Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Woman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fuseli image

Hi Awadewit. Tomory, author of Henry Fuseli (art books have such imaginative titles) suggests that Fuseli's The Debutante (1807) is relevant here. Since this offers an opportunity to have even your image decoration reflect OR ideals, I thought I'd mention it. The caption is "Woman, the victim of male social conventions, is tied to the wall, made to sew and guarded by governesses. The picture reflects Mary Wollstonecraft's views in The Rights of Women [sic]". If you do anything with this, I can add the full reference later. –Outriggr § 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• That is wonderful! Fabulous! Adding it this very moment. Awadewit | talk 01:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Great! It's always nice when Wiki Commons has the artwork one is looking for. (No luck on my Nightmare caricatures.) –Outriggr § 03:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you point out that ‘sic’.Why is the title of the book ‘woman’ and not ‘women’? Isn't it an error? Cleroth (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not an error. Mary Wollstonecraft chose the abstract noun, not the collective noun. She was writing about "woman" as a concept, a category. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Obscenity

I see the vandals have shown up. I tried to revert this page, but was unable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

A big thank you to all of the vandal fighters! Awadewit (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and question about addition

First thank you to Awadewit. This featured topic has been great to read! Second I haven't finished this book yet. But found this quote which points up something that maybe could be added?

"Further, should experience prove that they cannot attain the same degree of strength of mind, perseverance, and fortitude, let their virtues be the same in kind, though they may vainly struggle for the same degree; and the superiority of man will be equally clear, if not clearer; and truth, as it is a simple principle, which admits of no modification, would be common to both. Nay, the order of society as it is at present regulated would not be inverted, for woman would then only have the rank that reason assigned her, and arts could not be practised to bring the balance even, much less to turn it."

In the case that education should fail women, men stay superior. Of course I might be reading it wrong but it seems central to Wollstonecraft's argument. Above is from Chapter 2 in Wikisource. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you are enjoying the topic! Generally, this article includes arguments made by Wollstonecraft scholars bolstered by quotes from Wollstonecraft's works to show what the scholars are talking about. I tended to just put in the same quotes the scholars used. The above argument is implicit in Wollstonecraft's book - she does think men are superior to women, since they have education. Moreover, she believes that men should be the ones helping women to improve. The conclusion from this is, of course, is that if reform fails, women will remain inferior. The point about men helping women is emphasized a lot by scholars, which is why I included it in the "Feminism" section. I don't remember if the scholars highlight the logical consequence of the failed reform - you might look through some of the books listed in the bibliography for this article. Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this I think it was "central" to me and my way of thinking and not to Wollstonecraft. I have no plans to read the books in the bibliography but if she brings it up again so will I. Thanks again! -SusanLesch (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

She didn't mention it again. But Rosemarie Tong did in an overview called Feminist Thought that only has a couple pages on Wollstonecraft. So I do think one could mention it here. P.S. A sentence (cited) was added, but perhaps not in the right place. Would you move it where it belongs? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)