For a modern reader, it is not difficult to look at Rousseau’s “Duties of Women” and spot a myriad of problems with his misogynistic views. From the strange assertion that women are going “astray” when they attempt to “criticize literature” to the odd observation that girls are actually luckier than boys in their lack of college opportunity, this piece is not challenging to attack for its outdatedness. However, going beyond the actual ideas that Rousseau presents, also troubling are the very anti-enlightenment methods he uses to arrive at these ideas. In three main ways Rousseau seems to ignore any principles of Enlightenment rationality in his reasoning process:
1. Relying on Animal Instincts: Many of Rousseau’s observations rely on the idea that human beings can only behave as animals. He refers to a woman’s ability to “so easily stir a man’s senses” that if women become less humble, men “would be dragged to their death without the least chance of escape.” Rousseau goes on to explain that “nature has endowed woman with a power of stimulating man’s passions in excess of man’s power of satisfying those passions.” If these assertions are true, and humans really are not capable of controlling their basic animal instincts, than the entire Enlightenment project is a scam. There is no point in trying to behave rationally when we are all really just slaves to our need to procreate.
2. Relying on tradition: Rousseau’s arguments also seem to rely on the idea that the way things have always been are the way things must be. When Rousseau explains that “woman is specifically for man’s delight,” he backs this assertion up with the claim that this is “the law of nature, which is older than love itself.” Rousseau does not attempt to use empirical biological evidence to back up this claim. In fact he gives counter examples of animals who depart from his ideas of gender, which implies that what he is describing may not be “natural” at all. Rather, “law of nature” seems like a code for “This is how it’s always been.” Once again, if we are relying on this school of thought, the Enlightenment was really quite unnecessary.
3. Relying on religion: Rousseau does not only blame instinct and nature for the sexes’ assigned roles. He explains that “The Most High has designed” us this way. While “woman is endowed with boundless passions” just as man is, “God has given her modesty to restrain them.” In other words, God is cool with men behaving in whatever horny ways they want, but the women with whom they behave this way are out of luck. Relying on a religious example (and not even a particularly sound one) without backing it up with real logic is about as contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment as one can get.
