Are Women Human?

by Dorothy L. Sayers

Introduction by Mary McDermott Shideler One of the first women to graduate from Oxford University, Dorothy Sayers pursued her goals whether or not what she wanted to do was ordinarily understood to be "feminine." Sayers did not devote a great deal of time to talking or writing about feminism, but she did explicitly address the issue of women's role in society in the two classic essays collected here. Central to Sayers's reflections is the conviction that both men and women are first of all human beings and must be regarded as essentially much more alike than different. We are to be true not so much to our sex as to our humanity. The proper role of both men and women, in her view, is to find the work for which they are suited and to do it. Though written several decades ago, these essays still offer in Sayers's piquant style a sensible and conciliatory approach to ongoing gender issues.

Genres: Nonfiction, Feminism, Essays, Philosophy, Womens, Theology, Christian

Kindle Edition

First published November 30, 1970

About the author

The detective stories of well-known British writer Dorothy Leigh Sayers mostly feature the amateur investigator Lord Peter Wimsey; she also translated the Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri.

This renowned author and Christian humanist studied classical and modern languages.

Her best known mysteries, a series of short novels, set between World War I and World War II, feature an English aristocrat and amateur sleuth. She is also known for her plays and essays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy...

Reviews

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

2024 Review
I challenged myself in 2024 to re-read the books that impacted me most in my 20s.
And does this collection ever fit that description! I literally buy copies in bulk and hand them out like tracks. 69 pages of beautiful common sense about what it means to be a woman and, more to the point, human.

2021 Review
Irritated with G.K. Chesterton's condescending tone towards women in What's Wrong with the World, I decided I needed a dose of Sayers's common sense to wash the taste of him from my mouth. And in the process, I discovered I just needed her common sense, period.

She answers questions I didn't even know I was asking.

2016 Review
I picked up Are Women Human? by Dorothy L. Sayers expecting a rather lengthy and involved discussion on feminism that I would need to re-read several times to fully grasp. Instead I got a volume of barely 75 pages composed of two essays and an introduction so full of common sense that it hardly took any time to read at all. Though groundbreaking as one of the first females to graduates from Oxford and well-known for her work as a writer of fiction and academia, Sayers did not have much to say about feminism. In fact, I would say this volume fulfills more our need (as readers) to have her say something than her need, or even desire, (as an author) to say anything about what it means to be a woman.

The essays were originally published with several others by Sayers in 1947. While they are somewhat dated, they remain quite relevant today. Many of the issues women struggled with then apply to both men and women today. Sayers’s main point is primarily that men and women have more in common than not and that each should be allowed to find the role that suits them best. If a woman is good at business, she should do it because that is what she was made to do. However, if a woman desires to have a family and be a traditional housewife, that too should be regarded as good because that is what she is meant to do. The same standards apply to men and women equally. She gets a bit more snarky in the second essay, “The Human-Not-Quite-Human,” but her point remains the same.

One of my favorite parts comes from her discussion of women wearing “trousers.” While this isn’t controversial today, I think this passage illustrates her style, and humor, well:

“Let me give one simple illustration of the difference between the right and the wrong kind of feminism. Let us take this terrible business…of the women who go about in trousers. We are asked: ‘Why do you want to go about in trousers? They are extremely unbecoming to most of you. You only do it to copy the men.’ To this we may very properly reply: ‘It is true that they are unbecoming. Even on men they are remarkably unattractive. But, as you men have discovered for yourselves, they are comfortable, they do not get in the way of one’s activities like skirts and they protect the wearer from draughts about the ankles. As a human being, I like comfort and dislike draughts. If the trousers do not attract you, so much the worse; for the moment I do not want to attract you. I want to enjoy myself as a human being, and why not?”

[Cindy Rollins · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found these two essays to be provocative and exceptional which is not surprising as they wer written by Dorothy Sayers. Can't wait to discuss them with Angelina on The Literary Life Podcast.

[Suzannah Rowntree · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reread Christmas 2022, when I got the book for Christmas. The Shideler introduction is informative though not as beautifully or clearly written as Sayers' own essays, which are insightful, laugh out loud funny and absolutely bang on target.

-

So great. Spot on and frequently laugh-out-loud hilarious, although I think that the same author's novel Gaudy Night goes into these questions in a little more depth.

I read the two brief essays comprising this volume from Unpopular Opinions, which can be accessed online here.

[Dhanaraj Rajan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that contains the two essays that Dorothy L. Sayers wrote on the "Women Question." It is not a well developed theory in the lines of feminist thinkers. (Sayers will be against the usage of the term 'Feminist' anyway.) It is more like a novel writer's observation of the society and her critical remarks.

This is the quote from the book which is central to her arguments:

"...the fundamental thing is that women are more like men than anything else in the world. They are human beings. Vir is male and Femina is female: but Homo is male and female. This is the equality claimed and the fact that is persistently evaded and denied. No matter what arguments are used, the discussion is vitiated from the start, because Man is always dealt with as both Homo and Vir, but Woman only as Femina."

The society is not ready to accept the women as human beings. Sayers quotes D. H. Lawrence in this regard besides giving some interesting examples. The D. H. Lawrence quote is interesting. So I give it in full.

"Man is willing to accept woman as an equal, as a man in skirts, as an angel, a devil. a baby-face, a machine, an instrument, a bosom, a womb, a pair of legs, a servant, an encyclopaedia, an ideal or an obscenity; the one thing he won't accept her as is a human being, a real human being of the feminine sex."

[Mir · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sayers' answer is, of course, Yes. Her point is that both men and women often argue as if women were an undifferentiated class, inherently different from men (the real humans) and necessarily possessed of a common female set of needs, desires, opinions, abilities, etc. She argues that the first prerequisite of equality is to regard all people as individuals who have different talents and preferences. These gifts, not sex, are what should determine employment and other activities.

To find satisfaction in doing good work and knowing that it is wanted is human nature; therefore it cannot be feminine nature, for women are not human. It is true they die in bombardments, much like real human beings: but that we will forgive, since they clearly cannot enjoy it.

[Kris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just as the subtitle promises: the book is two delightful, astute, witty essays on the role of women in society.

Thank you for the recommendation, Amy.

Read Amy's 5-star review of Are Women Human? Astute and Witty Essays on the Role of Women in Society by Dorothy L. Sayers
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Trevor · Rating 2 out of 5]

This wasn’t really what I was expecting it to be. I was expecting it to be much funnier than it turned out. It wasn’t really all that funny at all. And then I thought it might have a stronger message regarding feminism too – but even that was quite light, really. The second essay, and the one the book isn’t named after, is the better of the two. This is mostly because the second essay does some lovely inversions of gender roles – having men justify their membership of the male sex despite their working in what might be considered less than masculine occupations.

I think my main problem with this is that the core message is 'we are all individuals' - and given this is our society's central mantra I find it annoying that this would be the core message of anything presented as 'astute and witty'. Sayers doesn't think of herself as a feminist as she is an individual first and foremost - I consider myself a feminist because women are disadvantaged in our society and that is something our society can do something about, but chooses not to. Where she sees society as made up of individuals, I see society as something bigger and more than the sum of those individuals and with obligations to more than individuals too.

This is a very short book, 69 pages which are basically half size with large print, and even so it fits in two essays and an introduction. Like I said, it just wasn’t really what I was hoping it would be.

It turns out that they are human, by the way. Hope I haven't spoilt the book for anyone...

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not surprisingly, Sayers argues for the affirmative. In fact, she would prefer that society just treat women as individuals—as human beings—rather than always treating them as a separate species—women.

Sayers has been referred to as a female CS Lewis—she was a friend and fellow Oxford graduate—but I think her work is an under-appreciated treasure. Her essays “The Other Six Deadly Sins” and “Why Work?” (both from Creed or Chaos?) are two of my all-time favorites. I’ve reread them many times and think of them often.

This little book contains two brief essays by Sayers plus an introduction by Mary McDermott Shideler. Both essays are worthwhile and display the intellectual firepower and cleverness you’d expect from her.


Here are a few passages I highlighted:

“Indeed, it is my experience that both men and women are fundamentally human, and that there is very little mystery about either sex, except the exasperating mysteriousness of human beings in general. And though for certain purposes it may still be necessary, as it undoubtedly was in the immediate past, for women to band themselves together, as women, to secure recognition of their requirements as a sex, I am sure that the time has now come to insist more strongly on each woman's—and indeed each man's—requirements as an individual person. It used to be said that women had no esprit de corps; we have proved that we have—do not let us run into the opposite error of insisting that there is an aggressively feminist "point of view" about everything. To oppose one class perpetually to another—young against old, manual labour against brain-worker, rich against poor, woman against man—is to split the foundations of the State; and if the cleavage runs too deep, there remains no remedy but force and dictatorship. If you wish to preserve a free democracy, you must base it—not on classes and categories, for this will land you in the totalitarian State, where no one may act or think except as the member of a category. You must base it upon the individual Tom, Dick and Harry, and the individual Jack and Jill—in fact, upon you and me.”


“Probably no man has ever troubled to imagine how strange his life would appear to himself if it were unrelentingly assessed in terms of his maleness; if everything he wore, said, or did had to be justified by reference to female approval; if he were compelled to regard himself, day in day out, not as a member of society, but merely (salvâ reverentia) as a virile member of society. If the centre of his dress-consciousness were the cod-piece, his education directed to making him a spirited lover and meek paterfamilias; his interests held to be natural only in so far as they were sexual. If from school and lecture-room, Press and pulpit, he heard the persistent outpouring of a shrill and scolding voice, bidding him remember his biological function. If he were vexed by continual advice how to add a rough male touch to his typing, how to be learned without losing his masculine appeal, how to combine chemical research with seduction, how to play bridge without incurring the suspicion of impotence. If, instead of allowing with a smile that "women prefer cave-men," he felt the unrelenting pressure of a whole social structure forcing him to order all his goings in conformity with that pronouncement.”


“Man must work, and woman must exploit his labour. What else are they there for? And if the woman submits, she can be cursed for her exploitation; and if she rebels, she can be cursed for competing with the male: whatever she does will be wrong, and that is a great satisfaction.”

[ShellbyJo · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I feared, we women are, in fact, human.

[Jaslyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend as a pre- or post-Barbie read! (Or both. I decided to read it on the way to the theatre today and then once again after I walked out of the theatre) Sayers mainly focuses on the perils of thinking in and defining people in classes and categories rather than the individual ("What is unreasonable and irritating is to assume that all one's tastes and preferences have to be conditioned by the class to which one belongs") and allowing for equality of opportunity. She also criticises those who regard women as either an inferior or superior class to men--women are, in the end, human, not subhuman or goddesses, and just as good and bad and silly and flawed and reflective of the image of God as men are.

Sayers also adds a few hilarious (but true) comments on the men who object to women wearing trousers ("As a human being, I like comfort and dislike draughts about the ankles. If the trousers do not attract you, so much the worse; for the moment I do not want to attract you. I want to enjoy myself as a human being, and why not?") which I found very entertaining ("[Trousers] are, moreover, hideous beyond description"....)

In conclusion: a very enjoyable and thought provoking read :) and an interesting piece to think on in conversation with the Barbie movie. I was supposed to read this for our book club last year and never did. Good thing I printed it out and kept it near me!!!

[Laura Verret · Rating 4 out of 5]

This slim collection of essays is basically the We Should All Be Feminists of the 1930s, which is to say that, while tiny slivers of its discussion are dated, the majority of the text is pure, glittering gold.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book comprises three essays -- an introduction by Mary McDermott Shideler, then Sayers' own "Are Women Human?" and "The Human-Not-Quite-Human."

The first of Sayers' essays is a 1938 address to a women's society. In it, Sayers explained why she was not pleased with some contemporary trends in feminism. It would be unfortunate, Sayers argued, if the women's movement made the same mistake that men had been making -- to treat women as a class with a single collective end rather than as individuals with unique ends.

The second essay, on the other hand, rebuked Christian churches for failing so often to treat women as equal individuals. In rich sardonic tones, Sayers described what men's lives might be like if they were collectively trivialized as women had been: "if [a man's life] were unrelentingly assessed in terms of his maleness; if everything he wore, said, or did had to be justified by reference to female approval; if he were compelled to regard himself, day in day out, not as a member of society, but merely [...] as a virile member of society. If the centre of his dress-consciousness were the cod-piece, his education directed to making him a spirited lover and meek paterfamilias; his interests held to be natural only in so far as they were sexual. If from school and lecture-room, Press and pulpit, he heard the persistent outpouring of a shrill and scolding voice, bidding him remember his biological function."

[Genni · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man-there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as 'The women, God help us!' or 'The ladies, God bless them!'; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignitiy to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious."

[Jeannette · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am starting to appreciate everything Dorothy L. Sayers has ever written. This is a clear, no nonsense articulation of the role of women and a quick dismissal of all the misunderstandings and popular grievances of feminism. While you read it, you are thinking, “Of course!”

[Katherine B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

You know, you would think all of this would be common sense!

[Autumn · Rating 5 out of 5]

She has some incredible statements in here.

"A woman is just as much an ordinary human being as a man, with the same individual preferences, and with just as much right to the tastes and preferences, and with just as much right to the tastes and preferences of any individual."

"It is perfectly idiotic to take away women's traditional occupations and then complain because she looks for new ones."

"But there are other questions – as, for example, about literature or finance – on which the 'woman's point of view' has no value at all. In fact, it does not exist. No special knowledge is involved, and a woman's opinion on literature or finance is valuable only as the judgment of an individual. I am occasionally desired by congenital imbeciles and the editors of magazines to say something about the writing of detective fiction 'from the woman's point of view.' To such demands, one can only say, 'Go away and don't be so silly. You might as well ask what is the female angle on an equilateral triangle.'"

"What we ask is to be human individuals, however peculiar and unexpected. It is no good saying: 'You are a little girl and therefore you ought to like dolls'; if the answer is, 'But I don't.' there is no more to be said."

"'What,' men have asked distractedly from the beginning of time, 'what on earth do women want?' I do not know that women, as women want anything in particular, but as human beings they want, my good men, exactly what you want yourselves: interesting occupation, reasonable freedom for their pleasures, and a sufficient emotional outlet."

I also liked the part where she flips the narrative and puts a man in the position of a woman and the questions she is daily bombarded is. It shows so clearly how silly it is to treat women that way. Unlike other (often male) reviewers of this book, I did not find her to be catty or bitter at all. Rather she truthfully stated the way of life for a lot of women in a lot of places.

I read some other reviews of this book that said she focused too much on individualism. From my reading, I felt she was saying that just because we label someone as "woman" does not mean that they have a stock set of likes, dislikes, and traits. That, I think, is important. Community, and seeing one's self as part of a community, is vitally important, but we also have to understand that a community is still made up of individuals, each of whom is their own unique person. And we should respect that.

Sayers is charming and funny and now I want to read some of her other books.

[Bronwyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

The "I'm not a feminist but..." thing is quite old, apparently (not that I'm surprised). If this isn't a feminist work though I don't know what is. Such wonderful writings that are still a bit ahead of their time in many ways. The second essay was better and really resonated with me. The first was still very good, but a bit weaker. Really excellent work. Now to read her fiction.

[Annie · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Indeed, it is my experience that both men and women are fundamentally human, and that there is very little mystery about either sex, except the exasperating mysteriousness of human beings in general.”

[Audrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m afraid it’s just as I suspected...


...women ARE human!

[Ashton · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Perhaps it is not wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man - there never has been another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them as ‘The women, God help us!’ or ‘The ladies, God bless them!’; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything ‘funny’ about woman’s nature."

[Carmen · Rating 5 out of 5]

But the fundamental thing is that women are more like men than anything else in the world. They are human beings. Vir is male and Femina is female: but Homo is male and female.
This is the equality claimed and the fact that is persistently evaded and denied. No matter what arguments are used, because Man is always dealt with both Homo and Vir, but Woman only as Femina.

This book has much to recommend it. Very interesting.

[Annie Riggins · Rating 5 out of 5]

An apologist’s argument for the dignity, equality, and responsibility inherent in personhood.

I think if we listen closely to Sayers here, more of us might agree than we think. And from there move towards a society that operates with both strong hands, rather than with one or the other tied behind our back.

[Justin Wiggins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Other than reading a few quotes, some letters, a biography, and a chapter from one her Lord Peter Whimsey books, this is the only full length book by Dorothy Sayers that I have actually read.
I really enjoyed her critique of sexism, and her expounded on her high view of women, which is sane, brilliant, and something I greatly appreciate. Let us all be thankful for the amazing women in our lives.

[Loraena · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little book is a talk Dorothy gave in 1938. I must say, it doesn’t feel like we’ve come very far in the 84 years since!

She is so snarky! I was impressed by her no-holds-barred, super honest, and brave approach (though it appears she was actually talking to a women’s society thus probably didn’t expect it to be published so that makes sense). But the snark had me giggling out loud and also touched some tender places from my own experiences.

But Dorothy gets it. Maybe someday in eternity we can sit together in solidarity. 😂 I love that she ended by pointing us to Jesus, who always treated women with dignity & individuality, even going so far as to say that Mary chose the better part and it couldn’t be taken away from her.

[Rowena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite witty and thought-provoking.

[Frankie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spoiler: They are

[kat · Rating 4 out of 5]

so actually women aren't human. sorry to spoil the book. we are some strange category of alien that has a penchant for hysteria and eating chocolate while talking about needlepoint and our emotional states of being. or something. it's very mysterious and sweet. but no wonder we weren't allowed to vote for so long! it all makes sense now. (the book didn't say most of that. i added the last parts.)

[Kylie Vernon · Rating 4 out of 5]

*spoiler*
are women human? yes.

[Cris · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this slim book, Dorothy Sayers, christian apologist and self-described non-feminist argued at the turn of the 19th century that women had and have the right to pursue any occupation that they are able to perform. She couches this argument based on the common abilities and aspirations of the species regardless of qualifier (vir/femina). Sayers also develops this thesis in part based on a 'work ethic' from other books that says the work is the most important consideration and he who can and wants perform it is the logical person to do it. Sayers was clear that lowering the standards of a job or performing a job for symbolic equality was not what she was advocating. Although, I agreed with a lot of common sense statements in these essays, I also had mixed feelings about the supporting body of arguments and their philosophical sources. I agree that women are first Homo sapiens: souls, intellects, wills and hearts as well as bodies. The argument from purpose is also sound. However, the argument from individualism (a philosophical view that the individual should fulfill his needs/abilities without answering the demands of society), that every woman ought to be viewed independently of her sex seems to me to be flawed. Take that far enough and you have Ayn Rand. In Christian terms, the dignity of the person co-exists with the relationship to God and community. No such thing as a disembodied intellect. (She herself talks about feminine minds and natures.) Something else that bothers is her assertion that men are not measured on the basis of their sex, which I'm not sure is true, but if it were that would be a problem not something to emulate. Why do we not ask: How are that man's choices affecting his ability to be a good father or spouse? We should.

[Noninuna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Are Women Human? is a collection of 2 essays written by Dorothy L. Sayers about feminism in the belief that men & women are equal and should be treated as human on every level of humanity.

When I first seen this book recommended by a Booktuber, I found myself asking out loud, "What do you mean 'Are women human?'?!" because that is a really provocative title if you ask me. However, when I did read it, I can say that this is the 'feminism' that I would totally agree & relate with. The introduction by Mary McDermott Shildeler is really helpful as it shed some light of who Dorothy L. Sayers to someone like me, who found her through this book rather than her works.