Mary Wollstonecraft is my QUEEN.
This woman is the founder of modern feminism. She wrote many things, including a travel journal, a history of the French Revolution, and most famously, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Though there were not explicit laws heavily restricting women's rights, society's main viewpoint was that women were flippant, silly things to look at and definitely not to be heard. Wollstonecraft rebuked this viewpoint, saying that if women were silly, it is because society has failed to teach them otherwise. But we've all done the reading, so enough of the summary. The main thing that stuck out to me was a key exert from the introduction, where Wollstonecraft says:
"In the government of the physical world it is observable that the female in point of strength is, in general, inferior to the male. This is the law of nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated in favour of woman. A degree of physical superiority cannot, therefore, be denied - and it is a noble prerogative!"
This, I noticed, is largely different from modern feminism. Wollstonecraft may have been burned at the stake for saying this today at a feminist rally. Modern day feminists - and I'm referring to the majority, with the acceptance of outliers - are adamant that anything that a male can do physically, a female can also achieve. Some even believe that there are no major differences between the two. Wollstonecraft is saying that legally and mentally there should be no difference between the two genders, but that physically there is a difference. She says that not only can it not be denied, but that it is noble that there is a difference between the two, and I agree.
PS Commented on Sydney and Zane's posts
This woman is the founder of modern feminism. She wrote many things, including a travel journal, a history of the French Revolution, and most famously, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Though there were not explicit laws heavily restricting women's rights, society's main viewpoint was that women were flippant, silly things to look at and definitely not to be heard. Wollstonecraft rebuked this viewpoint, saying that if women were silly, it is because society has failed to teach them otherwise. But we've all done the reading, so enough of the summary. The main thing that stuck out to me was a key exert from the introduction, where Wollstonecraft says:
"In the government of the physical world it is observable that the female in point of strength is, in general, inferior to the male. This is the law of nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated in favour of woman. A degree of physical superiority cannot, therefore, be denied - and it is a noble prerogative!"
This, I noticed, is largely different from modern feminism. Wollstonecraft may have been burned at the stake for saying this today at a feminist rally. Modern day feminists - and I'm referring to the majority, with the acceptance of outliers - are adamant that anything that a male can do physically, a female can also achieve. Some even believe that there are no major differences between the two. Wollstonecraft is saying that legally and mentally there should be no difference between the two genders, but that physically there is a difference. She says that not only can it not be denied, but that it is noble that there is a difference between the two, and I agree.
PS Commented on Sydney and Zane's posts
Comments