On Mary Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” and Contemporary Feminist Ideas

Mary Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” though published in the 18^th century, still addresses issues widely debated amongst feminists today. Early in her piece, Wollstonecraft identifies the main obstacles of equality for women as the “misuse” of chastity and the idolization of women by men. She states, “Chastity will never be respected in the male world till the person of a woman is not, as it were, idolized, when little virtue or sense embellish it with the grand traces of mental beauty, or the interesting simplicity of affection” (289). In other words, it seems Wollstonecraft advocates the idea that women cannot make any progress if their success or talent relies upon the use of their bodies. If a woman were to use any other device, other than her intellect, to advance in society she would run the risk of “stopping the progress of knowledge and virtue” (288).

Ariel Levy, author of “Female Chauvinist Pigs,” advances a similar notion for the advancement of women with a 21^st century concerns. Levy states, “Women who have wanted to be perceived as powerful have long found it more efficient to identify with men than to try and elevate the entire female sex to their level” (286). The female chauvinist pig (FCP) represents a woman who goes about attaining power, in some cases a great deal of power, but through the wrong means. When a woman becomes this FCP she openly tries to not only identify with men but also when she tries to become like a man. Levy argues, “Instead of trying to reform other people’s perceptions of femininity, the FCP likes to position herself as something outside of the normal bounds of womanhood…defining her own little turf involves degrading other women”  (275).The FCP strives desperately to live up to all the stereotypes constructed for her by men.  For example, contemporary television shows, such as The Man Show and Howard Stern have provided an outlet for some women to buy into a male dominated television industry. Women are often degraded and insulted on such television programs, but “38 percent” on The Man Show viewers are women (Levy 276). By taking on the stereotyped role of a man, women openly surrender their possibility of advancement by “stopping the progress of knowledge and virtue.”

                Wollstonecraft places a central focus on the idea that “intellect will govern” and that “women are, in fact, so much degraded by mistaken notions of female excellence…that such a notion produces a propensity to tyrannize” (293). It seems notions of “female excellence” entail a capacity for the domestic and children as where men have the rational capacity for virtuous behavior (293). These “notions of female excellence” coupled with a “propensity for tyranny” create a paradox or contradiction for the advancement of women in society (292). This paradox works to inhibit the interest of women to even attempt to subvert the typical male notion of “ladies” or women in the upper class (292). It seems ladies represent the largest struggle for women’s rights because they have been “corrupted by extremes of wealth” and the influence of men in their class (292).

                Again we can see the distant echoes of Wollstonecraft’s fears in Levy’s work. Levy’s main argument centers on the paradox that FCPs face in modern society. When women advance their careers and personal interests at the cost of feminist ideals they, in a certain sense, degrade their sex. By giving into prescribed gender roles, e.g. engaging in hyper-sexualized behavior for the amusement of men, women might win influence or secure monetary gains but they ultimately degrade the progress of feminism. Levy captures this conflict in stating, “If you are the exception that proves the rule, and the rule is that women are inferior, you haven’t made any progress” (278).  Overall, it seems women can never be respected when “women are idolized …and not respected for their mental beauty” and potential for advancement (289).