Judith Sargaent Murray on the Equality of the Sexes

Judith Sergeant Murray On the Equality of the SexesOne of the reasons that I enjoyed Judith Sergeant Murray was her alternative method of writing about subject of sexism. Not that her thoughts are all that different from the more modern stuff, it’s just that she has a way of laying down information that makes it all seem very sensible. She makes it feel like what it should be, common sense.
Feminist writing, especially prior to third wave feminism, always exhibits the frustration I experience when I am attacked with profeminist skepticism or criticism. This frustration is very present in Murray’s work as well, as she becomes increasingly more passionate. My frustration is mainly due to the (what I consider) evident issues of society and history. I just don’t get where the confusion lies about the unequal nature of female treatment in many elements of society. I think many feminists or profeminists can feel like they are beating their heads against a wall having to actually explain what should be obvious to people. Not that all feminist matters are obvious, one of the awful natures of oppression is its sneakiness. It’s just that often enough the person inquiring about profeminist reasoning is already decidedly against the study.
Murray begins her essay by questioning the nature of nature- would nature be biased in how it assigns intellect-then emphasizes the unlikelihood of this supposed great disparity of intellect in men and women. Her tone throughout the essay shows the same level of exhaustion that other writers display, wondering if the patriarchy is just blind.
She obviously is trying to use the male-imagined stereotypes about women to her advantage in the essay. She discusses the four types of intellect: Imagination, Reason, Memory and Judgment. With each of these types of Intellect she uses what mean say as evidence of women’s capability against men.
She begins with women’s talent with imagination. I smiled to myself when she said that she barred the contemptuous smile, but not for the reasons that she barred it. She discusses how women so beautifully decorate themselves. She also brings up women’s ability “to slander”, which also tickled me. The problem is that although many people value imagination, because the manners of fashion and gossip are considered trivial or negative, they don’t get any credit as being creative. The problem, as Murray continually points out is that women do not have the education to guide their intellect, which only leaves negative possibilities for them.
Murray disregards reason, basically blaming women’s lack of reason on men, who have denied them. Not other arguments there.
Memory is easily settled for Murray as well, who decides that old women are a likely approached as old men for their memories, which are just testaments of their experiences.
Judgment is the aspect which incites the most passion from Murray, who uses the argument that study shows that two year old females develop judgment better the males. She says that after that the experience of the child will evince the superiority. Murray points out that basically, since there is no worse fate than being a learned lady, a female will have nothing to do but to use her imagination; contemplating fashion and scandal, and possibly doing even worse things for her strength of character.
I like how Murray again uses common sense, no B.S. talk when she counters the argument of “Your domestic employments are sufficient”. Her obvious, forced reply makes me laugh, considering how backward the aforementioned argument is. Her response is a question, allowing the questioned to have to say something; Is it not crazy for someone with all of the faculties of a human being to have to confine their imagination to pie fillings?
Part II just makes me think about how a person in Murray’s time would have contemplated the role of women; this is 1790. I can’t imagine being a feminist during this period, yet I can’t imagine not being one either. For the protofeminist of 1790, I think, how could you deal with this blatant degradation? Murray describes women adorned with bows, denied any education apart from shopping and homemaking, and treated like inferiors. I wonder how a person would deal with facing actual scrutiny for opposing the patriarchy without going crazy. Then again, I also wonder how a woman could not care about the subjugation of women, unless they were sadly brainwashed in some manner.