I feel that part of my head has been twisted into a gnarly tree stump after such strenuous reading. Miss Wollstonecraft certainly had a long-winded way of saying things, didn't she? (Makes me wonder if I ever do that.)
Many parts of this piece I had to reread and double reread--and I'm pretty sure some of them do not qualify as legible sentences.
I couldn't help but feel edgy at the way she worded some of her ideas, using phrases like "it is a farce" and "contempt of the understanding" (paragraphs 11 and 16).
I did find interesting her paragraph on how kings are treated differently, how it is completely unfair for men who show no better qualities than others are revered in paragraph 69 (it was also at this point I figured out "shewn" really meant "shown" and apparently those olde Englishe people didn't know how to spell).
It made me wonder why kings or celebrities or the like are so "treated with a degree of reverene that is an insult to reason," as she put it, when they are just average Joes in most aspects. What makes a king or president special enough to photograph, admire, and obey?
Miss Wollstonecraft made a good and completely unrelated point when she said that "Fondness is a poor substitute for friendship" (paragraph 39) as she explained that two marriage partners could not have a good friendship if the man always viewed her as a frail, sickly thing, that instead they needed a common respect and equality.
This article reminds me a little of Jane Eyre and the fight for women's equality amidst a society in which women were little more than pretty little jewels to be admired and then forgotten. It makes me very glad to be an American and, while perhaps not everything is equal, it is far fairer than it once was.
Many parts of this piece I had to reread and double reread--and I'm pretty sure some of them do not qualify as legible sentences.
I couldn't help but feel edgy at the way she worded some of her ideas, using phrases like "it is a farce" and "contempt of the understanding" (paragraphs 11 and 16).
I did find interesting her paragraph on how kings are treated differently, how it is completely unfair for men who show no better qualities than others are revered in paragraph 69 (it was also at this point I figured out "shewn" really meant "shown" and apparently those olde Englishe people didn't know how to spell).
It made me wonder why kings or celebrities or the like are so "treated with a degree of reverene that is an insult to reason," as she put it, when they are just average Joes in most aspects. What makes a king or president special enough to photograph, admire, and obey?
Miss Wollstonecraft made a good and completely unrelated point when she said that "Fondness is a poor substitute for friendship" (paragraph 39) as she explained that two marriage partners could not have a good friendship if the man always viewed her as a frail, sickly thing, that instead they needed a common respect and equality.
This article reminds me a little of Jane Eyre and the fight for women's equality amidst a society in which women were little more than pretty little jewels to be admired and then forgotten. It makes me very glad to be an American and, while perhaps not everything is equal, it is far fairer than it once was.
My brains at the moment
While I completely agree that celebrities and oftentimes kings don't deserve to be treated any differently than normal people, I can't help but feel respect for most elected leaders such as our president. They, for the most part, have a true desire to serve their country and make it a better place, and that's something worthy of a little praise. Anyway, I find this to be a completely misplaced portion of Wollstonecraft's essay. I know this wasn't possible back then, but what if a woman was elected president as could have been possible with Hillary Clinton? Would she still feel the same way?
ReplyDeleteI think she put in the paragraph about kings to point out that tradition often defines who we respect. Like Tim said, people in power, like presidents who work hard to become elected, deserve that respect, but some monarchs who are born into power really have done nothing to deserve that high status. Or Paris Hilton. Why is she famous anyway? But I think Wollstonecraft's point is that the reason women weren't respected in the 1700's was because they hadn't been in the past. Even in the bible, Adam was superior to Eve. Like the idea that she was one of his ribs? That's some foolishness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely that her thoughts and opinions seemed to spin together in to a web that must be untangled to fully understand the meaning. Her language was drawn out and seemed almost as if it was intended to not be too strong, but yet be strong enough to get the point across. It was a dull piece of writing in many ways, but also a very important piece because it brought up many new ideas that eventually formed a lot of what we know as our world today.
ReplyDelete