A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects

“My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone. I earnestly wish to point out in what true dignity and human happiness consists—I wish to persuade women to endeavour to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonymous with epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are only the objects of pity and that kind of love, which has been termed its sister, will soon become objects of contempt.”

Here, Wollstonecraft critiques the way in which women are typically treated by men—as though they are ignorant children and not “rational creatures.” She addresses women directly, imploring them to try to acquire “strength” instead of the soft, frail attributes typically ascribed to women. She argues against the feminine stereotype, stating that this should not be an ideal for women.

“Surely it is madness to make the fate of thousands depend on the caprice of a weak fellow creature, whose very station sinks him necessarily below the meanest of his subjects! But one power should not be thrown down to exalt another—for all power inebriates weak man; and its abuse proves that the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and happiness will reign in society.”

Wollstonecraft critiques the monarchy—the “weak fellow creature” she describes here is the king—and the hierarchy it engenders, a system she calls “madness.” She sees the distinctions between a King and his subjects as purely arbitrary—he did not attain his title because of his own qualities but by birth—and simultaneously decries all forms of power. Instead, she argues for “equality” between all men, which must also mean equality between men and women.

“But in the education of women, the cultivation of the understanding is always subordinate to the acquirement of some corporeal accomplishment; even while enervated by confinement and false notions of modesty, the body is prevented from attaining that grace and beauty which relaxed half-formed limbs never exhibit. Besides, in youth their faculties are not brought forward by emulation; and having no serious scientific study, if they have natural sagacity it is turned too soon on life and manners. They dwell on effects, and modifications, without tracing them back to causes; and complicated rules to adjust behaviour are a weak substitute for simple principles.”

This provides a more detailed examination of the type of education women were afforded. Primarily, their education was focused on outward appearance and behavior—manners, decorum and conversation—rather than the expansion of the mind, or academic learning. Furthermore, because women were not expected to acquire reason or understanding, they were only taught “complicated rules” and “principles” to follow, being unable to decide for themselves what is good and what is wrong.

“Let us examine this question. Rousseau declares that a woman should never, for a moment, feel herself independent, that she should be governed by fear to exercise her natural cunning, and made a coquettish slave in order to render her a more alluring object of desire, a sweeter companion to man, whenever he chooses to relax himself. He carries the arguments, which he pretends to draw from the indications of nature, still further, and insinuates that truth and fortitude, the corner stones of all human virtue, should be cultivated with certain restrictions, because, with respect to the female character, obedience is the grand lesson which ought to be impressed with unrelenting rigour.”

Throughout the text, Wollstonecraft returns again and again to the beliefs and writings of Rousseau, as he often exemplifies how men impose a debasing ideal of femininity onto women and perpetuate their subordination. Here, Wollstonecraft rephrases Rousseau in order to criticize him by describing the type of woman that Rousseau idealizes as “a coquettish slave”—a person who is perpetually confined and ruled by man, and who is forced, within the bounds of her servitude, to also be both teasing and pleasing to man.

“Girls and boys, in short, would play harmlessly together, if the distinction of sex was not inculcated long before nature makes any difference—I will go further, and affirm, as an indisputable fact, that most of the women, in the circle of my observation, who have acted like rational creatures, or shewn any vigour of intellect, have accidentally been allowed to run wild—as some of the elegant formers of the fair sex would insinuate.”

Wollstonecraft’s society believed that men and women were inherently different, with girls instinctively preferring a more sedentary lifestyle and only being interested in dresses and other vain pursuits. Here, Wollstonecraft argues that this idea of difference is “inculcated” or instilled into boys and girls from an early age, which makes them believe that these differences are natural. Wollstonecraft argues that women who show more intelligence and reason as adults were raised from infancy as though they were boys—being allowed to “run wild” and learn. Ultimately, Wollstonecraft believes that most differences between men and women are nurtured into them, rather than such differences being inherent to their natures.

“It is time to effect a revolution in female manners—time to restore to them their lost dignity—and make them, as a part of the human species, labour by reforming themselves to reform the world.”

Wollstonecraft calls explicitly for a “revolution” in the way that women behave and in the way that society expects them to behave. She argues here that such a revolution would not only lead to a change in women for the better, but would also positively change the entire “world.” All of society would benefit as women, being independent, would lead more virtuous lives and therefore cause men to live more virtuous lives as well.

“To rise in the world, and have the liberty of running from pleasure to pleasure, they must marry advantageously, and to this object their time is sacrificed, and their persons often legally prostituted.”

Women were incredibly limited both in what they could do and how they could achieve it. While men were able to rise in station through hard work, the only outlet women had to improve their standing was though marriage. Wollstonecraft goes so far as to describe women as “legally prostituted.” She uses this metaphor to illustrate how beholden women were to men, often using their selves—and their bodies—as a bartering tool in order to gain something, precisely because their bodies were the only tool at their disposal. 

“Yet, that it is the condition for which woman was organized, has been insisted upon by the writers who have most vehemently argued in favour of the superiority of man; a superiority not in degree, but essence; though, to soften the argument, they have laboured to prove, with chivalrous generosity, that the sexes ought not to be compared; man was made to reason, woman to feel: and that together, flesh and spirit, they make the most perfect whole, by blending happily reason and sensibility into one character.”

According to the male writers Wollstonecraft quotes in Chapter 5—and whose ideas were shared by the majority of society at that time—women and men were inherently different beings, with women having been made to “feel” and men to “reason.” As a result, when put together, they make a “whole” by blending the two qualities. Wollstonecraft strongly disagrees with this idea, stating that women only “feel” because they have never been taught how to reason, rather than because they are incapable of doing so. 

“Yet women, whose minds are not enlarged by cultivation, or the natural selfishness of sensibility expanded by reflection, are very unfit to manage a family; for, by an undue stretch of power, they are always tyrannizing to support a superiority that only rests on the arbitrary distinction of fortune.”

Wollstonecraft rests a great deal of her argument upon the ability of women to be fit mothers and to be able to discharge their domestic duties successfully. Although itself an outdated and inhibiting concept of women—and the domestic role they are expected to perform—Wollstonecraft is also consciously employing it to further her argument for equal education. She states that women cannot be expected to perform these tasks and “to manage a family” without acquiring learning and intelligence of their own.

“Gracious Creator of the whole human race! hast thou created such a being as woman, who can trace thy wisdom in thy works, and feel that thou alone art by thy nature exalted above her,- for no better purpose?- Can she believe that she was only made to submit to man, her equal, a being, who, like her, was sent into the world to acquire virtue?- Can she consent to be occupied merely to please him; merely to adorn the earth, when her soul is capable of rising to thee?”

Wollstonecraft often employs highly exaggerated and emphatic language in order to communicate her message. Here, she addresses the “Gracious Creator,” God, before asking a serious of rhetorical questions regarding the purpose of women. She cannot believe that women were only made “to submit to man” and “merely to please” men, and demands that there must be some higher and better purpose for their existence. She employs both rhetorical questions and repetition to emphasize a sense of frustration and doubt regarding the status of women. 

“To render it weak, and what some may call beautiful, the understanding is neglected, and girls forced to sit still, play with dolls and listen to foolish conversations; the effect of habit is insisted upon as an undoubted indication of nature.”

Here, Wollstonecraft describes how an “effect of habit”—systems of behavior imposed upon girls from an early age—are mistaken for “nature” because society has so frequently perpetuated false ideas of feminine capability. She describes how the so-called feminine “nature,” which is “weak,” and only likes to “play with dolls,” is “undoubted” by society, meaning that no one questions that girls might actually prefer to play outside or to further their academic pursuits.

“All our attainments, all our arts, are employed to gain and keep the heart of man; and what mortification can exceed the disappointment, if the end be not obtained?”

As society believes the sole purpose of women is both to please man and to marry, women are taught skills that will help them to do both things. What Wollstonecraft describes here is the state of despair and rejection many women must feel if they are unable to marry well—“if the end be not obtained”­—especially because women are not expected to have any other purpose in life except this. 

“The world cannot be seen by an unmoved spectator, we must mix in the throng, and feel as men feel before we can judge of their feelings. If we mean, in short, to live in the world to grow wiser and better, and not merely to enjoy the good things of life, we must attain a knowledge of others at the same time that we become acquainted with ourselves- knowledge acquired any other way only hardens the heart and perplexes the understanding.”

Many of the male writers that Wollstonecraft quotes in Chapter 5 urge a set of rules or precepts onto both men and women that will guide them in how to live a virtuous life. Wollstonecraft disagrees with this idea, arguing that both men and women alike will only acquire an understanding of what is good and what is not by experiencing different things for themselves, and thus being able to establish their own sense of right and wrong. Here, she argues for individuals to “mix in the throng,” by which she means be willing to experience different things and meet different sorts of people, in order to better understand both the world and the self. 

“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, to harp a little on an old string, having been solely employed either to prepare themselves to excite love, or actually putting their lessons in practice, they cannot live without love.”

Wollstonecraft describes women’s relationship to love as one source of their debasement. As marriage is the only source of power women can wield in society, their entire lives are centered around and dedicated to both love and marriage. Wollstonecraft believes that this not only limits them, but also dictates everything that they do, meaning that they are unable to even conceive of bettering themselves in any way other than in the pursuit of love.

“The woman who has dedicated a considerable portion of her time to pursuits purely intellectual, and whose affections have been exercised by humane plans of usefulness, must have more purity of mind, as a natural consequence, than the ignorant beings whose time and thoughts have been occupied by gay pleasures or schemes to conquer hearts.”

Two of the most important virtues for women to possess—at least according to Wollstonecraft’s society—were modesty and chastity. Wollstonecraft believes that what society takes to be modesty and chastity are false. She argues that women must only appear to be modest—practicing humility, softness, and weakness in society—which is not the same thing as actually being modest. Here, Wollstonecraft describes what she believes to be true modesty, not the women solely “occupied by gay pleasures or schemes to conquer hearts,” but the woman who has dedicated herself to intellectual pursuits.

“There must be more equality established in society, or morality will never gain ground, and this virtuous equality will not rest firmly even when founded on a rock, if one half of mankind be chained to its bottom by fate, for they will be continually undermining it through ignorance or pride. It is vain to expect virtue from women till they are, in some degree, independent of men.”

Wollstonecraft states that society itself will never truly be virtuous or good until all people within it are equal. This is a key principle of her argument. She bases her treatise on the premise that she is solely motivated by the desire to see society, and those within it, better, more moral, and thus members of a more Christian society. She argues that society cannot be truly Christian while “one half of mankind” is subordinate to another. 

“Still there are some loop-holes out of which a man may creep, and dare to think and act for himself; but for a woman it is an herculean task, because she has difficulties peculiar to her sex to overcome, which require almost superhuman powers.”

Wollstonecraft wants to dismantle all hierarchies present in society, so that men and women alike might leave equally. However, as it stands, even if a man finds himself in an inferior position, there are still “loop-holes” or ways in which he might rise up—such as through his profession, achievements or business. For women, it remains “an herculean task”—only something which a demigod, such as Hercules, might accomplish. This exaggeration illustrates just how difficult, to the point of impossibility, it is for a woman to change her position in life, being unable to work, enter a profession, or live independently.

“I cannot help lamenting that women of a superiour cast have not a road open by which they can pursue more extensive plans of usefulness and independence. I may excite laughter, by dropping an hint, which I mean to pursue, some future time, for I really think that women ought to have representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed without having any direct share allowed them in the deliberations of government.”

When Wollstonecraft published this treatise in 1792, the only demographic able to vote were men who held property. Women did not have the right to vote, and neither did poor men. Here, Wollstonecraft calls for women “to have representatives,” by which she means for them to have the right to vote and thus be able to elect Members of Parliament (MPs) who might represent them and their interests.

“The most respectable women are the most oppressed; and, unless they have understandings far superiour to the common run of understandings, taking in both sexes, they must, from being treated like contemptible beings, become contemptible. How many women thus waste life away the prey of discontent, who might have practised as physicians, regulated a farm, managed a shop, and stood erect, supported by their own industry, instead of hanging their heads surcharged with the dew of sensibility, that consumes the beauty to which it at first gave lustre.”

Women, in Wollstonecraft’s time, were not able to become doctors, business owners, lawyers, or a range of other professions. In fact, the only women who did work would have been from the lower classes, and they would have held only menial positions. Wollstonecraft argues that women who have the potential to do more—who could become doctors or lawyers if they were able—are the most “oppressed” precisely because they cannot use their intelligence or talents, and instead only “waste life.” 

“As the care of children in their infancy is one of the grand duties annexed to the female character by nature, this duty would afford many forcible arguments for strengthening the female understanding, if it were properly considered.”

One of the principle duties of women, at least in Wollstonecraft’s time, was to care for their children. However, Wollstonecraft argues that women are incapable of properly raising and educating their own children without a degree of “understanding.” Elsewhere, she suggests that without such “understanding,” women can become either tyrannical towards their children—expecting children to follow their command unquestionably, as they follow the orders of their husbands unquestioningly—or they can be neglectful. Wollstonecraft states that if women are to become better mothers, they require a better education. 

“The little respect paid to chastity in the male world is, I am persuaded, the grand source of many of the physical and moral evils that torment mankind.”

While women are expected to practice chastity, men are not. Wollstonecraft argues that this inequality—and hypocrisy—is one source of immorality in society because while men’s unchaste acts will go unpunished, women’s will not. She suggests that until men are held to the same standards as women, and thus will not compromise women, “physical and moral evils” will persist. 

“I have already animadverted on the bad habits which females acquire when they are shut up together; and, I think, that the observation may fairly be extended to the other sex, till the natural inference is drawn which I have had in view throughout- that to improve both sexes they ought, not only in private families, but in public schools, to be educated together. If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of 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 subsistence, independent of men; in the same manner, I mean, to prevent misconstruction, as one man is independent of another.”

To solve the issues Wollstonecraft perceives in society, she argues that the formal education system must be entirely reformed. A key part of this reformation would be to educate girls alongside boys, affording them an equal education. Here, Wollstonecraft first proposes this change, stating that the sexes should “be educated together.” She argues, firstly, that when the sexes are kept separately, it can encourage immoral behavior—men become vicious while women become gossips—while also preventing men and women from forming friendships. This suggestion is one of her most radical statements, both because she is suggesting that women should be educated to the same level as men, and because she suggests they sit alongside one another in the classroom.

“I wish especially to prove, that the weakness of mind and body, which men have endeavoured, impelled by various motives, to perpetuate, prevents their discharging the peculiar duty of their sex: for when weakness of body will not permit them to suckle their children, and weakness of mind makes them spoil their tempers- is woman in a natural state?”

According to Wollstonecraft, the suppression of women does not simply encourage weakness of the mind, but also “weakness of the body.” While men are encouraged to go outside, women are often expected to lead more sedentary lives. For Wollstonecraft, the body and the mind are intricately connected, and one cannot expect to have strength of mind and character without also having bodily strength. Wollstonecraft argues that male suppression of female bodily strength also prevents them from becoming fuller and better versions of themselves, similarly impacting their ability to be good mothers and “suckle their children.”