A historical hot take from Mary Astell, of England, 1666-1731.1 Astell is sometimes called ‘the first English feminist’ and is best remembered for her passionate arguments in favour of women’s education. However, she also had much to say about marriage…
it is my principle [and] ought to be every one’s for it is our Lord’s command to call no man Master upon earth, to be concluded by no authority but that of our master who is in heaven. I would have Women as well as men to see with their own eyes as far as they will reach, & judge according to the best of their own understandings. (Astell; qtd. Apetrei 2008)
To wed or not to wed?
Should young women of today - the ladies of Gen Z - marry Gen Z men? Part of answering this question depends on what marriage is understood to mean. In my youth, the story of Hortense Mancini, the Duchess Mazarin, was infamous: a beautiful young woman trapped in marriage to a controlling, jealous, and cruel man forced to flee under cover of darkness and in male drag. Marriage, to the Duke, meant absolute power over his wife. Many of our contemporaries agreed. Obviously, Hortense did not.
But that, of course, was hundreds of years ago. It surprises me to learn that the young men of this century so closely mirror my own, and seem to be inching ever closer. As scholars have highlighted, nearly a third of Gen Z men think their wives ought to always obey their husbands, and indeed this view seems to echo through other reports about the appropriate roles and capacities of women which, again, more closely approximate 17th century England than what I might have expected.
It is a surprise and a disappointment to see these similarities between the 17th and 21st centuries. These similarities have inspired me to reflect upon marriage and obedience in this modern era. So too have they led me to four pieces of advice for the Ladies of Gen Z who wish to pursue marriage with men. For, as this graph illustrates, Gen Z men may not regard them as domestic partners but rather as domestic subjects.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Ladies of Gen Z fail to marry, as I did. Far be it from me to do anything so seditious, so scandalous as to question women’s participation in the institution of marriage! For, marriage is divine, though I confess some doubt that this is the nature of Gen Z men’s interest in it.
Let it not be me who questions the merit of those who demand absolute obedience from their marital subjects without being willing to show that same submission to their political governors in turn. Such deferential asymmetry is surely justified.
Should Ladies of Gen Z refuse to marry Gen Z men? None can abhor such social upheaval, such unrest, such gendered rebellion more than I. But even so, it does make me wonder: should Ladies of Gen Z marry Gen Z men? Is marriage a choice that will affirm their God-given nature as rational, ensouled creatures, or will it necessitate their throwing off of a yoke which becomes too heavy to bear, as Hortense once did?
The problem, as far as I can tell - and surely that cannot be far, as I am but a woman, and from the 17th century besides - is that if marriage is understood as a promise to obey, women should be wary of what that obedience is, who it is that demands it, and whether this is in their truest interests. But then, perhaps it is the case that marriage and obedience come apart.
Does marriage necessitate obedience?
Perhaps Gen Z men, like the men of my time, think that marriage necessitates a wife’s obedience to her husband because marriage is a divinely-instituted relation. A truth, to be sure, for marriage is a spiritual partnership authorized by God. And yet, God gave both men and women rational souls.*
If so, then God made both men and women for the service of God and not for the service of creatures, for a rational mind is too noble to be made to serve a man.* If a woman, as a wife, does serve a particular man, it is not her God-given purpose, but rather, a role she chooses.
We owe obedience to God and to the dictates of reason. In the first instance, our obedience is neither without limit nor against reason. God does not expect or demand blind obedience, for He provides us natural laws which we can discern through the exercise of our reason.*
It is a human failure if we misinterpret - accidentally, or perhaps willfully - God’s intentions for us. If husbands were, like God, perfect and infallible, then unthinking and absolute obedience would be just. If, however, husbands are mere humans (and, last I checked, they are), then complete obedience must run afoul of God’s will.
What is clear, from His commandments to us, is that God wishes us to develop our innate capacity for reason, which is part of our nature as rational ensouled creatures, and that we ought to do as our reason dictates.* Perhaps, then, obedience to husbands is due to their possession of a greater share of rationality. Truly, many men seem to think that they rise above even the greatest women among us. For, it has long been true that men have had access to education and thus were able to acquire a useful stock of knowledge which supposedly proved their intellectual superiority.*
Only, what is a poor woman like me to think now, when Gen Z women are so much more likely to be educated and knowledgeable than their potential husbands?
If the one with a greater share of rationality ought to be obeyed, and the Ladies of Gen Z are so much more educated, then perhaps it is not wives who ought to obey…
And yet it is true that Scripture commands wives to submit themselves to their own husbands.* How then must we understand this? Husbands are mere mortals and so are imperfect, and they continue to be outpaced by their female counterparts in formal education. What then are we to make of this - is it nevertheless a divine command for a wife to always obey her husband, despite his potential for vice and error?
We must be careful, in looking to Scripture, that we consider all the textual evidence.* The Bible provides many cases of women playing important roles over and above men, being honoured by God and His prophets - Sampson’s mother, Deborah, Abigail, and many more - and even cases where wives were rightly governing their husbands and their lands as in the case of the Shunamite.* Here, God’s prophet honours her, engages with her, and it is she who advocated for her family and people - the prophet pays no mind to her husband.* But, if I may be so bold as to quote myself,
I would not infer from hence that Women generally speaking, ought to govern in their families when they have a Husband, but I think this instance and example is a sufficient proof, that if by custom or contract, or the laws of the country, or birth-right (as in the case of Sovereign Princesses) they have the supreme authority, it is no usurpation, nor do they act contrary to Holy Scripture, nor consequently to the Law of Nature (Astell 1706, 26).
This is why we must be careful interpreters of God’s will, and why it is so important to cultivate our natural reason. It might result in absurdities if we treated all Scriptural claims with little care. For, while it is true that Scripture says that wives ought to submit to their husbands, and that Adam ought to rule over Eve, I Corinthians 11:14 also says “if a Man have long hair it is a shame unto him.” Yet there are many instances of men wearing their hair long, as is the fashion of the day.
Again, to echo my own sentiments long past, made relevant once more:
For all that appears in the Text, it is not so much a Law of Nature that women should obey men as that men should not wear long hair. Now how can a Christian nation allow fashions contrary to the Law of Nature, forbidden by an Apostle, and declared by him to be a shame to man? Or if custom may make an alteration in one case it may in another… (Astell 1706, 12).
We must be careful interpreters of God’s will, that we do not make a mash of Nature and Reason in our haste to confuse that which is divinely ordained with what is merely customary. Perhaps this distinction would be clearer, if only men pursued education at the same rate as do women…
Another way to make sense of the claim that wives owe submission to their husbands is less a moral edict and instead a practical one: men are often stronger than women. Men continue to dominate legislatures, courtrooms, and industry. If men make and uphold the law, if men determine economic structures, then perhaps it is prudent for wives to obey. It is true, as I once wrote, that “Wisdom ought to govern without contradiction, but strength however will be obeyed” (Astell 1706, 61).
But obedience for the sake of order, and not for divine will or reason, is a paltry substitute, and one that will make both men and women worse.* Obedience for obedience’s sake is corrupt and corrupting; it is an abdication of our reason.*
What does this tell us about Gen Z men?
As a Lover of her Sex,* I wish only to promote Ladies of Gen Z’s truest interests. I caution them to consider: what does this desire for absolute obedience in wives tell us about Gen Z men?
Perhaps it is that Gen Z men, like men of my time, think little of women. Some contemporary internet-famous men certainly fall into this category. It is true that many men, then and now, despise women. Some have tried to justify this on the basis of the Bible, but this cannot be done without the kind of selective interpretation concern I raised above.*
Others have suggested that women are simply vicious by nature, that we are vain and prideful creatures, and so are worthy of scorn.* Nonsense! If women are vicious, if women are made to be obsessed with their looks or wealth - if they are rendered into bimbos or gold-diggers, if I understand the terms aright - this is a product of the customs and expectations they face. For,
When a poor young lady is taught to value her self on nothing but her clothes, and to think she’s very fine when well accoutred. When she hears say that ‘tis wisdom enough for her to know how to dress her self, that she may become amiable in his eyes; to whom it appertains to be knowing and learned; who can blame her if she lay out her industry and money on such accomplishments… (Astell 1694, 69)
It would be absurd if men, as legislators and leaders, created a social miasma that causes women to over-value their physical beauty or wealth and then scorned women for being contaminated thereby. Surely this cannot be the case! For if so, how then could Gen Z men be worthy husbands? Men with contempt for women will not respect their wives.*
Perhaps Gen Z men are not contemptuous of women, as were men of the past. Perhaps, instead, they are afraid. It is true that there is great political and economic upheaval today, just as there was some three hundred years ago, and it is true that such change is frightening. In my time, there were many wars over who should rule and how, and many men decried submission to their sovereigns as tyranny.
The present faces many similar challenges in degree if not in substance. Perhaps Gen Z men are afraid because their world is beset with armed conflicts, diminished economic aspirations, and a change in social mores. Perhaps, in the face of all this change, Gen Z men are returning to the familiar: reinstating the stable hierarchy of domestic sovereignty so that they may at least be master of their own home, if not master of their own destiny.
But if it is fear that motivates them, I would remind both Ladies of Gen Z and their would-be suitors: friendship ought to be the chief inducement to marriage.* For friendship is a relation of equality, of friendly correction, and of mutual support.* To befriend your spouse is to have the staunchest of allies, no matter the battles you face, and to have a respected partner who will procure in you the perfections you only thought you had.* We none of us must be alone in this life - friendship is the greatest good and richest treasure; why not secure this in your spouse?
If Gen Z men do not wish to obtain this treasure, perhaps it is because they do not wish for a partner, but for a servant, and indeed, perhaps more of them wish this than the data reveals. It is often the case that men make flowery promises during courtship only to turn on women once their wives cannot escape. As I have observed, men make great promises - they bow, they scrape, they promise to be her servant for ever more - but they know that the benefits of marriage do not accrue evenly. For he may seem
…an humble Servant. For under many sounding compliments, words that have nothing in them, this is his true meaning, he wants one to manage his family, an house-keeper, a necessary evil, one who interest it will be not to wrong him…One who may breed his children, taking all the care and trouble of their education to preserve his name and family. One who’s beauty, wit, or good humour and agreeable conversation will entertain him at home when he has been contradicted and disappointed abroad…whose duty, submission and observance will heal those wounds other peoples opposition or neglect have given him. In a word, one whom he can intirely govern… She will not find him less a Governor because she was once his Superior, on the contrary, the scum of the people are most tyrannical when they get the power… (Astell 1706, 50-51).
I am troubled that the Ladies of Gen Z may not be able to tell which men ought to be accepted; for courtship is still fraught with misrepresentations. Consider the men who brand themselves as ‘moderate’ so as to obtain access to more women, or those who engage in ‘love-bombing’ to secure their place, only to exploit that position once they can become tyrants. How can the Ladies of Gen Z know which men expect obedience, which men wish to become petty tyrants, and which men will deceive and dissemble to do so?
What should Gen Z women do?
In a perfect world, the answer is easy: marry a man who will treat you as a friend and partner, who will love and cherish you, and who will follow through on their courtship promises. In such a world, obedience is immaterial - my friend and I work together toward shared ends, so neither needs to issue commands nor obey them.
Alas, this world is imperfect, for we are imperfect beings. If wives may be expected to obey, and if you, as a future wife, do not wish to obey, then the answer is simple: Do not marry. Women do not owe subjection to men, for we, too, have rational souls.* And yet, to marry is to take a risk that he is not who he says he is. So how, then, can Gen Z women ensure the odds are in their favour?
Here is what I, a Lover of my Sex, who wishes only for their greatest and truest interests to obtain, would recommend:*
Marry for the right reasons.* A marriage based on wealth, appetites, or other fleeting passions will be tenuous as best. It were best that you respect and even like the person to whom you bind your future.
Marry a friend, for “we can never grow weary of our Friends; the longer we have had them the more they are endear’d to us” (Astell 1706, 37). Marriage is for a lifetime, so best marry someone who will do and be good, and of whom you will not tire.
Marry a good man - not a fool, nor a cad, nor any man who lacks wisdom and good character. For if he is a poor choice, he will be difficult to love and honour, and even harder to obey.
Subject him to the group-chat - ask your friends to vet him, that he is in fact the man he seems, and that he is a worthy choice for your time, love, and care. Your friends care only for what is truly good for you, and have no reason to mislead you, even if you have been deceived by a charming wit.
Even so, it might be the case that you make a poor choice. These things do happen, as Hortense had the misfortune to discover, for courtship is often deceptive. Moreover, “if none were to marry, but men of strict virtue and honour, I doubt the world would be but thinly peopled…” (Astell 1706, 50).
Should you face the misfortune of being married to an unworthy man, remember that while you may need, for your own sake, to pay him an outward respect, your mind is free. Cultivate an inner world, and female friendships, that enable a measure of freedom - our friends improve us and help us endure all manner of hardships.
Even so, “…respect and obedience many times become due for order’s sake to those who don’t otherwise deserve them” (Astell 1706, 58) Such order is fragile, for the power of unworthy rulers is tenuous at best. It is easiest, but not best, to give in to the toddler in a tantrum.
And to Gen Z men who desire absolute obedience from their wives, might I suggest: spend more time working on yourself, becoming worthy of domestic leadership. In this modern world, women no longer need to marry. So, make it an appealing proposition.
Or, perhaps they should just get a dog.
Astell’s ghostwriter: Allauren Samantha Forbes
Associate Professor of Philosophy / Gender and Social Justice
McMaster University
Some resources on Astell
Astell, Mary: Some Reflections Upon Marriage, 1706/1997
Astell, Mary: A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, 1695/2002
Bejan, Teresa M.: <“Since All the World is mad, why should not I be so?” Mary Astell on Equality, Hierarchy, and Ambition>
Boeker, Ruth: <Mary Astell on Self-Improvement, Friendship, and Religion>
Bol, Geertje: <‘I Love you Whom the World calls Enemies’: Mary Astell Against Political Friendship>
Broad, Jacqueline: <The Philosophy of Mary Astell: An Early Modern Theory of Virtue>
Fog Lantz Arndal, Martin: <Mary Astell’s radical criticism of gender inequality>
Forbes, Allauren: <Early Modern Feminists on Wooing as a Gendered Epistemic Harm>
Jaysekera, Marie: <Mary Astell on Self-Government and Custom>
Kendrick, Nancy: <Mary Astell’s theory of spiritual friendship>
Lennie, Tyra: <Self-Improvement in Astellian Friendship>
Sowaal, Alice and Penny Weiss <Feminist Interpretations of Mary Astell>
Yenter, Timothy: <Mary Astell on Neighborly Love>
This inspiration for this piece is Astell’s Some Reflections Upon Marriage. This includes some paraphrasing, indicated with a *, but direct quotes are indicated as such. The quote from an undated letter is from a manuscript in the George Hickes archives and is discussed at length in Sarah Apetrei’s 2008 paper <“Call No Man Master Upon Earth”: Mary Astell’s Tory Feminism and an Unknown Correspondence >.