You affirm that woman, until her marriage, is nothing more than _apprentice_, at most, under-superintendent in the social workshop; that she is _minor_ in the family, and _does not form a part of the commonwealth_. Prove, then, that she does not execute in the social workshop and in the family works _equivalent_, or equal, to those of man. Prove that she is less useful than man. Prove that the qualities that give to man the right of citizenship, do not exist in woman. I shall be severe with you on this head. To subordinate woman in a social order in which she must _work in order to live_ is to _desire prostitution_; for disdain of the producer extends to the value of the product; and when such a doctrine is contrary to science, good sense, and progress, to sustain it is _cruelty_, is _moral monstrosity_. The woman who cannot live by working, can only do so by prostituting herself; the equal of man or a courtesan, such is the alternative. He is blind who does not see it. You see no other fate for woman than to be courtesan or housewife. Open your eyes wider, and dream less, and tell me whether all those useful and courageous women are only housewives or courtesans, who support themselves honorably by arts, literature, instruction; Who found numerous and prosperous manufactures; Who superintend commercial establishments; Who are such good managers, that many among them conceal or repair the faults resulting from the carelessness or dissipation of their husbands. Prove to us, therefore, that all this is wrong; Prove to us that it is not the result of human progress; Prove to us that labor, the stamp of the human species--that labor, which you consider as the great emancipator--that labor, which makes men equal and free, has not virtue to make women equal and free. If you prove this to us, we shall have to register one contradiction more. You do not admit that woman should have the right of claiming for herself special legislation, as though man were her chief enemy and tyrant. You, sir, are the one that legislates specially for woman; she herself desires nothing but the common law. Yes; until now, man, in subordinating woman, has been her tyrant and enemy. I am of your opinion when, in your first "Memoir on Property," you say that, so long as the strong and the weak are not _equals_, they are _strangers_, they cannot form an alliance, _they are enemies_. Yes, thrice yes, so long as man and woman are not equals, woman is in the right in considering man as her _tyrant_ and _enemy_. "The most rigorous justice cannot make woman the EQUAL of man." And it is to a woman whom you set in your opinion above a host of men, that you affirm such a thing! What a contradiction!