As I ponder Wollstonecraft's full work, I have a few things to share. What do we learn about men and women from the Vindication? What is the same? What has changed? Were the problem men all along? I personally wouldn't say so. Although in the historical narrative of the Vindication they were the "tools" of female tutelage, they weren't the main problem.
Men and women are very different from each other. Even so, they are both humans, and both have a sin nature. This taints everything--relationships, family, society, civilization, our sense of morality, sense of duty, etc.
I wouldn't dare go as far as to say the man was the sole offender of this narrative. Although man played a large role (and even as I say this I do not justify his acts) he had the same condition as woman.
The woman of the enlightenment era was dependent. She couldn't own property, have a job, or control her own destiny. The picture Wollstonecraft paints in this work is astonishingly true of the time. If the woman didn't marry, and marry well, she would have no chance at life. Even then, she wouldn't be able to keep up with the standard for beauty of that day. She was utterly desperate.
Could the same thing be said of man? His realm of control over the woman pressed him so that he could not function without her--he was desperate without her. Desperate in the everyday tasks, and desperate in the sensual. In this case, leadership was perverted to dominance and love was perverted to lust.
The woman's sin was, as well, perverse. Her virtue was perverted to vanity and her respect was perverted to ridicule. You may ask, isn't this caused by the man from the start? Didn't he send her to this ill fate? I would say that the catalyst doesn't justify the individual's sins. Just as man's sins aren't justified so are the woman's not. Wollstonecraft presented a daring story in her day in the argument for women, but even so it can be one-sided. It barely touches of the pettiness of women, which she hints at--the materialism and vanity of women competing with one another to capture a better suitor! Next you may ask why does the man deserve respect? What has he done to deserve it? The correlation between love and respect is a deep one. In marriage, the man needs to love the woman, and the woman needs to respect the man. These terms can be interchangeable, because to love someone is to respect them, and to respect someone is to love them. If I were to ask you, "Does the woman deserve to be loved?", you would stare at me aghast, and immediately answer, "Yes!" I find it ironic. The imperfections of both sexes are exactly equal, and although one may look more calloused and evil than the other, the heart and its intentions are the same. The outward is as bad as the inward. It is no doubt that the writer of I Peter wrote to the women of the church whose husbands were not believers that if they submitted to their husbands, their manner of respect and conduct would convert their husbands to a knowledge of Christ. The same effect goes for the husband, if he loves his unsaved wife like God does. Although in both cases each are unequally yoked, each shows the same love that in the end performs a perfect picture of the gospel.
Wollstonecraft had an intellect, and an outstanding one at that. But even so, she too fell prey to this human condition, and looked for love in "all the wrong places". After writing the vindication, she had several affairs. I have come to believe also that she wouldn't have made a good wife, or probably not even a good mother. She wasn't a wife for very long (or a mother for very long either, she died shortly after having her first child) but she lived in a separate apartment from her husband, and they only conversed by letters. What strikes me most about Wollstonecraft was that she obviously knew what love wasn't, had an idea of what love looked like (even if she couldn't find the romantic kind herself), and even knew the nature of God (that he wouldn't make woman with an intellect just to make her silly, deceptive, or dependent.....that he made woman with purpose!). She had the same chance for love as we do, in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ would have very much appealed to Wollstonecraft. The most woman-empowering thing ever done in history was the newly resurrected Jesus' appearance to the women coming to the tomb. Jesus valued women, and their word! Even when the society in that day didn't value the testimony of women, Jesus used this as an example to empower them.
It would be hasty of us to admit that one sex caused all of the problems. That in itself is an emotional and fallacious argument, even applied to this book. If x is the problem, x wouldn't be the solution. If man was the problem, becoming more like man (in education, societal role, strength, wisdom, virtue, etc) wouldn't be the solution. Every person has to accept responsibility for their own individual actions.
In writing this blog, my intention is not to be divisive. I think it is smart if we step back and view everything objectively--even in these controversial subjects.
"The buck stops here." I rest my case.
I commented on Gabby's and Caroline's
Men and women are very different from each other. Even so, they are both humans, and both have a sin nature. This taints everything--relationships, family, society, civilization, our sense of morality, sense of duty, etc.
I wouldn't dare go as far as to say the man was the sole offender of this narrative. Although man played a large role (and even as I say this I do not justify his acts) he had the same condition as woman.
The woman of the enlightenment era was dependent. She couldn't own property, have a job, or control her own destiny. The picture Wollstonecraft paints in this work is astonishingly true of the time. If the woman didn't marry, and marry well, she would have no chance at life. Even then, she wouldn't be able to keep up with the standard for beauty of that day. She was utterly desperate.
Could the same thing be said of man? His realm of control over the woman pressed him so that he could not function without her--he was desperate without her. Desperate in the everyday tasks, and desperate in the sensual. In this case, leadership was perverted to dominance and love was perverted to lust.
The woman's sin was, as well, perverse. Her virtue was perverted to vanity and her respect was perverted to ridicule. You may ask, isn't this caused by the man from the start? Didn't he send her to this ill fate? I would say that the catalyst doesn't justify the individual's sins. Just as man's sins aren't justified so are the woman's not. Wollstonecraft presented a daring story in her day in the argument for women, but even so it can be one-sided. It barely touches of the pettiness of women, which she hints at--the materialism and vanity of women competing with one another to capture a better suitor! Next you may ask why does the man deserve respect? What has he done to deserve it? The correlation between love and respect is a deep one. In marriage, the man needs to love the woman, and the woman needs to respect the man. These terms can be interchangeable, because to love someone is to respect them, and to respect someone is to love them. If I were to ask you, "Does the woman deserve to be loved?", you would stare at me aghast, and immediately answer, "Yes!" I find it ironic. The imperfections of both sexes are exactly equal, and although one may look more calloused and evil than the other, the heart and its intentions are the same. The outward is as bad as the inward. It is no doubt that the writer of I Peter wrote to the women of the church whose husbands were not believers that if they submitted to their husbands, their manner of respect and conduct would convert their husbands to a knowledge of Christ. The same effect goes for the husband, if he loves his unsaved wife like God does. Although in both cases each are unequally yoked, each shows the same love that in the end performs a perfect picture of the gospel.
Wollstonecraft had an intellect, and an outstanding one at that. But even so, she too fell prey to this human condition, and looked for love in "all the wrong places". After writing the vindication, she had several affairs. I have come to believe also that she wouldn't have made a good wife, or probably not even a good mother. She wasn't a wife for very long (or a mother for very long either, she died shortly after having her first child) but she lived in a separate apartment from her husband, and they only conversed by letters. What strikes me most about Wollstonecraft was that she obviously knew what love wasn't, had an idea of what love looked like (even if she couldn't find the romantic kind herself), and even knew the nature of God (that he wouldn't make woman with an intellect just to make her silly, deceptive, or dependent.....that he made woman with purpose!). She had the same chance for love as we do, in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ would have very much appealed to Wollstonecraft. The most woman-empowering thing ever done in history was the newly resurrected Jesus' appearance to the women coming to the tomb. Jesus valued women, and their word! Even when the society in that day didn't value the testimony of women, Jesus used this as an example to empower them.
It would be hasty of us to admit that one sex caused all of the problems. That in itself is an emotional and fallacious argument, even applied to this book. If x is the problem, x wouldn't be the solution. If man was the problem, becoming more like man (in education, societal role, strength, wisdom, virtue, etc) wouldn't be the solution. Every person has to accept responsibility for their own individual actions.
In writing this blog, my intention is not to be divisive. I think it is smart if we step back and view everything objectively--even in these controversial subjects.
"The buck stops here." I rest my case.
I commented on Gabby's and Caroline's
Comments