Beyond the Binary: Chapters 9-12, Rousseau's Views on Educating Girls
One of the pioneers of education for children was Rousseau, a philosopher who claimed that women and men should be treated differently with regards to their educational goals. He argued that women and men were equal, but the caveat was that they are different when it comes to topics related to sex. Rousseau reflected the views of biodeterminism, as he assumed that differences between women and men were merely natural rather than social as the differences between men and women are perceived sex traits. Rousseau denies that his ideas to educate girls treats females as inferior, as women and men have different virtues therefore they should be judged based on two different standards.
Rousseau provides evidence for the differing characteristics of men and women by noting that men are "active and strong" individuals who have power while women are described as "passive and weak" individuals who do not resist as they are submissive (Dea, 151). Rousseau further argues a controversial point that it is a woman's job to increase a man's desire for her by resisting him to the point where he has to use his strength and power to conquer her. He also describes the concept that women are more aware of how their sex shapes their identity than men due to their reproductive role. Rosseau argues that the human race depends on women not only to procreate, but also to hold their families together with proper virtues and morals. I completely disagree with the idea that women have to "play hard to get" and that a man is expected to take this as a signal to increase his sexual advances. This seems like coercion to me and this way of thinking is disgusting and problematic, as it perpetuates rape culture, minimizes the value of a woman saying no, and neglects the importance of consent. The characteristics Rousseau describes are stereotypes, as not all women are submissive or passive and not all men are aggressive. I can see how women are more aware of how their gender shapes their everyday life and I somewhat agree with this point that Rousseau, but this may not be in a positive manner and the reasons that I think women are aware of their sex differ from Rousseau's reason of procreatoin. A woman is aware of her sex when she walks down a dark street back to their car with keys in between her hands because she is afraid of being sexually assaulted, when I know most men do not usually have this fear when taking an Uber home by themselves at night or if they are alone at a bar without friends to ensure their safety.
Rousseau's views on educating girls relate to his overall ideology that the purpose of women is to reproduce and take care of the family, and his approach to education is also related to his arguments about the inherent characteristics of women. Rousseau argues that the education of women should be focused on instilling virtues that will help them attract husbands. He claims that this will not only benefit the family, but also women themselves since they are incapable of supporting themselves. He further argues that if women want to survive, they must make themselves appealing to men so that men will be gracious enough to take them in to support them. I found it bizarre that Rousseau said women should do this by laughing at men's jokes or utilizing their beauty. His version of educating women focuses only on educating them to perform these tasks or helping women understand that serving men is in their best interests, which I firmly disagree with. If women were educated equally in STEM fields or business or the arts, then wouldn't they be able to support themselves anyways? It was very hard for me to read this and I found myself getting very annoyed with the logic that was proposed here. Unless women were given the chance to prove their survival through professional jobs, how would Rousseau know that they weren't able to support themselves? I do not think it is simply a woman's job to support her family or attract a husband so focusing education on that seems arbitrary when they could be learning other important skills. I think women would be able to survive perfectly fine if they were given the same resources and opportunities as men. Also, many of the inherent traits Rousseau describes are actually social rather than biological, so I think that is a fallacy that also diminishes the validity of his argument.
Even keeping the time period in mind, I do not think it was in the interests of girls to educate them in this manner. I am aware that at the time maybe women couldn't survive without men simply because they weren't given the same job opportunities and because structural sexism prevented them from being independent (I'd like to clarify that this is not due to a lack of capability, rather a lack of resources for women). Still, I think training girls from a young age to believe that their whole life revolves around pleasing a man, keeping a husband, and being dependent on someone else is not good for their sense of self-worth and dignity. This neglects the self-sufficiency of women and by saying that men do not need women yet women need men, there is already an imbalance of power that implies women are inferior. Rousseau states that girls should learn restraint to adjust to this condition, but I think this is a way of controlling women and training them to accept their inferior position to men by making sexist practices a norm that women have to passively deal with. Rousseau states that girls should get used to being interrupted, but this invalidates their ideas and frankly, it is demeaning and embarrassing to be talked over. I don't understand why boys would be taught moral reasoning while girls would be taught to obey authority or mindlessly accept moral ideas, as critical thinking is not a gendered skill. I think this would prevent women from questioning their lack of rights in the 1700s, which helps to keep the system of sexism in place. Men like Rousseau would not want their hierarchal system to be altered, so preventing women from gaining access to the education to combat this system is the perfect ploy to keep it in place.
Although today we don't accept the gender roles that Rousseau assigned to men and women, I can see that if these roles are widely accepted like they were in Rousseau's time then it is illogical to judge a woman based on the standards of men, and vice versa. As a result, it makes sense that educational systems centuries ago took these "gender differences" into account, even if I disagree with this difference in treatment. For today's time, Rousseau's views on educating girls are clearly outdated and I think most people would automatically disagree with the social roles and resulting educational structures he suggests. It is clear that these natural roles he describes are actually social gender assumptions of the 1700s that are no longer applicable, therefore I reject his ideas on educating women for the present day.
Hi Ashna!
ReplyDeleteWow, I love so much of you what you have written here. One of your points that really stuck out to me was the idea that women are more aware of how their gender shapes their life. I think that is true and even as you said, it may not be the positive trait that Rousseau makes it out to be. Often, women are reminded of their gender when feeling unsafe or even in positions of power. A woman can hardly ever just be herself. If a woman is a boxer, then she is called a female boxer. When a woman wants to be a politician, she is asked about her family or the clothes she is wearing. So I think it is not just women are aware of their gender, but that they are constantly reminded of it by others as well.
In terms of Rousseau's idea of education and it revolving around women finding a husband, I do not like it at all. However, as you said, at the time women were not given even a fraction of opportunities that men had. So while I do think this type of education is demeaning and sexist, I also find it may have been one of the ways a woman would be able to survive. As you said, if was not a lack of capability to be self-sufficient but rather a lack of opportunity. But it was frustrating to read about this and women being forced into these roles. Even today, women are constantly being prepped for motherhood. Women are always asked "When are you going to have children," or "You're getting older. Now is the time to start getting ready for kids." Women have to deal with motherhood even before they enter it, and yet men do not have these same issues. In a way, I think that the gender roles Rousseau discussed and his idea of education would be praised by some people today. It was interesting though to read that Rousseau truly did not think women were inferior. He genuinely believed this type of education was the best for women. What do you think about that? Are men and women different but equal? Would you consider Rousseau to be a feminist? I know we don't agree with what his education for girls was, but I don't know. I don't think he really saw it as demeaning in the way that we do. Overall I really enjoyed reading your post and it made me look at things in this chapter a little bit differently!
Hi Bri,
DeleteYou bring up a valid point about how female politicians are more aware of their gender as they are constantly asked about their relationships, family, appearance, fashion, and general appearance. I've noticed this trend with actresses and singers as well, as they are asked about whether they have a boyfriend (Taylor Swift) or personal questions about whether or not they are wearing underwear underneath their costumes (shocking and weird, Scarlett Johansson) when their male counterparts are less likely to be asked these questions.
I do believe that Rousseau’s intentions were good and I can see how he would think that this type of education is suitable for girls. I agree with you that Rousseau probably did not view this as a demeaning way of educating girls. During this time period, women were not given the same opportunities as men, so they relied on men for their survival due to the lack of job options and resources for women. As a result, men and women had distinctively different roles, so Rousseau’s argument to raise girls and boys differently does make sense to me. I still disagree with this though, as I do not think girls and boys should be treated as separate but equal even during that time period. Teaching young girls that their life revolves around supporting a man, acting in a way to keep their husband interested in them, and depending on another person for their survival is not good for their self-worth and mental health. This type of logic trains women to accept their inferior position to men and it suggests that their life path has been decided for them simply because of their gender. I think Rousseau would be an advocate for helping girls prepare for the gendered path that society has chosen for them and I believe he had the good intent to do what was best for women at the time, but I would not consider him to be a feminist. Feminists clearly advocate for equal job opportunities for men and women, social and economic equality, and for the rejection of gender roles unlike Rousseau. I can see that if gender roles are widely accepted, like they were in Rousseau’s time, then it would be illogical to judge a woman based on the standards of men and thus, one could argue that girls and boys should be raised differently. As a result, it makes sense that Rousseau and the general educational systems centuries ago took these "gender differences" into account, even if I personally disagree with this difference in treatment. Thank you for your insight, you helped me understand Rousseau's ideas better and see that his intentions may have been better than I initially thought!