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.
You ask what impels the bravest, the most distinguished among us to an assault on paternal and marital supremacy.
You do not comprehend the movement, or you would have said masculine supremacy.