Question 6

Kara makes some excellent points in discussing the differences between the thoughts proposed by Wollstonecraft and the character created by Maria Edgeworth. Mrs. Freke does make fun of Belinda for her studies, thereby disagreeing with the basic principle set forth by Wollstonecraft that women can advance their positions in society through an acquirement of knowledge. Sticking with education, after Mrs. Freke makes fun of Belinda's studies, she states that a course of the woods would be better for her; specifically stating hunting. This type of knowledge represents practical use whereas it seems knowledge through scholarly books would not. Hannah More raised a similar point in her piece, so I wonder what Wollstonecraft would say in regards to this. Should women look to advance their postions in society by learning things that will directly affect their functions in the world or stick to that which seems only to stimulate abstract thought?

Mrs. Feke vs. Wollstonecraft

Maria Edgeworth’s character Mrs. Freke differs from Mary Wollstonecraft in several ways. I agree with Kara--in addressing this question it is important to realize that Mrs. Freke is not an extension of Edgeworth herself, merely a character comparable to Wollstonecraft through her views on women’s rights and education.

Throughout the piece, Mrs. Freke argues and believes she is “a champion for the Rights of Women” (544), which in my opinion is a bunch of bull. I see Mrs. Feke almost exhibiting some qualities of sexism (for lack of a better word) in the summation of her remarks to Belinda. She calls her a “distressed damsel” (542), doesn’t “suffer” her to speak, interrupts her, attempts to gain her compliance through flattery, derogation (about her reading), then threats, and even comments on the “delicacy of their sex” (544). Mrs. Feke, although arguably a “militant feminist” may also be possibly viewed as an extension of the current (c.1801) Male views concerning Women’s ‘place’ in society, while Belinda represents a growing, free-thinking woman--representative of this particular rights movement.

Mary Wollstonecraft is a more serious protofeminist as she proposes revolution and argues for equally-caste women’s rights in “A Vindication for the Rights of Women.” She does this by appealing to her readers with logic and reason, though not through a quasi-drama (like Edgeworth). She argues for rights for “half of the human race” (which may also refer to slavery) and does not push her ‘womanly boundaries’ by really only advocating for women’s education reform, and not much else.

Wollstonecraft vs. Edgeworth's Freke

6. Wollstonecraft takes a less-severe tack than the “militant feminism” Edgeworth attributes to Mrs. Freke. To begin, Wollstonecraft defends modesty, calling it “the fairest garb of virtue!” (371). She argues that France is indecent, having currently associated their ideas towards modesty with prudishness. Freke, on the other hand, takes great pleasure in making a scene. “There’s nothing I like so much as to make good people stare” (542) Freke tells Belinda, clearly trying to render a response (or, perhaps, a disciple). Later, she claims that “all virtue is hypocrisy” (543) showing not only that she does not value virtue, but that she does not even believe in its honest existence.
Wollstonecraft states her main argument thus: that woman must be prepared to be the “companion of man” through education and socialization (371). Without rendering that reality, she warns, “progress of knowledge and virtue” will cease for both sexes (371). Freke, however, seeks what she sees as retribution for the enslavement of women. “The present system of society is radically wrong:– whatever is, is wrong” (544) she says, but this is a statement of only broad, sweeping terms. Freke’s arguments all seem haphazard and unsubstantiated not because they are not legitimate injustices (assuming that the goal is equality amongst the sexes) but because she has no support to back them. She takes the opposite view of education than Wollstonecraft. She mocks Belinda for reading, telling her that the only people for whom reading is fruitful are those who cannot think for themselves.
It is supremely important to recognize that Freke is not Edgeworth. Further, in Edgeworth’s caricature of a militant feminist, she was highlighting the aspects of the breed with which her own opinion differed. Edgeworth’s heroine, at least in the excerpts we read, is Belinda – the quietly resolute follower of the good Mr. and Mrs. Percival.

The Problem with Rousseau

After re-reading some of the passages where Wollstonecraft rallys against Rousseau, I thought a bit on exactly why Wollstonecraft was so vividly opposed to his works on Inequality and the perfectability of man. I've read a small portion of Discourse, and while Wollstonecraft may very well disagree on many of the issues, how exactly beating these text in with the crowbar of rhetoric relates to the rights of women is beyond me. Rousseau's real feminine maddening work must be agreed on as Emelie. In Emelie Rousseau argues that women are for the pleasure of men, and thus, women should not have the same education as men. Wollstonecraft disagrees, as well as she should, and says that women should be educated equally to preserve the patriotism of their offspring and to bring companionship to their husbands rather than servility. The basic "good of the country" argument, and while not exactly feminist at its core, at least she was getting somewhere. However, her bashing of Rousseau's other ideals seems out of step with the rest of her argument, at least to me. She feels vindictive, and maybe she should be, and while most of her points make perfect sense, why exactly are they in this text? Of course maybe I'm just not reading closely enough.

question 1

Wollstonecraft, as a liberal minded woman, can not agree with Rousseau’s perception that the world was perfect at the beginning, because it would give legitimacy to the historical discrimination that placed woman below men. Instead, she argued that this perfection was slowly reached through each succeeding generation’s achievement of reason. In order for the continuation of this effort towards perfection, Wollstonecraft believed it necessary for women to be educated, which offers an interesting critique of Rousseau’s own philosophical understanding that woman were incapable of reason. Wollstonecraft’s argument is interesting in that she recognizes the conservative notion of home being the place for women, but draws on the importance of woman’s roles in the domestic to affect the outer social territory. The education of woman, Wollstonecraft upholds, will ultimately lead to a unique solidarity between husband and wife, which will lead to a better domestic environment, and a step towards the perfection in the social and religious realms that she mentions. So if women’s education is of quality and thus will lead to change, Wollstonecraft refutes Rousseau’s testimony that woman are reason-less, and like men are also capable of being full citizens.

Commentary on Question 2

“riches and hereditary honors have made cyphers of women"

Wollstonecraft certainly makes a point of acknowledging the “efforts” men of her time take to establish women as objects of value. Women seem to be put on a pedestal of chastity and virtue, which Wollstonecraft argues actually lessens their worth. Women are not allowed to be essentially human, and so they become less than human in their idealization by men with good intentions. This tradition, or system of “riches and hereditary honors,” tries to set women apart as precious objects and so in the process turns them into mere objects, denying them the right to education, thought, and humanity.

People often feel that by protecting someone from certain aspects of life, they can spare them any unnecessary discomfort. Instead of sparing them, however, they are arguably keeping them from truly experiencing life. This is most apparent, I feel, in the modern stereotype of the over-protected child: perhaps there are some things children should not be exposed to, however, that should not interfere with allowing them to experience life as they will later be forced to deal with as adults. The same can be said for Wollenstonecraft’s women, whom she often describes as being kept in a state of childhood – regardless of right or wrong, it is naïve to think that that a man will always be around to shield and care for a woman, sooner or later she must exist without his assistance. Thus, a woman should and must be free and able to prepare herself to function as an individual in the real world, and she certainly can’t be judged or held responsible for an inability to do so if she was never allowed to prepare the occasion.

3

Wollstonecraft says that birthright is a function of liberty both from civil and religious perspectives. Her argument that at birth God gave people the rank above animals, therefore it is the responsibility of all humans to obey the equality right. It is not other people who can decide the worth of humanity. The rich and powerful are going against God by using other people as basically their work animals. Men are disregarding God's will by having women only as their mistresses and not giving them the ability to control their own lives. When men take away education for women and the less powerful, they are reducing them to lives of servitude and taking away their right to live a Christan life. The ability to reason allows people to obey God; she argues that these powerful men are taking away education for the poor and women and thus taking away the ability to reason. Wollstonecraft says that people do not have the tools to decide between right and wrong because they were never taught, they were only and always told what to do. This does not make one holy, only a slave. She blames the powerful men for this and explains that a society cannot be holy if every member is not holy. The whole must submit to God, not because they were told, but because that's what they chose. I think she says that these men in powerful positions are supposed to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and that everyone is educated so they can choose God through reason. Wollstonecraft always makes it clear that women are not above men but that all people are on the same level. When women are treated the same as men and given the same opportunity for education as the men, then the women will respond by being better mothers and wives. This will benefit the men as well as the whole society. In other words, love generates more love. Living according to the rules of God leads to more people to God and Christian lives.