Response questions to Mary Astell's Reflections upon marriage

Astell Marriage

Response Question to Mary Astell's "Some Reflections Upon Marriage"

This excerpt from Astell's essay, first printed in 1700 (and found on page 2285 of the Norton Anthology) is intriguing not only for its eloquent and well-reasoned articulation of certain feminist principles, but also for the strange mix -- to our modern sensibilities, at least -- of feminist concepts with what amounts to an admission of the inferiority of women. Specifically, the author claims that "if a woman were duly principle and taught to know the world...[she] would marry more discreetly, and demean [herself] better in a married state" (pg. 2287). If the only -- or at least the most important -- reason for women to be educated is to make them better wives, can this really be considered a feminist text? Is the perspective that Astell displays truly progressive, given the early date of the publication, or does it simply reflect anew way of maintaining the patriarchal and chauvinistic system of family that existed at the time?

It is interesting that Astell uses the supposed and oft-proclaimed moral superiority of women as part of her argument. It is hard to tell whether or not she is being entirely genuine when she suggests that some people might believe "a philosophical lady...would be too wise, and too good for the men (pg. 2287). On the one hand, this argument uses the assertions made by men (i.e. that women are in fact purer and "better") in a completely logical way, while on the other hand the naive way in which Astell interprets these assertions seems cynical and even bitter; an emotional rant rather than a logical argument. The first reading seems to hold up the patriarchy, and the second most obviously and scathingly denigrates it. Is this essay simply a display of its author's cleverness, or is a true, heartfelt and logical treatise calling for the rights of women?