Agreeing with Angelica, I too noticed that the target audiences for the two declarations are completely different. I noticed that the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights tends to not rely so much on the full force of law as it pertains to man, but on the freedoms and the protection from the harshness of laws. On the surface, it seems like the articles are written the way they are to prevent the abuse of law, but in comparison to the Declaration of the Rights of Women, the meaning changes. Even the title, Declaration of Human and Civic Rights, seems to indicate that women aren't considered human, or at least, not on the same level as men because there is no mention made to women or any general overarching term that would encompass both sexes.
In Declaration of Human and Civic Rights, the focus is more on what the law can't do to men whereas in Declaration of the Rights of Women, Olympe De Gouges, talks about the equal footing that both sexes have and how the law serves both in protecting the individual and maintaining the common interest of the community. De Gouges says what most findings report in the sex and gender field: men and women are born biologically different, but based on that difference, inequalities are formed by opinion and entrenched in society through tradition.
Understanding the basis of both declarations, I still have a few questions. In article 5 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights it states: "The Law has the right to forbid only those actions that are injurious to society. Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain;" my question is does that mean that any crime is permissible if that seems to fall through a crack in the system due to syntax or just not considering it? Also, in the Declaration of the Rights of Women, women are seen as "the sex that is as superior in beauty as it is in courage during the sufferings of maternity." Does this pertain only to maternity or are women seen as above men in other ways?