Abigail Littleton

Group Dynamics

February 20, 2007

Reading Response

Wollstonecraft

The two page introduction to the First Wave feminists, really just set the stage for the group of women and men we will be studying. The most dynamic readings were that of Wollstonecraft and Griffin. I had read A Vindication of the Rights of Women, in a British Literature class as an undergraduate student. This was the first time the word Feminism began to bloom new meanings for me. During this first reading, we did not discuss the type, or even the propriety of Wollstonecrafts arguments. Rather we focused on the content. What was it she had said that was worth studying hundreds of years later? Never had the thought of how she argued her thoughts permeated in my mind. Needless to say, this piece of art changed my life. I immediately mentally connected myself to this piece. It became the basic foundation for all my future feminists, or even anti feminist, thoughts.

This was the first time I had read this piece post bachelor’s degree. I hadn’t realized how much influence she had had over me until I re read this section of her work. The first thought that entered my mind, was how much Valerie Solanas reminds me of Wollstonecraft. Before, I had always separated these two figures. Wollstonecraft was the intelligent innocent. Solanas was the fringe terrorist. Yet, their writing styles are both very fluid, flowery, and the use of alliteration is employed on a regular basis.

I read Griffin’s criticism last. I went through a roller coaster of emotions reading this piece. I was angry when I read that Wollstonecraft was criticized for disorganized argument. After all, what she said made complete sense to me. I had always thought of her as the mother of modern feminism where “all feminists…are her philosophic decendants” (Griffin, 272). As I continued reading, I realized the faulty tool with which these ignorant souls had rashly judged this brilliant woman. They had attempted to hold her argumentation accountable to the dominant male standards of linear logic. Had they not read the piece?

The woman wrote the piece in defiance of a culture. She spoke out to invoke change. Would it be such a stretch to realize that she may have defied in more than just content? Griffin seems to hit it on the nose as she describes “Wollstonecraft’s Web of Challenge” (Griffin, 276). The wheel pattern with interdependent trains of logic is not necessarily the most heavily used form of argument. It would be beneficial to apply this to other feminist works, like Solanas. Did Wollstonecraft achieve the creation of a new argumentative model while in the process of defying a culture? Is she the female Aristotle? Should this piece be cross referenced with The Rhetoric as a model example of good argument?

As extreme as some of these thoughts may seem, it is undeniable the success of this strategy of argument. Not only is this document the foundation of many feminist sects today, but the opposition it roused suggests the power of the piece. Opposition is generally only formed when a direct threat is placed. A direct threat cannot be placed unless the argument is valid and fully understood. Obviously, only a good argument could have created a defensive dominant cultural response. I would like to see the validity and scope of the “feminist web of reasons” (Griffin, 286).

1. “if then women do not resign the arbitrary power of beauty – they will prove that they have less mind than man” (Wollstonecraft, 65). Have we failed?

2. Was the “web of reasons” a generative theory established by Griffin?