1. Why does Wollstonecraft think women and soldiers are alike?
In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Mary Wollstonecraft excoriates male hegemony, a force that has been at work since the “first frail mother” (18) was subjugated, degraded, and disenfranchised by men. Men retain their position of power in society through a myopic male ideology that inculcates its audience with the belief that women are “gentle domestic brutes” (18), Wollstonecraft argues, and women are kept from self-actualization through this ideology. The need for an expansion in women’s education is one of Wollstonecraft’s chief concerns; she believes that “the most perfect education...is such an exercise of the understanding as is best calculated to strengthen the body and form the heart” (20). Such an education will “enable the individual to attain...habits of virtue” (20), thus freeing women from weakness, refinement, and the ludicrosity of male homage and fetishization. The notion of virtue here is particularly compelling, as one cannot mention virtue without recalling Machiavelli’s hyper-masculine virtù—in Wollstonecraft’s analysis, virtue becomes equally attainable for men and women. Wollstonecraft’s reference to virtue becomes even more multifaceted when the historical and religious conceptions of female virtue come to mind. Although Wollstonecraft is advocating for women’s liberation, at least in the most prototypical sense, her praxis undermines her aim, as she urges women to “resign the arbitrary power of beauty” (21) in order to reach the same status as men—women cannot, it seems, simultaneously display what are regarded as traditionally female attributes and hope to be treated equally. This weakness in her theory may be seen in Wollstonecraft’s comparison of women and soldiers—she seems to define woman only in terms of man. Both women and soldiers receive only sporadic education that leaves both groups at a disadvantage in regard to “knowledge…[and] principles” (22); like women, soldiers are kept from strong passions, value physical appearances, and “only live to please” (23). Women and soldiers are perfect pawns, as they “blindly submit to authority” (23) and lack the moral framework to draw their own conclusions. While Wollstonecraft does argue that soldiers are in no way superior to women and should not be viewed as such, her need to use man to constitute woman ultimately precludes the idea of equality, at least in a modern context. While arguing that women can escape subjugation by demanding the same treatment as men fulfills Wollstonecraft’s short-term aims, defining women in terms of their similarities to their oppressors is reductive and insulting, as it presents women as Others whose only hope of fighting against male ideology is assimilation.
I agree with your criticism of Wollstonecraft. I think by her constant comparing women to men she is unintentionally making a case for how men and women are different, and seems to be emphasizing that they are different types of people rather than emphasizing that men and women are both people. I think this is where the modern day feminist argument has differed. There has been a renewed emphasis on the equality of women and men, and that women shouldn't be paid the same as men because they are the same as men but because there should be equal pay for equal work (an idea that can be applied to race, age, gender, education etc). This idea, rather than emphasizing gender, emphasizes people and that first and foremost we are all people.
ReplyDeleteWollstonecraft thinks that women and soldiers are alike because their roles in the world are essentially predetermined before either parties have a chance to find their own passions and form their own persons. Both of these groups of people are molded to fit the roles that society has assigned to them from a very young age- rendering them unable to imagine a lifestyle different than the one they currently live. While women are conditioned to please men, the soldiers are conditioned to fight for men. Even though standing armies are functional, those who form them are unlikely to be strong in faculties or particularly passionate in any area of life. By imposing such a rigid structure on these groups of people, we strip them from their right to self discovery.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with her most basic framework of comparison, I was also troubled be Wollstonecraft’s tendency to define a woman’s role within the schema of man. Especially considering that she goes out of her way to make the reference to the story of Adam and Eve and how this was likely the origin to the conception that woman was created from (and therefore for) man. For someone who recognizes that this story was problematic, she certainly falls into the same trap in her comparison of the roles of women and the roles of soldiers.