På dette site bruger vi cookies til at levere vores ydelser, forbedre performance, til analyseformål, og (hvis brugeren ikke er logget ind) til reklamer. Ved at bruge LibraryThing anerkender du at have læst og forstået vores vilkår og betingelser inklusive vores politik for håndtering af brugeroplysninger. Din brug af dette site og dets ydelser er underlagt disse vilkår og betingelser.
"Backgrounds and Contexts," significantly expanded, contains twenty-four works, spanning a period from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, that are organized thematically into four sections: "Legacies of English Radicalism," "Education, ""Wollstonecraft's Revolutionary Moment," and "THe Wollstonecraft Controversy." These writings, by John Milton, John Locke, Mary Astell, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hannah More, and Edmund Burke, among others, bring to view the intellectual world that nurtured Wollstonecraft's political vision, the constructions of proper womanhood that she had to negotiate, and the controversy that her manifesto for a "revolution in female manners" ignited.… (mere)
Okay, okay, admittedly I'm like, what (?) two weeks behind on this post! So much so, I thought about not actually writing it. I mean, aren't ya'll tired of reading about this antiquated text. BUT because I am attempting to at least ramble a wee bit about everything that I read this year, here goes my wee bit of rambling.
This is my second time around with Vindication. My first experience was a bit over ten years ago, when I was in my early twenties and I could define what "feminism" meant to me in a more concise black and white manner. (Experience has taught me that no belief system is either concise or black and white). Perhaps it will surprise you that I found the text far more interesting the first time around than reading it at my more mature age?
Some notes that I made at 21 ...
"Interesting that this debate is still going on...biology vs. sociology, thus attempting to find reason in books." in reference to the quote - 'that either nature has made a great difference between man and man, or that the civilization which has hitherto taken place in the world has been very partial.' "Beauty vs. Brains..great comparison to fading leaves." "What, women have no souls?" "Really good at acknowledging her audience" "Sarcasm!!" "What are the values that are being taught...obeying turns into ignorance, not very well thought out." "Passion will subside, the mind needs so much more" What has changed since the me of the past? Well, to tell you the truth, I had to convince myself to continue reading multiple times (and yes, I even skimmed parts). It was just so damn repetitive. Why did I forget that? I know that many were put off by the god/christianity because it was a-plenty in the text, but I was forgiving. It just seemed more in the context of the time period. I mean wasn't EVERYONE religious back then?
Also, I still have to give Wollstonecraft props for what she did. Huge credit. I mean, man, she put herself out there. I don't think it is unforgivable that she still refers to women as second to man. It's baby steps people. What was she suppose to do back then? Let's face it, we have a bit more opportunity now a'days than we would in the late 1700's.
I'm definitely intrigued by Wollstonecraft's life and will (must) get my hands on a biography. ( )
I do not know how anyone can give this book a less than 5 star rating. This is the first feminist monograph and it is eloquant and easy to read. This is a classic, a must read and must own for anyone who is interested in women's studes, education, and feminism. I loved this book. And at the end there is a little section where scholars debate the book. I highly recommend this to everyone. I absolute loved it. ( )
"Backgrounds and Contexts," significantly expanded, contains twenty-four works, spanning a period from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, that are organized thematically into four sections: "Legacies of English Radicalism," "Education, ""Wollstonecraft's Revolutionary Moment," and "THe Wollstonecraft Controversy." These writings, by John Milton, John Locke, Mary Astell, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hannah More, and Edmund Burke, among others, bring to view the intellectual world that nurtured Wollstonecraft's political vision, the constructions of proper womanhood that she had to negotiate, and the controversy that her manifesto for a "revolution in female manners" ignited.
▾Biblioteksbeskrivelser af bogens indhold
No library descriptions found.
▾LibraryThingmedlemmers beskrivelse af bogens indhold
)
Google Books — Indlæser...
(3.65)
1
This is my second time around with Vindication. My first experience was a bit over ten years ago, when I was in my early twenties and I could define what "feminism" meant to me in a more concise black and white manner. (Experience has taught me that no belief system is either concise or black and white). Perhaps it will surprise you that I found the text far more interesting the first time around than reading it at my more mature age?
Some notes that I made at 21 ...
"Interesting that this debate is still going on...biology vs. sociology, thus attempting to find reason in books." in reference to the quote - 'that either nature has made a great difference between man and man, or that the civilization which has hitherto taken place in the world has been very partial.'
"Beauty vs. Brains..great comparison to fading leaves."
"What, women have no souls?"
"Really good at acknowledging her audience"
"Sarcasm!!"
"What are the values that are being taught...obeying turns into ignorance, not very well thought out."
"Passion will subside, the mind needs so much more"
What has changed since the me of the past? Well, to tell you the truth, I had to convince myself to continue reading multiple times (and yes, I even skimmed parts). It was just so damn repetitive. Why did I forget that? I know that many were put off by the god/christianity because it was a-plenty in the text, but I was forgiving. It just seemed more in the context of the time period. I mean wasn't EVERYONE religious back then?
Also, I still have to give Wollstonecraft props for what she did. Huge credit. I mean, man, she put herself out there. I don't think it is unforgivable that she still refers to women as second to man. It's baby steps people. What was she suppose to do back then? Let's face it, we have a bit more opportunity now a'days than we would in the late 1700's.
I'm definitely intrigued by Wollstonecraft's life and will (must) get my hands on a biography. (