Sup Lizzy?!

This post stems from the views of Mary Wollstonecraft and something which I over heard another student say today.

Last week I had a seminar in which we discussed the ideas of feminist writer Mary Wollstonecraft who dislike the fact that women are given respect simply for being women in much the same way that a King is given respect just for being born into the royal family. This left me thinking about all the people I have respected for no reason other than their job, or role in society, and in particular to teachers.

When walking around campus today there were students who were shouting out random words each time someone passed them. They were students who I know to be performing arts students and I assumed that this was a task they had been set by their teacher. After walking past them I heard the guy in front of me say "the teacher's not watching why the f*** are they bothering?!"

I have to say that in some ways I completely agree that if I was given a task by a teacher, but they were not going to know if i had done it or not then I probably wouldn't bother! In fact that is an attitude that I have held for the majority of my school life because I do not have any particular respect for teachers and I always questioned why on earth all the other pupils did exactly what the teacher said even if it was something they found boring or pointless.

In a secondary school in an classroom environment students outnumber teachers on average 21 to 1. This means that students theoretically have the power to do over ride the teacher by working together - but this rarely happens. Students who dare to challenge the teacher are often standing alone without the support of the rest of class. I think that this is a great shame, because if students rebelled together then there is absolutely no doubt that they would get the result that they want.

It is not only teachers who are simply given respect without having earned it. To use Wollstonecraft's example, royalty are given respect for absolutely nothing. I have never met the Queen, nor have I even seen anything happen that is a direct result of her actions alone. And I am sure that most of you reading this are exactly the same!

As far as I am concerned the Queen is a perfect stranger to me, yet if I ever saw her I would not simply carry on my way ignoring her existence in the same way that I do with other strangers. If I was ever to converse with the Queen I would not talk to her like "Sup Lizzy how's it going?" because this would be incredibly disrespectful. But the Queen has never done anything to personally earn my respect so why would I treat her with respect? It seems very hypocritical!

I would not suggest that you start treating everyone disrespectfully, but the next time someone asks you to do something that you don't want to do, it might be worth stopping to think why you should do it! It is always good to challenge authority - as long as the consequences are not going to be too disastrous!

Mary Wollstonecraft - Feminism

Key Seminar/Reading Notes
        My Thoughts/Opinions

To be perfectly honest when I found out the reading for this seminar was by a feminist writer my heart sank a little bit. I am one of those girls who think that feminism is somewhat of a complete wast of time, and i often find my self extremely annoyed by women who think that females are better than males at everything. This hatred towards feminists may have stemmed from a childhood friend I used to have. I was best friends with her from reception until year 11; this was because I had finally had enough of her feminist ways! I will always remember one day laughing at a sexist joke told by one of the boys in class and she wouldn't talk to me for a week because I was a "disgrace to women everywhere."

I am not suggesting that women should be treated as second class citizens to men, I am simply saying that women need to accept that there are some things that men are simply better at, and similarly there are also things that women are better at. We are equal, but different.

I have to admit that I did admire Mary Wollstonecraft in the sense that she made the effort to educate herself even though she came from a poor family and had little hope of ever accomplishing anything of value, but after reading her opinions about women I began to wonder just how educated she actually was!

Unlike traditional feminists who blame men for inequality between the sexes, Wollstonecraft blames women for allowing themselves to be objectified. She believed that it is the responsibility of women to question why they are not treated as equals, and to challenge the role that society has given them. This is not something which I particularly agree with because during that time men had always been treated as superior over women, so there was not necessarily any reason for women to accept this - it was something that they were born into and that they accepted. I think it is unfair of Wollstonecraft to suggest that women should instinctively question something which they have been born into and accept.

However, the fact that women are born into this role is something with Wollstonecraft uses in her argument for a reason why women need to be treated equally. Wollstonecraft had been heavily influenced by the ideas of John Locke, who believed that all people are born a blank slate, completely equal and then aspects such as education and wealth have an effect on the people we become. Wollstonecraft believed that we are all born blank and that we all have the same potential as one another. She did not believe that gender should play any role in society at all, and that gender should only become an issue when you enter into a relationship.

In her book, Vindication of the Rights of Women, Wollstonecraft says that "a King is always a King and a woman is always a woman.' This suggests that like a King, women are born to be given respect, they do not earn it. As men are not mentioned that also gives the impression that a man can be anything he desires. Wollstonecraft resented the fact that women were given respect rather than earning it because she thought that this in itself was sexist because it was men deciding how much respect to give to women. She said "the passions of men have placed women on the throne." This could be interpreted in a number of ways. One is that Wollstonecraft was making a comment about how women are "placed" in roles where they are given respect but that they haven't actually earned it. This could also be interpreted to suggest that men do not actually think that a woman should be "on the throne" and instead only put her there as a result of their passions, not reason. I do not agree with Locke's suggest that men and women are innately the same. I think that there are parts of a woman's nature that are innately different to a man's. For example, there is no doubt that most women have a maternal instinct, for example they play with baby dolls growing up. I do not think that this is simply because society dictates that boys should play with action heroes and girls with baby dolls, I tihnk that this is because of the different natures of girls and boys.


Wollstonecraft stressed the importance of equal opportunities of education between the sexes. She believed that education was the gateway to a respectable, fulfilling life and that if women were given the same opportunities as men then there is no reason why women would not be able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. She also believed that women who were education would start to question their role in society. This is something that I would agree with because I also believe that a good education can open doors, and without one a person, male or female, cannot expect to become a high achiever. There are however exceptions to this rule depending on what your definition of a high achiever is. If the definition of high achiever is someone who is intellectually superior to others then education is possibly the only way to become successful. However, if your definition of successful is someone who is able to make a lot of money from their ideas then you only need to look at examples such as Richard Branson, who never graduated, to see that an education is clearly not essential to this kind of success.

In her book, Wollstonecraft likens women to caged birds. This is also something which could be interpreted in a number of ways. Wollstonecraft could have meant that women are like caged birds in the sense that they are there only to be admired by people are outside of the cage, and that they are completely reliant on their others to take care of them. In this sense Wollstonecraft would have suggested that the people admiring the birds are men and that women need men to provide everything that they need. Wollstonecraft could have also compared women to caged birds to suggest that women have the potential to be free and spread their wings in the sense that if they were freed from their cages then they would be able to go much further in life. Wollstonecraft could have also meant that birds are naturally free, but have been caged by humans. This could reflect her opinion that women are naturally free to educate themselves and have a beneficial role in society, but this freedom has been removed by men who have placed them in cages.

Wollstonecraft's work was largely discredited after her death when her husband revealed that she had illegitimate children, had affairs and was suicidal. He said that she had tried to kill herself because she fell in love with a married man who did not love her back, however her suicide attempt failed. The fact that Wollstonecraft tried to kill herself over a man's love not only discredited because is revealed her to be mentally unstable, it also discredited her because she was will to end her life just because a man did not love her. This was completely contradictory to her work because it proved that she cared about gaining love, respect and attention from a man as much as any other other woman did, more so in fact! I think that if Wollstonecraft was alive today then she would be pleased with the progress in education in the sense that women and men are given the same opportunities, however I think that she would also be very surprised the number of women who still allow men to control them despite their education. I do not think that a man should try to control a woman, but I think that if that is the kind of relationship that a woman wants to have then she should be entitled to that. Even to this day women all over the world are inspired by stories such as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, in which the male protagonist is quite chauvinistic and does not give women much respect. However in spite of this women still swoon over this type of male lead, which I think proves that there is something in a woman's nature which makes them want to be controlled and looked after.