Pathway to Japanese Literature

1. Since women grow up and enter others’ households to serve their parents-in-law, parents must not be more negligent in educating them than they are with their sons.
2. If parents doted on and indulged their daughter without restraint, she would enter her husband’s household self-willed and estranged from him; or if her parents-in-law’s teachings proved excessively strict, she would find them intolerable—nursing resentment toward them until relations soured and she was ultimately cast out to suffer public disgrace.
3. Those parents who fixated solely on blaming their daughter’s parents-in-law or husband while ignoring their own failure to instruct her were gravely mistaken.
4. All such misfortunes arose from inadequate education provided by daughters’ parents.

Those who grew up and went to others’ households were not limited to women; men too—specifically second and third sons below the eldest—followed the custom of entering other families as adopted heirs. Since the human world maintained equal numbers of men and women, it stood to reason that those who grew up and went to others’ households must also have been exactly equal in number. Some might have argued men differed because they could branch off to become independent household heads, but in families with many daughters, it had been common practice to keep one daughter at home, adopt a son-in-law as heir to continue the main family line, and similarly have other sisters establish branch households through adopted sons-in-law—examples of this abounded in society. Thus, while the notion that parents must not neglect their children’s education had been entirely proper—this much might be granted—to single out women over men in this matter remained untenable. If parents doted on boys and indulged them without restraint, would that not have been problematic? Should such a boy enter his adoptive household, behave self-indulgently, ruin himself, and become estranged from his wife; or resent and slander his father-in-law over trivial matters, stirring up turmoil within the household—would being finally divorced not have brought sufficient disgrace upon him? Such absurdity ought not to have existed. What was shameful for women had been equally shameful for men. Therefore, parents instructing their children had been most commendable. Though it had been an inescapable duty of parents to educate their children, to place emphasis on instruction solely for daughters—this revealed a fundamental error in the very basis of such arguments. Some in society had argued that parental instruction was like good medicine for children—if its underlying intent were noble, then prioritizing daughters over sons in such teaching need not be questioned—but this constituted a grave error. Fundamentally, the act of imparting education to one’s children and raising them to completion had been like administering medicine to a patient in appropriate doses. Should they err in its dosage, even good medicine might instead have caused harm. Therefore, when parents raised their child—even if the underlying intent of their instruction had been noble—to enforce it with particular strictness solely because the child was a girl differed not at all from adjusting medication dosage for male and female patients suffering from the same condition. If the dosage proved appropriate for women, men would have felt it insufficient; if adjusted to suit men, women’s dosage became excessive and they inevitably suffered adverse effects. The statement that “girls, compared to boys, must not have their parents’ teaching neglected nor be allowed to become self-willed” could only have meant that parents must devote particular care to policing girls’ words and deeds, guiding them toward gentleness, kindness, respectfulness, and humility. Gentleness, kindness, respectfulness, and humility were indeed human virtues, but to say that one must not neglect their instruction solely for women could only have meant emphasizing their underlying principles exclusively for women. To put it in terms of medicine, this would have meant administering an excessive dosage exclusively to women—but when reaching this point, it became highly doubtful whether women’s capacity could truly endure such a heavy dose of instruction without suffering adverse effects. Once they suffered adverse effects from the teachings of gentleness, kindness, respectfulness, humility, meekness, and forbearance, they became restrained in all matters, lost opportunities for active engagement in life—failing to speak when they should speak, act when they should act, listen when they should listen, and know when they should know—ultimately making it impossible to avoid falling into the poisonous harm of being insulted and toyed with by men. Therefore, while the intent of this chapter might have seemed noble on the surface, its act of distinguishing men and women by emphasizing women’s need for stricter instruction constituted nothing less than a millennial grievance against women.

1. Women should value inner character over outward appearance.
Heartless beauties—restless in mind and fearsome in gaze—speak harshly without restraint in their angry words, take precedence over others in speech, harbor resentment and jealousy toward others, pride themselves on their status, slander and mock others, and assume a superior appearance over others: all these deviate from the proper path for women.
Women should regard conforming to harmony, being deeply devoted to chastity and fidelity, and maintaining serenity as the marks of virtue.

First and foremost, the text proclaims that women should value inner character surpassing outward appearance.
Since women naturally place importance on beauty, [the text] records that valuing inner qualities surpassing mere appearance is virtuous and skillfully emphasizes this in its prose; however, this should be regarded merely as a rhetorician’s artifice.
The subsequent articles enumerating women’s vices are, as written, nothing but vices.
Such conduct as being restless in spirit and fearsome in gaze—utterly unbecoming of upper-class individuals—not only deviates from the proper path for women but also violates that for men.
A coarse temperament, a terrifying gaze, a readiness to vent anger at others, crude speech that reviles freely, resenting and envying others while scheming to rise above them, pridefully disparaging others yet remaining self-satisfied even when ridiculed—such utterly contemptible conduct constitutes immorality that must not be permitted, regardless of whether it comes from men or women.
Human beings should be gentle and harmonious, chaste and faithful, deeply compassionate, and serene in mind.
While these teachings are truly flawless and exactly as they should be, this chapter particularly applies them solely to women—admonishing and exhorting women alone by declaring that “such conduct deviates from the proper path for women” and “the proper path for women should be thus”—a reasoning difficult to comprehend.
For instance, teachings that exclusively instruct women—such as advising specific prenatal regimens during pregnancy due to their natural obligation to bear children—may sound perfectly reasonable, yet it is absurd to enumerate vices that neither men nor women should commit and present moral principles that both should uphold, only to censure women alone.
A dog that bites people yet fails to guard the night is a vicious dog, an incompetent dog.
Yet to confine this viciousness and incompetence solely to female dogs, and then condemn only them for biting people and failing to guard the night, is utterly unreasonable.
If it is a male dog, would it not be problematic even if vicious or incompetent?
The argument is lopsided, one might say.
Indeed, though the compiler of *Onna Daigaku* is a renowned scholar, since they derive all their arguments from Chinese traditions, they cannot escape the taint of male chauvinism.
In all seriousness, though the bad customs of men—who neglect their domestic duties while meddling in external affairs and are quick to reprimand and abuse others—are far more prevalent, they turn a blind eye to such behavior and single out women’s immorality for censure; this can only be called the biased arguments of Confucianism.

1. From a young age, girls were required to strictly distinguish between men and women and forbidden from witnessing or hearing even fleeting instances of playful interaction.
2. Ancient rites dictated that men and women must not share seating arrangements; must store their garments separately; must refrain from bathing in shared spaces; must avoid direct hand-to-hand transfer of objects; must carry candles when moving about at night; and must maintain proper separation—a rule applying even between husbands and wives or brothers and sisters.

Contemporary households, ignorant of such laws, disrupted proper conduct and tarnished their reputations; there were those who brought disgrace upon their parents and siblings and wasted their entire lives.
Was this not galling?
A woman did not associate [with men] unless by her parents’ command and through a go-between—a precept also found in the *Elementary Learning*.
Even were one to lose their life, they should keep their heart as firm as metal or stone and uphold righteousness.

It declared that from earliest childhood, boys and girls must be strictly separated and must not be allowed to witness even the slightest hint of playfulness.
This could only mean ensuring they neither saw nor heard anything lewd or impure.
A supreme lesson indeed.
All these matters lay within family customs; when the household master—father to young children—behaved improperly, keeping concubines at home while carousing in pleasure quarters, then however earnestly one might seek to instruct the children, their exposure to such lewd models within their own home rendered even a thousand admonitions void.

Moreover, while it is indeed commendable that ancient rites prescribed the separation of men and women’s seating and so forth, in today’s complex civilized world, whether such ancient customs should still be practiced merits careful consideration.
This too is akin to what one might call oratorical flourishes or hard-sell tactics—superficial teachings that assume such severe warnings might at least garner some heed—but if one earnestly seeks to enforce these ancient rites in practice, they will amount to mere outward ceremonies while breeding profound dysfunction beneath the surface.
The purity or impurity of male-female interactions hinges entirely on the quality of their character. For instance, through the lens of Chinese doctrine, one might dismiss the noblewomen and gentlemen of Western nations—who converse and laugh together, share meals and seats (though not baths), pass objects hand-to-hand, or even clasp hands as a greeting—as uncouth barbarians lacking propriety or gender distinction. Yet observe their true substance: these “uncouth barbarians” are anything but uncivilized, for many among them possess conduct as clean and unyielding as metal or stone—how can this be?
Ultimately, one cannot help but conclude that this is because their noble character transcends base sexual desire.
Once there was a certain scholar in Tokyo who took great delight in Western civilization, affecting an air of progressive improvement in all matters—yet in truth, he was merely a product of Chinese tradition thinly gilded with Western trappings. When it came to morality, he constantly invoked Zhou Gong and Confucius, advocating for the doctrines of the *Elementary Learning* and *Onna Daigaku* in educating his children. His household rules were most stringent; even when parent and child interacted, it was as if receiving guests—never once did their conduct lapse. Yet pitifully, this master of the house conducted himself improperly, indulging in licentious acts: keeping concubines at home while dallying with women of low profession abroad. Moreover, this man hailed from a certain region; having left his legitimate wife in his hometown, he came to Tokyo and took a second wife—so-called monogamy aside, this chaotic arrangement of two wives and several concubines meant that his children, under their stern father’s roof, trembled before his severe commands and obeyed all things meekly, yet none ever truly respected him.
Over time, those children studied the *Elementary Learning* to become unfilial offspring, memorized *Onna Daigaku* to become licentious women, and thus produced beasts from a Confucian household—how laughable this is!
Therefore, in male-female interactions, it is the substance of character rather than external ceremonies that is essential.
If one wishes to cultivate noble character in women and prevent their names from being tainted, then first and foremost, parents must correct their own conduct and demonstrate exemplary behavior to their children morning and evening.
They say that marriage will not be achieved unless it is through the parents’ command and a matchmaker.
This too is perfectly reasonable.

Article 771 of the Civil Code’s Family Register Section states:

When children married, they had to obtain consent from the parents residing in their household; however, this provision did not apply to men who had reached thirty years of age or women who had reached twenty-five years of age.

It stated.
Since marriage was a grave matter for humans, it could not be achieved without parental consent; however, forcing children to comply with their parents’ opinions proved even more unachievable.
It was something heard repeatedly—parents attempting to forcibly marry their daughters to certain men for their own reasons, thereby causing grave errors.
Therefore, even when men and women were below thirty or twenty-five years of age respectively, forcibly marrying them through parental command remained impermissible.
Moreover, from the child’s perspective, even if they had reached thirty or twenty-five years of age or more, as long as their parents lived, it would have been prudent to consult them openly and seek agreement.
The law existed solely to prepare for extreme cases.
The affection between parent and child was not something as distant as water.
All parties were to take this to heart.
Now, the teaching that “even if you were to lose your life after marriage, you must keep your heart as firm as metal or stone and commit no wrongdoing” stood as an excellent lesson both men and women should have upheld. Yet when examining our nation’s traditional customs—where polygamy’s abuses ran rampant while polyandry remained exceedingly rare—it was men in particular who ought to have been expected to possess such hearts of metal or stone.
However, setting aside these men to admonish only women—though this meticulous teaching might have seemed commendable—could only be called somewhat misguided.

1. Since women are to regard their husband’s home as their own home, in China they say a bride may be returned.
Even if her husband’s household were poor and lowly, she must not resent him.
To consider poverty in the household bestowed by heaven as arising from her own ill fortune and to regard never leaving that household once married as women’s proper path—this was the teaching of ancient sages.
If a woman violated this proper path and was cast out, it became a lifelong disgrace.
Therefore for women there existed what was called the Seven Grounds for Divorce—seven reprehensible acts.
First: A woman who did not obey her parents-in-law shall be cast out.
Second: A woman without children shall be cast out.
This was because taking a wife served the purpose of continuing one’s lineage.
However, if a woman’s heart remained upright, her conduct proper and free from jealousy—even if not cast out—she should adopt a child sharing her husband’s surname.
Or if a concubine bore children, even when the wife had none, expulsion became unnecessary.
Third: Should she prove lewd—cast out.
Fourth: Should she grow jealousy-prone—cast out.
Fifth: If afflicted by foul disease such as leprosy—cast out.
Sixth: A woman who spoke excessively without restraint—for this disrupted relations with relatives and brought household disorder—shall be cast out.
Seventh: If found thieving at heart—cast out.
These Seven Grounds for Divorce were all teachings of sages.
Once married into and expelled from a household—even should such a woman remarry into wealth and nobility—it constituted grave disgrace violating women’s proper path.

Whether men became adopted sons or women married into households, there was no difference in the factual nature of these matters. An adopted son regarded his adoptive home as his own home, and a bride regarded her husband’s home as her own home. As a matter of course, all matters—from the household’s wealth and status to the presence or absence of talent and virtue in the person, their physical strength or weakness, down to the comeliness or ugliness of their appearance—had to be thoroughly examined before the marriage agreement was made. Having exhausted all means, both overt and covert, subjecting the matter to repeated scrutiny, and resolved to marry only after both parties concluded it acceptable, one must not use the household’s poverty as grounds for divorce—a principle to uphold not only as women’s proper path but also as men’s. Among men in recent years, there were those who remained ignorant of this principle: raised from childhood in another’s household—relying on their adoptive family for everything from food and clothing to schooling—they married the family’s daughter upon reaching adulthood. Just as their adoptive parents assumed all was settled, these adopted sons, having spread their wings and risen to prominence in society, grew disgusted with their adoptive family’s destitution and petitioned for divorce and reinstatement into their birth family. In extreme cases, they abandoned even their lawfully wedded wife to return to their birth family or—declaring independence—arrogantly took a second wife at will, strutting about with faces flushed like wine-soaked frogs, utterly shameless. Those who were ungrateful, lacking in humanity, and ignorant of gratitude were inhuman beings; yet the fact that society did not condemn them was truly strange. While there were indeed many wicked women in this wide world whose actions were detestable to witness or hear of, when men and women were compared, the inhuman beings would surely be more numerous among men. From this perspective, I was one who felt the necessity of a “Great Learning for Men” rather than the *Onna Daigaku*.

It lists for women the Seven Grounds for Divorce as reasons for divorce, with the first stating that failure to obey one’s parents-in-law warrants expulsion.
If a woman’s nature is coarse and her disposition wicked, showing neither courtesy nor compassion toward her husband’s parents, then divorce may indeed be warranted.
The second [ground] states that a woman without children shall be cast out.
This is truly an unfounded pretext.
The cause of childlessness between a husband and wife—whether it lies with the man or the woman—is a question spanning physiology, anatomy, psychology, and pathology, yet even today’s advanced medicine has no means to conclusively determine its truth.
There are cases where a woman who lived with her husband without bearing children happens to remarry and give birth.
There are instances where a promiscuous man, despite keeping several concubines, ultimately has not a single child.
To conclude that this woman has no children without discerning these facts is ultimately nothing but an ignorant conjecture.
If we are to say a woman should be divorced for childlessness, then when a family adopts a son-in-law and their daughter bears no children, they must expel the adopted man on the grounds that “a childless man should be cast out.”
Therefore, in this section, even the compiler(s) of *Onna Daigaku* made a considerable concession by adding a note in the final section—stating that “if a woman’s heart is upright, she need not be cast out even without children”—which must stand as their belated awareness of how utterly unreasonable this divorce law truly was.
The provision stating that “if a concubine has a child, the wife need not be cast out even if she herself has none” is utterly superfluous wording from the start, and one cannot fathom for what purpose it was written.
Upon careful consideration, one cannot help but suspect a deeper intent here: by first declaring at the text’s outset that “a childless woman shall be cast out,” then later stipulating that “if a concubine has a child, [the wife] need not be cast out,” these provisions—front and back in harmony—create room for men to keep concubines. All while tacitly compelling wives to secure their own positions by never speaking aloud the evil of concubinage, instead subtly encouraging husbands toward it.
Moreover, even in historical fact, when daimyo and such kept concubines, there existed the pretense of it being offered by the legal wife.
While men commit vile acts, to apportion their guilt to their wives is treachery of the highest degree.
One might say *Onna Daigaku*’s poisonous pen has great influence.
Thirdly, if she is lewd, she shall be cast out.
In our nation of Japan, from ancient times to the present day, which have been more licentious—men or women?
Setting aside the depth or intensity of lustful hearts, whether those who indulge in licentious acts are more numerous among men or women requires no scrutiny to be evident.
If it is said that both men and women are equally licentious and thus subject to divorce, then men who are declared divorced should constitute the majority compared to women.
Yet this book specifically takes women’s licentiousness as grounds for divorce.

This too could only be deemed a matter of gross misdirection.
Fourthly, if prone to jealousy, she shall be expelled.
This too defied comprehension.
When husband and wife shared a household, the husband’s immoral conduct amounted to nothing less than spousal abuse.
A wife who had pledged lifelong partnership in disputing such acts was engaging in legitimate self-defense.
There might indeed arise cases where one erroneously contested what ought not to be contested.
Would they dare brand this as jealousy?
Even such circumstances failed to constitute immediate grounds for divorce.
Fifthly, if afflicted by a foul disease such as leprosy, she shall be expelled.
The provision stood utterly unfounded.
Leprosy being contagious, mere mortals might occasionally fall prey to it.
The affliction bore no relation to personal fault.
To divorce a woman over such不幸—what manner of reasoning was this?
Were the husband possessed of even residual humanity, he would have shelved divorce to tend her devotedly; praying for alleviation if not full recovery—this alone constituted the human path.
Suppose conversely the husband contracted leprosy—what then?
Should the wife then abandon him and stride decisively from the household?
I found this wholly unacceptable.
Ah—but perhaps you too, Mr. Compiler, might demur?
Perusal of filial piety chronicles revealed countless paeans to women of peerless virtue who nursed husbands’ foul diseases through decades as though but a single day.
Doubtless you numbered among these admirers.

Thus, while they unhesitatingly divorce wives afflicted with foul diseases, if husbands are afflicted with such illnesses, do they order their wives to nurse them?
It grows ever more incomprehensible.
I am one who resolutely demands to hear their reasoning.
Sixthly, it states that a woman shall be cast out for being talkative and lacking restraint.
This provision is vague and unfocused.
In essence, while the intent appears to be that a woman should be divorced if her talkativeness disrupts familial harmony and stirs household discord, no fixed standard exists to distinguish excessive speech from reticence.
What sounds garrulous to one may seem taciturn to another; what strikes this ear as restrained may ring verbose to that listener.
Even were she indeed overly talkative, divorce could hardly be justified on this single matter alone.
Seventhly, it states that a woman shall be cast out for harboring intent to steal.
The act of theft admits varying degrees of gravity.
Divorce’s validity cannot be judged by these words alone.
The matter should be settled by consulting authorities such as the Civil Code’s section on relatives.

Though the seven grounds from the first to the seventh above contained various provisions, they amounted to nothing more than curtailing women’s power, restricting their agency, and granting men free rein to dismiss their wives at will.
Yet *Onna Daigaku* had been revered since antiquity as a treasured text for women’s society—employed in general education not only to admonish women but also, precisely because the more women shrank under its teachings, the more convenient it became for men—so that men themselves increasingly advocated its tenets to indulge their own selfishness.
There existed an odd tale of a certain provincial lecher who, constantly engaging in misconduct and unable to endure his wife’s grievances, devised a scheme to have her join a Christian church—his aim being solely to mollify her jealousy so he might indulge his beastly conduct—only to end in disappointment when his wife’s complaints still did not cease.
The men of the world who expounded upon *Onna Daigaku*’s principles were, for the most part, of this lecherous sort—those who channeled water to their own fields.
Women were never to let their guard down.

Now, *Onna Daigaku*’s divorce laws consisted solely of the seven grounds noted above, whereas Article 812 of the Civil Code’s section on relatives stated that either spouse could file for divorce only under the following circumstances:

1. When the spouse has committed bigamy.

2. When the wife has committed adultery.

3. When the husband has been punished for the crime of adultery.

4. When the spouse has been sentenced to a minor offense or higher for crimes related to forgery, bribery, obscenity, theft, robbery, fraudulent acquisition of property, embezzlement of entrusted property, or handling of stolen goods, or for crimes listed under Articles 175 and 260 of the Penal Code; or when they have been sentenced to heavy imprisonment of three years or more for other crimes.

5. When one has suffered unbearable abuse or grave insults from one’s spouse.

6. When one has been abandoned with malicious intent by one’s spouse.

7. When one has suffered abuse or grave insults from one’s spouse’s direct lineal ascendants.

8. When the spouse has committed abuse against one’s own direct lineal ascendants or inflicted grave insults upon them.

9. When the spouse’s life or death has not been ascertained for three years or more.

10. When divorce occurs in cases of adoptive son-in-law arrangements, or when an adopted child marries the household’s daughter and either divorce or annulment of the adoption occurs.

It is written.
Therefore, under the law that all citizens of our nation were bound to observe, divorce was permitted only under those ten articles; in any other circumstance, it could not occur without mutual consultation and agreement.
Divorce notices scrawled in three-and-a-half lines belonged to bygone tales—today was an entirely different world.
Yet if one were to interpret “disobedience to parents-in-law” from *Onna Daigaku*’s first ground for divorce as equivalent to abuse or insult of lineal ascendants, such an interpretation might hold.
As for the remaining grounds, not a single one appeared to align with the Civil Code.
To promulgate divorce laws diverging from statutory codes risked leading people astray.
For instance, private retribution and vendettas lay beyond legal sanction.
Imagine now someone publishing a new treatise declaring that thieves or ruffians—once apprehended—might be freely beaten or slain at will.
How much more egregious when a parent’s sworn enemy stood as an adversary beneath shared heavens!
No need existed to burden governmental authority; filial duty itself demanded such foes’ subjugation.
Were an author to extol Soga no Gorō and Jūrō as paragons for millennia and publish such claims outright—such works would surely face prohibition.
For they transgressed contemporary legal principles.
Had these been mere fictions or satires, objections might have been muted; but as primers for domestic education or school texts? Controversy was inevitable.
Thus *Onna Daigaku*, though still venerated in certain urban and rural quarters as women’s pedagogical scripture—neither novel nor satire—stood riven with provisions flagrantly opposing enacted law.
The consequence of its seepage into popular consciousness? To misguide multitudes into becoming outlaws.

Educators, of course, must take heed, and the government as well should pay attention to this matter.

1\. When women reside within our household, it stands as principle that they devote themselves solely to filial piety toward their own parents.
2\. Yet upon entering her husband's household, she must prioritize her parents-in-law above her own kin—loving them profoundly, respecting them deeply—and exhaustively fulfill filial duties.
3\. Never elevate your birth parents while diminishing your obligations toward your spouse's lineage.
4\. Never omit morning and evening visits to your husband's parents.
5\. Never neglect tasks required by your marital family.
6\. Should your in-laws issue commands—observe them scrupulously without defiance.
7\. In every matter—consult your husband's parents and submit wholly to their instruction.
8\. Though my parents-in-law revile and slander me—harbor neither anger nor resentment.
9\. For those who serve with sincere filial devotion shall ultimately find favor through steadfast perseverance.

While a woman was being raised in her own family, she should have devoted herself to filial piety toward her parents; however, upon marrying into another household, she had to love and respect her parents-in-law—her husband’s parents—more than her own biological parents and dedicate herself solely to their service. She must never have prioritized her real parents over her parents-in-law even temporarily, and in all matters she had to obey her parents-in-law’s every word.

When these teachings were so casually written and presented, they might have seemed straightforward; yet whether this was something achievable by human nature, or whether it aligned with common human sense and sentiment, had to be earnestly considered.

To urge what could not actually be done and enforce what was not practiced was fundamentally an unreasonable demand, and such unreasonableness would ultimately have compelled people to engage in pretense.

Although it was said that after marriage a woman should love and respect her parents-in-law more than her own parents, yet parents-in-law were her husband’s parents, not her own—and not only was she to treat those who were not her parents as if they were, but she was even urged to deepen her affection for them beyond that for her own parents; was this not fundamentally contrary to human nature?

For example, when a young woman was giving birth, in directing, managing, and nursing all matters at her bedside, which of the two—her real mother or her mother-in-law—would have brought the woman in labor peace of mind?

Mothers-in-law were not necessarily unfeeling—they prayed for a safe delivery just as biological mothers did—but here lay the subtle natural bond of flesh and blood: unless it was one’s own mother, the woman in labor’s heart could not be put at ease.

Moreover, when an elderly person was bedridden with prolonged illness, if one compared the nursing care provided by biological children and an adopted daughter-in-law, none could have surpassed the biological children of flesh and blood.

This was where the true nature of parent and child manifested—because there was no reservation or hesitation between them.

The absence of such restraint stemmed precisely from the depth of their affectionate bond.

This affection existed unspoken between them, for there was no parent and child under heaven who did not share this bond.

Not only in matters of childbirth, aging, and illness—for it was a natural covenant that human children loved and yearned for their parents, and parents loved and cherished their children—yet to demand that a woman, upon marrying into another household, relegate her biological parents to second place and devote herself solely to loving, respecting, and serving her parents-in-law was nothing short of enforcing the impossible.

If they taught that one should respect and honor [parents-in-law], then of course parents-in-law were indeed respected elders and superiors, and as a daughter-in-law, it was natural to follow such teachings; yet when it came to the matter of affection and love, even if one were to prioritize parents-in-law over one’s own parents, how could this have aligned with the deepest sentiments of a child?

Proof over theory—what could be done when there was no such example in all the world, past or present?

If there had been even a single exception to this fact, there would inevitably have been an exceptional cause accompanying it.

To instruct people through means more arduous than common sentiment was not the work of an educator.

Respect was external, while affection was internal.

Because it was easy to outwardly display respectful courtesy even without heartfelt affection within, if one was taught not to neglect morning and evening visits to parents-in-law, then visiting as instructed had also been easy.

If it was said that one must not neglect the duties one should perform, then performing them had also been easy.

If one considered it a daughter-in-law’s duty and strove accordingly, yet as these teachings grew increasingly strict and adherence became ever more arduous, genuine affection cooled proportionally—cold within and warmth without—until the relationship inevitably settled into standoffish formality. This natural progression could only be said to have ended in failure: an attempt to force parents-in-law and daughter-in-law, who were not parent and child, into a parent-child bond.

There were many such examples in society.

From this perspective, *Onna Daigaku* might be said to impose unreasonable demands that compel people to feign compliance, destroying genuine family harmony through hollow formalities and artificial decorum. In my view, household relations should adhere to natural truths without constructing such human-made falsehoods. From a daughter-in-law’s standpoint, parents-in-law are her husband’s kin rather than her own; thus, while respectfully serving them as household elders remains proper, it is equally natural that she cannot harbor the same affection as toward her biological parents. A family finds true happiness when neither side imposes excessive expectations from the outset, instead pursuing harmony through natural interactions.

In society, there existed those who lived separately from both parents after marriage.
This could indeed be called a most humane arrangement.
To distance oneself from both parents was precisely the method of remaining undivided from them—a principle I wholeheartedly endorsed—yet circumstances such as household finances might sometimes make separate living impossible. Even when cohabiting under such conditions, the older and younger couples were not to interfere with one another, but rather allow each their freedom and follow nature’s course; thus removing hardship for both parties constituted the essential art of harmonious domestic life.

1. Women have no particular master.
They should regard their husbands as their master, revere him with caution and serve accordingly.
Do not belittle or scorn.
In general, women's way lies in following others.
They must maintain courteous expressions and humble speech toward their husbands while remaining gentle and obedient.
They must not show indifference or disobedience.
They must avoid extravagance and impoliteness.
This constitutes women's foremost duty.
When husbands give instructions, they must never disobey these commands.
When uncertain about matters, they must consult their husbands and follow their directives.
When questioned by their husbands, they must respond properly.
Negligent replies constitute impropriety.
Should husbands become angry, they must obey fearfully.
They must never argue heatedly and oppose his will.
Women must consider their husbands heaven itself.
Under no circumstances may they defy their husbands and incur celestial punishment.

It is said that women have no master.

What, then, is this so-called “master”?
The compiler(s), being people of the feudal era, had constructed their arguments by viewing all matters through that period’s conditions; thus, lord-vassal relationships were those between feudal lords and the samurai class, and while samurai men had public duties to their domains, their wives remained solely within the household—hence their reckless assertion that women had no master.
If that were the case, then even among peasants and townspeople, since the men had no connection to domain duties, one could not but say both men and women “had no master.”
To take such a position would be unreasonable.
When peasants paid land tax and townspeople paid taxes—since these were done for feudal lords—would one not say they naturally had a master?
If that was so, then since both the land tax paid in rice and other taxes were products of labor by peasants and townspeople—men and women alike—it would be inconsistent to claim women who fulfilled these public duties were neither retainers nor subjects.
Ultimately, the assertion that “women have no master” could only be called baseless even when derived from feudal logic.
Setting aside these peripheral arguments for now, it was indeed paramount that women should uphold the principle of not belittling or scorning their husbands; yet if one sought to correct those most harmful in current relations between men and women, I would rather borrow this very admonition to instead caution husbands themselves.
It was particularly toward men that courteousness in countenance and gentleness in speech were to be desired.
Since women’s nature was inherently keenly perceptive and they felt things more acutely than men, it became all too common for husbands’ rudeness, discourtesy, coarseness, and harsh words to startle others and disrupt household harmony.
Refraining from such conduct should be men’s foremost duty.

It further stated: “If there are instructions from her husband, she must not disobey his commands; when in doubt, she must ask her husband and follow his instructions; if the husband becomes angry, she must fearfully obey; she must not argue and go against his will.”
If the husband were perfect in wisdom and virtue and his instructions sound, she should naturally obey him and even inquire about doubtful matters; however, all these ultimately depended on the man’s character.
To blindly obey unreasonable commands issued merely because he was her husband—this was not the way of a wife.
How much more so when her husband became enraged, flew into fits of anger, and acted violently?
While it was improper for a wife to argue back in anger—and one might deem such behavior a temporary fit of passion, resorting to temporary consolation followed by severe admonishment as unavoidable measures—to demand that she obey fearfully without even questioning the validity of his anger reduced women to nothing but slaves to men, which was not only unadmirable but, when reaching the final passage’s assertion that “women must regard their husband as heaven,” scarcely merited commentary.
If a wife regarded her husband as heaven, the husband should regard his wife as a god.
If it was said that a wife who disobeyed her husband would not incur divine punishment, then I would say that a husband must not abuse his wife and incur divine retribution.

1. Elder brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, being the husband’s siblings, should be respected.
If she is slandered and hated by her husband’s relatives, she must not go against her parents-in-law’s feelings for her own benefit.
If she acts harmoniously, her parents-in-law’s hearts will also align.
Furthermore, one must be affectionate and live harmoniously with sisters-in-law.
One must show particular reverence to one’s husband’s elder brother and his wife.
You must treat them as your own elder brothers and sisters.

To show full courtesy to elder brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law so as not to harm parents-in-law’s feelings, and to act harmoniously with sisters-in-law while treating one’s husband’s elder brother and his wife warmly—these are obligations in interacting with family and relatives, and though this is as it should be, it was difficult to accept that one must treat a husband’s elder brother and his wife, who are originally unrelated by blood, as if they were one’s own elder brothers and sisters.
It was proper to generally maintain harmonious and proper relations.
I too earnestly advised this; however, when it came to genuine bonds of affection, could those [relations] and these [relations] truly be made equal?
I asserted that this was unattainable when appealing to human nature.

1. One must strenuously avoid giving rise to a jealous heart.
If a man is licentious, she should admonish him.
She must not become angry or resentful.
If her jealousy becomes excessive, her demeanor and words will grow cold and fearful, and she will instead be distanced and abandoned by her husband.
If her husband commits misconduct, she must soften her expression, make her voice elegant, and admonish him.
If he does not listen to the admonition and becomes angry, first cease for a time; when her husband’s heart has calmed later, she should admonish him again.
She must never show a harsh expression or raise her voice to defy her husband.

Since this chapter’s intent lies wholly in cautioning against jealousy, I shall first clarify the literal meaning of this so-called “jealousy”: namely, it refers to envying others’ actions that bear no relation to one’s own interests; resenting and loathing them; or in extreme cases, growing angry over baseless matters, praying for others’ misfortune, and seeking to harm them—this is what we call jealousy.
For instance: when the neighbor’s household thrives abundantly in wealth while my own household suffers unending poverty and misfortune—envying this, loathing this; interpreting the neighbor’s construction of a storehouse in such-and-such direction with glaring demon-faced roof tiles as an intent to crush my household; wishing their storehouse would burn down in a fire—no, even plotting to set it ablaze unseen—such torment by thoughts unthinkable in decent society exemplifies extreme jealousy. While I firmly caution against allowing such jealousy to arise, we must thoroughly examine whether the “jealousy” spoken of in *Onna Daigaku*’s text truly corresponds to this variety.
In the text, it states that if a man is licentious, she should admonish him.
Given that the husband’s licentious misconduct is already irrefutably proven, can this matter—which undeniably concerns the wife herself—truly be likened to a wealthy neighbor amassing riches and erecting storehouses?
Though the wealth or poverty of a neighboring household has no bearing on our household’s interests, a husband’s licentious misconduct directly infringes upon his wife’s rights—they are by no means comparable.
Fundamentally, the marital contract of monogamy and lifelong union requires spouses to reside together; yet if one spouse brazenly ignores this contract, indulges in licentious misconduct, and alienates the other, such acts constitute abuse and insult—grave violations of the covenant. For the victimized wife to openly and justly condemn this wrongdoing through reasoned argument is a lawful defense of contractual rights; it is by no means driven by the delusional passion of jealousy.
However, when debating such matters, maintaining a gentle voice and countenance is naturally expected as the proper attitude within upper-class society.
As for myself, I naturally do not favor such boorishness and coarseness; yet even if this were deemed women’s natural duty, the actual crime of misconduct cannot be forgiven a single iota—not a single iota can be overlooked.
Therefore, even if men become angry, there is no need to fear; it is precisely by arguing with a heart as steadfast as metal and stone that women fulfill their true duty.
Does the compiler of *Onna Daigaku* label these sound arguments as jealousy?
I recognize this as women’s legitimate defense and hereby advise that their resolve remain steadfast.
The compiler(s), in the previous section’s “Seven Grounds for Divorce” clause, wrote that if a woman is licentious she shall be dismissed, declaring that when a woman commits misconduct her punishment is immediate expulsion; yet here they now state that when men commit the same crime, women must neither grow angry nor resentful, must keep their demeanor and words graceful, and must take care not to be abandoned by these very offenders.
This blatant partiality and inequity are utterly appalling.
Ultimately, the compiler(s) do not grasp the gravity of the marital contract; consequently, they remain ignorant of women’s rights, treating them as mere possessions in men’s hands. Since their sole imperative is obedience, they would have women lightly overlook even men’s licentious bestiality as the ultimate expression of this submission—and should any dare assert women’s rights, they instantly brandish the two characters for “jealousy” to intimidate and suppress them.
To offer an analogy: Under clear skies and bright sun—when someone has their belongings stolen and evidence is already ample—if they try to apprehend the thief and demand accountability, [the accusers] brandish the two characters for “greed,” declaring that a covetous heart must never arise; should there be someone stealing their possessions, they must use elegant language to dissuade them, neither growing angry nor resentful; and if the thief refuses to return the goods and becomes enraged, they must pause and try again later—such is [the text’s] absurd instruction.
To ignore women’s rights and scorn them so utterly can only be called extreme.
Now, one might argue that women could indeed act rashly—groundlessly suspecting men’s conduct, growing angry over baseless matters, stirring up storms on calm seas—and that this constitutes so-called “jealousy.” Yet the present state of men’s society requires no laborious scrutiny to uncover such subtleties; rather than being open secrets, their depravity is flaunted as publicly acknowledged facts—indeed, those who expose their ugliness are legion.
Those with inherited family wealth; those newly establishing households through great fortune; government officials, company executives, scholars and doctors and temple monks alike—once their basic needs for food and clothing are met, if asked what further desires they might harbor, their most urgent priority lies solely in indulging their sexual appetites. Their methods vary between covert and overt, subtle and brazen: so-called philanderers carouse without shame in red-light districts and frolic with geisha, their ugly bodies on full display as human-faced beasts in action—utterly unashamed and unperturbed.
Even more elaborate and insidious depravities exist beyond this: some brazenly keep concubines—labeled as servants or side chambers—cohabiting with their wives within their own homes, while others establish separate residences to house them, living unashamedly as one husband with multiple concubines.
They are truly enacting the practice of five hens and two sows; there can be no more fitting term to describe this than bestial conduct.

Chickens and pigs, being true birds and beasts, exhibited no distinction between which among five hens or two sows might be wives or concubines; nor did jealousy arise among them or debates over rights. Yet human beings, as the spiritual beings of all creation, were not so: when a woman who had entered into the marital contract—the great foundation of human ethics—witnessed her spouse’s deranged breach of that covenant, even if she wished not to feel discontent, she could not help it.
To clearly express her discontent and compel the violator to correct their wrongdoing was a woman’s right.
Though they recklessly abused the term “jealousy” to cleverly argue their point and attempted to deceive society by invoking women’s so-called jealousy, human rights were ultimately not to be ignored.

Yet the custom of male superiority and female inferiority had existed so long that it gradually shaped human nature; among women of his day, many—acting of their own accord—forgot their rights, willingly accepted humiliation, endured such disgrace, and ultimately suffered through self-inflicted hardship.
It was nothing but pitiable.

What was the reason for this?
From a young age they were taught through family instruction and oppressed by societal customs at large—gradually becoming timid; believing that condemning men’s misconduct constituted jealousy; that jealousy was a vice women must guard against; that even voicing it or showing it in one’s countenance brought shame—thereby permitting others’ depravity to grow unchecked.
Ultimately it had to be said that women neglected and abandoned the marital contract; discarded their own rights; sank into an abyss of melancholy; and suffered within custom’s torments.
Not only did this harm themselves—the direct and indirect effects arising from men’s misconduct brewed misfortune for descendants and were nothing less than root causes of household ruin—therefore responsible housewives must assert their rights unreservedly for their own sake and their household’s sake; they must not fail to restrain their spouse’s violent excesses.
This was what we advised.

Some might argue that while the principles discussed above hold logical validity, from another perspective, today’s expansion of women’s rights seems poised to disrupt social order—rendering immediate endorsement inadvisable—yet rectifying contemporary societal ills inherently demands some measure of turbulence.
Should such turbulence provoke anxiety, silence and complacency within corrupt systems become the sole recourse.

The recent Meiji Restoration thirty years ago, despising the Tokugawa government’s clan-based oppression and seeking to rectify its corrupt practices, stirred great upheaval across the land, and as a result finally brought about the auspicious emergence of a New Japan.
At that time, had they hesitated over concerns about social order and such, we Japanese people would still be prostrating ourselves under the clan-based hierarchy today.
Therefore, having women assert their rightful rights to establish an order of gender equality is akin to abolishing the old shogunate’s clan-based hierarchy and creating the constitutional Meiji government.
If we could enact such bold measures in politics, why not in human relations? I find it difficult to discern the reason for this.
Moreover, regarding such human relations, they have already issued a Civil Code, and explicit provisions on the order of men and women’s marriage exist in the Family Law section.
Henceforth, women’s society must advance along the path of rectification through diligent study and the support of civilized scholars.
The matter is not one of new invention or novel ingenuity.
The time for success has now fully ripened.

1. One must be prudent in speech and must not speak excessively.
One must never slander others or speak falsehoods under any circumstances.
If one hears slander about others, one must keep it to oneself and must not convey or speak of it to others.
Rather than spreading slander, even with relatives, relations become strained, and the household will not be well-managed.

The injunction “One must be prudent in speech and must not speak excessively” had likely meant “Maintain silence.” There was a proverb stating “many words leave little room for blame,” while the West had its phrase “an empty barrel makes the loudest noise.” A fool’s verbosity was naturally detestable. Moreover, precisely those women who were quiet and modest had been deemed admirable. Though I most despised so-called hoydenish women, when they taught nothing but universal silence, this too was not without harm. It was not uncommon for women who had reached maturity to set aside substantive discussions when interacting with others, failing even to clearly exchange weather-related greetings while mumbling incoherently and causing discomfort. Particularly during illnesses, they did not know how to describe their condition to physicians; when answering inquiries, appearing ashamed or fearful, they confused symptom sequences and failed to articulate severity of chills, fever, or pain—not only wasting examination time but leaving physicians perplexed in treatment decisions. To advocate silent restraint meant that when one grew accustomed to such muteness, it would wither essential oratory skills, creating practical obstacles. Though I myself hardly favored verbosity, I could not accept that merely silencing women completed the task. It was well known that women serving in daimyo households of old wrote letters skillfully and spoke eloquently, their daily conduct never uncouth. This remained worthy of reference. Therefore, while educating modern girls through antiquated palace methods was clearly untenable, from childhood they needed not only calligraphy and composition practice but education aligned with civilizational progress—studying physics, geography, history; learning foreign languages where possible; understanding current affairs; comprehending scholarly discourse; and articulating points coherently enough to avoid mockery. Such efforts were indispensable for women. Yet it had been regrettable that *Onna Daigaku*’s entire text never discussed women’s intellectual education. As for this chapter’s prohibitions against slander and gossip—self-evident principles applicable equally to men—I would omit further comment.

1. Women must constantly be attentive and strictly guard their persons.
They must rise early in the morning and retire late at night; they must not sleep during the day but devote their minds to household affairs; they must never neglect weaving, sewing, spinning, or stitching.
Moreover, they must not drink tea, alcohol, and the like in excess.
They must not watch or listen to the lewdness of Kabuki, kouta, jōruri performances.
Women under forty must not go excessively to places where many people gather, such as shrines and temples.

That women must manage the household interior, devote themselves to domestic affairs, and never neglect weaving, sewing, spinning, or stitching is a supreme instruction—indeed a most appropriate duty for women.
Among Western women, there are many who often lack knowledge of the art of sewing and tailoring clothes.
In this regard, I am one who esteems the customs of Japanese women; no matter how enlightened society may become or how wealthy a household may grow, the needle and thread—even if only temporarily—are necessary for women and must be diligently practiced as a noble art.
Moreover, it states that one must not drink tea, alcohol, and the like in excess.
If even tea becomes harmful to health when consumed excessively, how much more so when alcohol intake is overdone—both men and women must exercise caution.
This too follows the main text and is unobjectionable—but what of its injunction that one must not watch or listen to Kabuki, kouta, or jōruri, and should refrain from visiting shrines and temples?
I cannot help but feel some doubt.
Fundamentally, life’s nature lies in a mingling of joy and suffering; where hardship exists, corresponding joy follows. That one must balance these—striving diligently and taking pleasure aptly to fulfill life’s principle—is something even the compiler(s) would likely concede.
Since a husband and wife living together are bound by a contract to share both joys and sorrows, if the household is poor and basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter are unmet, they naturally cannot afford diversions such as Kabuki or musical performances; though the couple must toil solely to sustain their livelihood, should their efforts result in some measure of prosperity, there would be no harm in the husband, wife, and children enjoying outings together to dispel their accumulated hardships.
This too cannot be permitted by the compiler(s).
That is to say, this very matter is what it means to work diligently and take pleasure heartily.
However, considering the intent of the main text, from its prohibitions on Kabuki and so forth downward, it makes no distinction between wealthy and poor households: it strictly forbids women from attending theater performances, listening to musical instruments, or visiting shrines and temples before reaching forty years of age—all while implicitly granting men freedom in these matters.
Since life’s joys and sorrows are meant to be shared equally, if men claim exclusive ownership of all pleasures while consigning women to a lifetime burdened solely by hardships, such unreasonableness must be called utterly egregious.
If we observe the reality of ordinary society even without such [inequity], it is said that women manage the household while men strive in external matters.
Abusing the principle of internal and external domains, men’s rushing about outside is not solely for managing enterprises or social engagements; indeed, those who use such business and socializing as a pretext to drink and frolic in the pleasure quarters are many.
When those common folks who style themselves as dignitaries and gentlemen of court and country gather under the pretense of assemblies and banquets, is this truly necessary for actual deliberations or genuine social interaction?
Eight or nine out of ten [gatherings] do not meet to discuss matters; they assemble under the guise of deliberation.
They do not drink for the sake of socializing; they socialize for the sake of drinking.
The time men spend feasting and reveling is when they turn domestic spaces outward—indulging in vulgar entertainments with geisha, watching Kabuki, listening to kouta and jōruri ballads, and after drunkenness, toying with courtesans in ever-deepening depravity—all while boldly and repeatedly immersing themselves in such delights, secure in the knowledge that the women of their households will inevitably remain confined within *Onna Daigaku*’s boundaries, silently guarding the home in solitary quietude.
Thus, the compiler’s admonition—specifically prohibiting women from witnessing or hearing indecent matters—merely grants men unchecked freedom to indulge in depravity. By attempting to confine women indoors, it drives men to run wild outdoors.

Far from halting a household’s evils, [they] instead incite them.
Moreover, these immoral and cunning scoundrels—seeking to freely indulge their beastly conduct yet uneasy about provoking their mistresses’ discontent—devise schemes to ceaselessly curry favor and appease them: granting every wish for lavish garments, enabling theater outings, hot-spring travels, and four seasons’ recreations from spring breezes to autumn moons until not a single desire remains unfulfilled. Thus, the so-called good-natured mistresses of the house rejoice in bodily comfort, grow intoxicated by society’s extravagant fashions until domesticity spills outward, neglect not only household management but even their children’s education—all while blandly overlooking their husbands’ infidelities and depravities as though untroubled.
This is precisely where lecherous men thrive—in extreme cases, wives and concubines cohabiting in a single household, where even through superficial pretense, the wife feigns affection for the concubine; both bear children, and absurd tales arise of their relationship being “harmonious to the utmost.”
Truly, one might call this a bizarre wonder among wonders in the animal kingdom.
In the spring of this year, a certain American noblewoman visited our country and observed Japanese customs. Upon hearing talk of the cohabitation of wives and concubines, she initially harbored great doubt, but upon finally ascertaining the truth of the matter, declared: “Though I have obtained proof myself, when I return home and speak of this to my friends in women’s circles, none will readily believe it. Instead, they will brand me a purveyor of falsehoods, casting doubt even on my other reports. Japanese women truly live without purpose in this world—pitiable creatures deserving of compassion! We American women could not endure such circumstances for a moment; we would resolve to fight even unto death. Though Japan and America differ as nations, women are sisters in同胞hood. For the sake of our Japanese sisters, we must devise a method to eradicate this monstrosity and exorcise its demons!” With gnashing teeth and fiery indignation, she spoke these words, brushing away tears.
Hearing this account, I could not dismiss it as someone else’s affair—having a major stain of New Japan exposed, my shame felt as though I were being flogged in the public square.
The treaty revisions and mixed residence are mere months away; do they intend to maintain the nation’s dignity as things stand? Their audacity is nothing short of astonishing.
While both East and West equally constitute the human world, their approaches to gender relations differ so drastically that in Japan—under the open sky—the cohabitation of one wife with multiple concubines has gradually become customary, with wives and concubines growing intimate.
Ultimately, even if their affection is feigned, that men commit unspeakable bestial acts while driving women to this pinnacle of meekness and forbearance is nothing but a remnant of ancient barbaric times—specifically, the ultimate result of *Onna Daigaku*’s teachings reaching their zenith.
That is, women across generations have not only forgotten their rights under the marriage contract themselves—believing even momentary opposition to their husbands’ will to be “disobedience,” and condemning their depravity to be “jealousy”—and thus meekly endured all matters in silence, but have even shielded the very perpetrators who wronged them, regarding such complicity as a feminine virtue. Truly, these are beings who fail to comprehend what rights entail in a civilized age.
For a husband and wife living together, it is the husband’s natural duty to support his wife; yet when a wife is merely provided with fine clothes and sumptuous meals and seeks to abandon her own vital inherent rights—what else is this if not folly?
Therefore, the matter of a husband and wife sharing both hardships and joys must never be treated lightly; those who hide these from their spouse in times of hardship or joy are a husband in name but not in reality, a wife in name but not in reality.
They must argue thoroughly to contest this, and even if at times this may startle the eyes and ears of the common masses, there is no need to hesitate.

1. Do not be deluded by shamans and the like, defile deities and buddhas, or approach them to pray vulgarly.
When one diligently performs their duties, even without prayer, the gods and buddhas will surely protect them.

That one must not be led astray by shamans and the like nor defile the gods and buddhas with vulgar prayers—I share this sentiment.
Since these delusions arise from ignorance and lack of learning, should we compare men and women today to determine which group contains more adherents to such folly—and should women indeed prove more numerous—this stems precisely from women receiving less education.
Therefore, I do not merely censure their superstitions but advocate for civilized education to eradicate these root causes.

1. When a woman becomes someone’s wife, she must maintain the household well.
If a wife’s conduct is wicked and unrestrained, it will destroy the household.
In all matters, be frugal and must not create expenses.
In matters of clothing, meals, and the like, use them according to your station and do not be extravagant.

It states that a woman who becomes someone’s wife must maintain the household well, be frugal in all matters and must not create expenses; in matters of clothing, meals, and the like, do not be extravagant beyond your station.
The principle of managing the household in life is indeed proper.
While I greatly agree with this, I would now take a step further and pray that women be made to learn the principles and techniques of economics and accounting.
Household finances are entirely left to the husband’s discretion, while the wife knows nothing of such matters—merely receiving money handed to her by her husband and spending it on daily expenses. Whether this money belongs to their own household or is borrowed, and if borrowed, how it was acquired, from whom, or how it will be repaid—all such matters remain utterly obscure to her. Even as a housewife who manages half the household while living with her husband, there are those who do not even know whether their own home is wealthy or poor.
It is utterly baseless.
Although the reasons why Japanese women lack power are varied, when girls are at home, they do not receive proper instruction from their parents; while they may be trained in literary arts and diversions, matters of economics are neither taught nor explained to them—indeed, they are deliberately kept ignorant. The consequence of this upbringing is that women become careless in household economics, plunging them into lifelong misfortune akin to living in a dream.
Therefore, in today’s world of manifold human affairs, to maintain a household—even if one does not directly manage the family business—it is essential for women to comprehend the general principles of livelihood management, clarify the household’s financial direction, and understand its true nature, regardless of the family’s wealth or social standing.
For this purpose, from the time they are girls, they must not only practice reading, writing, and the abacus but also learn the general principles of economic law; moreover, it is impossible without cultivating an understanding of laws to the extent of comprehending people’s explanations.
To consider the study of accomplishments such as traditional Japanese arts and thirty-one-syllable poetry as the sole education for women is a grave mistake.
I have previously stated this.
Men’s hearts should be like Genroku samurai, and their talents like minor officials.
If one were to demand of women according to this rhetoric—that their conduct be as noble, elegant, and accomplished as palace maids; their laughter and play as lighthearted and innocent as children’s; that they never stray from scientific thought nor forget the essentials of economics and law; that they deeply harbor these principles within their hearts and apply them at every turn; that every gesture, word, and remark be spirited yet refined—only then might they be deemed a “wise wife.”
Therefore, when I previously mentioned women’s precepts such as economics and law, it was not to recommend that women directly adopt the so-called bankers and lawyers’ approach.
One should understand that this is akin to the samurai women of old carrying a nine-and-a-half-sun (approximately 28.8 cm) dagger in their bosoms—a practice solely for self-defense.

1. In youth, [a wife] must not become familiar or associate with young men such as her husband’s relatives, friends, or subordinates.
The separation between men and women must be strictly maintained.
No matter the reason, one must never send letters to young men.

The injunction that in youth [a wife] must not converse familiarly with her husband’s relatives and friends or correspond with young men regardless of necessity may intend to avoid suspicion, but if a woman’s heart is noble, formal suspicions need not be feared.
Rather than maintaining such a rustic facade, I desire to elevate women’s intellect so that even as men and women mingle freely in play and conversation, no questionable conduct arises.
One should understand that the necessity of education lies precisely here.
Putting a bird in a cage and rejoicing that it does not soar high—such people are not worthy of admiration.
I am one who would let them roam free and delight in peace.
In present society, it is not that there are no women of improper conduct who bring shame—indeed, such cases are frequently heard—but to attribute this outcome to parents or husbands failing to strictly confine their daughters within the home is not necessarily correct.
Fundamentally, moral rectitude or depravity arises from one’s personal nature, the circumstances of the time, and methods of education—but above all, it can be asserted that what most leads one astray lies in family customs.
From earliest youth, [children] grow up immersed in family customs marked by disorder and negligence. A strict father may rebuke others while his own conduct teems with depravity—so much so that when half-siblings sharing one father and multiple mothers dwell together in a household and observe their parents’ words and deeds daily, the parents’ actions do not register as shameful in the children’s eyes. Having spent her girlhood in such an environment, when this daughter marries into a household where her husband, too, proves dissolute and brutish, it is as though she has departed one realm of depravity only to enter another. Unless her innate nature is miraculously steadfast, it is no wonder errors arise.
The so-called adulterous women denounced by society are largely those who have moved through such realms of depravity and been warped by other corrupting influences. While their adultery is indeed contemptible, one cannot help but conclude that the origins of its cultivation lie in family customs.
A woman born into a pure and untainted household, raised by pure and untainted parents, and married in adulthood to a pure and untainted man—the fact that such a woman would commit misconduct is, first and foremost, an exceedingly rare occurrence.
If one wishes to have the wife of a household maintain her conduct, it lies in the husband first rectifying himself and cultivating virtuous family customs.
The doctrine of caged birds is the basest of shortcuts, and it is something I cannot admire.
The notion that women must not correspond with young men is utterly baseless.
In this busy civilized world of human affairs, how can they manage their duties when forbidden from correspondence?
If the husband is busy, there arises the necessity to handle correspondence on his behalf; particularly in instances such as when he falls ill, it becomes the duty of a wife to inform the physician of his condition, request a house call, and obtain medicine.
As for the notion that no matter what the circumstances, one must not engage in correspondence—I do not recognize this as women’s instruction, but dismiss it as nothing more than a preposterous tale for the world to laugh at.

1. One must ensure that both personal adornment and the dye patterns of clothing do not draw attention to themselves.
It is good for the body and clothing to be clean without being soiled.
Excessive cleanliness that draws attention to oneself is undesirable.
Only what suits oneself must be used.

It states that one must ensure personal adornments and dyed patterns on clothing do not stand out and use only those suited to oneself.

The intention was likely to establish simplicity as the guiding principle, adapting to the household’s financial standing.
While I concurred with this in essence, since clothing holds paramount importance for women, one could not simply mandate uniform austerity.
Men failed to comprehend women’s hearts; what delighted young women remained invisible to aged eyes.
Having therefore established simplicity as the overarching principle, I deemed it proper to leave actual matters of dye patterns and such to individual discretion.
Rural women squandered money on garments yet lacked knowledge of coordinating patterns; urbanites frequently mocked them for expenditures yielding no proportional elegance.
As all these matters resided in artistic design, while the doctrine of universal frugality retained validity as a precept, even within that thrift I desired to add this maxim: that all women must—regardless of wealth—cherish artistic understanding when adorning themselves.

1. One must not prioritize one’s own parents over one’s husband’s relatives.
On occasions such as New Year’s and seasonal festivals, one must first attend to the husband’s side and then attend to one’s own parents.
If the husband does not permit it, one must not go anywhere.
One must not privately give gifts to others.

One must not privately prioritize one’s own parents over one’s husband’s relatives—even during New Year’s festivals and such occasions—and so on. As I have previously stated, this may suffice for superficial ceremonies, but it is not the true sincerity of human emotion.
Furthermore, what is this about “one must not go anywhere unless the husband permits it”?
It is natural for a woman to consult her husband regarding household matters when going out; however, if she cannot leave home without his permission even when personal errands arise, then the housewife of a household is no different from a prison inmate.
Furthermore, it states: “One must not privately give gifts to others.”
To grant women managing household affairs the nominal right to use property while forbidding them from acting freely even in matters as trivial as a single item is tantamount to declaring that the mistress of the household is no different from its servants.
All of these are what I oppose.

1. Women do not continue their parents' household; because they succeed to their in-laws' household, they must value their in-laws more than their own parents and practice filial piety.
After marrying, a wife must make visits to her own parents' home rare.
Furthermore, when visiting other households, one should generally send a messenger to convey greetings.
Furthermore, one must not boast of or praise the merits of one's own parents' household.

Women do not continue their parents' household; because they succeed to their parents-in-law's household...
This too was as previously stated: the daughter of a family that had adopted a son-in-law became one who inherited her parents' household.
There were those who married into another household and succeeded to their parents-in-law's legacy, and those who remained in their birth household to inherit their parents' legacy—the compiler's failure to recognize this distinction could only stem from gross oversight.
Setting aside these crude arguments, the notion that one must value parents-in-law over one's own parents defied innate human sentiment.
When forced unreasonably, it became pretense.
This was a matter requiring educators' attention.
Furthermore after marrying visits to one's parents' home were supposed to be rare.
Moreover it stated one should generally not visit other households personally but send messengers—this too appeared fundamentally unnecessary advice.
After marriage a woman naturally became occupied with household duties particularly after bearing children when outings grew difficult yet loving and missing one's parents remained human sentiment by no means improper depending on household circumstances she ought whenever possible visit her parents' home frequently inquire after their well-being share meals and enjoy companionship.
Even when interacting with others she needed manage her household well visiting freely during leisure times.
Marrying into another household was no imprisonment requiring no hesitation.
The prohibition against praising one's parental home constituted meticulous advice indeed.
Vainly boasting of personal merits was something all people—not just women—needed avoid.

1. Even if one has many servants, to endure hardships and work diligently oneself in all matters is women’s proper conduct.
For her parents-in-law, she must sew clothes and prepare meals; for her husband, she must fold garments and sweep floors; she must raise children and wash filth; she must always remain within the household and never venture out frivolously.

Even if one employs many maids and manservants, a woman must attend to all matters herself: sew clothes and prepare meals for her parents-in-law; serve her husband by folding garments and sweeping floors; raise children and wash filth; and always remain within the household, never venturing out frivolously—so it states.
It might be said that women are busy.
Whether it is within the power of one person or not—let us set that aside for now—in any case, as a mindset for a woman managing a household, it is most commendable.
One should work as hard as one’s body allows, but what is jarring in the main text is the character for “serve” in the phrase “serve one’s husband.”
The term “to serve” (仕える) is fundamentally a word used when inferiors interact with superiors, distinguishing hierarchical statuses such as lord and vassal or master and servant.
Thus, if it is said that a wife serves her husband, then the relationship between husband and wife becomes equivalent to that of lord and vassal; it is as though [the text] lays bare the meaning that the wife, too, is but a servant in a different guise.
This is something I categorically cannot permit.
In the current customs of Japan, all manner of external occupations such as government service or commerce are the domain of men, while managing a household’s internal affairs is the duty of wives.
Preparing clothing and meals, maintaining household cleanliness, and raising children—all these are significant aspects of domestic life, and there is no distinction in difficulty or importance when compared to men’s external occupations.
Therefore, if managing these internal affairs is called the wife’s way of serving her husband, then we cannot help but say that the husband’s dedication to external matters is his way of serving his wife.
When men and women marry, cohabitate as one household, divide internal and external duties to each bear half the burden, and labor equally in mind and body by sharing hardships and joys—why must one seek to make this relationship akin to that of lord and vassal? Such absurdity could only be called extreme.
Some may argue that external duties entail greater mental strain than domestic affairs and that their achievements are also more significant; however—when her husband falls ill and she nurses him through his sickness—is not her anxiety and toil immense? After enduring ten months of pregnancy’s hardships and giving birth, raising children through summer days and winter nights without rest or proper meals—is not her mental exertion immense? Dressing them in seasonally appropriate clothes, providing wholesome food, teaching them language and manners, guarding against injuries with constant care until they reach adulthood—are not these achievements significant? In essence, that within a household, the contributions of husband and wife bear no distinction in scale or importance is a fact demonstrated by reality—words to dispute this hold no ground.
To draw a political analogy: the wife managing domestic affairs is akin to a Minister of the Interior, while the husband overseeing external operations resembles a Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Both ministers are those who share the burden of administering state affairs for a single nation; though their official titles may distinguish between internal and external [matters], there is no hierarchy in their status.
Therefore, the passage in *Onna Daigaku* about serving one’s husband and so forth is no different from making the Minister of the Interior serve the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Is this not utterly preposterous in reality?
One should know that what is not practiced in a nation is not practiced in a household.

1. One must apply care in employing maids.
Servants not worth listening to have bad habits, lack wisdom, are treacherous at heart, and their speech brings no good.
When there are matters concerning her husband or parents-in-law that do not align with her heart, they slanderously report them indiscriminately, leading her husband to mistakenly believe it is for his own benefit.
If women lack wisdom and believe this, it will inevitably breed resentment.
Fundamentally, since her husband’s household consists entirely of strangers, it becomes easy for her to abandon affection and nurture resentment.
One must not thoughtlessly believe maids’ words and neglect one’s important parents-in-law.
If a maid is excessively talkative and malicious, she should be promptly expelled.
Such individuals will inevitably slander even among relatives and become the very foundation of household discord.
How terrifying!
When employing inferiors, there are many things that do not align with one’s disposition.

If a wife does not cease scolding or rebuking her husband, frequent outbursts of anger will ensue, and the household will lack peace. When wrongdoings occur, one must periodically admonish and instruct to correct errors. Minor faults should be endured without anger; while showing inward compassion, strictly enforce proper conduct externally to prevent negligence. If benevolent acts are required, spare no expense. However, do not indiscriminately give to those who please you personally yet prove useless.

This chapter instructs methods for managing maids: first, never lightly believe their words lest affection toward parents-in-law diminish; promptly expel excessively talkative servants as they inevitably sow discord among kin; expect many frustrations when employing low-status workers but avoid rash anger—instead instruct thoroughly to utilize them; spend generously when benevolence demands it, yet never favor individuals through personal bias.

There was nothing to criticize.
The phrase "[One must] inwardly show compassion while strictly instructing [them] in outward conduct and make use [of them]" was something I deeply admired.

1. The vicious afflictions of women’s hearts are: lack of gentleness and compliance; anger and resentment; slandering others; envy; and shallow wisdom.
These five maladies afflict seven or eight out of ten.
This marks where women fall short of men.
They must reflect upon themselves and cast off these flaws.
Among these, their shallow wisdom gives rise to all five afflictions.
Women belong to yin nature.
Yin resembles night’s darkness.
Thus women prove foolish compared to men: they fail to grasp what lies plain before their eyes; they cannot distinguish censurable matters; they remain blind to what brings calamity upon husbands and children; they resent and curse the innocent; though they envy and despise others while fancying themselves independent, they stay oblivious that all come to loathe and shun them—utterly shallow and pitiful.
Though they raise children, drowning them in misguided love, their poor upbringing and foolishness demand they humble themselves before husbands in all matters.
Ancient law decreed that when bearing daughters, mothers must lie beneath beds for three days.
Here too men mirror heaven while women reflect earth.
Therefore, in all things she must place husband first and self last; though excelling in duties, she must harbor no pride; though reproached for misdeeds, she must amend faults without dispute; she must temper herself to avoid further reproach; though scorned by others, she must suppress anger and endure with fearful caution.
Maintaining this understanding, husband and wife will naturally harmonize, remaining long united to ensure household tranquility.

This main text constitutes the final chapter of *Onna Daigaku*, reproaching women so severely that one might well call it a venomous pen of scurrilous invective.
[The text] declares that the vicious diseases of women’s hearts are disharmony and disobedience, anger and resentment, slanderous speech, envy, and shallow wisdom—asserting that these five afflictions are present in seven or eight out of ten women, constituting where they fall short of men—yet whether this declaration hits its mark or not, I find it difficult to accept immediately.
Gentle speech and conduct combined with docility are women’s distinguishing characteristics and are generally accepted by people.
In situations where men would rightfully grow furious, women often exercise restraint in demeanor and use gentle words to defuse the situation with a laugh before withdrawing.
In the ordinary course of society, while arguments and quarrels between men are not uncommon, it is rare for those same men to engage in disputes against women.
This is not because men themselves exercise restraint, but rather because women’s gentleness and docility possess an inviolable quality that cannot be easily transgressed.
Is it not a commonplace occurrence for people to witness examples where women’s mediation has resolved conflicts—not only between men and women but even in disputes between men themselves?
After all, it is due to women’s virtue of gentleness and compliance; yet when [they] dismiss these facts and regard disharmony and disobedience as women’s afflictions, one must say that the foundation of [their] claims is already erroneous.
However, when the compiler(s) list all conceivable vices—beginning with this disharmony and disobedience, followed by anger, resentment, slander, jealousy, and so forth—as women’s inherent moral failings, might they have inferred that even if women do not outwardly manifest these traits, they harbor some resentment deep in their hearts and occasionally let it seep into their words and actions—thereby dedecting these nuanced emotional states?
If that were indeed the case, I am not one to dismiss the compiler(s)’ inferences.
I would even venture to call their inferences subtly perceptive.
Fundamentally, Japanese women have been ignored in marital contracts and stripped of equal spousal rights; perpetually forced to grovel under oppression and be insulted by men—as human beings by nature, they cannot help but harbor resentment in their hearts.
On rare occasions, if they show their resentment in their countenance or let it slip into their words, [the compilers] denounce it as slander or jealousy.
To draw an analogy: imprisoning someone in a secret chamber, making them grasp fire and drink boiling water—then when they cry out “It’s painful! It’s hot!”, rebuking them as morally deficient for lacking patience—is no different [from this].
Whether they realize it or not, this resentment does not stem from slandering others or envying things—it arises solely from women’s single-minded determination to protect their own rights.
Without even attempting to fathom the sincerity in their hearts, they readily label this as moral corruption—is this not sheer unreasonableness?

Though they had been ensnared for millennia by barbaric customs of brute force and lawlessness—merely maintaining a facade of outward tranquility—such savagery was decidedly not an eternal path.
I sought to clarify the causes of this so-called female moral corruption and rouse the attention of civilized men and women.
Moreover, while initially noting that the fifth of five defects was "shallow wisdom," their concluding claim—that "these five defects arise precisely from this shallow wisdom"—amounted to nothing but circular reasoning asserting that shallow wisdom exists because wisdom is shallow; though this rendered their argument incoherent, I would set aside textual minutiae for now and ask: by what standard was women’s "shallow wisdom" originally measured?
Were one to inquire whether managing a household’s internal and external affairs—distinct domains overseen by men and women—required greater wisdom in either sphere, I would unhesitatingly declare them precisely equal.
Even when men achieved spectacular success in external management, if the woman governing domestic affairs proved foolish and ignorant, the household remained perpetually disordered—no proper home at all; though fortunate cases existed where masters patched over such disarray to avert total collapse, history overflowed with examples where premature deaths brought neglected children, squandered assets, and great families’ sudden ruin.
Conversely, when wise women skillfully managed households—even dull-witted masters relying on them—not only did their so-called supportive roles preserve external dignity, but upon becoming widows, they transformed into wise mothers who nurtured children and sustained households single-handedly—facts scarcely rare across time.
Indeed, among those hailed today as society’s accomplished gentlemen and wise women, none could deny that many had been raised by maternal hands.
Wise women built households; foolish women destroyed them.
The magnitude of women’s influence over a household’s fortunes differed not one whit from men’s.
That households prospered through women’s wisdom and virtue stood as undeniable fact; yet to casually dismiss this as ignorance rendered such criticism itself baseless and unworthy of heed.
Should one argue women were deemed ignorant due to unfamiliarity with external management’s myriad affairs—this stemmed not from innate foolishness, but simply from having no involvement in such matters.
Few Japanese women could discuss or comprehend national politics and economics.
Viewed thus narrowly, they might appear foolish; yet shifting focus to domestic spheres—where women held sole charge—from clothing and meals to servant management, correspondence etiquette, guest hospitality, seasonal entertainments, child-rearing, and nursing the sick—all these household matters proved deceptively minor yet held immense significance.
Wisdom was naturally required here; as for their intricate subtleties—these defied verbal description or written record, dwelling wholly within women’s hearts beyond male imagination or mimicry.
From this vantage, one could only conclude men were fools lacking depth.
Thus did men’s and women’s intelligence vary by task and sphere—their aptitudes simply differing between domestic and external affairs.
Educate individuals accordingly within nature’s limits, and men might perform women’s duties while women accomplished men’s work.
The evidence shone clear beyond dispute.

While tales of brave women from antiquity might be treated as exceptional, our national history demonstrated that many literary talents had emerged among female servants; meanwhile, in Western nations, they particularly emphasized women’s education, with women not only mastering specialties such as physics, literature, and economics to establish themselves as renowned authorities but also—given their distinctive aptitude for meticulous thought—being employed as government accountants.
Moreover, according to scholars’ arguments, since women were deemed more suitable than men in fields such as medicine and medical practice, they advocated the necessity of medical education for women, and it was said that even then the number of female doctors was gradually increasing.
From whichever angle one examined it, to explicitly declare women’s innate nature as ignorant and seek to discard it was nothing but a private opinion of the compilers of *Onna Daigaku*.

Moreover, [they] declare that women are of yin nature—yin being night and dark—and thus begin expounding that women are foolish compared to men and so on, cataloging every conceivable vice and attributing their cause to this yin nature, all deduced from that hackneyed yin-yang theory—how utterly absurd!
This is truly an utterly baseless foolish argument—the very epitome of fools rambling in their dreams.
What exactly is yin-yang, and what does it signify?
According to the Chinese scholarly tradition’s claims—where if south is yang, then north is yin; if winter is yin, then spring is yang; heaven is yang, earth is yin; sun is yang, moon is yin—it was merely that in ancient times of ignorance, unlearned barbaric people arbitrarily divided what they saw and felt into two categories without any basis, slapping on them the vague labels of “yin” and “yang.” Thus, human men and women were haphazardly enrolled in this registry: men deemed yang-natured and women yin-natured—a classification made entirely at whim.
The essence of this is akin to how Western grammar books categorize nouns into masculine, feminine, and neuter—a relic from ancient unwritten times with no inherent profound meaning.
Though one might concoct absurd logic claiming men belong to the yang category because they are lively and physically robust, while women are yin because they are quiet and delicate, let us instead construct a hypothetical theory: women’s faces, radiant with beauty and charm, resemble spring flowers, whereas men’s rugged, graceless appearance mirrors autumn waters and withered trees.
Because spring is yang and autumn is yin, even if one were to say women are yang and men are yin, there could be no great objection.
Regarding the various other yin-yang theories, if we today were to act as ancients and arbitrarily create new theories, it would be exceedingly easy to invert the old doctrines and reverse yin and yang.
Because neither the old nor the new has any basis.
Upon such baseless theorizing, they unflinchingly declare that women are of yin nature—yin being night and dark—and thus women are foolish.
Though it pains me to say so—and though it may seem impolite—I am one who would label the compilers as foolish adherents of yin-yang superstition.
When the very foundation of an argument is mistaken, one must also recognize that its points of discussion hold no value.
[The text] declares that women are foolish—incapable of discerning even immediate gains and losses, unable to distinguish when others might slander them, oblivious to actions that could bring calamity upon their households, mindlessly resenting and raging against innocent people while failing to recognize how this backfires against themselves, and so utterly ignorant as to not even know how to raise children—and thus concludes that they must obey their husbands.
The abuse and slander have reached their zenith.
For now, I shall leave the compilers to their assertions and seek only to question the character of those who are husbands.
Do they claim that because men of the world are yang-natured—yang being day and bright—they are versed in all matters and suited for both internal and external duties, especially enlightened in the way of human relations and of the most upright conduct, and share the deepest bonds with their wives?
If indeed this were so, one might willingly comply and defer—yet given the current trends of society, such a guarantee remains highly dubious.
I advise for the sake of women: without being lightly swayed by the writings of *Onna Daigaku*, maintain self-respect and dignity, and calmly protect your own rights.

It further states: “According to ancient laws, when a woman gives birth to a daughter, they make her lie beneath the floor for three days.”
This too [states] that men are compared to heaven and women are likened to earth, and so on.
This, too, is an empty argument like the preceding section and is unworthy of consideration.
Why must men be exalted as heaven while women are debased as earth?
Men and women differ in sex, but there is no difference in status or nobility between them.
If they claim such a distinction exists, they must present facts to prove it.
Without even stating these facts, they base their arguments on ancient laws and such—what else could this be but groundless?
Blindly believing in ancient laws and proverbs as eternal heavenly principles while remaining ignorant of both the principles of creation and the changes of the times—this is indeed the common failing of adherents of ancient scholarship.
The advancement of human intellect does not permit blind faith.
The ancients’ act of making women lie beneath the floorboards to demonstrate the distinction of “men as heaven, women as earth” was the ancients’ own conception, and their intent is insufficient to serve as a universal law for humanity throughout all ages.
People of old and people of today are all members of society, and each era, past and present, has its own circumstances.
I am not one who, enamored of a single example from unwritten antiquity, seeks to judge today’s matters.
In conclusion, it must be said that the compilers of *Onna Daigaku*, struggling to assert their baseless doctrine of male superiority, resorted to borrowing ancient laws and wielding fantasies of heaven and earth as shields; by dressing their arguments in solemnity to overwhelm women, they adopted desperate measures to forcibly drive them into subjugation in the shadows.
Once the doctrine of male superiority and female inferiority has been established, issuing commands to women becomes exceedingly easy.
They say [women] must in all matters put their husbands first and themselves last; even when excelling in their duties, they must harbor no pride; when committing wrongs and being reproached by others, they must correct their faults without argument and conduct themselves prudently; even when insulted, they must neither grow angry nor resentful—simply remain fearful and reverent.
Although what is called gentleness and endurance of humiliation may be considered human virtues, according to my view, when husband and wife reside in a household, they must permit no inequality in their status; what is commanded of women must equally be commanded of men.
Therefore, if one were to take the preceding text as it stands and direct it toward husbands—instructing them to prioritize their wives in all matters and relegate themselves to the rear; to take no pride in their own achievements; to refrain from disputing even when reproached by their wives for missteps, swiftly correcting their errors and conducting themselves prudently; or to feel no anger when slighted by their wives, simply remaining deferential and circumspect—and impart this identical lesson to both parties, then should both husband and wife internalize it thus, I would boldly guarantee that harmony would naturally arise between them, their union enduring long into the future and their household remaining tranquil—a conclusion leaving no room for doubt. Yet what would the compilers make of this?
Whether they will accept the aforementioned reciprocal theory or not is precisely what I wish to hear.
If they do not do so but merely admonish women alone while leaving men unchecked—as if letting livestock roam free to act as they please—then even if they praise the teachings of gentleness and endurance of humiliation as virtuous, such lessons can only be called the mindset of slaves.
The relationship between husband and wife is neither that of lord and vassal nor master and servant—how much more so when one is regarded as a slave?

It is what I resolutely oppose.

The above articles must be thoroughly taught from childhood.
Furthermore, write them down and have them read periodically to prevent forgetfulness.
Rather than people today lavishing women with clothes and furnishings to marry them off, properly teaching these principles would become a lifelong treasure for self-preservation.
There is an ancient saying: people know how to spend a million coins to marry off daughters but not a hundred thousand to educate children.
How true this rings!
Those who are parents of daughters must not remain ignorant of this truth.

*Onna Daigaku* End

Finally, [they say] these articles must be thoroughly taught from childhood onward; people of the present age, rather than giving daughters many clothes and furnishings and having them marry, [should focus on] these articles; as the old saying goes, people know well how to spend a million coins to marry off their daughters, yet do not know how to spend a hundred thousand coins to educate their children—how true! Those who are parents of daughters must not remain ignorant of this principle.
The conclusion of the above nineteen articles, having been thoroughly discussed, may be said to be profoundly earnest.
I do not by any means condemn the compilers’ sincerity; however, in this present day—over two hundred years after *Onna Daigaku*’s composition—when we observe the advancement of human intellect and the transformations of the times, and seek future happiness by drawing upon past realities, we simply cannot submit to the theories of the ancients—this is why I dare to oppose them.
In that bygone feudal clan-dominated era, where all human affairs—beginning with governance—were structured through oppression, the relationship between men and women naturally conformed to prevailing norms: men acted as rulers and women as subjects, their statuses rigidly stratified. At the same time, men who became rulers—regardless of rank, wealth, or station—treated their wives with the same brazen disregard as shoguns and daimyos of the age, not only mistreating and neglecting them but even willfully indulging in debauchery to abuse and humiliate their spouses. Yet society condemned none of this; instead, it praised those who submitted to such maltreatment as “wise wives and chaste women.” This torrential custom swept through all classes, teaching that jealousy was women’s moral failing. The lower strata absorbed this doctrine, chanting that “jealousy shames women,” so women not only abandoned their marital rights and sank into bitter despair but also failed to recognize—even as they witnessed men’s depravity sowing calamity for future generations—how utterly preposterous this system was.
Though this may seem astonishing, such prolonged societal oppression formed habits that became universal traits—much like how politically, even those not born to be rulers were compelled to act as subjects, and women’s path was defined by gentleness, endurance of humiliation, and blind obedience, so that even those not born to be husbands forced wives into subjugation. Thus did *Onna Daigaku*, drafted in an era wholly devoted to reinforcing such one-sided teachings to align with—and indirectly uphold—the feudal social order, become a product of its peculiar time. While its arguments appear utterly bizarre from today’s perspective, in those days they were by no means worthy of astonishment.
Bows, arrows, spears, and swords—though now useless encumbrances as military implements, mere playthings—in years past, a single spear could decide the fate of armies.
In the past they were tools of utility; in the present they are playthings.
We call this difference between past and present the advancement of human intellect and the transformation of the times.
It is a matter to which scholars should pay attention.

Therefore, while I regarded *Onna Daigaku* as a treatise on women’s education akin to bows and spears—placing no weight on it in this day—setting aside the validity of its arguments, I could only admire the compilers’ earnestness in advocating the necessity of educating women.
Therefore, I set down in writing the gist of my long-considered plan for women’s education and, titling it *New Onna Daigaku*, presented it to the compilers in the realm below for their scrutiny.
Even the esteemed compilers, upon observing two centuries of transformation, might perhaps have come to nod in agreement.