You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.8 AVERAGE
3.8 AVERAGE
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Difícil calificar. Importante obra de introducción, se hace necesaria una buena edición para poder comprender y valorar muchos elementos a los que se refiere; la de Istmo me lo ha parecido. Muchas de las ideas que defiende siguen plenamente vigentes, otras se han matizado o superado con los cambios sociales y avances científicos y otras están marcadas por su fe cristiana. A día de hoy podemos no compartir muchas de sus afirmaciones (muchísimas, de hecho), pero sigo pensando que es una base que vale la pena leer.
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Hard to get through and very repetitive. I had to skim paragraphs. Long story short, women should have rights. All of them, I think.
18th century feminist theory what more could you want some parts are still so deeply relevant but it does feel like it was written when it was, Wollstonecraft needs to be discussed more in philosophy because her mind is brilliant!
Amazing ideas, tough to get through, because the prose is very dry. Mary Wollstonecraft is a sass master general
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
En "Vindicación de los derechos de la mujer", Wollstonecraft no sólo critica el sistema que mantenia a las mujeres de su época en la ignorancia y las hacía dependientes del hombre, si no que también el sistema educativo que no las tomaba en serio, los fundamentos del matrimonio, las opiniones "arcaicas" de los pensadores más brillantes de la época, la vanidad clase alta, la monarquía, etc.
¡Me ocuparé de las cosas y no de las palabras.
Dejando de lado los "adornos" del lenguaje y optando por un idioma directo, Wollstonecraft no refrena su lengua aunque su comentario suene duro contra "su sexo".
Este libro es un llamado para que las mujeres despierten de su ensueño, dejen la comodidad que la dependencia y la ignorancia les ofrecía, y abogaran por sí mismas, reclamando sus derechos al cumplir con los deberes que estos traen consigo.
[...] pues derechos y deberes son inseparables.
Al igual, pide a los hombres que dejen su papel de opresor (otorgado a sí mismo por cobardía) y permitan a la mujer empezar su desarrollo como el "ser racional" que es en verdad.
No deseo que [las mujeres] tengan poder sobre los hombres, si no sobre sí mismas.
... ya que
[...] a gran mayoría de la insensatez femenina procede de la tiranía masculina.
3.5/5
Women, I allow, may have different duties to fulfil; but they are human duties, and the principles that should regulate the discharge of them, I sturdily maintain, must be the same.Sound familiar? The quote I started my review of Beauvoir's [b:The Second Sex|457264|The Second Sex|Simone de Beauvoir|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327978178s/457264.jpg|879666] with runs in a similarly powerful vein, and is why I am, for the first time, rounding my half star up instead of down. When it comes to this work, one must mercilessly separate the wheat from the chaff if the aim is Wollstonecraft's spirit and not her letter, but what remains is a svelte and shining sword of a spine that can be run through even her own obstinate instances of bad faith. To ancient works that offer me this ironclad potential of self-reflexivity, I will give the full benefit of my attention. The phrases "ahead of the times", "represented the times", "behind the times", etc, etc, mean nothing to me, for it was not too long ago when the closest semblance to humanity was a heap of atoms squirming in the muck and the lightning. Our species will not survive long enough to merit me wasting my time on grading morality on a curve.
[M]oss-covered opinions assume the disproportioned form of prejudices, when they are indolently adopted only because age has given them venerable aspect, though the reason on which they were built ceases to be a reason, or cannot be traced. Why are we to love prejudices, merely because they are prejudices?A true mark of a thinker is how receptive they are to you taking bits and pieces of their thought and applying them wholesale to other realms of their own insight. Out of context? Hardly. I'm not talking some eclectic mathematical formula transposed warts and all into some tenet of Hindu philosophy out of some misguided effort to propagate yet another Orientalizing confabulation. In the quote above, Wollstonecraft treats with prejudice in its entirety, so it would only be fitting to apply to this statement to each and every instance of her own displays of this misbegotten stagnation of critical thinking. That's the problem with using the entirety of humanity in order to prove an ethical point, you see. When you say all, you better mean all, else what are you doing opening your mouth in the first place.
On what ground can religion or morality rest when justice is thus set as defiance?Before Wollstonecraft gifted me with the useful terms of defiance and vain-glory, I characterized my honing of morality on the general public as seeing who got angry and for what reasons. I'd do the same with her if I got the chance, for people inclined towards cisnormativity, heteronormativity, slut-shaming, islamophobia, Sew Work Exclusionary Radical Feminism (Swerf), white feminism, classism, ableism, and probably a great deal of others I missed would have a field day with this work. If I questioned her about these and this and those, which instances would she suppress as defiance? If I poked holes in her trend of immortal souls and biz by pointing out that, yes, they are women as well, how high would her vain-glory raise its genocidal head? I have no use for people who'd prefer it if I were exterminated. The subtlety of some is merely a survival mechanism; all they need is a conflagration for the seeds to sprout.
He wished to crush Carthage, not to save Rome, but to promote its vain-glory; and, in general, it is to similar principles that humanity is sacrificed, for genuine duties support each other.
Parents often love their children in the most brutal manner, and sacrifice every relative duty to promote their advancement in the world.—To promote, such is the perversity of unprincipled prejudices, the future welfare of the very beings whose present existence they imbitter by the most despotic stretch of power.One aspect of Wollstonecraft's treatise that I didn't expect and very much appreciate is her taking on the subject of pedagogy, especially in the realms of paternity and maternity. Children take on all sorts of roles in this world of mine: economic strip mine, free labor, emotional chew toy, blow up doll, cultural bridge, translator of the foreign/modern/the times they are a-changin', child, human being, perpetrators of matricide and/or patricide. I don't give a fuck what reasons you have/had/will have for bringing life into this world. I really don't. Barring some exigencies like the genocidal attitude governments have for certain ethnic populations, the way you raise your child is the way you will be convicted. If you're not willing to make the effort to earn the rights you think you have to the autonomy of your offspring regardless if they're gay, trans, disabled, female, young, not financially independent by eighteen, not on whatever is your definition of the right "track", any surprise on your part at what follows is obscene. Nothing more, nothing less.
For man and woman, truth, if I understand the meaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful female character, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding the sacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea, having no other foundation than utility, and of that utility men pretend arbitrarily to judge, shaping it to their own convenience.Wollstonecraft misappropriates the word "slave" a lot, especially in light of [b:The Book of Night Women|4682558|The Book of Night Women|Marlon James|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1442717381s/4682558.jpg|4733113], and what useful analyses she has to make of the white middle to upper class have to be put on the rack before they're applicable anywhere else, but she's got some valuable things to say about various holisms of morality, justice, and psychology shaped by any variation of tyranny. I'm just glad I didn't get to this before class thrust it upon me, cause the relation between the effort it takes one to sieve through prose and the amount one is bowled over by it in the process is a direct one, and I wouldn't have done myself or anyone else favors by cutting Wollstonecraft's words any slack. The 1790's are dead and gone, people. Let's not pull an anti-vacc on a less biological yet equally powerful front, mmkay?
Let the husband beware of trusting too implicitly to this servile obedience; for if his wife can with winning sweetness caress him when angry, and when she ought to be angry, unless contempt had stifled a natural effervescence, she may do the same after parting with a lover.
[T]hose who can see pain unmoved, will soon learn to inflict it.
Ok, so I'm not rating this book because I kinda didn't understand some points of it. I wasn't sure the author was saying women should be treated equally so they could fit better into their "natural" roles as mothers and wives or if women should have the same rights to employment and education so they could be independent. I think she was saying both, but it seemed contraditory to me.
In general, I agree with her views although I disagree that education is the source of rationality. It's not education alone, there are plenty irrational, venal, vulgar people with college degrees. Unfortunately, there, she was wrong. But, yes, a trained, educated mind is always the better choice.
I didn't much appreciate how she denigrated her own sex in one breath and then called them victims in the other, as if women could never be rational, intelligent beings without education.
But I do recognize that this is quite the text for the 18th century. Very much the roots of feminism and gender equality. Not only that, but class equality as well, if only on a minor scale (especially in A Vindication of the rights of Men).
In general, I agree with her views although I disagree that education is the source of rationality. It's not education alone, there are plenty irrational, venal, vulgar people with college degrees. Unfortunately, there, she was wrong. But, yes, a trained, educated mind is always the better choice.
I didn't much appreciate how she denigrated her own sex in one breath and then called them victims in the other, as if women could never be rational, intelligent beings without education.
But I do recognize that this is quite the text for the 18th century. Very much the roots of feminism and gender equality. Not only that, but class equality as well, if only on a minor scale (especially in A Vindication of the rights of Men).