Wollstonecraft and Rousseau: The Perceptions on Gender PDF

Preview

Summary

This essay is six pages long and includes a work cited page in MLA format. This essay is about Jean-Jacque Rousseau's and Mary Wollstonecraft's perspectives on gender; how they compare and contrast with one another....

Description

Smith 1 John Smith Dr. Smith PHIL-100 November 1, 2020 Wollstonecraft and Rousseau: The Perceptions on Gender During the enlightenment period, the discussion of gender became quite debatable amongst philosophers. One of these philosophers was Jean-Jacque Rousseau, whose educational treatise, Émile , outlines a severely essentialist account of gender. Men and women are inherently different, Rousseau believes, and therefore should be treated accordingly by society. In the opinion of Rousseau, women have a natural responsibility of caregiving, and should conform their bodies and actions to fit into the category of a “weak” woman. Rousseau’s writings on his essentialist perception on gender was resisted and criticized by women of his time. One of these women was philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, who immediately recognized the danger to women posed by the popularity of Rousseau’s sexist writings. Wollstonecraft addresses some of the points Rousseau made about women in her own writings, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, in which she redefines the purpose and nature of a woman. This paper will explain the examples provided by both Rousseau and Wollstonecraft to support their perception of gender. This paper will also heavily analyze Rousseau’s writings, claiming that his arguments are contradictory to his thesis surrounding human nature, and prove that Wollstonecraft has a much more profound influence on the future of women in the world. Rousseau formed his essentialist account of gender through his writings about female education, specifically centered around the character of Sophie. An essentialist account of gender declares that there is a fixed and natural purpose assigned to both men and women. Rousseau introduces his first essentialist statement by claiming that there is a sole importance in women’s

Smith 2 lives: motherhood. “The male is only a male at certain moments,” Rousseau boldly states, “the female all her life, or at least throughout her youth, is incessantly reminded of her sex and in order to carry out its functions she needs a corresponding constitution” (Rousseau 122). Here, Rousseau emphasizes that there is an innate purpose that women, especially in their childhood, are made aware of within their lives. This natural responsibility is motherhood, or caregiving. Rousseau further explains his claim, which only solidifies his essentialist perspective on gender. Rousseau says that women have an instinctive tendency to “maintain an entire family in unity” (122). It is the woman’s duty, according to Rousseau, to raise her children with “patience and gentleness,” and to serve as the “liaison between the children and their father” (122). Because Rousseau firmly believes that a woman’s sole obligation in life is to become a caregiver, he supports the essentialist outlook on gender. I believe that Rousseau’s essentialist view on gender, claiming that women have a singular purpose in life, is not only sexist, but entirely contradictory. Throughout his educational treatise Émile , Rousseau is concerned with discovering the relationship between human nature and education; however, women’s experiences in this degree did not inspire contemplation from Rousseau. Humanity includes everyone in society, regardless of gender, and Rousseau purposely excludes the female story from his narrative. Furthermore, Rousseau is able to maintain his essentialist account of gender by reinforcing the stereotype of a “weak” woman, and he does so by providing negative characteristics that place women into a box. An essentialist account of gender declares that there are fixed and natural qualities assigned to both men and women. According to Rousseau, males are physically stronger than women, which places them in a position of superiority. Rousseau states, “The strongest seems to be the master, but depends in fact on the weakest” (145). Here, Rousseau introduces this dominant and submissive role between a man and a woman; that there is, in fact, an authoritative dynamic. This is reinforcing the stereotype that women are “weaker”

Smith 3 than men, which is why they are mistakenly considered the inferior gender. Rousseau makes several more repulsive comments about the innate “weakness” of women’s bodies. “Their soft muscles offer no resistance,” Rousseau says, “they pretend that they cannot lift the lightest loads; they would be ashamed to be strong” (151). Rousseau continues to condescend women in this way, using words like “delicate” and “tender” to describe how women’s bodies should be (145). In an attempt to make his sexism more prominent to his readers, Rousseau decides to ridicule feminine strength, making it seem as though women do not wish to be perceived as powerful and independent. It is evident that Rousseau is not writing about women, he is writing to  women. Rousseau is informing women on how they should act, how they should perceive themselves, and how they should live based on these negative attributes of a “weak” woman. Women are not naturally “soft” or “weak,” as Rousseau claims, and because he attempts to categorize and manipulate natural femininity, he is strengthening his essentialist view on gender. Challenging Rousseau’s essentialism, the concept that women have one purpose and are naturally weak, is philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft. Wollstonecraft argues that society’s manipulation and limitation of women’s education teaches them to be submissive; women are not instinctively weak or designed only for motherhood. Wollstonecraft has a constructivist account of gender, which means that she believes each individual “constructs” their own knowledge of themselves and their life based on their experiences. As people gain experiences within the world and reflect upon their encounters, they form their own meanings of life and invite new information into their current knowledge. Wollstonecraft formed her constructivist account of gender through her writings about

 constructivist view of gender supports marriage within A  Vindication of the Rights of Woman. A the notion that each person, regardless of gender, is the maker  of meaning and knowledge in their life. With a constructivist approach, there are no fixed characteristics or condescending

Smith 4 categories assigned to a group of people. In Wollstonecraft’s book, A  Vindication of the Rights of Woman, s he says, “I  do not wish them [women] to have power over men; but over themselves” (Wollstonecraft 19). Here, Wollstonecraft rejects any sort of authoritative partnership between a man and a woman; if an individual must have control over another, it should rightly be over themselves. Women do not require a harnessing from men, and Wollstonecraft makes it evident that females should not conform to these submissive notions. Along with this, Wollstonecraft rejects the concept that marriage can potentially smooth out this dominant and submissive relationship that exists between men and women (38). In Wollstonecraft’s  time, women were generally forced into marriage for economic security. Wollstonecraft  says, “To rise in the world, and have the liberty of running from pleasure to pleasure, they [women] must  marry advantageously, and to this object their time is sacrificed, and their persons often legally prostituted” (77). Here, Wollstonecraft  notes that the very moment a woman married, her rights and identity were automatically surpassed by the will of her husband’s. Wollstonecraft argues that women become transfixed on securing economic security from someone else, a man, that they fail to search for potential within their own lives. Without a doubt, Wollstonecraft respects the institution of marriage, but she mourns for all of the women who have ruined their potential by marrying poorly. Women need to break the cycle of living their lives solely as wives, mothers, and spinsters. “But in order to render their private virtue a public benefit,” Wollstonecraft says, “they must have a civil existence in the state, married or single” (185). Whether in a relationship or not, Wollstonecraft insists that women only need to depend on themselves. Wollstonecraft is further supporting her constructivist account of gender because she is declaring that women take control back over their lives; to not become dependent on anyone else.

Smith 5 Furthermore, Wollstonecraft is able to continue her constructivist view of gender by redefining society’s value on women. From an early age, women are wrongly taught to seek out affirmation for their beauty. Wollstonecraft speaks to this matter, saying, “Girls are from the earliest infancy fond of dress. Not content with being pretty, they are desirous of being thought so; we see, by all their little airs, that this thought engages their attention.” (90). Little girls may enjoy playing with the vast materials of fashion, but it is not simply because they strive  to be pretty. Girls have been taught to seek the validation from those around them; that family, friends, and strangers must perceive  them as beautiful. Wollstonecraft absolutely despises how women are instructed to value something other than themselves, which only strengthens her constructivist view of gender. If society continues to define a woman’s worth based solely on her outward appearance, then women will never be able to see themselves as anything more. Wollstonecraft exclaimes, “How much more respectable is the woman who earns her own bread by fulfilling any duty, than the most accomplished beauty!” (185). Here, Wollstonecraft aims to redirect women’s respect for themselves away from their physical appearance. The “accomplishment” of beauty that Wollstonecraft mentions can never be internalized, and can only be understood through outside affirmation. Wollstonecraft stresses the temporariness of beauty compared to a permanence of a talent or a skill. Wollstonecraft is further supporting her constructivist account of gender through her writings about appearance because she is promoting women to rethink their value and worth as a person. From the analysis above, this paper explains Rousseau’s essentialist view on gender through his examples of motherhood and characteristics of a “weak” woman. Rousseau’s writings are not about  women, they are to  women; instructing women on their “natural” behavior as a submissive and weak individual. Rousseau fails to invite the experiences of women into his writings about human nature in his educational treatise, Émile , where he focuses solely on the

Smith 6 males in society. In contrast, Wollstonecraft’s constructivist perception on gender inspires women to break Rousseau’s stereotypical “weak” woman. Wollstonecraft urges women to depend on themselves in their lives, not marriage to a man; she also ushers women to reclaim their value as more than their physical appearance. Compared to Rousseau, Wollstonecraft’s empowering writings have a more profound influence on the future of women in the world.

Smith 7

Bibliography Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau . Lightning Source, 2011. Wollstonecraft, Mary, and Miriam Brody. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman . London: Pengui n Classics, 2020....