Commentary on Question 2

“riches and hereditary honors have made cyphers of women"

Wollstonecraft certainly makes a point of acknowledging the “efforts” men of her time take to establish women as objects of value. Women seem to be put on a pedestal of chastity and virtue, which Wollstonecraft argues actually lessens their worth. Women are not allowed to be essentially human, and so they become less than human in their idealization by men with good intentions. This tradition, or system of “riches and hereditary honors,” tries to set women apart as precious objects and so in the process turns them into mere objects, denying them the right to education, thought, and humanity.

People often feel that by protecting someone from certain aspects of life, they can spare them any unnecessary discomfort. Instead of sparing them, however, they are arguably keeping them from truly experiencing life. This is most apparent, I feel, in the modern stereotype of the over-protected child: perhaps there are some things children should not be exposed to, however, that should not interfere with allowing them to experience life as they will later be forced to deal with as adults. The same can be said for Wollenstonecraft’s women, whom she often describes as being kept in a state of childhood – regardless of right or wrong, it is naïve to think that that a man will always be around to shield and care for a woman, sooner or later she must exist without his assistance. Thus, a woman should and must be free and able to prepare herself to function as an individual in the real world, and she certainly can’t be judged or held responsible for an inability to do so if she was never allowed to prepare the occasion.