A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Chapter I: The Rights and Involved Duties of Mankind Considered

Wollstonecraft begins by explaining that she is going to start with some
basic principles and ask several simple questions. These questions
may lead to truths, but these results are often contradicted by people's
words and conduct. Reason is what gives man preeminence over brute
creatures, and passions were instilled in us so that men might grapple
with them and attain experience and knowledge. She writes that
"perfection of our nature and capability of happiness, must be estimated
by the degree of reason, virtue, and knowledge, that distinguish the
individual, and direct the laws which bind society..."
Reason has been mixed with error through the course of mankind, so it
is necessary to look at how deeply rooted prejudices have clouded
reason and how reason is used to justify such prejudices.
Wollstonecraft wonders if the bulk of the people of Europe have
received anything in exchange for their innocence. The desire for
wealth and power has overwhelmed mankind. There is such
wretchedness that flows from "hereditary honours, riches, and
monarchy, that men of lively sensibility have almost uttered blasphemy
in order to justify the dispensation of providence."
The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseauargued that man was by nature a
solitary animal and that society was conducive to wickedness.
Wollstonecraft disagrees with the view that Roussau's state of nature,
characterized by solitude, is preferable to civilization. God placed
humans on earth and intended for them, after the Fall, to live in a
community of other humans. God's plan for humans entailed their
discovery of and use of reason to reach for godlike happiness. The
presence of free will, however, means that evil and error exist.
In terms of regal power, subsequent generations produce more idiocy
and "render thousands idle and vicious." Men attain their regal status
by innumerable and unmentionable crimes and intrigues, and their
subjects sit and idly allow "the nerveless limbs of the posterity of such
rapacious prowlers to rest quietly on their ensanguined thrones."
Society will never be healthy if such rulers are allowed to retain their
power.
Those who achieve the status of king naturally desire flattery and are
barred from the achievement of wisdom and virtue by the very nature
of their ascent to power. It is absurd that the fate of thousands rests in
the hands of such men. All "power inebriates weak men," and the more
there is equality in society, the more virtue and happiness will reign.
Not simply kinghood but any profession that constitutes power by great
subordination of rank is problematic for morality. A standing army "is
incompatible with freedom" because subordination, rigor, and
despotism are necessary for the maintenance of an army. The
presence of such an army, with its idle and gallant young men, is
dangerous for the town in which they reside. Sailors are also indolent
and mischievous and serve no purpose during peacetime. The clergy
system also is maintained in a grievous fashion, for much is made of
the subordination and obsequiousness of novitiates to their bishops.
Overall, "it is of great importance to observe that the character of every
man is, in some degree, formed by his profession." Thus, his opinions
are formed by the structure within which he moves every day, and the
character he possesses is related to his profession. In order for society
to attain more enlightenment, it must not sustain groups of men who are
made foolish or cruel by the nature of their professions.
Even though an aristocracy may be the most natural type of government
as the earliest society emerges from barbarism, this form of government
became untenable as the years progressed and the people begin
agitating for some share of the power. It is the "pestiferous purple" of
royalty that thwarts the progress of civilizations and "warps the
understanding."

Analysis
In this first chapter Wollstonecraft tackles some of the major reasons
why women are subjugated: prejudice, lack of education, lack of ability
to take on a profession, their own silliness and eschewing of reason,
and a governmental structure that does not yield enough power to the
people. Through society's mandate that they render themselves
attractive before all else, women become ridiculous, immoral, and
worthy of disapprobation. Women have a soul just as men do, and if the
soul is unsexed, as she argues, then both sexes have a capacity for
reason and should endeavor to exercise it.
Wollstonecraft mentions Jean-Jacques Rousseau, her intellectual
contemporary (more or less; he died in 1778 when she was 19) and one
of the major philosophical voices from the Age of Reason. Rousseau
expostulated several views on women that were very distasteful to
Wollstonecraft, and multiple times throughout the Vindicationshe
lambastes him. As the scholar Catriona MacKenzie writes, "Her targets
are, first, Rousseau's claim that women are by nature inferior to men
with respect to those capacities that ground equality—namely reason,
independence, and virtue—and second, his claim that women's equality
would subvert the social order." She may agree with Rousseau to some
extent that women are sillier and more rational than men, but she
argues that this is because society has molded them in such a fashion
and has denied them the capacity to reason like men.
Similarly, Wollstonecraft critiques Rousseau's conception of female
virtue, which he believes is founded on modesty, not reason, and grants
some of his assumptions but critiques the inferences he draws from
them. Public virtue must be founded on private virtue, but the way
women are raised will subvert that goal, she argues. In contrast, his
advice, as MacKenzie writes, "is more likely to produce infidelity or at
least sham infidelity, than genuine fidelity because it focuses women's
whole attention on 'corporeal embellishments' rather than on attaining
genuine virtue." Wollstonecraft writes that Rousseau's "ridiculous
stories, which tend to prove that girls are naturally attentive to their
persons, without laying any stress on daily example, are below
contempt" (43). She scoffs, "I have, probably, had an opportunity of
observing more girls in their infancy than J. J. Rousseau" (43), adding
that she understands what usually becomes of young girls inculcated
with these repressive ideas of modesty and virtue.
Wollstonecraft's frequent critique of Rousseau is that he simply wants
women to grow up learning that their attractiveness is what matters,
since to him they are incapable of reason and truly equal education is
inappropriate. In chapter five she will go into depth regarding the writers
whose work is problematic, but the fact that Rousseau is mentioned in
this first chapter and in nearly every other one demonstrates the central
role he plays in her social and philosophical critique. He is a figure to
challenge, subvert, and even negate. In taking on the premises of one
of the famous philosophers of her time, Wollstonecraft is entering the
debate at the highest level and establishing herself as a figure to be
reckoned with.
Finally, one more point of discussion for this first chapter includes the
discussion of kinghood, power, and freedom. Wollstonecraft is writing
nearly one hundred years after John Locke and Thomas Hobbes,
political philosophers whose theories of social contract had recently
come to the fore quite conspicuously in the American Revolution and
the French Revolution. There is an implicit, and at times explicit,
utilization of the tenets of democracy and the social contract in
the Vindication. Wollstonecraft criticizes absolute power derived from
some arbitrary fount; for Locke and others, this was royal lineage,
whereas for Wollstonecraft this is gender. Men have no right to
tyrannize over women, she argues, based on their gender, whatever
natural physical superiorities men may enjoy. Their claim that they are
reasonable and rational while women are incapable of being rational is
specious because the soul is notgendered and virtue is relative rather
than qualitatively different by gender. The governmental danger of
tyranny via aristocracy or monarchy has a social parallel in men’s
tyrannical use of power over women.

Chapter II: The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed

Many arguments have been put forth to justify man's tyranny over
woman and explain how women are unable to attain virtue due to their
insufficient strength. However, Wollstonecraft repeats, if women have
souls then there should be no fundamental difference between men and
women in pursuing and attaining virtue. Men complain about the
silliness and folly of women but do not comprehend that people
themselves are responsible for the ubiquity of women's servility; from
childhood women are taught to be weak, soft, cunning, and proud only
of their beauty. Women are kept in a state of childhood and innocence,
and when the term "innocence" is applied to women it designates them
as weak rather than blameless.
Wollstonecraft turns to the subject of manners and education. Individual
education is extremely significant not just to manners but to
fundamental human development as it "will slowly sharpen the senses,
form the temper, regulate the passions as they begin to ferment, and
set the understanding to work before the body arrives at maturity; so
that the man may only have to proceed, not to begin, the important task
of learning to think and reason." Of course, individual education must
be supplemented by the society within which men and women live. The
most perfect type of education is one that encourages the individual to
attain habits of virtue that will render him or her independent. Virtuous
beings must derive their virtue from the exercise of reason. Rousseau
focused on applying that argument to men, and Wollstonecraft here
applies it to women.
Many of the writers on female education, such as Rousseau and Dr.
Gregory, tend to paint women as more artificial and weak than they
would be under better conditions. Their work can be said to degrade
one half of the human species, which is objectionable. Taking
Rousseau's argument to its end, if men achieved perfection of mind
when they arrived at maturity it would be acceptable to have man and
woman become one and let the woman lean on the man's perfect
understanding, but in reality, men are just as debauched and childlike
as women are assumed to be!
There are many causes that enslave women, one of them being the
disregard of order. Women's education is disorganized, fragmented,
and random. The knowledge strong women attain is usually received
from the desultory observation of everyday life. In her time, learning
comes in snatches and is always subordinate to the goal of perfecting
one's beauty. This situation is similar to that of military men, who are
"sent into the world before their minds have been stored with knowledge
or fortified by principles." Standing armies are occupied with the same
sorts of things women are: dancing, crowds, ridicule. (Even so, military
men benefit from their sex.) Similarly, both military men and women
"acquire manners before morals, and a knowledge of life before they
have, from reflection, any acquaintance with the grand ideal outline of
human nature." They thus are driven by social norms that they hold like
prejudices, without understanding.
For their part, sensualists prefer to keep women in the dark in their
quest for power. Rousseau's character Sophia from his novel Émile is a
case in point. Wollstonecraft avers that she admires Rousseau and
does not to intend to criticize Sophia as a whole but the foundation upon
which she was built: her faulty education. Women are to "be considered
either as moral beings, or so weak that they must be entirely subjected
to the superior faculties of men," and Rousseau's answer to that claim
is to have women never feel independent, to learn the grand lesson of
obedience. This is absurd, she argues, since women's conduct "should
be founded on the same principles and have the same aim" as men's.
The end of women's exertions should be to "unfold their own faculties
and acquire the dignity of conscious virtue."
Wollstonecraft's aim is not to invert the order of things. Men's physical
size makes them naturally superior because it, as well as their worldly
pursuits, leads to greater opportunities to make moral choices and
attain virtue. All she is saying is that there should be no double standard
when it comes to virtue; moral and intellectual virtue should not differ in
kind for men and women.
Further, women will not lose their "peculiar graces" if they pursue
knowledge. Wollstonecraft is not trying to speak against love, but rather
to demonstrate how tumultuous passions should not usurp the place of
the superior powers. Women's charms and beauty fade away during
her marriage; "will she then have sufficient native energy to look into
herself for comfort, and cultivate her dormant faculties?" She may
simply try to please other men, having stored little other virtue to rely
on.
Also, Dr. Gregory's Legacy to his Daughtersis problematic because he
encourages them not only to cultivate a love for dress (something he
claims is "natural," although that term is specious because women's
souls seem not to have an inherent love of clothing) but to learn to
dissemble and lie about their feelings.
Instead, women should seek to purify their hearts, but they cannot do
so when they are entirely dependent on their emotions and senses and
care only for trivial things. Women should not be content with a role that
gives them nothing else to do but secure men's affections. Besides, a
woman who strengthens her mind and body will become a friend to her
husband, not merely a servile dependent. More importantly, the women
in history who distinguished themselves were not the most attractive or
gentle.
Love is in fact dangerous in a marriage, for it is assumed that passion
is commonplace, but when it dies out the marriage becomes
problematic. Those with intelligence understand that passion should be
replaced by friendship and understanding. Passions can spur actions
but soon sink into mere appetites and become only a momentary
gratification when the object is obtained. Wollstonecraft even ventures
to claim that "an unhappy marriage is often very advantageous to a
family, and ... a neglected wife is, in general, the best mother" because
happiness and pleasure detract from experience and understanding.
Reason must teach passion to submit to necessity.
Dr. Gregory also advises his daughters not to bother cultivating their
minds by reading or educating themselves if they intend to marry.
Women should not stop their pursuit of knowledge, Wollstonecraft
rebuts, when they decide they want to marry. Some women do go too
far into cultivating their delicacy of sentiment (such as novelists), but
that is not what she advocates. Dr. Gregory's ideas amount to nothing
more than a system of slavery.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with gentleness as it is observed in
the scriptures, but when "gentleness" is applied to women it brings with
it weakness, dependence, prostration, and quiet submission. It is
absurd that women are told to only plan for the present in their marriage,
and only recommended to cultivate the virtues of gentleness and
docility. Women are thus made the toys of their husbands, meant to
amuse them instead of help them. It seems ridiculous that "passive
indolence" could really make the best wives. Men have made women
sink almost below the standard for rational creatures.
The minds of women should be cultivated, and they should be able to
exercise their God-given reason. Also, if "experience should prove that
they cannot attain the same strength of mind, perseverance, and
fortitude, let their virtues be the same in kind, though they may vainly
struggle for the same degree; and the superiority of man will be equally
clear, if not clearer."
Wollstonecraft states that she loves man as her fellow but does not love
the scepter he uses to wield power over women; any submission she
has to a man is due to reason, not the mere fact of his sex. Liberty is
the mother of virtue, but when women are slaves they cannot attain
virtue.
Analysis
Wollstonecraft discusses a woman's role as a wife many times
throughout her work. She espouses the idea that if women are
continually oppressed by society and denied education and its
concomitant development of reason, they cannot be good wives. Some,
in their silliness instilled in them from girlhood, will be discontented with
the routine of married life and look for illicit love affairs elsewhere in
order to continue to stimulate their sensibility. Others will tyrannize over
their husbands in their unconscious desire for power. Husbands and
wives can never be true friends or companions if women want only to
be pleasing and alluring.
Wollstonecraft's ideal marriage is one that resembles friendship in its
emphasis on freedom, reason, mutual esteem, respect, and concern for
moral character. This in turn mirrors traditional political liberalism in its
promulgation of liberty and equality. Several scholars have noted the
fact that Wollstonecraft thinks about marriage in a political manner, as
well as the fact that her ideal marriage is like a friendship. One of the
questions that stems from such discussions is where sexuality can fit
in, as it seems that, in Vindication, Wollstonecraft counsels against
letting sex and passion take on a central role in a relationship.
Ruth Abbey's scholarly article on this subject is quite illuminating. She
first places the author in the context of other writers, particularly John
Stuart Mill, who firmly argued that marriage should be like friendship.
Unlike Mill, however, Wollstonecraft's ideas were more complex and did
not fully espouse the idea that marriage could embody the hegemonic
social contract and "rights discourse" whereby women should
voluntarily give up their liberty by getting married. Abbey also points out
Wollstonecraft's antipathy to the notion that marriage was the only way
for a woman to rise in life; this notion is especially frustrating because
of the ways in which women are taught from childhood to render
themselves appealing to the male sex. Female education is sporadic
and misleading and tends to result in girls who want to be alluring. This
is also dangerous for men because women only want the "rakes" and
"gallants" who can flatter and tease, not the men of substance.
Similarly, Wollstonecraft argues, education in its limited and sexist
capacity leads to bad mothers and a cycle of bad education over the
following generations.
Thus, as Abbey writes, "if men and women marry by choice and for
companionship, the husband is more likely to be at home and be a
better father to his children." The husband and wife would not be subject
to "petty jealousies" and would channel their energies into being
effective parents. Neither would seek romantic solace outside of the
home or exercise undue power within it. Each would value the partner's
character, not physical attractiveness alone. Of course, as Abbey points
out, Wollstonecraft also entertained the notion that a woman did not
have to marry at all; she could a meaningful, fulfilled life. Of course, this
would be not be considered a very common possibility in an age when
marriage was expected, but the possibility existed.
Wollstonecraft prioritizes reason over power. For reason to abound in
households, arbitrary power must be eradicated. Since both men and
women are capable of reason, there is no substantive explanation for
why men ought to rule absolutely over their wives. Furthermore, since
women are ruled by their husbands, they act out tyrannically
with their inferiors; they seek out in a clandestine and calculating
fashion how to exercise power over children, servants, and animals.
Abbey notes that the author's "idea of marriage as friendship would
bring this situation to an end" and make an environment "more
conducive to the development of the virtues citizens need."
Finally, regarding to sex within marriage, it may seem like
Wollstonecraft does not see the two as compatible. However, it was
obvious that she did not deny the "sexual dimension of personality; on
the contrary, her discussions of modesty and its role in directing and
controlling sexual desire testify to its presence. Nor does she
underestimate the role sexual desire might play in a love relationship:
rather, she admires the Danish practice of giving engaged couples
considerable liberty in their courtship," Abbey explains. Sexual desire
can, however, become all-consuming and thus problematic. However,
Wollstonecraft is also realistic concerning how such desire usually
fades away in marriage as people age. Friendship can survive after
such passion wanes, since reason long outlasts external beauty.