Part 1 Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the foremothers of feminist thought and a genius activist, was radical enough to think ahead of her time by challenging male-based values regarding women being inferior by nature and unworthy of any truth and virtue. She published A Vindication of the rights of Woman in an attempt to justify or support the idea that women were perceived as inferior and vain only because they were denied an “orderly” level of education and the opportunities to become ethically responsible, self-reliable citizens. She introduced us to such ground-shaking ideas 218 years ago. Thus, trying to find flows in her speech might seem rather cruel and unfair. However, Wollstonecraft did fail at recognizing the fact that some of her arguments are actually promoting sexist believes about women and their place on society. Wollstonecraft was assertive enough to unveil the countless mistaken ideas promoted by patriarchy in order to restrain women to their apparently natural marginalized position. For example, she denoted that ignorance should not be kept “under the specious name of innocence” since that only causes women to behave whimsically and to, thus, give men enough reasons to complain about their irrational behavior. She also recognized the virtue has nothing to do with beauty refinement, and that it can only be attained by means of reason and accountability. She also recognized the fact the women are identified and assigned value only in terms of their relationship to men as daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers and how proficiently they fulfill such roles. Nevertheless, I noticed two aspects in Wollstonecraft’s ideas that might as well be seen as counterproductive in regards to demanding gender equality. First of all, even though she brilliantly pointed out the “privileges of humanity” as being directly opposed to those of the sex (meaning that the few “privileges” being a woman back then implied were only temporary and would fade along with their beauty,) she also, in a way, denoted the idea that women cannot really do much for themselves other than to “help” men. She “entreat[ed] them [men] to assist to emancipate their companion, to make her a help meet for them.” What is the meaning of this? By “meet,” here a noun not a verb, she suggests that by setting women free, they will become ideal or fit for helping them. If I read this correctly, liberating women from the “duties” of the sex does not mean giving them freedom to have a life of their own and become independent, autonomous beings, but only that they will become men’s ideal helpers, not to say servants. This is not to say Wollstonecraft promoted the idea of women as maids. However, going from unhappy, foolish servant to moderately happy, more assertive servant does not really make much of a difference...
Part 2 As well, Wollstonecraft suggested men that by “snap[ing] our [women’s] chains, and be[ing] content with rational fellowship instead of slavish obedience, they would find us more observant daughters, more affectionate sisters, more faithful wives, more reasonable mothers, in a word, better citizens.” This statement is not only contradicting her previous view about women having to “resign the privileges of rank and the sex for the privileges of humanity” by suggesting that being a better citizen (humanity) implies being a “good” mother, sister, daughter, wife (rank and sex.) This assumption is understandable given that imperialist and nationalist ideas managed to brainwash women into thinking that being “good” mothers and wives and breeding “good” soldiers, I mean, children, was their way of contributing to their nation’s expansion and prosperity, and of obtaining a mildly decent sense of community and belonging. Nonetheless, Wollstonecraft did not see it and ended up favoring the essentialist view that women are born to perform specific social roles, regardless of how free and equal they consider themselves to be as individuals. Again, Mary Wollstonecraft is a genius and radical supporter of women rights, and her job at demystifying women’s image as naturally inferior and irrational, as early as in 1792, definitely transgressed and transcended ideological barriers. I believe the presence and political action of contemporary “Wollstonecrafts” is very much needed nowadays.
Part 1
ResponderEliminarMary Wollstonecraft, one of the foremothers of feminist thought and a genius activist, was radical enough to think ahead of her time by challenging male-based values regarding women being inferior by nature and unworthy of any truth and virtue. She published A Vindication of the rights of Woman in an attempt to justify or support the idea that women were perceived as inferior and vain only because they were denied an “orderly” level of education and the opportunities to become ethically responsible, self-reliable citizens. She introduced us to such ground-shaking ideas 218 years ago. Thus, trying to find flows in her speech might seem rather cruel and unfair. However, Wollstonecraft did fail at recognizing the fact that some of her arguments are actually promoting sexist believes about women and their place on society.
Wollstonecraft was assertive enough to unveil the countless mistaken ideas promoted by patriarchy in order to restrain women to their apparently natural marginalized position. For example, she denoted that ignorance should not be kept “under the specious name of innocence” since that only causes women to behave whimsically and to, thus, give men enough reasons to complain about their irrational behavior. She also recognized the virtue has nothing to do with beauty refinement, and that it can only be attained by means of reason and accountability. She also recognized the fact the women are identified and assigned value only in terms of their relationship to men as daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers and how proficiently they fulfill such roles.
Nevertheless, I noticed two aspects in Wollstonecraft’s ideas that might as well be seen as counterproductive in regards to demanding gender equality. First of all, even though she brilliantly pointed out the “privileges of humanity” as being directly opposed to those of the sex (meaning that the few “privileges” being a woman back then implied were only temporary and would fade along with their beauty,) she also, in a way, denoted the idea that women cannot really do much for themselves other than to “help” men. She “entreat[ed] them [men] to assist to emancipate their companion, to make her a help meet for them.” What is the meaning of this? By “meet,” here a noun not a verb, she suggests that by setting women free, they will become ideal or fit for helping them. If I read this correctly, liberating women from the “duties” of the sex does not mean giving them freedom to have a life of their own and become independent, autonomous beings, but only that they will become men’s ideal helpers, not to say servants. This is not to say Wollstonecraft promoted the idea of women as maids. However, going from unhappy, foolish servant to moderately happy, more assertive servant does not really make much of a difference...
Part 2
ResponderEliminarAs well, Wollstonecraft suggested men that by “snap[ing] our [women’s] chains, and be[ing] content with rational fellowship instead of slavish obedience, they would find us more observant daughters, more affectionate sisters, more faithful wives, more reasonable mothers, in a word, better citizens.” This statement is not only contradicting her previous view about women having to “resign the privileges of rank and the sex for the privileges of humanity” by suggesting that being a better citizen (humanity) implies being a “good” mother, sister, daughter, wife (rank and sex.) This assumption is understandable given that imperialist and nationalist ideas managed to brainwash women into thinking that being “good” mothers and wives and breeding “good” soldiers, I mean, children, was their way of contributing to their nation’s expansion and prosperity, and of obtaining a mildly decent sense of community and belonging. Nonetheless, Wollstonecraft did not see it and ended up favoring the essentialist view that women are born to perform specific social roles, regardless of how free and equal they consider themselves to be as individuals.
Again, Mary Wollstonecraft is a genius and radical supporter of women rights, and her job at demystifying women’s image as naturally inferior and irrational, as early as in 1792, definitely transgressed and transcended ideological barriers. I believe the presence and political action of contemporary “Wollstonecrafts” is very much needed nowadays.