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
5. You say: woman is the soil, the place of incubation for the germ.
Anatomy has told you in reply that the woman alone produces the germ.
Read my reply to your friend Michelet on the subject of the resemblance
of children and you will know what facts add to the answer of science.
Your affirmation is no less absurd in the presence of these facts than
that of a simpleton who should pretend that the soil in which the seed of
the carnation or the oak is deposited, has the property of causing
rosebushes or palm trees to spring up.
From this _false_ supposition that woman has not physical germs, you
conclude that she is destitute of intellectual and moral germs.... And do
you really dare accuse woman of thus _taking false analogies for
principles_?
Grant that when a man indulges in them thus wantonly, and mistakes them
for principles, we ought to be more inclined to laugh than to be vexed.
6. You say that intellectually and morally, woman is in herself, nothing.
Now, if I am not mistaken, you admit that our functions have our organs
for their basis, and you place the functions of intellect and morality in
the brain, according to Gall, or similarly.
Well, Anatomy tells you: in both sexes, the cerebral mass is similar in
composition and, adds Phrenology, in the number of organs. Biology adds:
the law of development of our organs is _exercise_, which supposes action
and reaction, the result of which is the augmentation of the volume,
consistency and vitality of the organ exercised.
The point in question then, to convince your readers of the truth of
your affirmations, is to prove that _the two sexes are subjected to the
same exercise of the brain and to the same stimulus_, and that despite
this identity of education, woman constantly remains inferior. Have you
proved this? Have you ever thought of doing so? No. For if you had, your
theory would have fallen to to the ground, since you would have been
forced to acknowledge that man and woman cannot be alike, for we say to
man from his infancy: resist, struggle;
To woman: yield, always submit.
To man: be yourself, speak your thoughts boldly, ambition is a virtue;
you can aspire to everything.
To woman: dissemble, calculate your slightest word, respect prejudices;
modesty, abnegation, such is your lot; you can attain to naught.
To man: knowledge, talent, courage will open every career of life to you,
will make you honored by all.
To woman: knowledge is useless to you; if you have it, you will pass for
a pedant, and if you have courage, you will be disdainfully called
_virago_.
To man: for you are instituted lyceums, universities, special schools,
high prizes; all the institutions through which your intellect can be
developed; all the libraries in which is accumulated the knowledge of the
past.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account