Rousseau defines inequality in two parts: natural and social. Natural inequalities are the differences of “age, health, bodily strength, and qualities of mind or soul” (Wootton 379). Social inequalities are “the different privileges enjoyed by some at the expense of others, such as being richer, more honored, more powerful than they, or even causing themselves to be obeyed by them” (Wootton 379). Furthermore, he believes that natural inequalities are the basis of social inequalities and that social inequalities are justified so long as they reflect natural inequalities.
Throughout part one of his discourse he logically explains the relevance of natural inequalities to social inequalities. Basically he argues that the smarter man will be more successful and powerful than the less intelligent, and that the more intelligent man will be more respected than a less intelligent man. Therefore, the more intelligent man will be socially unequal to the less intelligent man. Usually the more intelligent, or richer, etc. will be in a higher social class. This social class is created from the natural inequalities of man; his conception is quite clear.
Although his logic is clear, his view on natural inequalities is skewed when it comes to women. Rousseau has a rather poor view of women. Throughout his discourse he talks strictly about men. The only time he mentions something about women he says that they “are the sex that ought to obey” (Wootton 392). Basically he is calling women naturally insufficient. Following his theory which claims that natural inequalities are the root to social inequalities, one can determine that women are socially unequal. It can be agreed upon that women are socially unequal both in the sense of his theory and with all the issues of discrimination that women are currently exposed to. If we agree that Rousseau’s theory is correct then we arrive at the conclusion that women must be naturally disadvantaged. However, one can prove that women really are not as naturally insufficient and unequal to men as Rousseau seems to think, and I believe that he knows it too.
First of all, Rousseau’s claim that women are naturally less sufficient than men in the primitive state of nature is contradictory. By saying this, he is implying that women should not have survived the state of nature. That doesn’t make sense since women obviously did; if they didn’t then women would currently be extinct. Furthermore, a simple conversation of the birds and the bees proves that men could not exist without women. Rousseau clearly understands that men need women in order to survive by saying that humans have a “general desire to unite with each other” (Wootton 392). It can be assumed that Rousseau was smart enough to know that fundamental fact. Therefore we can conclude that Rousseau actually doesn’t believe what he wrote about women in his discourse. Upon closer examination of his own statements, I think he would see that he contradicts himself. If he can come to the conclusion that men need women to survive then he can conclude that women can’t be naturally less equivalent than men.
Even if we pretend that he was so dense that he didn’t understand the concept of the birds and the bees, and that he didn’t see his contradiction, one could still prove to him that women are not as naturally unequal to men as he says. One could prove this even if nature didn’t require both male and female to reproduce. Women do have some natural advantages over men that are usually overlooked. The fact that women are naturally smaller and weaker than men can be an advantage when looking for a place to hide from predators. A big man or animal could not fit into the same small nook or cranny that a woman could. Another advantage women would have in the state of nature is that they have more body fat than men do (“Women Fitness”). More body fat means that one has more insulation, so they can survive longer in cold temperatures. Men aren’t the only ones with physical advantages.
Since we can assume that Rousseau did actually understand the details of reproduction, and that women are not as naturally inept as he proposes, one thing remains unclear—why exactly did Rousseau say that women naturally “are the sex that ought to obey” (Wootton 392) if he knew it contradicted his own theory? It is obvious that Rousseau has some bias against women and that he has incorporated that bias into his discourse. He offered no logical explanation as to why women are naturally weaker than men; all he said was that they were. Rousseau may have been a smart and respected man, but he does not have the authority to justify a poor accusation without a legitimate explanation. If we can agree with Rousseau in that fact that social inequalities stem from natural inequalities, then we can conclude that either (a) women really are at a natural disadvantage or (b) that Rousseau is biased and therefore his theory on women being naturally unequal is wrong. Clearly I believe that the correct answer is the latter. What do you think?
Citations:
“Body Fat and Women.” Women Fitness. 2009. Womenfitness.net, Web. 3 Nov 2009. .
Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. 2nd. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2008. 371-426. Print.
You GO GIRL!!!! I love your body fat example! To answer your question, I think Rousseau said it because that’s how things were back then. Back then, women didn’t have much, well if any at all, say in politics. Rousseau, being on the upper side of the social pyramid, probably thought that women were just supposed to look good and enjoy the leisure that men provided. Maybe Rousseau believed that in return to all the things that men provide for them, they are supposed obey to them?
It is definitely true that Rousseau had some sexist views, like most male leaders of the past. However, to state that Rousseau implied that women shouldn’t have survived the state of nature because they were insufficient is ridiculous. It would be a huge generalization to say women were insufficient to men because truly men and women each have their strengths and weaknesses. Rousseau never said this though; “insufficient” is your own word. Even if he did believe this, it still wouldn’t have mattered (besides Rousseau losing credibility for narrow-mindedness). People in Rousseau’s state of nature rarely interacted with each other and were generally cordial when they did. He did not hold a Darwinist view where men and women competed for food, shelter, etc., as they rarely interacted. Using your argument, children are far insufficient to adults both physically and mentally, so would Rousseau be implying that they should have never survived the state of nature because of this insufficiency? Of course not.
The idea that Rousseau claims that women are less sufficient than men in the state of nature isn’t something the Rousseau is too concerned about. I don’t believe that he was suggesting that women are not necessary and would not survive, (you do a very nice job of proving how Rousseau contradicts his own words) I simply believe that he was giving an example of a natural inequality, which even Rousseau mentions does not matter because it can not be changed. There are obvious physical differences between men and women, and I believe Rousseau was just calling attention to these differences. The statement “If he can come to the conclusion that men need women to survive then he can conclude that women can’t be naturally less equivalent than men,” should address the type of inequality, because to Rousseau, natural inequality is irrelevant. It is only when it becomes politically unequal when it is troublesome.
As for your concluding question, I believe that Rousseau just believes that women are naturally disadvantaged, which to him should be overlooked anyways.
I agree that Rousseau has some very sexist views on women. This is shown in his state of nature, where women are only needed to reproduce in order to contribute to the population. In this sense, he displays how women are “are the sex that ought to obey.” You proved your point well that women are not as naturally insufficient as Rousseau implies, especially with the body fat and reproduction examples. However, as your title suggests, I do not think he was that harsh, thus “hating” women. I believe that he, more or less, overlooked the capabilities of women when considering their roles in the state of nature and in civil society. I agree with Olivia from above, that Rousseau was stating natural differences from men and women.
I thought you made a very interesting point in providing examples of Rousseau’s contradicting attitude towards women. Like Julia and Olivia, I do agree that Rousseau was emphasizing the natural differences between men and women and would like to add that Rousseau notes that women were responsible for raising children in the state of nature. Certainly Rousseau holds some sexist beliefs and evokes a condescending tone by comparing the ability to raise children of a human female to a female animal, but I still think he implies that women do possess certain qualities that make them apt for surviving in the state of nature. He states that “if a woman were to perish, the child runs a considerable risk of perishing with her.” Now, this is quite obvious as an infant is helpless in nature without protection, care, etc. but I think here Rousseau is acknowledging the capabilities of women, even though his overall attitude towards women is a bit misogynistic.
As much as I respect your opinion about wanting women to be viewed equal to men in Rousseau’s political theory, I think you should remember that Rousseau’s view on women was most likely a product of the culture and political atmosphere of the time. As with most of the other political theorists we’ve read, Rousseau wrote his theory at a time when the white male was dominant, and women were inferior and uninvolved in politics, and therefore irrevelevant to his political theory. While I would never promote Rousseau’s view of women or anything, it should only be expected that he would write about women in his theory the way he does.
I think you have very legitimate arguments throughout and I would agree that Rousseau is contradicting himself. He is a man of much assumption throughout his discourse. For example on page 408 of Wootton, Rousseau states, “If this were the place to go into detail, I would easily explain how…” and proceeds to gloss over how his theories are true even if government hadn’t came about. He does this a few times throughout the discourse and leads the reader to assume much about him and his theories. One of the areas that seems to have been glossed over is his opinion on women as you mentioned. It seems his views on women correlate with those views of women in that time period which is merely viewing them as “the sex that ought to obey.” I commend your pointing out the contradictions in Rousseau’s work.
I feel it is, as Allie mentioned, almost a moot point to discuss whether or not Rousseau was sexist, because he clearly is, as was essentially every other white man in power at the time. This type of complaint is similar to calling the founders of the United States racist. These viewpoints must be taken in context, with memory of the fact that these people wrote in a time far different than ours with different ideals and societal norms.
While I agree completely that Rousseau was sexist, I find the era to play a huge role in the context of his writing. On Rousseau’s behalf when he stated that they “are the sex that ought to obey,” did not necessarily mean that women were of lower standards, but there duties as the female sex were different, leaving them not in charge like males.