Some women are petrified of the f-word. It offends polite company and produces uncomfortable silences. Its multiple meanings often lead to confusion that no one is particularly interested in clearing up. Euphemisms are preferred to outright use of the word because they mitigate the negative feelings it conjures up.
I’m referring, of course, to feminism.
The range of meanings of this taboo word stretches from bra-burning, man-hating, suffrage, equal rights and opportunities, and the right to privacy. But those range of meanings are merely manifestations of the word, and they don’t supply us with a working definition. I’m partial to the working definition I learned as a co-ed: autonomy. Ah yes, the ability to live as one wishes without legal or societal constraints, so long as we’re not putting anyone else in harm’s way. Being free and independent. Sounds a bit libertarian, doesn’t it?
One of the most famous feminists sits undisturbed in the bottom of your coin jar because most parking meters and vending machines aren’t interested in her kind. They will, of course, spit those coins out as change, but they won’t take them. Plus, their size and shape aren’t pocket-friendly. I’m speaking, of course, of Susan B. Anthony, the famous suffragist.
Anthony wasn’t the first and certainly won’t be the last in the line of women working for greater autonomy. The title of First Feminist is often bestowed upon Mary Wollstonecraft, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Just look at the title. This woman wasn’t pulling any semantic punches, even in 1790s England.
In the Introduction to Vindication, Wollstonecraft tells us she’s tired of women being trained as sex objects and that they should be educated just like men because, really, everyone wins: women would have more opportunities if they could read and write instead of just paint (canvasses and faces), and men would benefit from having women they could actually talk to. Wollstonecraft was also pretty disgusted with women (especially those in the upper class) who relied on their wily ways to get them through life and who lived “only to amuse themselves.” I might be wrong, but I think she’s referring to the late 18th century version of Paris Hilton.
After dancing around the subject as 1790s authors were wont to do, Wollstonecraft gets right to the point: “I wish to show that…the first object of laudable ambition [of women] is to obtain a character as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex.” Ahem. Sounds like autonomy to me.
Wollstonecraft does draw some hard conclusions on the differences between men and women, namely men are physically stronger. But physical strength, she maintains, is different than the mental strength women are denied by a lack of schooling. (The physical strength argument may explain why millions of folks are watching the NBA playoffs right now, discussing over the water cooler LeBron’s ability to bring home a championship ring or the Birdman’s mohawk and tattoo collection. Most of these same individuals cannot, however, name a single team, never mind player, in the WNBA, the fairer version of the NBA.)
The Mother of Feminism speaks plainly about the way women speak, and tells the readers she’s going to steer clear of the flowery diction that female novelists and essayists were using during that time. She was the 18th century version of the straight-talk express on the subject of women rights and sought to “persuade by the force of my arguments, [rather] than dazzle by the elegance of my language.” Apparently elegance is sometimes nothing more than euphemism drenched in diamonds.
So go ahead. Use the f-word. History has your back on this one.
The link to the original third edition can be found here. Don’t let the funny looking “f” dissuade you: Ms. Wollstonecraft did not write with a lisp—substitute each funny “f” with an “s” and you’ll do just fine.
Tracey McCormick is Managing Editor at GreatHistory.com.
Related Articles |
The F-Word « SheSpoke. Find out what she said said:
[...] f-word, feminism, history, writing | No Comments It’s got a history, kids. Go check it out. [...]
June 1st, 2009 at 7:41 am