It is incomprehensible that so many intellectual, sensible men, claiming to be logical, should be hostile to modern feminism. I say “modern” to mark the actual state of conflict, for eternal feminism is contemporaneous with the eternal feminine, as Lucien Muhlfeld says. Following Schopenhauer and Strindberg, who strove to demonstrate the inferiority of woman, our detractors, in making war upon feminism, show themselves to be very inconsistent. As woman, is, in their eyes, an inferior being, they are either fighting what they have no reason to fear, which shows lack of courage on their part; or, by admitting that under present conditions woman plays an important part in everyday life, they recognise in her a certain value, which shows a lack of sincerity.

On the day woman first recognised the fact that she could earn her living by taking up the employments hitherto reserved for men, she made good her claim to a share of instruction and training by means of which to put an end to her mental inequality.

Unable to escape from the subordinate position in the family thrust upon her by the Civil Code, she determined to free her mind first, and gain recognition of her rights in the domain of intellect. This seemed inadmissible, even in respect of the principles of science.

Now, in times gone by, women worked as much as, and often more than, men, thus gaining recognition of their physical strength. When man was still a barbarian, hunting and fighting for mere subsistence, woman hunted and fought with him; just as his comrade, she carried the slain beast over her shoulder. Later, she spun flax to clothe her family; she was obliged, in her enslaved condition, to turn to common uses her intellect and devotion, and when, later still, the family was placed on a legal footing, she was obliged to give all her faculties to manual labour.

Long centuries passed. Man had no longer to fight for his daily bread. One invention after another had gradually modified the conditions of his life; he had become educated, had attained to different trades and professions, developed his power and authority, while woman remained the same dependent creature, tied to her duties as wife and mother. A time came when woman, too, learnt trades which she made her own. Man took them from her, possessed himself of her needle, of clothes-making, hairdressing, cookery. This is why, in the eighteenth century, women attempted an inroad into letters and the arts. This is why, helped by the Revolution, they sought to claim common rights. To-day, trained at school and college, women know that they can utilise their faculties more nobly than hitherto. They no longer live in an epoch when, men having absorbed everything, they have to resign themselves to being married, whilst hardly more than children, for a livelihood.

Consider how sad was the lot of the woman when, devoid of the means to free herself honestly from slavery, she was compelled to sell herself, by legal marriage or otherwise.

Whatever certain philosophers and anti-feminists may say, the reason why the personality of the woman weakened in the course of ages, was that her physical force had been exhausted, which entailed mental inferiority.

But through the progress of science, innovations of all kinds, economic and social evolution, daily events; throughout the complexities of a new life, woman began to make her influence felt, became conscious of her powers, strengthened by study, system and experience.

Strindberg, the misogynist, when he declared that “woman is incapable of acquiring complete knowledge in any branch of study whatsoever,” said a foolish thing. In proof of the contrary, in the university, in the art schools, in law, women are said to be, if not superior to men, at least their equal.

It must be remembered that it is less than a century since woman, even in the most advanced countries, was first allowed to receive the same training as man. Taking into consideration how far behind her rival in intellect she then was, the results she has obtained give a flat contradiction to those who opposed her equality, which, originally a law of nature, has, under modern social conditions, become a law of existence.

If it be true that it takes several generations to perfect a race from a physical point of view, it is equally true that several generations are needed for the development of the moral and intellectual qualities. If only through the consciousness of her ego, woman is called to take a more important place in the life of nations.

From the dependent that she once was, woman will become the agent required by her times. If she no longer receives from her comrade, as in old Teutonic days, the cuirass, helmet, and sword, that she may fight by his side, she will none the less endeavour to equal him in the field of intellect.

The start which man has gained and still keeps in the realms of Science and Art does not justify him in boasting over the inferiority of woman.

To sum up, woman claims no more than her right to-day when she demands knowledge of all the occupations in which man is employed and reserves for himself; when she desires to exercise her judgment and prove both her skill and taste.

“Whereas in men,” says Louis Dimier, “taste, which is a power of the mind, precedes and commands skill, which is organic aptitude; in women, on the other hand, it seems to be skill which determines and commands taste. One might say literally that with a woman the feeling for the beautiful is in her fingers. All women, too, some more and some less, but without exception, make use of their powers of action; but a man cannot rely all his life on the possession of his capacity for judgment.”

Yes, woman is, fundamentally, man’s equal. Belittled as she has been till recently by conditions which made her a nonentity, she is now, thanks to the spread of education, the mingling of classes, and social changes, becoming a respected worker and a valued being. Born into a new life, she will no longer be the jealous rival of man, but his useful fellow-worker, as she has always been his generous comrade, sharing his joys and sorrows.