Mary Astell is often attributed as England's first feminist due to her writings which questioned late gender politics from the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. For its time, Astell's writings were revolutionary. She examined the nature of gender bias in a way that overturned common understandings of gender and marriage and supported women's autonomy and equal educational opportunities. In A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Astell explores the role of custom in perpetuating female subjugation, and she argues that it would be more beneficial for women to ignore the custom of privileging the physical body over to the mind in exchange for focusing on the mind. mental and spiritual development. Say no to plagiarism. Get Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssayAstell writes on the importance of female thinking and she strongly believes that women should focus on expanding their minds rather than being obsessed with their bodies. In Some Thoughts on Marriage, Astell continues her first feminist examination of gender politics. Astell examines the marriage customs of the time and she moves away from the idea that a woman's only true goal is to marry and have children. The rigidly sexist climate in which Astell lived made her writings seem radical at the time, but modern feminist critics can recognize that Astell's version of feminism was particularly conservative compared to modern feminism. While Astell was very supportive of a certain degree of female autonomy, her writings demonstrate a clear influence of the overwhelming patriarchal views of her environment which weakened her position as a feminist by modern perspectives. Some aspects of Astell's argument about gender demonstrate an incredibly avant-garde way of thinking for the 17th and 18th centuries. In A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Astell blames societal customs for the subjugation of women and women's acceptance of their subjugating roles. She argues that society's emphasis on beauty and physical being forces women to ignore their spiritual identity. Astell writes: “It is therefore a custom, this tyrannical custom, which is the great motive of all these irrational choices that we daily see made in the world, so contrary to our present interest and pleasure, as well as to our future. » (356). Astell's exploration of the source of gender bias is very much in line with modern feminist ideology. There is still a modern belief that societal customs, such as the sexual objectification of women, continue to impact perceptions of femininity and the role of women in society. In Feminist Interpretations of Mary Astell, Alice Sowaal and Penny A. Weiss note the contemporary ideology of Astell's claims. They write: Recent scholars have highlighted modern feminist sentiment in these words. […] Astell suggests that women are at a disadvantage compared to men – or that they have a certain “disability” because of their femininity – but that their disability is a social construct rather than the product of nature or biology . (Sowaal and Weiss) Astell's logic in A Serious Proposal to the Ladies seems strongly feminist in its defense of women and their abilities. Like modern feminists, Astell recognizes the role that societal norms play in a woman's ability to be seen as equal. By writing A Serious Proposal to theLadies, Astell did not necessarily intend to be a proponent of radical equality for women. Astell, a supporter of the Church of England, only wanted to encourage women to seek the same comprehension skills as men so that they could understand their religion on a deeper, more spiritual level. Astell “affirmed that reason imbues human beings with divinity” (John 31). Her desires were to bring women closer to their spirituality, but this implies that she believed that women were, in fact, not then capable of using reason on their own. By modern feminist standards, it could be argued that Astell was slightly misogynistic in his perception of women as base and currently incapable of critical thought. Modern feminists may recognize that although Astell appears to be in favor of some form of equality, her ideology is based on patriarchal assumptions about women. Astell writes: “By habitual inadvertence we render ourselves incapable of all serious and improved thought, until our mind itself becomes as light and frothy as the things with which it is familiar” (356). This ideology is unintentionally influenced by patriarchal views. Although Astell intended to improve women with his writings, it can be seen that his perception of women was very much influenced by the societal norms of the time. For Astell to believe that women need improvement, she recognizes that women are, as patriarchal ideals suggest, insufficient in their current form and that they have something to improve upon. She presents women as almost oblivious and indifferent to the flaws they offer. This notion can be seen as a reinforcement of the empty-headed female stereotype of Astell's time and today. Astell's "proto-feminism", as described by William Kolbrener in Mary Astell: Reason, Gender, Faith, was certainly much more accommodating to the existing idea that women were inferior or imperfect, whether because of inherent corruption or societal influence, than modern “proto-feminism.” feminism allows it (193). Indeed, Astell's feminism is so different from modern feminism that it requires a new word to describe it. “Proto-feminism” describes Astell’s ideology perfectly. Although Astell produced feminist concepts, they were truly conservative by today's standards. Astell's staunchly conservative religious and political views were at odds with none of her feminist ideals, weakening her position as a feminist, at least from modern perspectives. Kinnaird notes: “In A Serious Proposal she does not advocate for universities to admit women. as well as men to access the liberal professions and participate in the public life of the nation” (Kinnaird 64). Astell's concerns in A Serious Proposal were largely religious and did not necessarily advocate for women's rights as a whole. In fact, she wants her readers to recognize that she isn't too vocal about women's equality. She writes: “We do not claim that women should teach in the Church, or usurp authority where they are not permitted to do so; only allow us to understand our own duty” (361). She is more interested in the female relationship with God than the female role in society when exploring the idea of ​​female autonomy, and she explicitly states that she wishes to change the role of women in society. Instead, she implies that women have false piety and offers them advice on how to improve their spirituality.