“The Female Philosopher: ….Those against advanced liberal opinions made fun of female philosophers, whereas writers who advocated a better position for women often urged women to learn philosophy, both moral and scientific.”
Ed. Doody, M. A. & Murray, D. (1998) Explanatory notes in
‘Jane Austen: Catharine and other writings’, Oxford World’s Classics, p339
Yesterday, 15th
December, was the 345th anniversary of the sudden death of Margaret Cavendish.
Records don’t show exactly when she was born, other than the year 1623, so the
date of her death is the only day we have to commemorate her life. The British
Library describes her as a philosopher, scientist, playwright, poet, novelist
and biographer1. So, although she wrote in different creative
genres, she is, nonetheless, also considered a philosopher in her own right, in
strong contrast to novelists who dipped into philosophy but were nevertheless
not philosophers, such as the 19th century writer George Eliot (who
the British Library describe as novelist and journalist2).
I’ve chosen the above quote to
illustrate how difficult it was over a century after Margaret Cavendish’s
lifetime (and still is) for women to be accepted as philosophers. This could be
why she wrote many of her philosophical ideas and arguments within a creative
style of writing because it would be more accepted and read, especially since
she didn’t hide behind a male pseudonym but published under her own name
despite 17th century attitudes towards women engaging in the public
arena. This alone makes her a feminist because she’s making herself visible as
a highly intelligent, articulate woman who can philosophise and debate using
the art of rhetoric. She was clearly aware of the feminist issue that, by
denying women fame, they were effectively written out of history, for instance
in the opening passage to her ‘Female Orations’, Part XI:
“….that we may unite in prudent counsels
to make ourselves free, happy, and famous as men, whereas now we live and die as
if we were produced from beast rather than from men; for men are happy, and we women
are miserable, they possess all the ease, rest, pleasure, wealth, power and
fame, whereas women are restless with labour, easeless with pain, melancholy
for want of pleasures, helpless for want of power, and die in oblivion for want
of fame; nevertheless, men are so unconscionable and cruel against us, as they endeavour
to bar us of all sorts or kinds of liberty, as not to suffer us freely to
associate amongst our own sex, but would bury us in their houses or beds, as in
a grave;….”3
This is a bold, explicitly
feminist speech Cavendish writes here, showing great awareness of the social condition
of women during their lives as well as how history then forgets them post
humorously too as they “die in oblivion”4. There is much scholarly
debate about the extent to which we can identify Cavendish’s own stances within
her writings because she often presents many different, opposing arguments
within a given debate, perhaps drawing on the style of Aristotelian rhetoric
and Platonic dialogues, where several characters thrash out their philosophical
arguments to get to the truth of a matter. Indeed, why consider ‘Female Orations’
any more fictional than Plato’s dialogues? We are not given characters’ names,
nor any character description of them, only their ideas and argumentation.
There’s no particular location or setting given, other than we feel it is rather like
an intellectual circle where women have gathered to debate the status of women
in society. Some want to keep the status quo while others are demanding equal
status to men and a similar lifestyle together with its rewards. I think this
is a very realistic portrayal of debates on women’s rights and role in society
which occur today. Even within current feminism, there are those who, like
Cavendish and myself, advocate having women’s spaces and are not afraid to be
blunt about the discrimination and misogyny women suffer and how it causes huge
gender gaps between the sexes. There are other feminists who enter debates
with a more traditional approach to gender roles and think that there are more
so-called natural gender differences than there actually are eg that women are
less suited than men to logic and adversarial philosophical debates and shouldn’t
be under pressure to adjust their education and so-called female style of
philosophising merely to emulate men. So, sadly, not much change in gender
perception and debating styles over the centuries then! Gender stereotypes
still persist today, despite us now having more opportunities, education and
role models than in the 17th century. Indeed, why still consider all
women not to be naturally suited to adversarial, logical, analytical philosophy
when we have a wonderful example in the first analytic female philosopher, Lady
Mary Shepherd, who excelled in all three areas from a young age back in the 18th
– 19th century! Hence, surely it is down to individual difference, not gender. After all, not all men are naturally suited to logic, analytic or adversarial debate either!
Returning to the question of how
to decipher Cavendish’s stance in her writings, I suggest this opening passage to
‘Female Orations’5 reflects Cavendish’s own thoughts more closely than
many others because it is not one of many points of view being debated, but
rather sets the scene for that debate, giving reasons why women need to gather
together and also the importance of discussing their social condition as described above. I think not
only was Cavendish an early feminist, despite some scholarship questioning
this, but furthermore, I think this passage6 (where she sharply
contrasts the male social condition and attitudes towards the opposite sex with
women’s condition and attitudes) together with other passages in her writings,
show that Cavendish may well have been what we now term a radical feminist.
Update: To avoid confusion over the term 'Radical Feminism', I've provided a link below to my introduction to volume 1 on Cavendish (2020) in which I explain how I define Radical Feminism. The Radical Feminism I refer to in this post and my book is what I refer to as Classical Radical Feminism (my terminology) which is trans inclusive, intersectionalist, and is rooted in the civil rights movement. This is what I mean when I say I am a radical, intersectionalist feminist. I see Cavendish as being this type of feminist, despite the 300 year gap and I think that, like me, Cavendish would have been very accepting of trans women, trans men and masculine women, all of whom have existed throughout history and are often also gender fluid, comfortably moving between their female selves and male selves, dressing accordingly and using female, male, sometimes as well as gender neutral, names. I have termed this type of feminism Classical Radical Feminism to distinguish it from the newly formed TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) which I don't discuss here or in my book because one, I don't, and never have, identified as a TERF; two, they have nothing in common with my Classical Radical Feminism; and three, TERFs are not part of my interpretation of Cavendish, whom I consider to be the first British, lesbian, non-binary, gender fluid, feminist philosopher.
'The Queer Suffragists Who Fought for Women's Right to Vote" Sarah D Collins August 14th 2020
This article also gives a list of women who were suffragists in same-sex relationships eg Annie Tinker (1884-1924) who often wore "a traditionally masculine look"; Frances Willard (1839-1898) who went by the name of Frank; the same is true of Dr Margaret Chung (1889-1959) who dressed as a man and was known as Mike.
3Ed.
James, S., (2003) ‘Margaret Cavendish Political Writings’, CUP, p248
4ibid
5ibid
6ibid
