It also follows, by your own admission, that man receives as much from woman as she receives from him, since, if he rescues her from the bestial state, she rescues him from the state of brute ferocity. It follows, lastly, by your own admission, that there is equivalence between the respective qualities of the two sexes. Only you pretend that these qualities cannot be measured by each other, and cannot therefore be subject for contract, and that the qualities of man being more important to the social state than those of woman, the latter should be subordinated to the former. Tell me, is there commutability between the qualities that distinguish men from each other? Between the man of genius and the humble rag-picker? Between the philosopher who elevates the human mind and the porter who does not even know how to read? Between the brain that discovers a great natural law and the one that reflects on nothing? To answer affirmatively is impossible: for we only compare things of the same nature. Now, if there can be no commutability between individuals so different, is there not, according to your system, subject for social contract between them? Why then do you claim that these men should be _equal socially_? Why then do you admit that they may associate things in a private contract which cannot be subjected to a common measure? There is no need to be learned in philosophy or economy to know _that any contract whatsoever is an admission of personal insufficiency_; that we would not enter into partnership with others if we could dispense with them; and that in general the design of the contracting parties is _to establish commutability where it has not been established by the nature of things_. To a common work, one brings his idea, another his hands, a third, his money, a fourth, custom: if each of the parties had had all these combined, no one would have thought of forming a partnership: a happy insufficiency brought them together, and caused them to establish equivalence between the shares of capital which could not be subjected to a common measure. Were it true, therefore, that the qualities of the sexes differ as you pretend, then, as through this same difference, they are _equally_ necessary to the collective work, they are _essentially_ subject to contract, and _equivalent_.