What part does a critique of ‘Custom’ play within Mary Astell’s writing and in what was does such an approach enable us to understand the significance of her ‘Tory Protofeminism’?

Both Mary Astell’s works ‘A serious proposal to the ladies’ and ‘Some reflections upon marriage’ deal with the social problems that women had to live with at the time, and how they were constantly subdued by men. Being considered mentally and socially inferior, Astell argued that this social ranking between the sexes was unjust and unnatural. However, ‘Custom’, (or tradition) considered it for some time normal for a woman to be under the dominance of Man at all times. Astell tried arguing against this, as her protofeminist pieces were one of the first works which dealt with the matter head on. She fought for equality between the sexes, and questioned the morals behind believing women to be inferior to men. Many would be able to compare her to ‘The New Woman’; an image created in order to describe the modern feminist woman that was being introduced to society in the late 19th century. However, many would argue that, although Astell was a leading feminist of her time, as she was considered “The first major English feminist for her defiant praise of women” by Joan K. Kinnard, she was still strongly conservative and some of her views differed from the modern feminist ones of today. She still considered a woman to have her rightful place or role in the household and in society, and believed that a social ranking was simply inevitable and a ‘work of God’; so many of these beliefs were directed at the upper class and richer women of the time.

In ‘Some reflections upon marriage’, Astell describes men as being “our masters”, and women the “domestic subjects” in the “masculine empire”. This domination men had over women at the time would be the Tyrant Custom that Astell had to live with. ‘Tyrant’ meaning a cruel and oppressive ruler, and ‘Custom’ meaning a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving. It was normal that the man of the household had the brains and was educated, therefore going out to work and having all the power in the relationship. Whereas women were kept uneducated (as they were thought to be naturally careless and have no prudence) and taught to only take an interest in things such as looks and money, as “she who has nothing else to value herself upon, will be proud of her Beauty, or Money, and what that can purchase; and think her self mightily oblig’d to him”, as Astell argues that without education, women cannot strive or aspire for more in their lives than insignificant materialistic goals. Also, without an education, women would coincidently then look up to men, believing themselves that they were superior and more intellectual as that is all they were ever taught to believe. There was this conventional ideology that women had a “poor ability” and were unable to understand complex ideas that only men could. She argues that “The incapacity, if there be any, is acquired not natural”, as a lack of education and the constant suppression women had to tolerate led them to being less prudent than their masculine counterparts. Astell criticises this traditional view as she argues that it is not a natural state that women should be unequal and inferior, that “God has given Women as well as Men intelligent Souls, why should they be forbidden to improve them?” in her argument for educating women, and that “He has not denied us the faculty of thinking”; it is a false, manmade dominance that has kept them subdued and ignorant all this time. In her essay Kinnard explains that Astell was one of “Descartes’ earliest admirers in England”, as she believed int he statement “I think therefore I am”, arguing that if a woman is able to think for herself and question life around her, then she should have just as much of a right to education as a man. Why should women, therefore, be controlled in this manner?

Astell then goes on to argue that in the “Original State” it is actually the woman who has dominance over the man, as “in the Original State of things the woman was the Superior, and that her Subjection to the Man is an Effect of the Fall” (“The Fall” meaning the crime Adam and Eve committed which led mankind into a state of sin), and that this “State of Subjection” was unnatural and unjust. One of her arguments was that, if this inferiority were a ‘Natural state’, that would mean “every Man is by Nature superior to every Woman”, which obviously wasn’t true, as Astell used the example of the Queen (Mary II) at the time. If all women were inferior to all men, the Queen would consequently have to “obey her Footman”, and wouldn’t be allowed to rule. Therefore, her argument is that only “some Men are superior to some Women”, and vice versa. Why is it, then, that this subjection against women was still in place? Why were women being denied the right to education and to broaden their intellectual capabilities? Was it because men were scared of how women would react if they had the ability to analyse and think for themselves? Were they scared that their position of power would be taken away from them? “Dare to break the enchained circle that custom has placed us in” Astell declares, as she blames custom and tradition to how women were being dominated. Men wanted to secure their power by keeping women complaisant and ignorant. Astell then sarcastically says that if women had the opportunity to be educated, “The only danger is, that the Wife be more knowing than the Husband”. This statement is taking an ironic stab at Custom, as the underlying message is that women should never be allowed to have as much knowledge as men. Custom thought it “a Wife’s Duty to suffer everything without Complaint”, describing her more of a slave than an equal. “She was made to be a Slave to his Will, and has no higher end than to Serve and Obey him!” - how is slavery condemned on one hand, she argues, but applauded on the other? How is it that everyone is supposedly born free and with equal rights, but gender then separates these rights after birth?

Tyrant custom also made it normal for the man of the house to be the one with absolute power over the woman and their children. Astell, although being conservative, believed that man and woman should have equal power in the household, as she argues that “Absolute Sovereignty be not necessary in a State, how comes it to be so in a Family?”. Astell makes a point that Arbitrary Power is evil, and if it is not practised in the government then it shouldn’t be practised in the household either. Men are given more power simply because of their gender. This again shows the inequality between the two sexes, and is an example of precisely what Astell is trying to change. However, Kinnard then suggests that Astell was a “traditionalist in her premise that families need the rule of a male sovereign”, as “Mary Astell believed passionately in the sacred and inalienable rights of the sovereign and decried all theories of popular sovereignty lawful resistance”, and that “Yet despite her rancour against men, she never challenged their God-given right to rule the family”. This would spark up some questions in modern readers, as she seems to be fighting for equality, however still believes in women having to conform to certain roles. Kinnard then makes it obvious that “she never argues that woman have as much right as men to enter the professions and take part in the public life of the nation. Rather she proposes simply the establishment of a ’monastery’”. Why would Astell keep such a conservative view on things, when she describes herself as opposing Custom? Was it because she was afraid of being completely radical and proposing a sort of revolution?

Tyrant custom has become such a way of life, that women (and some men) were afraid to speak up about it, therefore hindering any possibile change. “Custom has usurped such an unaccountable Authority, that she who would endeavour to put a stop to its Arbitrary Sway and reduce it to Reason, is in a fair way to render her self the Butt”. This idea of being afraid to speak out could also be shown at the beginning of Astell’s text ‘Reflections upon Marriage’, as she is writing anonymously in fright of what the consequences may be if her name got out to the public, as she says “who will care to pull upon themselves an Hornet’s Nest?”, suggesting that if she were to give her name, she would simply be putting herself into a dangerous situation that she would otherwise be able to avoid. She says it doesn’t matter who the author is, but what matters is “what is Spoken”. She’s justifying her opinions by saying that she doesn’t want to start a revolution of any kind or get a reaction out of her writing; she is simply making a point and speaking the truth. Without speaking out as a society and bringing some problems into light, how can a nation advance? Astell here is directly criticising custom and arguing that in order to be able to advance as a society we must first change or destroy this notion of Tyrant Custom. We should not be afraid of the authority, which in this case is Custom.

Her criticisms towards Tyrant Custom then allows us, as readers, to move on and help us understand her Tory Protofeminist ideas. Seeing as she wanted more equality for women and fought for women to be educated and respected in an intellectual way, she was a woman who was definitely thought of as being ‘ahead of her time’. However, many would argue that her ideologies at the time differ or almost contradict with some of those in modern day feminism. Joan K. Kinnard describes her as being a “staunch royalist and a defender of the church of England”, and saying that “Astell was not interested in freeing women from domestic tyranny to send them forth into the world. The ladies, in her opinion, were too much in the world already. Rather, she was intent on summoning them home”, suggesting that her feminist ideologies were not necessarily directed in helping women, but actually favouring men. For example, one of her main points was that women should be taught and educated in order to expand their intellect, however this was not simply for the woman’s own purpose; but for the purpose of the men around her. By educating a woman, this would allow them to participate in intellectual conversations with her husband, as “Learning if therefore necessary to render them (women) more agreeable and useful company”, as it would avoid the man of the relationship from getting ‘bored’ and running off with another woman, as he would then “needs not run into Temptations” as “An ingenious Conversation will make his life more comfortable”. Kinnnard tries to explain this difference in her conservative feminist views to modern feminism by explaining that “Her feminism was not born of liberal impulses but of conservative values. She approached not women’s rights but women’s duties, not personal fulfilment or self-expression but corporate responsibility”. This fight for an increase in education would therefore be seen, in a modernist view, as diminishing a woman’s role in society even more, as she is not educating herself for herself; but for the men that are controlling her and subduing her. A woman never once does anything for herself. She is the possession of her husband or the man in power at the time. This dehumanises women in general, which is something modern feminism strives to fight against.

Also, Astell talks about educating women in order to later on help educate her children; as if a woman’s only purpose is to have and raise children. This again subdues her role in society, suggesting that a woman has no possibility of aspiring to be something greater than what society tells her she must be. Although, one could also argue that this backward way of thinking could simply be a precaution on Astell’s part. We have, as a modern audience, a “tendency to assume that there is necessarily a contradiction between feminism and conservatism”, however this may not be the case. Astell is still preaching for equality between the sexes in education and freedom, however she is simply tied down to societies traditional gender roles at the time. Another assumption could be that Astell did disagree with gender roles and having a patriarchal regime in the household, for example, but was too afraid to voice such a radical opinion. In the patriarchal society in which she was living in at the time, men controlled everything. That meant that the owner of the publishing house was a man, the government was run by men, the people buying her books were men… In order to have not only a popular following but to avoid any trouble or negative consequences Astell would have to side with men and convince them of the point she was trying to make, and in order to do that she had to therefore make her article not only favour men but agree to the ideologies men had at the time. This goes back to the idea of not being able to properly voice ones opinions and being scared.

Another Tory aspect of her feminism would be the fact that she is only presenting this article to the women (and men) of the upper class. Even the title of one of her articles says “a proposal to the Ladies”; ladies meaning those women of the higher aristocracy. This would then contradict with the idea of modern feminism being that every woman should be equal to every man, not just the ones of a higher social class. However, this could simply be because, at the time, the only literate people who would be able to read her article would have been the upper class. You could then argue that she had not done this to undermine the lower classes, but because that was the only audience she had. She even states that “one person is not in reality better than the other”, which would comply with the ideas of modern feminism.

Astell’s critique of ‘Custom’ plays a major part in her argument for equality between the sexes. However at times we see her Conservative views overlap with her feminist ones. Can Astell still be considered a feminist if she had traditional views towards the roles of women? One can never be too sure as there are many aspects as to why Astell may have taken a conservative stance. However, what we do know is that she was one of the first protofeminists of her time, and without her, women could still be suffering under this patriarchal dominance today.

Word count: 2489

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 2 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 3 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 4 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 5 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 6 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 7 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 8 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 9 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 10 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 11 ]. Rene Descartes
[ 12 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 13 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 14 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 15 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 16 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 17 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 18 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 19 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 20 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 21 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 22 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 23 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 24 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 25 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 26 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 27 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage - 1703
[ 28 ]. Mary Astell - Some reflections upon marriage 1703
[ 29 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 30 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 31 ]. Mary Astell - A serious proposal to the ladies - 1697
[ 32 ]. Mary Atell - Reflections upon marriage
[ 33 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 34 ]. Joan K. Kinnard - Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism - 1979
[ 35 ]. Mary Astell - Reflections upon marriage - 1703