Mary Astell's devotion to her gender is extraordinary; it is what starts revolutions. It's too bad the people of her time weren't ready for all she had to offer.
"This work (later known as A Serious Proposal, Part I), is in fact a plea to women to take seriously the life of the mind, and to make it possible for girls to be taught to use their intellectual talents" (147). She knew that women were capable of being more than just the silent companions of men. She was educated and had the crazy notion that all women should be educated as well. She is the epitome of what we would call an independent woman. Not married, supporting herself the best way she could, today this is the norm, back then that was not the role of a women. She "reproaches women for wasting their talents in lives of trivial self-indulgence" (148).
The problem, I think, is with her approach. She was mad at her sex. I think we can relate: Women are still looking for a man, if not to support them, then to complete them. The idea that a women needs a man in her life has not died out by any means. But, not only is she scolding women to step up and take control of their lives, but she is rejecting the way society worked, seemingly alone. The reading argues that she focused on her audience, and placed themselves in her shoes. "Astell puts herself in the place of her audience of women and takes into account not only the many deficiencies of their education but also its single strength: whatever the failures and omissions in women's education, it always included a thorough grounding in Christian morals" (153). In this respect, she succeeds. Including religion in her argument allows her to connect with her audience in a way they will understand. But, to a point she is insulting them. For example: "Mary Astell was incensed: 'Why won't you begin to think, and no longer dream away your lives in a wretched incogitancy? Can you be in love with servitude and folly? Can you dote on a mean, ignorant and ignoble life?'" (149) Instead of yelling at women to do something with their lives, she should have worked with them and society to promote change.
I admire her passion and dedication to the betterment of her gender, but think her approach could have been better in that she shouldn't degrade women for following their role in society, but encourage them to do better. After all, you can only lead someone to water...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I agree that Mary Astell's approach may have been a little harsh, I can understand her frustration. Yes, women at that time were being treated unfairly, but in many ways they were accepting and perpetuating the unfair treatment. Especially in aristocratic circles, women accepted being treated as lap dogs--cute, funny, brainless, and often annoying. Some might say that the power structures in place at the time would have prevented a woman from being anything else. Perhaps that is true, and it's easy for me to point fingers sitting in my comfortable position of 21st century equality. But I would like to think that I would have been intolerant of such treatment; that I would have taken every opportunity of throwing off oppression. Mary Astell was trying to motivate a group of people who had grown so accustomed to their bondage that they failed to see it as such; she was trying to get them to wake up and smell the oppression. Overall, I liked her approach.
ReplyDeleteIf Mary Astell had not been as harsh as she was would we know her today? Would her writings even have appeared in print Her strength in some ways was her outrageousness for her times.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some good arguments, Autumn. I believe that Astell had to use a certain level of harshness in order to "shock" her audience into action. While this didn't work with Part I of her "Serious Proposal to the Ladies," Astell believed that this was partially her fault. She knew that she had been harsh, but she also admitted that maybe she had been harsh without actually providing the women any sort of help or assistance. So, in Part II, she provided some more direction to the ladies and she was also less harsh in Part II.
ReplyDeleteIt is surprising that a harsh approach was disregarded by the ladies she meant to chastise. Perhaps she should have made use of the feminine notion of "sugar and spice" to offer a "polite" argument for our fair and dainty sex.
ReplyDeleteThis reading (and the excellent presentation) brought up a number of cries of "why is she forgotten?" "why have we never heard of her?" etc.. After our Morretti reading from Eskew's class, I am now interested to learn more about the patterns of women's novel production during Astell's generation. Was there a surge of women writers at this point? Had a surge just ended (perhaps encouraging many readers to disregard her work)? Was it about to pick up - and perhaps she should have held her work back a few years? I wonder if her words would have held more impact if delivered at a slightly different time.