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.
5 comments:
Rousseau: "Amiable and virtuous citizen-women, it will always be the lot of your sex to govern ours." This never points to equality for Rousseau, but to a differentiated education suited to the different ways in which the sexes govern - women by making the mores, men by making the laws. Still, if Wollstonecraft's demand is primarily for educating women, then this kind of argument does support it, since it shows why it won't suffice to leave women in ignorance of their roles and the duties of their government, b/c they will be poor rulers of men. This is particularly true (in Rousseau's argument) when society has fallen away from nature and has come to be corrupted by fashion. Then you need even more sophisticated artifice and culture (that is, education) to correct for these corruptions.
OK, but Wollstonecraft is not on board with the mores/laws gender divide that Rousseau (and Tocqueville) set up. The "soft power" of women (if it exists at all) doesn't give women the basic rights she's after, and, as far as I can tell, she's arguing for coeducation, not women's education. There's even a hint at the end that she wants women to be able to represent themselves in government. She's a lot more radical than Rousseau on this point.
In that case, I don't know how emphasizing the existing sexual power of women advances her argument. There is a later 19th C. argument for female suffrage, advanced by Jane Addams and other reformers, that draws on a related claim: since women govern the household and de facto educate children, they ought to have the vote in order to be able to influence public policies that affect the domestic sphere. Women more directly "represent" the political interests of this sphere than men. But this is not quite the same as saying women represent themselves in government as either individuals or some kind of sex-based interest group, though neither do men. Society is simply divided into public and private spheres, and political representation ought to reflect that division rather than any individual or group rights or interests.
I said she takes aim at the idea that women hold sexual power over men--she emphasizes it, but only to discredit it. She doesn't think running the household is a valid substitute for political rights, or that this would be justification enough for political representation or suffrage. She does say that women should be educated to be better mothers and citizens, and I think both are equally important to her. Overall, though, representation for Wollstonecraft doesn't seem to be about sex-based interest groups, it's about half the population having no political power and few, if any, individual rights. (She thinks working class men are in a similar predicament too.) Women should have rights because they can fully exercise reason, not because they bear children. Her argument is sometimes murky, which makes it easy to pick apart, but I think she raises some interesting questions.
Ohhh, I thought you meant she advances that argument herself. In that case, yes, that follows.
Post a Comment