The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision

by Erika Bachiochi

Erika Bachiochi offers an original look at the development of feminism in the United States, advancing a vision of rights that rests upon our responsibilities to others.

In The Rights of Women, Erika Bachiochi explores the development of feminist thought in the United States. Inspired by the writings of Mary Wollstonecraft, Bachiochi presents the intellectual history of a lost vision of women's rights, seamlessly weaving philosophical insight, biographical portraits, and constitutional law to showcase the once predominant view that our rights properly rest upon our concrete responsibilities to God, self, family, and community.

Bachiochi proposes a philosophical and legal framework for rights that builds on the communitarian tradition of feminist thought as seen in the work of Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Jean Bethke Elshtain. Drawing on the insight of prominent figures such as Sarah Grimk�, Frances Willard, Florence Kelley, Betty Friedan, Pauli Murray, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Mary Ann Glendon, this book is unique in its treatment of the moral roots of women's rights in America and its critique of the movement's current trajectory. The Rights of Women provides a synthesis of ancient wisdom and modern political insight that locates the family's vital work at the very center of personal and political self-government. Bachiochi demonstrates that when rights are properly understood as a civil and political apparatus born of the natural duties we owe to one another, they make more visible our personal responsibilities and more viable our common life together.

This smart and sophisticated application of Wollstonecraft's thought will serve as a guide for how we might better value the culturally essential work of the home and thereby promote authentic personal and political freedom. The Rights of Women will interest students and scholars of political theory, gender and women's studies, constitutional law, and all readers interested in women's rights.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Womens, Gender, History, Cultural, Philosophy

553 pages, Kindle Edition

Published July 15, 2021

Reviews

[Mansoor · Rating 2 out of 5]

نویسنده‌ی کتاب فمینیستی مخالف سقط جنین است. او می‌گوید دسترسی آسان به سقط زنان را آزادتر نکرده یا به جایگاهی برابرتر ارتقا نداده. تکاپوی سرسختانه‌ی جنبش زنان برای تبدیل سقط به حقی برای زن‌ها از منظر تاریخی جنبش را در نقطه‌ی مقابل منطق فمینیست‌های اولیه و در جبهه‌ی اقتصاد مصرفی و فردگرا قرار داده. تا پیش از اواخر دهه‌ی 1960 طرفداران سقط عمدتا انگیزه‌هایی مربوط به اوژنیک* و کنترل جمعیت داشتند. فعالان حقوق زنان با این عمل مخالف بودند. فعالان قرن نوزدهمی، کسانی که موفق به کسب حق رای برای زنان شدند، سقط را خشونتی قلمداد می‌کردند علیه طفل معصومی که متولد نشده؛ واقعیتی که پیشرفت‌های علمی بیشتر بر آن صحه گذاشته. نویسنده ذکر می‌کند که حتی بتی فریدان در ویراست اول کتابش از لزوم به رسمیت شناختن سقط برای برابری زنان حرفی نزده بود. فریدان، به‌رغم تغییر عقیده‌ی بعدی، اواخر عمر در خاطراتش نوشت که شخصا و به لحاظ ایدئولوژیک هیچ‌وقت طرفدار سقط نبوده

از طرف دیگر نویسنده اشاره می‌کند که دادگاه عالی با قانونی کردن سقط مردان، و نه هرگز زنان، را از پیامدهای رابطه‌ی جنسی رهانید. دسترسی آسان به سقط به فرهنگ جنسی آسانگیرانه‌ای پر و بال می‌دهد که نفع و لذتش را در وهله‌ی اول مردان می‌برند، در حالی‌که بیشتر مرارت‌هایش را زنان می‌کشند. در راستای دغدغه‌های جنبش می‌تو**، اگر مردان متعرض گرایش به رفتارهای جنسی بی‌ابا دارند، آن‌وقت کم‌هزینه شدن سکس از طریق دسترسی آسان به سقط، فقط و فقط این رفتارها را تشدید می‌کند. اضافه بر این، دسترسی آسان زمین بازی مردانه را گسترده‌تر می‌کند. از آنجا که سقط و جلوگیریْ امکان دخول نامحدود را فراهم می‌کنند، دخول جایگاهی مرکزی در رابطه‌ی جنسی می‌یابد و این اَشکال دیگرِ رابطه را، که دست‌کم همانقدر برای زنان دلپذیرند، به حاشیه می‌راند. از این‌رو دافنه کلر، نویسنده و فمینیست نیوزیلندی، گفته بود دسترسی آسان به سقط تمکین به سبک زندگی و ارزش‌های مردانه است، نه تلاشی برای بازنگری در وضعیتمان تا زنان و مردان بتوانند در کنار هم با حقوق و فرصت‌های برابر زندگی کنند

یک نویسنده‌ی فمینیست می‌گوید: زنان در مقام طبقه‌ای که طعم سرکوب را چشیده‌اند، نباید آن را در حق طبقه‌ای دیگر روا دارند. از آنجا که ما زمانی در تملک شوهرانمان بودیم، نباید این دیدگاه را بپذیریم که بچه‌ی متولدنشده در تملک مادرش است. به یاد بیاوریم زمانی را که ارزش زن به این بود که مرد چقدر می‌خواهدش. آیا شایسته است به این شیوه‌ی مردسالارانه رضایت دهیم و بگوییم ارزش بچه‌ی متولدنشده به این است که مادر می‌خواهدش یا نه؟

این ذهنیت نو که سکس هیچ پیامدی ندارد و لذا دربردارنده‌ی هیچ مسئولیتی نیست، دست‌آخر زنان حامله را به حال خود وامی‌گذارد تا یا سقط کنند و یا بچه را به تنهایی بزرگ کنند. دسترسی آسان به سقط مردان را از بند مسئولیت‌هایی که ملازم سکس است آزاد می‌کند

حکم دادگاه عالی آمریکا برای قانونی کردن سقط در 1973 در شرایطی صادر شد که اکثر کشورهای اروپای غربی مقرراتی برای تضمین جان جنین بعد از هفته‌ی دهم یا دوازدهم بارداری داشتند. وانگهی، قانون هیچ‌یک از کشورهای اروپایی سقط را جزو "حقوق اساسی" زنان تلقی نکرده بود، عبارتی که در حکم دادگاه عالی به کار رفته بود. تازه در کشورهای اروپایی این مسئله کاملا از حیطه‌ی اختیارات قوه‌ی قانونگذار خارج نشده بود، اتفاقی که با حکم دادگاه عالی افتاد. حتی مهم‌تر این‌که در قوانین اروپایی نیازها، منافع و شان مادر و بچه‌ی متولدنشده در کنار هم دیده می‌شد، برخلاف آمریکا که مادر و بچه را به جان هم انداخته بود

به این‌همه منفعت مادی عظیمی را اضافه کنید که صنعت سقط جنین و نیز کارفرمایان از این وضع می‌برند


نویسنده بینش اصیلی در این موضوع ارایه داده. ولی مهم‌ترین ضعف کتاب از دید من در نگاه نامتوازن اوست. او طبیعت مردانه را واقع‌گرایانه نگاشته، اما به زنان که رسیده تصویری سانتی‌مانتال ترسیم کرده. او به درستی اشاره می‌کند که سقط به نفع مردانی است که به دنبال سکس بدون پایبندی به عواقبش‌اند. ولی این وسط غرایز جنسی خود زنان را کوچک می‌شمارد یا اصلا نادیده می‌گیرد. از این گذشته، گویا منافعی را که زنان از دسترسی به سقط می‌برند به حساب نمی‌آورد. آنها می‌توانند در عین داشتن روابط جنسی حرفه‌ی خود را دنبال کنند و این خواسته‌ی بخش مهمی از زنان است. گرچه باید انصاف داد نویسنده به دقت بیان کرده که نظم اقتصادی ما روی سقط بنا شده. نظرسنجی‌ها نشان می‌دهند زنان در عمل کمتر از آنچه که می‌خواهند صاحب بچه می‌شوند

تصویری که نویسنده از زنان ترسیم می‌کند، آنها را به عنوان قربانیان این وضعیت نشان می‌دهد. انگار آنها به اندازه‌ی بچه‌ی متولدنشده در این عمل بی‌تقصیرند و صرفا آلت دست مردان و کارفرمایان شده‌اند. تصویر نویسنده شِمایی از همان تصور سنتی پاک‌طینتی زنان را به ذهن متبادر می‌کند؛ زنان فرشتگانی‌اند که در محیط خانه و با مادرانگی احساس رضایت می‌کنند. آنها ذاتا عاشق و دلسوز بچه‌ها هستند (اتفاقا فمینیسم، به رغم مخالفت ظاهری، همیشه در بزنگاه‌ها از این تصور سنتی سود جسته). اذعان به این‌که میلیون‌ها زن آزادانه و به انتخاب خود بچه‌هایشان را سقط کرده‌اند، آن تصویر ایده‌آل را مخدوش می‌کند. این نکته در ماجرای می‌تو، که نویسنده نگاه بسیار مثبتی به آن دارد، خیلی واضح خودش را نشان می‌دهد. اساس جنبش فمینیستی می‌تو بر همین تصویر فرشته‌وار از زنان استوار شده. زنان موجوداتی ضعیف و بی‌گناهند که در چنگال مردان قوی و منحرف گرفتار می‌شوند. آنها در روابطشان با مردان هیچ‌رقم عاملیتی ندارند و تنها معصومانه بازیچه قرار می‌گیرند. شهادت این زنان را باید دربست پذیرفت، چون دروغگویی از فرشتگان برنمی‌آید. با این اوصاف تعجبی ندارد که امروز شاهد برآمدن احساسات ضدفمینیستی در میان مردان جوان آمریکا یا کره‌ی جنوبی هستیم. یک نظرسنجی جدید در آمریکا از مردان هوادار حزب دمکرات پرسیده بود که به نظرشان آیا فمینیسم بیش از آن‌که به روابط زن و مرد کمک کرده باشد به آن آسیب رسانده. در حالی‌که فقط چهار درصد از مردان مسن‌تر پاسخ مثبت داده بودند، 46 درصد از جوان‌ترها پاسخشان مثبت بود


*ناگفته نماند که برخی از سیاهان آمریکا هنوز به انگیزه‌های پنهانی مبلغانِ "سقط جنین جزو حقوق زنان است" مشکوکند. این نکته که مثلا در سال 2016، 38 درصد از سقط‌های گزارش‌شده در آمریکا متعلق به زنان سیاه بوده، در صورتی که سیاهان فقط 13 درصد جمعیت آمریکا را تشکیل می‌دهند، حدس و گمان‌ آنها را تقویت می‌کند. باید افزود که تا همین بیست سال پیش سقط در فرهنگ سیاهان عملی مشمئزکننده محسوب می‌شد. مارتین لوتر کینگ، که حالا شمایل مقدس فرهنگ سیاسی آمریکا از چپ و راست است، نکوهشگر بی‌پرده‌ی سقط بود. امروز اما اگر سیاه‌پوستی، ولو به شهرت کانیی وست، زبان به مخالفت با سقط بچرخاند، رسانه‌ها و انتظامات فکری انگ روان‌پریشی به او می‌زنند. اگر سیاه‌پوستی، حتی با فضل و دانش کلرنس تامس (قاضی دادگاه عالی)، نقشی داشته باشد در برانداختن قانون فدرال سقط جنین، مشتی اوباش بی‌سر و پا جمع می‌شوند و به او فحاشی می‌کنند
**#MeToo

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intellectual history of American feminism, drawing inspiration from Mary Wollstonecraft to argue against the prevailing market-based, autonomist liberal paradigm and in favor of a sex egalitarianism rooted in a classical republican conception of civic duty and Aristotelian virtue ethics. Whereas mainstream liberal feminism seeks to eliminate the bodily asymmetries between men and women in order to "liberate" the latter from the "burdens" of childbirth, care giving, and domestic activity, allowing them to compete in the marketplace on equal terms with men—or else enjoy an abstract "freedom of choice"—Wollstonecraft envisioned a feminism that would elevate the domestic sphere—in which the critical task of birthing, rearing, and giving instruction to the next generation was accomplished, and the classical virtues were inculcated among parents and children alike—to its proper, central position in social consciousness—and to enlist men into its service.

In lieu of a libertarian conception of freedom that seeks to maximize abstract choice, Wollstonecraft defended a republican understanding of freedom as the ability of all people, men and women alike, to perform the concrete duties that bind a society together and make possible its stability, prosperity, happiness,—even its survival—of which familial love, loyalty, and mutual self-sacrifice are among the most essential. Neither sex should be "subordinate" to the other in any quasi-political or managerial sense. Both sexes must instead be subordinate to the family itself, practicing virtuous self-denial, avoiding selfish dalliances—sexual, financial, and otherwise—and contributing their unique gifts, both as individuals and as men and women, to the success of the whole, over which they share a joint authority that is concomitant with their shared responsibility.

If the domicile is truly a refuge of love and reciprocity within an often cold and competitive world, as traditionally claimed by bourgeois society, then it would behoove all of us to orient our personal and social lives to the task of preserving and strengthening it; or else we risk losing it altogether.

[SarahO · Rating 5 out of 5]

I know it’s only January, but I can tell that this is already a contender for my favorite read of 2022. It was enjoyable going through all the history of the women’s movements and rediscovering the early feminists’ vision for how we can make life better for not only women but for children, men, and our country at large.

I wasn’t sure about this book when I first stumbled upon it. Not because of the summary but because of who I saw promote it. A man and an organization that I strongly disagree with on issues involving women had given it a good review. Despite that, the subject matter was just too intriguing to pass up and though it was a difficult read for me, being an academic book from a field I’m not used to reading, I slowly made my way through it and found much to chew on. Bachiochi used Mary Wollstonecraft’s philosophy from A Vindication of the Rights of Women as a basis for a better vision of women’s rights; one that is not subject to party politics but deals with logic, reason, and nuance.

Having spent the last couple years digging into women’s history and women’s movements I knew about some of the eras she discussed. The women’s purity movement in the early 19th century seems to have roots in Wollstonecraft’s philosophy that in order to better the standing of women, society needed to hold men to the same sexual ethics that they held women too. This is called chastity, men. This led to an interesting section on the topic of “voluntary motherhood” where couples would decide together (or the wife by herself) on voluntary bouts of abstinence for “family planning”. This not only helped the health of the mother but of the family at large. I have a feeling though that anti-feminists and secular feminists alike would have issues with following this idea because not only does it tell people that they need to have more self-control and less sex on demand but it gives the wife more power to say no in the bedroom. It is not the wife’s duty to cater to the husband’s every sexual need but it is the husband’s duty to stay faithful and self-controlled.

The author goes into M.W.’s idea that if women and men shared duties in the home, raising virtuous children and becoming more virtuous themselves in the process, then that would spill out into women’s and men’s work in the community, society, and politics (all places where both genders belonged). She discusses how rights are to lead to a sense of responsibly and duty for all and not just for self as our modern society preaches. Everything goes back to the family in this book. If the family is healthy and working interdependently those virtues would also make society better. This was much easier to imagine in a pre-industrial America where most of the family worked from home to begin with. Nowadays caregivers are not only dependent on the breadwinner but, in this economy, everyone is forced to become a breadwinner with no consideration to who is doing the caregiving. This leads to a breakdown in the home which leaks into society. (Notice that “dependents” and “caregivers” are not gendered. These are functions of a non-hierarchical family, not specific “gender roles”.)

There are many things I liked about this book, it makes some great arguments and shows many ways our society could be better if we would change our philosophy on women and family. It has the best argument I’ve ever heard (whether I agree or not doesn’t really matter for this review) about how such open abortion laws may be more anti women than pro as they seem to strip men from virtually any social responsibly for offspring (not that they couldn’t weasel out before, but it was less acceptable). She both praises and condemns certain feminists, exploring how certain movements towards “equality” may in the long run have hurt more than helped, and looks at how the laws have developed and changed for the good and ill of women and the family.

The author seems to suggest (and I may be wrong about this) that all steps that women have taken forward and backward in the last couple centuries rests on the shoulders of what different factions of feminists have pushed for. All the good/ill done rests specifically on the women, and I don’t believe that is true. There are many outside factors guiding where these women are even able to make changes and they are sometimes forced to take what they can get instead of what is best.

Wollstonecraft, while having a great vision, also seemed a bit too idealistic at times. It would take a massive movement of men working together with women in order to build the society she dreams about; ideas as well as laws would have to be changed. Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be great if women and men could work together in the public and private sphere. I also am a strong believer in community and political support for families. The church would be an amazing place to begin promoting this kind of vision however I don’t see that happening anytime soon (mainly due to the “complementarian”/patriarchy movement).

Back in the day you had multiple clubs, societies, and unions for all sorts of movements. Women working together using their brains, gifts, time, money, and privilege for the betterment of society. But as happens time and time again they got silenced, pushed back into their homes, written out of history, and have been told that they are an island. If we truly want a world like Wollstonecraft envisioned, then we have a lot of bridges to build and stereotypes to get over. It’ll take a lot of work, but we can do it. If we dare.

[Stacey Wyatt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ericka works hard to clothe her radical religious beliefs in the language of progressive social responsibility. She invokes Mary Wollstonecraft in what I see as a cynical attempt to find a sacred authority that will appeal to progressive feminists and get us to see that the sexual freedom we enjoy by say using an IUD, having sex when we choose and children when we desire is actually a morally bankrupt existence.

Don’t be fooled, ladies: she believes fundamentally the same things as every other prolife proponent you have heard. She believes that every zygote has a soul and is human. In that religious belief system, abortion is murder. Her problem is that most people on the planet today and throughout time disagree with her and aren’t interested in being governed by someone else’s religious fervor. Therefore she is choosing new, more palatable routes to reach old conclusions that abortions and even reliable contraception should be illegal.

If she could direct her energy towards improving the lives of families right now by promoting social support systems, I could stand with her. That the first step, or any step, in that path demands that we remove women’s rights to make their own moral decisions is where I get off the train.

[Haley Baumeister · Rating 5 out of 5]

Soon I'll have to write a review, since this is gonna be my book of the year. Add Erika to the list of brilliant Catholic women speaking to such issues for women!

[Makenna Karnosh · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a stunning conglomeration of political theory, history, philosophy, theology, and more. I loved this book, and I think it is one that could help lots of people with varying perspectives on feminism find common-ground. The brilliance of this book is the ease with which Bachiochi re-casts Wollestonecraft’s vision for family and broader culture for the 21st century reader. I’ll be thinking about this one for a long time!

[Bridget · Rating 5 out of 5]

If every woman and every man read this book, I think the world would genuinely be a better place (in spite of the occasional and slightly headache inducing sections on complex legal history: I'll admit some of those were a little dense for me.)

Bachiochi has written the most in depth, nuanced, and thoughtful book that covers an enormous amount of intellectual ground. It is a history of the women's movement in the U.S. starting from Mary Wollstonecraft's influence on the movement all the way up to the present (yes, Wollstonecraft is British, but she had a major influence on Abigail Adams and the beginnings of the women's movement in the U.S.), a critique of some of the false steps the movement has made, and a call for a renewed feminism based on both men's and women's joint human pursuit of excellence. She also aptly reminds us that rights come from duties, something that is almost entirely forgotten in the modern conversation.

Baciochi starts by reviewing Wollstonecraft's seminal work A Vindication of the Rights of Women, whose central claim is that both men and women are rational creatures, and as such, both should pursue wisdom and the cultivation of virtue as central ends in life. Speaking to her time, Wollstonecraft specifically urged that men cultivate virtue by reigning in their sexual impulses and being faithful to one woman and that women cultivate their intellects so as to be better mothers, wives, and simply people. She rightly recognized that men giving way to unbridled sexual impulses was damaging to women and men, and that women giving way to unchecked emotions and vanity was equally damaging to both women and men.

After reviewing Wollstonecraft's philosophy, Bachiochi then gives the history of feminism in the U.S. going through the fight for suffrage (which developed alongside the fight against slavery), the development and eventual demise of protective labor laws for women during the Industrial Revolution, Betty Friedan's the Feminine Mystique and fight for meaningful work outside the home in the 1960s, Roe v. Wade in 70s alongside Ruth Bader Ginsburg's colossal influence on the movement, Mary Ann Glendon's (who is absolutely goated, in my personal opinion) critique of the movement, and the current negative effects of the market mindset on the family today. There's so much more I could say, but I'll just close with some excellent quotes:

On Friedan and Wollstonecraft: "Instead, these thinkers thought that shared domestic life would be better served when women took themselves seriously first and foremost as persons in need of sustained human development. For both writers, it was a conceptual shift, not intended to uproot familial obligations: no one sought to deny married women's roles as wives and mothers; women simply ought not be solely defined by these roles, as though they were not capable of (or personally interested in) anything but." (156)

"To belittle the work of the home, and the little, even tedious acts that go with it (which, frankly, are found in all types of work), belittles the human beings who nurture and are nurtured within its walls. It also overlooks the level of freedom and autonomy a homemaker, freed from the obligations of market work, has to design her (or sometimes, his) day and positively affect the lives of myriad others (both within and outside the walls of her home)." (166)

Wollstonecraft and Glendon "alike appreciate both the burden and the gift these asymmetries present in the lives of childbearing women and caregiving parents. They advocate not a 'perfect equality' between women and men but rather an equal dignity that admits the special 'power' and 'privelege,' and 'disability' too, of childbearing and child-rearing, seeking not the erasure of these facts of life, but a reconciliation of them within reciprocal relationships of mutual respect, interdependence, and collaboration in all realms of life." (249)

"The codes also tended to pair newly named rights together with correlative responsibilities... For Wollstonecraft, as for Glendon, these formative relationships, and the institution of marriage that underlies them, were foundational to the flourishing of persons and of societies as a whole." (255)

"Today's legal fiction, for its part, ignores, and in many cases exacerbates, the asymmetries inherent in childbearing and caregiving, asymmetries that disproportionately affect women and especially those who are poor." (278)

"Lacking such self-restraint and concern for the basic dignity of others, freedom retains its name but becomes a kind of savagery, a weapon wielded by the powerful against the powerless instead. True freedom, and its political variant, self-government, presupposed self-government of the personal variety, or as the ancients called it, virtue or human excellence." (280)

"If much historical injustice and prejudice against women has been corrected in our time, the culturally essential work of families and family-supporting communities - practiced and handed down over the ages - has been sorely neglected." (282)

"[W]ithout an account of what freedom is for, feminism ends up appropriating a market orientation too." (283)

"If pregnancy continues to be likened to any other lifestyle choice or medical condition - or worse, a disability in a Hobbesian contest with wombless men - pregnant women will never receive the cultural esteem and support they, in justice, are due." (291)

[Chrisanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was once teaching 30 girls about dating and courtship when one piped up and offered her opinion that it was okay to get physical on the second or third date. You never know, she suggested, it might be fun. Personally I run more on the cautious side. Also physical touch is not my love language (either giving or receiving) and, then, I just shrugged the comment off.

But now, 10 years later, I'd be oh-so-tempted to ask: "Cui bono?"*

Who benefits?

Who gets the most benefit from casual physical affection(NCMOs, as they were called when I was 22)?
Who gets the most benefit from casual sexual encounters?
Who gets the most benefit from "the pill" and other forms of birth control?**

Hint, from 3-ish months of reading: Most of the time, it is not girls/women. Even if women get some benefit, it is always in exchange for something and usually that is a risk of some sort.

It takes Bachiochi a while to get to this point. Largely because this is a walk through history. The thing is, I'm not sure she needed all the detail---though some of it was fascinating(Early Friedan and RBG, especially). Perhaps my problem was that the midsection of the book was the era my thesis focused on and so I was overly familiar with the arguments for suffrage. I appreciated the very valid connection to Glendon's Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. Both books could have benefited from some simplification, the latter more so than the former.

This book does a good job answering the question "how did we get here?" and also connecting Mary Wollstonecraft to many arguments made by feminists. I think that the reason I struggled so much with it, though, was that there is a sense of hypocrisy in Wollstonecraft. Her points are very valid; Bachiochi and social science back them up well. But she doesn't order her life along her values. RBG came out looking much better than she did in that arena. I was thrilled to see more of Glendon's support for families ---something I was previously unaware of. This book may not be the best at "converting" others to its opinions, though. It lacked a personal touch. And that's my concern. Because we really are at a crossroads. Too many women are being hurt in the name of "equality."

I think, ultimately, what it contributed to my recent reading list*** was a rejection of the notion that feminism, as a whole, is harmful to women. It is not.

Oh, and that girl I mentioned at the beginning? She spent two years being physical with a guy who got free kisses, free meals, free activities, and free fun stuff from her decently packed bank account while he finished up his 4 year degree. As soon as she suggested making it something more permanent he was done.

*Thank you, A More Perfect Union for burning this Latin into my brain.
**There is no form of birth control without a risk of side effects. NONE. Not even the permanent kind is risk free.
***
Feminism Against Progress
Rethinking Sex: A Provocation
The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory
The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century


Also this.

[Elisabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

In her sweeping book covering centuries of thought about the women's rights movement, Brachiochi provides an antidote for those who do not identify with the extreme, pro-abortion side of modern feminism, but still believe women should be valued for their role in the workplace AND at home. The author makes an excellent case for how abortion goes directly against early feminist ideals. While early feminists fought for the recognition of equal dignity of women AS women and not tied to their sexual roles, abortion has forced women to deny what sets us apart from men, and hastens us to adhere to a male-centric standard for personhood. It seeks to equalize sex when it has before been asymmetrical in its effect upon men and women, but in fact has relieved man of all responsibility and empowered him to take what he wants from women without consequences. And since motherhood is now "voluntary" and something to be opted into, the autonomous woman is left alone by society at large with her "choice," with no structures in place to properly support healthy motherhood and families. The picture of today's "freed" woman is a far cry from the vision of the early feminists.

Brachiochi offers a noble view, inspired by Mary Wollstonecraft and many other early female visonaries, of what society could look like if we valued equally the work of caregiving and market labor. Women and men would not be penalized economically and culturally for the choice to leave the market for a time to raise the next generation. Caregiving would take its rightful place as a hallowed and dignified work. There are many creative ways this can happen in policy and legislation. At the same time, she acknowledges that the government cannot and ought not provide for all human needs.

Brachiochi also gives proper credit to how far women's rights have come in the last 100 years. She acknowledges the injustices and indignities women have undergone for centuries, and rightly sees that much of the progress made should not be undone. This praise of the feminist cause can be difficult to find among critics of modern feminism.

This work invites us to step back and ask ourselves what a women's movement that accounts for the dignity of ALL people, born or unborn, might look like. The Rights of Women is an excellent first step at asking and answering that question.

[Annie]

Wow! What a work outlining Wollstonecraft’s vision for women’s rights and the following waves of feminism and how they agreed/contrasted with her. Feminism has not always been unified, and the divisions were interesting. I learned so much from this book. Sometimes the legislation details were difficult to get through, but it’s a pretty well written overview for just 300ish pages (with 100 following pages of endnotes). I have lots of thoughts. Perhaps I will outline them later. I loved this book though.

[Lorelei Savaryn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of the most interesting books I've read. It follows the feminist movement from its earliest beginnings. It details how the movement split in the 1970s, and how we are still feeling the ripple effects of that split today. A must read for anyone who seeks to understand modern women's issues in America.

[Samantha · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is by far one of the best non-fiction, persuasive works I have ever read. From the moment I began the introduction to when I finished the last chapter I was fascinated. That doesn't mean it was an easy read. Bachiochi is well informed and does not hesitate to use legal terminology. At times it was overwhelming and it took me much longer to read it than I anticipated. But it was always a pleasure to read, much like going to the gym for a fulfilling workout. My copy is now heavily marked up and I see myself referencing it in the future.

One of the reasons I loved this book so much was because I feel genuinely altered for having read it. Bachiochi's synthesis and analysis of the history of feminism fundamentally changed how I view rights and especially women's rights. It encouraged an excellence in my behavior that I did not anticipate.

Beyond how it impacted me personally, The Rights of Women is very factual. The quality of Bachiochi's research is evident in her excellent bibliography and nearly 100 pages of additional notes and references. Despite being an obviously persuasive text, it is also an excellent source of factual information.

The book's greatest strength relies on references to principles so poignantly expressed by Wollstonecraft. It's greatest weakness is translating those principles from theory and ideology to reality. Bachiochi makes an effort to suggest things that can be done to achieve that reality, but I am not so sure they are compelling. I don't find that to be a significant weakness here simply because if her theories and principles were enough to create a marked difference in myself then I have to believe such theories and principles have inherent value that transcends simple changes in behavior. In other words, there is truth in her words that is more valuable than a change in policy.

Regardless, this is an excellent reflection on women's rights and how we still desperately need improvements in the cultural and legal arena. I highly recommend it.

[Mary Flynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Visionary. Triumphant. Majestic. Symphonic in its excellence.

I want to marry this book and build a domestic life based on mutual recognition of human dignity and pursuit of virtue with it.

[Tim Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting and intriguing trip through the history of women’s rights in American politics and jurisprudence.

Erika Bachiochi, a scholar of American women’s issues, begins her review with a long description of the thought and writing of Mary Wollstonecraft, a young English advocate of women’s rights in the late 1700s, most clearly described in her book, “A Vindication of the RIghts of Women” published in 1792. Wollstonecraft’s views were thoroughly grounded in Biblical thinking (though her life didn’t always live that out). She saw well-integrated and virtuous lives, and families being the only valid foundation of a well-integrated and virtuous society. Well-ordered families included men and women, each with equal dignity but different in their duties but with, according to Bachiochi, “asymmetrical contributions to human reproduction.” Bachiochi describes it this way: “Children were not a burden or impediment to a woman’s ‘real’ work, they were her real work, and an ennobling and important work they were. But they might not be her only work. And they were not only her work.” (Both “onlys” emphasized by the author.) Husbands also had duties to children and families.

“The Rights of Women” also had much to say about how a virtuous and integrated marriage was grounded in sexual integrity—especially with men—who built a respectful relationship with their wives grounded in love and not selfish gratification. Likewise, the book advocated against the common English law that granted legal rights to men and none at all to women. Both, in Wollstonecraft’s views, were due by dint of human dignity equal rights before the law.

After two chapters of explaining Wollstonecraft’s views, Bachiochi traces her influence on the thinking of women’s rights through American politics of the 19th century. American society of the early 1800s, based primarily in agrarian homes, reflected, in Bachiochi’s view, a demonstration of Wollstonecraft’s thinking: men and women working alongside each in a home with different duties, but both contributing to the welfare of the family and children and both contributing to the integrity of the larger society. However, the growth of the new nation’s economy and markets, and its reliance on English common law that made women dependent on their husband gradually drove a wedge into the ideal. That wedge was the subject of most late 18th-century women’s rights work: to get equal, non-dependent rights before the law including the right to vote. Her description of these early women’s rights advocates’ views on family planning (“voluntary motherhood”: a joint decisions of man and wife to forego motherhood for a time) and abortion (they opposed it) were quite interesting.

From the late 19th century, Bachiochi then traces women’s rights thinking and the profound impact on it that emanated from the Industrial Revolution, then into the sexual revolution of the 1970s and finally to modern time, all the while drifting further and further from Wollstonecraft’s original vision and more and more toward making women “equal to men” and ignoring the built-in differences in design and duty and especially the continuing asymmetry in sexual relationships and child bearing.

Today, in the author’s view, women’s rights advocates have created in women the view that they are only valuable if fully integrated into a “man’s view” of the world—working full time in a job outside the home and free to engage in sexual relationships with anyone she wants at any time, with the untouched right to abortion as today’s definition of “voluntary motherhood.” Her challenge to society is to return to Wollstonecraft’s ideal: to recognize the differences in design and duty in men and women, to call both of them to integrity, including sexual integrity, and for both to take seriously the responsibilities of children and families and for both to participate together in those duties in the home and society. It’s an interesting challenge. And with the ability of many 21st-century men and women to work from home, it may not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

A quite fascinating read.

[Summer Bohannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Working through the framework of the philosophy of Mary Wollstonecraft, Bachiochi has crafted a masterful intellectual history of American feminism. In an even-handed, well-researched fashion, she is able to laud the achievements of feminism whilst critiquing its excesses, and she offers a vision for how a recovery of Wollstonecraft's ideas can refocus feminism today.

In the 18th century, Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women, in which she argues for what Bachiochi describes as virtue-based feminism. Wollstonecraft warns against "sexing the virtues" by describing certain virtues as either masculine or feminine. Instead, moral and intellectual development should be seen as a fulfilling end for equally rational men and women, and the virtues necessary for making good humans should not be categorized as either masculine or feminine. Heavy emphasis is placed on the need for sexual virtue in both men and women, at a time when chastity was considered a distinctly feminine virtue. The family rests at the center of the Wollstonecraftian vision. Neither motherhood nor fatherhood should be seen as a burden, and a strong civil society ought to do its best to protect the family, where virtue can best be cultivated from the youngest of ages. Wollstonecraft does not deny the biological differences between men and women, as particularly manifested by reproductive differences. But in her understanding of the sexes, those differences are no reason to deny women their full humanity, to deny them education, or to relegate their development to "feminine" virtues. Neither should there be cause to disparage the importance of motherhood (or fatherhood!).

Using the Wollstonecraftian vision, Bachiochi traces the intellectual history of feminism from early America to the present. She gives heavy attention to policies and pivotal court cases. By using Wollstonecraft, Bachiochi is able to demonstrate precisely why feminism's adoption of abortion rights as one of its main platforms ultimately derailed the goal of early feminism. Healthy women, healthy men, and healthy families are all connected. Bachiochi, in an academic, historical, philosophical, and political manner, makes a compelling case for why this is so without exclusively tying female worth to childbearing or assuming that motherhood is something to be disdained.

An excellent read, and well worth the time.

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

This fascinating book is a dense, law focussed (how many court cases...), history of American feminism assessed against the high minded vision of Mary Wollstonecraft.

It is fascinating to see "equality" used to argue for special protection for women in dangerous work environments and the same "equality" used to argue against such protections. "Equality" is used to argue against contraception and abortion (for such technologies make men more comfortable using women) and the same "equality" is used to argue for contraception and abortion.

"Equality" is used to argue for more stringent marital commitments such that mothers will not be abandoned with their children and the same "equality" is used to argue for easy divorce.

There are so many things one could take away from this fascinating historical survey.

I agree with many of Bachiochi's critiques of modern liberalism and autonomy; I agree with her praise of virtue, the "good life" is not the one with the most money or the highest public status but rather the one that has achieved the greatest love and wisdom. I agree with her argument that the work of raising the next generation in the home (neglected and derided by our modern establishment) is actual some of the most vital work anywhere. I'm not sure about many of her proposals, though she knows these things better than I, I nonetheless wonder if her vision is a bit stilted by being so enmeshed in the legal world.

One of my strongest takeaways (from this book and other related material) though NOT proposed by Bachiochi is that its past time to bin the word "equality" it is putty that means totally different things depending who's using it and seemingly depending which day of the week it is.

This book's direction has a lot in common with Mary Harington's "Feminism against Progress" and Ivan Illich's "Gender". They each identify much of the modern hostility of the sexes and destructive individualism as downstream of the industrial revolution; none of them come close to giving any comprehensive answer to the moment we find ourselves in.

[Laura Lesley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is everything I could have hoped for and more. It is a truly edifying book bringing together the best of feminist history and philosophy - looking ahead at a new womens movement rooted in the original Wollstonecraftian vision of rights at the service of virtue and responsibility.

Two main takeaways. Firstly that rights are not ends in themselves; to be "left alone with one's rights" is no freedom or fulfilment at all. Rather, freedom consists in having the right to pursue the good.

The second takeaway was its distillation of the fatal error of second wave feminism. In recognising the disparity between men and women (differences in the type of work done, reproductive asymmetry etc) second wave feminism departed from the original vision by insisting on male norms for work and sex and making them the ideal, to the detriment of women. By equating absolute autonomy and independence from children with freedom and equality, feminism has "surrendered, once and for all, to the logic of the market" while the first feminists sought to prevent this devaluing of caregiving by the demands of that market.

To affirm the equal dignity of women we ought to value rather than devalue the unique experiences and needs of women when it comes to work, sex and childbearing. We need not accept "the child abandoning man - the ideal worker with no caregiving responsibilities" as the model for a responsible life, but instead recognise that interdependence between men and women, and parents' caregiving responsibilities are good things (not bad). This is where second wave feminism in combination with the sexual revolution fails: by prioritising the market over the family and male over female sexual norms.

Erika is so smart and writes so well. It is not too hard to read yet is insightful and edifying. Will definitely be reading again.

[Stephanie Marcinkowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

DNF - read for graduate level course on the History of Sexuality and Gender taught by the author, Ericka Bachiochi. This book is a well-researched and dense read taking the reader through a journey of The Rights of Women with connections to accounts currently not well known in modern feminism circles. This book leans into Mary Wollstonecraft's writings specifically, The Rights of Women, as this book is also titled. Bachiochi provides a well documented argument as to why it is prudent for modern culture to "Reclaim [Wollstonecraft's] Lost Vision where it's important for both women AND men to aspire to live out the virtues. As an attorney, Bachiochi highlights legal cases impacting current laws affecting women and families as well as makes sound arguments for the Agrarian household economy. I look forward to continuing to dive into this book as a reference for further studies.

[Stephanie Chludzinski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Erika Bachiochi brilliantly articulates the problems with modern, abortion-centered feminism and calls for a return to the pro-family views of first wave feminism, focusing in particular on the work of Mary Wollstonecraft. This book provides a rich political, economic, and cultural history of women’s rights in the United States. Bachiochi calls for the creation of economic and political policies that support the very important work of the home that happens in families by providing flexible working environments, paid family leave, and other benefits mothers and fathers need to raise confident, compassionate, and virtuous children and citizens. Her vision is refreshing and much needed in our time.

[Lia Milousis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderfully written and brilliantly beautiful. I must have underlined 1/3 of the book. This is a book I wish could be made mandatory reading. I anticipate that I will return to it frequently. I cannot thank the author enough for her diligence and excellence in compiling this articulate and inspiring overview of where feminism has been, where feminism has gone, and where feminism can go if meaning is once again instilled into the quest for virtue and human excellence.

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

PHENOMENAL. I really appreciate how careful and academic Bachiochi's writing style is, as well as the breadth of material she draws from. She makes a persuasive moral, legal, and historical argument for the proper nature and role of women and men in public and private virtue, and provides concrete suggestions for achieving this Wollestencraftian vision today. Encouraging and enlivening.

[Leah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book took me almost a year to finish but it was worth every page. I especially liked Bachiochi’s clear-eyed perspective on figures like RBG and Friedan that historically are rejected or lauded outright without criticism rather than engaging with the ideas. I’ll be referring back to this one for years to come.

[Ericka Andersen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good stuff, though pretty niche as it's focused on the work of one woman. That said, I appreciate Bachiochi's insight and thoughfulness on matter of womanhood and feminism, history and family. Certainly worth a read and her work in general is very good.

[Wayne Larson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good overview of the history of feminism. Uses a reading Wollstonecraft to cast a vision centered on the family.

[Becca Maginn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely warmed up to this after the first 50 pages