'I do not wish them to have power over men; but over themselves'
The above quote I chose because I felt I should start positively on a book I was looking forward to reading so much, you know, that book by one of the first 'feminists' that was so revolutionary and wonderful and everything that is right with the progression of intellectualism. That, I have discovered to my alarm, is not this book. I am afraid here you are going to have to forgive me ignoring the historical context one could use to justify this self satisfied essay on reasons that women cannot raise themselves above their 'natural physical weakness'; using her incredibly limited world view Wollstonecraft (we are not even on first name terms any more) has successfully managed to make me indignant.
Wollstonecraft maintains that education is a large portion of that which separated men from women in her time period, I agree with her there. However, she refuses to admit any conceivable virtue could lie within the sphere of her sex naturally and that all that is called 'feminine' is inherently valueless, weak and insipid. Whilst I understand that the upper class examples of our sex in her time were not the strongest of examples of strong women by modern standards there were still plenty women in the middle and working classes that far out did her example when it came to strength of character, determination to better themselves and confidence.
The one thing missing being their education. Illiteracy was the lot of the majority, the public school system had not yet come into place so the places of learning were still dominated by those who had both the money and time to use them. Whilst it is acknowledged fleetingly that the vast majority of women did not have access to any form of education it did not stop Wollstonecraft from questioning women's ability to learn without becoming vain sycophants without opinions as if these were vices solely within the realm of women and that men couldn't be equally vain and sycophantic. 'My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone.' Ignoring of course the lack of resources and time for the vast majority of women and the women who did support themselves. Yeah, ignore all that.
She has cut me to the quick! She attacks women for their perceived weakness and seems to hold a hatred of her own sex and a desire to focus of strengths and instead of recognising some virtues from members of her sex she merely suggests that women need to be more like men and the ultimate goal women are striving towards is to be 'useful'.
IT MAKES ME SO ANGRY. I think I am going to have to leave this here, calm down, reread the more reasonable bits. Hopefully it will be less bile stirring next time round. You never know.
Wollstonecraft maintains that education is a large portion of that which separated men from women in her time period, I agree with her there. However, she refuses to admit any conceivable virtue could lie within the sphere of her sex naturally and that all that is called 'feminine' is inherently valueless, weak and insipid. Whilst I understand that the upper class examples of our sex in her time were not the strongest of examples of strong women by modern standards there were still plenty women in the middle and working classes that far out did her example when it came to strength of character, determination to better themselves and confidence.
The one thing missing being their education. Illiteracy was the lot of the majority, the public school system had not yet come into place so the places of learning were still dominated by those who had both the money and time to use them. Whilst it is acknowledged fleetingly that the vast majority of women did not have access to any form of education it did not stop Wollstonecraft from questioning women's ability to learn without becoming vain sycophants without opinions as if these were vices solely within the realm of women and that men couldn't be equally vain and sycophantic. 'My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone.' Ignoring of course the lack of resources and time for the vast majority of women and the women who did support themselves. Yeah, ignore all that.
She has cut me to the quick! She attacks women for their perceived weakness and seems to hold a hatred of her own sex and a desire to focus of strengths and instead of recognising some virtues from members of her sex she merely suggests that women need to be more like men and the ultimate goal women are striving towards is to be 'useful'.
IT MAKES ME SO ANGRY. I think I am going to have to leave this here, calm down, reread the more reasonable bits. Hopefully it will be less bile stirring next time round. You never know.
No comments:
Post a Comment