I
added, besides, "who are independent," except in so far as they are
under allegiance to the laws of the dominion, to exclude women and
slaves, who are under the authority of men and masters, and also
children and wards, as long as they are under the authority of parents
and guardians. I said, lastly, "and of respectable life," to exclude,
above all, those that are infamous from crime, or some disgraceful means
of livelihood.
4. But, perhaps, someone will ask, whether women are under men's
authority by nature or institution? For if it has been by mere
institution, then we had no reason compelling us to exclude women from
government. But if we consult experience itself, we shall find that the
origin of it is in their weakness. For there has never been a case of
men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are
found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this
plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons,
who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in
their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males
to whom they gave birth. [1] But if by nature women were equal to men,
and were equally distinguished by force of character and ability, in
which human power and therefore human right chiefly consist; surely
among nations so many and different some would be found, where both
sexes rule alike, and others, where men are ruled by women, and so
brought up, that they can make less use of their abilities.
Pages:
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138