CHAPTER 11.

by Mary Wollstonecraft

　　DUTY TO PARENTS.There seems to be an indolent propensity in man to makeprescription always take place of reason, and to place every dutyon an arbitrary foundation. The rights of kings are deduced in adirect line from the King of kings; and that of parents from ourfirst parent.

　　Why do we thus go back for principles that should always rest onthe same base, and have the same weight to-day that they had athousand years ago—and not a jot more? If parents discharge theirduty they have a strong hold and sacred claim on the gratitude oftheir children; but few parents are willing to receive therespectful affection of their offspring on such terms. They demandblind obedience, because they do not merit a reasonable service:and to render these demands of weakness and ignorance more binding,a mysterious sanctity is spread round the most arbitrary principle;for what other name can be given to the blind duty of obeyingvicious or weak beings, merely because they obeyed a powerfulinstinct? The simple definition of the reciprocal duty, whichnaturally subsists between parent and child, may be given in a fewwords: The parent who pays proper attention to helpless infancyhas a right to require the same attention when the feebleness ofage comes upon him. But to subjugate a rational being to the merewill of another, after he is of age to answer to society for hisown conduct, is a most cruel and undue stretch of power; andperhaps as injurious to morality, as those religious systems whichdo not allow right and wrong to have any existence, but in theDivine will.

　　I never knew a parent who had paid more than common attention tohis children, disregarded (Dr. Johnson makes the sameobservation.); on the contrary, the early habit of relying almostimplicitly on the opinion of a respected parent is not easilyshaken, even when matured reason convinces the child that hisfather is not the wisest man in the world. This weakness, for aweakness it is, though the epithet AMIABLE may be tacked to it, areasonable man must steel himself against; for the absurd duty, toooften inculcated, of obeying a parent only on account of his beinga parent, shackles the mind, and prepares it for a slavishsubmission to any power but reason.

　　I distinguish between the natural and accidental duty due toparents.

　　The parent who sedulously endeavours to form the heart and enlargethe understanding of his child, has given that dignity to thedischarge of a duty, common to the whole animal world, that onlyreason can give. This is the parental affection of humanity, andleaves instinctive natural affection far behind. Such a parentacquires all the rights of the most sacred friendship, and hisadvice, even when his child is advanced in life, demands seriousconsideration.

　　With respect to marriage, though after one and twenty a parentseems to have no right to withhold his consent on any account; yettwenty years of solicitude call for a return, and the son ought, atleast, to promise not to marry for two or three years, should theobject of his choice not entirely meet with the approbation of hisfirst friend.

　　But, respect for parents is, generally speaking, a much moredebasing principle; it is only a selfish respect for property. Thefather who is blindly obeyed, is obeyed from sheer weakness, orfrom motives that degrade the human character.

　　A great proportion of the misery that wanders, in hideous formsaround the world, is allowed to rise from the negligence ofparents; and still these are the people who are most tenacious ofwhat they term a natural right, though it be subversive of thebirth right of man, the right of acting according to the directionof his own reason.

　　I have already very frequently had occasion to observe, thatvicious or indolent people are always eager to profit by enforcingarbitrary privileges; and generally in the same proportion as theyneglect the discharge of the duties which alone render theprivileges reasonable. This is at the bottom, a dictate of commonsense, or the instinct of self-defence, peculiar to ignorantweakness; resembling that instinct, which makes a fish muddy thewater it swims in to elude its enemy, instead of boldly facing itin the clear stream.

　　>From the clear stream of argument, indeed, the supporters ofprescription, of every denomination, fly: and taking refuge in thedarkness, which, in the language of sublime poetry, has beensupposed to surround the throne of Omnipotence, they dare to demandthat implicit respect which is only due to His unsearchable ways.But, let me not be thought presumptuous, the darkness which hidesour God from us, only respects speculative truths— it neverobscures moral ones, they shine clearly, for God is light, andnever, by the constitution of our nature, requires the discharge ofa duty, the reasonableness of which does not beam on us when weopen our eyes.

　　The indolent parent of high rank may, it is true, extort a show ofrespect from his child, and females on the continent areparticularly subject to the views of their families, who neverthink of consulting their inclination, or providing for the comfortof the poor victims of their pride. The consequence is notorious;these dutiful daughters become adulteresses, and neglect theeducation of their children, from whom they, in their turn, exactthe same kind of obedience.

　　Females, it is true, in all countries, are too much under thedominion of their parents; and few parents think of addressingtheir children in the following manner, though it is in thisreasonable way that Heaven seems to command the whole human race.It is your interest to obey me till you can judge for yourself; andthe Almighty Father of all has implanted an affection in me toserve as a guard to you whilst your reason is unfolding; but whenyour mind arrives at maturity, you must only obey me, or ratherrespect my opinions, so far as they coincide with the light that isbreaking in on your own mind.

　　A slavish bondage to parents cramps every faculty of the mind; andMr. Locke very judiciously observes, that "if the mind be curbedand humbled too much in children; if their spirits be abased andbroken much by too strict an hand over them; they lose all theirvigour and industry." This strict hand may, in some degree,account for the weakness of women; for girls, from various causes,are more kept down by their parents, in every sense of the word,than boys. The duty expected from them is, like all the dutiesarbitrarily imposed on women, more from a sense of propriety, moreout of respect for decorum, than reason; and thus taught slavishlyto submit to their parents, they are prepared for the slavery ofmarriage. I may be told that a number of women are not slaves inthe marriage state. True, but they then become tyrants; for it isnot rational freedom, but a lawless kind of power, resembling theauthority exercised by the favourites of absolute monarchs, whichthey obtain by debasing means. I do not, likewise, dream ofinsinuating that either boys or girls are always slaves, I onlyinsist, that when they are obliged to submit to authority blindly,their faculties are weakened, and their tempers rendered imperiousor abject. I also lament, that parents, indolently availingthemselves of a supposed privilege, damp the first faint glimmeringof reason rendering at the same time the duty, which they are soanxious to enforce, an empty name; because they will not let itrest on the only basis on which a duty can rest securely: for,unless it be founded on knowledge, it cannot gain sufficientstrength to resist the squalls of passion, or the silent sapping ofself-love. But it is not the parents who have given the surestproof of their affection for their children, (or, to speak moreproperly, who by fulfilling their duty, have allowed a naturalparental affection to take root in their hearts, the child ofexercised sympathy and reason, and not the over-weening offspringof selfish pride,) who most vehemently insist on their childrensubmitting to their will, merely because it is their will. On thecontrary, the parent who sets a good example, patiently lets thatexample work; and it seldom fails to produce its naturaleffect—filial respect.

　　Children cannot be taught too early to submit to reason, the truedefinition of that necessity, which Rousseau insisted on, withoutdefining it; for to submit to reason, is to submit to the nature ofthings, and to that God who formed them so, to promote our realinterest.

　　Why should the minds of children be warped as they just begin toexpand, only to favour the indolence of parents, who insist on aprivilege without being willing to pay the price fixed by nature?I have before had occasion to observe, that a right always includesa duty, and I think it may, likewise fairly be inferred, that theyforfeit the right, who do not fulfil the duty.

　　It is easier, I grant, to command than reason; but it does notfollow from hence, that children cannot comprehend the reason whythey are made to do certain things habitually; for, from a steadyadherence to a few simple principles of conduct flows that salutarypower, which a judicious parent gradually gains over a child'smind. And this power becomes strong indeed, if tempered by an evendisplay of affection brought home to the child's heart. For, Ibelieve, as a general rule, it must be allowed, that the affectionwhich we inspire always resembles that we cultivate; so thatnatural affections, which have been supposed almost distinct fromreason, may be found more nearly connected with judgment than iscommonly allowed. Nay, as another proof of the necessity ofcultivating the female understanding, it is but just to observe,that the affections seem to have a kind of animal capriciousnesswhen they merely reside in the heart.

　　It is the irregular exercise of parental authority that firstinjures the mind, and to these irregularities girls are moresubject than boys. The will of those who never allow their will tobe disputed, unless they happen to be in a good humour, when theyrelax proportionally, is almost always unreasonable. To elude thisarbitrary authority, girls very early learn the lessons which theyafterwards practise on their husbands; for I have frequently seen alittle sharp-faced miss rule a whole family, excepting that now andthen mamma's anger will burst out of some accidental cloud— eitherher hair was ill-dressed,* or she had lost more money at cards, thenight before, than she was willing to own to her husband; or somesuch moral cause of anger.

　　(*Footnote. I myself heard a little girl once say to a servant,"My mamma has been scolding me finely this morning, because herhair was not dressed to please her." Though this remark was pert,it was just. And what respect could a girl acquire for such aparent, without doing violence to reason?)

　　After observing sallies of this kind, I have been led into amelancholy train of reflection respecting females, concluding thatwhen their first affection must lead them astray, or make theirduties clash till they rest on mere whims and customs, little canbe expected from them as they advance in life. How, indeed, can aninstructor remedy this evil? for to teach them virtue on any solidprinciple is to teach them to despise their parents. Childrencannot, ought not to be taught to make allowance for the faults oftheir parents, because every such allowance weakens the force ofreason in their minds, and makes them still more indulgent to theirown. It is one of the most sublime virtues of maturity that leadsus to be severe with respect to ourselves, and forbearing toothers; but children should only be taught the simple virtues, forif they begin too early to make allowance for human passions andmanners, they wear off the fine edge of the criterion by which theyshould regulate their own, and become unjust in the same proportionas they grow indulgent.

　　The affections of children, and weak people, are always selfish;they love others, because others love them, and not on account oftheir virtues. Yet, till esteem and love are blended together inthe first affection, and reason made the foundation of the firstduty, morality will stumble at the threshold. But, till society isvery differently constituted, parents, I fear, will still insist onbeing obeyed, because they will be obeyed, and constantly endeavourto settle that power on a Divine right, which will not bear theinvestigation of reason.