Feminist Rhetoric: For Men?

Mary Astell’s works and skill as a rhetorician have led to her being considered by many as the first English feminist. In Some Reflections Upon Marriage, she utilises this talent for rhetoric, creating a very intricate and witty argument. This argument is especially interesting because of its ability to embrace the restrictions of its bigoted audience, particularly the necessity of encouraging the reader to “yield to Reason” rather than “submit to Authority.”[1] This essay will examine the techniques that Astell uses to create her argument, and it will propose that she was right to tailor her argument to specifically cater towards her most likely opponents – men.

The purpose of Astell’s argument is to achieve education for women. It is interesting, then, that the majority of the text is about not education, but marriage. This seems, at first, entirely irrelevant, before she goes on much later in the text to link the two subjects. However, this cannot be unintentional. The intended audience for Some Reflections Upon Marriage would have to have been men, because only men, she argues, have the power to grant women an education. She even discusses issues and solutions that seem to be exclusively relevant to men, for example advising men that “he who marries himself to a fortune only must expect no other satisfaction than that can bring him” (Astell, p.3) and offering more advice to men regarding marriage throughout. She crafts her argument, therefore, towards a subject relevant to the interests of her audience.

The arguments made in Some reflections Upon Marriage rely heavily on Satire. Astell flawlessly intertwines satire and controversy to an extent where it becomes difficult to distinguish one from the other. This could be another intentional method of drawing in those who would otherwise immediately dismiss her argument. In particular, misogynistic men who are in a sense the main intended recipients of this argument. It could be argued that Some Reflections Upon Marriage artfully tricks these men into agreeing with her, or at least into reading the argument through. Lines, for example, like “let him Marry for Love, an Heroick Action” (Astell, p.5) make a joke of these men, but could be interpreted, by a vain enough man, as a serious point. She uses a similar technique with her representation of women, arguing that “reasonable allowances [..] are due to the Sex,” (Astell, p.5) which, while satirical, could convince a reader that she is agreeing with him. This is a technique that she even addresses within her argument, something she calls “The Flatter’s Language” (Astell, p.6). She argues that women are manipulated in to marriage through careful flattery and courting, but goes on to state what she believes is really meant by these flatterers:

I have a very mean Opinion both of your Understanding and Vertue, you are weak enough to be impos’d on, and vain enough to snatch at the Bait I throw there’s no danger of your finding out my meaning, or disappointing me of my Ends. (Astell, p. 6)

This, however, is exactly what Astell’s argument has assumed of her readers. She uses her own kinds of careful flattery, through satire, to manipulate her more skeptical readers into believing that she and they hold similar views on the topic.

Astell has received Criticism for being too conservative in her arguments, for catering too explicitly towards men rather than advocating more passionately for women, however this conservatism was likely born of necessity. Some Reflections Upon Marriage was not just an argument for argument’s sake, but a proposal from which she intended to bring about change. Astell, rather than attempting to work against patriarchal values to achieve this, found a way to achieve the same goal by working alongside these values. There is much debate among feminist rhetoricians about this technique. In 1912, for example, at the national convention of the Socialist Party, an amendment was moved that would make the constitution more equal for men and women. When Anna Maley stood to defend the amendment, she said “I speak not as a woman, not as a feminist. I speak as a party man, and as an organization man.”[2] Maley is criticised because “in order to advocate the equality of women and men […] She had to deny that she was using feminist discourse, and even that she was a woman.”[3] which is exactly what Astell does. Some Reflections Upon Marriage was even posted anonymously in order to avoid the immediate dismissal of a woman’s argument. However, they then go on to concede that “Maley’s dilemma is a frequently repeated one for those who are located outside dominant discourses but who need or wish to participate in those discourses.”[4] This of course rings true for Astell, whose views, unedited, would have been seen as too radical. So, as with Maley, Astell embraced the necessity of sacrificing a feminist rhetoric for a more practical one that would nevertheless have more impact. A Chapter in Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory addresses the issue of this necessity, based around the “Muted Group theory”[5] which, Kramarae argues, when applied to gender, means that “In order to participate in society women must transform their own models in terms of the received male system of expression.”[6]

It is important to examine Astell’s argument within the context of its patriarchal society, but the debate surrounding the use of patriarchal values to give feminist rhetoric more impact is still ongoing, and the arguments made in defence of Astell’s decisions are still applicable today. Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory notes “the spiral-like nature of feminist communication,” the idea that “we return again and again to earlier approaches to borrow from the insights produced.” [7] A modern example of Astell’s rhetorical technique would be Emma Watson’s recent launch of the He for She Campaign. Watson shifts the focus of feminist rhetoric entirely towards men, asking “How can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcomed to participate in the conversation?”[8]

The basis of Watson’s argument is to convince men that feminism is relevant to their interests, and that therefore they should advocate for it. While this is problematic in the wider sense, suggesting that they shouldn’t care about the oppression of women unless it affects men, it is successful in an argumentative sense. Watson acknowledges this, arguing that we don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.”[9] Astell takes on a similar technique in her writing. The basis of her argument might be to achieve education for women, but rather than suggesting an entirely new concept, she makes it relevant to men. By raising issues within marriage, which affects all genders, she catches their attention before turning her proposal into a solution, presenting it in a more appealing light.

In conclusion Astell’s argument in Some Reflections on Marriage uses a very particular kind of rhetoric which is much debated among feminist rhetoricians. She tailors her argument in a specific way, using the practicality and accessibility of catering to men as opposed to the passion of advocating for women. The same rhetorical theory is still relevant in feminist arguments now, and in Astell’s case, was executed well, and was the right decision for her particular argument.

[1] Mary Astell, Some Reflections Upon Marriage, Occaison’d by the Duke and Dutchess of Mazarine’s Case Which is Also Considered (London: John Nutt, 1700), p.1 (all subsequent references to this text will be in parentheses after the quote)

[2] John Spargo, ed. National Convention of the Socialist Party (Chicago: The Socialist Party, 1912), cited in Julia M. Allen, Lester Faigley, ‘Discursive Strategies for Social Change: An alternative Rhetoric of Argument’, Rhetoric Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Autumn, 1995), pp.142-172

[3] Allen & Faigley, p. 142

[4] Allen & Faigley, p. 142

[5] Cheris Kramarae, ‘Women as a Muted Group’, in Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory, ed. By Karen A. Foss, Sonja K. Foss, and Sindy L. Griffin (London: Sage Publications, 2004), pp. 19-27 (p. 19)

[6] Kramarae, p. 21

[7] Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory, ed. By Karen A. Foss, Sonja K. Foss, and Sindy L. Griffin (London: Sage Publications, 2004), p. 1

[8] United Nations, 2014, Emma Watson at the HeForShe Campaign 2014 - Official UN Video, [online], [Accessed 9 November 2015] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjW9PZBRfk

[9] Watson