Mary Astell’s proposal was unique in its time. It had previously been assumed due to bias and pseudoscience that women were inherently inferior to men, and therefore only suitable to be the property of their husbands, and the caretakers of their homes. Written in 1694, a modern proposal was one of few writings in politics dedicated to women. Astell wanted to reach women specifically, hoping that her claim (women, if properly educated, had potential to be equal to, if not better than men) would ring true to the literate upper to middle-class ladies she focused on. It is also worth mentioning that she most likely suggested women learn in church convents because the church was one area that women were expected to be passionate about, and men were more likely to support a woman getting an education to increase her piety than to increase her career opportunities. Essentially she was doing her best to make sure her proposal reached an accepting audience and that it had at least some appeal to those who might’ve opposed it.
Astell’s argument was based on several fundamental points. Firstly, women had as much potential as men but were being held back by society’s expectations of them and by the amount of education and opportunities they received. Secondly, women are often treated as fundamentally sinful creatures, but most of their sins come out of ignorance, and increased education would actually make women more faithful to their religion. Finally, she emphasized that women weren’t living up to their full potential and could be taking steps to rectify this.
In the 1600’s women had very few opportunities outside the home, and even the wealthiest girls were often given only a courtly education (an education that consisted mostly in studying classic literature, art, instruments, and dancing). In other words, women were only taught things that would make them useful wives. Men have asserted that women were so dependent on their husbands because they were only fit for life in the home and not in the workforce, but Astell argued that educated and capable women were completely possible but in limiting what a girl learned, you limited her independence and usefulness to society. In one of the few metaphors in A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Astell compares girls to crops. She says that the soil crops are grown is only can only do so much for the crops, and can only be blamed for so much. The rest of the plant’s quality is due to its tending via its farmers. If weeds are allowed to grow, even encouraged, the farmer has no one to blame but himself for the bad harvest. In terms of people this means that if you make a conscious choice to raise half your children poorly based on something as trivial as gender, you have no right be shocked when they are less successful in society than the half you provided advantages to. She says that men can’t be surprised that women are a burden to them because the men before them chose to raise their daughters in a way that makes them dependent and ignorant.
Astell also emphasized that women are taught religion but not the meaning behind it under the assumption that the Bible's concepts are too broad for their understanding, but if women were taught the meaning behind what had been preached to them, they may have been more eager to embrace piety and the teachings of the church.
Astell also talked a fair amount about vanity and why girls valued looks so much. As children girls were taught that their looks were their greatest assets. Girls during the renaissance were treated like a product, they were groomed for marriage and told it was their greatest duty to attract men. Therefore as adults, women continued to cultivate their image, because they believed it was the source of their value. Astell reminded girls that the mind was far more beautiful than the body and that they were doing themselves a disservice by not finding value in things of substance. She knew that the courtly education often consisted of learning French so she suggested they read the French philosophers rather than French romances.
