I did make it out to a smaller, but legitimately inspiring luncheon that focused on the life of Emma Goldman. As I am considering a double-major in Ethnic Studies and Gender Studies (and just because I am an enthusiastic rule breaker), hearing about such revolutionary women is oh-so-fascinating in my book…
I was quite intrigued by her misfit status- she was highly criticized by everyone! Men and women- especially those women who considered themselves to be the radical and progressive of that time- condemned her uncompromising opinions and critical questioning of the real worth of women’s suffrage. Part of Emma Goldman’s plea seemed to be for women to own up to the corruptive way that they viewed themselves- stating that the prevailing frame of mind of the late 19th century and early 20th century had much to do with the level of equality we would ultimately have with men, as well as the advancement we would achieve in society.
Modern women of the 21st century have remarkable opportunity for advancement that seems to transcend the boundaries of gender. Women are now benefiting from the materialized achievement that was conceptualized two centuries ago by the many insistent voices and struggles of women foreign and domestic. Great strides have paved the way for exceptional educational opportunity for women, and we have proven time and time again that we are highly capable of contributing to the academic world.
In the time before Emma Goldman, two women in particular, Mary Wollstonecraft and Judith Sargent Murray, voiced their revolutionary and fervent arguments that challenged such ideas like those of the Republican Motherhood, which suggested women should only be educated as a means of better serving their husbands and children. It was their (Wollstonecraft and Murray’s) argument that the women of the late 18th century were fully equipped to develop their minds as much as their female physicality.
Currently females are still dealing with the implication of inequality (if not blatantly displayed) regarding the perception of what defines a man and a woman; a perception handed down through the years from our predecessors of early nationhood. Anyone can look up the definition of womanly in 2008 and find that it is comprised of characteristics or qualities that are viewed as “positive; especially warmth, and calmness.” Similarly, when defining manly by the same reference, you find “qualities conventionally thought to be characteristic of, or appropriate to, a man, especially physical strength or courage.”
I have talked about this idea of femininity before, so it always interesting to learn further how this sort of thinking took root in this society we now find ourselves in. It is even more interesting how this frame of mind impacted women of color; who were even more overlooked and misrepresented than white, colonial woman fighting for “women’s” rights- rights that fell short of fully supporting Black, “Hispanic,” and Native American women.
This belief regarding woman’s fragility (and a subsequently fragile mind) and man’s courageous and protective qualities (and undoubtedly strength of mind) - was highly prevalent in a time when women gave up their freedom- forfeiting their rights to their money and their property- to seek the protection of man, provided through marriage. Their inability to be autonomous and their disinterest in such status was presumably smothered in the early stages of youth by colonial conventions, long before it had a chance to breathe a different frame of mind into the conceptions of females. These perceived male qualities of intellectual curiosity and adeptness existed in stark contrast to the view of the weaker female concerned only with being feminine and pleasing their husbands.
In a time when the most influential men, like Thomas Jefferson, spoke of women as only being useful in their capacity to have children and be helpmates to men, while emphasizing the beauty of their physical qualities as opposed to their mental faculties; a most audacious Judith Sargent Murray, rose to challenge such conventions. It was her estimation that women, being deprived the opportunities to gain an education like their male counterpoints, became captive to false feminine ideals. This product of deprivation is communicated through her writing in On the Equality of the Sexes. I really felt like the following passage summed it up well, “At length arrived at womanhood, the uncultivated fair one feels a void… What can she do? To books she may not apply… Fashion, scandal, and sometimes what is still more reprehensible, are then called in to her relief… Meantime she herself is most unhappy.”
Upon reflection of my own personal evolution as a woman, I find that I relate very much to the convictions expressed by these women over 200 years ago. Having made my own sort of bold strides towards understanding the meaning and direction of my life, I embarked on an excavation of my own psyche in my early twenties. This exploration gave way to my decision to return to school; which in turn led to the discovery that the qualities which so defined my being prior to my intellectual “rebirth” were out-of-date and really just inadequate to illustrate who I was. Superficiality- that concentration on attaining praise based on my femininity or my endeavor to attain and exemplify physical perfection (which had so pervaded my world and my view)- fell short of inspiring a sense of wholeness and strength, and empowerment that my intellectual nurturing has most abundantly inspired.
The focus of a woman’s significance then should not completely overlook the existence of her femininity- allowing any woman to express and define what that is for herself- but rather give chief attention to, and greater magnitude to, the contributions of her intellect and the innovations of her multifaceted mind. And it is through her perception first- what she feels she is capable of and the muscle she is willing to put behind it- that will give momentum to the change she so envisions.
