alas! what unheard of misery have thousands suffered to
purchase a cardinal's hat for an intriguing obscure adventurer, who
longed to be ranked with princes, or lord it over them by seizing
the triple crown!

Such, indeed, has been the wretchedness that has flowed from
hereditary honours, riches, and monarchy, that men of lively
sensibility have almost uttered blasphemy in order to justify the
dispensations of providence.  Man has been held out as independent
of his power who made him, or as a lawless planet darting from its
orbit to steal the celestial fire of reason; and the vengeance of
heaven, lurking in the subtile flame, sufficiently punished his
temerity, by introducing evil into the world.

Impressed by this view of the misery and disorder which pervaded
society, and fatigued with jostling against artificial fools,
Rousseau became enamoured of solitude, and, being at the same time
an optimist, he labours with uncommon eloquence to prove that man
was naturally a solitary animal.  Misled by his respect for the
goodness of God, who certainly for what man of sense and feeling
can doubt it! gave life only to communicate happiness, he considers
evil as positive, and the work of man; not aware that he was
exalting one attribute at the expense of another, equally necessary
to divine perfection.

Reared on a false hypothesis, his arguments in favour of a state of
nature are plausible, but unsound.  I say unsound; for to assert
that a state of nature is preferable to civilization in all its
possible perfection, is, in other words, to arraign supreme wisdom;
and the paradoxical exclamation, that God has made all things
right, and that evil has been introduced by the creature whom he
formed, knowing what he formed, is as unphilosophical as impious.

When that wise Being, who created us and placed us here, saw the
fair idea, he willed, by allowing it to be so, that the passions
should unfold our reason, because he could see that present evil
would produce future good.  Could the helpless creature whom he
called from nothing, break loose from his providence, and boldly
learn to know good by practising evil without his permission?  No.
How could that energetic advocate for immortality argue so
inconsistently?  Had mankind remained for ever in the brutal state
of nature, which even his magic pen cannot paint as a state in
which a single virtue took root, it would have been clear, though
not to the sensitive unreflecting wanderer, that man was born to
run the circle of life and death, and adorn God's garden for some
purpose which could not easily be reconciled with his attributes.

But if, to crown the whole, there were to be rational creatures
produced, allowed to rise in excellency by the exercise of powers
implanted for that purpose; if benignity itself thought fit to call
into existence a creature above the brutes, who could think and
improve himself, why should that inestimable gift, for a gift it
was, if a man was so created as to have a capacity to rise above
the state in which sensation produced brutal ease, be called, in
direct terms, a curse?  A curse it might be reckoned, if all our
existence was bounded by our continuance in this world; for why
should the gracious fountain of life give us passions, and the
power of reflecting, only to embitter our days, and inspire us with
mistaken notions of dignity?  Why should he lead us from love of
ourselves to the sublime emotions which the discovery of his wisdom
and goodness excites, if these feelings were not set in motion to
improve our nature, of which they make a part, and render us
capable of enjoying a more godlike portion of happiness?  Firmly
persuaded that no evil exists in the world that God did not design
to take place, I build my belief on the perfection of God.

Rousseau exerts himself to prove, that all WAS right originally:  a
crowd of authors that all IS now right:  and I, that all WILL BE
right.

But, true to his first position, next to a state of nature,
Rousseau celebrates barbarism, and, apostrophizing the shade of
Fabricius, he forgets that, in conquering the world, the Romans
never dreamed of establishing their own liberty on a firm basis, or
of extending the reign of virtue.  Eager to support his system, he
stigmatizes, as vicious, every effort of genius; and uttering the
apotheosis of savage virtues, he exalts those to demigods, who were
scarcely human--the brutal Spartans, who in defiance of justice and
gratitude, sacrificed, in cold blood, the slaves that had shown
themselves men to rescue their oppressors.

Disgusted with artificial manners and virtues, the citizen of
Geneva, instead of properly sifting the subject, threw away the
wheat with the chaff, without waiting to inquire whether the evils,
which his ardent soul turned from indignantly, were the consequence
of civilization, or the vestiges of barbarism.  He saw vice
trampling on virtue, and the semblance of goodness taking place of
the reality; he saw talents bent by power to sinister purposes, and
never thought of tracing the gigantic mischief up to arbitrary
power, up to the hereditary distinctions that clash with the mental
superiority that naturally raises a man above his fellows.  He did
not perceive, that the regal power, in a few generations,
introduces idiotism into the noble stem, and holds out baits to
render thousands idle and vicious.

Nothing can set the regal character in a more contemptible point of
view, than the various crimes that have elevated men to the supreme
dignity.  Vile intrigues, unnatural crimes, and every vice that
degrades our nature, have been the steps to this distinguished
eminence; yet millions of men have supinely allowed the nerveless
limbs of the posterity of such rapacious prowlers, to rest quietly
on their ensanguined thrones.

What but a pestilential vapour can hover over society, when its
chief director is only instructed in the invention of crimes, or
the stupid routine of childish ceremonies?  Will men never be wise?
will they never cease to expect corn from tares, and figs from
thistles?

It is impossible for any man, when the most favourable
circumstances concur, to acquire sufficient knowledge and strength
of mind to discharge the duties of a king, entrusted with
uncontrolled power; how then must they be violated when his very
elevation is an insuperable bar to the attainment of either wisdom
or virtue; when all the feelings of a man are stifled by flattery,
and reflection shut out by pleasure!  Surely it is madness to make
the fate of thousands depend on the caprice of a weak fellow
creature, whose very station sinks him NECESSARILY below the
meanest of his subjects!  But one power should not be thrown down
to exalt another--for all power intoxicates weak man; and its abuse
proves, that the more equality there is established among men, the
more virtue and happiness will reign in society.  But this, and any
similar maxim deduced from simple reason, raises an outcry--the
church or the state is in danger, if faith in the wisdom of
antiquity is not implicit; and they who, roused by the sight of
human calamity, dare to attack human authority, are reviled as
despisers of God, and enemies of man.  These are bitter calumnies,
yet they reached one of the best of men, (Dr. Price.) whose ashes
still preach peace, and whose memory demands a respectful pause,
when subjects are discussed that lay so near his heart.

After attacking the sacred majesty of kings, I shall scarcely
excite surprise, by adding my firm persuasion, that every
profession, in which great subordination of rank constitutes its
power, is highly injurious to morality.

A standing army, for instance, is incompatible with freedom;
because subordination and rigour are the very sinews of military
discipline; and despotism is necessary to give vigour to
enterprises that one will directs.  A spirit inspired by romantic
notions of honour, a kind of morality founded on the fashion of the
age, can only be felt by a few officers, whilst the main body must
be moved by command, like the waves of the sea; for the strong wind
of authority pushes the crowd of subalterns forward, they scarcely
know or care why, with headlong fury.

Besides, nothing can be so prejudicial to the morals of the
inhabitants of country towns, as the occasional residence of a set
of idle superficial young men, whose only occupation is gallantry,
and whose polished manners render vice more dangerous, by
concealing its deformity under gay ornamental drapery.  An air of
fashion, which is but a badge of slavery, and proves that the soul
has not a strong individual character, awes simple country people
into an imitation of the vices, when they cannot catch the slippery
graces of politeness.  Every corps is a chain of despots, who,
submitting and tyrannizing without exercising their reason, become
dead weights of vice and folly on the community.  A man of rank or
fortune, sure of rising by interest, has nothing to do but to
pursue some extravagant freak; whilst the needy GENTLEMAN, who is
to rise, as the phrase turns, by his merit, becomes a servile
parasite or vile pander.

Sailors, the naval gentlemen, come under the same description, only
their vices assume a different and a grosser cast.  They are more
positively indolent, when not discharging the ceremonials of their
station; whilst the insignificant fluttering of soldiers may be
termed active idleness.  More confined to the society of men, the
former acquire a fondness for humour and mischievous tricks; whilst
the latter, mixing frequently with well-bred women, catch a
sentimental cant.  But mind is equally out of the question, whether
they indulge the horse-laugh or polite simper.

May I be allowed to extend the comparison to a profession where
more mind is certainly to be found; for the clergy have superior
opportunities of improvement, though subordination almost equally
cramps their faculties? The blind submission imposed at college to
forms of belief, serves as a noviciate to the curate who most
obsequiously respects the opinion of his rector or patron, if he
means to rise in his profession.  Perhaps there cannot be a more
forcible contrast than between the servile, dependent gait of a
poor curate, and the courtly mien of a bishop.  And the respect and
contempt they inspire render the discharge of their separate
functions equally useless.

It is of great importance to observe, that the character of every
man is, in some degree, formed by his profession.  A man of sense
may only have a cast of countenance that wears off as you trace his
individuality, whilst the weak, common man, has scarcely ever any
character, but what belongs to the body; at least, all his opinions
have been so steeped in the vat consecrated by authority, that the
faint spirit which the grape of his own vine yields cannot be
distinguished.

Society, therefore, as it becomes more enlightened, should be very
careful not to establish bodies of men who must necessarily be made
foolish or vicious by the very constitution of their profession.

In the infancy of society, when men were just emerging out of
barbarism, chiefs and priests, touching the most powerful springs
of savage conduct--hope and fear--must have had unbounded sway.  An
aristocracy, of course, is naturally the first form of government.
But clashing interests soon losing their equipoise, a monarchy and
hierarchy break out of the confusion of ambitious struggles, and
the foundation of both is secured by feudal tenures.  This appears
to be the origin of monarchial and priestly power, and the dawn of
civilization.  But such combustible materials cannot long be pent
up; and getting vent in foreign wars and intestine insurrections,
the people acquire some power in the tumult, which obliges their
rulers to gloss over their oppression with a show of right.  Thus,
as wars, agriculture, commerce, and literature, expands the mind,
despots are compelled, to make covert corruption hold fast the
power which was formerly snatched by open force.*  And this baneful
lurking gangrene is most quickly spread by luxury and superstition,
the sure dregs of ambition.  The indolent puppet of a court first
becomes a luxurious monster, or fastidious sensualist, and then
makes the contagion which his unnatural state spreads, the
instrument of tyranny.

(*Footnote.  Men of abilities scatter seeds that grow up, and have
a great influence on the forming opinion; and when once the public
opinion preponderates, through the exertion of reason, the
overthrow of arbitrary power is not very distant.)

It is the pestiferous purple which renders the progress of
civilization a curse, and warps the understanding, till men of
sensibility doubt whether the expansion of intellect produces a
greater portion of happiness or misery.  But the nature of the
poison points out the antidote; and had Rousseau mounted one step
higher in his investigation; or could his eye have pierced through
the foggy atmosphere, which he almost disdained to breathe, his
active mind would have darted forward to contemplate the perfection
of man in the establishment of true civilization, instead of taking
his ferocious flight back to the night of sensual ignorance.

Q: Can you write an appropriate summary of the above paragraphs?
A:

completion: If we're going to make a solid argument for anything, Wollstonecraft says, we need to begin at the very beginning at look at our most basic assumptions. Her first assumption is that the power of Reason is what places humankind above the rest of the natural world. Her second biggest assumption is that virtue and moral goodness are what make one human being better than another. Her third and final assumption is that God gave us passions and temptations so that we could gain knowledge by struggling against them. Therefore, the qualities of Reason, Virtue, and Knowledge are our starting points. Reason is supposed to help us overcome our prejudices by looking at things more objectively. Unfortunately, most men use reason to justify prejudices instead of overcoming them. Europe is especially bad when it comes to prejudices. A quick look at the society of Wollstonecraft's time would show you an irrational and unfair world, where a small group of people was rich and powerful simply because they'd been born into the right family . This is the very reason why people were trying to agitate for democracy all over the world while Wollstonecraft was writing Vindication. Wollstonecraft mentions Jean Jacques Rousseau as an example of someone who became so fed up with the injustice of the modern world that he turned away from it and lived in solitude. Pay attention to this part of the book, because Wollstonecraft is going to have lots to say about Rousseau as we go on. Wollstonecraft disagrees with Rousseau's belief that humans should return to their natural state and start acting more like animals again. She insists that God gave humanity reason and civilization in order to improve life, though she admits that many humans have abused these gifts. Wollstonecraft doesn't just disagree with tyranny in government. She also disagrees with any part of life where one person demands blind obedience from another. That includes schools and workplaces. In other words, a teacher or a boss always needs to be able to justify their decisions to their students and workers. As you can imagine, there are a lot of teachers and bosses out there who don't feel the same way. At the end of the day, every human being should have the power to question the decisions of another human being on rational grounds. It is never okay for one person to tell another: that's just the way it is, so do what you're told. Wollstonecraft suspects that in the early days of humanity, the biggest and strongest people tended to rule over the others. But now we've evolved into the age of reason, which means that brute strength is no longer a valid basis for power. People need to get people to agree with them through rational arguments.