( Read Ebook ) ⚧ A Vindication of the Rights of Woman ì eBook or Kindle ePUB free
( Read Ebook ) õ A Vindication of the Rights of Woman ⚹ The First Edition of this Norton Critical Edition was both an acclaimed classroom text and ahead of its time This second edition offers the best in Wollstonecraft scholarship and criticism since , providing the ideal means for studying the first feminist document in English I particularly liked the bit where she said if women didn't get a proper education, they might find themselves dependent on the novelist for amusement.Awkward. Wollstonecraft is not passionate; she does not offer any inspiring words or flowery language Wollstonecraft writes with no embellishment or artistry; yet, her words are commanding and exceedingly persuasive because what she does have is cold, hard, logic And she knows it “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.” She refused to appeal to the sensibilities and imaginations of her readers Instead she wished to display her rational intellect, an intellect free of flights of fancy and one that had the ability to access the situation in all its reality She argued that women, in their current state, had no means of proving their worth She believed that women were physically inferior to men, but in terms of intellect they were equal and that they so desperately needed a noble, edifying, pursuit in which to show this Wollstonecraft offers many compelling arguments in here, though for me her most logical pertains to human progress; she argues that without education it will simply stop: a very true point Humanity needs to continue to develop, but this is impossible if only half of humanity is educated She argues that women cannot teach their children if they in turn are not educated How can she impart any wisdom or teach any sense of patriotism if she has not learnt to love mankind? Wollstonecraft believed that the key to overturning sexism began and ended with education “Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience.”Due to the lack of education women recieved, Wollstonecraft suggests that they have been rendered wretched and weak They are merely classified as females rather than members of mankind She wants to see women take on manly qualities, well, traits associated with manhood She wanted to break the oppressive gender boundaries that limited the faculty of her sex As such, she was satirised by many novelists and critics for being manly herself The ironic thing is that such a label only serves to achieve what she is arguing for She wanted women to be many, to be equal to men However, Wollstonecraft was at times very condescending towards women Whilst she does not blame them for their predicament, that blame lays at the door of the patriarchy and men in general, she does chastise them for not trying to break through their shackles Though what she fails to recognise is that for many women they do not have the benefit of looking beyond earning enough money to get through the week and looking after their families Wollstonecraft is distinctively middleclass, and as such, at times, she lacks the ability to empathise with the reality of the situation some women will find themselves in She also undervalues the lessons and teachings uneducated people can still pass on to their children, the value of hard work and honesty for example Such minor issues with her writing by no means downplay the power and logic behind her arguments, arguments that would go on to inspire the next generation of writers (including her daughter and her daughter’s husband, no doubt.) I also noticed some very particular phrasing that was later mirrored almost verbatim in Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre Wollstonecraft’s ideas were carried further by a medium she deplored, the novel She really underestimated its power as a learning device Wollstonecraft is certainly a powerful literary figure to be admired, and, this, as a seminal work in the development of feminism is, certainly, a work of undying success and potency.
OH MY GOD , this uncoventional, feminist woman is mother of Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, who was one of my favorite author only after Rowling, Wilde, Plathetc.? SHELLEY, you never tell me how cool your mother was!!! I thought we were best friends. Reading this messy, brilliant book gave me that strange impression you sometimes get with essayists – of encountering a perfectly modern mind that is trapped in the past, looking around with modern sensibilities and baffled by what it sees The effect now is not one of genius, but merely of contemporary common sense, applied somehow, magically, anachronistically At one point, during a close reading of Rousseau, Wollstonecraft adds an asterisk, and comments simply in a footnote: ‘What nonsense!’ Here you have the book in two words: a smart woman looking around at lateeighteenthcentury London, and saying, What nonsense!Yet despite the timelessness, its context is important A couple of years before this came out, Burke had published his famous conservative critique of popular uprisings, Reflections on the Revolution in France, and Mary Wollstonecraft had beenor less the first to react, tearing off A Vindication of the Rights of Men just a few weeks later She would be followed by many others (not least her occasional dinner companion Thomas Paine), but while the rest of them wittered on about inherent freedoms, she was the only one to look around and consider the novelty of extending those freedoms to the other half of the species So this followup was written in a specifically revolutionary context, and was intended, as she says, ‘to effect a revolution in female manners’.This general ‘down with the nobs’, antiaristocratic sensibility is for Wollstonecraft a handy analogue for all that is wrong with female socialisation She equates women with rich military officers, whose primary concern is to look dashing, or with titled nobility – for ‘wealth and female softness equally tend to debase mankind, and are produced by the same cause’.A king is always a king – and a woman always a woman: his authority and her sex, ever stand between them and rational converse.The point of similarity is the fact that both women and monarchs are pictured as separate, higher beings by ordinary men – but in the case of women it's evenpernicious because it's based on an underlying assertion of inferiority A woman is ‘exalt[ed …] on a quicksand’ (view spoiler)[this reminded me, vertiginously, of Stoya talking about being ‘put on a pedestal in a trash can’ (hide spoiler)]