I want to comment on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,
specifically chapter VI. It struck a chord because I felt as though I were
reading a commentary on the undergraduate community at Penn State. I’m no super-feminist—I
someday want to raise kids, and I make sandwiches on a daily basis—but the
problem Wollstonecraft addresses is real, and I see it every weekend.
This chapter is titled, “The Effect
Which an Early Association of Ideas has Upon the Character,” and, while fairly
self-explanatory in nature, the title fittingly implies an entire ongoing
phenomenon.
According to Wollstonecraft’s
argument, people absorb ideas presented to them with little power to sift and
filter some out. “When the ideas, or matters of fact, are once taken in, they
lie by for use, till some fortuitous circumstance makes the information dart
into the mind with illustrative force… one idea assimilating and explaining
another, with astonishing rapidity” (pg. 145)[1]. This
rapid association highly influences our character; whatever notions we store in
our minds will affect the way in which we interpret and interact with the world
around us. Here lies the basis of Wollstonecraft’s plea in this chapter: with
only a limited amount of knowledge, our association can only have one
perspective, and no other thought may combat a perhaps very false idea. If
women are not educated (as are men), they lack this ability, and are forever
caught in the web of first-learned, one-sided ideas. They live only for the
simple goals presented to them: “the education they receive [is] that their
‘highest praise is to obey unguarded’ the will of man” (pg. 146). Is it any wonder that they act like they do,
completely dependent on affirmation from men as the source of their value? They
should be pitied, not blamed, for the narrow prison of associative thought,
which forbids them to act any otherwise.
Wollstonecraft spends much of the
chapter describing what, exactly, women’s actions look like when dependent on the
single-ingrained idea of pleasing men, and this is where I found parallels to
today. Obviously this concept is not applicable to all women on Penn State
campus. However, bear with me as I pull out some quotes, and then apply them to
our modern world:
1.)
“This cruel association of ideas…receives new
force when they begin to act a little for themselves; for they then perceive
that it is only through their address to excite emotions in men, that pleasure
and power are to be obtained” (pg. 146). I’ve seen it a hundred times: a girl
walks into a party shy, and perhaps a bit self-conscious—until she starts
talking with a guy. Then, all the stops come out, flirting becomes as tangible
as the smoke in the air, and this girl is suddenly the animated, open,
engaging, charmer. She has learned an invaluable secret: when she caters to a
guy, he responds. The attention and value felt from that—even temporarily—is
enough to draw literally millions of women throughout history.
2.)
“Why should they be bitterly censured for seeking
a congenial mind, and preferring a rake[2] to
a man of sense? Rakes know how to work on their sensibility, whilst the modest
merit of a reasonable man has, of course, less effect on their feelings…Their
thirsty ears drink the insinuating nothingness of politeness, whilst they turn
from the unintelligible sounds of the harmer—reason, charm he never so wisely”
(pg. 146-147). If the concept from quote 1 holds true, this second idea makes
perfect sense. The “pleasure and power” obtained from the attention of men is an “effect on their feelings.” When
women crave these feelings, naturally they will flock to whomever is currently providing
them—if that happens to be a man with less-than-chivalric motives, so be it;
the instant gratification of a feeling overrides the deferred payoff of an
averted mistake. At Penn State, party hookups, walks of shame, and morning
regrets are proof of this point.[3]
3.)
“Men…have too much occupied the thoughts of
women; and this association has so entangled love with all their motives of
action; and…having been solely employed either to prepare themselves to excite
love, or actually putting their lessons in practice, they cannot live without
love… They want a lover and protector; and behold him kneeling before
them—bravery prostrate to beauty! The virtues of a husband are thus thrown into
the background, and gay hopes, or lively emotions, banish reflection till the
day of reckoning comes” (pg. 149). Wollstonecraft critiques that women have no
other influence besides the myth of a sweeping, perfect love story, and are
therefore slaves to its ideal. Thinking it truly possible, they believe
wholeheartedly in any misleading guise, and sacrifice the standard of integrity
for the charm of a whirling romance. Wollstonecraft is describing nothing less
than the twenty-first century “rom-com” indoctrination. While in recent times
other perspectives have provided some balance, this ideal for a perfect love
story is unarguably still widely promoted as fact. From the time the average
girl is old enough to say “Sweet Home Alabama,” she’s watching that movie and
imaging that some random neighbor will grow into her perfect husband. With
these dreams embedded into her from an early age, the first two quotes (talking
about the need for a fulfilled feeling, and a willing sacrifice to obtain it)
make even more sense.
Wollstonecraft insists that it is
the lack of education that stunts the woman’s ability to overcome a desire for
men’s affection. Education “supplies the man of genius with knowledge to give
variety and contrast to his associations” (pg. 145). Without education, women lack
this variety in contrast to narrow associations, and therefore have no choice
but to live in naïve slavery to their tyranny.
Conversely, formal education for women would provide balance, and
eradicate the disillusioned dominance of male-dependent associations. No doubt this
education was much needed in the late eighteenth century; but we are now in the
twenty-first century, and although cultural propaganda still advertises the
concepts Wollstonecraft describes, we’re at an institution existing solely for the purpose of instilling
education. Yet still the problem persists. Why is this—if education is
sufficient to entirely solve the issue? The problem must run through more than
simple ignorance. Something else must exist to connect the pattern of behavior
from women in 1792 to that of women in 2014. Time and culture are so
drastically different that I’m inclined to think this connection point is not completely
a matter of setting. Rather, it must, on some level, be an internal characteristic
of nature. All people long to feel the “pleasure and power” that comes from the
acceptance of another person; perhaps this quality surfaces most in women
because of their exploitation through history and culture, or perhaps it is inherently
stronger in women, I don’t know. But either way, I think it undeniable that as
a whole, Wollstonecraft hit on a real issue that still persists—especially
visible at a place like Penn State.
[1]
Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the
Rights of Woman
[2]
Used to refer to a man of immoral character
[3]
Disclaimer: I don’t think this is an
all-encompassing concept, and I’m not propagating that every one-night stand is
a male chauvinist’s exploitation of a woman’s need for love and affection.
Every case is individual in its own right. Besides, only speaking from the
perspective of a woman, I do not feel at liberty to assign motives to what men
do. However, I have played the counselor many times, and from a retrospective
viewpoint, women desire these affairs much more often than not for the exact
reason which Wollstonecraft describes: vied-for attention, which temporarily
satisfies security and value.
No comments:
Post a Comment