A Vindication of the Rights of Woman with - Early Modern Texts

The Rights of Woman Mary Wollstonecraft 8: Sexual notions about reputation
to behold iniquity!’ Eventually MW comes to the end of this
‘reverie’, as she calls it, and gets back to her proper topic:]
The leading principles that run through all my discussions
would make it unnecessary to go on about this subject
if it weren’t for the fact that a constant attention to keep
the varnish of the character fresh and in good condition is
often taught as the sum total of female duty; the fact that
moral obligations are often pushed into second place by
rules to regulate behaviour and preserve reputation. But
with regard to reputation the attention is confined to a single
virtue—chastity. If a woman’s ‘honour’—as it is absurdly
called—is safe, she may neglect every social duty; even ruin
her family by gambling and extravagance; yet still present a
shame-free front—for truly she is an honourable woman!
Mrs. Macaulay has rightly remarked that ‘there is only
one fault that a woman of honour can’t commit without being
punished’. She then justly and humanely adds:
This has given rise to the foolish observation that
the first fault against chastity in woman has a radical
power to deprave the character. But no such
frail beings come out of the hands of nature. The
human mind is built of nobler materials than to be
so easily corrupted; and with all their disadvantages
of situation and education, women seldom become
entirely abandoned until they are thrown into a state
of desperation by the venomous rancour of their own
sex.
But in proportion as this regard for the reputation of
chastity is prized by women, it is despised by men: and the
two extremes are equally destructive to morality.
[Two paragraphs on ‘beastly’ over-eating by the rich, and
their lack of shame about it. Then from talking about this
‘appetite’ she moves to another:]
83
The depravity of the appetite that brings the sexes together
has had a still more fatal effect. Nature must always
be the standard of taste, the gauge of appetite—yet nature is
grossly insulted by the voluptuary. ·I’ll discuss this·, leaving
the refinements of love out of the question. Nature makes
the gratification of this appetite. . . .a natural and imperious
law to preserve the species; and by so doing, it exalts the
appetite and mixes a little (1) mind and affection into (2)
the sensual appetite. The (1) feelings of a parent mingling
with (2) a merely animal instinct give the latter dignity; and
because the man and the woman often interact on account
of the child, a mutual interest and affection is aroused by
the exercise of a shared sympathy. So mothers, having
necessarily some duty to fulfil more noble than to adorn
their persons, would not contentedly be the slaves of casual
appetite. Yet many women are just that: they are, literally
speaking, standing dishes to which every ·sexual· glutton
can have access.
I may be told that bad as this sexual promiscuity is,
it affects only one cursed part of the sex—cursed for the
salvation of the rest. Well, it’s easy to prove that it is never
right to allow a small evil in order to produce a greater good;
but that’s not the end of the matter. The moral character
and peace of mind of the more chaste part of the sex is
undermined by the conduct of the very women to whom
they allow no refuge from guilt. These are women whom the
chaste women inexorably consign to the practice of skills
and tricks that lure their husbands from them and debauch
their sons. And they also force the modest women (who may
be surprised to read this!) to become to some extent like
themselves. For I will venture to assert that all the causes of
female weakness or depravity that I have already discussed
branch out from one grand cause—the lack of chastity in
men.