http://localhost:8888/engl479w/wollstonecraft-and-harraway/ Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:00:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 http://localhost:8888/engl479w/wollstonecraft-and-harraway/#comment-68 klape Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:12:08 +0000 http://www.mith2.umd.edu/teaching/courses/f08/engl479w/?p=62#comment-68 In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft’s complex non-linear style is mirrored by the complexity of the issue she’s struggling with. She is writing within a set of linguistic binds that deny her access to the “Reason” (the instrument of Enlightenment discourse) necessary to make the argument for the Rights of Woman. This is specifically exemplified when she claims that “Men are not always men in the company of women” (footnote p. 123). Throughout Vindication, Wollstonecraft shows that the social constructions of gender—of “man” and of “woman”—are exactly that, social constructions. While the idea of “man/men” and the idea of “woman/women” are nearly always set up as dichotomies, as subject/object, and as terms used to define what one is and what one is not, Wollstonecraft points out the sliding and slippery nature of such constructs. She questions and critiques what it means for men to be man by calling attention to man’s actions—to the fact that there are times when men do not behave as social forces tell them they should. Wollstonecraft shows that when women step outside of the roles ascribed to them (specifically dealing with modesty in the chapter where this footnote appears), social forces balk at the notion. Wollstonecraft herself was called “manly,” “masculine,” a “hyena,” and her femininity and her “womanhood” were called into question by her opponents. What does it mean for men not to be men? What does it mean for women not to be women? Biologically, men and women have distinct differences, but in the framework of sliding social constructs, where everything is defined in terms of a phallogocentric language, society, and world, men may not always be men, especially when the agency of women and woman are in question, especially when that agency is up for grabs and “woman” is trying to be discovered and recovered. In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft’s complex non-linear style is mirrored by the complexity of the issue she’s struggling with. She is writing within a set of linguistic binds that deny her access to the “Reason” (the instrument of Enlightenment discourse) necessary to make the argument for the Rights of Woman. This is specifically exemplified when she claims that “Men are not always men in the company of women” (footnote p. 123). Throughout Vindication, Wollstonecraft shows that the social constructions of gender—of “man” and of “woman”—are exactly that, social constructions. While the idea of “man/men” and the idea of “woman/women” are nearly always set up as dichotomies, as subject/object, and as terms used to define what one is and what one is not, Wollstonecraft points out the sliding and slippery nature of such constructs. She questions and critiques what it means for men to be man by calling attention to man’s actions—to the fact that there are times when men do not behave as social forces tell them they should. Wollstonecraft shows that when women step outside of the roles ascribed to them (specifically dealing with modesty in the chapter where this footnote appears), social forces balk at the notion. Wollstonecraft herself was called “manly,” “masculine,” a “hyena,” and her femininity and her “womanhood” were called into question by her opponents.
What does it mean for men not to be men? What does it mean for women not to be women? Biologically, men and women have distinct differences, but in the framework of sliding social constructs, where everything is defined in terms of a phallogocentric language, society, and world, men may not always be men, especially when the agency of women and woman are in question, especially when that agency is up for grabs and “woman” is trying to be discovered and recovered.

]]>