There were few places one could escape the oppressive air and politics of 17th century London, that is until the first coffee shop arrived. When the brits finally learned of the brew (hundreds of years after its discovery in Ethiopia1), it quickly drew the ire and attention of conservatives and victuallers alike. There was widespread fear it would replace alcohol, and foment discord among the drunk, uneducated masses. Propaganda campaigns were unleashed to tie the drink to everything foreign (The Sweat of Negroes, Blood of Moores2) and unchristian (i.e. bitter Mohammedan gruel3). And while these racist campaigns were as ineffective as they were unoriginal, there is one that stood out against the rest. The Women’s Petition Against Coffee.
Unlike the homogenous chains we’ve come to know, the coffee shops of the time varied widely in intent and theme. Rainbow Coffee House became a refuge for freemasons and french refugees. Jonathan’s Coffee House, founded in Exchange Alley, was frequented by merchants and businessmen and became the home of the London Stock Exchange. Others became the birthplace of life insurance, or assassination plots.
Dreaming of Kafka is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The congregation of the masses was and has always been seen as a threat to thin-skinned rulers, so even though these coffeeshops did little to combat the conservative norms (patrons were still largely white men), they were still perceived as an affront to polite society.
“…disturbance of the peace and quiet realm,”
King Charles II on Coffee and Coffee Drinkers
They were the college campuses of the time, deeply unequal institutions that were believed to foster radical thought and just like college campuses, they became the prime target of conservative forces.
“..beatniks, radicals and filthy speech advocates”
Ronald Reagan on College and College Activists4
In 1674, the “Woman’s Petition Against Coffee”5 penned by “A Well Wisher” started to make the rounds. In addition to its fantastical takedowns of the male anatomy, the petition is filled with all sorts of jabs aimed at coffee drinking men.
Coffeehouses sometimes doubled as brothels, or at least helped encourage certain kinds of matchmaking activities. If a man came home after a late night and smelled like coffee, it was hardly different than him having lipstick on his lapel. So the theory goes that the author of this letter was the wife of an unfaithful man, a woman who took issue with the infidelity of the male species, and needed to let the world know.
She attacks their trousers and says:
They come from it with nothing moist but their snotty Noses, nothing stiffe but their joints, nor standing but their Ears.
Well Wisher, Women’s Petition Against Coffee
She talks about how annoying it makes a man.
For besides, we have reason to apprehend and grow Jealous, That Men by frequenting these Stygian Tap-houses will usurp on our Prerogative of tattling, and soon learn to exceed us in Talkativeness: a Quality wherein our Sex has ever Claimed preheminence.
Well Wisher, Women’s Petition Against Coffee
And finally she even takes aim at the brew itself
“[men]..spend their Money, all for a little base, black, thick, nasty, bitter, stinking, nauseous Puddle-water.
Well Wisher, Women’s Petition Against Coffee
Although, there was likely little disagreement on her last point6; British coffee was known for being an abhorrent, yet suitable alternative to alcohol or the fetid water flowing through the tap. Still, the author must’ve hit a nerve because shortly thereafter, a man’s answer to this petition was released7. The reactionary piece leans heavily on an acerbic, self-righteous type of prose, written by exactly the kind of man the Well Wisher warned us of. Talkative, with nothing to say.
Yet, as entertaining as these caustic missives are, there’s another theory89 that perhaps the petition and it’s resulting discourse serves an ulterior motive. In 1675, one year after the Women’s Petition Against Coffee was written, King Charles II tried to ban coffee through an edict10. It then appears to be too much of a coincidence that the will of the King, a man with nearly a dozen mistresses, aligns with that of this fed-up housewife.
In his book, Elite Capture, the philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò writes about how identity politics has become weaponized to serve a select few11. Elites have learned that rather than fight progressive politics, it’s far easier to incorporate them and water them down to diminish their value.
One can only speculate, but I believe that the Women’s Petition Against Coffee is an early attempt at elite capture. While it began as an honest list of objections to the patriarchal culture of coffeehouses, it gained infamy perhaps through the support of the crown and other elite forces that are less interested in equality, and more interested in the squashing of dissent.
Footnotes:
Keating, Erin. “Masculinity and Gatekeeping in Depictions of the Restoration Coffeehouse.” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 62, no. 3/4, 2021, pp. 385–404. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27252098. Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.
Keating, Erin. “Masculinity and Gatekeeping in Depictions of the Restoration Coffeehouse.” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 62, no. 3/4, 2021, pp. 385–404. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27252098. Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.
