--Samuel May 1846To prove, however, that woman was not intended to be the equal of man, the argument
most frequently alleged is that she is the weaker vessel, inferior in stature, and has much less physical
strength. This physiological fact, of course, cannot be denied; although the disparity in these respects is
very much increased by neglect or mismanagement. But allowing women generally to have less bodily
power, why should this consign them to mental, moral, or social dependence? Physical force is of s
pecial value only in a savage or barbarous community. It is the avowed intention and tendency of Christianity
to give the ascendancy to man's moral nature; and the promises of God, with whom is all strength and
wisdom, are to the upright, the pure, the good, not to the strong, the valiant, or the crafty.
The more men receive of the lessons of Christianity, the more they learn to trust in God, in the might of
the right and true, the less reliance will they put upon brute force. And as brute force declines in
public estimation, the more will the feminine qualities of the human race rise in general regard and
confidence, until the meek shall be seen to be better than the mighty, and the humble only be
considered worthy of exaltation. Civilization implies the subordination of the physical in man to the
mental and moral; and the progress of the melioration of the condition of our race has been everywhere
marked by the elevation of the female sex.
But some would eagerly ask, should women be allowed to take part in the constructing and administering of our civil institutions?
Allowed, do you say? The very form of the question is an assumption of the right to do them the wrong that has been done them. Allowed! Why, pray tell me, is it
from us their rights have been received? Have we the authority to accord to them just such prerogatives
as we see fit and withhold the rest? No! woman is not the creature, the dependent of man but of God.
We may with no more propriety assume to govern women than they might assume to govern us. And
never will the nations of the earth be well-governed until both sexes, as well as all parties, are fairly
represented and have an influence, a voice, and, if they wish, a hand in the enactment and
administration of the laws.
One would think the sad mismanagement of the affairs of our own country should, in all modesty, lead
us men to doubt our own capacity for the task of governing a nation, or even a state, alone; and to
apprehend that we need other qualities in our public councils, qualities that may be found in the female
portion of our race. If woman be the complement of man, we may surely venture the intimation that all
our social transactions will be incomplete, or otherwise imperfect, unless they have been guided alike by
the wisdom of each sex. The wise, virtuous, gentle mothers of a state or nation (should their joint
influence be allowed) might contribute as much to the good order, the peace, the thrift of the body
politic as they severally do to the well-being of their families, which for the most part, all know is more
than the fathers do.
Can you believe that was written in the 1800s?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Whether you have female heroes etc doesn't tell us anything about why you want to see evidence of females dominating males in some competitive endeavour.
