Analysis of William Hazlitt’s “Education of Women”

In “Education of Women”, William Hazlitt outlines the extent of which women should be educated. He characterizes women as simplistic creatures who have no use for classical education because they only care about the present. They are incapable of thinking rationally and “have no passion for truth.” Hazlitt makes a further observation that although women have a “greater flexibility of mind” when it comes to art (dance, singing, acting, novel-writing), they have no passion or imagination when it comes to more reasonable professions, such as mathematicians, metaphysicians, poets, or painters. Furthermore, women have the capabilities to ruin a respectable man and his values; women “have no real respect for men” and see nothing of men’s characteristics. In writing this essay, Hazlitt wishes to stress his opinion that “classical education [is not] proper for women” because of they care only about the present and appearances, opposed to truth and reason.

Hazlitt’s purpose in writing “Education of Women” is to define the areas in which women should and should not be educated. Hazlitt structures his arguments by laying out a claim, offering generalized assumptions and speculations to support his claim, then concluding that his claim is true. He also uses some rhetorical devices in his writing to some extent to further appeal to the reader. He empathizes with the majority of the male audience in his criticisms of women; for example, he writes about women who have degenerated respectable men. He evokes further emotional reactions from his male readers by characterizing women as “mere egoists” who care only about appearances and not by character traits. However, Hazlitt does not effectively appeal to women’s emotions, as he is passionately decrying them. He also does not establish credibility with his readers, as he mentions nothing that proves his superiority in all his claims about women. His use of logic throughout his arguments is flawed as well; he does not prove his claims using sound and proven reasoning; instead, he supports his claims with subjective and mere speculative reasoning.

Nonetheless, Hazlitt is able to effectively implement rhetorical devices to convey his belief. Uses of anaphora, such as “Their poetry, their criticism, their politics, their morality” serve to emphasize his preceding statement that “they are mere egoists.” Through his effective use of repetition of “their”, he makes it sound like all women care about is themselves, which essentially is what defines an egoist. Hazlitt’s use of expletive, in “We have, indeed, seen instances of men” also serves to emphasize his points and, with his use of other rhetorical devices, enables his ideas to easily stay in his reader’s minds. A metaphor is given as well, such as in “they are the creatures of the circumstances”, which creates a vivid image in the reader’s mind, helping him to further understand Hazlitt’s explanations and arguments. Furthermore, the overall tone of the essay testifies to the fact that Hazlitt feels extremely passionate about his writing. His statements almost appear to directly touch the reader’s heart, and he seems as if he were speaking directly to them.

Personally, I do not agree with the author of the essay. Not only are his justifications for his demeaning statements biased and superficial in nature, but they are also clearly faulty, especially in today’s society. Sure, women, as well as men, have demonstrated their abilities in music and literature, but alongside that, they have also proven themselves to be successful politicians, scientists, and painters. There are a number of examples of women who have met or even surpassed the abilities of that of men, such as Marie Curie, who was the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering radium, a breakthrough in the scientific community of the time. There are also cases of women “who could reason”, such as Ayn Rand, a notable philosopher proponent of pure capitalism, as well as the pioneer of the Objectivism movement. From such examples as well as my personal experiences, I counter Hazlitt’s claims, and disagree with him on all levels.

Overall, the writing of the pieces fails to convince the audiences, at least in present societies. The sexist viewpoints remain offensive, and Hazlitt’s “facts” are simple rants without any justifications. Moreover, Hazlitt only appears to damage his reputation when he makes statements such as, “The writer never met with any woman who could reason” Despite the fact that these generalizations might have been regarded as undeniably true in the past, our progress in society has allowed us to grow beyond the narrow-minded mindset of our ancestors.