Extract
[...] Although society, in the world and in France, experienced a cultural upheaval after the advancement of knowledge and the French Revolution, the place of women had never really been at the center of men's concerns, the currents of Rousseau's naturalism and the ideas shared during the Renaissance being well rooted in the population. Nevertheless, the first feminists who appeared just before, and the education of women from high society, hinted at a need for a change in mentalities. The visions of Rousseau and Condorcet present the two extremes of this problem. Women were not independent, but were subject to the mandatory transition from the parental regime to the marital regime. [...]
[...] And, it is interesting to account for the quality of the depth of his thought: certainly, women were the exposed subject, but it is actually a demonstration of the profound ineptness of the human species to hide behind an illogical reasoning in order to prove and maintain a balance that it does not want to see disappear due to fear of change, pride, and power. According to Clair Bonenfant (1979), . biological differences between men and women have served as a pretext for a division of tasks based on sex, legislation has institutionalized this division of labor and social roles and consecrated the primacy of men and the dependence of women [ . ] »8. It only remains for our new generations to remember past learnings in order to allow for the normalization of mutual respect, a right for all and for all. [...]
[...] Although this was forbidden in their time (sometimes punishable by death), some men, such as François Poulain de la Barre in the 17th century and the Marquis de Condorcet himself, had meditated on the deeper aspect of men's rights, understood here as human rights. The thought of Rousseau was carried by a well-personal understanding of the idea of nature. At that time, men and women had distinct social roles: on the one hand, men were expected to be competent, knowledgeable, responsible, and on the other hand, women were tasked with being pleasant and maintaining the conjugal home. It was within this perspective that Rousseau's thought developed, where natural dispositions, different between the two sexes, were to be respected and reinforced by education. [...]
[...] Considering his approach to the human species, it becomes natural for Condorcet to propose an egalitarian education. Their society (the global society at that time) was the only one to have refuted gender equality, with pride preventing general awareness. Education is the key to independence: an uninstructed man depends on the man who possesses knowledge. And it is the same for women. Condorcet thinks of women's education as that of men; it is a human education, where knowledge (sciences, arts, etc.) is not destined or hindered, but shared. [...]
[...] Comment do Condorcet and Rousseau think about the place and role of women in society, and how is the education of girls thought of? At a time when feminist movements have opened the way for the progressive integration of equality between men and women in mentalities and social norms, it is necessary to remember the path traveled. The 'traditional' conceptions issued from the patriarchy refer the woman to a minor and dependent place of the man as presented by the Napoleonic Code (1804)1. [...]
