y nothing wrong with this. Women in the late 1700s and early 1800s were observed more as objects of possession to the male population than as an equal human being.
. In actuality, men just saw females like children and did not concern them with any serious affairs. Women, nevertheless did have unrecognizable advantages over men in that they   have a "natural influence over the male mind.  

      Likewise, men did not believe that females were coherent enough to be educated. As Rousseau puts it, "till that period arrives in which women will act wisely, we will amuse ourselves in talking of their follies" (321). Without any education, women were unable to find any suitable employment. Even if a woman's husband or father let them work, they could only find professions in a few fields, such as hair-dressing, at this point in time, according to Priscilla Wakefield, "their duties have lately occupied the pens of writers of eminence" (328). There were limited occupations that were fit for women according to the male population. Even in these occupations, men were the primary worker. These professions were constructive while "filling up their time in a useful manner" (328). The only way women could engage in these professions, is "without encroaching upon those professions, which are appropriate to men" (328).

They could only employ their time and talents as long as they are not "exceeding the most exact limits of modesty and decorum" (328). According to St. Luke, "there is no other alternative for these poor women, but beggary or vice. Women were forced to be "reduced to the same low state of wretchedness" (Radcliffe 333).

Women were also only seen as a thing of beauty, according to Macaulay, "the admiration of the other sex is held out to women as the highest honour they can attain" (321). This is the only thing that kept men interested in women at any cost. If women were not functional, according to men, at least they can be something to gaze at. In the...