A critical analysis of Wollstonecraft's reaction to Rousseau

Rousseau continues by attempting to explain better what he means by women being “weak” and “passive”; trying to define them as positive adjectives in the hope of avoiding criticism, particularly from women. He explains that Sophy’s “strength is in her charms, by their means she should compel [Émile] to discover and use his strength”. Essentially, Rousseau suggests that women have some form of power over men, claiming that “nature has armed the weak for the conquest of the strong”. Rousseau goes on to explain that those characteristics that would be deemed faults in men are strengths in women; men are good at being men and women are good at being women, so they should not attempt to mimic each other. Virtue, according to Rousseau, is thus relative to the subject. While a virtuous man’s virtue must result from his own reason, a virtuous woman’s virtue is based on her reputation: “her husband, along with his friends and neighbours, must believe in her fidelity; she must be modest, devoted and retiring; she should have the witness not only of a good conscience, but of a good reputation”. Wollstonecraft contests this, failing to see why a man’s virtue should arise differently from a woman’s. She argues that women, although perhaps having different duties to men, should make decisions based on their own reason rather than on men’s opinions. She contends that “it is a farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result from the exercise of its own reason. This was Rousseau’s opinion regarding men: I extend it to women”

Upon construing that men and women have different virtues, Rousseau asserts that once it is realised “that man and woman are not, nor ought to be, constituted alike in temperament and character, it follows of course, that they should not be educated in the same manner”. He explains that while boys and girls share some common interests, they each have special interests of their own: while boys are interested in “boys want movement and noise, drums, tops, toy-carts; girls prefer things which appeal to the eye, and can be used as dressing up – mirrors, jewellery, finery, and specially dolls”. He goes on to highlight the girls’ interest in dolls from an early age, claiming that this interest demonstrates that they are instinctively interested in looking after others, thus proving that a housewife is the natural role for a woman. Moreover, he argues, “little girls always dislike learning to read and write, but they are always ready to learn to sew”; surely this shows that they are naturally suited to the line of work traditionally attributed to them? As such, their education should be “thoroughly practical”; centred on making women pleasing and useful to men. Furthermore, according to Rousseau even if girls did not prefer this role in life, reason would dictate that they should take it on anyway as “the search for abstract and speculative truths, for principles and axioms in science, for all that tends to wide generalisation, is beyond a woman’s grasp”.

Wollstonecraft naturally rejects this due to her belief in the tabula rasa philosophy that women are born with equal abilities to men and it is simply society that has shaped the differences observed by Rousseau. Her arguments for equal education are focused on how it would benefit society as a whole rather than focusing solely on how it would improve the lives of women, perhaps because she knew that the majority of her readers would be men. Her first argument is that if women are adequately educated, they would become better mothers and wives. She argues that “the wife, in the present state of things, who is faithful to her husband, and neither suckles nor educates her children, scarcely deserves the name of a wife, and has no right to that of a citizen”. Both writers agree that education in the earliest part of a child’s life is of the utmost importance, as children’s characters are formed before the age of seven; a point that Wollstonecraft uses to emphasise how an educated mother could benefit her child by assisting their education from an early age, rather than simply ‘suckling’ them.

Her second argument is based upon her belief that a woman’s virtue should arise from reason, the same as a man’s. From this point, it is logical to grant both sexes the same education in order for them to be virtuous. Naturally, Rousseau would reject this as his belief is that a woman’s virtue should arise from maintaining a good reputation. Wollstonecraft goes on to explain that for women to be truly virtuous and of use to society, “she must not be dependent on her husband’s bounty for her subsistence during his life, or support after his death”. In her view, women are not truly free if they are reliant upon their husband, and Wollstonecraft seems to question whether a woman can be truly virtuous if she is not free.

Wollstonecraft’s final reason is a broad one, arguing that society will benefit in various other ways if women are equally educated. In her novels Thoughts and Maria, Wollstonecraft bemoans the lack of career opportunities for women, describing women as “above the servants, yet considered by them as a spy, and ever reminded of her inferiority when in conversation with the superiors”. In A Vindication, she follows this up by suggesting several possible occupations and areas of study that may be suited to women. Although this seems to somewhat contradict her argument that women have the same natural ability to do anything, her gendered suggestions are perhaps a sign of the times she was living in; if she were to argue that women could become doctors and lawyers she would have most likely have been ridiculed and risked the rest of her arguments being thrown into disrepute. She suggests that women may study to become nurses, physicians or midwifes, while pointing out that, in fact, any kind of business that women were to pursue would benefit as it “might save many from common and legal prostitution”. Furthermore, if given the opportunity to pursue successful careers of their own “women would not then marry for support”, as they would be able to support themselves. As such, marriages would be formed for the right reasons and would thus be more likely to be successful, truly sacred marriages.

As an egalitarian liberal, Wollstonecraft believes that women should be given access to the public sphere, where they should attempt to compete against men to see whether they can hold their own. She concedes that “should experience prove that they cannot attain the same degree of 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”, before reiterating that if women were indeed proved to be ‘weaker’, then they would “only have the rank that reason assigned her” and so the present order of society would be restored. Therefore, she is accepting that if women are proven to be weaker it would be rational for them to have a lower rank in society than men, as inferred by Rousseau. However, Wollstonecraft contends that without giving women the opportunity to compete in the public sphere it is neither fair nor rational for women to be deemed weaker.

This point of view decisively separates her from Rousseau, who worries that should women try to compete with men it would be damaging to the self-esteem of men and would cause many problems in family institutions. In Émile he confesses that he “would a thousand times rather a homely girl, simply brought up, than a learned lady and a wit who would make a literary circle of my house and install herself as its president”, going on to describe female intellectuals as ‘scourges’ to their families and friends. Furthermore, as already discussed he believes that women have different virtues to men, and that any attempt by women to define themselves in terms of male virtues in order to compete will simply emphasise their own inferiority. “Well then, educate them like men”, Rousseau writes. “The more women are like men, the less influence they will have over men, and then men will be the masters indeed”. Wollstonecraft responds directly to this point, affirming that she completely agrees but pointing out that she does not “wish for women to have power over men; but over themselves”; she is not suggesting that women should replace men in any way, simply that they should better themselves in order to be of better use to society.  

Not only does Wollstonecraft advocate equal education for the sexes, she also insists that they should be educated together; a radical concept at the time which drew criticism from many educational thinkers. Her main argument for co-education is based upon her disdain for what she believes to be the view of women in society; as well as criticising Rousseau’s view of an ideal woman as one who is “beautiful, innocent, and silly”, she complains in great detail in Maria about the extent to which a married woman under English law was her husband’s property. She argues that no marriage can truly be sacred until women are the companions of men, rather than just their mistresses; a problem which she believes could be solved through co-education. She explains that if men and women are not educated on the same model, that “the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name fellowship, nor will women ever fulfil the peculiar duties of their sex, till they become enlightened citizens, till they become free, by being enabled to earn their own subsidence, independent of men”. According to Wollstonecraft, the only contentious consequence of educating the sexes together after the age of nine would be the possibility that some “early attachment might take place”. Still, she reasons, this would not necessarily be a bad thing as it would encourage early marriages, in which the “most salutary physical and moral effects naturally flow”.

It is clear that although Rousseau and Wollstonecraft were ethically very close, Wollstonecraft is very critical of Rousseau’s views outlined in Chapter V of Émile regarding the role of women in society, and, following on from this, his ideas on how they should be educated. This difference in philosophy can be attributed to a fundamental disagreement between two at the very basic level: Rousseau believes that there are crucial natural differences between men and women, whilst Wollstonecraft believes that both were born with a blank slate and that gendered roles have arisen as a result of societal forces. While Rousseau argues that men are strong and active while women are weak and passive, Wollstonecraft contends that there is no natural reason for this, pointing to the passiveness of military men for evidence. It is from this contentious premise that Rousseau builds his whole philosophy regarding the role of women as housewives, educating the children from a young age while also using their charm to ensure their husbands honour the marriage and help raise the children. He then builds again on this foundation, outlining his beliefs that women should be educated in practical things and what he describes as the “pleasing arts”, such as speech, song and dance.

Wollstonecraft responds by correctly pointing out that if women are not properly educated they will be unable to properly educate their children from a young age and so will not be able to fulfil the role Rousseau wishes them to. Furthermore, she criticises Rousseau for his description of an ideal woman, and in Thoughts she outlines her own description for the ideal woman as one who is rational and independent, similar to Rousseau’s notion of the ideal man. In her view, middle-class men must seek a companion rather than wife in order for the marriage to be enduring, agreeing with Rousseau that the appeal of beauty alone does not last long. In her novel Mary: a Fiction, she criticises marriage stating that ‘geniuses’, by which she means educated, independent women, are ‘enchained’ rather than enriched by marriage; a point that she develops in A Vindication by comparing women to caged birds, with “nothing to do other than plume themselves, and stalk with mock-majesty from perch to perch”. While pointing out the shortcomings in Rousseau’s arguments about the ideal woman and marriage, she is also reiterating her own views regarding the equality of men and women, as well as her corresponding belief that they should be given equal education. She then takes her argument one step further by suggesting the radical concept of co-education, arguing that the sexes need to be educated on the same model in order for women to truly be free and independent of men, and that only when this happens will marriages deserve the name fellowship.

In conclusion, Wollstonecraft commends Rousseau’s work on the education of men, but due to her egalitarian belief that men and women are equal, she argues that women should be educated by the same guidelines. As such, much of her argument can be summarised by when she writes “This was Rousseau’s opinion respecting men: I extend it to women”. Wollstonecraft’s ideas in A Vindication of the Rights of Women, which essentially sums up and develops her earlier work on women, could be said to transcend Rousseau’s work, by extending his ideas on the education of men to women and hence developing it into something that is clearly more in line with modern society. In addition to this, her ideas on co-education could be described as revolutionary as this idea was unheard of at the time. While many of her contemporaries would not have given this suggestion a second thought, looking at the world today it is clear that Wollstonecraft was a pioneer in this sense.

Word Count: 2998

---

Bibliography

Rousseau, J. (2004) Emile: Or, On Education. Project Gutenberg

Wollstonecraft, M. (1994) Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, with reflections on female conduct in the more important duties of life (Thoughts). Woodstock Books

Wollstonecraft, M. (2005) Mary, a Fiction [Kindle Edition]. Public Books Domain.

Wollstonecraft, M. (1995) A Vindication of the Rights of Men. Cambridge University Press.

Wollstonecraft, M. (2010) Original Stories from Real Life; with Conversations Calculated to Regulate the Affections, and Form the Mind to Truth and Goodness. BiblioBazaar.

Wollstonecraft, M. (2002) A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Project Gutenberg.

Wollstonecraft, M. (2010) Letters Written During a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Cambridge University Press; 1st edition.

Wollstonecraft, M. (1994) Maria: Or, the Wrongs of Woman (Maria). W. W. Norton & Company; 2nd ed.

Weiss, P. (1995) “Wollstonecraft and Rousseau: The Gendered Fate of Political Theorists”. In Falco, M. Feminist Interpretations of Mary Wollstonecraft. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Elfenbein, A. (2002) “Mary Wollstonecraft and the Sexuality of Genius”. In Johnson, C. The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft. Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, A. (2002) “Mary Wollstonecraft on Education”. In Johnson, C. The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft. Cambridge University Press.

---