Some Reflections upon Marriage
Mary Astell, in ‘Some Reflections upon Marriage,’ seems to challenge traditional beliefs about women’s subordination in marriage. However, her conservative beliefs about politics and religion contradict her notion that women should be free from marriage slavery. Women in the 17th and 18th centuries were treated as subjects to men, suffering silently. Astell understands that women are equal human beings to males and have the right to adequate treatment and voice. She highlights gender inequality within society by citing philosopher John Locke’s claim, ‘Men are born free.’ Astell argues that males are hypocrites for fighting for freedom against dictatorship, and yet they refuse to portray a similar sense of liberty to women in their marriages.
However, the author contradicts herself when she states that a woman who gets married selects a king for life. It appears that she supports male domination over women in a marriage setting. Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean that women are born to suffer in marriage systems and are loyal companions to their husbands. Being a religious conservative, she understood the essence of women’s subornation to their husbands. Though, society may have tainted its meaning by elevating masculinity culture. This perspective is why she compares a wife’s responsibilities with the duties of subjects to obey their king. A king should ensure that his people are happy, fed, and protected, which should be the case for a man to his woman.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Some Reflections upon Marriage
I have uploaded my classmate’s response to use as an example of how I will like my post to be written as well, straightforward, and to the point.
Some Reflections upon Marriage
Classmates Response (EXAMPLE):
When reading the preface of, “Some Reflections upon Marriage,” by Mary Astell I couldn’t help but feel an array of negative emotions on her gender views. A part of me can also understand because at that time things were completely different, a woman’s role was to please the husband; treat him as the king. But her words are also confusing as she says if a woman chooses to get married she chooses a king for life. To me this seems like they’re choosing to be treated as slaves which I’m sure they weren’t. She protested this as she wanted freedom for relationships, for women not to be treated as slaves. Like John Locke‘s claim, “men are born free,” all while the woman was bound. From what I understood from the excerpt there had to be someone who had ultimate authority because, “no society can exist without putting power in some ultimate authority to decide differences of opinion.” So men were deemed unfit because they could protect women with their strength as women had the, “least bodily strength.”