I do not really understand her argument with Rousseau, nor do I really understand her points at all in this entire reading, but I will try to make a jab at it.
According to Rousseau, everything that was once made good by God “degenerates in the hands of man”(pp 377, note #17). He believes that human beings become more wicked as they become more sociable. Wollstonecraft argues that God would not have given us passions and the power of reflecting if it were only to make men worse. She says that they were given to improve our nature and allow us to enjoy a more “godlike portion of happiness”(pp 377). Education was one of the major issues that Wollstonecraft argued about, stating that if a woman’s duty is of the domestic kind, to care for their children and the home, they would be more willing and attached to that duty if they had more understanding of why. If women were able to gain this “power of reflecting”, the power of thought as all men are entitled to, they’ll be able to enjoy a more “godlike portion of happiness” and go about their duty’s with a happy heart. To Rousseau, by nature woman is inferior to the wicked man and is to be obedient. Wollstonecraft would completely disagree in that only if women and men held the same values would that be true. Obviously, they don’t, and as many women of this time were fighting to have the same rights as men, and almost despised the very idea that they are expected to be more modest and chaste. Wollstonecraft even says that the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and happiness will reign in society.