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.

The Rules

I was actually pretty appalled after I read a few of "the rules," and realized that it was written during my lifetime. Conduct books during the 18th century consisted of numerous codes of "sensibility," and existed solely to teach females how to be attractive for marriage. They listed out guidelines of how women should think, feel, and act in different types of social settings. These were incredibly popular during this time because it was thought that women were too prone to their emotions, incapable of rational thought, and therefore needed directions on how to "properly" act. This lack of rational thought was also one of the greater arguments against the education of women. In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Mary Wollstonecraft strives to break down this barrier. She argues that women are in fact capable of rational thought, but have simply been suppressed and forced into a limited lifestyle. She states " women are told from their infancy...should they be beautiful, everything else is needless (380)." She critiques said conduct books, using them as main evidence in her argument that women have been trained to think that they are inferior. Even her quote that "riches and hereditary honours have made cyphers of women" refers to the gross limitations of womankind. In one fell swoop, The Rules completely negates what Wollstonecraft was fighting for. It gives direct actions on how to think and act in order to track down a husband. Things like "dont tell him what to do," "let him take the lead," "be easy to live with," and my personal favorite "do the rules and you'll live happily ever after!" Cleverly disguised as a "self-help" book, The Rules is practically a time machine that takes one straight back to the Romantic period, before Wollstonecraft and other feminists spoke out. It is a perfect model of a conduct book, its one and only purpose to train women on how to become suitable for marriage. The fact that it was published in the last few decades is the most baffling part of its existence.

Wollstonecraft

2. Mary Wollstonecraft argues with Rousseau’s argument that man was created as a solitary animal. She goes on to explain that his initial concept has good intentions, but she argues that man has not created evil by becoming civilized and functioning around others. Rousseau argues that man should be this solitary animal yet he applauds the work of Gaius Fabricius who criticized Roman emperors for not being barbaric enough and not conquering enough of the world (377). This support of Fabricius makes no sense along with his earlier argument that man should be left alone.
Wollstonecraft believes that the fountain of life gave us feelings and passions to make us better and to inspire us to do well. She believes, “Firmly persuaded that no evil exists in the world that God did not design to take place, I build my belief on the perfection of God” (377). It seems as though Rousseau believes that after God created man, man created all of the evils and all men became evil. Wollstonecraft argues that to find perfection within life one must have good and evil balance each other and to not view evil as a positive.
She also believes that women should be able to acquire an education on the same level as men to become a better companion to men. She believes that unless women are educated like men they will halt the progress of their true virtue. Equality between men and women will bring more happiness and virtue to society (378). She does not want women to concern themselves with only domestic duties because they will be ignorant beings not contributing to society. She feels that marriages will become more sacred with the equality of men and women. Women are not exploring their true virtues by being domestic and not furthering their knowledge. All will be better with more rights granted to women.

Question 1)

Political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserts the importance of solitude arguing man by nature is a solitary animal growing increasingly more wicked with social interaction. Mary Wollstonecraft disagrees with Rousseau instead contending the state of human nature favors social behavior. Historically women have been confined to their homes restricted from participating in social and political activities. As a man, Rousseau enjoyed movement between both the private and public spheres a luxury women were typically denied. Wollstonecraft thinks Rousseau views evil as a positive force and only the work of man. In opposition, Wollstonecraft most likely views evil as the result of God, because he would not create something without knowing its end result. Further, Wollstonecraft disagrees with Rousseau because he “exerts himself to prove that all was right originally.” In opposition, Wollstonecraft puts her faith in the perfection of God believing that “no evil exists in the world.” Further, Wollstonecraft argues that Rousseau “celebrates barbarism,” and writes about slaves who rescued their oppressors. Wollstonecraft would identify with the oppressed and not understand efforts of the enslaved to rescue viscous oppressors. Rousseau enjoyed a vastly different lifestyle than Wollstonecraft and the two writers disagreed on key points about the nature of man.

Question 2

I agree with Liz- Wollstonecraft's goal is to convey her irritation at society's standard's for women. In Chapter II, she mentions "Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, everything else is needless, for at least twenty years of their lives." Essentially, a woman is never given any other alternative to being a housewife, given away to cook, clean, and serve her husband in any way he asks. This brings me to another one of Wollstonecraft's interesting points, also in Chapter II. She acknowledges something I probably would not have considered had she not mentioned it-the idea that a husband will eventually grow unresponsive to his loving wife's faithful service when she goes about serving him and pleasing him day after day, year after year. This of course would lead her to search for another man who would be more receptive and responsive to her doting behavior. After all, this woman was taught from her girlhood that she was meant to please men, and if she was no longer pleasing her husband, shouldn't she at least try to please another man? Interestingly enough, a little research into Mary Wollstonecraft's life led to the discovery that she herself had a love affair with Gilbert Imlay (resulting in a daughter, Fanny) and an affair with William Godwin (which resulted in the birth of Frankenstein author Mary Shelley.) She was never actually married. Perhaps this excerpt from Vindications offers a clue as to why.

Women's Rights

Question 2 (etc):
In this quote, Wollstonecraft is commenting on the social system of "riches and hereditary honors"(382). Calling women nothing more than a cypher (which I had to look up to get the exact definition and means a number which does not change the outcome of an equation, such as a zero, or something that has no real meaning or effect), Wollstonecraft believes that by restricting women to domestication, society is forcing them to be of no consequence. Not only in present life, but also in history. Earlier she was comparing women's education (or lack thereof) to that of those in the military. Women are taught manners and codes of conduct without any logic behind them. They can follow these codes but inherently do not know why they do or why they are in place. They do it because they are told to, not because they understand the codes' rationale. Women are forced to live much like soldiers, chosen early on to be drafted to serve the motherland (in woman's case, house and future husband). They are chosen, by sex, to be placed in a home to sew, cook and make babies. According to Wollstonecraft, even those with "natural sagacity" are stunted and forced to waste their natural intelligence "on life and manners"(382). Now, I'm not saying that Wollstonecraft was against all domestication, just that which suppresses her sex. This follows her "main argument" that by not educating women society is "stop[ping] the progress of knowledge and virtue" (371). Basically, after a few generations of blindly following these rules, society will forget why they were put in place to begin with. One must be taught why things are done they way they are in order for them to be understood and therefor followed. Without this, "knowledge and virtue" will be forgotten.
And on a side note, it's interesting to compare this basic concept to the rules and regulations of today. This is kind of a stretch but I thought of it while reading. When raising children, it is very common for parents to use the infamous phrase "because I said so." I have found (in interacting with my two sisters, ages 6 and 3, and my 17 year old brother) that this approach is not well receipted. So why does it work so well with adults today? Laws, ordinances, etc. are put in place and no one thinks to question them. Sure, the small percent of the population that takes the time to follow up will understand, but what about the rest of the nation. Why do we grow up and become adherents to a law we don't understand? This is just where my thoughts led me. Basically, we should all take Wollstonecraft's advice and begin to educate ourselves and dare to ask "why?".

I do not really understand her argument with Rousseau, nor do I really understand her points at all in this entire reading, but I will try to make a jab at it.
According to Rousseau, everything that was once made good by God “degenerates in the hands of man”(pp 377, note #17). He believes that human beings become more wicked as they become more sociable. Wollstonecraft argues that God would not have given us passions and the power of reflecting if it were only to make men worse. She says that they were given to improve our nature and allow us to enjoy a more “godlike portion of happiness”(pp 377). Education was one of the major issues that Wollstonecraft argued about, stating that if a woman’s duty is of the domestic kind, to care for their children and the home, they would be more willing and attached to that duty if they had more understanding of why. If women were able to gain this “power of reflecting”, the power of thought as all men are entitled to, they’ll be able to enjoy a more “godlike portion of happiness” and go about their duty’s with a happy heart. To Rousseau, by nature woman is inferior to the wicked man and is to be obedient. Wollstonecraft would completely disagree in that only if women and men held the same values would that be true. Obviously, they don’t, and as many women of this time were fighting to have the same rights as men, and almost despised the very idea that they are expected to be more modest and chaste. Wollstonecraft even says that the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and happiness will reign in society.

Question 1:

1) Mary Wollstonecraft believes in the perfection of God, and that when He created the world, he did so in complete perfection knowing that his creation would continue to reap perfection, rather than evil and destruction in the world. In other words, Wollstonecraft does not believe that the creation of man and woman was an act of evil and corruption entering a perfect world, but rather God-in His ultimate knowledge and perfection-put mankind on Earth for a reason to bring about change and achieve Reason. Rousseau, on the other hand, was affected with the sense that in the beginning perfection was created, yet the moment mankind entered the world, it became corrupt. Because of this stance, Rousseau implores that the state of solitude in nature is preferable to a society or civilization, because with society comes interaction with people, thus comes corruption.
Mary Wollstonecraft argues aggressively against this particular view. She insists that God in his perfection yielded a way for "evil" humans to work together to create a better and more perfect world once they achieve Reason. In a way, Wollstonecraft contains hints of Calvinism in her doctrine. She sees everything as already determined and predestined, therefore there is no question that God willed man be put on this earth and would produce a future good even in his "evil." She does not argue for human perfection, but rather for ultimate perfection (or so it seems...)
This comes into play with her stance on women's rights by a quote on page 377 "Roussea exterts himself to prove that all was right originally:...and I that all will be right." Here, Wollstonecraft makes the stance that man and woman were created equally and each given a specific purpose on this earth to a greater good. If man and woman only represented evil and corruption, then God would cringe at their works and efforts, rather than delight in them. If this were true, then women ultimately would have no need to further themselves or overcome the hardships of the time to let their own beliefs, wisdome and virtue be known above men. However, Wollstonecraft believes that because God ordained all along the role mankind would play, He never discounted women, but rather would delight in their efforts to work for a greater good, just like men.

Women's Rights questions

1. Unravel Wollstonecraft's argument with Rousseau. Why does she disagree with him, and what does this have to do with the Rights of Woman?
2. What does she mean by "riches and hereditary honors have made cyphers of women?" (Matlak and Mellor 382).
3. How does Wollstonecraft incorporate Christianity into her argument for female virtue?
4. In 1995, the book The Rules was a smash hit with women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rules). How are these "rules" similar to or different from what Wollstonecraft critiques in conduct books?
5. What are the differences between Wollstonecraft and Moore's opinions of women's rights?
6. In what ways does Edgeworth's Mrs. Freke, a "militant feminist," differ from Wollstonecraft?

Welcome to our blog!

All,
Welcome to our blog! I'll post suggested questions here but welcome you to contribute your own questions, concerns, or observations.