On the Equality of the Sexes

Judith Sargent Murray’s “On the Equality of the Sexes” is an argumentative essay, prefaced by an original poem. Murray builds her argument through logical and ethical appeals to the reader. The essay is written in the satirical style, popular in the late 1700s, reflected in its sardonically humorous tone and self-conscious authorial voice. Murray also employs rhetorical questioning throughout the essay in an attempt to leave readers questioning beliefs and values around the inequality of the sexes, real or imposed.

The essay itself begins with a series of rhetorical questions brimming with irony, wherein Murray asserts that the intellectual capacity of women is not inferior to that of men. Murray proceeds logically to address four different types of intellectual abilities: “imagination, reason, memory and judgment” (2). Employing logos, she evaluates women’s apparent abilities and deficits in each category. As necessary, she addresses any counterclaims she can see arising from her argument. Most notably, she concedes that women have some deficits in reason and judgment as a result of the limitations placed on their education by society. This concession is essential to her argument, as, rather than supporting the idea of women’s natural inferiority, it underpins her assertion that women’s natural, equal potential is denied by society’s inferior treatment of them.

Structurally, the argument then turns to emotional appeals. Murray transitions into this appeal by asking the reader to consider a male two-year-old and a female two-year-old. She then prompts the reader to consider which would have better judgment. Thematically, this example allows Murray to make her stance on women’s education, as she emphasizes that it is predominantly the limitations placed on women’s education that result in later differences.

Murray further strengthens her emotional appeal as she discusses the void and unhappiness women feel as a result of the limitations placed on their educational pursuits. She continues to explore the impact of these limitations as she addresses marriage, wherein she notes that women feel inferior to husbands, who have been given educational opportunities they never had. In fact, she argues that this type of disparity can lead to women despising husbands, who have the opportunity to grow and change as they gain knowledge. By describing the variety of emotions felt by women whose educations have been limited, Murray works to persuade readers who may have not previously considered the emotional impact of limiting women’s education.

Departing from her emotional appeal, Murray proceeds to make an appeal to ethos. Ethically, she appeals to the reader’s morals by arguing that women could grow closer to God through their studying astronomy, geography, and natural philosophy. Then, with a tone of mockery, she questions if “the mechanisms of a pudding, or the sewing the seams of a garment” should be enough to fulfill an individual who is being considered for an eternity in heaven (4). Here, she draws satirically on the image of being a prospective inhabitant of heaven to elevate the position of womankind. By creating a deliberately ridiculous contrast, Murray highlights the hypocrisy of a system that both allows and denies women’s divine and natural rights.

Utilizing both logic and a mocking tone, she then moves to address those who claim that men are mentally superior due to their physical prowess. She writes:

I know there are who assert, that as the animal powers of the one sex are superiour, of course their mental faculties also must be stronger; thus attributing strength of mind to the transient organization of this earth born tenement. But if this reasoning is just, man must be content to yield the palm [to] many of the brute creation, since by not a few of his brethren of the field, he is far surpassed in bodily strength (4).

Here, Murrays draws on Lockean reasoning. By looking at the evidence of nature, she demonstrates the falsity of the claim that physical and intellectual strength are necessarily allied, exposing the inconsistency of the arguments in favor of male intellectual superiority.

Murray closes the first part of her essay through logical deduction, pointing out that since men are physically superior, it is likely that women are intellectually superior to balance the natural order. However, she concludes, women are only asking for equality. Thereby, she minimizes the request she is making, which makes it seem as if it is a minor request.

The structure of the second part of the essay proceeds in a similar fashion, as Murray oscillates dominantly between logos and pathos and utilization of a mocking tone. She begins with an appeal to logos, addressing what many view as man’s superiority as shown by the Bible. She, however, discusses the failures of several male characters from the text and concludes that this undermines the supposed superiority possessed by men.

She moves on to point out how poorly prepared women are for adulthood. As in previous instances, she utilizes a tone of mockery to describe young women, as they are presented to society dressed up with what she terms “ribbons, and other gewgaws, [... appearing] like the ancient victims previous to a sacrifice” (5). The word “gewgaws” shows disdain for the intellectual emptiness of these efforts, and “sacrifice” reminds the reader of the real human suffering caused by subjecting women to unhappy marriages. This passage is integral to Murray’s subtle challenge of marriage and gender norms at the time. Although Murray presents herself as pro-marriage, she supports a partnership of equals. A society that makes women dependent on men, however, makes women “sacrifices” to the demands and assumptions of men, instead of fostering choice and freedom. In this, Murray prefigures her later work on the financial independence of women, as well as her own need for an income, of which her essay’s publication formed a part.

In reference to domestic duties, Murray offers a rebuttal for those who would argue that educational pursuits would take women away from their responsibilities at home. She points out that both “early hours and close application” are sufficient to allow women to meet both expectations (6). With tremendous sarcasm, she moves on to offer men domestic services in exchange for their protection and “bodily strength’ (6). She turns this argument on its head by posing yet another rhetorical question asking men whether or not these domestic duties concern or benefit them. Of course, she notes that both well-managed children and a neat home are beneficial.

In a final appeal to both logos and ethos, she brings her essay to a close by addressing the biblical tale of Adam and Eve. Utilizing logic, Murray reasons that Eve had greater cause to believe that eating the forbidden fruit would benefit her; a being of a different and more powerful order tricked her. By contrast, Adam had Eve herself as an example of the harmful effects of eating the fruit and must have yielded to “bare pusillanimous attachment to a woman” (8). Murray’s strategy here is multipronged. In critiquing Adam’s reasons for disobeying God, Murray weaponizes her opponents’ contempt for women. If women are so superficial and foolish, it doesn’t speak well of Adam (or men, by extension) that Eve deceived or manipulated him. Furthermore, Eve’s disobedience was not only better justified but better motivated: Murray describes Eve’s desire for knowledge as “laudable ambition.” This of course echoes Murray’s core claim about women’s need and desire for education. Murray ends her argument by recasting the story of humanity’s fall as a cautionary tale about denying such education to women: They lack the knowledge and experience to make wise decisions.