Chapter: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.*

(*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.

"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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.*

(*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.")

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 Wollstonecraft opens this chapter by saying that bodily strength is so unnecessary in modern society that people have even started to look down on it. After all, we all know the stereotypes about how body builders are a bunch of dumb meatheads. Wollstonecraft wants to point out how unfair this kind of judgment is, though. Wollstonecraft is actually a big supporter of exercise, and she'd like to see it extended to women. It is even fashionable in Wollstonecraft's world for women to boast about how physically weak they are, because this is supposed to be a sign of delicacy. But Wollstonecraft wants women to have more access to exercise because she thinks that the body and the mind must be developed together. She's willing to admit that there are a lot of scrawny smart dudes out there, but she doesn't believe that developing the mind and the body together is therefore impossible. Once again, Wollstonecraft admits that men might have a natural advantage over women in terms of physical strength. But in terms of reason and intelligence, she's confident that both genders are equal. Besides, even if women are physically weaker than men, why do we value social customs that make them even weaker? Writers like Jean Jacques Rousseau always like to play the nature card when making their ridiculous arguments about women, saying that women are naturally gentle or that they naturally care about fancy dresses. But where do we draw the line, then? Is it natural for humans to use toilet paper ? Is it natural for us to work indoors? People tend to use "nature" as the basis for an argument whenever it's convenient for them. It's true that some women take pride in how weak they are and how small their appetite is. But this is all an empty sense of pride. They're like birds that feel proud for putting decorations on the cage that imprisons them. Just as men need to break the bonds of their slavery through education, so too do women. Let's not allow men to oppress women using the same arguments that kings and aristocrats have used to oppress common men for centuries. In case she's been subtle up until now, Wollstonecraft comes out and says that "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" . At this point, Wollstonecraft turns to a more practical question. What will happen to a woman whose husband dies and leaves her with young children and no income? Without a good education , this woman is completely doomed, since she has no resources or skills to fall back on. Wollstonecraft is also worried that women are more likely to hate each other when they're constantly competing for the attention of men. She uses this logic to explain why women are often so mean to other women. On the other hand, Wollstonecraft can think of a woman who has an excellent education and who has some hope of supporting her family after her husband has died. Wollstonecraft's main point in these pages is that truth doesn't have a gender. Truth is truth regardless of whether a man or a woman is speaking it. Feminine "softness" and poor education tend to drag humanity down. Wollstonecraft thinks that wealth does much of the same. For her, excessive wealth makes a person lazy and immoral. Being a woman, similarly, confines a person to do nothing except sit around and look pretty.

