I read A Vindication of the Rights of Woman as part of A Year of Feminist Classics.

Don’t read the book like I did though. That is to say, don’t go to Project Gutenberg, download the text, and read that. It’s tempting because it’s free. I discourage this not because it’s stealing from the author. No, I discourage this method because Mary Wollstonecraft wrote this book around 1790. In other words, because of the language and style of writing back then, I had know idea what she was talking about about 2/3 of the time. Sometimes it’s the archaic words, though those can be looked up. Sometimes it’s the context. Much of the text is a response to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom I haven’t read, for instance. And some of it is just obtuse. I counted fifteen clauses in one sentence.

Do yourself a favor and buy an annotated and footnoted edition. You’ll get a lot more out of it than I did out of this.

Originally, I planned to write something more detailed. Instead, I think I am going to just put in some reactions I had as I read through the text, with just a little bit of context for each.

Introduction. The male pursues, the female yields—this is the law of nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated in favour of woman. – Wollstonecraft makes lots of scientific pronouncements of fact that just aren’t so. I don’t think it’s unusual for the day and age. The scientific method didn’t become firmly established for another hundred years, was badly implemented often even then, and even intellectuals today get it wrong. Wollstonecraft invokes reason as the basis for modern thought, but reason and science aren’t exactly the same. To me, science should be the basis for knowledge and action, with reason as a supplement. Wollstonecraft’s reason is sometimes imperfect, but especially here it becomes awful because it is based on false premises. What’s more, and what stood out in this and a few other passages was that her false premises work against her ultimate aim, to secure rights for women. I don’t expect perfection from an early work of feminism (or even current ones), but it sure makes me cringe to see her blithely accept some of these things.

from every quarter, I have heard exclamations against masculine women, but where are they to be found? I love this bit. The internet did not spawn concern trolls.

My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces Is that sarcasm? I sure hope so!

The Rights and Duties of Mankind Considered. Consequently the perfection of our nature and capability of happiness, must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and knowledge, that distinguish the individual Wollstonecraft wants to base her vindication on first principles, which she considers to be reason, virtue, and knowledge. Certainly it’s a step up from divine revelation, but there’s a lot of fuzzy wiggle room in there, particularly with virtue. What one person considers to be virtuous is a sin to another. And shortly afterward, Wollstonecraft identifies a flaw in reason…

Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed Yup. We still do. In our defense, I think this failing is common to humanity. But it’s particularly dangerous to classes of people that do not have power when those in power do this.

the regal power, in a few generations, introduces idiotism into the noble stem Wollstonecraft has a very anti-authoritarian bent. Through the book, she criticizes kings, men, the military, and parents as their mere exercising of authority makes them stupid. I wonder what level of authority she would have found acceptable.

The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed. Many are the causes … that contribute to enslave women by cramping their understandings and sharpening their senses. One, perhaps, that does more mischief than all the rest, is their disregard of order. Wollstonecraft is careful to lay the blame for this one women’s education, but her overall frustration with how much women hurt their own causes comes through. She rails over and over against the predominant view that men think and women feel, and that’s the way things are supposed to be.

Youth is the season for love in both sexes, but in those days of thoughtless enjoyment, provision should be made for the more important years of life, when reflection takes the place of sensation. This is another thread that runs throughout the work, that how women are taught to behave isn’t a good basis for a lasting companionship. Being flirty and pretty is good to attract the attention of a man, but it isn’t good to hold it. Wollstonecraft repeatedly praises the value of friendship and respect in marriage. I don’t exactly cotton to her notion that gallant love has little place after the initial attraction has passed, but she’s quite correct that people really need to have something to talk about to make them effective long term.

however convenient [gentleness] may be found in a companion, that companion will ever be considered as an inferior, and only inspire a vapid tenderness, which easily degenerates into contempt. I don’t have anything to say about this one. It just needs quoting.

Let [women's] faculties have room to unfold, and their virtues to gain strength, and then determine where the whole sex must stand in the intellectual scale. One of Wollstonecraft’s arguments seems to be, paraphrased, What have you got to lose? If I’m wrong, women will still be at the place they are intellectually, and it won’t have been imposed on us by fiat. She makes this argument over and over in various ways.

The Same Subject Continued. That a girl, condemned to sit for hours together listening to the idle chat of weak nurses or to attend at her mother’s toiler, will endeavor to join the conversation is, indeed very natural; and that she will imitate her mother or aunts, and muse herself by adorning her lifeless doll, as they do in dressing her, poor innocent babe! is undoubtedly a most natural consequence. Just pointing out that supposedly differences in the sexes don’t occur in a vacuum, so that even the differences that appear early in life aren’t necessarily innate. It’s passages such as this that make me think that Wollstonecraft sometimes uses the word “education” in a broad context, though sometimes she also uses it to refer only to formal teaching.

Observations on the State of Degradation to Which Woman is Reduced by Various Causes. I lament that women are systematically degraded by receiving trivial attention, which men think it manly to pay attention to the sex, when, in fact, they are insultingly supporting their own superiority. Again, just needed quoting.

if fear in girls, instead of being cherished, perhaps, created, were treated in the same manner as cowardice in boys, we should quickly see women with more dignified aspects. There are likely underlying emotional differences between women and men due to differences in hormones, but I’m of the firm belief that they are generally minor. I think nearly all of the emotional differences are the result of cultural inculcation.

many girls become the dupes of a sincere affectionate heart, and still more are, as it may emphatically be termed, ruined before they know the difference between virtue and vice: and thus prepared by their education for infamy, they become infamous. Wollstonecraft laments the pernicious effect of what is now commonly called slut-shaming, but being a person of her times, sees the remedy as better education to avoid being a slut, rather than not shaming people. In a later passage, Wollstonecraft seems to be expressing even more dismay at people’s lack of sexual virtue than even those at the time held. There’s a streak of feminism that’s based on a prudish morality. That’s not surprising given that Western society as a whole has been pretty prudish. Feminism, for all it’s radicalness, can’t completely get away from the society from which it comes. The branches that I identify with more will be the ones that celebrate sexuality. Perhaps that’s merely the male gaze in me, but I’ll live with it.

Animadversions on Some of the Writers Who Have Rendered Women Objects of Pity, Bordering on Contempt. As the conduct of a woman is subservient to the public opinion, her faith in matters of religion, should for that very reason, be subject to authority. Every daughter ought to be of the same religion as her mother, and every wife to be of the same religion as her husband … As they are not in a capacity to judge for themselves, they ought to abide by the decision of their fathers and husbands as confidently as by that of the church. What is to be the consequence, if the mother’s and husband’s opinion should chance not to agree? … Indeed, the husband may not have any religion to teach her though in such a situation she will be in great want of a support to her virtue, independent of worldly considerations. First, I had never heard the word “animadversion” before, and I love it. This chapter has Wollstonecraft doing what I’m doing here: quoting other writers on the woman’s place, and giving her comments. First up is Rousseau, who Wollstonecraft rightly calls out for his serious WTFery. If you are prone to religious bullshit, Rousseau’s advice is hideously dangerous to your eternal soul. Here you are going to heaven for your belief, and then you get married and your husband immediately consigns your soul to eternal damnation by making you believe sinful things. Of course, Wollstonecraft’s most dreaded fear is that the husband gives the woman no religion, which I should think would be an improvement over giving you one. Which also makes me wonder, was Deism as popular among Europe’s elite as it was among America’s around the same time?

true grace arises from some kind of independence of mind Quoting the section where she rips a Dr. Fordyce.

Modesty Comprehensively Considered and Not as a Sexual Virtue. What can be more disgusting than that impudent dross of gallantry, thought so manly, which makes many men stare insultingly at every female they meet? Is this respect for the sex? This loose behaviour shows such habitual depravity, such weakness of mind, that it is vain to expect much public or private virtue, till both men and women grow more modest — till men, curbing a sensual fondness for the sex, or and affectation of manly assurance, more properly speaking, impudence, treat each other with respect It would be hypocritical of me to rail against the male gaze because I do love to look at pretty women, but the woman does have a point.

On this account also, I object to [women being cloistered]. They were almost on a par with the double meanings, which shake the convivial table when the glass has circulated freely. But it vain to attempt to keep the heart pure, unless it is furnished with ideas. This is the passage I noted above, where it seems like Wollstonecraft is more prudish than those with whom she associates. They seem to have no problem with using double meanings in their dinner conversation, but it does upset our author.

Morality Undermined by Sexual Notions of the Importance of a Good Reputation. Although I agree with the gist of Wollstonecraft’s criticism that women bear the brunt of bad reputation effects, again her solution is to hold everyone to unreachable standards of sexual morality. Rather, I say, Good Reputation is Undermined by Sexual Notions of Morality. For the most part, people ought not to care about who people are fucking. That’s another time though.

Of the Pernicious Effects Which Arise From the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society. But what have women to do in society? I may be asked, but to loiter with easy grace, surely you would not condemn them all to suckle fools, and chronicle small beer! No. Women might study the art of healing, and be physicians as well as nurse. And midwifery … They might also study politics … Business of various kinds, they might likewise pursue. Another set of things that just needed quoting.

Would men but generously snap our chains, and be content with rational fellowship, instead of slavish obedience, they would find us more observant daughters, more affectionate sisters, more faithful wives, more reasonable mothers — in a word, better citiznes. Which reminds me I do need to point out that although some of Wollstonecraft’s complaints about sexual prejudice remain relevant today (we still often assume women aren’t good at math), her prescriptions wouldn’t work today. In fact they didn’t really have the effect she thought they would when they were enacted.. She thought educating women would turn them into paragons of virtue. All she had to do was look at educated men to realized that education does not make people behave righteously. It makes them smarter, and able to stand on their own, which are sufficient reason alone. Don’t expect better government or business when women and minorities finally make it to the head of the table in force. They are as fallible as the rest of us in the patriarchy.

On National Education No quote here. This is the meat of Wollstonecraft’s policy prescription. By and large it’s come to pass in Western society. She proposes a government paid for and run system of school that will educate everyone, rich and poor, male and female. She desires for them to be day schools. That is, not boarding schools. Wollstonecraft felt that the approach of vacations made boarding schools a bad choice for education. They would be co-educational; she felt that was the only way to get teachers to treat the sexes equally. That also would allow the students to cross pollinate and develop grand passions for the arts, or politics, or whatever. Whether public schools have had the effect of reducing inequality I’ll leave for the exercises.

Oddly, I made few marks in the last chapter. The only big one is the portion where Wollstonecraft inveighs against novels. These days, novels and the theater are considered cultural. Some day, perhaps, reality television will be considered in the same manner.

No links to other blogs. I read that A Year of Feminist Classics will do some roundup posts, so follow them to see what other people are saying about the tome. I’m going to move on to January’s second book, So Long a letter, by Mariama Bâ. January is going to be a very feminist month. I’m also going to be reading the recent Carl Brandon Parallax Award winning Distances by Vandana Singh. The back cover blurb appears to make it out to be about math.

Title: A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
Author: Mary Wollstonecraft
Imprint / publisher: Project Gutenberg
Format: Electronic book
Length: approximately 120 p.
Publication date: September 2002

1632 is Eric Flint’s attempt to answer/explore a scenario that has intrigued a fair number of science fiction writers and fans for years: just how well would the modern world stack up if put in the middle of older times? I’ve read a few stories along these lines over the years, though this may be the most grandiose in scale of all of them. The basic plot of these tales drops a time traveler or two in the 1880s or the U.S. War of Independence or some such period where they use a superior knowledge to amaze ancient rubes and assume an exalted place in a previous time. Flint’s version does something similar, but 1632 drops the entire town of Grantville, West Virginia in the middle of Europe’s 30 Years’ War. And while the town’s technology and know-how do amaze the locals, most are savvy enough to assimilate the newfound knowledge from the future into their lives.

Unknown to the residents of Grantville, extraterrestrial art causes an circle of land around the town to be transported to the middle of Thuringia, Germany, in 1631. Nearby soldiers of the Holy Roman Empire have just finished sacking Magdeburg, killing tens of thousands of people. Now some are attacking farmhouses in the countryside just outside the ring of fire boundary between transported United States land and rural Germany.

Inside the town, the residents see smoke from these burning houses and head out to investigate, finding men with flintlocks and sabers raping a farmgirl and torturing the farmer. Being red-blooded American members of the United Mine Workers Association (U.M.W.A.), they intervene to save them. Their superior guns allow them to prevail easily.

Quickly, Grantville decides to establish a new United States and export a modified American law to as much of the countryside as it can convince to join them. 500 pages of the story then details the political and military adventures of the new United States as it challenges the Holy Roman Empire and makes alliances with Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (already in Germany opposing the Catholic armies). In addition, Flint writes about the personal lives of some of the key residents of Grantville, both those who were transported with the ring of fire as well as some of the earliest recruits to the new nation.

The book is a very easy read. Flint includes lots of descriptions of everything: historical details, settings, action, people, and more. So you get lots and lots of information, though mostly it doesn’t feel too much like an info-dump. The pieces of information build on each other, but in a fairly sequential fashion. I didn’t have to refer pages back to integrate previous information with new revelations. The characters and their motivation are written about at the surface. Flint tells you who they are, what they look like, what they are doing, and what their motivations are. This isn’t a knock; it means that a reader can follow the story without having to read between the lines.

Flint pushes a union-left (I just made that term up, I think) version of the American psyche. Grantsville residents believe in America and the U.M.W.A. They brook no version of royalty nor elitism. Good old boy workers (mostly white) are just as capable as anyone else. They are upstanding, protecting the downtrodden and each other. Who better to bring the Bill of Rights to the peasants of central Germany?

Flint’s Grantsville has mostly moved past such things as racism. The men in charge don’t quite yet believe in women as equals, but they are open to the idea in select cases (the crack shot cheerleader, the smart Jewish refugee, the German prostitute with a steely heart). Everyone has a can-do attitude. Sometimes people disagree, but in Grantsville someone in an argument always backs off so that the disagreement can be resolved amicably, even if they still think they are right. Everyone in Grantsville has the good of the town at heart.

Flint writes in the afterword that he wrote the novel for a couple of reasons (in addition to the obvious ones). One is that he is tired of pervasive cynicism. Thus the overwhelmingly positive portrayal of Grantsville’s West Virginians and of their allies in the Thirty Years’ War, including Gustavus Adolphus. You can think, but his writing isn’t going to leave the reader with any substantially mixed messages. There are plenty of bad guys, but few of them get the privilege of having their perspective shown and none get shown as having rational reasons for what they do. Most of them get slaughtered in gory fashion. Flint also writes that he had to hold himself back from giving too many characters their just desserts. I have mixed feelings about all this, but more on that later.

The other stated reason he wrote the book agrees with my sensibilities more unambiguously. He didn’t think blue-collar workers get their due in literature today. The decision-makers in 1632 consist mostly of mine-workers, enlisted veterans of Viet Nam, teachers, and even students. While occasionally kings and generals make appearances, the scale of much of the battles described is such that captains and the like arre in charge. I think Flint is right, though I’m not sure how well anyone would really do in such a fish out of water scenario as is portrayed. You don’t become a seasoned military leader overnight, as happens in 1632.

And while I appreciate Flint’s attempt to be positive, I think that makes for an inaccurate picture. Would Americans really be so accepting of blacks and foreigners? I don’t think we’re there. Would American imperialism be so altruistic? Our history says no. And even when I accept those as given, would our can-do attitude really have such a smooth ride in a hostile environment? I’m skeptical. See, Grantsville never faces anything that even appears to actually threaten them until well after page 500. Armies of thousands? Easily dispatched. Lack of food stores for the winter? Surrounding countryside gladly supplies it. These Americans succeed like no others.

I was able to ignore my qualms for the duration of the story though. The narrative moves everything along fast and well enough that qualms can be dismissed for a time. But even if having a mixed picture of people is cynical, I think I prefer that generally speaking. Sometimes a person needs a little bit of escapism though. This version is harmless enough and fun reading.

Title: 1632
Author: Eric Flint
Cover creator: Larry Elmore
Series: The Ring of Fire; 1
Imprint / publisher: Baen
Format: Mass market paperback
Length: 592 p.
Publication date: February 2008 (originally 2000)
ISBN-10: 0-671-31972-8
ISBN-13: 978-0-671-31972-4

Another book I didn’t really connect with. It’s a short fairy tale kind of thing, following young Halla as she travels a magical sort of Europe. Rescued by a magical bear-woman as the new Queen contemplates killing Halla because she is the daughter of the old Queen. The bear-woman raises her for a while, after which Halla passes into the care of dragons. After dragons, she falls under the protection of the All-Father who tells her to travel light. A large part of the story follows her adventures in Byzantium, where her ability to talk to animals comes in handy with the race horses, allowing her travel companions to make some money to petition the emperor.

The narration seems to take a very distanced a point of view with regard to Halla (and all the rest of the characters for that matter). It also meanders from adventure to adventure, with little clue as to where it’s going. What’s the goal in Halla’s endless questing? I need to see movement toward a goal so I can root for (or possibly against) her. I didn’t see or feel that. Her ostensible goal was to gain dragon treasure, but it didn’t feel like she cared about it that much. I know I certainly didn’t. Even so, I’m not sure any of this is why I didn’t engage with the character or story. Sometimes a book just isn’t right for someone and you can’t really identify why.

There’s some good things about the book. The heroine is a girl who doesn’t fall into any of the normal girl stereotypes, neither a tomboy nor a princess. By that I mean the princess stereotype, cause technically Halla is a princess. It also takes the side of dragons against heroes as well. Some of the funniest bits consist of dragon logic about the right way the world should work and how heroes are messing that up. I loved the dragons. And I really liked the Valkyrie that kept trying to recruit Halla. She had personality.

I wouldn’t call it bad. Lotsa people like it. It just didn’t resonate with me.

Some other blogged reviews:

• Calico Reaction
• Genevieve Valentine
• Bibliogramma

Title: Travel Light
Author: Naomi Mitchison
Cover creator: Kevin Huizenga
Imprint / publisher: Peapod Classics / Small Beer Press
Format: Paperback
Length: 135 p.
Publication date: 2005 (originally 1952)
ISBN-10: 1-931520-14-3
ISBN-13: 978-1-931520-14-0
Subject: Human-animal relationships — Fiction
Subject: Abandoned children — Fiction
Subject: Feral children — Fiction
Subject: Princessess — Fiction
Subject: Girls — Fiction
LC classification: PR6025.I86T7 2005