On "The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character"

I was going to do my blog from a satirical chauvanist perspective because I think making fun of ignorance is funny. However, I am far too tired.

I have seen a couple other blogs mention the difficulty of decoding much of Ms. Wollstonecraft's writing because of her style of rhetoric. I've read a great deal of things from this time period particularly by Thomas Jefferson and his correspondents, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison etc. Still, Ms. Wollstonecraft has one of the heavier styles that I've seen. It reminds me a lot of how Hamilton wrote, actually. He was a very verbose man. One might call him a wind-bag.

This flourishing rhetoric, in my opinion, is a possible way that Ms. Wollstonecraft attempts to assert her position. She is obviously a very well-educated, knowledgable woman. However, the last word in that sentence is exactly what is holding her back. I think she uses her flowery, sometimes heavy, language to assert herself as an educated person, not just an "innocent" woman. It may be out of insecurity or just show off. On the other hand, it could be that she's just used to talking like that.

On the whole, I really enjoyed this piece of writing. Although, I thought that the second half began to belabor the point. She could have reduced that to simply saying: Women are not meant to be objects of men's affection. They should pursue their own interests and be equal to men as friends and companions.

I actually laughed when I read some of the things that Rosseau and others said. These chauvinists hardly seem to regard women as the same species let alone equals of the same species. The way that these men used the argument style of by treating you like inferiors we're actually protecting and honoring you was quite ingenious to be honest. By convincing another that you're inferior treatment of them is what's best, you have a huge advantage.

What's quite eye-opening and stunning, though, is that women would actually fall for that crap! It's embarassing to me, even as a male, to think that women once thought themselves so weak that it actually made them special.

There are a couple things I specifically wish to address with this blog entry by providing commentary to Ms. Wollstonecraft's writing:

First, the position of women if Ms. Wollstonecraft's goals are achieved:
I really liked that Ms. W is not a classical feminist in the sense that she doesn't want women to control the world and doesn't consider women above men. Therefore, she is not a hypocrite. She believes in equality and reaching a level on which men and women interact and are educated toghether without difference.

Title IX is something to think about in this type of sense. Title IX requires that schools provide equal funding for men's and women's sports activities. This all seems fine. However, equality should not have to be stipulated. It should occur naturally. True, it does not always. It should be expected that institutions fund equally or close to equally for both men and women. Getting specific, men's sports are generally going to cost more than women's anyway due to these factors: More men generally play sports, traditionally male sports such as football and sometimes hockey aree usually more expensive.

This is even more true of affirmative action. Women don't need that leg up. It should be assumed that they get their rights equally, there should not be quotas. I'll hold off on the politics for now.

The other issue I wish to address is a little more deep. That is the difference between what Ms. W refers to as "love" and what she calls "friendship."

I have to say that I disagree with her on this. I think love is not simply the romantic, kissy, huggy stuff. Just as friendship is not the stage when two lovers become intellectually and spiritually connected. In my opinion, infatuation and enamorment is that "love" stage. Friendship stays the entire time when people share interests and converse. Love and companionship is when two people are inseparable except by physical means. It's when they'd do anything for each other and have the highest respect for each other along with having that romantic part of a relationship. Of course, love can mean something else to everybody. It's all semantics.