That they can be reproduced separately; That their common product is a mixed breed or a mule; That difference of races corresponds to difference of rights. You have to define for us an association, and also the nature of a citizen or a functionary. You have to prove that woman is less useful than man in society; That, at the present time, she is necessarily a housewife, when she is not a courtesan; That she is destitute of intellect, that she knows nothing of government. You pretend that woman has not a right _to demand for herself special legislation_. Was I guilty of a paralogism in pointing out to you that it is not she, _but you_, who demand this, since you lay down as a principle the inequality of the sexes before human law? All that you say relatively to the _pretended_ inferiority of woman and the conclusions which you draw from it applying to human races inferior to our own, it would be easy for me to demonstrate that the consequence of your principles is the _re-establishment of slavery_. The nearest perfect has the right to take advantage of the weakest, instead of becoming his educator. An admirable doctrine, full of the spirit of progress, full of generosity! I compliment you most sincerely on it. You say that labor specialized is the great emancipator of man; that labor, conscience, liberty, and reason, find only in themselves their right to exist and to act; that these pure forces constitute the human person, _which is sacred_. You lay down the principle that the law is the same for all; so that, to establish exceptions, it would be necessary to prove that the individuals excepted are _above_ or _beneath_ the human species. You say that social equilibrium is the equalization of the strong and the weak; that all have the same rights, not through that which distinguishes them from each other, but through _that which is common to them_,--_the quality of human beings_. Was I guilty of paralogisms in saying to you: Then you cannot, by reason of her weakness or even of a supposed inferiority, exclude woman from equality of right: your principles interdict it, unless you prove: _That she is superior or inferior to the human species, and that she does not form a part of it;_ _That she is destitute of conscience, of justice, and of reason; that she does not labor, that she does not execute specialties of labor._ It is evident, that your doctrine concerning general right is in contradiction to your doctrine concerning the right of women; it is evident that you are very inconsequent, and that, however skillful you may be, you cannot extricate yourself from this embarrassment. In what you call an answer, there are a few passages that are worth the trouble of pausing to consider.