the nature of their sex-function which exonerates them, as human beings,
from their obligation to take part in the labours of guidance and
government in their state: the narrower, but yet important ground, that,
in as far as in one direction, i.e., in the special form of their sex
function takes, they do differ from the male, they, in so far, form a class
and are bound to represent the interests of, and to give the state the
benefit of, the insight of their class, in certain directions.

Those persons who imagine that the balance of great political parties in
almost any society would be seriously changed by the admission of its women
in public functions are undoubtedly wholly wrong. The fundamental division
of humans into those inclined to hold by the past and defend whatever is,
and those hopeful of the future and inclined to introduce change, would
probably be found to exist in much the same proportion were the males or
the females of any given society compared: and the males and females of
each class will in the main share the faults, the virtues, and the
prejudices of their class. The individuals may lose by being excluded on
the ground of sex from a share of public labour, and by being robbed of a
portion of their lawful individual weight in their own society; and the
society as a whole may lose by having a smaller number to select its chosen
labourers from; yet, undoubtedly, on the mass of social, political, and
international questions, the conclusions arrived at by one sex would be
exactly those arrived at by the other.

Were a body of humans elected to adjudicate upon Greek accents, or to pass
a decision on the relative fineness of woollens and linens, the form of sex
of the persons composing it would probably have no bearing on the result;
there is no rational ground for supposing that, on a question of Greek
accents or the thickness of cloths, equally instructed males and females
would differ. Here sex plays no part. The experience and instructedness