The first?!
So I guess I'm going to be the first to put up my little thing of thoughts; I suppose someone has to be first.
The idea that concentrating on beauty and bodily things bound women to their place and to eternal childhood came off the page as being very powerful—even to me hundreds of years later. She was so clear and forceful about her purpose and her opinions that many of the things she said would be controversial (and somewhat pertinent) today in this country. It also made me wonder, however, who she was talking to in the article. Speaking so strongly about how vapid women were, even if it is because of forced lack of education and restraining of the imagination and intellect as she proposes, would seem to be rather offensive to any woman who might read it. It seems then that perhaps she didn’t believe all that she was saying in this piece. Perhaps the comments about how she may be willing to concede on the point of woman’s inferiority are strategic. She says she is willing to concede it, as long as it is actually proven. Give women education and then see if they really are inferior.
The arguments of all the women from this week’s readings tie together in their references to the ‘rights of men.’ The revolutions in America and France are a major part of the backdrop for these women. For Wollstonecraft, the “new constitution” and its makers are a major part of her intended audience. Wollstonecraft also seemed to really relay on the argument of reason as an ideal to support her arguments, a fact that ties in perfectly with the philosophical bases of the revolution to which she speaks.
Wollstonecraft also seemed to employ moralist arguments while avoiding theological arguments. She argued that giving women education and the ability to engage with things outside of themselves would add to the morality and virtue of women. However, despite her occasional references to God and the more important purpose of our lives (I can only assume she meant worshiping and living in the image of God), she never employed the argument that we were created equal or the many sayings and actions of Jesus that can easily be interpreted as gestures toward inclusively and equality. I wondered about this and what it also says about her intended audience.