9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Dec. 7, 2001
9-11
Dear Ashton,
Jane has been my favorite writer since I first encountered Pride and Prejudice at the age of 16. Subsequent to that I devoured each novel with equal relish. I recently completed my graduate thesis and the topic was none other than Elements of Feminism in Jane Austen's Work. This explored everything from Lady Susan and the uncompleted Watsons through the six novels. I did not address Sanditon in my work.
The paper includes an analysis of Mary Wollstonecraft's views as it relates to Austen's work, it reviews Marxism and it touches on Charlotte Bronte too. In my conclusion I determined that feminism has become an ideology that is a negative force in today's world. I conclude that the "movement" needs to re-examine its goals and celebrate femininity as Austen did. Women are equal but different. And those differences were under-valued and the feminist movement was a necessary evil to make a dynamic and forceful change. Now that women have gone through the painful process of achieving economic equality, they can more safely address and be comfortable with their feminine nature. They don't need to emulate the male. The sexes were made to compliment one another. That balance has been severely disrupted by the movement of women to more closely mimic male behavior. I believe Wollstonecraft and Austen wanted women to become intellectual partners to men. They wanted men to recognize the value in this and assist us in that endeavor. They also call for women to recognize the pitfalls of male/female relationships in superficial pairings driven by men's roguish behavior and women's vain pursuit of only physical perfection. I believe they desire men and women to have a meeting of the minds, to be soul mates and to be friends. Austen recognized that men needed to help women achieve this because for centuries the culture had evolved into this negative pattern. Darcy and Elizabeth are trend setters here in that they have a meeting of the minds and mutual respect.
The divorce rate today only serves to prove that we have not achieved that higher level of thinking. I like to think we are in transition, moving towards something better, evolving. However, in order to make that happen I believe a movement of people is needed. Not a feminist movement but a movement for the family, for good, for truth, for morality. A movement that intellectually recognizes the fundamental truths we have learned over the ages. That men and women are equal but different and to assess as a culture how we can maximize the value of that difference to everyone's mutual advantage. I believe Austen provided the framework for that path. I believe if her work is read without hostility toward men and a recognition that she presents the world as it "could be" and "should be" while also showing how it is.
In technical terms (I am a technical writer by trade so excuse this analogy), she has given us the current situation analysis, and the proposed new and improved system with all the bells and whistles. All we need do is open our hearts and ears to the message these women left us all those years ago to return to our roots and the path of truth.
I believe truth is what we are all seeking. Not equality. But the truth sets you free--and it will always be the best solution. The key is, to be open to it and seek it.
I also see Austen as the ultimate Christian writer, and I believe these values are inherent in her work--and in truth. As any real artist reveals and seeks truth Austen could not help but envelop Christian values in her work. As Christian values are the ultimate truth.
Lastly, I am writing for the first time and understand this website was established for male Austen fans. While Austen fans are not uncommon, they are certainly not easily found. But I must confess male fans of Austen do seem rare, particularly among younger males (I am 38) who can't seem to get much beyond football, violent films or the latest Nascar crash. Again, I see this as a horrible failing of our culture, male and female alike. Something the new movement should seek to rectify. But I digress--are there any male's posting comments to this site? I didn't see any and initially became quite excited at the prospect of that when I saw the site.
Anyway, feedback to these comments would be interesting. I of course have many examples in Austen's work to support my views--and my thesis did receive the grade of an A from California State University so it is a legitimate scholarly work. It incorporates comments from G.K. Chesterton as well as C.S. Lewis, among many others.
But it is of course still a subjective work, which is what makes this type of debate so fascinating. I believe art takes on a life of its own, and Austen's brilliance, like any great artist, probably superceded her own grasp. Perhaps in the end, great artists are but vessels for the higher force to convey truth to us. And we face the somewhat arduous yet exhilarating task of unraveling it.
Take care and I hope to participate in some lively discussion.
Cindy
Dear Cindy,
You are very welcome here - I deeply regret that I gave you the false impression that only men are expected to post here. In fact, as you say, most of the male voices seem to be sopranos at the present time. It wasn't always like that, if you refer to the archives beginning in - oh, say - mid-1999, you will see that we had a number of bassos and tenors at that time; that lasted about 1 year when things began to unravel a bit - I can't explain why. Some of those guys were real bassos.
I live in the northern part of California's central valley, so I know a little about the CSU system. Congratulations on completing your thesis. Any credentialed academic opinion is most welcome here and probably needed as well. That is one of the things I can't supply. I don't follow NASCAR or watch horror films, but I am a devout football fan (your worst nightmare?) In fact, I lettered in football and baseball in high school and junior college. That was a long, long time ago.
I am comfortable with all of the views you expressed and enthusiastic about most of them. As for myself, I am just getting started with a survey of the feminism in Jane Austen's time. So far, I have put together a fragment on male feminists and I have a little better start on the radical women of those times. Perhaps we have a common interest there.
Are you familiar with Warren Roberts book, Jane Austen and the French Revolution? This is from his preface and might interest you.
"Finally, the subject of the last chapter [in this book] is feminism. Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman, appeared in 1792, and quickly became part of the debate carried on in England over the French Revolution. ... since she applied [certain principles of the Revolution] to Vindication, this was bound to happen. Those supporting Wollstonecraft's views about the the role of women were by no means all in the radical camp, at least initially. Increasingly, however, as the radical cause was discredited in England, so too was the feminist cause. Out of the debate over the position of women and a related discussion on marriage and the family came a set of attitudes that would have a deep impact on nineteenth-century English life, contributing to the primacy of the family that was such an important feature of the Victorian era. Austen lived through the period of this debate and in her fiction worked out her own responses to it. Her way of doing this was consistent with the stand that she took on a wide range of other contemporary issues, and reflected a conservative social vision. In throwing her weight behind the family she valued an institution capable of maintaining order and stability and furthering social continuity. That she did so was another of her responses to the stresses and strains of the Revolutionary Age."
I like the insight that our Lady valued family life - loved family life, but the hint that she might have been a reactionary, counter-revolutionary propagandist, strikes me as absurd. Other absurdities are at play because everyone is desperate that Jane Austen be on their side. Claire Tomalin declares that Jane Austen's feminism was wonderfully subtle. Well, if infinitesimal is somewhat synonymous with subtle, then I might agree. My own view is that Jane Austen was an artist and above all this political prattling; I expressed that view best, I think, on 10/14/98. I like to think my view compatible with the more creditible treatment of our lady's novels by Mary Waldron - perhaps I flatter myself.
I can't resist this next quote. First of all, let me reiterate that I greatly admire Claire Tomalin. She is witty, intelligent, careful, reasonable, and scholarly. It is no accident that her name appears so often in my list of references. However, it is also true that I can even find things to criticize about Michael Jordan and Joe Montana, so why should I be any different in the case of Claire Tomalin? For example, I find her treatment of Jane Austen's novels as among the worst I've seen even though I like most other aspects of that biography. Here is another thing I find amusing. This is from Chapter 16, page 196, of Tomalin's The Life and Death of Mary Wollstonecraft. Ms Tomalin is discussing Thomas Holcroft (1745-1809):
"Holcroft was a sentimental and idealizing, not at all a practical feminist. He had portrayed a number of high-spirited girls in his plays and novels, girls who did not panic when their horses bolted, girls who could quell would-be rapists by shear force of personality, girls who browbeat their parents and reformed their foolish lovers, but none of these girls aspired to serious study or useful employment, and all were safeguarded by money. He dodged the real problems for women. ..."
Um-mm - excuse me, but couldn't these terms be applied to the novels of Jane Austen? I got it! - it just occurred to me. Holcroft's feminism must have been wonderfully subtle, too subtle for some.
Dear Cindy, Ashton, et. al.,
Hello, Cindy.
There are few things more amusing than reading Chesterton's attacks on the Women's Suffrage movements. Only someone as charitable as Chesterton and as brilliant as Chesterton could have devised his labyrinthine arguments against feminine suffrage. His argument is this: voting (like men) is coercive and collective women are by nature opposed to coercion, and are solitary homebodies rather than members of the mob.
I notice that Cindy, like Chesterton, tends to be dogmatic about the "nature" of women. According to Cindy, "The sexes were made to compliment one another. That balance has been severely disrupted by the movement of women to more closely mimic male behavior." This is, of course a statement based on assumptions with which most feminists would disagree. Indeed, it is based on religious assumptions that the sexes were "made" in the first place. And it is further based on the assumption that "nature" somehow dominates "nurture". Yet even if we assume a Christian bias, who can know the mind of God? Can we really assume that the sexes were designed to compliment each other? Perhaps, as the Evolutionists suggest, the sexes were "made" to further reproduction.
Cindy continues: "The divorce rate today only serves to prove that we have not achieved that higher level of thinking (a meeting of the minds and mutual respect)." Why does divorce prove any such thing? Why this bias in favor of marriage? I could equally say (without evidence) "the low divorce rate of the early nineteenth century proves the low level of thinking (dominance of one mind over another) prevalent during that epoch." (I'm not sure what a "high level" or "low level" of thinking is, but I could say it anyhow.) Does Cindy mean to suggest that the fact that men don't marry other men suggest that men fail to respect one another?
Cindy says further: "Women are equal but different." Huh? I thought "equal" meant "the same".
I think Cindy is correct about Austen's approach to feminism, but it is always risky to extrapolate from one era to another. Were Austen's views on women radical for their time? If so, is it not likely that she would be radical today as well, given the different moral and intellectual climate?
Perhaps Cindy and I can agree thus much. If "the sexes were made to compliment each other" they weren't made very well. Based on the reality of life, we might just as easily say, "The sexes were made to torment one another." Still, Austen does serve up some prime examples of couples who compliment one another: Mr. and Mrs. Elton, Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ferrars, Isabella Thorpe and Captain Tilney, Mr. Eliot and Mrs. Clay, and, of course, the fabulous Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax (did any villain ever get so just a dessert?). Although these couples surely "compliment one another", I'm not certain that they serve as examples of a "higher level of thinking."
Dear Ashton, Bruce and others,
Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful comments.
Ashton, thanks for clarifying things about this site. I did understand that women are welcome to post comments, but I was disappointed that, as you observed, there don't currently appear to be any males in the discussions. But I see that Bruce has left some comments as well.
Ashton, my sense is that you don't believe Jane was concerned with feminist issues. If you mean feminist in the sense that we mean it today--or perhaps even in the sense of Wollstonecraft herself, I would probably agree. That is, Wollstonecraft was certainly more "radical" and direct and she was very focused.
But then I think Austen had her role to play. She recognized the value of subtlety in instituting change. Change does not come easily and I believe Austen knew that if her approach were radical, it would be less effective in that only those subscribing to these views would be impacted--in fact, only they would read it. If she is subtle and cleverly disguises her views in entertainment that allows the reader to note the social injustices himself--rather than having them "rammed down his/her throat," the effect will be broader. The idea being that most people are more susceptible to an idea if they believe it is their own. And in doing so, she reaches the greater audience and consequently has a potential for greater impact. Whether or not this was her "intent" this is the outcome. And I as I noted in my earlier note--art takes on a life of its own that sometimes supercedes even the artist's grasp.
I also agree that Austen is first and foremost an artist. In this sense she is depicting reality and revealing truth. Or at least it is my opinion that this is the role of the artist. The artist does this with a hope of changing things that are wrong. I believe Austen was one of the greatest if not the greatest "technical writer" of fiction we have. Some people believe this inhibits her art, I however, believe that it enhances its value as she entertains us while leaving a very accurate historical record of life. So she could not help but reveal the plight of women at this time. Her notations of entailments of family wealth to male lines to the neglect of all female survivors is noted in Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. Austen does not strongly condemn this, she leaves it to the reader to review the "as is" picture and gasp with outrage at this injustice. It is in this way that her net may capture more fish for not only the feminist movement but for the truth in everything she seeks to reveal. In this sense her method reminds me of Jesus Christ's, who told parables and did not spoon-feed his truth to his followers. In this way he forced his audience to participate in the process and the success of this method is overwhelming. The listener does not need to accept the speakers word for it, he has drawn the conclusion based on the evidence of the truth presented to him. It is more like a court room drama.
There is no doubt in my mind that Austen found things to criticize in her world, and among these issues the role of women cannot be ignored. Certainly she condemned the woman who only concerned herself with the vanity of her beauty with no regard for her intellect. All of her heroines are readers and with the exception of Elizabeth Bennett, they are not really even very pretty. This reminds me of the Bronte work as well. This is the idea that there should be greater focus on the internal than on the external. This is true for men and women--but in a culture that evolved in such a way that women's only value was physical beauty--this is particularly critical for them. In Austen's revelation of truth--she inadvertently reveals the unjust position of women, among many other problems in society as well. Feminist "elements" being one of them. And I call them elements and use the adjective "feminist" because this is language contemporary readers understand. She likewise condemned the "roguish" male and revealed that relationships between shallow people are doomed to fail. Again, this reminds me of the Bronte work as well. Although far less dramatic and grandiose in its achievement of this fact and consequently, more effective I think.
With respect to Wollstonecraft's biographer (I think Tomalin) on Fanny Price-- and the comments that she should have married Mr. Crawford and encouraged and helped Miss Crawford with Edmund, well, I simply don't agree. I am not adverse to Fanny as many bashers of her character seem to be. Fanny is a perfect example of a woman who embraces her own feminine self, she is physically fragile (not all women are but she is) but mentally strong. She is not beautiful, but she has a beautiful soul. She is intelligent, introspective and she has integrity. Fanny is true to herself, as Will Shakespeare encouraged us, "above all to thine own self be true ..." It takes great strength to be true to yourself and your values. Being true to principles and convictions is not selfish. She is persecuted for her choices and that is never easy. When she objects to the play it is because she has examined her conscience and truly believes it is the wrong thing to do. Fanny never actively discouraged Edmund in his choice of Miss Crawford, but she was smart enough to know that Mary Crawford was a product of her times and quite happy to be so. Change must come from within, through self revelation--Miss Crawford knew she was selfish, she knew Fanny was a better person and she CHOSE to be who she is. Edmund is higher on the "food chain" as they say--as is Fanny. If they wish to "help" bring the Crawford's up to speed, they should do it outside of a marital relationship--in choosing a life long partner one not should not look for one's inferior but seek one's equal. Then as a strong pair, you can seek to make the world a better place together through influence. This may include influencing the Crawford's. There is great danger of being mutually influenced by a lower element due to the nature of marriage and its intimacy in marrying an inferior. I believe Fanny has done the right thing. And I believe that marriages to the Crawfords would have proved unhappy ones.
Jane reveals to us in Emma the difference economic freedom makes in her juxtaposition of the lots of Emma Woodhouse and Miss Bates. In Emma Woodhouse we see the extreme opposite of the dependent Fanny Price. And yet we also see her revelation that hardship and deprivation provide one with more inner strength and a better knowledge of oneself. Certainly Fanny knows herself better than Emma--I believe Fannie knows herself better than just about anyone or any character in any of Austen's novels--perhaps that's what makes her so annoying to so many people. Certainly Fanny is wiser than Emma. This reminds me of the Buddhist philosophy that when one is fasting and without material wealth--one is closest to one's own soul and ultimately to finding truth. I think Jane knew this as well, but largely because of her keen powers of observation and ability to depict human character so accurately--her being such a technical writer and stickler for detail. Jane seem to know instinctively, if she sought to reveal things technically accurately, she could not fail to reveal truth. Not her brand or interpretation of truth but real truth. This is a rare find and why she is such a gem.
Most artists are clouded by there own brand of truth--they can't help but interject it and hence it loses some integrity. I believe, with the exception of Christ himself, she comes closest to this pure revelation of truth. I apologize to those who object to the Christian slant on my view--but even the disbeliever must acknowledge the value of Christ as a human philosopher. Perhaps the greatest one to have walked the earth. So I don't believe this view is of no use to the agnostic or atheist, but perhaps the existentialist would find these views sentimental. But I don't believe an existentialist would enjoy Jane's work. Perhaps I am wrong about that.
Bruce, with respect to your comments, I don't think that equal is the same. I can have tomatoes and apples of equal weight, and yet the matter--the dna and chemical makeup that comprises that equal amount is quite different. And yet, if the price per lb is the same, I will pay the same price for these quite different things and have bought the same amount in weight. Correct? How can we not acknowledge that by virtue of our chemical make-up we are not all equal but different? There in lies the great challenge of humanity. But women share similarities as do men and this creates a layer of classification and understanding. If we see God as the creator of a world that could be perfect if not for the introduction of original sin then there is a master plan. It is my view that we have been given the challenge to unravel the truth and the greatest enemy to that truth is sin because it blocks our path to truth. And yet, it is there, and the masters (of which I believe Austen is one of the great ones) are those who come closest to overcoming this in their quest for truth, so they bring all of us a little closer too. Those of us who choose to believe and see that possibility. It is a very optimistic view I confess. And yet, pessimistic in that original sin will always be with us and hence perfection always out of our grasp. And yet, we must continue to grasp. Its our destiny.
It is a whole conversation unto itself how and why things evolved as they have. But I believe the role of women evolved mainly due to physical strength issues and the fact that women bear children. But certainly that original sin had a good hand in how both sexes responded to the situation and we hope that as we evolve--we become better at removing the influence that sin has and move closer to truth. I suspect, Bruce, your frustration stems in large part in the great haze it's created and the great road that lies ahead in ever getting to the truth. I find that very frustrating as well. I believe all seekers of truth do.
Well, I'm sure I have opened the floor for some lively commentary. Take
care and enjoy the day.
Cindy
Dear Cindy,
I like many of your comments, and will try to encourage you to expand them, and I wildly disagree with others.
By the bye, I should mention that I am receiving a number of e-mailed packets and bits that I have identified as coming from Linda. This good friend is desperate to get into this conversation, but her computer has the hiccups. When she arrives, she will take your side on everything, but that doesn't frighten me!
First, some technical details: it was the Jane-Austen literary critic, Mary Waldron, who made those comments about Fanny Price and the Crawfords that you remember. Secondly, and more importantly, there is no entailment against the female line in Sense and Sensibility. This is the situation. The Dashwood sisters were the children of the father's second marriage, and he had an older child - a son - by his first. The Dashwoods received the control of the estate with the proviso - the entailment - that the estate would go to that son. The reason Jane Austen gives is that the old uncle enjoyed the company of the son when he was a child and, so, wanted to protect him from the influence of the second wife, Elinor and Marianne's mother. That has to do with the personal wishes of the old gentleman and nothing to do with the laws and culture of England. Emma Thompson didn't seem to notice that most of the property owners in Sense and Sensibility are women and all of them use their position to wield power. There are Mrs. Farrars, Mrs. Jennings, and Miss Smith (Willoughby's cousin), and of course, there is Willoughby's wife. Well, Sir John, Brandon, and the Dashwood brother own some things as well, but the picture seems balanced in favor of women. Incidentally, the Dashwood brother is dominated by his wife - true? Also, these same things can be said of Jane Austen's own family - wealthy, power-wielding matriarchs and dominating wives.
Elizabeth Bennet is accused of being a serious reader when she picks up a book to avoid what she thinks might be a high-stakes card game. Darcy interprets that action as you do and tries to defend her from ridicule only to have Elizabeth misinterpret and then ridicule him. Emma Woodhouse reads, but, as Knightley points out to Emma's ex-governess, nothing of quality.
All Jane-Austen heroines are pretty - very pretty.
Is it possible to create art for art's sake? I had always hoped so and, therefore, I am disappointed in the terrible news you bring us about the nature of art and artists. I pray you have been led astray. To me, Jane Austen's novels are love stories and not subliminal political messages. Perhaps I will reject the truth and cling to that notion. Although, I do believe that I have always be able to refute those who suggest that the novels are encrypted feminism when particular passages are used to justify that idea.
I don't think you have to apologize: "I apologize to those who object to the Christian slant on my view." We are talking about a clergyman's daughter. It seems that this "slant" is highly relevant and among the many things I cannot supply myself. Please continue. Incidentally, here is something that was posted about Fanny Price a while ago - I like it - what say you?
Your conversation with Bruce is interesting. I would say that men and women have equal rights but are not the same - do they even look the same to you? In that sense, they "are equal but not the same". Sexual reproduction is not necessary for reproduction; in fact, I would bet that 99% of reproduction in this world is not sexual - viruses, bacteria, etc. Where it does occur, it brings several advantages. For one thing, it is error correcting in that it tends to repair coding errors introduced into the DNA due to environmental influences. On the other hand, those marvelous, numberless recombinations at conception produce the genetic variations that fuel genetic improvement and evolution. (Doesn't say much for cloning, does it?) In my opinion, sexual reproduction does provide for evolution of sexual specialization, complimentary roles for the betterment of a species. It also provides for that great gift, romantic love - something other than a self love. If it is impossible for someone to see other than nurtured differences in the human sexes, then make it easier on yourself and consider cats, dogs, monkeys, or many other mammal, bird, or fish species and notice that the greater part of specialization is instinctive. Ironically, the ability to innovate or otherwise participate in cultural activity is a byproduct of our human, physical, genetically-derived apparatus.
Links