The Epistolary Novel

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the epistolary novel is a novel in the form of letters.  In a modern context, novels like Griffin and Sabine draw on a frame work that was extremely popular during the time Charlotte Smith wrote Desmond.  Thanks to modern printing, Griffin and Sabine has an interactive framework.

The reader has the ability to pull out the post cards and letters; actually handle them while reading them.  Effectively putting them in the shoes of either Griffin or Sabine.  Being able to handle the letters adds to the interactive nature of the story.  As the reader you're not just reading about letters, you're actually reading letters.

Desmond, on the other hand is a product of its period just like Griffin and Sabine.  The novel draws on a form that was one of the only ways people during that time period could communicate.  They obviously didn't have the luxury of picking up their iphones and texting their best friend.  It was much different.  Even with Griffin and Sabine, the style of letter writing is much different.  Griffin decorated his postcards with illustrations.  During the 1800s most people did not use envelopes.  They just wrapped their letters in another piece of paper or folded the letter in an intricate way so that the letter itself acted like an envelope.

In modern day communications, most of the time we've entirely forgotten about any sort of form that was followed in the 19th century.  Emails don't have a greeting or a sign off and text messages use language like "rlly," "lol," and "jk."  There was an actual etiquette and form that most letters during the late 18th and early 19th century followed.

The novel begins with a letter from Desmond to Bethel.  Unfortunately, we cannot pull it from the pages of the novel and read it like an actual letter.  That form, like in Griffin and Sabine, adds to the entire feel of a story composed of letters.  The reader is looking over the shoulder of the characters while they read their letters.  The first letter we are thrown right into what seems like a correspondence that has been going on for quite a while.  There really isn't much in the way of a greeting.  It begins "Your arguments, my friend were decisive... (Smith 48)."  Right away we are thrown into a communication between two people that we don't know much about.  There's no backstory or greeting to ease us in.  In a regular novel, I wouldn't expect much backstory in the beginning, but there's something about sharing letters with the characters.  I expected to see that correspondence from the beginning.

In modern day communication, there is very little formality.  Through reading Desmond, we are taken back to a world where everything was done with formality.  The etiquette between Desmond and Bethel is striking because the reader can tell that they are friends, but by modern day standards, we could almost assume that they've never talked before.  Modern day communications clash with our interpretations of communications during the late 18th century, so:

How does the form of the novel effect the dissemination of information?  Do you think Smith could have easily given the reader the information she did by having a regular narrator or would it not have the same effect?  Is the form just as important as the information being discussed?

In a modern context, how are the letters exchanged between Desmond and Bethel similar to our instant communications and how are they different?  Is there something to be said for moving back to this type of communication or are we stuck in an era of instant gratification that instant messaging (in any of its forms) has caused?

Society and the Use of Titles in Desmond

Society and the Use of Titles

One of the most important themes that I noticed in Charlotte Smith’s Desmond is that of the complicated relationship of a society with titles and class divisions.  When Desmond is traveling he encounters Mrs. Fairfax, who believes that titles are important. She says “[a] title is as much a person’s property as his estate; and, in my mind, one might as well be taken away as another- and to lose one’s very birthright, by a mob too, of vulgar creatures” (73). She is fearful that these ideas which are currently contributing the French Revolution and general unrest could come to England and cause unrest.  Mrs. Fairfax represents the people who were still happy with the status quo, the people who Smith is displeased with.  She see the revolution as “horrid cruelty and injustice” (73) rather than an opportunity for positive change.  In order to counter Mrs. Fairfax’s claims, Desmond proposes that the people are raised in society based purely on merit, meaning that only the truly noble would have elevated status.  Desmond asks if a Lord would be “less agreeable in his manners, less refined in his conversation, less learned, less worthy, less respectful” (74) if he were to lose his title, which only further upsets her.

As Desmond spends more time abroad and is enlightened in many ways, he becomes more cynical in his approach to the nobility and use of titles.  This is extremely evident when he writes a letter to Mr. Bethel from Calais, France.  He reflects on the state of Parisian neighborhoods and their lack of magnificent carriages, symbolizing the economic equalization of France since the Revolution.  Desmond is upset by the fact that there are people who are displeased with this levelling of society and says “[c]ertainly, it is a great misfortune to the nobility to be deprived of the invaluable privilege of believing themselves of a superior species, and to be compelled to learn that they are men” (89).  It’s clear that in France the existence of nobility and a reigning class was very unpopular, but  the same sentiment was never terribly popular in England.  Even now, over 200 years later, the British still actively use titles and most of the people are supportive of that.  Additionally, a majority of British citizens are happy to keep the monarchy.  This stark difference between societies that are so close geographically and even similar in economic success was surprising to me and I found it rather interesting.

This link talks more about the structure of the British title system, but uses modern day examples like Queen Elizabeth and William to help explain it.

http://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/Guide-British-Royal-Titles-12059086

Discussion Questions:

Why do you think the British system is so much different from the French?  These sentiments can even be seen with the some of the characters in Desmond, like Mrs Fairfax.  

Do you think Waverly is intended to represent the noble youth in Britain?  If he is, then what is Smith trying to say about the British nobility?

Do you think that if conservative British people were to have traveled to France around the time of the Revolution that they too would have gotten swept up into the want for change or is there something inherently British that makes many of them happy with the status quo?

Political Power: Feminine Writer; Masculine Character

Previously in class we have established the rights of women as deserved, and entered into a discussion about if women in the late 18th century had any ability as a citizen. Charlotte Smith writes her epistolary novel knowing that she has no power as a female to discuss much of anything, let alone about political revolution. Despite this challenge, Smith shows exactly how much knowledge a woman can gather of being a citizen regardless of the male-dominated society she is writing in. Wollstonecraft and Smith both wrote in 1792 and both manipulate the society they are in to make a better argument and launch themselves as writers. To examine some of Smith’s political thoughts and information she shares with the reader, it seems appropriate to reference Desmond’s Letter Seven.

We have discussed Wollstonecraft at length, and we came to the idea of women as citizens repeatedly, agreeing that women were not able to gain knowledge because they were treated as a sex, or an entity with no qualities outside of mothering and pleasing men. Charlotte Smith lives in the same time period and manages to establish herself as a writer for not just women, but her entire current society “Yet Charlotte Smith stands in a kind of exemplary isolation. She succeeded against all odds; in contemporary parlance, she made it the hard way” (Curran 66). Stuart Curran begins to deliberate about Smith’s works and how she makes such a name for herself considering that she is not only a woman in her time, but the other personal trials she goes through with her marriage and family life. Further reading into the article, Curran mentions how Smith had to make herself “bend to the marketplace” (Curran 68).  Due to her need for income and making a living for her children due to her husband’s lack of care or discipline, Smith had a different role to play; she could not enter into a conversation against a majority without losing readers, which risked interrupting her bottom line. Charlotte Smith writes Desmond with a comprehensive sense of what is happening around her and is knowledgeable about things a woman should not necessarily know about, but she still chooses to write as two men in a way that will inspire a larger audience.

 Going into the novel, Charlotte Smith creates two characters who are friends discussing various things, but she chooses to talk about the French Revolution and corrects the lack of understanding where she is, “I can now, however, assure you – and with the most heart-felt satisfaction, that nothing is more unlike the real state of this country, than the accounts that have been given of it in England … have no existence but in the malignant fabrications of those who have been paid for their misrepresentations” (Smith 87). Although women are seen to know nothing about politics of their native country or in general, Smith comments on the misrepresentation of what is actually happening during the revolution and extends excitement to the situation at hand. In order to write this novel, and this specific passage, Smith has knowledge that the commoner may not, she has been trained with formal education but also has managed to become a citizen that knows politics and world events. Continuing to talk about this in the letter and the novel Smith has a clear sense of her own intelligence, and knows she is a woman exemplifying why women should have rights and respect more so than the current state. However, she makes a clear choice to write as two men.

           

Why? Having the know-how she does and transforming herself into an esteemed author even as a woman has me (and I hope others) wondering why she would choose not to write as a woman, or to at least portray a stronger set of female characters? Up to this point in the novel, Smith has chosen to display women as men would; she creates weak characters that hold up to the spaniel-like expectations of women at the time. It is left to the reader to decide if Smith does this to make a point to her audience, or to keep an audience she economically needed to stay a popular writer. 

When trying to think of something that reminded me of Smith's writing in her way of showing intellect but having to hide behind social constructs, I thought of Stephen Colbert and how he acts in all of his shows. Here is an example of Stephen Colbert making fun of socially accepted things (smartphone usage) while staying completely serious, which seems to be an angle Smith may use in her description of females, although it may just be this way for us reading the text much later. 

Questions:

1) Does Smith's writing among letters help or hinder the details of revolution in Paris? Is her style making these details stand out or seem insignificant along with the rest of the letters? How else could she have structured the novel to make her point?

2) Writing as men in both letters, does Smith achieve a better appreciation from her audience? Do you think she did this as to guarantee a higher regard as an author or to make her political thoughts taken seriously?

3)  Why do you think Smith chooses to depict Geraldine the way she does so far?

My Dear Hortensia....

In the Letters on Education written by Thomas Macaulay in 1790, I personally had a difficult time trying to figure out just what exactly Macaulay was trying to say. He begins his letter by giving three rules regarding male and female education, and openly asserts that there should exist an equality between men and women when it comes to education. Likewise, at several points throughout his letters Macaulay brings up issues regarding female education that are similar to those raised by Wollstonecraft.

The perception of women as objects of beauty and delicacy is the most influential factor that Macaulay believes to be hindering the education of women. From his perspective, the issue of female education begins from the very moment that they are brought into the world "From a false notion of beauty and delicacy, their system of nerves is depraved before they come out of their nursery" (Macaulay, 403). Macaulay goes on to point out that, in spite of how common it is for women to be taught that their beauty is their most defining feature, "They are told indeed, that they must abstain from those vices which are contrary to their personal happiness" (Macaulay, 404). Furthermore, similar to how Wollstonecraft argued that women turn to prostitution for lack of a better option, Macaulay states that "Lying, flattery, hypocrisy, bribery, and a long catalogue of the meanest of the human vices, must all be employed to preserve necessary appearances" (Macaulay, 406).

In spite of the several arguments raised by Macaulay in favor of education for women, I can't help feeling that I'm missing something. Considering the time period with which he wrote, I suppose it should come as no surprise that in the midst of arguing why women should have an equal education, Macaulay makes some rather interesting statements. While he does state that the subjugation of women is at the hands of men, Macaulay holds women equally accountable: "suffer them to idolize their persons, to throw away their life in the pursuit of trifles, and to indulge in the gratification of the meaner passions, and they will heartily join in the sentence of their degradation" (Macaulay, 402). Likewise, although he is arguing for their equal treatment, Macaulay seems to assume that women hold some sort of inherent evilness, "Vanity, and its companion Envy, must taint, in their characters, every native and every acquired excellence" (Macaulay, 404). To be completely honest, it may be possible that i'm reading these passages wrong, and that this isn't what Macaulay is saying, but is what he is understands other writers to be stating.

I find Macaulay's analysis of the treatment of women between Eastern and Western societies to be quite innovative. In comparison to the Western world, whose treatment of women is obscure and a bit of a taboo to discuss, the treatment of women in the East is a far more blatant form of slavery, However, this differences between our two worlds isn't nearly as wide as we are led to believe, as Macaulay points out that "with a total and absolute exclusion of every political right to the sex in general, marries women, whose situation demand a particular indulgence, have hardly a civil right to save them from the grossest injuries"(Macaulay, 405).

Discussion Questions:
1) What is Macaulay trying to say about the nature of women in comparison to men? Are they both flawed? Is one sex more at fault than the other?
2) What perception does Macaulay have of his contemporary writers, like Rousseau and Mr. Pope? Where does he agree and disagree with them?

Time for Everyone to Get Skooled

In Mary Wollstonecraft's chapter XII "On National Education," she makes arguments we have read in previous chapters or discussed in previous classes.  Wollstonecraft focuses on reforming the education system and gaining a meaningful education for women that will, in turn, allow women to aid in the productivity of society and to become better wives, mothers, and citizens.  However, Wollstonecraft focuses on a new area of interest in order to further her previous arguments.  Through the use of new and particularly inflammatory argument support, Wollstonecraft focuses heavily on men and their intricately entwined relationship with women.  Through this heavy focus, Wollstonecraft molds out the new argument that men and women should not only receive equal education, but that they should be educated together throughout their school lives.

The first piece of inflammatory support she brings up is the influence religion has on schooling. Religion is an important part of Wollstonecraft's society and the notion of it negatively impacting the schooling of children is a huge point of contingency.  Wollstonecraft argues that the enforcement of religious worship on school children harms their moral character as "what can be more prejudicial to the moral character than the system of tyranny and abject slavery which is established amongst the boys, to say nothing of the slavery to forms, which makes religion worse than a farce" (300). Morality and moral character are important characteristics to Wollstonecraft, and she has previously stated that tyranny is detrimental to the preservation and formation of proper morality and moral character. To speak of religion as a "system of tyranny" is Wollstonecraft calling out how oppressive religion can be when forced on those unwilling.  Religion, as enforced by the school system, is oppressive due to how it "[endeavours] to confine [people] in one narrow channel" that the "supporters of these establishments, degenerated into puerilities" have created (302).  These oppressive schools lead to a corruption of moral character, according to Wollstonecraft, as the boys who attend these schools "become selfish and vicious" as a result (303).  Wollstonecraft calls for an end to these schools and a creation of "proper day schools" where education will be focused on forming citizens instead an "emulation" of scholars (303).



Then Wollstonecraft calls out the style of instruction used by ushers, or teachers, which is the next fallacy of education during this time.  While nowadays this might not appear to be a particularly offensive topic, ushers were seen as infallible during this time period.  Wollstonecraft eloquently picks apart the instruction style of these infallible ushers and calls attention to how the children learn nothing under the ushers' tutelage. She insists that "the master [A.K.A. - usher] countenances falsehood" and makes the children under him memorize facts instead of promoting learning (304). This method, she says, "stops the progress of gradual improvement" and results in children that meet expectations but do not know how to think.  Vanity is a direct product of children not learning how to think for themselves and the moral character of the child is harmed.

According to Wollstonecraft, the harms delivered to a boy's moral character due to religion in schooling and the "teaching" of ushers are the catalyst to society.  The corruption of a boy's moral character will lead to "little attention paid to the cultivation of modest, amongst men, [which] produces great depravity in all the relationships of society" (307).  The depravity leads to the exploitation of women's modesty and chastity, which in turn directly affects how women are educated to hold spaniel-like affection for men and to be delicate and sensible. Wollstonecraft, as argued in previous chapters, reiterates how a better education for women will end their spaniel-like affection, delicacy, and sensibility.  She goes on to say that an equal education between men and women that is gained together will result in an improvement in both sexes.  Wollstonecraft insists that "in this plan of [co-ed] education the constitution of boys would not be ruined by early debaucheries [of the mind], which now make men so selfish, or girls rendered weak and vain, by indolence, and frivolous pursuits" (312).

Throughout this chapter, I kept drawing comparisons to American education and how we are instructed now as compared to then. I think it's important to think about how education has changed over time and this youtube video explains how education has, or really has not, changed since the Enlightenment period. It hits on problems that Mary Wollstonecraft covers in her broad arguments for better education and shows how we, as a society more culturally and scientifically advanced than her own, have yet to truly overcome the problems Wollstonecraft brings up.

Discussion Questions:

• While Wollstonecraft can be considered a feminist writer as she advocates for equality between men and women, how influential do you believe her arguments of education can be to our society now?  On the flip side, how influential do you think her arguments of education were to her society then?
• We've previously talked about how Wollstonecraft shifts her focus to how the act of bettering women can in turn better men and society.  Although her heavy focus on the re-education of men in chapter XII is logical and tied in well with the re-education of women, how has this focus potentially harmed her argument of equality between sexes considering audience?

The Importance of Good Parenting

     In chapters 10 and 11, Wollstonecraft works to further elaborate a few points in her argument that had been  offered earlier in her text. In the preceding chapters she made the point the women without reason do not make good mothers. Not it been stated that they not only make poor mothers, but in the process they actually hinder the progress of society as a whole.  At this point in the book it seems as though she has made her argument more than clear and offered more than enough evidence to support her claims. Yet, she continues to flesh out her point and even offer more critique on the social conventions and norms of her times.

     According to Wollstonecraft, parents hold a position over their children similar to that of a tyrannous ruler. As described early on in the chapter, parental affection acts as an excuse for parents to "tyranize"their children, "convinced that they have a right to what they insist on, they do not fear reason, or dread the sifting of subjects that recur to natural justice. . ." (289).  Though both parents may be at fault in the eye of Wollstonecraft, women receive a harsher criticism. Said criticism states that "women, however, a slave in every situation to prejudice, seldom exerts enlightened maternal affection; for she either neglects her children, or spoils them by improper indulgence". (290) A woman without reason will only raise children who also lack reason; an assertion that  is especially true when it comes to a mother raising a daughter. As children model themselves after their parents an insipid and frivolous mother will raise an insipid and frivolous daughter. As stated in Wollstonecraft's work "unless the understanding of women be enlarged, and her character rendered more firm, by being allowed to govern her own conduct, she will never have sufficient sense or command of temper to manage children properly." (291) While chapter 10 mainly focuses on the role that women play when raising a child, chapter 11 goes on to include a critique of men as father figures as well.

     Chapter 11's main focus is to provide a strong argument supporting raising children up to be reasonable human beings (though she does also mention the effect bad parenting has on girls specifically). An argument that Wollstonecraft reiterates throughout the chapter is that parents should earn the respect of their children instead of expecting unearned and unquestioned dedication. She often comments that children are expected to be "blindly obedient" and to"make allowance for the faults of their parents" (292,296).  Children's "slavish" bonds to their parents damage their minds and make them unable to stand on their own; as a result they more willing to submit to the will of others (294). According to Wollstonecraft, "children cannot be taught too early to submit to reason. . . for to submit to reason is to submit to the nature of things, and to God, who formed them so, to promote our real interest." (295). To raise strong children who can further the entire society, parents need to stop trying to rule over their children and start paying attention to them. One last point important point that was made about daughters was the same argument made much earlier about wives. It sates that " the consequence (of indolent parenting) is notorious; these dutiful daughters become adulteresses, and neglect the education of their children, from whom they, in their turn, exact the same kind of obedience" (294). From this line one can only imagine the abusive continuous circle  that moves from a mother to a daughter and so on down many generations.

My link is to an interesting article about old baby raising techniques: Bad Baby Advice

"I decided to survey the worst advice given to parents, going back to the 1700s. What stands out most in these books is the chiding tone espoused by the mostly male physicians writing them. From the 1700s until the mid-20th century,"

What does Wollstonecraft hope to accomplish by addressing the influence of both parents in chapter 11 vs mainly addressing mothers in chapter 10?

Many of her arguments have been previously made, especially those in chapter 10, why do you think she continues to touch on them?

     

Wollstonecraft and Moral Double Standards

This is my first blog so bear with me:

In chapters 6,  7 and 8, Mary Wollstonecraft is challenging society's status quo by arguing against  popular ideas about the nature of gendered socialization.  Throughout Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of Women's Rights" she has been debunking the logic of her society that justified the blatant subordination of women.  As her argument progresses she investigates different aspects of society that unveil a very broad and deep layout of women's systematic subordination.  In earlier chapters, she argues about of women's education and the importance of the cultivation of reason.  In chapters 6, 7, and 8 she shifts her attention to the issue of virtue and morality as a social construct that takes away from the potential for women to become complete and del rounded individuals.   Wollstonecraft explains the broadly conceived notions of gendered morality and virtue and the rippling effects of "double standardness" that leave women ill equipped to reason past the confines chastity and reputation.  At the very core of her argument, Wollstonecraft is saying that people, as a whole, are being socialized to think of women in a light that stunts their potential.



Chapter 6,  "The Effect Which an Early Associations of Ideas Has Upon the Character", starts of with a philosophically based argument that suggests that because women were less educated and therefore associated less ideas that their moral character was not as deep.  This is seen when she states, "Education thus only supplies the man of genius the knowledge to give variety and contrast to his associations; but there is an habitual association of ideas, that grows with our growth which has a great effect in the moral character mankind."(245)  She sets up this platform of moral progress that is based on knowledge to show that the exclusion of women even seeped into the sphere of personal morality.  Wollstonecraft talks about women being socialized to hyper focus on ornamental topics like "taste" and intimacy and are not given the same encourage meant to associate ideas out of the realm of their marginalized sphere.  Wollstonecraft takes the phrase "every women is at heart a rake", and uses it to as a metaphor to explain the one dimensionality of a woman's existence.  Later in the chapter she states, "If such be the force of habit; if such be the force of folly, how carefully ought we to guard the mind from storing up vicious associations; and equally careful should we be to cultivate the understanding to save the poor wight from the weak dependent state of even harmless ignorance." (251)  In this quote we see Wollstonecraft talk about the state of women's ability to get past the thought of appearance and fashion be defined by something more substantial.  


Chapter 7 signifies a shift in Wollstonecraft's argument; she starts to move format he topic of educate and focus squarely on morals and virtue as they pertain to women's subordination.   In chapter 7, cleverly titled "Modesty- Comprehensively Considered and Not as a Sexual Virtue", Wollstonecraft unravels the rhetorical double standard around the word modesty that have deeper effects on gender norms culturally and individually.  She says in the first sentence in the chapter "Modesty! Sacred offspring of sensibility and reason! - true delicacy of of mine! - may I unnamed presume to investigate thy nature."(252)  From this initial sentence, Wollstonecraft is deconstructing the word on a philosophical level in order to argue against the blind belief in its use.  She calls women who aspire to be modest and do so through the means of abasing oneself that they are ultimately buying into a definition of themselves that is constructed somewhere other than from themselves.  In this chapter Wollstonecraft references the bible and different books that have molded literary and practical culture.  She sights these things as creating a frame for women to obey.  "Perhaps the is not a virtue the mixes with every other as modesty- It is the pale moonbeam that renders more interesting every virtue it softens". (262) Here, we see how Wollstonecraft acknowledges that the modesty can be looked at from different angles and be projected onto to different moral situations.  For women it was about staying pure and chaste and giving off the impression that they are innocent even though they my be not.  In chapter 8, Wollstonecraft continues that conversation.  One thing that Wollstonecraft does to challenge the moral norms of the day is make distinctions between the moral standards of society and truly godly morality.   She is putting a twist on the way the people view the moral sexuality within marriage by saying, "If an innocent girl become a prey of love, she is degraded for ever, though her mind is not polluted by the arts which married women, under the convenient cloak of marriage practice:nor has she violated any duty - but the duty of respecting herself. "(266) Here we see her talk about how marriage as an institution, that is sacred in the eyes of the church, can have a less than moral effect on the individual.  By saying "nor has she violated any duty - but the duty of herself", she is juxtaposing the moral makeup of the culture with internal makeup of the individual woman.   By speaking from that standpoint she is speaking for women's individuality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wollstonecraft/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft

In these latter chapters Wollstonecraft draws more from personal knowledge of society and  references literary pillars like the Bible and Shakespeare.  In what ways does that help or hurt her argument? 
Does her argument progress in any significant ways or does it have the same tone and basis as previous chapters? 
Are any of her ideas more progressive than current notions of sexuality?

Reason and Sensibility: Artificial Constructions without Education

Chapter IV of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindications is titled "Observations on the State of Degradation to which Woman is Reduced by Various Causes," in which she takes a primary focus on the inferior position of women in society. Though this may seem obvious, given the societal norms of the Romantic period, she argues that when looking at Romantic society, the ideal woman contradicts the very tenets that she is expected to uphold. As we discussed last class, the submissive culture of marriage was problematic in relation to morality and virtue. Wollstonecraft states, "Women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by Providence to lead mankind to either virtue of happiness" (126). Here, she is highlighting the contradictory and superficial nature of the expectations placed on women to be virtuous without sufficient knowledge of what virtue truly is, due to the deprivation of education.

Chapter IV is a continuation of Wollstonecraft's opinion of the hypocrisy of women's role in society that she expresses in the first three chapters we have read. However, instead of commenting on women as wives and the moral compasses of the family, she focuses on reason. Reason is an interesting topic during this time. Wollstonecraft wrote Vindications in 1792, a little over a decade after the end of the Age of Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason. The Age of Enlightenment stressed the importance of free thinkers, education, individualism, and reason was to inform all areas of life. Equality, then, was reasonable, as it would allow all people to become more productive members of society. However, in order to be able to acquire reason, one must be rational, which women were not considered to be. 

To gain more of an understanding about the role of sensibility and reason in relation to the education of women, this source was useful. 

Unlike the Age of Enlightenment, the Romantic era focused on proper emotional response, or what was called sensibility. Rationality and sensibility seemed to be at odds with one another, but Wollstonecraft provides the common thread between the two, which is individuality. Both of the eras stressed the importance of self-betterment, and Wollstonecraft acknowledges that throughout the chapter. She says that, "Reason is, consequentially, the simple power of improvement; or, more properly speaking, of discerning truth. Every individual is in this respect a world in itself" (167). Therefore, in keeping with the ideals of the time, the oppression of women was not reasonable, as it didn't allow for the individual improvement of oneself. 

Ophelia, Milais

Speaking on this matter, she says, "... She has always been either a slave, or a despot, and to remark, that each of these situations equally retards the progress of reason" (169). This is a huge point that Wollstonecraft makes. She is first comparing women's place in society no better than that of a slave, since neither have personal identities. She is also commenting on the fact that this perception of women is an aged one, and slows the progress of society. Perhaps this refers to her previous chapters, where she stresses the importance of the education of women to advance not only themselves, but foster more intellectual conversation and thought in all realms of life. 

She then reverses the responsibility to be virtuous on men, stating that men should wished to be loved not only because he loved her, but because he himself was virtuous as well in valuing her mind over other frivolous attributes, for her sensibility as well as her reason (183). This is once again reminiscent of our discussion of Chapters I-III last class. Wollstonecraft concludes that the degradation of women is unreasonable and counterproductive against both Enlightened and Romantic ideals, and until women are given the right to equal education, no progress can be made.

Discussion Questions:

• Why do you think that Wollstonecraft chose to discuss reason, a concept that was associated with the previous Age of Enlightenment, instead of sensibility in order to stress why women needed education
• Wollstonecraft ends Chapter IV by expressing that women have never really had a place in the societal system, but rather have been accessories to men in society. She also comments on how uneducated women slow the productivity of society. How do the two relate to each other? How does her definition of reason (reminder: individual betterment) serve as a solution to these perceived problems?

Vindications and the Limitation of Masculinity

While Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman addresses the need to educate women and encourage their rational development, Wollstonecraft speaks almost exclusively to men, exploiting current masculine philosophy and arguing that under God, all of mankind is virtuous.  I find her style and execution particularly compelling as she often uses ideas already supported by educated society to further her own points.  To express the dire situation of women, she questions masculinity itself, comparing the various positions of men and women to show the danger of subordination in 18th century England.  Ultimately, Wollstonecraft calls for a relaxation of the masculine sphere and for universal reason, virtue, and knowledge.

"The Swing" Jean-Honore Fragonard (1767)

In her Introduction, Wollstonecraft debunks male anxieties about the rise of "masculine women," jokingly stating that should women begin to show "ardour in hunting, shooting, and gaming, [she] shall most cordially join in [their] cry" (110).  While the Vindications can be seen as a somewhat radical piece for the time, Wollstonecraft makes her boundaries quite clear; she never attempts to commandeer the physical duties and activities of masculine life, even going as far as to praise and congratulate men for their superior physical strength.  What Wollstonecraft does not relent on are "manly virtues," attributes which belong to mankind but are excluded from women.  Should these virtues continue to be considered manly, Wollstonecraft hopes that women "may every day grow more and more masculine" (110).  She dismisses the "pretty feminine phrases" that men use to perpetuate women as weak and dependent and hopes that rational men will understand her call for a more masculine woman.  Her closing argument, and the idea I think most pertinent to the rest of her essay, is that "artificial weakness" leads to subordination and tyranny, a fact observable throughout history by both men and women.

Wollstonecraft begins Chapter 1 by arguing that since we are all God's creatures, and since God created us to be above brutes, we must improve ourselves and overcome our passions through rationality.  To deny this to women is to deny them their humanness and their relationship with God.  Cleverly, Wollstonecraft connects the subordination of women to kingship and the various professional outlets which men take part in.  By doing this, she drives home the fact that subordination in all its forms restricts progression and that "the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and happiness will reign in society" (122).  She attacks the power of kings, stating that "it is madness to make the fate of thousands depend on the caprice of a weak fellow creature," (122) and argues more broadly that "every profession, in which great subordination of rank constitutes its power, is highly injurious of morality" (123).  She calls out standing armies for their fashion and idle gallantry, sailors for their indolence, and clergy men for their conscious subordination in order to rise and gain respect.  These men, through one way or another, are essentially feminized through their profession, and Wollstonecraft notes the dangerous ability of the profession to shape the progression of society.  Ultimately, to separate innocence from ignorance, women must be given the same individual attention and education that men receive, so that by the time their bodies have developed, their minds will be able to "exercise its own reason" (129). 

As I was writing my post I kept thinking about gender construction and how fluid our conception of sex and gender are today.  I remember reading an article a while back about a baby that was being raised genderless by its family.  It was a pretty interesting read, and while this isn't the exact article, it goes to show how differently people treat male and female babies.


Discussion Questions:

To what extent does Wollstonecraft agree with or disagree with her male contemporaries? How does she shape her claims in relation to them?

It sometimes seems as though Wollstonecraft tries to distance herself from other women.  Do you consider her a feminist? In what ways is she radical and in what ways is she conservative?