Introduction

After thinking about the sweep of history and viewing the present world with anxious care, I find my spirits depressed by the most melancholy emotions of sorrowful indignation. I have had to admit, sadly, that either nature has made a great difference between man and man, or that the world is not yet anywhere near to being fully civilized. I have looked into various books on education, and patiently observed the conduct of parents and the management of schools; but all this has given me is a deep conviction that •the neglected education of my fellow creatures is the main source of the misery I deplore, and that •women in particular are made weak and wretched by a number of co-operating causes, originating from one hasty conclusion [MW’s phrase]. The conduct and manners of women, in fact, show clearly that their minds are not in a healthy state; as with flowers planted in soil that is too rich, strength and usefulness are sacrificed to beauty; and the flamboyant leaves, after giving pleasure to viewers, fade on the stalk, disregarded, long before it was the time for them to reach maturity. This barren blooming is caused partly by a false system of education, gathered from the books on the subject by men. These writers, regarding females as women rather than as human creatures, have been more concerned to make them alluring mistresses than affectionate wives and rational mothers; and this homage to women’s attractions has distorted their understanding to such an extent that almost all the civilized women of the present century are anxious only to inspire •love, when they ought to have the nobler aim of getting •respect for their abilities and virtues.

In a book on female rights and manners, therefore, the works written specifically for their improvement mustn’t be overlooked; especially when the book says explicitly •that women’s minds are weakened by false refinement, •that the books of instruction written by men of genius [see Glossary] have been as likely to do harm as more frivolous productions; and •that—when improvable reason is regarded as the dignity that raises men above the lower animal and puts a natural sceptre [see Glossary] in a feeble hand—those ‘instructive’ works regard woman (in true Moslem fashion) as beings of a subordinate kind and not as a part of the human species.

But don’t think that because I am a woman I mean stir up violently the debated question about the equality and inferiority of the ·female· sex; but that topic does lie across my path, and if I sidle past it I’ll subject my main line of reasoning to misunderstanding. So I shall pause here in order to give a brief statement of my opinion about it. In the government of the physical world—·as distinct from the governments of the social or political world·—it is observable that the female is, so far as strength is concerned, inferior to the male.

This is the law of nature; and it doesn’t seem to be suspended or repealed in favour of woman. This physical superiority can’t be denied—and it is a noble privilege! But men, not content with this natural pre-eminence, try to sink us lower still, so as to make us merely alluring objects for a moment; and women, intoxicated by the adoration that men (under the influence of their senses) pay them, don’t try to achieve a permanently important place in men’s feelings, or to become the friends of the fellow creatures who find amusement [see Glossary] in their society.

I am aware of an obvious inference: from every direction I have heard protests against ‘masculine women’, but where are they to be found? If men are using this label in criticism of women’s ardour in hunting, shooting, and gambling, I shall gladly join in; but if their target is

the imitation of manly virtues, or (more accurately) the achieving of the talents and virtues that ennoble the human character and raise females in the scale of animal being when they are brought under the comprehensive label ‘mankind’,

all those who view women with a philosophical eye must, I should think, join me in wanting women to grow more and more ‘masculine’ every day.

This discussion naturally divides the subject. I shall first consider women as human creatures who, in common with men, are placed on this earth to develop their abilities; and then I shall attend to the implications of the more specific label women.

I want to steer clear of an error that many writers have fallen into, namely giving women instruction that has been appropriate for ladies. . . . I shall address my sex in a firmer tone, focussing particularly on those in the middle class, because they appear to be in the most natural state. ·As for the upper classes·: Perhaps the ‘great’ have always scattered seeds of false refinement, immorality, and vanity! Weak, artificial beings who have been prematurely and unaturally raised above the ordinary wants and feelings of mankind undermine the very foundation of virtue and spread corruption through the whole mass of society! They have a stronger claim to pity than any other class of mankind. The upbringing of the rich tends to make them vain and helpless, and their unfolding minds are not strengthened by the practice of the duties that dignify the human character. They live only to amuse [see Glossary] themselves, and—by a law that also operates in nature—they soon come to have nothing to offer except barren amusement.

That is enough about that for the present: I plan to take the different ranks of society separately, and discuss the moral character of women in each. I have mentioned the subject ·of class-differences· here only because I think that the essential task of an Introduction is to give a sketchy account of the contents of the work it introduces.

I hope my own sex 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 and unable to stand alone. I earnestly wish to point out what true dignity and human happiness consist in; I want to persuade women to aim at strength 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 expressions indicating weakness, and •that creatures who are the objects only of pity and the kind of love that has been called ‘pity’s sister’ will soon become objects of contempt.

So I dismiss those pretty feminine phrases that the men condescendingly use to make our slavish dependence easier for us, and I despise the weak elegance of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweet docility [see Glossary] of manners that are supposed to be the sexual characteristics of the weaker sex. I want to show that elegance is inferior to virtue, that the most praiseworthy ambition is to obtain a character as a human being, whether male or female, and that lesser ambitions should be tested against that one.

That is a rough sketch of my plan; and ·I offer now three remarks about how I aim to carry it out·. (1) I shall refrain from pruning my phrases and polishing my style, because it is important to me to affect the thoughts and actions of my readers, and I’ll do that better if I sometimes express my conviction with the energetic emotions that I feel. (2) I shan’t waste time elegantly shaping my sentences, or fabricating the turgid bombast of artificial feelings that come from the head and therefore never reach the heart; because I want to persuade by the force of my arguments rather than to dazzle by the elegance of my language. (3) I shall try to avoid the flowery diction that has slid from essays into novels, and from novels into familiar letters and conversation; because I’ll be dealing with things, not words! In all this I’ll be anxious to turn my sex into members of society who are more worthy of respect..

These pretty nothings (these caricatures of the real beauty of sensibility) drop glibly from the tongue, spoil one’s sense of taste, and create a kind of sickly delicacy that turns away from simple unadorned truth. [She means ‘delicacy’ in the sense of pickiness, choosiness; readiness to push things to the edge of one’s plate.] A deluge of false sentiments and over-stretched feelings, stifling the natural emotions of the heart, make insipid the domestic pleasures that ought to sweeten the exercise of the severe duties that prepare a rational and immortal [see Glossary] being for a nobler field of action. [The adjective ‘immortal’ suggests that the ‘nobler field of action’ that MW had in mind is life after death.]

The education [see Glossary] of women has been attended to more in recent years than formerly; but they’re still regarded as a frivolous sex, and are ridiculed or pitied by writers who try to improve them by satire or instruction. It is acknowledged that they spend many of their earliest years acquiring a smattering of accomplishments [see Glossary], but strength of body and mind are sacrificed to libertine notions of beauty, to the desire to get themselves settled by marriage—the only way women can rise in the world. This desire makes mere animals of them, and when they marry they act as such children can be expected to act: they dress, they paint, they give nicknames to God’s creatures. Surely these weak beings are only fit for the seraglio! [= the women’s quarters a Turkish palace; she is implying that women are kept there purely for sexual purposes.] Can they govern a family with judgment, or take care of the poor babes whom they bring into the world?

The present conduct of the ·female· sex, its prevalent fondness for pleasure in place of ambition and the nobler passions that open and enlarge the soul, are evidence that

the instruction that women have received, with help from the constitution of civil society, has only tended to turn them into insignificant objects of desire, mere propagators of fools!

If it can be proved that

men, in aiming to bring women to perfection without cultivating their understandings, take them out of their sphere of ·real· duties and make them ridiculous and useless when the brief bloom of beauty is over,

I presume that rational men will excuse me for trying to persuade them [i.e. women] to become more masculine and worthy of respect.

Indeed the word ‘masculine’ is only a pointless scareword: there’s little reason to fear that women will acquire too much courage or fortitude, because their visible inferiority in bodily strength must make them to some extent dependent on men in the various relations of life; but why should that dependence be increased by prejudices that •give a sex to virtue [see Glossary] and •can’t distinguish simple truths from sensual daydreams?

Women are so much degraded by mistaken notions of female excellence that this artificial weakness produces in them a tendency to tyrannize, and gives birth to cunning—the natural opponent of strength—which leads them to exploit those contemptible infantile airs that undermine esteem even while they excite desire. Let men become more chaste and modest, and if women don’t become correspondingly wiser it will be clear that they have weaker understandings.

I hardly need to explain that I am talking about the ·female· sex in general. Many individual women have more sense than their male relatives; some women govern their husbands without degrading themselves, because intellect will always govern. Where there’s a constant struggle for an equilibrium, nothing will swing the scales its way unless it naturally has greater weight.