Page 202 of 1391

The argument is, that different natures have different uses, and

the natures of men and women are said to differ. But this is only

a verbal opposition. We do not consider that the difference may

be purely nominal and accidental; for example, a bald man and a

hairy man are opposed in a single point of view, but you cannot

infer that because a bald man is a cobbler a hairy man ought not

to be a cobbler. Now why is such an inference erroneous? Simply

because the opposition between them is partial only, like the

difference between a male physician and a female physician, not

running through the whole nature, like the difference between a

physician and a carpenter. And if the difference of the sexes is

only that the one beget and the other bear children, this does

not prove that they ought to have distinct educations. Admitting

that women differ from men in capacity, do not men equally differ

from one another?