CHAPTER VII.

SUMMARY.

Appear, all ye modern innovators, before your judge, the public. Sum up

your opinions.

COMMUNIST. The two sexes differ, do not perform the same functions, but

_they are equal before the law_.

For woman to be really emancipated, society must be remoulded

economically, and marriage suppressed.

PHILADELPHIAN AND ICARIAN. We are of your opinion, brother, except in

what concerns marriage.

ORTHODOX ST. SIMONIAN. If Christianity has despised and oppressed woman,

it has been because, in its sight, she represented matter, the world,

evil. We, who are come to give the true meaning of the Trinity,

rehabilitate or explain what our predecessors have condemned. Woman is

the equal of man, because in God, who comprises everything, matter is

equal to spirit. With man, woman forms the couple which is the social

individual, the functionary. As woman is very different from man, we do

not take the liberty of judging her; we content ourselves with

_summoning_ her that she may reveal herself.

Notwithstanding we think that she can only be affranchised by being

emancipated in love.

PIERRE LEROUX _agitated_. Take care! It is not so much in sex that woman

should be affranchised; it is only in her quality of _wife and human

being_. She has sex only for him she loves; to all other men she is what

they are themselves: sensation, sentiment, sense. She must be free in

marriage and in the commonwealth as man himself should be.

FUSIONIST _interrupting him_. You are right, Pierre Leroux; yet neither

is the previous speaker wholly wrong; woman is free and the equal of man

in everything, because spirit and matter are equal in God; because the

man and the woman form together the human androgynus, the derivation of

the divine androgynus. It is not so, my dear sister?

MYSELF. Excuse me, brothers, from joining in your theological discussion;

my wings are not strong enough to follow you into the bosom of God, in

order to assure myself whether he is spirit or matter, androgynus or not,

binary, trinary, quarternary, or nothing of all these. It is enough for

me that you all grant that woman should be free, and the equal of man.

I permit myself only a single observation; that your notion of the couple

or of the androgynus, at the bottom one and the same thing, tends fatally

to the subjugation of my sex; if, by a metaphor, a fiction, we make of

two beings, endowed each with a separate will, free-will and intellect, a

single unity; _in social practice_, this unity is manifested by a single

will, a single free-will, a single intellect, and the individuality that

prevails in our society is that which is endowed with strength of arm;

the other is annihilated, and the right given to the couple is in reality

only the right of the stronger. The use that M. Proudhon has made of

androgyny ought to cure you of this fancy; as the use which your

predecessors made of the ternary ought to have preserved you from

trinitary metaphysics. Be it said without offence to you, gentlemen, I

have a decided antipathy to any trinities and androgynies whatsoever; I

am a sworn enemy to all metaphysics, whether profane or sacred,--a

constitutional vice, aggravated in me by Kant and his school.

PHALANSTERIAN. For God's sake, gentlemen, let us quit this mysticism. Man

and woman are different, but the one is as necessary as the other to the

great work that should be accomplished by humanity; therefore they are

equal. As each individual has a right to develop himself integrally, to

manifest himself completely in order to perform the parcellary task which

his attractions assign to him, the liberty of one sex can no more be

called in question than can that of the other. Man modulates in major,

woman in minor, with an exceptional eighth; but, as in all the general

functions, the combination of the two modes is necessary, it is evident

that each of them ought to be double, and that woman ought everywhere to

be equal with man.

M. DE GIRARDIN _somewhat abruptly_. Gentlemen, I agree with you that

woman ought to be free and equal with man; only I maintain that her

function is to manage, to economize, and to rear her children, while man

labors and brings into the household the product of his industry.

As I wish woman to be freed from servitude and all children to be

rendered legitimate, I suppress civil marriage, and institute universal

dowry.

M. LEGOUVE _smiling_. You go too fast and too far, my dear sir, you will

frighten everybody. At least, I believe like you in the equality of the

sexes through the equivalence of their functions, but I take good care

not to breathe a word of it. I content myself with claiming for woman

instruction, diminution of conjugal servitude, and offices of charity;

counting, between ourselves, that these victories obtained, women will be

in a position through their education and proved utility, to affranchise

themselves completely. Well! despite my reserve and moderation, you see

that some call me _effeminate_, others _sans culotte_.

M. MICHELET, _rising with tears in his eyes_. Alas, gentlemen, you are

all in the wrong road; and I am very sorry, my beloved academician

Legouvé, to see you employ your elegant pen in leading woman in so

perilous and irrational a way.

As to you, gentlemen, who lay claim to liberty and equality of rights for

woman, you are not authorized by her to do so; she demands no right, what

should she do with it--a being always feeble, always sick, always

wounded. Poor creature! What can be her rôle here below, if not to be

adored by her husband, whose duty it is to constitute himself her

instructor, her physician, her confessor, her sick nurse, her

waiting-maid; to keep her in a hot-house, and with all these multiplied

cares to earn beside the daily bread; for woman cannot, ought not to

work; she is the love and the altar of the heart of man.

Some among you have dared utter the vile word: Divorce.

No divorce! The woman who has given herself away, has received the

imprint of man. You should not abandon her, however guilty she may be. I

thought in the beginning that after your death she ought to wear mourning

to the tomb, beyond which, she and her husband would be fused into the

unity of love. But I have thought better of it; you may appoint a

successor.

While Michelet is seating himself, wiping his eyes, the lid of a coffin

is seen to rise, and Comte exclaims in a sepulchral tone:

_Worthily_ and _admirably_ spoken, illustrious professor!

What! you here? exclaims the assembly. Then one does not perish entirely,

as you taught your disciples?

COMTE. No, gentlemen, and I was very agreeably surprised to see myself

mistaken. But it is not to instruct you about the life beyond the tomb

that I return; that would not have been worth the trouble of disturbing

myself. It is to express to the great professor Michelet all the

satisfaction that I feel in seeing him so richly poetise the ideal that I

set up, and strew so many flowers over the _admirable_ maxim of Aristotle

and the _commandment_ of the great St. Paul.

Yes, thrice illustrious Master, you have rightly said: woman is made for

man, she should obey him, be devoted to him; she is only a doll in

private life, absolutely nothing in public life. Yes, men should labor

for her; yes, marriage is indissoluble; all this is irreproachable.

AUGUSTE COMTISM. I regret but one thing--that you have not preserved the

ejaculatory orisons of the wife to the husband, and of the husband to the

wife; it would have been a good example and have made a fine effect to

see them every morning kneeling face to face, with clasped hands and

closed eyes. I hope that this is only forgetfulness, and that you will

reëstablish this detail in your next edition. I congratulate you openly

on the happy thought that you have conceived of justifying the absorption

of woman by man by aid of a wound and the mysteries of impregnation;

this will have a great effect on the ignorant.

Rebellious women, and the madmen _with corrupt hearts_ who sustain them,

say that you are a poetic and ingenuous egotist, that our beloved

Proudhon is a brutal egotist; that I am an egotist by A + B. Let them say

so; I approve and bless you."

The apparition was preparing to lie down again in his coffin when, having

a passion for encountering phantoms, I seized a corner of his winding

sheet, and, notwithstanding an unequivocal sign from him of _vade retro_,

I had the courage to represent humbly to the defunct high priest that the

brow of M. Proudhon deserved quite as much to be blessed as that of M.

Michelet. The defunct gravely crossed his fleshless fore finger and thumb

over the haughty and irreverent head of the great critic, who neither

bowed nor seemed infinitely flattered.

It being his turn to speak, Proudhon rose and said: "Gentlemen

Communists, Philadelphians, Fusionists, Phalansterians, Saint Simonians,

and you, MM. Girardin and Legouvé, as well as all of your adherents, you

are all _effeminate_, men _hardened in absurdity_.

"If my friend Michelet has gilded, perfumed and sugared the pill for you,

I cannot imitate his address and moderation, for you know that in

temperament I, P. J. Proudhon, am neither tender nor poetical. Permit me

then roughly to tell you the truth concerning a question _of which you do

not understand the first word_.

"The Church, St. Thomas d'Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Paul, and Auguste

Comte, as well as the Romans, the Greeks, Manu and Mahomet teach that

woman is made for the pleasure and use of man, and that she should be

subjected to him; now I have sufficiently established these great truths

by affirmations without reply. It is demonstrated to-day, therefore, to

all who believe in me that woman is a passive being, having the germ of

nothing, who owes everything to man, and that, consequently, she belongs

to him as the work to the workman. Lest my solution might appear somewhat

harsh to you, or to savor too much of antiquity of the Middle Ages, I

have borrowed of the modern innovators their farce of Androgyny; I have

made the couple the organ of Justice; in this couple, woman, transformed

by man, becomes a triple deity, a domestic idol, subject in everything to

her priest. I shut her up in the household, and permit her to have only

the superintendence of festivals and spectacles, the education of

children and maidens, etc.

"Is it not evident, gentlemen, that woman, because she is weaker than we,

is, _by justice_, condemned to obey us, and that _her liberty consists in

experiencing no amorous emotion, even for her husband_? Is it not

evident, in consequence, that you, who do not think as I, are

_effeminate, absurd_ men, and that the women who are no more willing to

be slaves than we were in '89 are _insurgents, impure women whom sin has

rendered mad_?"

The majority of the assembly laugh; De Girardin shrugs his shoulders;

Legouvé bites his lip in order not to laugh; Michelet appears troubled at

this sally which may spoil everything. As, in uttering the word

_insurgent_, the orator glances at me with marked design, I cannot help

saying "yes, I deserve the name of _insurgent_ like our fathers of '89.

As to you, if you do not amend, I fear greatly that I shall see you die

duly confessed and blessed with extreme unction ... and you will have

well deserved it!"

Now, gentlemen, let us ascertain the vote of your honorable assembly.

Four schools,--the Communists, the St. Simonians, the Fusionians and the

Phalansterians,--with one publicist, M. de Girardin, who makes as much

noise by himself alone as a whole school, are for the liberty of woman

and the equality of the sexes.

MM. Comte, Proudhon and Michelet are against the liberty of women and the

equality of the sexes.

M. Legouvé and his innumerable adherents wish liberty for woman, and

desire that she should labor to become equal to man through equivalence

of functions.

Which means that the great majority of those _who think_ are, in

different degrees, for our emancipation.

Now that my readers are acquainted with your several opinions, gentlemen,

it belongs to me, a woman, to speak myself in behalf of my right, without

leaning on anything but Justice and Reason.

PART II.

OBJECTIONS TO THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMAN. NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF WOMAN.

LOVE. MARRIAGE. LEGAL REFORMS. SUMMARY.

OBJECTIONS TO THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN.

I.

What arguments do the adversaries of the emancipation of women use to

refute the equality of the rights of the sexes?

Some, theosophists of the old school, claim that one half of humanity is

condemned by God himself to submit to the other half, because, they say,

the first woman sinned.

Not wishing to depart from the firm ground of justice, reason and proved

facts, we will not argue with this class of adversaries.

Others, who claim to be imbued with the modern spirit, and pretend to be

disciples of the doctrines of liberty, condemn woman to inferiority and

obedience because, they say, she is weaker physically and intellectually

than man;

Because she performs functions of an inferior order;

Because she produces less than man in an industrial point of view;

Because her peculiar temperament prevents her from performing certain

functions;

Because she is only fit for in-door life; because her vocation is to be

mother and housewife, to devote herself entirely to her husband and

children;

Because man protects and supports her;

Because man is her proxy, and exercises rights both for her and himself;

Because woman has no more time than capacity to exercise certain rights.

The rights of woman are in her beauty and our love, add some, gallantly.

Woman does not claim her rights; many women themselves are scandalized by

the demands made by a few of their sex, continue other men.

And they spare the courageous women who plead the cause of right, and the

men who sustain them neither calumnies, nor mockery, nor insult, hoping

to intimidate the former and disgust the latter.

Vain hope! the time in which we could be intimidated has gone by. If it

is justifiable to fear the opinion of those whom we deem juster and more

intelligent than ourselves, it would be folly to be disturbed by those

whose irrationality and injustice we feel able to demonstrate.

This double demonstration we are about to attempt, taking up one by one

the arguments of these gentlemen.

1. Woman cannot have the same rights as man, because she is inferior to

him in intellectual faculties, you say. From this proposition, we have a

right to conclude that you consider the _human faculties as the basis of

right_;

That, the law proclaiming equality of right for your sex, you are all

equal in qualities, all alike strong and alike intelligent.

That, lastly, no woman is as strong and as intelligent as you; I cannot

say, as the least among you, since, if right is founded on qualities, as

it is equal, your qualities must be equal.

Now gentlemen, what becomes of these pretensions in the presence of

_facts_ that show you all unequal in strength and in intellect? What

becomes of these pretensions in the presence of _facts_ that show us a

host of women stronger than many men; a host of women more intelligent

than the great mass of men?

Being unequal in strength and in intellect, and notwithstanding declared

equal in right, it is evident therefore that you have not founded right

on qualities.

And if you have not taken these qualities into account when your right

has been in question, why then do you talk so loudly of them when the

question is that of the right of woman.

If the faculties were the basis of right, as the faculties are unequal,

the right would be unequal; and, to be just, it would be necessary to

accord right to those who made good their claims to the necessary

faculties and to exclude the rest; by this standard many women would be

chosen and an infinite number of men excluded. See where we end when we

have not the intellectual energy to take principles into consideration!

You have but one means of evicting us of equality; namely, to prove that

we do not belong to the same species as you.

2. Woman, you add, cannot have the same rights as man because, as mother

and housewife, she performs only functions of an inferior order.

From this second proposition, we have a right to conclude that _functions

are the basis of right_;

That your functions are equivalent, since your right is equal!

That the functions of woman are not equivalent to those of man.

You have to prove then, gentlemen, that the functions _individually_

performed by each of you are equivalent; that, for example, Cuvier,

Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Arago, Fulton, Jacquard, and other inventors and

scholars have not done more, are not doing more for humanity and

civilization than an equal number of manufacturers of pins' heads.

You have to prove next that the labors of maternity, those of the

household to which the workman owes his life, his health, his strength,

the possibility of accomplishing his task--that these functions without

which there would be no humanity, are not equivalent; that is, as useful

to the social body as those of the manufacturer of jewels or of toys.

You have to prove lastly that the functions of the female teacher,

merchant, book keeper, clerk, dressmaker, milliner, cook, waiting-maid,

etc., are not equivalent to those of the male teacher, merchant,

accountant, clerk, cook, tailor, hatter, footman, etc.;

I grant that it is embarrassing to your triumphant argument to encounter

the thousands of _facts_ which show us the _real_ woman performing

numerous functions in competition with you;

So it is, and these facts must be taken into account. But gentlemen, I

have you in a dilemma! if functions are the basis of right, as right is

equal, functions are equivalent; in which case those performed by woman

are not inferior, since none are so. The functions which she performs are

therefore equivalent to yours, and, by this equivalence, she again

becomes equal.

Or else functions are not the basis of right; did you not take them into

account when the establishment of your right was in question; why then do

you speak of functions when the question is the right of woman?

Extricate yourself from this as you can; I shall not help you.

II.

3. Woman produces less than man industrially, you say. Admitting this to

be true, do you count as nothing the great maternal function--the risks

that woman runs in accomplishing it;

Do you count as nothing the labors of the household, the cares that are

lavished upon you, and to which you owe cleanliness and health?

If the quantity of the product be the origin of the equality of right,

why have those who produce little, those who produce nothing, and all of

you who produce unequally, equal right?

Why are all those women who produce, while their husbands and sons enjoy

and dissipate, destitute of the rights which the latter possess?

You do not admit the question of product into that of right when man is

in question, why then do you admit it when woman is in question?

You see that this is inconsiderate, irrational, unjust.

4. Woman cannot be the equal of man, because her peculiar temperament

interdicts to her certain functions.

Well, then a legislator can, without being unreasonable, decree that all

men who are unfitted by temperament for the profession of arms, for

instance, are excluded from equality of right!

Temperament, the source of right?

If a woman had written anything so absurd, she would have been cried down

from one end of the world to the other.

Why, gentlemen, do you not exclude from equality all men who are weak,

all those who are incapable of performing the functions that you

_prejudge_ woman incapable of performing?

When you are in question, you admit indeed that the right to perform

every function supposes neither the faculty nor the inclination to make

use of it; why do you not reason in the same manner when the question

concerns us? What would you think of women if, having your rights while

you were in subjection, they should keep you in an inferior position

because you could not accomplish the great functions of gestation and

lactation.

Man, they would say, being unable to be mother and nurse, shall not have

the right of being instructed like us; of having, like us, civil dignity.

His coarser temperament renders him incapable of being a witness to a

certificate of birth or death; it is evident that his clumsiness excludes

him judicially from diplomatic functions; we cannot therefore recognize

his right to solicit them, etc.

Ah! gentlemen, you reason in the same manner in excluding woman from

equality under the pretext that, in general, she is of a temperament

weaker than your own; that is, you reason absurdly.

5. Woman cannot be the equal of man in right because he protects and

maintains her.

If it is because you protect and maintain us, that we ought not to have

our right, restore it then to unmarried women who are of age, and to

widows whom you neither protect nor maintain.

Restore their right then to the wives who have no need of your

protection, since the law protects them, even against you; to the wives

whom you do not maintain, since they bring you either a dowry, or a

profession, or services which you would be obliged to recompense if any

other rendered them to you.

And if to be maintained by another, suffices to deprive an individual of

his right, take it away from the host of men who are maintained by the

incomes or the labor of their wives.

6. Man, in the exercise of certain rights, is the proxy of woman.

Gentleman, a proxy is chosen freely, and is not imposed on an individual;

I do not accept you as proxies: I am intelligent enough to transact my

business myself, and I pray you to restore to me, as well as to all the

women who think as I do, an authority which you use unworthily. If

married women, to have peace, are willing to continue you as their

authority, it is their business; but none of you can legitimately retain

that of widows and unmarried women who have attained majority.

7. Woman has not the same rights as man, because she has no more time

than capacity to exercise them.

Has woman less time and capacity than your working men, pinned twelve

hours a day to their petty and stultifying tasks? Affirm it if you dare!

Does it need less time and capacity to make a deposition in a criminal

suit, as woman does, than to witness a civil act or a notarial contract,

a right that woman has not.

Does it need less time and capacity to be the guardian of sons and to

administer their fortune, as woman does, than to be the guardian of a

stranger or of a nephew, and administer their property, a right that

woman has not.

Does it need less time and capacity to superintend a manufactory, a

commercial establishment, workmen, as do so many women, than to be at the

head of an office, or of a public administration, and to superintend its

officials, a right that woman has not?

Does it need less time and capacity to devote one's self to instruction

in a large boarding school, as do so many women, than in the chair of a

professorship, as man alone has the right to do?

Woman proves, _by her works_, that she lacks capacity and time no more

than you. Facts stifle affirmations for which you should blush. Fie! I am

glad that I am not a man, lest I might say like things and be led to

pretend that an instructress, a literary woman, a woman artist, an

experienced female merchant has not the capacity of a porter or a

rag-picker because she has not a beard on her chin.

8. The rights of woman are in her beauty and in the love of man.

Rights, based on beauty, and on that fragile thing styled man's love!

What are these worth, I ask you, gentlemen?

Then woman shall have rights if she is beautiful, and as long as she

shall continue so; if she is beloved, and as long as she shall continue

so? Old, ugly and forsaken, she must be thrown into the car of the

condemned to be transported to the guillotine?

If a woman should say such things, what a universal hue and cry would be

raised?

Yet men pretend that they are rational! We congratulate woman on having

too much common sense ever to be so in this wise.

After all these arguments, none of which will bear analysis, comes at

last the triumphant objection: women do not claim their rights, many

among them are even scandalized by the demand made by a few in the name

of all. Do not women demand them, gentlemen?

What are a host of American women doing at the present time?

What have a number of English women done already?

What did Jean Deroin, Pauline Roland and many others, do here in 1848?

What am I doing to-day, in the name of a legion of women of whom I am the

interpreter?

_All_ women do not make reclamations, no; but do you not know that every

demand of right is made at first singly?

That slaves accustomed to their chains, do not feel them until their

instigators to revolt show them the bruises on their flesh?

A few only demand their rights, you say; but is it in accordance with

principle or with numbers that you judge of the justice of a cause?

Did you wait until _all_ the male population demanded their right of

universal suffrage in order to decree it to them?

Did you wait for the revendication of _all_ the slaves of your colonies

before emancipating them?

Yes, it is true, gentlemen, that many women are opposed to the

emancipation of their sex. What does this prove? That there are human

beings abased enough to have lost all sentiment of dignity; but not that

right is not right.

Among the blacks, there are many who hate, denounce, and deliver up to

the scourge and to death those among them who are meditating how to break

their chains; which is right, which has the sentiment of human dignity,

the latter or the former?

We demand our place at your side, gentlemen, because identity of species

gives us the right to occupy it.

We demand our right, because the inferiority inwhich we are kept is one

of the most active causes of the decay of morals.

We demand our right, because we are persuaded that woman has to set her

stamp on Science, Philosophy, Justice and Politics.

We demand our right, lastly, because we are convinced that the general

questions, the lack of solution of which threatens our modern

civilization with ruin, can only be resolved by the co-operation of woman

delivered from her fetters and left free in her genius.

Is it not a great proof of our insanity, our _impurity_, gentlemen, that

we feel this ardent desire to check the corruption of morals, and to

labor for the triumph of Justice, the coming of the reign of Duty and

Reason, the establishment of an order of things in which humanity,

worthier and happier, shall pursue its glorious destinies without the

accompaniment of cannon or the shedding of blood?

Is it not because the advocates of emancipation are _impure women whom

sin has rendered mad, beings incapable of comprehending Justice and

conscientious works_?

III.

Gentlemen, we will conclude.

Though that were true which I deny; that woman is inferior to you;

though that were true which _facts_ prove false; that she can perform

none of the functions which you perform, that she is fit only for

maternity and the household, she would be none the less your equal in

right, because right is based neither on superiority of faculties nor on

that of the functions which proceed from them, but on identity of

species.

A human being, like you, having, like you, intellect, will, free will and

various aptitudes, woman has the right, like you, to be free and

autonomous, to develop her faculties freely, to exercise her activity

freely; to mark out her path, to reduce her to subjection, as you do, is

therefore a violation of Human Right in the person of woman--an odious

abuse of force.

From the stand point of facts, this violation of right takes the form of

grievous inconsistency; for we find many women far superior to the

majority of men; whence it follows that right is granted to those who

ought not to have it, according to your doctrine, and refused to those

who ought to possess it, according to the same doctrine, since they make

good their claim to the qualities requisite.

We find that you accord right to qualities and functions, _because the

individual is a man_, and that you cease to recognize it in the same

case, _because the individual is a woman_.

Yet you boast of your lofty reason,--yet you boast of possessing the

sense of justice!

Take care, gentlemen! Our rights have the same foundation as yours: in

denying the former, you deny the latter in principle.

A word more to you, pretended disciples of the doctrines of '89, and we

have done. Do you know why so many women took part with our Revolution,

armed the men, and rocked their children to the song of the

_Marseillaise_! It was because they thought they saw under the

Declaration of the rights of men and citizens, the declaration of the

rights of women and female citizens.

When the Assembly took it upon itself to undeceive them, by lacking logic

with respect to them, and closing their meetings, they abandoned the

Revolution, and you know what ensued.

Do you know why, in 1848, so many women, especially among the people,

declared themselves for the Revolution? It was because they hoped that

this Revolution would be more consistent with respect to them than the

former had been.

When, in their senseless arrogance and lack of intelligence, the

representatives not only forbid them to assemble, but _drove_ them from

the assemblies of men, the women abandoned the Revolution by detaching

their husbands and sons from it, and you know what ensued.

Do you comprehend at last?

I tell you truly; all your struggles are in vain, if woman does not go

with you.

An order of things may be established by a _coup de main_, but it is only

maintained by the adhesion of majorities; and these majorities,

gentlemen, are formed by us women, through the influence that we possess

over men, through the education that we give them with our milk.

We have it in our power to inspire them from their cradles with love,

hatred or indifference for certain principles; in this is our strength;

and you are blind not to comprehend that if man is on one side and woman

on the other, humanity is condemned to weave Penelope's web.

Gentlemen, woman is ripe for civil liberty, and we declare to you that we

shall henceforth regard whoever shall rise against our lawful claim as an

enemy of progress and of the Revolution; while we shall rank among the

friends of progress and of the Revolution, those who declare themselves

in favor of our civil emancipation, SHOULD THEY BE YOUR ADVERSARIES?

If you refuse to listen to our lawful demands, we shall accuse you before

posterity of the crime with which you reproach the holders of slaves.

We shall accuse you before posterity of having denied the faculties of

woman, because you feared her competition.

We shall accuse you before posterity of having refused her justice,

because you wished to make her your servant and plaything. We shall

accuse you before posterity of being enemies of right and progress.

And our accusation will remain standing and living before future

generations who, more enlightened, more just, more moral than you, will

turn away their eyes with disdain and contempt from the tomb of their

fathers.

NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF WOMAN

I.

I think that we have sufficiently though summarily proved to all honest

inquiries that social right is identical for both sexes since they are

identical in species. The question of right being placed beyond

discussion, we can now ask what use woman shall make of her right; in

other terms, what functions she is qualified to perform in accordance

with her whole nature.

Let us first mark the profound difference that exists between right and

function, then define and divide the latter.

_Right_ is the condition _sine qua non_ of the development and

manifestations of the human being: it is absolute, general for the whole

species, because the individuals who compose it should be able lawfully

to develop and manifest themselves.

_Function_ is the use of the faculties of the individual with a view to a

purpose useful to himself and to others; function is therefore a

production of utility and, in conclusion, the manifestation of the

aptitudes predominating in each of us, whether naturally, or in

consequence of education and habit.

Society, having needs of every kind, has functions of every nature and

various scope; these functions may be classified as follows:

1. Scientific and philosophic functions;

2. Industrial functions;

3. Artistic functions;

4. Educational functions;

5. Medical functions;

6. Functions for the preservation of safety;

7. Judicial functions;

8. Functions of exchange and circulation;

9. Administrative and governmental functions;

10. Legislative functions;

11. Functions of solidarity or of social benevolence and of

institutions for the prevention of crime.

This classification, which would be very imperfect and insufficient, were

this a treatise on social organization, being all that is needed for the

use that we have to make of it, we shall adhere to it in this place.

Men, and women after them, have deemed proper hitherto to class man and

woman separately; to define each type, and to deduce from this ideal the

functions suited to each sex. Neither have chosen to see that numerous

facts contradict their classification.

What! exclaims the classifiers, do you deny that the sexes differ? Do you

deny that, if they differ, they should have different functions?

If our classification does not seem good to you, criticise it, we ask

nothing more; but replace it by a better one.

To criticise your classification, ladies and gentlemen, is what I intend

to do; but if the elements are wanting to establish a better, can you,

ought you even to require me to present you one.

Do you think me a man, that you exact of me abuse of the _à priora_, and

a startling arbitrary course of reasoning. "Proudhon is right," murmur

these gentlemen; "woman is incapable of abstract reasoning, of

generalizing, of _knowing herself_"....

Really, gentlemen, do you think that it is through incapacity that I am

unwilling to present to you a classification of the sexes, a theory of

the nature of woman?... Let us hasten then to prove the contrary: instead

of one theory, we will give you _four_. Man and woman form a series only

with respect to the reproduction of the species: all the other

characteristics by which it has been attempted to make a distinction

between them are only generalities contradicted by a multitude of facts;

now, as a generality is not a law, nothing can be therefore concluded

from these, nothing absolute deduced from them in a functional point of

view.

On the other hand, the greatest radical difference of zoological species

lies in the nervous system, especially in the greater or lesser bulk and

complexity of the encephalus; now, Anatomy admits, after numerous

experiments, that, in proportion to the whole size of the body, the brain

of woman equals in volume that of man; that the composition of both is

the same, and Phrenology adds that the organs of the brain are the same

in both sexes.

Lastly, it is a biological principle that organs are developed by

exercise and atrophied by continued repose; now, man and woman do not

exercise their encephalic organs in the same manner; educational

training, manners, prejudice, enforced habits tend to develop in the

masculine what becomes atrophied in the feminine head; whence it follows

that the differences empirically established are by no means the result

of Nature, but of the accidental causes by which they have been produced.

Conclusion: the two sexes therefore, when reared alike become developed

alike, and are fit for the same functions, except those which concern the

reproduction of the species.

Here, gentlemen, is a theory complete in all its parts, tenable in an

anatomo-biologic point of view, and which I challenge you to prove false,

for I shall find replies to all your objections.

II.

We admit the principle that the sexes form series in physical, moral,

intellectual, consequently functional respects.

We believe that they should become subordinate to each other in

proportion to their relative excellence; and we take the destiny of the

species as the touchstone of their respective value.

If we compare the sexes with each other, we prove in a general way, that

man is merely woman on a coarser scale; we prove in the second place that

he is far more animal than woman, since his muscular system is more fully

developed and since he respires lower; so that he is most evidently a

medium between woman and the higher species of apes.

Woman alone contains and develops the human germ; she is the creator and

preserver of the race.

It is not quite certain that the co-operation of man is necessary for the

work of reproduction; _this is the means chosen by Nature_, but human

science will succeed, we hope, in delivering woman from this

insupportable subjection.

Analogy authorises us to believe that woman, the sole depositary of the

human germ, is equally the sole depositary of all the moral and

intellectual germs, whence it follows that she is the inspirer of all

knowledge, all discoveries, all justice, the mother of all virtue. Our

analogous deductions are confirmed by facts; woman employs her intellect

in the concrete; she is an acute observer; man is only fit to construct

paradoxes and to lose himself in the abyss of metaphysics; science has

only emerged from the limbo of _à priora_ without confirmation, since the

advent into this domain of the form of the feminine mind; we shall

affirm, therefore, that true scholars are feminized minds.

In moral respects, man and woman differ greatly; the former is harsh,

rough, without delicacy, devoid of sensibility and modesty; his habitual

relations with the other sex modify him only with great difficulty; woman

is naturally gentle, loving, feeling, equitable, modest; to her, man owes

justice and his other virtues, when he has any; whence it follows that it

is really to woman alone that social progress is due; hence it is that

every step made towards civilization is marked by an advance of woman

towards liberty.

If we consider each of the sexes in their relation to human destiny, we

are forced to admit that, if there was reason for the predominance of man

in the necessity of hewing out this destiny, the pre-eminence of woman is

ensured in the future reign of right and peace.

It was necessary to struggle and fight in order to establish justice and

to subject nature to humanity; this belonged of right to man, who

represents muscular force, the spirit of conflict; but as we already

foresee in the approaching future, the coming of peace, the substitution

of pacific labor and negotiations for war, it is clear that woman will

take rightfully the direction of human affairs, to which she will be

called by her faculties, found better adapted to the end henceforth to be

pursued.

Woman should be the last to develop and manifest herself socially, for

the same reason that the human species is the last creation of our globe;

the perfect being always appears after those that have served to pave the

way.

As it is demonstrated, on the other hand, that, in the scale of the

various organisms, the organ that is superadded to the others to

constitute a change of species, governs those which the individual

derives from inferior species, so woman, fully developed in a social body

organized for peace and pacific labor, will be the new organ that will

govern the social body.

Does this signify that woman should oppress man? By no means; she would

thus be ungrateful for the services rendered her, and would trespass

against her gentle nature; but she will teach him to comprehend that _his

glory is to obey_, to become subordinate to the other sex, because he is

less perfect, and because his qualities are no longer necessary to the

general good.

You laugh, gentlemen, at this second theory; you think it absurd.... So

it is; for it is the counterpart of the thetic woman of Proudhon. Let us

proceed then to the third theory.

III.

Every classification of the human species is a pure subjective creation;

that is, one which exists only in the form given to the perception by

the intellect; the very conception of humanity with the enumeration of

the characteristics which are reputed to distinguish it from the other

species, is stamped with subjectivity.

The truth is that not a single human being resembles his neighbor; that

there are as many different men and women as there are men and women

composing the species.

Classifications, in all things, are illusions of the mind, for nature

hates identity and never repeats herself: there are not two grains of

sand, not two drops of water, not two leaves alike; and most probably the

sun, since the commencement of its existence, has not appeared twice

identically the same at its rising. Yet despite the evidence of these

truths, despite the conviction which we have attained of the illusion of

the senses, of the weakness of our intellect, which can know nothing of

the inmost nature of beings; which can only seize upon a few fleeting

traces of their personal characteristics; yet despite all these things we

dare establish series, attribute to them characteristics which are

speedily contradicted by facts, and torture and do violence to the only

beings that really exist; namely, individuals, in the name of that other

thing which exists only in our sick brain: kind, class!

The bitter fruits that have been produced by our mania for classification

ought to cure us of this. Has not this malady, impelling theocratists and

legislators to divide humanity into castes and classes, caused most of

the calamities of our species? Have we not, thanks to these execrable

divisions, a hideous past, the echoes of which bring back to our

shrinking ears naught but sobs, cries of anger, rebellion, malediction

and vengeance, and sinister clanking of weapons and chains?

Have we not also to thank them that, on the pages of our history, all

stained with blood and tears and exhaling an odor of the charnel house,

we read nought but tyranny, brutishness and demoralization?

Have we not further to thank them that king and subject, master and serf,

white and black, man and woman become demoralized by oppression,

injustice and cruelty on one hand; and intrigue, baseness, and vengeance

on the other?

Are not wrong and wretchedness found everywhere, because inequality, the

offspring of insane classifications, is found everywhere?

Ah! who shall deliver us from our infatuation!

Let us class animals, vegetables, minerals if we will! our errors do not

influence and cannot disturb them; but let us respect the human species

which will escape all classification, however reasonable the process may

be, because every human being is changeable, progressive, and differs far

more from his fellows than the most intelligent animal from the rest of

his species.

Let us leave each one then to make his own autonomic law and to manifest

himself in conformity with his nature, and take care only that right

shall be equal for all; that the strong shall not oppress the weak; that

each function shall be entrusted to the one individual that is proved the

best qualified to perform it; this is all that we can do, all that we

should do, if we seek to show ourselves wise and just.

Harmony exists in nature, because each being in it follows peaceably the

laws that govern his individuality; it will be the same in humanity, when

universal reason shall comprehend that human order is pre-established in

the co-operation of individual faculties left free in their

manifestations; and that to establish a factitious, wholly imaginary

order; that is, true disorder, is to retard the coming of order, peace

and happiness.

Let us refrain then from all classification of faculties and functions

according to the sexes: besides being false, they will lead us to

cruelty; for we shall oppress those, whether men or women, who are

neither yielding enough to submit to it nor hypocritical enough to appear

to do so; and we shall do this without profit to human destiny, but, on

the contrary, to its detriment.

Here, gentlemen, is a _nominalistic_ theory which I challenge you to

overthrow by sufficient reasons: for, as in the first, I shall have

answers to all your objections.

We now come to our last theory, which is yours in the major and minor

terms, but the opposite in the conclusions.

IV.

All the different parts of the same organism are modified by each other,

and in this manner the functions become mutually modified.

Now, man and woman differ from each other in important organs.

Each of the sexes must therefore differ from the other not only through

the organs that distinguish them, but through the modifications produced

by the presence of these organs.

This, gentleman, is my first syllogism: I know that we shall not contest

this point--it is classical Biology.

Let us investigate anatomically the organic differences to which

sexuality subjects man and woman.

_Nervous System._ The so called nerves of feeling are more fully

developed in woman than in man, those of motion are less developed in the

former than in the latter; the cerebellum is more fully developed in the

head of man than in that of woman; in the latter, the antero-posterior

diameter of the brain preponderates over the bi-lateral, which is greater

in proportion in the masculine sex: it is also observed that the organs

of observation, circumspection, subtleness and philoprogenitiveness are

more prominent in the head of woman than in that of man, in which the

reasoning organs, with those of combativeness and destructiveness

predominate.

_Locomotive System._ Man is larger than woman, he has more compact bones,

and larger and better developed muscles, his thorax is the reverse of

that of woman, in which, the greatest breadth is between the shoulders,

while, with him, it is at the base; the pelvis is larger and broader in

the female than the male sex.

_Epidermic and cellular systems._ Man has a more hairy skin than woman;

what is called fat is less abundant in the masculine than in the feminine

organism; in general, the skin of man is rougher, and his form less

round; woman has longer and more silky hair. _Splanchnic organs._ The

cerebral mass is the same in proportion in both sexes, as well as the

organs of the brain, with the exception of the predominances which we

have pointed out; the respiratory systems differ somewhat; woman breaths

higher than man; in the latter, the circulation is more active and

energetic.

To these physical differences correspond intellectual and moral

differences.

Woman, having the nerves of feeling more fully developed, is more

impressionable and more mobile than man.

Being weaker and as persistent, she obtains by address and stratagem what

she cannot obtain by force; her weakness gives her timidity,

circumspection, the necessity of feeling herself protected.

The kinds of labor that require strength are repugnant to her.

Her maternal destiny renders her an enemy of destruction, of war; and her

more delicate organization makes her dread and shun contention. This same

maternal destination impresses a peculiar stamp on her intellect; she

loves the concrete, and is always inclined to transform thought into

facts, to incarnate it, to give it a fixed form; her reasoning is

intuition or quick perception of a general relation, of a truth that man

elucidates only with great difficulty, by the aid of stilted logic.

Woman is a better observer than man, and carries induction farther than

he; she is consequently more penetrating, and is a much better judge of

the moral and intellectual value of those about her.

She has, more than man, sentiment of the beautiful, delicacy of heart,

love of good, respect for modesty, veneration for everything superior.

More provident than he, she has more order and economy, and looks after

administrative details with a carefulness which is often carried to

puerility.

Woman is adroit, sedulous; she excels in works of taste, and possesses

strong artistic tendencies.

Gentler, more tender, more patient than man, she loves everything that is

weak, protects everything that suffers; every sorrow, every calamity

brings a tear to her eye and draws a sigh from her breast.

This is woman, such as you paint her, gentlemen.

You then add:

The vocation of woman therefore is love, maternity, the household,

sedentary occupations.

She is too weak for occupations that demand strength, and for those of

war.

She is too impressionable and too feeling, too good, too gentle to be

legislator, judge or juror.

Her taste for household details, a retired life, and the grave functions

of maternity indicate clearly that she is not made for public

employments. She is too variable to cultivate science with profit; too

feeble and too much occupied beside to pursue protracted experiments.

Her kind of rationality renders her unsuited to the elaboration of

theories; and she is too fond of the concrete and of details to become

seriously interested in general ideas; which excludes her from all high

professional functions and from those requiring serious study.

Her place is therefore at the fireside to make man better, to sustain

him, to care for him, to procure him the joys of paternity, and to fill

the place of a good housewife.

Such are your conclusions: here are mine, admitting as a hypothesis, what

I affirm with you of woman.

V.

1. Woman carrying into Philosophy and Science her subtleness of

observation, her love of the concrete, will correct the exaggerated

tendency of man for abstract reasoning, and demonstrate the falsity of

theories constructed, _à priori_, on a few facts alone. Then only will

ontology disappear, then will it be recognized that a hypothesis is

merely an interrogation point; that truth is always intelligible in its

nature, however unknown it may be; we shall generalize nothing but known

facts, we shall carefully avoid erecting simple generalities into laws,

and we shall thus have veritable philosophy, and true human science,

because they will bear the imprint of both sexes.

2. Woman carrying her peculiar faculties into the arts and manufactures,

will increasingly introduce therein art, perfection in details.

Cultivated in the direction of her aptitudes, she will find ingenious

methods of application of scientific discoveries.

3. Patient, gentle, good, more moral than man, she is the born educator

of childhood, the moralizer of the grown man; the majority of the

educational functions revert to her of right, and she has her assigned

place in special instruction.

4. By her quick intuition and her acuteness of observation, woman alone

can discover the therapeutics of nervous affections; her dexterity will

render her valuable in all delicate surgical operations. On her should

devolve the care of treating the diseases of women and children, because

she alone is capable of fully comprehending them; she has her especial

place in hospitals, not only for the cure of disease, but also for the

execution and surveillance of the details of management and the care of

the patients.

5. The presence of woman in judicial functions, as juror and arbiter,

will be a guarantee of veritable human justice to all; that is, of

equity.

Woman alone through her gentleness, her mercy, her sympathetic

disposition, and her subtleness and observation, can comprehend that

society has its share of culpability in every fault committed; for it

should be organized to prevent wrong rather than to punish it. This point

of view, especially feminine, will transform the penitentiary system and

raise up numerous institutions. Then only will the world comprehend that

the punishment inflicted on the guilty should be a means of reparation

and regeneration; society will no longer slay its prisoners as if weak

and fearful: it will amend the assassin instead of imitating him; it will

force the thief to work to make restitution of what he has stolen; it

will no longer believe that it has the right by imprisoning a criminal to

deprive him of his reason, to drive him to despair, to suicide by

solitary confinement; to deprive him completely of marriage; to couple

him with those more corrupt than himself. Conscious of its own share of

culpability, society will repair in penitentiaries the fault of its

carelessness: it will be firm, yet kind and moralizing: it will give in

them the education which it ought to have given outside, and will prepare

work houses for the liberated convicts in order that the contempt and

horror often shown toward them by men worse than they may not drive them

to a second offence.

7. Woman, carrying into the social household her spirit of order and

economy, her love of details and abhorrence of waste and foolish expense,

will reform government: she will simplify everything; will suppress

sinecures and the accumulation of offices, and will produce much from

little instead of, like man, producing little from much: the purse of the

tax-payers will not complain of the change.

8. Under the direct influence of woman as legislator, we shall have a

reconstruction of all laws; first and before everything, we shall have

preventive measures, a compulsory education; then the form of legal

proceedings will be simplified, the civil code recast, and all laws

concerning illegitimate children and the inequality of the sexes banished

from it; the laws concerning morals will be more severe, and the penal

code more rational and equitable.

By her administrative reforms born of the economical instinct of woman,

taxes will be diminished; her abhorrence of blood and war will greatly

reduce the fearful impost of blood-shed. Having a deliberative voice, and

knowing, by her griefs and love the value of a man, it will be only from

sheer necessity that she will consent to vote bevies of citizens for the

shambles called wars: she will do this only when her country is menaced

or when it is necessary to protect oppressed nationalities; in all other

cases, she will employ the system of conciliation.

9. Woman, being much more economical and a better analyst than man, when

thoroughly instructed, will soon perceive that nations, like individuals,

differ in aptitudes, and that the end of these differences is union and

fraternity through exchange of products: she will therefore deter her

country from cultivating certain branches of the acts and manufactures in

which other nations excel and which they can produce to better advantage;

she will cure it of the foolish pretension of being sufficient unto

itself, and will prevent it from sacrificing the interest of the mass of

consumers to that of a few producers: thus the barriers and custom duties

that separate the different organs of humanity will fall by degrees;

there will be treaties of free trade, and all will be gainers by the

cheapness of products, and the suppression of the expenses of maintaining

a too often annoying department of customs.

The qualities and faculties of woman not only make her an educator, but

assure her preponderance in all functions arising from social solidarity;

she alone knows how to console, to encourage, to moralize with

gentleness, to comfort with delicacy; she has the genius of charity; to

her therefore should revert the superintendence and direction of

hospitals and prisons for women, the management of charitable

institutions, the care of abandoned children, etc. She should create

institutions to furnish employment to workmen out of work, and to save

liberated convicts from indolence and relapse into crime.

Thus, gentleman, without departing from the data of your theory, you

behold woman placed everywhere by the side of man, except in the hard

labor from which you yourselves will soon be released by machinery, and

in the military institutions which, in all probability, will some day

disappear.

Hitherto institutions, laws, sciences, philosophy have chiefly borne the

masculine imprint; all of these things are only half human; in order that

they may become wholly so, woman must be associated in them ostensibly

and lawfully, consequently, she must be cultivated like you; culture will

not make her like you, do not fear it; the rose and the carnation growing

in the same soil, under the same sky, in the same sunshine, with the

cares of the same gardener, remain rose and carnation: they are more

beautiful in proportion as they are better cultivated, and as the

elements which they absorb are more abundant: if man and woman differ, a

similar education will only make them differ still more, because each

will employ it in the development of that which is peculiar to himself.

For the interest of all things and people it is necessary that woman

should enter all the avocations of life, that she should have her

function in all the functions: _after_ the general interest of humanity,

comes that of the family; it cannot go _before_ it.

Since woman now is generally mother and housewife while performing at the

same time a host of other functions, she will become none the less so in

taking upon herself a few more; besides, the time of life at which an

individual enters certain important functions is that at which woman has

finished her maternal task. A few women acting as public functionaries

will not hinder the great majority of their companions from remaining in

private life, any more than a few men in the same position hinder the

mass of men from continuing there.

VI.

You admit a classification at last, you say, and still more you grant

that there are masculine and feminine functions. You are mistaken,

gentlemen: you accused me of being incapable of giving you a complete

theory, I have given you the outlines of four--outlines which it would be

easy for me to extend and perfect. But I do not admit a single one of

these theories as a whole.

Are you eclectic, then?

The gods forbid! I have as much repugnance to eclecticism, as to _mystic

trinitarianism_ and _androgyny_.

I do not admit the theory of the identity of the sexes, because I believe

with Biology that an essential organic difference modifies the entire

being; that therefore woman must differ from man.

I do not admit the theory of the superiority of either sex, because it is

absurd; humanity is man-woman or woman-man; we do not know what one sex

would be if it were not incessantly modified by its relations with the

other, and we know them only as thus modified: What we know to a

certainty is that they form together the existing condition of humanity;

that they are equally necessary and equally useful to each other and to

society.

I do not admit my third theory because it is ultra-nominalism nominalism;

if it is really true that all the individuals of both sexes differ among

themselves in a far more remarkable manner than those of the other

species, it is none the less true that a classification, founded upon a

constant anatomical characteristic, is legitimate, and that the principle

of classification lies in the nature of things, for if things appear to

us classified, it is because they are so; the laws of the mind are the

same as those of Nature so far as knowledge is concerned; we must admit

this, unless we are sceptics or idealists, and I am neither the one nor

the other; neither am I a realist in the philosophic acceptation of the

word, for I do not believe that the species is something apart from the

individuals in which it is manifested; it is in them and through them;

this repeats the affirmation that there are individuals identical in one

or several respects, although different in all others.

Lastly, I do not admit the fourth theory, although it may be true in

principle, because the numerous facts that contradict the distinguishing

characteristics, do not permit me to believe that these characteristics

are laws established by sexuality.

In fact, there are brains of men in heads of women, and _vice versa_.

Men mobile and impressionable; women firm and insensible.

Women large, strong and muscular, lifting a man like a feather; men

small, frail, and of extreme delicacy of constitution.

Women with a stentorian voice and abrupt manners; men with a soft voice

and graceful manners.

Women with short, harsh hair, bearded, with rough skin and angular

figures; men with long, silky hair without beard, round and portly.

Women with an energetic circulation of blood; men in whose veins it

courses feebly and slowly.

Women frank, inconsiderate and daring; men strategic, dissembling and

timid.

Women violent, loving strife, war and contention, and wont to storm on

every occasion; men gentle, patient, dreading strife, and exceedingly

timid.

Women loving abstract reasoning, generalizing and synthetizing much, and

without intuition of any sort; men intuitive, acute observers, good

analysts, incapable of generalizing.... I know many such.

Women insensible to works of art, and without the sentiment of the

beautiful; men full of enthusiasm for both.

Women immoral, immodest, respecting nothing or no one; men moral, chaste

and reverential.

Women extravagant and disorderly; men economical and parsimonious to

avarice.

Women thoroughly selfish, rigid, disposed to take advantage of the

weakness, kindness, folly or misery of others; men full of generosity,

mansuetude, and self-sacrifice.

What follows from these undeniable facts? that the law of sexual

differences is not manifested through the several characteristics which

have been laid down.

That these characteristics may be only the result of education, of the

difference of prejudices, of that of occupations, etc.

That, as these generalities may be the fruit of the difference of

training and surroundings, nothing can be legitimately deduced from them

as to the functions of woman; would it not be absurd, in fact, to pretend

that a woman who is organized for philosophy and the sciences _can not_,

ought not to occupy herself with them because she is a woman, while a

man, who is incapable of them but foolish and vain enough to be ignorant

of his incapacity, can and ought to engage in them because he is a man?

Functions belong to those who prove their aptitude for them, and not to

an abstraction called sex, for, definitively, every function is

individual in its aggregate or in its elements.

VII.

We have explained why we reject the theories that we have sketched; we

will now explain why we neither give nor wish to give a classification of

the sexes.

We do not give a classification, because we neither have nor can have

one; the elements for its establishment are lacking. A biological

deduction permits us to affirm that such a one exists; but it is

impossible to disengage its law in the present surroundings; the

veritable feminine stamp will be known only after one or two centuries of

like education and equal rights: then there will be no need of a

classification, for the function will fall naturally to the proper

functionary under a system of equality in which the social elements

classify themselves.

My belief and my hopes concerning the future, I shall not confess; for I

may be in error, since I have no facts to control my intuitions, and

everything that is purely Utopian has always a dangerous side. Besides

have I not said that, had I formed a classification, I should not give

it? Why not? Because, a detestable use would be made of it, as usual, if

it were adopted.

Hitherto, have not men availed themselves of classifications based upon

characteristics afterwards recognized as purely imaginary to oppress,

distort and calumniate those banished to the inferior ranks?

History is at hand to give us this salutary lesson. Where is now to-day

the _ville-pedaille_, the villains and base-tenants, fit only to drain

ditches and to be stripped to the skin? Inventing, governing, making laws

for, and gradually transforming our globe, devastated by the _superior

and only capable_ species, into a smiling and peaceful domain.

Upon all classification of the human species, whether in castes, in

classes, or in sexes, are based three wrongs.

The first is to make it a crime in the individual degraded into the lower

series, that he does not resemble the conventional type that has been

formed of this series, while the so called superior being is not required

to resemble his type; thus a weak, cowardly, unintelligent man, a _man

milliner_ or an _embroiderer_, is none the less a man, while a virago, a

firm and courageous woman, a great queen, a woman philosopher are not

women, but men whom none love and who are given over as a prey to wild

beasts, jealous, effeminate men, to devour.

The second wrong is to take advantage of the conventional type to deform

the being classed in the inferior series in order to kill his energies

and to hinder his progress. Then, to attain this end, education, social

surroundings are organized, prejudices are invented; and so successfully

is this done in general that the oppressed, ignorant of himself, believes

himself really of an inferior nature, resigns himself to his chains, and

is even indignant at the rebellion of those of his series who are too

energetic and individual not to react against the part to which social

imbecility has condemned them.

The third wrong is to take advantage of the state of debasement to which

the oppressed has been reduced, to calumniate him and deny his rights;

men exclaim, Look! See the serf! see the slave! see the negro! see the

workingman! see woman! What rights would you grant these inferior and

feeble natures? _They are incapable of knowing and ruling themselves_: we

must therefore think for them, wish for them, and govern them.

Ah no, gentlemen, these are not men and women; they are the deplorable

results of your selfishness, of your frightful spirit of domination, of

your imbecility.... If there were infernal gods, I should devote you to

them relentlessly with all my heart. Instead of calumniating your fellows

that you may preserve your privileges, give them instruction and liberty;

then only will you have the right to pass judgment on their nature: for

we can only know the nature of a human being when it has become freely

developed in equality.

I think that I have justified my repugnance to give a classification of

the sexes, both by the impossibility of actually establishing a

reasonable one, and by the very legitimate fear of the bad use that would

be made of it.

But it will be objected, and not without reason, that a classification is

necessary for social practice.

I consent to it with all my heart, since I have reserved my positions,

and proved the worthlessness of existing classifications.

As it is my principle that the function should fall to the functionary

who proves his capacity, I say that at present, through the difference of

education, man and woman have distinct functions; and that we must give

to the latter the place that in general she deserves.

I add that it is a violation of the natural right of woman to form her

with a view to certain functions to which she is destined; she should in

all respects enjoy the rights common to all; it cannot rightfully be said

to her any more than to man, "your sex cannot do that, cannot pretend to

that;" if it does it and pretends to it, it is because the sex can do it

and pretend to it; if it could not, it would not do it; the first right

is liberty, the first duty, the culture of one's aptitudes, the

development of his reason and his power of usefulness: if a god should

affirm the contrary, not conscience, but the god would speak falsely.

Let woman take the place therefore that is suited to her present

development, but let her never cease to remember that this place is not a

fixed point, and that she should continually strive to mount upwards

until, her peculiar nature revealing itself through equality of

education, instruction, right and duty, she takes her rightful place by

the side of man and on a level with him.

Let her laugh at all the utopian follies elaborated concerning her

nature, her functions determined for eternity, and remember that she is

not what nature, but what subjection, prejudice, ignorance has made her;

let her escape from all her chains, and no longer permit herself to be

intimidated and debased.

Thus, gentlemen, all my ideas on the nature and functions of woman may be

summed up in these few propositions:

I believe, because a physiological deduction authorizes me to do so, that

general humanity common to both sexes is stamped by sexuality.

In _fact_, I know not, and you know no better than I, what are the true

characteristics arising from the distinction of the sexes, and I believe

that they can be revealed only by liberty in equality, parity of

instruction and of education.

In social practice, functions should belong to those who can perform

them: woman therefore should perform those functions for which she shows

herself qualified, and society should become so organized that this may

be possible.

What are these functions relative to her degree of present development? I

will tell you directly.

LOVE; ITS FUNCTION IN HUMANITY.

I.

You tell the child that lies, "it is wrong to deceive; you would not wish

others to deceive you."

You tell the child that pilfers, "it is wrong to steal; you would not

wish others to steal from you."

You tell the child that takes advantage of his strength and knowledge to

torment his younger companion; "you would not wish others to do these

things to you; you are wicked and cowardly."

These are good lessons. Why then, when the child has become a young man,

do you say: _Young men must sow their wild oats_?

_To sow their wild oats_ is to deceive young girls, to destroy their

future, to practice adultery, to keep mistresses, to visit brothels.

Yet mothers, women thus consent to the profanation of their sex!

Those who forbade their child to steal a toy, permit him to steal the

honor and repose of human beings!

Those who shamed their son for falsehood, permit him to deceive poor

young girls!

Those who made it a crime in their son to oppress those weaker than

themselves, permit him to be oppressive and perfidious toward women!

Then they complain later that their sons treat them ill; that they

dishonor and ruin themselves;

That they desire the death of their parents, in order to enrich the

usurers from whom they have borrowed money to maintain their mistresses

in luxury.

They complain that they destroy their health, and give their mothers puny

grandchildren, for whose existence they are in continual anxiety.

Ah! ladies, you have only what you deserve; bear the weight of a joint

responsibility which you cannot escape. You authorized your sons to sow

their wild oats; endure the consequences.

But a mother cannot be the confident of her son, it is said.

Why not, madam, if you have brought him up in such a way as to have no

dishonorable confidence to make to you.

He would have none to make, if you had accustomed him to conquer himself,

to respect every woman as though she were his mother, every young girl as

though she were his sister; to treat others as he would think it right to

be treated by them; if you had fully inculcated on him that there is but

one system of morality, which both sexes are equally bound to obey; if

you had caused him to honor, love and practice labor; if you had told him

that we live to improve ourselves, to practise justice and kindness, and

to render back to humanity what it does for us in protecting us,

enlightening us, rendering us moral, surrounding us with security and

comfort; that in fine our glory lies in subjecting ourselves to the great

law of Duty.

If you had reared him in this manner, madam, on surprising in your son

the first signs of the ardent attraction that man feels toward the other

sex, far from abandoning the education of this instinct to the chances of

inexperience, you would do for it what you did for the others; you would

teach the young man to subject it to a wise discipline.

Instead of repeating the stupidly atrocious phrase; _young men must sow

their wild oats_, you would have taken your son's hand affectionately in

your own, and, looking in his face, would have said: "My child, Nature

decrees that a woman should henceforth attract you more strongly than I,

and should maintain or destroy what I have so laboriously built up: I do

not murmur at this; it must be so. But my affection and duty require me

to enlighten you in this grave juncture. Tell me, if a young man, to

satisfy the instinct which is now awakening in you, should corrupt your

sister, should sacrifice her life, what would you think of him? what

would you do?"

The young man, accustomed from childhood to practise Justice, would not

fail to reply: "I should think him depraved and cowardly. Would he not be

punished?"

"No, my son, the seducer is not punished by the law."

"Well! I would kill him, for my right of justice reverts to me when the

law makes no provision."

"Right, my child. Then you will be neither depraved nor cowardly with

respect to any young girl; you will not deserve the sentence which you

have pronounced; namely, death. You will respect all young girls and

women as you would wish your sister, your daughter to be respected.

"Another question: what would you think of a man who should persuade me

to betray your father; who should rob him of my heart and cares; who

should draw me aside from the grave duties of maternity? What would you

think of the man who should act thus with respect to your own companion?"

"I would judge him like the former and would treat him no better."

"Right again. Then you will respect all married women as you would wish

your mother and your wife to be respected; and if you should meet any one

towards whom you should feel attracted, or who should be disloyal enough

to seek to attract you, you will shun her: for flight is the sole remedy

for passion.

"A multitude of women, innocent at first, have been turned aside from the

right path by men who do not think as you do. They now avenge themselves

upon your sex for the evil it has done them. They corrupt and ruin men

who, in their company, lose all sense of morality, who learn to laugh at

what you believe and venerate, and undermine and destroy their health. Do

you feel the deplorable courage to expose yourself to such risks?"

The young man, practised from childhood to subject his inclinations to

reason and justice, would reply: "No, mother, I will not do what I would

not wish my companion to do; I will neither degrade myself morally, nor

destroy my health, nor contribute my share towards perpetuating a state

of things which degrades the sex to which belongs my mother, my sister,

my wife and my daughters, should I be so happy as to possess them.

"I acknowledge frankly that I foresee a violent struggle with myself,

but, thanks to the moral training to which you have accustomed me, thanks

to the ideal of destiny which you have given me, which I have accepted in

the plenitude of my reason, and which my duty marks out for me, I do not

despair of subduing myself."--"This victory will be less difficult to

obtain, if you employ yourself usefully and seriously; for you will thus

attract your vitality to the superior regions of the brain. You will do

wisely to add to this, much physical exercise; to abstain from too

substantial a diet, and especially from stimulating drinks! you know the

reaction of the physical upon the moral system. Carefully avoid

licentious reading and improper conversation; give a place in your mind

to the virgin who will be united to you; think and act as if in her

presence; it will guard you and keep you pure. This sweet ideal will

strengthen you against temptation, and contribute greatly to render you

insensible towards those women who should have no place in your heart."

"Love, my child, is a thing most serious in its results; for the beings

whom it unites become modified by each other; it leaves its traces,

however short may be its duration.

"Its end is Marriage, one of the ends of which is the continuity of the

species. Now, you know the effects of solidarity of blood; it is most

important therefore that you should choose for your companion a woman

whose character, morals and principles are in unison with your own; not

only for your happiness, but for the _organization_ of your children, the

harmony of their nature and conduct.

"If passion does not leave you sufficiently free in your judgment, come

to me: I will see for you, and if I say: my son, this woman will debase

you, will cause you to commit faults; be sure that your children will

have evil propensities; she is not adapted to rear them according to your

ideal, which she will never accept, because she is vain and selfish; if

I tell you this, I know, my son, that whatever may be your suffering, you

will renounce a woman whom you would cease to love after a few months'

union, and will prefer a transient sadness to a life of unhappiness."

II.

The mother who has just shown her son why love should be subjected to

Reason and Justice, and has pointed out to him what he should do to

subdue its animal phase, perceives also the awakening of this instinct in

her daughter. She wins her attention and gains her confidence by

revealing to her what is passing within her heart, telling her that, at

her age, she felt the same.

"Hitherto," continues she, "you have been but a child; your career as a

woman is now commencing. You desire the affection of a man, and your

heart is moved at the sweet thought of becoming a mother. Do not blush,

my daughter; it is lawful, on condition that your desires are made

subject to Reason and the law of Duty.

"Many snares will be spread before your steps; for men of all ages

address to a young girl innumerable flattering speeches, and surround her

with homage which renders her vain and coquettish if she has the weakness

to suffer herself to be intoxicated thereby. Persuade yourself fully that

all this adoration is not addressed to you individually, but to your

youth, to the brightness of your eyes, to the freshness of your

complexion, and that, were you far better than you are and far superior

in intellect, these men would be ceremoniously and frigidly polite, were

you thirty years older. This thought present in your mind will make you

smile at their frivolous and common-place jargon, and will preserve you

from many weaknesses, such as rivalry of dress, petty jealousies, and the

ridiculous blunder of playing the young girl at fifty.

"As you can espouse but one man, it is sufficient to be loved by one in

the manner that you wish. A woman who comports herself voluntarily so as

to captivate the hearts of many men, and leaves each to believe that she

prefers him above all, is an unworthy coquette, who sins against Justice

and Kindness: against Justice, inasmuch as she demands a sentiment for

which she can make no return; as she acts towards others as she would

think it unjust that others should act towards her; against Kindness,

inasmuch as she risks causing suffering to sincere hearts and sacrificing

their repose to a pleasurable impulse of vanity: such a woman, my child,

is contemptible; she is a dangerous enemy of her sex; first, because she

gives a bad opinion of it; next, because she is an enemy to the repose of

other women; I know that you are too ingenuous, too true and too worthy

to fear that you will fall into such errors.

"You have acknowledged to me that your young imagination had pictured to

itself a man. Far from banishing this ideal, let it be always present to

your mind, much less in its physical aspect than in that of intellect,

morality and industry. This image will do more to keep you safe than all

my counsels, than all the surveillance that I might, but never would

exercise over you, because this would be unworthy of us both.

"Do not forget however that an ideal is absolute; that the reality is

always defective; do not therefore seek in the man to whom you shall give

your heart, a realization of the ideal, but the qualities and faculties

which, with your aid, will permit him to approximate to what you wish to

see him. You yourself are the ideal of a man, not such as you are, but

such as he will aid you to become.

"I dwell upon this point, my daughter, because nothing is more dangerous

than to insist on finding the ideal in the reality; this makes us over

difficult and lacking in indulgence; and, if we have a lively imagination

and little reason, renders us unhappy and involves us in innumerable

errors.

You know and feel that the end of love is Marriage; now one of your

duties as lover and spouse is the improvement of the one to whom you

shall be united. You will stand with him in two different relations!

first as his betrothed, afterwards as his wife. Your modifying power

will, in the first case, be exercised in a direct proportion to his

desire to please and to be worthy of you; in the second, in proportion to

his confidence, esteem and affection for you. In the first case, he will

_wish_ to modify himself; in the second, he will do so without knowing

it."

"What, mother, will he not always love me the same?"

"Love, my child, undergoes transformations which we should expect and to

which we should submit; in the beginning it is a fever of the soul; but

fever is a condition which cannot last without destroying life. Your

husband, while loving you perhaps more deeply, will love you less

ardently than before Marriage. Your love will become transformed, why

shall not his be the same?

"You cannot imagine how much trouble results from the ignorance of women

on this point, and from the vain pursuit of the ideal in love. Many

women, believing that their husband loves them no longer because he

loves them in a different manner, become detached from him, suffer, and

betray their duties; others, dreaming of perfection in the loved one,

fancy that they have found it, and becoming disabused after the fever has

past, quit him, accusing him of having deceived them; they love others

with the same illusion, followed by the same disenchantment, until age

creeps on without curing them of the chimera. Lastly, there are others

who, comprehending only the first period of love, cease to love the man

who has passed beyond it, and pursue another love which will bring them

the same fever; these, as you comprehend, have not the slightest idea of

woman's grave duties in Love.

"What I have just said of women is equally true of men. You will avoid

these dangers, my daughter, you who have been accustomed from childhood

to submit to reason; who know that all reality is imperfect, that habit

weakens sentiment, you will therefore take the man who suits you, as he

is, designing to improve him and to render him happy, knowing in advance

that his love will change without becoming extinguished, if you succeed

in gaining his affection, confidence and esteem, so that he will find in

you good counsel, peace, assistance and security. You are too pure, my

daughter, to foresee all the snares that will be spread for you. It

belongs to me therefore to arm your youthful prudence: You will perhaps

encounter men married or betrothed who, according to the common

expression, _will pay court to you_, and will utter innumerable sophisms

to justify their conduct."

"Their sophisms would fall to the ground before the simple answer: Sir,

as I should be driven to despair if another woman should rob me of him

whom I loved, as I should despise and hate her, all your compliments

cannot persuade me that it is right for me to do what I would not that

others should do to me. If you return to the subject, I shall inform the

person interested.

"Right, my child: but if a young man who was free should speak of love,

and urge you to write to him in secret?"

"Might he not have good reason for acting in this manner?"

"None, my child. You must know that men are exceedingly corrupt; that

many among them eschew marriage, flit from one woman to another, take

advantage of our credulity, and make use of the most impassioned language

to lead us in the way of shame and perdition. Now, my child, know besides

that we bear the weight of men's faults as well as of our own; the verbal

and written promises of a man bind him to nothing. If, suffering yourself

to be led astray, you should become a mother, the child would remain your

charge; and you could no longer hope for marriage; I say nothing of our

grief and shame, nor of the terrible risks to which you would expose your

brother, who might perish in punishing the vile seducer whom the law does

not touch. If a man seeks you therefore unknown to us, be sure that it is

because his intentions are evil; that he considers you as a toy which he

purposes to break when it ceases to amuse him. Now, my daughter, you know

that woman is created to be the worthy companion of man; that she is not

born to be sacrificed to him as an object of pleasure. Instead therefore

of suffering yourself to be seduced, profit by the influence over men

which is given you by your beauty and grace, to recall them to their

duties: in this manner, you may be the means of saving many women; you

will give a favorable opinion of your sex, and will prepare a good

example for your daughter by setting one to your companions, many of whom

will follow it in order to share in the esteem that will surround you;

always remember that our acts not only injure ourselves, but we have a

joint responsibility with others, and consequently no one can be lost or

saved alone.

"One word more, my child. In your uncertainties, do not hesitate to

confide your troubles to me; do not say, My mother is too reasonable to

understand me in this. Was it not by becoming a child again in order to

comprehend you, that I fulfilled my sacred task of instructor? be

persuaded that it will not be more difficult for me to become a young

girl again in order to comprehend, while remaining a tender and

experienced mother to advise you.

"You are free: I am not your censor, but your elder sister, who loves you

with devotion and desires your happiness before all things. As a

recompense for my love and my long-continued cares, I only ask to be your

best friend; that is, the one in whose presence you will think and speak

aloud. Is this asking too much of you, who are my joy and crown."

This is the way, ladies, in which the woman who has attained majority,

strives to educate the world in Love.

III.

The young girl and young man enter into society. The prudent mother knows

that it is gently insinuated to her son that she is a _prude_, a _dotard_

who knows nothing of the passions; who does not suspect that _everything

in nature is good_, and should be respected; and who has read the

history of our species to so little purpose that she has not perceived

that humanity has love in all forms: the _polygamic_ and _polyandric_,

and even ... the _ambiguous_.

She knows also, that he is told that the satisfaction of the animal

instinct is necessary to the _health_ of man, and that brothels are

places of public utility.

She knows, lastly, that young and giddy girls, with lax principles, make

dangerous confidences to her daughter.

It is time, in opposition to these lax doctrines and pernicious examples,

to give to her children the philosophy of Love. According to her method,

she suffers is to elucidate itself.

My son, says she, what is the end of the attraction of mineral molecules

towards each other?

SON. The _production_ of a body having a determined form.

MOTHER. What is the end of the attraction of the plant for heat, light,

air, the elements which it absorbs?

SON. The _production_ of its own body, the development of its organs, and

of its properties, its preservation.

MOTHER. And do you know, my daughter, what is the end of the attraction

of the pistil and stamens of the flower.

DAUGHTER. The _production_ of a being resembling its parents.

MOTHER. Why do we as well as the animals experience an inclination or

attraction for certain kinds of food?

SON. It is evidently in order to incite to action the organs which

procure to the organism the elements adapted to _produce_ blood.

MOTHER. Why do both sexes of the same species experience an attraction

towards each other?

DAUGHTER. For the _production_ of young to perpetuate the species.

MOTHER. Why do the females, and often males among animals experience an

inclination or attraction to take care of the young?

DAUGHTER. In order to preserve them and to educate them as far as is in

their power, that they may be able to provide for themselves.

MOTHER. Are you quite sure, my children, that the end of these

attractions is not the attraction itself, the procurement of a pleasure?

SON. The pleasure seems to me only the means of impelling the being to

fulfill a necessary or useful function. Thus the end of our scientific,

artistic and industrial inclinations or attractions is not the pleasure

which we take in their satisfaction, but the _production_ of science, art

and industry.

DAUGHTER. That is, the increase and progress of our intellect through the

knowledge of the laws of Nature, in order to modify this nature with a

view to our wants and pleasures.

MOTHER. To what inclination or attraction is Society due?

SON. To our attraction for our fellow beings.

DAUGHTER. This attraction is the father of Justice and of Goodness: it

_produces_ them.

MOTHER. Will you generalize the character of this inclination or

attraction in accordance with what we have just said?

SON. The end of all attraction or inclination is the _production_,

_progress_ and _preservation_ of beings.

MOTHER. Are all instincts good which are merely inclinations or

attractions?

SON. For animals, which are subject to fatality, they are; because they

tend directly to their end, without ever appearing to deviate from it. In

our species, they are good in principle, if we regard their end; but they

may become evil through the deviation to which our liberty subjects them.

MOTHER. By what token can we know that our instinct has a right tendency?

DAUGHTER. By comparing its use with its end; by assuring ourselves that

this use is not prejudicial to the practice of justice, that it does not

detract from the right of any of our faculties; that is, that it disturbs

neither our individual harmony nor that of others; for it is on these

conditions alone that it can coöperate in the realization of the social

ideal.

MOTHER. Very well. Now apply this general doctrine to human love, my

children.

SON. Since love is one of the forms of attraction, and since the general

end of attraction is the production, progress and preservation of beings

and species, it is evident that human love should possess these

characteristics. Its principal function appears to me to be the

reproduction of the species.

DAUGHTER. It seems to me, brother, that this is not enough; since true

husbands and wives do not cease to love each other after this end has

been fulfilled, and since persons may love without having children.

MOTHER. You are right, my daughter; our faculties being more numerous and

more fully developed than those of the animals, our love cannot be

incomplete like theirs; it cannot be of the same nature in our

progressive species as in those species fatal and unprogressive of

themselves. In us, each faculty, properly employed, aids in the

improvement of all the rest, wrongly employed, it interrupts our harmony

and lowers us; it is the same with our love. Or rather this passion is

the one that most of all causes us to grow or to decline.

You know, my children, that humanity advances only by forming itself an

ideal and endeavoring to realize it. Every passion has its ideal, which

is modified by that of the whole. In the beginning, man, in the animal

state, made the end of love the pleasure resulting from the satisfaction

of a wholly physical want: he cared nothing for the most evident

aim--progeny. A little later, man less gross, loved woman for her beauty

and fruitfulness; this was the patriarchal age of love. Later still, the

Northern races wrought a change in this instinct; love became decomposed,

as it were; the lover possessed the love of the soul; the woman was loved

not only for her beauty, but as the inspirer of lofty deeds; the husband

was the possessor of the body alone and the children were the fruit of

marriage; this was the chivalrous age of love. Since pacific labor has

been organized and has gained a place in public opinion, love has entered

a new phase; many among the moderns consider it as the initiative of

labor. Some regard the attraction of pleasure as playing the chief part

in industrial production, and leave full liberty to the attraction,

however inconsistent it may be; others preserve the couple, and transform

woman into the moving power of action; the love that she inspires excites

the efforts of the worker.

The progress hitherto made by humanity is therefore that love has now

for its end the perpetuation of the species, the modification of man by

woman, and the production of labor.

In a higher ideal of Justice, the sexes being equal in rights, love will

have a higher end; the spouses will unite on account of conformity of

principles, union of hearts, wedding of intellects, common labor: love

will join them to double their strength, to modify them by each other,

from the friction of their hearts will be struck out sentiments which

neither would have had alone; from the union of their intellects will be

born thoughts which neither would have had alone; from the aid that they

will lend each other in their common labor will proceed works that

neither would have accomplished alone, as from the union of their whole

being, will be born new generations more perfect than the preceding

because they will be the product of the greatest possible harmony. It

will be only when woman shall take her lawful place that humanity will

see love in all its splendor, and that this passion, subversive to-day in

inequality and incoherence, will become what it should be; one of the

great instruments of Progress.

We, my children, who are too rational to mistake the means by which

Nature impels us to accomplish her designs for the designs themselves,

will take care not to fancy that the end of love is pleasure; on the

other hand, we have too much respect for equality to imagine that it is

for the benefit of one sex alone. We will remain faithful to the ideal of

our lofty destinies, in defining love as the reciprocal attraction of man

and woman with the end of perpetuating the species, of improving the

partners mutually with respect to intellect and feeling, and of advancing

science, art and industry by the labor of the pair.

IV.

Sophists have told you, my son, that all our inclinations are in Nature;

that they are good and should be respected.

You asked them doubtless whether the inclinations to theft, to

assassination, to violation, to anthropophagy, which are in Nature, are

good, and why, instead of respecting them, society punishes their

manifestation.

You demonstrated to them, I hope, that there is nothing commendable in

the exaggeration or the perversion of instincts.

You demonstrated to them, I hope, that Nature is brutal fatality against

which we are bound to struggle both within and without ourselves; that

our Justice and virtue are composed only of conquests made over it in us,

as all that constitutes our physical well-being is only the result of

conquests made over it outside of us.

These sophists have told you that love comes and goes without our knowing

how or wherefore; and that we can no more command it to spring up than to

endure.

This is true, my son, of the brutal desires of the flesh, which is the

passion of animals alone, and is extinguished by possession.

This is also true of that complex passion which has its seat in the

imagination and the senses, and ends with the illusion that is always of

short duration.

But it is not true of genuine love; this sees both the faults and the

virtues of the loved one; but softens the first and exalts the last, and

hopes by degrees to put an end to that which wounds it.

This sentiment which takes possession of the heart, is patient; it bears

lest it become effaced, it surrounds itself with precautions in order to

remain constant; if it becomes extinct, it is not unconsciously: for we

suffer cruel tortures before resolving to cease to love.

You have been told that love is irrepressible; are we then beings of

fatality? This sophism renders man cowardly and depraves him; for what is

the use of struggling against what we know to be unconquerable, and why

not sacrifice to it the best of our tendencies? Examine the conduct of

the partisans of such a doctrine.

The human ideal requires that they shall not do to others what they would

not think it just that others should do to them; yet they seduce maidens,

make them mothers, and abandon them without caring about the children

born of these unions; without caring whether the young mother commits

suicide, dies of grief, or becomes depraved; without caring whether the

parents go down to the grave.

Like deadly reptiles, they glide to the domestic fireside of others, rob

their friend of the affection of his wife, and force him to labor for the

children of adultery.

The woman who believes in irrepressible love breaks her pledges to her

husband; lives a life of deceit; brings trouble and sorrow into the

houses of other women, whose lives are blighted by her.

It is in this way that those who practice this sophistry fulfil their

duty to be just, not to afflict their fellows, to labor for the happiness

and improvement of those about them, to preserve the weak from oppression

and wrong. To this pretended irrepressibility of love, they sacrifice

Justice, goodness, the happiness, repose and honor of others; lead them

into the path of dissipation; bring dissolution into the family and

society; in a word, offer up as a sacrifice to animal instinct, moral

sense and reason.

You have also been told that every species of love is found in Nature;

the polyamic and polygandric, as well as that of the constant pair.

Yes, my child, every species of love is found in Nature, as is every

species of vice and every species of virtue. But you know that it is not

enough that a thing exists within us to prove it to be good; it must be

in conformity with the ideal of our destiny, with our harmony: it is

wrong in the opposite case.