I just finished reading Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. I'm still not entirely sure what specific rights Wollstonecraft thinks women should have—other than education, which is her primary focus—but overall I found the book very interesting.
Mostly, I was surprised: I was not expecting her to base her foundation of rights on theological grounds. Given her interest in Rousseau, I was expecting a more naturalistic argument, but that's definitely not her take. She argues that if women, like men, were endowed by God with both immortal souls and reason, then they are equally capable of virtue and independence. (In Wollstonecraft's words: "If woman be allowed to have an immortal soul, she must have, as the employment of life, an understanding to improve.") A simple and persuasive argument, in my opinion. Vindication does not have a nuanced theology, though, and on my (cursory) reading, Wollstonecraft seems to be a deist, though a sincere one. Whatever her religious convictions, in her book it's clear that a higher good forms the basis upon which equality (all types of equality) rest.
Wollstonecraft also zeroes in on the vapidity of the marriage market in a way that still rings really true. Since women are taught that attracting a husband is of paramount importance, Wollstonecraft argues, they can't help but grow up valuing beauty and artifice over virtue and education:
Mostly, I was surprised: I was not expecting her to base her foundation of rights on theological grounds. Given her interest in Rousseau, I was expecting a more naturalistic argument, but that's definitely not her take. She argues that if women, like men, were endowed by God with both immortal souls and reason, then they are equally capable of virtue and independence. (In Wollstonecraft's words: "If woman be allowed to have an immortal soul, she must have, as the employment of life, an understanding to improve.") A simple and persuasive argument, in my opinion. Vindication does not have a nuanced theology, though, and on my (cursory) reading, Wollstonecraft seems to be a deist, though a sincere one. Whatever her religious convictions, in her book it's clear that a higher good forms the basis upon which equality (all types of equality) rest.
I was further surprised by how many of Wollstonecraft's points are still relevant to today's sexual politics. Throughout the book she takes aim at the common 18th century idea that women hold a sexual power over men that lends them greater sway than any political enfranchisement possibly could. This idea seems to come really close to the 21st century vision of the henpecked husband, catering to his wife's irrational whims in exchange for a place in the marriage bed. Just as in the 18th century, the idea of men being in thrall to their wives undercuts the need for women's rights: after all, why do women need to keep pushing for equality, when they already wield so much power over their husbands?
Men, for whom we are told women were made, have too much occupied the thoughts of women; and this association has so entangled love with all their motives of action; and...having been solely employed either to prepare themselves to excite love, or actually putting their lessons in practice, they cannot live without love...They want a lover, a protector; and behold him kneeling before them—bravery prostrate to beauty!We've come a long way since 1792, and yet, judging by this description, things have not changed all that much. (See: The Bachelor.) I guess the lesson here is that no amount of education or equality can correct for the shallowness of humanity.