Vindication of the Rights of Wo- oh wait, you've heard...

Title: A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
Author: Mary Wollstonecraft
Pub: A long LONG time ago. . . or 1792
Pages: 194
Genre: Non Fiction; Classics; Feminism; Women's Studies
Etc: Feminist Classics Challenge

Okay, okay, admittedly I'm like, what (?) two weeks behind on this post!  So much so, I thought about not actually writing it.  I mean, aren't ya'll tired of reading about this antiquated text.  BUT because I am attempting to at least ramble a wee bit about everything that I read this year, here goes my wee bit of rambling.

This is my second time around with Vindication.  My first experience was a bit over ten years ago, when I was in my early twenties and I could define what "feminism" meant to me in a more concise black and white manner.  (Experience has taught me that no belief system is either concise or black and white).  Perhaps it will surprise you that I found the text far more interesting the first time around than reading it at my more mature age?

Some notes that I made at 21 ...

• "Interesting that this debate is still going on...biology vs. sociology, thus attempting to find reason in books." in reference to the quote - 'that either nature has made a great difference between man and man, or that the civilization which has hitherto taken place in the world has been very partial.' 
• "Beauty vs. Brains..great comparison to fading leaves." 
• "What, women have no souls?"
• "Really good at acknowledging her audience"
• "Sarcasm!!"
• "What are the values that are being taught...obeying turns into ignorance, not very well thought out."
• "Passion will subside, the mind needs so much more" 

What has changed since the me of the past?  Well, to tell you the truth, I had to convince myself to continue reading multiple times (and yes, I even skimmed parts).  It was just so damn repetitive.  Why did I forget that?  I know that many were put off by the god/christianity because it was a-plenty in the text, but I was forgiving.  It just seemed more in the context of the time period.  I mean wasn't EVERYONE religious back then?  

Also, I still have to give Wollstonecraft props for what she did.  Huge credit.  I mean, man, she put herself out there.  I don't think it is unforgivable that she still refers to women as second to man.  It's baby steps people.  What was she suppose to do back then?  Let's face it, we have a bit more opportunity now a'days than we would in the late 1700's.  

I'm definitely intrigued by Wollstonecraft's life and will (must) get my hands on a biography.

Reading Women

on my couch

Title: Reading Women: How the Great Books of Feminism Changed My Life
Author: Stephanie Staal
Pub: February 2011
Pages: 270
Genre: Non fiction, Feminine Studies, Memoir-ish
Etc: Received via LT's Early Review Program

(If the amount of flags in a book is any indication to the enjoyment, it is obvious that Reading Women has its place in my home.)

Stephanie Staal, graduate from Barnard, anticipated a progressive career driven life.  And was on her way, until she meets a man, falls in love, gets married, has a baby and leaves The City.  (And speaking of The City, didn't we see that episode on SatC?)  It is about this time that we meet her, as our narrator and guide.  Her marriage is a wee bit rockier than expected, and even though both her and hubs work from home, she ends up with the role of "mommy" and not the equal partnership that she anticipated.

"Our shared parenting time appeared astonishingly equal to outsiders - maybe too equal. It didn't take long to discover that they viewed my time as a duty, whereas John's was a gift - he was a saint to my sinner." (46)

 Not knowing what else to do, she decides to audit a year long study of Feminine Texts at her alma matter.  Reading Women is her journey.

I received this book from LT in December and squealed knowing that it would align perfectly with The Year of Feminist Classics challenge that I signed up for.  Not surprisingly, the first text that Staal is assigned in her Fem Text course is our January read - A Vindication of Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft.

Staal excels in literary analysis.  I truly felt as though she combed the texts and spent the time to truly understand them as period pieces and contemporary sources of wisdom.  For example, while reading "The Yellow Wallpaper", she states: If men, too, are products of the culture, how culpable are they really? And how complicit might women be in their own imprisonment. (94)

She's obviously a very bright woman and I do understand her desire to go back to the text.  I imagine that it is difficult for a woman to manage both motherhood and a career.  She constantly goes back and forth trying to find the most accurate definition of  "woman" for herself as a feminist and all of her other selves. Her thoughts are candid both after running into other SaHMs who ask when she plans on having another baby, and while being in a college class thinking about her daughter at home.  I get that duality.  I get the stress on finding a defining foundation of womanhood.  Especially when I don't know if men think of themselves against women in the same way that women do.

There were moments when I found myself to be pretty frustrated though.  Not at her, really.  Because I get that this is her journey. But frustrated because she felt the pressure of being a mom and still wanting a career and how that looked to outsiders and I constantly have to deal with both the fact that I don't ever want to have children nor ever get married.  Both offenses clearly not "womanly" by general stereotypical culture.  Of course, amongst my friends I never feel the slightest bit of "are you kidding me?" pressure, but general population?  And then working with middle schoolers increases the frequency of "are you married miss?"  I'm hardly going to go into a long spell to twelve year olds about why I choose not to marry; and thankfully, I tease them and claim I don't have any children because I have 120 of them between 9-4.  My choice to not have children and not marry are not political ones.  I am not, for example, one of those individuals who believe our population is too large to bring in more.  Nope, it's much simpler, I like me.  I like doing what I want when I want.  I knew this about myself at sixteen when I told my Algebra II Honors teacher I'd never have children.  As for marriage?  I have too many issues not dealt with that correlates with matrimony.  Monogamy yes; matrimony no.  But here's the thing.  It wouldn't be interesting to anyone if I was a man.  At least not so interesting to my twelve year olds.  And I look through their eyes to see what roles society (us, we) have created.

I don't know where feminism stands now in this current decade.  It's been forever and then some since I've thought in terms of any sort of feminist movement.  I think that our gender roles are slowly blending with the nearing acceptance* of same sex coupling. How we define Man and Woman must change with that acceptance, yes?  

____
* I say nearing acceptance because we see more GLBTQ in film, television shows, and literature than in the past, but it's only nearly acceptable because there's still the fight for equal rights.