One thing that stood out to me in Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman is her comparison of female education to that of members of the military, who were of course completely male at the time. She claims both parties were "taught to please, and they only live to please" because they "both acquire manners before morals," which results in their vulnerability to "blindly submit to authority" (382). Although Wollstonecraft renounces both parties for their gallantry and ignorance of morals, by placing women as comparable to men she suggests some level of circumstantial equality among the two. On the whole she claims that women and men can never fully be equal to each other as they have inherent characteristics that distinguish them. However, when put in similar circumstances, for instance lacking education, they will respond in the same way. She calls this response "instinctive," suggesting that maybe the author herself isn't fully convinced that the two sexes are completely separate in the first place. This military reference also harkens back to the broader ideas of the French Revolution, namely a rejection of the oppressive powers that suppress soldiers into a "Spartan discipline" (383). Furthermore, earlier in Chapter 2, Wollstonecraft posits that complete gender equality will only come when "kings...throw off their gaudy hereditary trappings" (381). Thus, only when the political order is reconfigured can women and members of the military become truly independent.
This is an interesting view, especially when compared to Jane Austen's view on the military as well as others during the Romantic Era. In Persuasion, Jane Austen gave us examples of how the military was an institution that enabled men to defy social classifications and make themselves anew - which was extremely difficult to do in England. The military is a good thing! Those who agreed with Austen would pale at Wollstonecraft's use of the military in her "Vindication" I would wager.
ReplyDelete