Elisabetta Caminer Turra

Within the topics addressed in class this week, I chose to delve further into women as writers in Europe, specifically through the example of Elisabetta Caminer Turra. Wiesner-Hanks classifies Turra as one of several Italian women who “spread Enlightenment ideas and argued for women’s learning in journals as well as salons” (167). Specifically, Turra “oversaw a publishing house and founded several journals,” arguing for women to further their education by reading intellectual information rather than fashion magazines of the day (167). A Venetian woman in the 18^th century, Turra was, other than a publisher, a journalist and translator, even active in debates of the Enlightenment. In addition, she also directed some of the plays she translated. She was married, but her marriage obviously did not interfere with her ability to pursue an active and public life. Altogether, Turra represents the idea of women who were able to find agency in the midst of an entrenched Enlightenment viewpoint of women, one that was frequently negative, at times, theoretically encouraging of the education of women, yet ultimately rather inactive at changing women’s education or position in society. In addition, Turra exemplifies a certain pattern in history of the way in which women believe women should negate ideas of patriarchy. Turra’s recommendation that women should abandon trivial magazines in favor of educational reading brings to mind Christine de Pizan’s standard of virtuous women as the best way through which to eliminate patriarchal portrayals of women in a negative light. True, Pizan and Turra’s arguments are different, Pizan’s one of virtue and Turra’s one of intellect, but the two are aimed at the same objective: women embodying certain characteristics and thus, changing perceptions.  I wonder if such a strategy is effective or if it leads more so to criticism of women by women and thus, provides patriarchy with more “fuel for the fire,” a fire of negative views on women?

Sources:

Wiesner-Hanks, Merry E. Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

http://neww.huygens.knaw.nl/authors/show/2852

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3615102.html

 

 

Image: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/IWW/Portraits/HTML/A0085.html

18th Century Paris Salons: An Elite Market of Prostitution?

  Earlier this week we discussed the role of salons during the 18th century. Salons were one of the settings in which women could have control over the direction of conversations and choose who to invite and who not to. Salons were held by upper, middle-class or noblewomen only and would take place in the woman's home (Notes). It can be argued that within salons women truly advanced in knowledge and I would argue even gained recognition. Salons were "by invitation only" events and the elite in society wanted to be invited due to the statuses of the salons. These were not simply meetings where women gathered to gossip about the latest dress fashions but were educational centers in which women could have some say.
  The New York Times article "Birth of the Salon" written by Alan Riding presents a new aspect about salons that I had not previously thought of. Riding admits that women did gain knowledge from the conversations held in salons but he also presents the idea that women also gained experience in the art of seduction. According to Riding, "Women honed the skills of politesse, conversation, writing, appearance and, yes, seduction" (NYTimes.com 1). Upon reading this article I could not help but wonder if the conversational aspect of salons was a cover-up to the underlying purpose of appealing to men of elite and wealthy social standing? Were salons a way for women to "market" themselves, almost like an elite form of prostitution? (Similar to the ways of Venetian courtesans). Riding writes, "Men too were drawn to the salons - and not only because mistresses could be found and exchanged there, drawn from the nobility's cleverest and most beautiful women" (NYTimes.com 1). 'Exchanged there?' Could this give a whole new meaning to the idea of salons?
   Dr. Wolbrink discussed in class that women may have actually had a very limited role in the actual conversational aspects of the salons, Riding seems to be hinting at the same idea as well. As historians we should view salons as a step in the advancement of women in society. Finally women were not only seen as decorative objects or "arm candy"; the idea that women actually had the ability to retain more knowledge than just needlework was on the verge of acceptance. However, do the fact that men were also invited to the salons, and usually outnumbered the female guests, what was the real purpose of salons? Were women trying to prove the point that they too could keep up in political debates just as well as the men? Or were the salons just an extension of the limitations women have always faced-beauty before brains? Or were women playing to their advantage; using their beauty to lure men in and actively engage in political debates? 

How many women do you see in the following images?

Works Cited
Riding, Alan. "Birth of the Salon." New York Times. Published November 20, 2005.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/books/review/20riding.html?_r=0.
Images from Google.

Mary Wollstonecraft

After Wednesday's discussion of women and the Enlightenment,  I have decided to research more about women during this time and their views toward women's rights.  Mary Wollstonecraft's,  A Vindication of the Rights of Women, provides one example of the views of women.  Wollstonecraft studied moral and political theories and applied this to her writing.  She posed the question of 'why women were inferior to men?'  and argued against popular male writers of the time.  In Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women, she mentions the views of Rousseau and argues his ideals.  Wollstonecraft states, "Who ever drew a more exalted female character than Rousseau?  Though in the lump he constantly endeavoured to degrade the sex" (CP 178).  Wollstonecraft uses attacks on writers such as Rousseau in order to further her arguments.  Her views of women's rights paved the way for other politically savvy women.  In some respects, Wollstonecraft's writing compares to that of Olympe de Gouges because of their views that women should be allowed the same inalienable rights of men.  Wollstonecraft's take on women is often a radical and "in your face" interpretation that has left a lasting impact on readers throughout this period. 




Sources:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wollstonecraft/

Women's History Coursepacket, Compiled by Dr. Wolbrink

Olympe de Gouges

Olympe de Gouges' Declaration of the Rights of Woman provides an interesting view on how women in the Enlightenment and French Revolution viewed one another. Something that I find really interesting in her writing is her sharpness towards other women. While much of what we have been reading has placed the blame of female subjugation on man, Olympe de Gouges takes this a step further and also places blame on women, as can be seen in the postscript: "Women have done more harm than good" (Declaration of the Rights of Woman). In this proclamation, she is referencing women in the old regime (the monarchy), specifically the nobility. Her contempt to such women is obvious with the statement: "A woman only had to be beautiful and amiable; when she possessed these two advantages, she saw a hundred fortunes at her feet. . . The most indecent woman could make herself respectable with gold" (Postscript Declaration on the Rights of Woman). Considering her background as a self-educated butcher's daughter, it is easy to see where this resentment could have arisen from. Women who had more opportunities than she did were, in her opinion, wasting them. She then chastises these women for their relative inactivity during the Revolution and even probably the Enlightenment with statements such as: "Oh women! Women, when will you cease to be blind? What advantages have you gathered in the Revolution?" (Postscript Declaration of the Rights of Woman). And she finally urges them to take matters into their own hands: "Women, wake up; the tocsin of reason sounds throughout the universe; recognize your rights" (Postscript Declaration of the Rights of Woman). As we discussed in class, her declaration is riddled with enlightened phrases, such as universe, nature, and reason. 

            I think what I like most about Olympe de Gouges is her ability to speak her mind, and her desire not only to criticize men, but also women. I agree with her sentiment that women were partially responsible for not obtaining the equality they desired. While we might consider this as a hindrance in gaining support from her female peers, it may have been seen as a much needed wake-up call for these women. Though there is some debate about whether Olympe de Gouges can be considered a full feminist, by the standards stated in class – recognizing the inequality between genders and then trying to rectify it – she certainly qualifies in my opinion.  

Source Used: http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/293/

Women's march to Versailles

Women's march to Versailles

Above is the image of an event of the “October Days” also known as a the Women's march to Versailles. I chose this event because this week's topic is about the e

Enlightenment and French Revolution. This is a capped six months of women’s political involvement: their active presence in Paris neighborhoods, in electoral assemblies for the Estates General and in the conquest of the Bastille (BV). It’s the first revolutionary that we see women demanding citizenship rights for women. In this march, thousands are empowering themselves as citizens as they confront the national legislative and the king with demands: bread, royal ratification of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the government from Versailles to Paris (BV). What’s significant about this event is that these women acted like citizens. According to the authors Levy and Applewhite, “Through these practices, they forged a link between their identities and behaviors as citizens, on the one hand, and new concepts of popular sovereignty, citizenship, and political legitimacy, on the other- the touchstones of modern democratic practice (BV). Women who did not march to Versailles, did other participation such as signing or marking petitions, attending revolutionary meetings, and participating in neighborhood self-government (BV).  They also contribute by donating their jewels to the treasury, knitted stocking, made bandages for the armies, or joined revolutionary festivals (BV). The march to Versailles is just one event that women took charge of the Revolution. But as we know, women did not become citizens right away in fact it took many years later.


Sources:
Bridenthal, Stuard, and Merry Wiesner. Becoming Visible: Women in European History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Print.
images from Google

Madness or Brilliance? The Life and Work of Margaret Cavendish

    

 

      The prolific Seventeenth-century writer Margaret Cavendish has often been referred to as “Mad Madge.” This blog entry seeks to determine the degree of her eccentricity. Was she really off track in her writing or was she called mad because she was a woman who wrote about topics that were viewed as male only areas of expertise during her lifetime?

            Margaret Cavendish was born in Essex in 1623 to a wealthy family and received a privately tutored education. Because of her family’s wealth she was able to become a maid of honor to Queen Henrietta Maria and followed the queen to Paris after she was exiled. There she met her husband, the Duke of Newcastle, and they married in 1645 and returned to England. Cavendish never had children, and in 1653 she published her first book called Poems, and Fancies. She wrote on topics such as natural science and philosophy, and in 1666 she published Blazing World, which is now described as one of the oldest known science fiction works in the world.

            Perhaps the greatest support for her writing career came from her husband. He wrote this in the introduction to her book Observations Upon Experimental Philosophy:

“This book is book of books, and only fits

Great searching brains, and quintessence of wits;

For this will give you an eternal fame,

And last to all posterity your name:

You conquer death, in a perpetual life;

And make me famous too in such a wife.

So I will prophesy in spite of fools,

When dead, then honoured, and be read in schools.

And ipse dixit lost, not he, but she

Still cited in your strong philosophy.”

-William Newcastle

            Cavendish received many critiques by both her contemporaries as well as later scholars. Many of her colleagues did not take her seriously, although she made legitimate arguments. Also in her book she thoroughly discussed ideas from Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and Pythagoras. Something which also likely contributed to her colleagues dislike of her was the fact that she called them “botchers and brokers” who borrow and repeat ideas from past philosophers and do not give them the full credit they deserve. Cavendish was the embodiment of what many male intellectuals feared in the seventeenth-century if women were able to achieve the same education and academic status as the male elite. She was intelligent and unafraid to publish her own ideas in her own name, and also to debate and compare them to both past and present male intellectuals. She did not wait for women to be considered equal to men, she considered herself equal to her colleagues which makes her especially relevant to the study of women’s history.

     Below is an interesting excerpt from the same book quoted above in which Cavendish addresses gender issues and provides substance to the argument for her inclusion as an early feminist.

“I might set up a sect or school for myself, without any

prejudice to them: But I, being a woman, do fear they would soon cast me

out of their schools; for, though the muses, graces and sciences are all of

the female gender, yet they were more esteemed in former ages, than

they are now; nay, could it be done handsomely, they would now turn

them all from females into males: So great is grown the self-conceit of the

masculine, and the disregard of the female sex.”

 –(Observations Upon Experimental Philosophy, 249)

Sources:

Biography of Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle upon Tyne (c. 1623-1673).             http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/collectionsindepth/family/newcanewc/biographies/biographyofmargaretcavendish,duchessofnewcastleupontyne(c1623-1673).aspx.

“Margaret Cavendish”            https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Margaret_Cavendish.html

Newcastle, Margaret Cavendish, and Eileen O'Neill. Observations Upon Experimental      Philosophy. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 2001. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost),                        EBSCOhost (accessed April 2, 2014).

 

Jean Jacques Rousseau and His Brand of Misogyny

(This is the title page of Rousseau's work Emile, printed in 1792.)

This week I really wanted to discuss one of our readings, Emile by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Since we are very limited in our fifty-minute classes, I decided that by delving into it for a blog post would get most of my reactions and feelings out about the reading. Obviously, the introduction gives some warning of the misogyny apparent in the text, but even I was surprised. In the beginning it sounds very similar to many other readings we have had from male authors concerning women, yet it gets worse quickly. Rousseau writes, “It follows that woman was specifically made to please man. If man ought to please her in turn, the necessity is less direct. His merit lies in his power; he pleases simply because he is strong,” (Emile). Now the first part of this quote is similar to most male authors, it is the second part that I read and actually laughed at. Apparently all men need to do in life is be strong and that pleases women, interesting.

As he continues in his analysis of what education is appropriate for women, he argues that women are stupid. Specifically, because of their desire to learn and “become like men” for if they were to do that, then men can resist women and truly rule over them. Also seemingly obvious, there is nothing in existence that is preventing these women from teaching their daughters to become men; it is obviously the fault of the mothers from not giving their daughters the education. In his conclusion, he sums up his stance completely by writing, “Thus, the whole education of women ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honored by them, to educate them when young, to care for them when grown, to council them, to console them, and to make life agreeable and sweet to them,” (Emile).  So for young women looking to get an education in anything related to real subjects instead of just being a good tool for a husband, Rousseau believes this is not an appropriate desire, for women are just meant to be shiny objects that husbands can parade around as another trophy they collected.