9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Dec. 1, 2001
9-11
Dear Folks,
A fine resource is this Anna Barbauld web site maintained by Lisa Vargo and Allison Muri at the University of Saskatchewan. Another is Tomalin's biography, The Life and Death of Mary Wollstonecraft.
Anna Lætitia Barbauld (née Aikin) - 1743-1825, was a poet; she had been born into a Dissenting family; and, she was a political radical. But, was she a feminist to the extent that her very good friend, Mary Wollstonecraft, might have wished? The biographer, Claire Tomalin answers, "no", and I, with a far less educated opinion, agree. I want to explore these matters with you.
Here is a poem by Barbauld that might illustrate my view of things. (I found this at the Saskatchewan site.) At first reading, it seems that the first six stanzas were intended to please any feminist of any generation. However, even there, the poet seems to be encourging and sympathizing with a group that does not include herself - the authorial voice seems detached, cheering from the sidelines. Everything changes in the last two stanzas - the last two lines indicate a kind of wisdom and insight that might have prevented a Barbauld - and very possibly an Austen - from committing to the feminist movement.
A committed counter-feminist like myself would be very interested to explore the last two lines with anyone willing to do so.
Dear Ash,
I read the poem when I first visited that site. I was bowled over by the last two lines and I will venture a guess that we came to the same understanding.
If I understand the author correctly she is refuting Mary Wollstonecraft etc. or maybe rendering them unnecessary - if things were as they should be. I love poetry but sometimes understanding it poses a problem for me. I had to use the 1828 Webster's to verify some definitions. The poem was written several years ago.
So you are a counter-feminist! Lest we are speaking of 'apples and oranges', I do require a definition of feminism to keep us on track. My dictionary says that 'feminism' is the doctrine advocating social and political rights of women equal to those of men. Now what is the problem with that definition, please? I am not talking about what people have done in the name of feminism, but the definition only. In actuality, there should be a word defined to include the 'rights of ALL people equal to everyone else', including sex, color, religion, and nationality. Excuse me, I get carried away (but 'they' keep bringing me back!). But why should it not be so?
Now to the last two lines:
In Nature's school, by her soft maxims taught,
That separate rights are lost in mutual love.
She is speaking of the rights of women compared to the rights of men. But as I indicated above, one could transcend men and women to further her concept to include any two people - employer to employee, friend to friend, business person to business person, etc.
If one truly loves another person (any other person) he/she would only desire what is best for that person, eliminating all those gross traits as unfairness, domineering attitudes, etc. The end product is that you love the other person as you love yourself. One would certainly not treat him/herself unfairly, etc. thereby eliminating the need for SEPARATE rights - they become "mutual/reciprocal" rights due to mutual love. Because this 'mutual love' is not in operation (yet), you have a Mary Wollstonecraft, etc. who are an example of the 'wit and art' referred to by Barbauld and find it necessary to correct a wrong.
Problems arise when there is no 'mutual love', so Man starts making laws to take up the slack and fill in the gap. This 'mutual love' concept is EXACTLY what I (in my 11/28/01 post) and JA have been talking about IMO. It is a Godly love and to quote my friend Narelle concerning JA writings:
"When it comes to her heroes and heroines we see couples with similar values, compatible ideals, intelligence, complementary traits and respect for their partner. We are left in no doubt of the strength of their feelings for each other, and we also have no doubt that they with be able to grow together and reasonably expect a fulfilling and happy marriage."
Now that sounds like 'mutual love' to me!
As I was composing this post, my eyes were drawn to a book (The Literature of England) on my shelf. Not to spook you out, but that is how my Heavenly Father speaks to me. I 'understood' that there was something in there for me to see on this subject. I never want to agree with these compulsions - always and forever stubborn and hard headed - but I looked anyway. Scanning the contents my eye landed on this title - Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 - Let me not to the marriage of true minds. Well, I flipped to that page to investigate that sonnet. Here 'tis:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments, Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken
It is the star to every wand'ring bard,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me prov'd,
I never writ, nor no man ever lov'd.
I dare say that our dear Jane had this in mind when she penned Persuasion. I dare not try to expound on it - I simply 'felt' it. After that I scanned the contents once more and found The Education of Women by Daniel Defoe. This excerpt may not be pertinent to this discussion, but I will throw it in for free (lagniappe - where I come from). It spoke to my heart.
"If a woman be well bred, and taught the proper management of her natural wit, she proves generally very sensible and retentive; and without partiality, a woman of sense and manners is the finest and most delicate part of God's creation, the glory of her Maker, and the great instance of His singular regard to man, His darling creature, to whom He gave the best gift either God could bestow or man receive. And 'tis the sordidest piece of folly and ingratitude in the world to withhold from the sex the due luster which the advantage of education gives to the natural beauty of their minds."
As I said, it may not be pertinent, but it caught my fancy! All this information is from long ago and times past, and certainly not heeded!
After reading this and some other writings on women's education, I have come to the conclusion that if there is something wrong with us women - it is MAN'S FAULT! They took upon themselves the task of determining what was 'best for us' and look what they got - if indeed we are so wrong! Present company excepted of course!
Now, have I said something amiss?
Mutual Love from Linda
Dear Linda,
You ask if you said something amiss, and I reply, on the contrary, you have opened a discussion of a central issue. Let me state that issue with a basic question, was Jane Austen a crypto-feminist?
If your dictionary has it right - feminism is the doctrine advocating social and political rights of women equal to those of men - then the answer to the basic question is a clear and emphatic "yes"! To show you how bad I think your dictionary, I can say that if that definition were useful, then I - Ashton Dennis - am a feminist! That is nonsense, I assure you. You get much closer to the truth than does your dictionary, in your penultimate paragraph, where you say,
"I have come to the conclusion that if there is something wrong with us women - it is MAN'S FAULT! They took upon themselves the task of determining what was 'best for us' and look what they got - if indeed we are so wrong! ..."
Now that is a crucial element of feminism. Another is that women are virtuous victims with talents inherently superior to those of men, but suppressed in patriarchal society. I will now give you a chance to defend your maxim and that of feminism. Answer me this, who raised you? Was it primarily your father or your mother? What, most often, was the sex of your teachers during your formative years? - male? I rarely saw my carpenter/bartender father. All my values came to me from my mother and women teachers, and I thought that generally true. If women don't like the values they were taught, then which sex of the older generation is to blame? You are a southerner and well situated to answer this next question. Who organizes - has always organized the Miss America Contest? - the fathers or the mothers? I can assure you that now, just as when I was a young, precious few schoolboys can give you the name of a single Miss America that ever was. Air-heads are not attractive to schoolboys or to older boys.
Doctor, heal thyself!
Feminism is, like fascism, a theory of sociology and an interpretation of history. The similarities run far deeper. It didn't have to be that way. Feminism might have been solely a labor movement - that is where it is at its best. Feminism does its only good work, where it stands for "equal pay for the same work" and where it stands against sexual harassment. (I am talking here about true sexual harassment, the demand of sex for employment, advancement, or perks.) I hate fascists or anyone like a fascist.
Ultimately, feminists fail and betray men; they fail to see the struggles that most men undergo and they betray by belittling both the accomplishments and the honorable nature of most men. In my mind, Jane Austen was the exact opposite of a feminist. What feminist could have written Persuasion? - could have written those lines praising men and spoken by Anne Elliot? (By the way, was it an older man or an older woman who led Anne astray?) What feminist could have investigated the errors made by Marianne Dashwood, Elizabeth Bennet, or Emma Woodhouse? And what about Lucy Steele, Mary Crawford, Aunt Norris, or Isabella Thorpe? Her treatments of Wickham, Willoughby, Henry Crawford, John Thorpe, and Mr. Elliot only underscore Jane Austen's balanced view of the world.
You and I do not interpret Barbauld's poem in the same way. I read the last two lines only in the context of the last two stanza's. I see it as Barbauld saying to feminists that by separating the struggle for the rights of women from the struggle for the rights of mankind, they have separated themselves from men. And, that they can only reunite with men, in a loving relationship, by embracing the commonality of the struggle for human rights. That is quite true, but maybe that is a good thing - a good thing for young men to be separated from a certain kind of woman.
We should discuss this further. I suspect that both of us have some things we need to get out of our systems. We will never agree, but is that so bad?
Dear Ash,
You say:
Before I can answer that question I would like to round out the discussion on feminism. I highly suspect that she wasn't! I can just about guarantee it. I would like a more complete definition of 'feminist'. Could we use my dictionary definition as a foundation to build upon?
I think your definition goes beyond the dictionary - you have added some extra meaning(s). From your post I find two more elements. A. - that feminists say it is Man's fault for their lack of rights and/or lack of education, and B. - that women are virtuous victims with talents inherently superior to those of men, but suppressed in patriarchal society.
Those two need to be properly sorted out and stated. Thereafter I can explore the question "Whose fault is it?" Do allow me to put my statement in context. When I wrote that statement about it being "man's fault", I had just finished reading Daniel Defoe's The Education of Women (1697-1698). HE was criticizing Men for the condition of women. Also I had just read A Letter to the Women of England on the Injustice of Mental Subordination - With Anecdotes. by Anne Frances Randall, 1799 written by a woman but also upbraiding men for woman's condition. That was my frame of mind at the time I wrote that paragraph. Now that you bring it to my attention - I really need to sort it all out, as in just whose fault is it?
Then you raise the question of 'values' and where they come from. I want to sort this all out and eventually put into an organized statement, but I will ramble for the moment in anticipation of sparking some ideas.
Down through the ages there were Schoolmasters, Schoolmistresses, governesses, tutors, etc. One of the categories I am collecting in Jane's novels is education. That will now include information about who was doing the teaching. To name a few we have Mrs. Morland, Mrs. Weston, and Lady Catherine's inquiry into the education of the Bennet girls. In speaking of 'values' you seem to be saying that today's teachers are only women. But I had several male teachers in High School and College. They were teaching their respective subjects - not values (unless you come up with an explanation of values that I have not thought of).
On the question of 'values', I was taught readin', 'ritin' and 'rithmatic - evidently not spelling in school. ;-) There were precious little 'values' taught even by our Sunday school teachers (speaking for myself from the 50s - I don't think it has changed for the better since then, but I may be wrong). Mainly, it was 'love one another and be kind'. The 'Church' did not tell you how to run your business with love and kindness. I have seen a church member businessman who did not follow those values. He rode in a Jaguar while his employees hardly made a living. We were taught to obey authority - the government, parents, and husbands. I was never told by these women teachers to 'say no' or set boundries (these are the values I am speaking of). I would also like to determine exactly what are the 'values' involved for purposes of this discussion.
Miss America is an air-head? You could have fooled me. Please don't tell that to the Miss Arkansas who spoke at my daughters' graduation - she was beautiful and quite well educated. You must have gone to school with a higher class of males than I - I wish I had gone to your school! But then maybe I am thinking of all those trashy movies with the guys hanging out on the street corner with nothing better to do than stand around whistling at the girls passing by. Speaking of air-heads, strange you did not mention it, but what comes to mind are all those ball players who barely get through school - oops, I am treading on sacred ground now - forget I said that - we are speaking of women's education here.
That is what I am trying to do here, m'dear sir!
Maybe after we get all this sorted out I will be able to fill in the blanks. I suspect you have other elements in mind that are not yet mentioned.
Perfect agreement here!
I do so hope I am never in that category! You are very generous to use the word "most". But then I must not confuse their problems (physical/mental illness, attitudes) with a lack of accomplishments and their honorable nature. I will admit that sometimes we do neglect to notice the accomplishments and their honorable nature.
"Balanced view" - I love that! I do think that is very important - to me anyway. Now to interpret what you have said - are you saying that 'feminists' have an "unbalanced view" of the world - suggesting more elements than I have figured out so far? Maybe what my problem with understanding the term 'feminist' is because I have not personally known one to talk to. I never bothered to read Gloria Steinhem, etc. I was not a "NOW" woman. I did not burn my bras, etc.
Well, who knows what I said! But I like your explanation. That is exactly what I was trying so hard to say. If I ever need any poetry interpreted, you're hired!
I suspect it could become another "Passionate passage" page on "feminism". I will be collecting Jane's words on the subject. I do believe that a study of what she said is not complete unless one takes into consideration Jane's own experience at home including her schooling and siblings.
I have a natural born curiosity and want to understand everything.
I would like to consider our study as a process, therefore I will hold any
such judgment until the end. Fair enough?
Linda
Dear Linda,
This is the best discussion on this board since the spring of last year. I want to continue, but first I will say something very personal to you.
I think that you should explore this feminist thing to your heart's content - don't let some old - some very old web meister slow you down or delay you. I say that because I sense that the study may do you a lot of good - may heal you in an important way. I say that because of the way you react to those messages.
Incidentally, your contributions of that Shakespeare sonnet and that quotation of Defoe are very valuable contributions to this web site. Thank you.
You might start by getting a copy of Claire Tomalin's biography of Mary Wollstonecraft. That book is very readable and you will find that Ms Tomalin is a feminist. That may surprise you because I quote her so often. I respect the woman and the way she works; she has a fine sense of humor and, yet, she is scholarly. Her arguments are well documented - so well that even a counter-feminist like myself can find material of interest in her writings. (Notice that I also make frequent references to her biographies of Jane Austen and the Mary-Shelley menage.) You will find there many links and references to the long list of feminists of Jane Austen's time. I can imagine you holding a copy of that book in one hand and typing into the search engines with the other two. (It's an odd image.)
The point I was trying to make before is that I don't know how our society could ever have been classified as "patriarchal" when we were all raised by women? I didn't have a man as a teacher until the 8th grade; I think that too late to have much influence on attitudes, don't you? Starting about age four I was always in the company of my mother and we would spend mid-mornings walking up to a neighbor, Hilda Wipner, for coffee and treats. Hilda's husband was a milkman (do you remember when there were milkmen?) So, they always had these real-cream creampuffs and we had them with the adults' coffee. Hilda was a big woman and enjoyed the creampuffs a great deal. I still remember her enjoying them and it is a pleasant memory because there was something sensual about her attack on the morsels. I also remember the conversations. This was during World War II and, inevitably, the talk turned to the fact that the war was all the fault of the men and things would be different if women ran the world.
We lived near the San Francisco Bay area and there were large shipyards in the north bay. My mom worked there building liberty ships during the war. I remember the long talks about the stupidity and incompetence of the men and of the superior understanding and ethics of the women working there. I also remember the long lectures on the fact that a real man would never hit a woman. That made sense, but I did wonder why those lectures were directed at widdle me - ah well, it didn't matter as long as I had my daily ration of creampuff.
I am trying to say that I heard only one side of the war of the sexes and it wasn't the masculine side. I doubt that I was so very different from others in that regard.
Do you find me incorrigible? That's a nicer term than "thick-skulled".
... I found this - A Letter to the Women of England on the Injustice of Mental Subordination - With Anecdotes. by Anne Frances Randall, 1799
I read it and wept.
Linda
Dear Folks,
My dad and I had just come out of the building. It was early morning, very cold, and dark. We knew it would be a long time before my mother joined us, but we were not impatient this time - we knew she had something to do. It was a commercial building in a commercial district and there was a crowd of people around us and in the street, more people than normal for this time of day. They were moving quickly and with purpose, but they made no sounds - the effect was startling and moving. I remember being affected and I asked my dad, "what is wrong?" It was a unique moment, it was the first intimate conversation - and the last - I had with my father. He answered, "the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, there is going to be a war." I must not have known what "Pearl Harbor" meant, but I did know what "war" meant. Remember that the next time you talk to a four-year old. The crowd seemed to almost melt away as I stared at them; they melted away, momentarily, from that newsstand across the street. A single individual remained, a man who stood about ten feet away from the stand and stared at it. He took a tentative step towards it, stopped, then another step, and so on. I could sense his shock and I recorded his image that I can recall even now, sixty years later. My dad and I stood together and I just knew he didn't care, his thoughts were elsewhere. His thoughts must have been of my mother who was still inside weeping over my brother's casket. My eight-year old brother had been killed two days before while walking home from school. Much later, a co-worker explained that this is the reason such a young person would remember Pearl Harbor. She went on to explain that this is the reason I hate the Christmas season so much. Sometimes, co-workers can be very, very wise.
Who could have known that once consigned there, a day did not have to live forever in infamy. The only good thing about 9-11 is that all of us - those that were alive then - can now forgive the Japanese. That is a good feeling. To have a much worse example before us allows us to go back and look at that event from a new perspective. The simple truth is that the Japanese attacked military targets in clearly marked planes. They attacked men, and men who, supposedly, had the weapons and the training to defend themselves and to inflict casualties on the attackers. There were no premeditated murders of innocents, no slaughter of women and children in order to commandeer aircraft/bombs, there was no cowardice. For the first time I can see the Japanese pilots as true warriors. And I understand something else I should have seen long ago: the timing of the Japanese diplomats who delivered that message of war is irrelevant. We had already secretly decoded that message, hours before the attack; and, the situation between our two nations was such that even that clear warning would not have been needed at a properly run military base. It wasn't a "sneak attack", it was an attack on stupidity and incompetence. And those who paid the ultimate price were not the dummies who were to blame. It was a failure in our leadership.
Links