Rousseau, Antifeminism, and Woman's Nature

Abstract

IN THE LAST DECADE, Rousseau's views on the natures and social roles of the sexes have attracted considerable attention. There is no disagreement in the literature over whether Rousseau educates the sexes to lead different lives. Women are to be confined to the private sphere, consumed with the duties of wife and mother, ever sensitive to the opinions and needs of others, and limited to indirect access to power. Men are trained in craft, taught to judge independently, prepared to be citizens and soldiers in participatory democracy, and allowed to express their thoughts and desires openly. Rousseau is clearly an advocate of sex roles, given that a role is ... an institutionalized sex role only if it is performed exclusively by persons of particular sex and societal factors tend to encourage this correlation.' No difference between people other than sex so completely determines how individuals will be educated in Rousseau's scheme. While it is obvious that Rousseau advocates traditional, radically sex-roled society, there has been much dispute about why he does so, for it seems to conflict with other parts of his philosophy. Some have held that Rousseau is simply and thoroughly inconsistent in educating women to be submissive and dependent, given his emphasis on the value and importance of equality, self-sufficiency, and freedom.2 It has been said that Rousseau's position is explained by his fear of women's power over men,3 that it reflects his belief in women's inferiority,4 and that it is simply sign of the times in which he wrote.5