In the 19th, he wrote:
To support than the woman can express in the people’s assembly her disagreement with her husband; it is to imply their latent disagreement and prepare them for divorce. To suppose that the reason from the first can balance the one of the second is to go against the wish of nature, and to degrade virility. To admit, finally, to public functions a person that nature and the conjugal law have, to say, dedicated naturally to solely domestic functions, is to alter the family chastity, to make a woman a public figure, to proclaim the confusion of genders, the community of loves, the abolition of family, the absolutism of the State, the servitude of the people and the infeodation of properties.
Change, modify, or intervene, in any manner, this rapport between sexes, and you destroy marriage in its essence; from a society predominated by justice you create a society predominated by love; you fall back to concubines and flutters; you can still have fathers and mothers, as you have lovers, but you won’t have families; and without family, your political constitution, of families and free cities, will become a communistic theocracy or pornocracy, the worse of tyranny.
Mystics say that, one day, there won’t be males nor females; which nowadays seems to be, even for a crowd of educated people, the unique manner for destroying the antagonism, and therefore for extinguishing crime and misery. But would such a society survive? I would argue that this society would function a 100 times worse than ours; and, if you allow me to clarify, I support the fact that it would radically be impossible.
Society subsists by the subordination of all forces and human faculties, individual and collective, to justice.
Every woman who dreams of emancipation already lost, ipso facto, the health of her soul, the lucidity of her spirit, and the virginity of her heart: she is already on the course of sins.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Pornocracy or the modern woman, ed1875
And this is what happened.