“She must be enduringly, incorruptibly good; instinctively, infallibly wise—wise, not for self-development, but for self-renunciation: wise, not that she may set herself above her husband, but that she may never fail from his side: wise, not with the narrowness of insolent and loveless pride, but with the passionate gentleness of an infinitely variable, because infinitely applicable, modesty of service—the true changefulness of woman.” (69)
The overall tone of the essay by John Ruskin is how women can be empowered, but not too empowered. This passage, unfortunately, is still applicable today. Back then, and still today, it is much harder for women to achieve power. Women constantly have to prove themselves, more so than men do. It seems that men are usually automatically trusted, while women are inherently doubted by their peers. This passage emphasizes what happens once a woman does finally achieve a position of power. “She must be enduringly, incorruptibly good,” because as soon as she falters, men can use that as an example why women shouldn’t be in power. It goes back to that archetype of the ideal woman, that all women should be the same, and that all women are all the same. So if one singular woman is not equipped to be in power, no woman is. Still today, society (men) view women as strange creatures that can’t be understood and are inherently different than men. Feminism today tries to emphasize that women aren’t so different and mysterious, and we can be understood if anyone would just listen to our thoughts and ideas.
Then there is the whole issue of the quote “wise, not that she may set herself above her husband, but that she may never fail from his side.” This is a good example of Ruskin’s good intentions, that he wants women to be successful, but not so successful that they are a threat to their husbands, or men in general. All throughout history, limitations have been put on women, then it becomes the woman’s responsibility to push through those limitations. Even though the society, in which the norms are set by men, placed those limitations in the first place. It seems that he is slightly threatened by even the idea of a woman having more power than a man.
I whole heartily agree with the whole blog post but specifically the part about women being regarded as a whole group instead of individuals. I read something on Pinterest that was along the same lines of this that when a woman fails it is not looked at that she can't do it but rather that women can't do it. This may be a little extreme but I still think it is valid point that happens more frequently than we know. I then started thinking about it and related it to how women may have this in their mind whether consciously or subconsciously and it makes them hesitates and them refrain from taking risks. Since the impact of their actions not only affect themselves but their entire gender.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I completely agree with you and find it interesting that females are blamed in general when failing rather than the person that failed. Its that women are not strong or powerful enough rather than focusing on the individual. I found it interesting that this is not the case for males. I talked in my own post a lot about how I was confused on Ruskin's intentions of being pro female or not. He talks a lot about females having the potential to do anything basically if they are educated but then he also talks about how women are not strong enough and not more successful than their husbands. That confused me while reading his article.
ReplyDelete