* As they are not in a capacity to judge for themselves,
they ought to abide by the decision of their fathers and husbands as
confidently as by that of the church.
* What is to be the consequence, if the mother's and husband's
opinion should chance to not agree? An ignorant person cannot be
reasoned out of an error- and when persuaded to give up one
prejudice for another the mind is unsettled. Indeed, the husband may
not have any religion to teach her, though in such a situation she
will be in great want of a support to her virtue, independent of
worldly considerations.
'As authority ought to regulate the religion of the women, it is not
so needful to explain to them the reasons for their belief, as to
lay down precisely the tenets they are to believe: for the creed,
which presents only obscure ideas to the mind, is the source of
fanaticism; and that which presents absurdities, leads to infidelity.'
Absolute, uncontroverted authority, it seems, must subsist
somewhere: but is not this a direct and exclusive appropriation of
reason? The rights of humanity have been thus confined to the male
line from Adam downwards. Rousseau would carry his male aristocracy
still further, for he insinuates, that he should not blame those,
who contend for leaving woman in a state of the most profound
ignorance, if it were not necessary in order to preserve her
chastity and justify the man's choice, in the eyes of the world, to
give her a little knowledge of men, and the customs produced by
human passions; else she might propagate at home without being
rendered less voluptuous and innocent by the exercise of her
understanding: excepting, indeed, during the first year of marriage,
when she might employ it to dress like Sophia.
Pages:
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150