Respectability and Pleasure:
Wollstonecraft had two illegitimate children (let’s be real now, marrying after conception doesn’t change the fact that the child was conceived out of wedlock). Unless she was remarkably fertile, there were many more ‘missed opportunities’ than ‘hits.’ She proposed living in a polygamous relationship with Henry Fuseli and his wife (who knew swingers were around in the 18th century?). She attempted to commit suicide twice. However, she believes a woman’s “first wish should be to make herself respectable” over pursuing worldly pleasure (504). Irony: what is a respectable woman? Isn’t this concept formulated by the society in which we live? Don’t men contribute roughly half of the say on what a ‘respectable woman’ should look like? I have a sneaking suspicion that these respectable women (as Wollstonecraft herself aspires to be), might share an uncanny resemblance with the “artificial, weak characters” and “useless members of society” whom she bashes (499). Growing up, my dad always told me to “do as I say, not as I do.” Perhaps this is what she’s getting at. Don’t fuck around like me, yo! That lay’s going to last you a lifetime without birth control. I just can’t help but wonder… Wollstonecraft preaches respectability for women… she disdains pleasure seekers and givers… yet she seems to have been quite guided by her own material whims and desires… so what exactly is Wollstonecraft advising us ladies to act like?
Children:
I see Wollstonecraft’s point when she says “Men, indeed, appear to me to act in a very unphilosophical manner when they try to secure the good conduct of women by attempting to keep them always in a state of childhood” (497). That’s an idiot’s strategy for domination. However, she lost me when she claims “Children, I grant, should be innocent; but when the epithet is applied to men, or women, it is but a civil term for weakness” (497). Once again, Wollstonecraft seems to be conforming to societal norms. Yes, the term ‘child’ can be used as an insult. Children are certainly weak, and she seems to be a fan of defined strength (I wonder if dominatrixes AND swingers were around in the 18th century….) but how can she overlook the epistemic humility that only a child can truly master? Shouldn’t we all be more like children? Jesus preached, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3). So why does Wollstonecraft use the idea of being childlike as an insult for both men and women? She calls men “only overgrown children” and criticizes innocence in women (499). I say chill on the name-calling lady. We could all use a little more kidness in our lives.
Hume:
When Wollstonecraft says “it is a farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result from the exercise of its own reason” it reminded me of Hume’s advocacy of ‘practice makes perfect’ (498). I can’t imagine any statement that is more opposite Wollstonecraft’s claim to self-reason than Hume’s stance that “nothing tends further to encrease and improve this talent [delicacy], than practice in a particular art, and the frequent survey or contemplation of a particular species of beauty” (398). Boy, talk about societal knowledge preceding academic knowledge preceding free-thinking (but wait, does Hume even believe in free-thinking?). I believe Wollstonecraft would bitch-slap Hume if given the chance.
Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteI think you have a good grasp on W, and I do think that she is inconsistent. I think that W throught a lot about sounding too radical even though she did propose some radical notions. I believe that she was probably more radical than she let on in writing.
Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteYou had a lot of really interesting things to say, and while I think there are lots of different topics presented here that I could respond to, I am going to stick with your section on children. And, hope you don't mind, I'm going to argue with it.
Wollstonecraft was not opposed to childhood, nor to innocence and humility. I think she is opposed to adults being kept in the same dependent state as children. It is natural to be weak and dependent as children, but when women are kept in that state eternally, that's a problem. And as for men, Wollstonecraft argues that their childish state has to do with them being irresponsible. Children have no duties or obligations, and when men insist on drinking or failing to provide for their families, they act as if they can avoid these obligations they same way a child is free from them. I think that's what she is attacking. She's not criticizing children, or even innocence and humility, but rather she's critiquing "innocence" as women intentionally being kept in a state of ignorance. And the idea that women are "innocent" in a child-like state implies that they cannot handle the real world, and that they need protection, thus placing them in that dependent role. Their "innocence," in the true childish sense, also implies a lack of understanding or even a lack of capacity for understanding, which Wollstonecraft clearly argues against. And while children can grow out of this, women cannot.
The idea of "overgrown children" still applies today. When someone is shirking responsibilities, acting willfully ignorant, or refusing to take on a mature adult role, we still call them a "child," or something along those lines. The elements of childhood are only negative when they become distorted in adulthood. Rather than childish simplicity, we are left with what Wollstonecraft calls "snatches" of intelligence, which makes everything convoluted and keeps women from understanding "causes" (500). Instead of childish innocence, women are left in a state of ignorance that prevents them from caring for themselves, and the purpose of this is merely to empower to men. In Wollstonecraft's A Short Residence in Sweden, Wollstonecraft writes "men stand up for the dignity of man, by oppressing the women,” which critiques both men and women (76). If men were truly strong and confident, they would not feel the need to degrade women and keep them in a submissive, helpless state in order to assert their own power. So really, Wollstonecraft doesn't have a problem with children, or the aspects of childhood, provided they stay in childhood. Because they just don't transfer to adulthood well at all.
Steph, in response to the Biblical part of your argument about children, I would like to tease that out to a greater degree. Jesus says that we ought to make ourselves like little children to be effective in the kingdom of heaven, but Paul later says that he used to think like child and now he has reached a state of greater maturity than that. Paul says that the mature Christian ought not to be Childish but Jesus said they ought to become more and more Childlike.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Childlikeness that both Wollstonecraft and Jesus are getting at refers to dependence. Jesus says that we all, men and women, ought to become like little children in relationship to God. That means that we ought to increase in our dependence upon a sovereign God. Wollstonecraft says that women ought to become less like children in terms of their dependence upon men, not God. In fact, when Wollstonecraft says: "The most perfect education, in my opinion, is such an exercise of the understanding as is best calculated to strengthen the body and form the heart. Or, in other words, to enable the individual to attain such habits of virtue as will render it independent" (498). This means that the woman ought to be educated to the point where she can discern for herself. While her virtue is not necessarily a Christian virtue, her views are not in opposition with the idea that one should submit to God. In fact, I believe that she would argue that the woman's childlikeness should be equal to that of a man--involving direct dependence on God. When she is talking of children she says: "your reason is now gaining strength, and, till it arrives at some degree of maturity, you must look up to me for advice--then you ought to think, and only rely on God" (497). This statement implies that in her mind the definition of an adult is one who thinks and relies on God. This dependence on God suggests that her idea of adulthood is analogous to Jesus' and Paul's definition of mature-childlikeness.
Steph,
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Although I am inclined to agree with Doug's suggestion. In light of the times, a woman was meant to be seen and not heard. Wollstonecraft's ability to actually make a career out of writing is not only rare, but down-right surprising. The Norton suggests that her writing is a mix of beauty and politics. Therefore, I believe we should place more weight on her outspoken politics which are (seemingly) forced to be watered down with lyricism.
Yeah... she's a bit of a hypocrite. However, a writer who writes through experience is typically more influential than one who simply muses. (I'm looking at you, British Romantics.) Therefore, on some level, I believe we must respect her even more for her flaws. She speaks of equality, then demands it through her sexuality and position as a profitable writer. If we understand her writings of a "virtuous woman" are filtered through the lens of oppressive publication houses, then we can somewhat deconstruct her actual intent through her progressive actions and life choices.