Judith Sargent Murray’s essay “On the Equality of the Sexes’’ was first written for private circulation in 1770. It was revised and published in 1790 in two parts in The Massachusetts Magazine. Composed before the Revolutionary War and published after the end of the war, this piece falls into the American literary period of the Revolutionary Age. Murray was well-educated for a woman of her time and was a published poet, essayist, and playwright, as well as an advocate for women’s rights. Her most influential work, “On the Equality of the Sexes” argues that women, while often cast as the inferior sex, are intellectual equals to their male counterparts. Murray addresses disparities in social expectations and educational opportunities as a means to offer women an equal space in the intellectual world.

Drawing on the influential theories of John Locke (1632-1704) on natural freedom, equality, and rights, Murray’s essay is an early example of feminist discourse at a time when the nature of the state, society, and human relations were in flux. It was published two years before Mary Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication on the Rights of Woman,” and was an early and highly influential work on the subject of women’s equality.

This guide uses the version of the essay published in Selected Writings of Judith Sargent Murray, ed. Sharon M. Harris, OUP, 1995, available from the National Humanities Center online. Citations are to page numbers for prose and to line numbers for the introductory poem.

Murray’s essay is divided into three parts: an original poem and two prose parts.

In her poem, Murray begins by admitting that all minds aren’t equal: Some soar far above others (she takes Isaac Newton as an example). Murray indicates that natural intelligence combined with devotion to study results in the most finely tuned mind. Murray acknowledges that there are many people who do not actively pursue or desire knowledge, and she describes those who shun knowledge as deviating from God’s design. In contrast, she applauds the individual who seeks knowledge and order. Murray does not condone the belief that these differences in mental capacity correlate with sex. Murray pushes back against the belief that women are mentally inferior by stating that some men have “sunk so low” that women could hardly be worse (33). Ultimately, she concludes that it is only the bodies of males and females that differ, as she views the human soul as sexless.

Murray begins her prose essay by questioning whether nature has actually been partial in her division of intellect between the sexes (Murray uses female pronouns to refer to nature), dividing up the human intellect into four categories—imagination, reason, memory, and judgment—which she addresses in turn.

Murray asserts that women are already winning out in the realm of imagination. She argues that allowing female imaginations to be engaged in more meaningful pursuits would have advantageous results for society as a whole. Next, Murray addresses the faculty of reason. She argues that women are not deficient in reason, although they are often said to be. She points to the limitations placed on women’s education, limiting the knowledge they have access to and preventing them from learning reasoning skills when compared to men. Addressing memory, Murray argues that this faculty too has been assigned equally. In support of her arguments, she states that both an old woman and an old man are just as capable and as likely to share memories of their lives. Turning to judgment, Murray asks whether the judgment of a two-year-old boy or a two-year-old girl is best. In her opinion, the two-year-old girl has the best judgment: Social conditioning and lack of opportunity later prevent girls and women from maintaining their naturally superior judgment. Murray points to women’s limited education and confinement to domestic pursuits as the central reasons for this deficit.

Next, Murray explores how the limitations placed on women can affect their individual happiness. She says that the suppression of women into a false position of intellectual inferiority creates a “void” and a central unhappiness. She suggests that this suppression results directly in a bitterness toward men, including one’s husband, as men are not confined by the same limitations. Murray believes the opportunity to study would make women better and more equal wives, creating happier marriages.

Addressing domestic expectations, Murray points out the menial nature of much of this work: Once a domestic skill has been learned, it takes little mental effort to replicate it. A woman’s mind and imagination may be on other things while meeting her domestic expectations, and women are therefore not defined by their domestic role. Murray emphasizes her view that menial tasks, like making a pudding or sewing, are not sufficient to fulfill an individual’s purpose.

Turning to physical strength, Murray points out that the strength of one’s mental capacities must not be based on physical strength. Although men generally have more physical strength, she emphasizes that this does not indicate mental superiority. Men and women vary in physical size and strength: Different size between men does not correlate to different intelligence, and it follows that it would not do so between men and women. Indeed, Murray suggests that it is logical that if one sex has been given superior mental faculties, it would be women, as men have superior physical strength. She retracts however, stating that she argues only for equality, not for superiority. 

In the second part of the essay, Murray addresses issues of equality by rebutting misogynistic arguments that cite Bible teaching. She begins by highlighting examples of men who floundered in the Bible. She accuses David of “licentious passions” and Job of lacking both “perfection” and “patience” (5). As such, she argues that these failures undermine efforts to present men as the superior sex in the Bible.

Murray addresses those who argue that female study would take away time from domestic duties. She suggests that “early hours” and “close application” would keep a woman’s studies from interfering with her domestic duties (6). She points out that men have equivalent duties and possibly less time for study. She points out that men benefit from a neat home and regulated family life, and that this partnership should be based on respect and reciprocity.

Murray returns to the supposed superiority of men as displayed by the Bible. Murray states that she reads the Bible as allegory, although many cite it as factual truth, or at least those parts that suit their purposes. Once of these often referenced parts is the story of the Fall. Murray intends to examine this Bible story to dismantle its evidence for female inferiority. Murray points out that Eve was not seduced by a serpent but by an angel: This word was misinterpreted from Hebrew, and “angel” is a more accurate translation. Thus, the angel seduced Eve with the offer of knowledge. Murray notes that Eve’s desire for knowledge was a sensible and honorable desire. Murray argues that no attempt was made by the angel to seduce Adam, and that Adam was able to see the immediate results of Eve’s seduction.

Murray, however, points out that Adam still chose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge after seeing that Eve had done so, which presents a much lesser form of persuasion than the angel’s to Eve. Murray describes Adam as a representation of Jesus, one filled with grace and faith, and one who behaved in partnership with Eve. Murray argues that the biblical parallel of men with strength and women with weakness is part of its allegorical purpose, and not evidence for life. In closing, Murray reemphasizes that both men and women are equal in soul and mind.