A Woman's Philosophy of Woman; or, Woman affranchised.: An answer to Michelet, Proudhon, Girardin, Legouvé, Comte, and other modern innovatorsHéricourt, Madame d'
Philosophy
A Woman's Philosophy of Woman; or, Woman affranchised.: An answer to Michelet, Proudhon, Girardin, Legouvé, Comte, and other modern innovators
Héricourt, Madame d'
Women's rights -- France
AUTHOR. Do you not even interdict to her those vocations in which
strength is needed, or which are attended with danger?
READER. Women are not forbidden to be carpenters or tilers, yet they do
not become such, because their nature opposes it; it is precisely because
nature does oppose it, that I think society unreasonable in meddling with
the nature. There is no need to prohibit what is impossible; and if what
has been declared impossible is done, it is because it is possible: now
society has no right to prohibit what is possible to any of its members;
this appears even absurd where vocation is in question.
AUTHOR. Let each one follow his private occupation at his own risk and
peril, then; but are there not certain public functions which are not
suitable for women?
READER. No one knows this, since they are not open for her admission;
and, were it so, the prohibition would be useless: competition would show
the falsity of ill-founded pretentions.
AUTHOR. When will woman become the equal of man in marriage?
READER. When the person of the wife is not pledged in marriage; when the
engagements are reciprocal, and when the wife is not treated as a minor
and absorbed in the husband. And this should be so:
Because it is not allowable to alienate one's personality, such an
alienation, being _immoral_ and _void_ of itself;
Because the wife being a distinct individual, cannot be actually absorbed
by the husband, and a law is absurd when it rests on a fiction and
supposes an impossibility;
Because, in fine, woman, being the equal of man before Society, cannot,
under any pretext, lose this equality by reason of a closer association
with him.
AUTHOR. There are two questions in marriage, aside from that of the
person--property and children. Do you not think that the married woman
ought, like the unmarried woman who has attained majority, to be mistress
of her property, to be free to exercise any profession that suits her,
and to be at liberty to sell, to buy, to give, to receive, and to
institute suits at law?
READER. The married man having all these rights, it is evident that the
married woman ought to have them under the law of equality. Are you not
of the same opinion?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account