Marriage during the eighteenth-century can only be described as servitude: women were viewed only as property to men. Despite the degrading and objectifying rhetoric of men during this period, there are a few women who are strong enough to know their worth and try and inspire other women with their literary prowess.

Song (“Love a woman? You’re an ass!”) is a full frontal attack on the existence of women. John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, author of the poem, is said to have drunkenly smashed clocks in his spare time, has been imprisoned for attempted abduction, ran away during a fight, and after he died, haunted people to correct their poetry. Wilmot is nothing short of machismo. In his poem Song (“Love a woman? You’re an ass!”), Wilmot invalidates women by essentially referring to them as mistakes, “Love a woman? You’re an ass!/’Tis a most insipid passion/To choose out for your happiness/The silliest part of God’s creation." Assuming he’s talking to one of the members in his circle, Wilmot also suggests that loving a woman is stupid and that there are other things that could make a man happy; which, according to his rap sheet seems like getting drunk and abducting women. “Farewell, woman! I intend/ Henceforth every night to sit/With my lewd, well-natured friend,/drinking to engender wit." This quote is quite interesting because it has striking similarity to President-elect Donald Trump’s comments about women. In 2005, Billy Bush was interviewing President-elect Donald Trump and when the cameras were not rolling, Trump said:

"I did try and fuck her. She was married… I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look… I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

For the next month that follows, the word “lewd” shows up on every major news outlet. Trump then apologizes and understates his comments about his unwarranted sexual advances toward women as “locker room talk”. Although Wilmot does not apologize for his comments per se, the rhetoric is the same nonetheless: Wilmot degrades women and then says that he’ll be drinking with his friends after, implying “locker room talk”. Men in the eighteenth century, and even still today, don’t hold women to any regard whatsoever.

In her poem To the Ladies, Lady Chudleigh scrutinizes marriage, “Wife and servant are the same…/For when that fatal knot is tied,/ Which nothing, nothing can divide…/Like mutes she signs alone must make,/And never any freedom take. Chudleigh is essentially warning women to stay away from men of Wilmot’s nature because once that knot is tied women have no more freedom, although, technically, they never had any during this era. Later in the poem Chudleigh advises women to love themselves before loving a man, if they’re smart, “Value your selves, and men despise,/You must be proud, if you’ll be wise." This is her final caution to women contemplating marriage. Chudleigh was married into an aristocratic family at seventeen; which leads me to believe this is a “don’t make the same mistake I did” poem. Although Chudleigh is not fond of marriage, she wants women to first love themselves before doing so.

Another feminine perspective on marriage comes from Mary Astell. In her piece, Some Reflections upon Marriage, Astell too warns women about the dangers of marriages and describes married life for men as domineering, “…he looks down on [women] as void of understanding, and full of ignorance and passion, so that folly and a woman are equivalent terms with him”; and advises that “[men] should treat women with a little more humanity and regard than is usually paid them." Astell uses different variations of “expect” to illustrate the male perspective:

"We were not made to idolize one another, yet the whole strain of courtship is little less than rank idolatry. But does a man intend to give and not receive his share in this religious worship? No such matter; pride and vanity and self-love have their designs, and if the lover is so condescending as to set a pattern in the time of his address, he is so just as to expect his wife should strictly copy after it all the rest of her life."

The patriarchal perspective of marriage only fosters greed, which in today’s society informs rape culture—this idea, that when men pay for dinner he expects something in return from his date, stains college campuses around the country. Astell believes that men have it good in society just by virtue of claiming the title “husband”:

"A husband indeed is thought by both sexes so very valuable, that scarce a man who can keep himself clean and make a bow, but thinks he is good enough to pretend to any woman, no matter for the difference of birth of fortune, a husband is such a wonder-working name as to make an equality, or something more, whenever it is pronounced."

The seven-letter word is what creates the degenerative dyad of husband—slave.

When it comes to married life for women, Astell believes that it is stunts ambition in women and that they have been conditioned to believe that their only purpose in life is to get married. She is incredibly wise on the subject of marriage and even uses utilitarian philosophy to explain patriarchy: “A woman that is not mistress of her passions, that cannot patiently submit even when reason suffers with her, who does not practice passive obedience to the utmost, will never be acceptable to such an absolute sovereign as a husband." Decisions made using utilitarian ideals are made to avoid pain and to gain pleasure and in the eighteenth century what constituted pain and pleasure was for men to decide. Astell also asserts that marriage is incredibly tasking, “A woman cannot be too watchful, too apprehensive of her danger, nor keep at too great a distance from it, since man whose wisdom and ingenuity is so much superior to hers, condescends for his interest sometimes, and sometimes by way of diversion, to lay snares for her." Women are seen as games for men to play with when they are bored; men “snares” at them “by way of diversion” as if they have nothing better to do.

The list of things the wife has to do in order to please her husband and be a “good” wife is ambiguous and unrealistic. It’s the list such as the one Astell lays out for the reader which allow people to say “if only you didn’t wear [enter whatever you’d like here]” or “you didn’t act [enter whatever you’d like here]”, to victims of rape. Astell additionally concludes that women are subjected to a life of subservience under marriage:

"She then who marries ought to lay it down for an indisputable maxim, that her husband must govern absolutely and entirely, and that she has nothing else to do but to please and obey. She must not attempt to divide his authority, or so much as dispute it…but must believe him wise and good in all respects the best…she may set up for that peculiar coronet the ancient fathers talked of, but is not qualified to receive that great reward, which attends the eminent exercise of humility and self-denial, patience and resignation—the duties that a wife is called to do."

The wife has to give up everything and let her husband control every aspect of living and if she doesn’t she won’t get the crown promised by, you guessed it, men.

Like stated before, utilitarianism is philosophy that states decisions and actions are just if they benefit the majority and not the minority. It also states that the purpose of life is to avoid pain and gain pleasure. Utilitarianism perforates our education system today: when teachers ask students if they would like to take a test on one day instead of another and picks the day the majority of students raised their hand for, they are practicing utilitarianism. In regards to marriage, I believe the utilitarian approach is in the best interest for women during the eighteenth-century. In her book, Bentham, Law and Marriage: A Utilitarian Code of Law in Historical Contexts, Mary Sokol examines Bentham’s utilitarianism in different historical contexts; marriage being one. She outlines his marriage contract:

"Bentham's model contract set out some terms and conditions which he intended would be implied by law into every marriage contract…The first term of his model contract was the subordination of a wife to her husband's authority, which meant that during their marriage administrative decisions were for the man alone. The second term required husbands and wives to make reciprocal promises to be faithful to each other. The third term addressed property rights: all property was to be held in common by husband and wife during their marriage…Lastly, the duration of the marriage was to be for an indefinite term, rather than for life…his overall aim is clear: he wished to reconcile private interests with public needs. His model contract [gave] ‘all that the parties may wish'."

I believe that these terms are in the best interest of the woman; it is a better alternative to the way they are being treated during this era. Before the contract, women were subjected to lifetime of servitude; with the contract, women are in control of their lives. Sure, they would have to be subordinate to their husband as laid out in the first term, but they could negotiate their interests in the second and third terms. This finally allows women the ability to gain something from marriage; something they have not been able to do until recently. Chudleigh and Astell provide an alternate view to one of the most upheld constitution in the world, cautioning women to love themselves and to not give up their ambitions for any man. These pieces of literature are important to the feminist movement of the eighteenth-century.