Seventeenth-century women attributed achievement gaps to education, not biology

Evidence

By the late seventeenth century, upper-class English women were noticing and reacting to the economic and educational advances men had made, while their own opportunities had been by comparison significantly constricted. They argued that differences in male and female achievement stemmed not from female intellectual inferiority, but from differences in childrearing practices, educational opportunities, and social position. Hannah Wooley, writing in 1655, Bathsua Makin, writing in 1673, and Mary Astell, writing in 1694, deplored women’s lack of education and advocated the study of philosophy, foreign languages, medical care, household accounts, and writing. Their ideal went far beyond the emphasis on morals, Christian virtue, chastity, and the reading of the scriptures that had characterized women’s education in the Renaissance. — Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature, 994

Categorization

• XREF: This early environment-versus-biology argument prefigures later feminist challenges to scientific claims of female inferiority the book documents from ch42. — connects to: Seventeenth-century Cartesian feminism held women’s inferiority was custom, not nature — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 236; Attributing failure to femaleness rather than education worsens outcomes — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1938; Woman’s traits stem from her situation, not biology — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1740 (+1 more)
• SEED: Angle: ‘nature-versus-nurture’ arguments over women’s intellect were already articulated in the 1650s-1690s, predating modern versions by three centuries.
• SHARE: Mary Astell, Bathsua Makin and the 1650s-90s debate would interest a feminist-philosophy colleague working on early modern women writers.

Broader Connections

• Seventeenth-century Cartesian feminism held women’s inferiority was custom, not nature #corroborates (0.85) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 236
• Woman’s traits stem from her situation, not biology #corroborates (0.80) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1740
• Historical insignificance caused women’s inferiority, not the reverse. #expands (0.75) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 289
• Attributing failure to femaleness rather than education worsens outcomes #expands (0.72) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1938