Chapter 6: Male Feminist and anti-Feminist Orations on Women in Society: How Do Men Debate What Constitutes Women's Flourishing?

Chapter 6: Male Feminist and anti-Feminist Orations on Women in Society:

How Do Men Debate What Constitutes Women's Flourishing?

In the last chapter, I examined possible worlds discourse within scholarly debate in Cavendish's Orations. So, in this chapter, I would like to build on this by continuing and deepening the aspect of debate in Cavendish's Orations. In previous chapters, I have focused mainly on Cavendish's explicit usage of possible worlds within different topics, ranging from planetary to how to lead a scholarly life. Therefore, in this chapter, I would now like to raise the question of whether an element of the possible worlds approach can be still be found in Cavendish's writings, even in passages where she does not explicitly refer to them. I maintain that a possible worlds analysis remains relevant, despite a lack of explicit possible worlds terminology being present in her text. This is because I read each orator as not only presenting an argument or stance on their oration but also suggesting a possible world which they advocate should remain, or become, the actual world in society. To test my hypothesis, I shall conduct a textual analysis of Cavendish’s orations on women’s rights. In this chapter, I shall focus on Cavendish's orations for[i] and against[ii] women’s liberties before examining her Female Orations[iii] in my next chapter.

Hence, my aim in this chapter and the next is twofold. One, to apply my hypotheses above and my feminist interpretation of Cavendish to my textual analysis of Cavendish's feminist orations. In this chapter, I start by looking at Cavendish's preface[iv] to her Orations book before focusing on two orations by men concerning their views of women's position in society. These two orations are paired as one pro and one contra women's liberties. In the next chapter I shall explore, one by one, Cavendish's Female Orations, which are a collection of orations delivered by women on the patriarchal limits put on women's liberties. Further to my previous chapter on scholarly flourishing, in this chapter and the next, I aim to expand the topic of living well and flourishing into focusing on what constitutes women's flourishing and how it was debated during the Early Modern era and now.

Public and Private Orations: Women's Flourishing in Society

Cavendish provides the context to her Female Orations in her preface[v] where she prepares the reader's expectation and outlines her overarching argument, themes and motivations. Cavendish depicts how some women hear a sexist man's oration about his gendered stereotypes and expectations about women and how he argues in favour of taking away many of their current, basic freedoms and rights[vi]. In this preface, ‘To the Readers of My Works’, Cavendish writes:

 "...go into the Market-place again, and hear what Orations there are Spoken, wherein one short Oration concerning the Liberty of Women hath so anger’d that Sex, as after the Men's Orations are ended, they Privately Assemble together, where three or four take the place of an Orator, and Speak to the rest; the only Difficulty will be, to get Undiscovered amongst them, to hear their Private Conventicles; ..."[vii]

The misogynistic oration that angered the women refers to oration 127, titled 'An Oration against the Liberty of Women'[viii]. The gist of his argument essentially recommends an abusive approach to women which attacks their female character[ix]. He is particularly focused on infringing women's human right to, what we now term, freedom of association. He advocates isolating women as much as possible as a way of gaining control over them[x], which is now better known to be very typical abusive behaviour by husbands and fathers who commit domestic violence against women and children, especially daughters, in their family. For instance, there is greater awareness in the UK of this form of domestic abuse since the introduction of legislation which categorizes coercive control under England and Wales’ Serious Crimes Act 2015[xi]. This includes feeling “fear” and being at the receiving end of a “pattern of intimidation, degradation, isolation and control with the use or threat of physical or sexual violence” and related forms of abuse include psychological, emotional, physical, sexual, financial, economic, online and digital abuse, as well as stalking and general harassment[xii]. It can be committed by partners, ex-partners or family so there are on-going campaigns to broaden its application, especially before it is scheduled to become law in 2021[xiii]. Statistics show that coercive control domestic violence is almost exclusively committed by men against women because, out of those who declared their sex in 2019, a staggering 97% of defendants in court cases were men[xiv]. So I suggest Cavendish’s oration here is highly relevant to contemporary feminism and domestic abuse and she importantly highlights a very serious women’s issue which, even in the 21^st century, is often overlooked and not talked about enough.

Orator X specifies not allowing women to meet anyone except their own family and banning female gatherings[xv], thereby expanding his misogynistic attitudes from the home into society and politics. This sexist orator also wishes to convince the other men listening to his oration to restrict women to a domestic, marital role[xvi]. Thus, this orator is causing both a public and a private threat to women's social condition. He is threatening women's liberties in the private sphere by normalizing and advocating extremely controlling behaviour in the marital home and then cross-applying this domestic abuse to wives when they leave the home and go into the public sphere, inevitably meeting others in the process. He then extends this approach to wives in the public and private sphere to all women, irrespective of marital status or job (such as maids who span both spheres in the sense that they are not family but nevertheless enter into, occupy and work in the private sphere of a household), who wish to gather for whatever reason in public spaces. This generalisation and extrapolation to the oppression of women as a social group, I suggest, generates additional political problems with this orator's argument, such as discrimination and human rights infringements, including freedom of association and freedom of movement by regulating where they can go and with whom they can meet.

Cavendish informs us in her preface[xvii] that, despite the sexist orator's argument being immediately refuted by the following male orator who puts together a contra against the previous orator's views, the women who heard/learnt about this misogynistic oration were so angered by his sexist oration that they organised a group of women who gathered in secret to debate this pressing social and feminist problem he was creating. She explains[xviii] that The Female Orations take the form of rotating orators to deliver their speeches. In this way, to deliver their speech, each woman takes it in turn to speak as they take the place and function of a male orator in an all-male group of orators. By turning to oration 127[xix] we see his misogynistic arguments in more detail. Cavendish has written her Orations without specifying a particular society, country or continent and orators remain nameless, so, for the purpose of this chapter, I shall refer to the orator of oration 127[xx] as orator X and the following orator for oration 128[xxi] as orator Y. I shall keep to the same reference (ie N.N.) as Cavendish used for the society/city she is depicting in her Oration[xxii].

Misogynistic Rhetoric and Dialogue in Public Debate in Orations to Citizens in the Marketplace:

Part X: Oration 127: 'An Oration against the Liberty of Women'

Orator X begins by addressing all citizens of N. N., and giving a boastful, arrogant impression that he does not care if his recommendation that women's liberties and rights are infringed is met with strong disapproval, and even hatred, from women[xxiii]. He almost provocatively proclaims "I am sure to be Hated of all the Women in this City, and Perchance elsewhere"[xxiv]. He attempts to justify overriding this, I suggest, by rebranding his hate speech against women as free speech. This rebranding, I argue, is a typical conflation made by those who wish to roll back freedoms and rights for those who are disadvantaged by and discriminated against in society. I maintain that this is especially common when they do not need to suffer the negative consequences of their arguments themselves, just as orator X does not suffer because, as a man, he will not fall under his restrictions for women. Yet there is a strong disparity in who can have a voice and who is silenced, in his ideal possible world. While he overtly affirms his right to air his opinions by stating "I shall not be Silent..."[xxv], he is keen to disallow women from exercising that same liberty by advocating measure to create "Silence amongst them"[xxvi]. This would clearly lead to a severe form of women's oppression in orator X's ideal possible world, because women would need to challenge and campaign against such repressive political measures targeting women in society. For instance, orator X claims "I think it fit to Reprove their Liberties, Vanities, and Expenses"[xxvii]. However, he leaves no usual way for women to be able to gather together to organise any form of protest or denunciation of these abuses of their liberties and human rights because he also advocates that "all their Femal Societies.... " "ought to be Dissolved, allowing no Publick Meetings to that Sex...."[xxviii]. 

In orator X's possible world, women are cut off from all social contact, other than very close relations, in an attempt to gain extreme personal and political control of women:

 " wherefore it were fit that Women should be Restrain’d not only from the Company of Men but their own Sex, unless it be those they have neer Relations to, and not to Suffer them to make Acquaintance with Strangers; this would cause Moderation, Sobriety, and Silence amongst them; also it would Cause them to be Husewifely in their Families, Obedient to their Husbands and Carefull of their Children;..."[xxix]

Orator X has no justification for such extreme measures against women and merely resorts to attacking women's character and reputation to attempt to support his argument. He does so by exaggerating women's current freedoms and liberties in his premises and then drawing the false conclusion that this must be stopped because it is ruining men's flourishing and ability to live well. He argues:

"Women are so far from being Restrain’d in this Age, and in these Nations round about, that they have Liberty to Spend what they will, to Keep what Company they will, and to Use their Husbands and Natural Friends as they please; the truth is, Liberty makes all Women Wild and Wonton, both Maids, Wives, and Widdows, which Defames Themselves and their Families. Thus in short, Women are the chief Ruiners of Men in their Estates, Fortunes, and Honours, and so I leave them."[xxx]

 A Man's Oration Contra Misogyny: Does He Avoid Lapsing into Sexism Himself?

Orations to Citizens in the Marketplace Part X: Oration 128: 'An Oration for the liberty of women'

Orator Y attempts to refute the previous orator's argument by morally and socially denouncing his attitude towards women as well as pointing to some obvious flaws and contradictions in his speech. Orator Y appeals to widely accepted societal norms, such as being civil to one another, by calling Orator X's speech "Uncivil"[xxxi]. He also rejects orator X's misogynistic hate speech against women, and views such speech and endorsement of acting against them and ignoring their wishes as being highly unnatural. Orator Y does this by claiming it "is not only Uncivil and Ignoble, but Unnatural, for Men to Speak against Women and their Liberties"[xxxii]. He understands that, in orator X's ideal, possible world, men would be given the power to forcefully "Restrain" women, "Oppose" and generally oppress them, dominating them in a type of master/“Slaves” relation[xxxiii]. This can be clearly seen in the text when he states that the "Man in the former Oration did Plead against them, Perswading you, O Horrid Perswasions, to use them as your Slaves, which ought to be your Goddesses on Earth"[xxxiv]. This is an argument relevant to contemporary feminism and especially what I shall refer to as Classical Radical Feminism (in order to distinguish Radical Feminism from a recent offshoot, namely TERFs [Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists] which, I claim, has very different core notion, values and arguments from the Radical Feminism movement and so I wish to refer to them separately without causing confusion or conflation between the two). This is because Classical Radical Feminism analyses patterns of gender oppression stemming from a wider, patriarchal, societal structure which assists an imbalance of power, resulting in a master/slave style of male dominance over subordinated women, often endorsed and carried out not only privately in households but also publicly e.g. through institutions in society, which all together, systematically oppress and overwhelm the sum of all the (individuals identifying as) women in society[xxxv]. This is especially hard to combat when women are encouraged to be isolated into a strong form of individualism[xxxvi] whereby they end up battling the entire patriarchal system alone as individuals, rather than at least being supported by the feminist collective, in other words, the feminist movement.

However, despite these sections of interest for feminist theory, I suggest oration 128[xxxvii] overall cannot be considered a Classical Radical Feminist argument for two reasons.

One, his stance is heterocentric and, moreover, he directly appeals to heterosexuality to support his argument. Conversely, Classical Radical Feminism consider heterosexuality to be a major source of patriarchal oppression[xxxviii]. Aside from this, how can one interpret orator Y's appeal to heterosexuality? I suggest this could be interpreted in one of two ways. Either orator Y assumes male and female heterosexuality is natural for everyone, hence women are literally created as objects of delight for men and men cannot help but love, please, serve, assist and protect them in return. Or, orator Y is picking up on orator X's assumption of heterosexuality as the norm and constructing his counterargument accordingly, in order to show up the flaws in oration X's argument. On this reading, orator Y would be pointing out the contradiction and incoherence in oration 127[xxxix]: orator X is presumably attracted to women, wants to form loving, romantic relationships with them and would like to have a happy marriage yet does nothing but "Cross, Oppose or Restrain them"[xl]. Orator Y finds this psychologically unnatural, arguing that surely people naturally want to "Please what they Love", derive pleasure from their character and company and want to behave "Generously" and "Serve them", including wanting to "Grant them all their Lawfull Requests and Desires"[xli]. So orator Y advocates a very different, more positive picture of human nature from orator X, who only seems to assume the worst of women. Textual examples of this include passages in oration 128[xlii] such as:

"Women were made by Nature for Men, to be Loved, Accompanied, Assisted, and Protected"[xliii]

"if Men are Bound to Love them by Nature, should they Restrain them by Force?"[xliv]

 "it is Natural for Love to Please what they Love, and not to Cross, Oppose, or Restrain them"[xlv]

Men should behave "Generously" to women and "Serve them".[xlvi]

 Women are men’s "Dearest Associates, their Beautiful’st Objects and Sweetest Delights?"[xlvii]

Two, this last quote poses a second tension in his oration. On the one hand, he is rightly arguing in favour of perceiving women as an associate whom one treats with respect. On the other hand, he has fallen into objectifying language by referring to women as objects of men's desire and pleasure. This objectification of women also brings out a sexist focus on their physical appearance and beauty. However, to his credit, orator Y does bring out a couple of pertinent points: why is orator X acting against women who are merely behaving harmlessly, gently and putting forward perfectly lawful suggestions? Surely a natural way for men to behave towards women is to "Grant them all their Lawfull Requests and Desires"[xlviii] and not to "Restrain them of their Harmless Pleasures, Chaste Societies, and Gentle Conversations?"[xlix]

Perhaps one of the conclusions one can draw from these two orations is that, although there are some men who defend women's liberties against male misogynists who continually attempt to turn back the clock on women's rights, this is no substitute for women forming associations and debating their social conditions and rights themselves. Hence, as we shall see in the next chapter, a group of women come together in response to orator X's argument against women's rights. These women have to meet in secret, rather than in public, which shows the existing societal oppression they are under and why the leader of the group feels that women's rights are a pressing, urgent issue to debate. However, as we shall see, organising women's associations for positive social change is not easy. The women attending and debating do not reach a consensus on which possible world is the best for women's flourishing and some, like orator X, cannot escape sexist concepts about gender when examining the best way forward for women's rights.

---

[i] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘An Oration for the Liberty of Women.’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), 223–24, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:15.11?rgn=div2;view=fulltext.

[ii] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘An Oration against the Liberty of Women.’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), 222–23, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:15.10?rgn=div2;view=fulltext.

[iii] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘FEMAL(E) ORATIONS.’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:16?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.

[iv] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘TO THE READERS OF MY WORKS.’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.

[v] Newcastle.

[vi] Newcastle.

[vii] Newcastle.

[viii] Newcastle, ‘An Oration against the Liberty of Women.’

[ix] Newcastle.

[x] Newcastle.

[xi] women’s aid, ‘Fifth Anniversary of Coercive Control Legislation’, charity, womenssid.org.uk, 29 December 2020, https://www.womensaid.org.uk/fifth-anniversary-of-coercive-control-legislation/.

[xii] women’s aid.

[xiii] women’s aid.

[xiv] women’s aid.

[xv] Newcastle, ‘An Oration against the Liberty of Women.’

[xvi] Newcastle.

[xvii] Newcastle, ‘TO THE READERS OF MY WORKS.’

[xviii] Newcastle.

[xix] Newcastle, ‘An Oration against the Liberty of Women.’

[xx] Newcastle.

[xxi] Newcastle, ‘An Oration for the Liberty of Women.’

[xxii] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A53051.0001.001.

[xxiii] Newcastle, ‘An Oration against the Liberty of Women.’, 222.

[xxiv] Newcastle, 222.

[xxv] Newcastle, 222.

[xxvi] Newcastle, 222.

[xxvii] Newcastle, 222.

[xxviii] Newcastle, 222.

[xxix] Newcastle, 222.

[xxx] Newcastle, 223.

[xxxi] Newcastle, ‘An Oration for the Liberty of Women.’, 223.

[xxxii] Newcastle, 223.

[xxxiii] Newcastle, 224.

[xxxiv] Newcastle, 224.

[xxxv] Noelle McAfee and Katie B. Howard, ‘Feminist Political Philosophy’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2018), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/feminism-political/; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-political/#RadFem.

[xxxvi] McAfee and Howard.

[xxxvii] Newcastle, ‘An Oration for the Liberty of Women.’

[xxxviii] McAfee and Howard, ‘Feminist Political Philosophy’.

[xxxix] Newcastle, ‘An Oration against the Liberty of Women.’

[xl] Newcastle, ‘An Oration for the Liberty of Women.’, 224.

[xli] Newcastle, 224.

[xlii] Newcastle, ‘An Oration for the Liberty of Women.’

[xliii] Newcastle, 223.

[xliv] Newcastle, 223.

[xlv] Newcastle, 224.

[xlvi] Newcastle, 224.

[xlvii] Newcastle, 223.

[xlviii] Newcastle, 224.

[xlix] Newcastle, 223–24.