On the Querelle des femmes and early modern writing

This is a reaction essay I wrote in response to several articles on the Querelle des femmes, focusing on Joseph Swetnam's Arraignement of lewd, idle froward women and unconstant woman, Rachel Speght's A Mouzell for Melastomus, Diane Purkiss' "Material Girls: The Seventeenth-Century Woman Debate," (which I summarized here) and Joan Kelly-Gadol's "Early feminist theory and the Querelle des Femmes 1400-1789".

This week’s readings followed the theme of revision and projecting onto historical works. It wasn’t until after reading them that I realized that I do tend to look at documents with a bit of a modern bias, picking them apart to find the oppression and subjugation of women. Because of my experience as a women’s and gender studies major in college, and the fact that I read a lot of blogs these days that focus on feminist issues, I am, in a way, trained to always attempt to be aware of difference and privilege. However, it never occurred to me until Purkiss’ article that looking at literature or history from this perspective might be a less legitimate way of looking at them.

While I understand Purkiss’ point, I’m simply not convinced that reading these writings through a feminist lens is inherently less appropriate than from another perspective; ultimately, we are never going to be able to look at the work without imposing some kind of filter to it. Purkiss provides some examples involving different ways these texts could have been intended to function and some ways that we might be projecting our view of a feminist consciousness onto them. However, while she has provided potential alternative interpretations, she has not provided significant evidence that they are not demonstrating an early feminist consciousness and, more importantly, isn’t really giving any indication of why it might be harmful of us to see early feminist ideology if there isn’t any.

My first real question about Purkiss’ argument was: who’s to say that these writings were not actually feminist? While the way one labels and categorizes oneself is indeed important, those self-identifications aren’t the limit of one’s categories, especially in the case of categories that are only recognized as distinct aspects of identity after the fact. For instance, the idea of homosexuality as a defining identity is a fairly recent and culturally specific one, historically speaking; does this reduce the potential theoretical value of writings about same-sex love by someone who did not necessarily consider herself “a lesbian”?

In looking at history, eras and movements of thought are often categorized and named after the fact; should we not examine the great thinkers of the European Renaissance as such because they did not term themselves as part of a “Renaissance”? Sometimes the distance of history allows scholars to see a bigger picture and identify commonalities and generalities in a way that someone personally involved in the time wouldn’t be able to, especially if that person’s perspective was limited because of social factors such as gender, class, or race.

Purkiss seems to believe that looking at these early modern writings, particularly Swetnam’s, from a feminist point of view might be patently revisionist; for instance, she outlines ways in which the archetype of the unruly woman might not be representative of actual women at all, but at Swetnam’s time was used as a symbol, representing a government in disarray and allowing authors to satirize the governing bodies without putting themselves at personal or professional risk. While this interpretation seems entirely plausible, in the context of feminist readings of that text it also seems vaguely anti-feminist, implying that feminist readers might be looking too hard to find ahistorical misogyny in older works. Some of Purkiss’ points often come across as carping; her concern over the conflating of misogyny with patriarchy in works like Swetnams’s seems to be quibbling over definitions and looking for something to criticize (in the context of the arguments that she’s criticizing).

While it is inarguably important that interpretations of history be as accurate as possible, the extant misogyny as demonstrated by Swetnam and Speght’s written response to it seem more potentially productive as an area of literature study than the definitions and existence of patriarchy at the time, which might be more relevant as a completely separate topic of research.

While Purkiss may intend for her criticism to primarily impact the way we look at historical texts, some of her arguments have much more modern potential applications. Her analysis of these anti-woman pamphlets positions them as simple entertainment, humor, or satire. This particular interpretation, while potentially an accurate one, is also potentially harmful, as dismissing misogyny in the name of humor is an issue very much relevant today. More specifically, Purkiss’ explanation follows the same line of reasoning as several defensive non-apologies issued in the media earlier this year for various racist or sexist offenses. In July of 2012, Daniel Tosh and other comedians defended crude, misogynist remarks that Tosh made during a stand-up comedy performance (he said that it would be “funny” if a female audience member was raped) as humor; more recently, Harvard University’s student newspaper claimed that a racist column that described Asian applicants to the University as homogenous stereotypes was merely satire.

These instances, along with the acceptance of such reasoning, is only further legitimized by arguments like Purkiss’. For instance, while she may be accurate in her interpretation of the imagery of the unruly woman in Swetnam’s piece as satirical humor unintended to harm actual women, it is dangerous to allow the piece to exist without commenting on and challenging its obvious misogyny (even if, as an author, your purpose is not to examine or analyze that misogyny as its primary attribute). To do so would imply that that kind of “humor” is acceptable and even has historical value; the more those messages are allowed to permeate our cultural consciousness, the harder it will be to battle similar misogyny in our own world.

On the other hand, Joan Kelly’s ideas of a tradition of women feminist thinkers in the centuries before the French Revolution look to make visible a thread of feminist thinking in a time that had previously been seen as containing very few, if any, women feminist thinkers. In addition, by looking for these intellects, she seems to legitimize the practice of “intellectual resistance at a remove from action”; this divide between theory and action, and the question of whether one can or should operate independently of the other, is fiercely debated among feminist scholars today, especially in the context of the university (Kelly 6). A new perspective on the topic has the potential to add to the debate. Finally, by collecting and connecting these theorists, Kelly is able to construct a sketch of the intellectual foundations that inspired and supported feminists who were thinking and writing during and after the French Revolution.

While I personally believe that Kelly’s work is valuable, I keep coming back to the question of what is the practical purpose of determining this kind of intellectual lineage? On the one hand, any time that an idea or movement’s predecessor can be identified, we can use that knowledge to better understand the decisions and tactics made by that movement; their actions will have a clearer context and motivation. But on the other hand, what can be more directly drawn from these identifications to contribute to the modern body of feminist knowledge? Could we look at the ways in which writers like Christine de Pisan (whom Kelly insists on calling by her first name, while referring to all other authors mentioned in the piece by their last) formed their ideas in the face of the “overwhelming authority of the learned on women’s inferiority” in order to create a framework for addressing and resisting modern versions of these messages (Kelly 13)? For instance, de Pisan and her contemporaries were interested in reinterpreting “the record on women, historical and scriptural” in order to reveal a history of women’s agency (Kelly 20). Since, as discussed by Callaghan, revisionist readings of history are still today seen as a legitimate way of gaining “a far more comprehensive view of culture,” it could be important to acknowledge that the roots of this approach extend further back into our history than originally thought.

Furthermore, the discoveries made by de Pisan and her cohorts regarding “precedents of women’s governance… and for their learning” could provide a crude foundation for modern feminists who are interested in approaching the same histories from a revisionist point of view (Kelly 21); de Pisan has done some of the ground work in this regard, and her discoveries could reveal to us today ways in which pre-14th- century women were included in various aspects of public life, such as women’s involvement in warfare and in stories of “the female origins of culture and civilization” (Kelly 21 and 25), that might otherwise have been obscured from us by traditional methods of knowledge-forming. Finally, and this is a less academically valid reason to follow this line of argument, but it seems like an appropriate way to honor the memory of feminists like de Pisan by looking for and validating their work as they did to women who came before them.

From another point of view, perhaps it isn’t even the content of the writings of the women of this period that are of primary importance; perhaps the mere existence of these communities of thought is their main contribution to feminist knowledge. This acknowledgement could be seen as similar to chronicling any other revolutionary movement, where it’s important to have a basic knowledge so that we can look back and be inspired; for instance, in America every student learns about the Civil Rights Movement in order to recognize the struggles faced by people who were among the first to publicly think a certain way. To someone beginning her feminist journey today, the idea that women’s rights and powers are “newly restricted” might be a bit of a surprise; to discover that the idea had first been recorded in pre-Revolution France would be astounding but revelatory (Kelly 22). By looking at these past movements, can individual feminist thinkers today – especially those working outside the academy, just forming their ideas, or facing the barrier of multiple marginalities – be inspired to look for a community, or to see the possibility for one? Or, is taking this approach simply falling into the trap that Purkiss describes where we see the female authors only because we have been looking so hard to see a female consciousness?

Personally, I think it’s very interesting that the secondary readings for this topic focused on the issue of imposing a modern sensibility on historical texts, because my first reaction to the primary readings was framed in a very modern context. The exchange between Speght and Swetnam resembles, in many ways, an exchange had on the internet in the context of a blog and its comments. The disclaimers that Swetnam lists at the beginning of the pamphlet – that the only people who will be upset by his writing are the ones who it accurately describes (thereby implying that only “froward,” vicious women will be upset), that the women he describes shouldn’t speak up against him because to do so will only prove their guilt, and that he sees no reason to respond to his critics – are eerily reminiscent of those put forward in blog posts where writers claim that their points will only upset people if they’re true, and a commenter criticizing a writer’s misogyny is used as proof that women are crazy or that feminists are humorless. His claims of self-awareness act as built-in defenses against women’s criticism. It’s also interesting to note that the idea that women will use tears and/or sex to get what they want has survived for this long, as has the stereotype of women taking all morning to do their hair and put on makeup. These points alone, along with the obviousness of the similarities between Swetnam’s and 21st century misogynist writing, should be enough to convince readers that a feminist interpretation of them would not be without value.

Speght’s response, as well, follows the format of many feminist replies to such sexist writings, as she criticizes his bad grammar and sentence structure, weak imagery, and poor logic (I am very aware of the fact that I’m projecting my own pro-feminist bias here, in siding both with Speght and with the pro-feminist commenters on these blogs).

However, the strength of her argument (in my opinion) comes in her point-by-point rebuttal of his biblically based arguments where she logically critiques his arguments and intelligently points out all of the places in which he took quotes out of context. She also keeps an even and level tone throughout her piece, and matches his faulty examples with her own more solid ones. She also manages to point out women’s positive attributes without criticizing men as a whole, although she does land some stinging barbs as regards Swetnam’s writing style and intelligence. Overall, while I do recognize that imposing more drastic modern beliefs on historical writings can be a pointless exercise, I do firmly believe that when dealing with texts such as Swetnam’s and Speght’s, which obviously deal with gender roles, stereotypes, and gender relations, a feminist lens is a completely appropriate one with which to read them.

First steps in my dissertation!

I'm super excited that I've started to look for material related to my dissertation. Now that I'm looking at the available programs, had I known more clearly what I wanted to research I probably should have applied for a program at the OII or more in sociology, but really I have no background in that. So I'm just going to have to use my humanities know-how and general pluck to get this done.

I'm going to try to keep track of my progress so I know what I did and when I did it. Some accountability is always a good thing.

Today I:

Found a dissertation supervisor! I'm really excited about it; she's one of my professors, around my age, obviously really smart, and she seemed really interested in my topic.

Began to look up books that might be useful. Interestingly, a lot of the research on gender, the internet, and community formation is from the late 1990s. I wonder why.

Emailed the OII to see if I can get approved to use their library. Many of the books that look useful are owned by the university, but mostly in the OII library.

Day Thirty-One in Oxford

Oxford picture of the day:

I am very proud of my homemade English breakfast. I don't have mushrooms or tomatoes at the moment, so those are missing. Those are a lot of different foods to try and cook so that they're all ready at the same time!

Summary of the Duchess of Newcastle, Margaret Cavendish: Blazing-world

The Description of a New World, Called the Blazing-World

By Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle

A merchant fell in love with a lady. He was a stranger and “beneath her, both in Birth and Wealth.” He kidnapped her in his boat. Heaven wasn’t happy and raised a storm.

Carried to North Pole. The wind guided it through the glaciers for the lady. But the men all froze to death, and the lady, “by the light of her Beauty, the heat of her Youth, and Protection of the Gods” stayed alive. But, the North Pole was connected to the pole of another world, so it was doubly cold. The boat was forced into the second world. She describes how it’s impossible to circumnavigate the earth from north to south because you’ll end up switching into the other world at the poles; the reason the poles have 6 months of sun is that they get the sun from the other world as well.

It started to warm up and the men’s bodies began to rot; she wasn’t strong enough to throw them overboard so she retired to the cabin to avoid the smell. Strange bear-like creatures carried her off the boat and sank it with the bodies.

She was scared and thought they’d kill her. They were civil and kind. Carried her to the city. Brought her to a cave where females tried to help her but realized she couldn’t handle the climate or diet. Decided to bring her to an island where the people were more like foxes. Came to an island of geese-men. They got to a pleasant woody island inhabited by satyrs. Another kingdom of green men. Headed to the island where the emperor of the blazing-world lived. They were skilled sailors. The boat had engines; they’d put them behind when the wind died, and in front when they encountered storms to beat the waves down.

At first the Lady had been scared and sad, but because she was smart, and considering what she’d already been thorough (and the fact that the men were civil) she felt better. She tried to learn the language. She became happy, showing that we’re uncomfortable in new situations but when we get familiar with them we’re better. They headed to paradise, where the emperor lived. Marble and amber cities, labyrinthine river as defense. Paradise was built of gold. “architectures were noble, stately, and magnificent, not like our Modern, but like those in the Romans time”. The buildings were broad, not high (anti-phallic?). Everything was diamond-encrusted – diamonds of all different colors.

Emperor thought she was a goddess and wanted to worship her. She said no. He married her “and gave her an absolute power to rule and govern all that World as she pleased.”

The people wouldn’t believe she was mortal and worshipped her.

Description of her diamond clothing. She carried a spear so that she “was ready to assault… her Enemies”.

There was no currency, just bartering.

Men of all kinds of species. Each had a job that suited his species, and the empress encouraged them, especially in the arts and scientists. She founded schools and societies. She wanted to be taught about their religion and government. Asked why there were so few laws. They said that laws made divisions, which bred factions, which led to war. She asked why they liked a monarchy. They said that as a body has one head, same for a political body. With many governors, you’re like a monster with many heads. Plus, as a divine form of government, monarchy agrees with our religion. One god, one emperor.

There was one religion. They prayed. She asks why there are no women in the congregations. They said it’s not fit “that men and women should be promiscuously together in time of religious worship”. So, do women have their own congregation? No, they say their prayers at home. Priests and governors are eunuchs so they don’t marry, as women and children are distractions and may influence the rulers.

She asked why the houses are not higher than two stories. They’re less subject to the elements. The walls were thick for insulation.

She asked the bird-men to teach her about the sun and moon.

The sun is a solid yellowish stone, and the moon of white. Sun is masculine, moon is feminine. Sun moves in straight line, moon does not. Both bodies have flaws. They don’t believe that the sun has its own fire, as there’s no fuel for it, and it would burn the rest of the universe. So the heat that gets to them is just a result of the light. Others thought that the movement of “globules” caused it. None said it was a fluid body, but a stone.

But why do they look different at different times? Density of the air. Movement of the air.

What are sun motes? Streams of particles. They are living.

So what about stars? They only have blazing stars.

What about the air? It can’t be perceived with the senses. So what about wind? It’s more dense than air so can be felt. But they couldn’t really tell.

They couldn’t agree on the cause of wind. So how is snow made? Mixture of water and an extract of fire. Beaten together to make a froth. After a while it was dissolved by the heat. She didn’t believe it as she thought it was by cold, not fire. The fish men told her about ice, saying that salt from the sea condensed water to the ice.

Water at the equator only condensed into water and rain.

This partially confirmed the snow theory. So what is fire? It’s not solid because it has no fuel. More thin and fluid than our fire.

What about thunder and lightning? Is it caused by ice? They said no, it’s when cold and heat meat. An exhalation kindled in the clouds was lightning, and clouds were torn as thunder. But others said that thunder was stirred up in the air, and didn’t always need a cloud. But she liked the first description better. She told the bear men to use telescopes, but the “telescopes caused more differences and divisions amongst them”. Some thought the earth moved, some thought the sun moved, they fought about the size of their stars. The empress got angry that the telescopes didn’t bring more true info. So she told them to destroy the telescopes. The bear men said it wasn’t the telescope’s faults – it was the sensitivities of their eyes and the difference in their judgment. She says the telescopes delude them and will never lead to truth, so break them and use your eyes. The bear men weren’t happy and asked again if they could not break their glasses. They prefer artificial delusions to natural truths. They like arguing and contradicting; it leads to one being wiser than the other. She finally agreed that the disputes should remain in the schools, and not disturb the state or government. They brought her microscopes and showed her flies’ eyes.

They showed her coal with all of its pores, and the reason it was black is because no light reflected from the holes. She says that black is a color, so you contradict yourself by saying that black is made with no reflection. Let’s look at a nettle. She says if there was such poison in them that hurts the skin, how can we eat them? They said doctors could tell her that – they’re just looking.

They showed her a flea and a louse. They were terrible and she fainted. She asked if the microscopes should prevent fleas from biting. They said no. She asked if there was a glass that could magnify the shapes of larger things. They tried with a whale but it didn’t work. Empress decided that microscopes weren’t sufficient. She asked if they could make one that would shrink something. They did, and they looked at a whale.

Bird and bear men dismissed. Now, fish-men and worm-men. Why is the sea salty? The salt is drank by the sea – the drinking motion is the tides and waves. It’s not the movement of the earth or influence of the moon as some believe.

Do all the animals in the sea have blood? Some do, some don’t. Some have a little.

Some have a small vein. She wondered how there could be animals that can live without blood. She asks about blood in worms. Some do, some don’t. moths don’t, louse has a vein like a lobster. So how can they live? They said that blood isn’t necessary. Do all creatures that do have blood have circulation? They don’t know because that’s internal. Is there anything somewhere between flesh and fish? Several. She asks how? They say that some have different respiration. She asks about reproduction. Some make off-spring like the producer, some don’t. Sexual reproduction. Maggots bred from cheese. (ew).

How is frost made? Same as ice and snow.

Why is some water not salty? Why does some ebb and flow? Some said caverns. Some said it is salty, just not enough to taste. Some said the heat in the center of the earth distills it. Talk about alchemy a bit.

Can you observe the interior motions of vegetables and minerals? She told the bear-men to give the worm-men microscopes to examine under the earth, but the bear-men said there’s no light there, and the glasses only show exterior things. Worm men said that creatures underground have a sense like sight. What color are things under the earth? They laughed. Everything has color.

She was impressed with the answer and pardoned the laughing. Is there anything within the earth that has no dimension or quality that produces vegetables and minerals?

Vegetables had seeds but minerals didn’t. Describes germination and stuff. Are there any non-beings within the earth? They’d never heard of any, but she has to ask immaterial spirits. There is no beginning in nature.

Next, chemist ape-men. Tell me about transmutations. They didn’t all agree. Some said the four elements, other said that there are bodies that don’t contain any. Some are produced just of water. Empress got annoyed at their arguing and gave her opinion.

I’ve made observations. Nature “is but one infinite self-moving bodies.” Divided into parts which are restless and change. Is it vain to look for primary ingredients? Fire is just a creature of nature. Why do you think fire can show you elements? Don’t waste your time with this stuff; try to do experiments that will actually benefit people.

They realized that she was really smart. She asks why the imperial race looks so young even though they’re so old. Rub this oil on them. If an old man rubs it on him, he’ll spit and vomit all kinds of stuff up. Clears out the body and brain. Blood, sweat, urine, stool. Hair, teeth, and nail will scab off. Patient is wrapped for nine months, fed eggs and milk. At the end, he looks twenty. A weaker sort of this gum is used as medicine. Also, nobody dinks anything but lime-water (women tended to be anti-drinking), only eat birds for meat, and have many recreations, especially hunting. She’d heard of a philosophers stone or a liquid that cured all diseases, but never one that could cure age. She would have been more suspicious if it had been created and wasn’t natural (prioritizing the natural).

Now, physicians. What’s the effects of these herbs an drugs? They could tell you the operations of them but not why. Generally cause by their motions.

Asked her anatomists to dissect monsters. They said the only reason they dissect animals is to figure out how to cure things in living ones. They don’t want to cure monsters. She said it might be useful to experimental philosophers. They said, then it’s in vain.

Finally, physicians. Cause of apoplexies and the plague? Plague is gangrene. She wants to know how it’s so contagious. Some say it’s caused by little atom-like things that go from one body to the other through eyes, nose, mouth (germs?) but most people think this is ridiculous. They think it’s about motion and imitation – parts of one person move in imitation of another’s who’s infected.

The spider-men show her math but she has a hard time understanding. She doesn’t get imaginary numbers or the fact that lines and points are so small. She gives up on math.

Lice-men weighed and measured things but couldn’t agree. She said there was therefore no truth in them and dissolved their society.

Bird men were orators and logicians. All the rules of logic and formalities ended up confusing them. She said to think more of the content and less of the art of their speech.

Next, the art of disputing. Start with logic. If every A is B and every C is A, then every C is B. Lots of examples that contradict each other. She says enough. Formal arguments spoil natural cleverness. Natural logic is preferred over artificial.

They’re obscuring truth, not clearing it.

They say, natural philosophy would be imperfect without the art of logic. There’s truth that can only be found through the art of debate. She believes in natural philosophy, and that it is not perfect. But it’s wrong to think that art can regulate it. She doesn’t approve of them and confines the disputes to the schools so they don’t disturb the church or state.

She found their religion defective and was upset that they didn’t understand the divine truth. She decided to build churches and make a congregation of women. She would be the head of the church. The women were smart, clever, wise; soon became devout. The empress was a great preacher. She loved her subjects. She didn’t want them to grow weary and follow their own desires. She tried to figure out how to prevent it. She asks the worm men what causes volcanoes; they say a particular stone. She says to bring her one but keep it a secret. They’ll bring her star stones too.

She uses these stones to build her chapels. In the fire chapel she preaches sermons of terror to the wicked. In the other she preaches sermons of comfort to the repented.

She converted everyone and kept them, not through force, but through persuasion.

She thought about her old world, and wanted to know more. Decided she needed immaterial spirits to help her. Fly-men said they lived in the air and took the shape of whatever garments they wore. They bring them. She asks about her old world, her friends, etc.

Dr. Dee, Ben Johnson, alchemy, plays. They talk about past, memory, etc.

She asks about the Cabbala. Some thought it was metaphorical, some thought it was literal. Natural reason, divine inspiration, divine reason (no such thing). Divine faith. Mystical and divine philosophers. Is it a sin to not know the cabbala? No, god is merciful.

Talk about the spirits’ corporeality and ability to move. Philosophical stuff – can you have knowledge without a body? She asks about Adam. Devil was in the serpent. Was all matter fluid at first? Was the world made in six days? Nobody knows. Is there mysticism in numbers? No. Asks about formation of stars, planets, heavens. Asks about the soul of man. Asks more questions about spirits. There is no world of spirits because that implies corporeality (she keeps asking questions that they have to answer with “we have no bodies!). Purgatory. Where are heaven and hell? That’s presumptuous. Can spirits be naked? That’s a weird question. Are human bodies burdensome to their souls? They imply that no, because bodies give souls motion. Can there be two souls in one body? Not in an inanimate body, but in a composed one. Do souls give life to bodies? No, they have a life of their own. There is a supernatural good but not evil. Beasts of the field are harmless. Some are fierce, but they’re really only cruel when they need food. Men are much more cruel to one another than evil spirits are to you. Talk about the nature of beasts and stuff.

She wants to make the Jews Cabbala. The spirits disappear. She convinces herself that they must have made some errors in their answers and were consigned to a lower plane or something. She’s all depressed that she caused this to happen to them, has the fly and worm men look for them, they’re a the opposite end of the world and doing fine, and apologize for any trouble they caused, and will help her in her Cabbala.

She wants a spiritual scribe to help her write the Cabbala. They can’t write without arms. They ask if she wants the soul of a living or dead man to help her. She wants the soul of an ancient famous writer. The spirits say that those guys were smart, but so into their own ideas that they’d never be a scribe. What about modern riders? They’d scorn a woman. They suggest to her the duchess of Newcastle (really?). She’s not the smartest, but she’s rational. Lady says ok, I’ll take her. Duchess says her handwriting is hard to understand. And if you want a Jews Cabbala, you need the soul of a famous Jew. Like Moses. Duchess says the empress shouldn’t do that. It won’t be an advantage to you b/c you’re not Jewish. Ok, I’ll make a philosophical Cabbala.

Duchess says to add nonsense to the infinite would create confusion. Empress says ok, I’ll make a moral Cabbala. Duchess said the only morality is to fear god. Empress says ok, political Cabbala. Duchess says the only area in government is reward and punishment so you don’t need a Cabbala. If you really want to do it, make it poetical or romantical. Use metaphors and allegories and stuff. Empress thanks her. Lets her hang out a while, then sends her back to her husband. Her soul returns every now and then and they’re platonic lovers “although they were both Femals”.

One day the duchess was sad. Empress asks why? I have ambition. I want to be a princess. Empress says, well, you are almost because you’re a duchess. Blah blah. Then duchess says she wants to be an empress of a world. Empress will give her her best advice and ask the immaterial spirits if it’ spossible. I’ll ask if there’s another would you can be empress of. Spirits appear. Spirits say there are TONS of worlds.

Can my friend be empress of one of them? Well, they all have government. Isn’t there one that’s weak enough that we could conquer it? Spirits imply not really. And the spirits say that’s actually ok b/c conquerers seldom enjoy their conquest because people fear but don’t love them. Duchess asks the spirits to show here which world is most easily conquered. She wants to live and die with fame and achievement. Spirits say, well, if it doesn’t work out that way, you have to deal. But why would you want to be empress of a terrestrial world when you could create a celestial one? Any human can create an immaterial world all within the head.

And we are living, in an immaterial world….

If you had a terrestrial world you could only enjoy a small part of it. Why would you want the responsibility of government? Duchess says ok, sounds good, I’ll create my own world. Empress says, ooh, I’ll make one too, then I’ll be in charge of two worlds!

Duchess tries to make a few worlds but there are various problems – demons, math, ideas. Chaos in her mind. Based them on various philosophers, but realized the various flaws inherent in each. So finally she decides to make a totally original world all her own. Sensitive and rational. Pure.

Empress was also making and dissolving worlds. The empress was so ravished that she wanted to live in the duchess’ world. Duchess says no, make your world, I’ll help. So the empress perfects her world. Nothing left to do unless she wanted to dissolve it, or to make changes in blazing world, which would be silly since it was perfect.

She wanted to see the duchess’ world. Duchess tried to distract her from wanting to do that. She had the spirits take over her body while her soul went. She saw all the follies of humanity, they are vain, ambitious, deceitful, balh blah, all states were power-hungry, slaughter. Duchess believes happiness is from moderation. Talk about how islam rules the emperor instead of vice versa. She saw a play and gave her opinion. Saw the royal family – the king and queen were majestic and did not overshadow each other – they were divine and wise and lot smore ass-kissing. Duchess got sad, empress asked why? I miss my husband’s soul.

They went to Nottingham through Sherwood forest. Empress was delighted. Saw the house. They both jump into the duke’s body. The empress and duke’s souls got along great, and the duchess was jealous at first, but then decided that platonic lovers can’t commit adultery. Finally, a spirit came and told the empress that even though nobody knew her soul was gone, the emperor’s soul was very sad in missing hers and everyone noticed.

The duke and fortune are enemies, and the duchess wants help getting them to be friends. Or something. We’ll get a judge or something to decide the case. He’ll send his friends prudence and honesty to plead his cause. But fortune is inconstant, and there was little chance she’ll have the patience to do so. But she does, and she chooses folly and rashness as her friends, and they decide that truth should be the judge.

Fortune makes a speech; this man preferred innocence to power! He scorns me! Don’t I have reason to be his enemy?

Duchess: he is wise, he would never disrespect a lady, he couldn’t trust fortune with his reputation because she was not honourable, she banished him and ruined his estate. He always respected her and will still, but just wants her to be his friend.

Folly and rashness jumped up and talked over each other so nobody could understand them. Fortune and prudence argue. Folly’s speech was foolish. Rashness makes a speech: if you let honesty and prudence be above you, fortune, nobody will serve you.

Fling more misfortunes on the duke and duchess.

Prudence gives a speech: starts to be really balanced and equal, but honesty jumps in – I didn’t come here to hear fortune flattered. I’m not eloquent, I just want to speak the truth. Personifies a whole bunch of virtues. The real reason fortune hates him is he won’t flatter her! I told him not to. He was always humble and respectful.

Fortune thought this speech was very rude and stormed off. Empress and duchess are upset. Honesty said duchess relied too much on fortune. Duchess said she just didn’t want her husband to have enemies. Empress told honesty to always let prudence be your guide. Duchess goes home to her husband with the condition that she visit whenever possible.

But before you go I need your advice. The world was well ordered at first. But because women love variety, I made some changes, and now there are contentions and divisions, and I’m afraid there will be a rebellion. What do I do? Duchess says to have her go back to the way things were before, when she got there, to unify the world under one language, law, and religion. Otherwise it might end up like England!

Dissolve the societies – you’d rather have peace than knowledge. When there’s learning, there’s controversy and quarreling. Empress says she’ll do it but is worried she’ll be disgraced by undoing her stuff. Duchess assures her that it will reflect well on her as wise and good to perceive her own errors and not persist in them.

The Second Part of the Description of the New Blazing-World.

Empress is all happy, everything’s good, the immaterial spirits visit and let her know stuff.

Found out that her country in her world was involved in a war, and that many countries were making war against her country. She asked about transporting forces to her world.

Emperor asked if the spirits could help her. She says no, they won’t be involved in war, and it would be hard to get that many dead bodies for them to inhabit. They’d either be half-decayed and fall apart, or their souls would war with the spirits and not let them inhabit the bodies. Emperor says to send for the Duchess, she’ll help!

Duchess suggests that she send the fish-men to look for a passage back into the Lady’s world; she got here somehow, so there must be a passage back. They find a small one, but it’s tiny and sometimes frozen over.

Duchess tells the architects about submarines. They’re going to send some bird, worm, and bear men but the empress is worried that they’ll be killed. Duchess says, trust me. Empress invites the duchess’ soul to live in her body. The ships can’t handle cannons. So the fish men will destroy the other ships before they can get too close.

They’ll use the fire stones that burn when they get wet. They’ll serve as light.

Empress began her journey. The fish men pulled the ships. They made air for the animals in the ships (or something). Empress has the fish and bird men bring her intelligence of the enemy’s fleet. She had them go through the water with the fire stones so it looked like the ocean was on fire. Then they put out the lights and the enemies could see their ships, and were frightened. She sent a message to her own country to let them know she was there to help.

They couldn’t decide how to reply and she got angry and wanted to leave. The duchess entreated her to stay. Finally a messenger came to ask who she was, where she was from, and how she was going to help. She said she didn’t have to tell them where she was from but she told them about her plan with the lights and fire. They asked what time. She said one at night. This report scared the counselors but they wanted to see the strange sight.

She comes carried by the fish men so it looks like she’s walking on water. Her countrymen are scared. She looks like an angel or god. They worship her. She doesn’t want to get closer so she makes a speech from out at see.

Tells them she’s a native of the kingdom. I’m not going to bargain – I just want to make you the most powerful nation in the world. I just want you to acknowledge my power, love, and loyalty. I’ll destroy all the enemies that trouble you by sea, and if you have any trying to harm you by land, let me know.

After she went back to the ship, they argued about whether she was an angel, goddess, sorceress, or devil. She shows up the next morning in her diamond clothing. The fish men carried the fire stones to the enemies ships, and when they got under the ships, let the stones get wet. Burned and blew up the ships. They decide ok, she actually was an angel.

That was great but there are still plenty of other fleets who control the waterways of the world that don’t pay tribute to the Sovereign. She asks them to pay tribute to him. They refuse. She burns their ships. Keeps doing this til they all submit.

After a while all the neighboring nations find themselves so enslaved that they decide to rise up against the king. When the empress heard about it, she sent out her fish men. Destroyed their ships again. The nations that didn’t have to use sea traffic were like fine, whatever, so she says she’ll burn their towns and cities. They scorned her, so she went and burned their towns, and if they were still obstinate she’d burn the cities. The worm men took care of it.

Before she sent them though, she had the bear men look at the towns and cities through their telescopes. She also told the princes of those nations that she would start to burn some of their smaller towns to prove her power, and if they continued to be obstinate, she’d burn the cities. The bird men put fire stones on roofs, and the worm men put them by the foundations, and they warned the town that the next time it rained they’d burn. Obviously the people laughed.

It rained. They burned. So she made her country the absolute monarchy of the world. Every wanted to see her. She was resolved to go home to the blazing world, but they all wanted to see her. She said she’d meet them on the sea in her ship. She appeared to them in all of her royal diamond gowns. They think she’s a goddess. She puts on a light show with the fire stones and everyone’s afraid they’re going to die.

She speaks to the other princes: I came to help the king of ESFI. Heaven was displeased that others were trying to take his rights. I’m rewarding him with absolute power. Pay him tribute. Live peaceably and happily. She sends their fleet back, hers drops underwater and goes back to the blazing world.

The duchess and empress’ souls hare having a gay old time. So why didn’t the empress bring them gold and stuff? She says no, they’re too greedy. But I shish I could give YOU, duchess, gold. The duchess says thanks, and that she’s not greedy, she just wants what her husband had before the civil war. Empress says I’ll have the fish men try.

They talk about how horrible it is to imitate others, but to be singular and unique.

The empress says, well, in this world, people would think you vain. Duchess doesn’t care b/c nobody can say it based on her actions. I am virtuous. Empress asks, then why do you plead for dishonest and wicked people in your writing? Duchess says it’s to show her wit.

Empress gets home, her husband is happy. They rejoice. Duchess’ soul begs to leave.

Emperor wants her to stay to see how he’s set up the stable just like the Duke’s.

Duchess is delighted. Emperor wants her to stay. He has built a theater and wants advice on putting on plays. Talk about art and wit. She stays and makes plays for her. Duchess goes home. Tells him about how the empress had killed all those people.

Tells him about the stables.

At the end there’s another description of the Blazing world and how amazing it is.

Dorm Decor: in which coffee

Ok. Obviously, living in a dorm room, I don't have my own kitchen. I'm lucky that the kitchen that I share with my suite mates is pretty decent; it's a good size, I get my own half of a mini fridge and half of a mini freezer (well, in theory. In actuality I get about a quarter of each because my suite mate hogs them).

Now, I knew from the get-go that there would have to be a way for me to make coffee in my room, without having to see or speak to anybody else. The last thing in the world I need is to try to make conversation pre-caffeine.

My goal was to create a little coffee station not unlike the ones found in hotels and B&Bs, while spending as little money as possible.

So, click back to the previous post for a reminder of what I was working with.

It was around this point in my decorating that I discovered Poundland, the English version of a dollar store. It's pretty much a dream come true if you're having lame fantasies of creating a coffee station in your dorm room on a budget.

I snapped up two adorable purple paisley coffee mugs, a vintagey-looking tea tray, and a glittery purple scarf.

Then I went over to Boswells, where I picked up a kettle for £15 (even with my student discount, I obviously paid too much for it!) and a hinged glass jar for £2. The jar was to store my coffee "whitener" (feel free to judge; I needed a way to doctor my coffee without leaving the room!) in a way that was airtight and more attractive than a box of coffee "whitener".

Behold, the finished product!

Cookies go in the drawer, and extra coffee and whitener go in the cabinet, along with the wine and wine glasses.

Not bad for the pound store!

Response to health dot com's "25 ways to lose weight"

25 Ways to Lose Weight, Health.com style

I borrowed this idea from my friend's blog. She's a great writer and SUPER interesting. Plus she always finishes her posts with little writing ideas that I'll probably be borrowing from extensively, as I write better when I'm assigned a topic. Such a good little student.

1. Serve from the Stove:

Well, I’m cooking for one these days, so this one kind of goes without saying. I also put the leftovers into Tupperware and into the fridge at the same time I serve myself, so I’m not tempted to go back for seconds. Go me!

2. Eat something sweet at your large breakfast.—they say “Embrace breakfast dessert.”

Hm… I don’t have much of a sweet tooth, and I’ve decided to stop buying chocolate cookies biscuits since I tend to eat them in multiples of multiples, so I guess I’ll skip this one.

3. Buy an outfit in your healthiest size and hang it on the door.

Eh. I honestly can’t say that I know what my “healthiest” size is. I recently gained a bunch of weight that took me from the lower side of the “healthy” weight range for my height to smack-dab in the middle for my height. Am I technically “healthier” now, even though I gained the weight by drinking beer and being lazy?

Besides, my mom stole all the jeans I outgrew and the rest I left in the US, so all of the clothes that I have with me fit me now.

4. Fast forward through commercials.

I don’t have a tv (not being snotty. Just living in a dorm in another country).

5. Buy junk food for your family and watch them eat it instead of you.

No family. Plus, I don’t get what the point of this one is. To feel self-righteous? To torture yourself? To make yourself feel thinner because they gain weight?

6. Clench your fist when you have a food craving. Do it for 30 seconds.

Um…. I don’t know what to do with that one. Usually when I’m having a food craving, I’m not thinking “how can I quell this food craving?” I’m thinking “HOW DO I GET CARBS NOW”.

7.“After a sweet treat, eat half a slice of deli turkey to keep you from wanting more.”

I get the concept – I’ve heard a similar thing with brushing your teeth right after eating. Although I wonder if the added bit of protein helps to stabilize your blood sugar a bit.

Either way, no sweet tooth.

8. “Lose one pound twenty times”—be proud of each one.

I get the concept. But A) I don’t have a scale and B) if I did it would be in kilograms so I would have NO idea what was going on.

9. Buy more vegetables and less treats.

I’ve been working on that. My grocery bags tonight were full of various vegetables. And no treats. Which is kind of sad. I need to work on finding treats that I won’t eat 1000 calories of in a sitting.

10. Downsize your plate

I do that! …when I use a plate, that is. And the bowl in which I serve myself most of my meals is huge. Fail.

11. Soup it up—Eat vegetable soup first.

But I only like soup with buttered bread. So no.

12. Don’t overdo Healthy Foods

Good call – too much fiber gives you gas.

13. Oil your bread

“Put olive oil on your bread (instead of butter) and you’ll eat less! So says a 2003 study.”

Obviously you’ve never seen the carnage that ensues when I’m left to my own devices with a baguette and some olive oil. I will probably eat a LOT more, because when I use butter I’m like, oh, cholesterol, I’ll just have one or two pieces of bread, but with olive oil I’m like “GOOD FATS NOM NOM.”

14. Work out with songs that have 180 beats per minute.

“Work out”?

15. Visualize your new body.

It’s not a “new body.” It’s the same body with a couple less pounds and / or a little more muscle, ideally.

16. Get active early.

That one I can get behind. I used to go to the gym before work (who WAS I???) and it worked great for me. You’re halfway through your run before you even really wake up, and then you feel totally justified doing nothing for the rest of the day.

17. Cut back on meat.

Done. Now that I’m cooking for myself and not eating out, I’m pretty much vegetarian.

18. Eat apple peels.

Done! I’ve been cooking apples, since I don’t really like eating raw fruit or veggies, and they’re good with some weetabix crumbled on top.

19. Hide the chocolate.

Yeah, that’s this week’s goal. Although instead of “hiding” it I’m just not buying it.

20. Distract yourself.

Very hard to do when the only real thing to do to “distract yourself” is do reading for class, which is something that I look for distraction FROM… often by snacking or drinking even more horrible instant coffee.

21. Slow down.

Like, take a nap? If you say so, health dot com!

22. Eat fiber and protein at meals.

So… no more loaves of bread with olive oil? You’re sending mixed messages, health dot com.

Ok, ok, fine. I’ve been eating TONS of veggies, baked beans for breakfast, and recently cooked with tofu and Quorn chicken. I could probably get more protein, but whatever – that’s what sausage rolls are for (right?).

23. Breathe

Shut up.

24. Use more vinegar.

I’m in England. That will just make me crave fries chips.

25. Find an Audience.

Blog about it? Probably not. As we know, I’m not down with the whole weight loss culture. I’m technically not even trying to lose weight. Just eating healthier and moving more. If I do lose weight, then that means the weight I had put on was indeed unhealthy. If I don’t, that just means that this is where my body is supposed to be right now.

Part Three of Woolf's "Three Guineas"

I finally finished!

Here are my notes on Part Three of "Three Guineas".

Back to the original letter! Reiterates that we can sign a pledge, join a society, or contribute to a society to help prevent war. We can also protect “culture and intellectual liberty.” Relates them to the photographs. But those are “rather abstract terms.” Again, I’m surprised to be asked for help since I am a woman.

Ok, back to “Arthur’s Education Fund.” “We have already contributed to… culture and intellectual liberty” by contributing money that could have gone to our educations. We’ve paid for their educations with ours. When we finally got “the right to some paid-for education,” there weren’t any women “who had received enough paid-for education” to teach us. And NOW I’m finding, through your letter, that all of that money and education “has been wasted or wrongly applied.” (I assume because we’re coming up to war). Weren’t the unis supposed “to protect culture and intellectual liberty?” “We must assume that the money so spent was wasted.” So what makes you think that your society is going to be able to help? Shouldn’t you investigate why the “universities have failed?”

But, that’s your worry. How can we (daughters of educated men) help “you in protecting culture and intellectual liberty”? We have no education. We’re not “thought capable of teaching”. Talks about Whitaker. Ok, so even if we have no training, we have to think about what we can do “to protect culture and intellectual liberty.” First – what do those words mean? Eh, let’s not waste time and just agree that we know what they mean.

Turn to the daily paper. A “conference of head masters” decided that women “were not fit” to teach “boys over the age of fourteen”. If we tried to “reform the education of our brothers” there would be chaos. “We can only help you to defend culture and intellectual liberty by defending our own culture and our own intellectual liberty.”

We can suggest our ideas to the women’s societies we support. But for women, culture is still obtained “outside the sacred gates”. So, women have to read and write as a way of protecting their own culture and intellectual liberty. Literature has never been shut to women, partly because of “the extreme cheapness of its professional requirements.” But since it’s open, there’s no “honorary treasurer” asking for donations to whom we can dictate the terms of a donation. So how do we pressure readers and writers? There’s no “head of the profession”. We can’t bar women from libraries or deny them the use of metaphors. Any woman can write under a man’s name.

So “we have very little power over those who earn their livings by reading and writing, we must go to them humbly.” Ask them to “practise the profession of reading and writing in the interests of culture and intellectual liberty.”

Ok, so now we do need to clarify the terms a little more. If we consult male authors, “their definition would apply to paid-for culture.” For our purposes, culture will be “the disinterested pursuit of reading and writing the English language.” Intellectual liberty will be “the right to say or write what you think in your own words, and in your own way.” So our letter might say: ok ladies, this guy says war is coming, and we’re asking you “who earn your livings by reading and writing…” but wait. There are facts. Here’s Mrs. Oliphant’s autobiography. She wrote, earned a living, and “educated her children.” Read her books – did they lead you “to respect disinterested culture and intellectual liberty”? Or do you “deplore the fact” that she sold her work and “prostituted her culture” to “earn her living and educate her children”? We know that poverty sucks and that if you have kids you have to take care of them, so we “applaud her choice and… admire her courage.” She may be on our side personally, but she has to make a living; a brewer might not drink, but his signature on a temperance manifesto would be worthless b/c he’s “inducing his customers to drink more beer.” You don’t need an opinion, you need actual help. So they will have to “pledge themselves not to write anything that denies culture, or… infringes intellectual liberty.” So we can only appeal to women who have enough money to live on. “How many of them are there?” They might ask us to define terms; what is “’disinterested’ culture,” and how are we to protect those things in actuality? Compares to selling your body “without love,” instead of giving it to your husband; so it’s wrong “to sell your mind without love, but right to give it to the art which you love.” So don’t write what someone tells you to just because it pays. “Adultery of the brain.” Anticipated response: so I should turn down everyone who wants me to write/say something I don’t believe, even if they’ll pay? Yup. Also, you should call them out just like you would someone who tried to solicit you to protect yourself and others. But money’s not the only adulterer (using the other definition) – Advertisement and publicity also corrupt. So don’t “appear on public platforms… lecture… allow your… face to be published”. Don’t accept “medals, honours, degrees.” They may reply that these terms are too hard. “Loss of money… of fame… censure and ridicule.”

Ok, let’s go to the photographs. Can we make a “connection between them and prostituted culture” so that these photos represent it, and women would rather reject money and fame when they see what it causes? Let’s try.

Imagine a girl reading newspapers because she is “interested in politics, and wish[es] to know the facts.” Ok, so why more than one newspaper? Aren’t facts facts? Girl points out that papers are owned by people, so you have to read “at least three different versions of the same fact, and come… to your own conclusion.” She feels the same way about book reviews, theater reviews, etc. So there’s no “pure fact, or pure opinion, but adulterated fact and adulterated opinion”. So we have to “strip each statement” of its various motives – money, power, publicity, vanity, and more. And if someone with no such motives gave you his opinion, would you believe him (allowing for human error, of course)? Girl says yes. Now, if there was a group of people with no motive; couldn’t we know “the truth about war”? Wouldn’t that strip it of its glory? And the truth about art? Wouldn’t that make art “so desirable” that war would be “a tedious game”? If newspapers told only the truth, we would not believe in war, but in art.

Lady might reply to this argument; well, duh. But how does she do this stuff in practice? In the real world, not an ideal one? Well, there is a private printing press that’s not TOO expensive. Typewriters, duplicators. You can be free from the “pressure of… editors.” But how do we reach “the public”? Think that the public is made up of individuals.

You could even give honest reviews to the artists, in private, without affecting their sales. (she seems to be assuming that the woman’s opinion is worth this). If you’re more of a reader, don’t buy “papers that encourage intellectual slavery”. Once writers can write what they want, won’t they refuse anything else? Once readers have read something a writer enjoyed writing, wouldn’t they prefer it to something that was “written for money”?

Refers to paid writers as “slaves” (NOT COOL Woolf). Culture (personified) would become free and adventurous. Don’t just sign, lady; do something.

Whether rich ladies will listen, I cannot say. But this seems to be the way to go. Women are the ones who have to do it – “to protect culture and intellectual liberty” will result in “ridicule and chastity, loss of publicity and poverty.” But women are used to that. Since the high-level jobs aren’t open to us, we can be more disinterested. “We will sign [your manifesto] if we can keep these terms.”

Ok, you want money. So define your aims and means. To prevent war “by protecting the rights of the individual; by opposing dictatorship; by ensuring the democratic ideals of equal opportunity for all.” Ok. Here’s your guinea, “given freely.”

BUT… what does “free” actually mean? Because I can make a living, I can give you a guinea “without asking for anything in return.” That’s a BFD. Let’s celebrate. Let’s kill the word “feminist”. It no longer has a meaning because we can earn a living. Let’s write it and burn it. “the air is cleared.” Yay, “men and women [are] working together for the same cause”. Women in the 1800s were fighting the same cause you are. We’re all working for the same thing! Let’s kill more words, like Tyrant and Dictator! Oh. They’re not obsolete yet. We’re seeing it overseas. You’re feeling, as a Jew, what your mothers felt, as women. (Wow. That kind of statement would not fly today, although I guess this was before people really knew how bad the holocaust was). Yay, we’re all working together.

Ok, now you want me to be a member of your society. Sounds easy. BUT. We’ve determined that the sexes are different, and that difference is what lets us help, so if I join your society do I “lose that difference”? So, a society is a group “joined together for certain aims,” but you are an individual. We respect you (the individual) as in private individual men and women respect each other. But can we do so in public, in a “society relationship”? So far it’s been the “society relationship” that’s been keeping us down. She fears that societies can bring out (or impose on) the worst of men, while excluding women. “It seems… wrong… and impossible… to… join your society”.

“We believe that we can help you most effectively by refusing to join your society.” We’d rather work for the same aims from the outside.

Anticipated response: so you won’t join ours but you’ll start your own? What kind of society will you start that can work with ours but outside it? We wouldn’t have an office or need funds. “It could be called the Outsiders Society.” They would swear “not to fight with arms” (which is easy since women aren’t allowed). They wouldn’t work in factories to produce munitions, or tend to wounded soldiers. Wouldn’t encourage or dissuade brothers to fight; would remain indifferent. She can’t understand the desire to fight (just as he can’t understand maternal instinct) so she can’t judge it. When he says he’s “fighting to protect our country” she has to ask what “our country” means to her as an outsider. How much of England actually belongs to her? How much does the law protect her? What kind of physical protection does she have? If he’s protecting against foreigners, she has to think that “for her there are no ‘foreigners’, since… she becomes a foreigner if she marries” one. So she’ll decide that she doesn’t really have “much to thank England for.” History tells us Englishmen are superior to others; let’s check with French or German historians and see what they say. Intellectual superiority? Compare the music and literature of countries. “She will find that she has no good reason to ask her brother to fight on her behalf to protect ‘our’ country”. If she still has some drop of patriotism, let it be used to help bring peace to England.

So. She can’t participate “in patriotic demonstrations,” praise her country, avoid military displays. “For psychology would seem to show that it is far harder for human beings to take action when other people are indifferent and allow them complete freedom of action, than when their actions are made the centre of excited emotion.” It’s kind of like ignoring a child’s bad behavior instead of giving him attention, however negative.

You have to agree that men couldn’t use those methods.

Women need to earn their own livings – push for a living wage. “create new professions”. Wage for non-working women (instead of allowance). Push for wage to be paid “to the mothers of educated men.” Wage for the professions of “marriage and motherhood.” This would increase the birth rate “in the very class where births are desirable – the educated class.” (Wow.). Points out that since it’s unpaid it’s devalued. And because she made money too, you wouldn’t have to slave at your job and could enjoy life. BUT… since we’re spending 300,000,000 on weapons, guess we don’t have the money to do that.

We’d have to earn our livings in a way that if we stopped, it would affect others. Would have to commit “to reveal any instance of tyranny or abuse in their professions”. And they couldn’t work for money but for “love of the work itself” once they’d earned enough money to live on. Also couldn’t work in any profession that benefited war. Wouldn’t take honour from any society that restricted liberty. Would “investigate the claims” of societies that benefit from their taxes (church, schools) as carefully as they would any private society they choose to donate to. Criticize education and religion. Their “freedom from unreal loyalties” and outsider status would help them be able to do that.

We want “freedom, equality, peace” like you, but we’ll go about it in our own way. Not critical but creative. We will “dispense with pageantry” of gowns, medals, etc.

“Extinguish the coarse glare of advertisement and publicity” it acts as a headlight to rabbits (deer). Doesn’t this “limelight” paralyze “free action of the human faculties” and inhibit people’s ability “to change and create new wholes”?

Back to facts. How can we do this? Was this a waste of my time? But there is a model already. A female mayor recently said she wouldn’t even mend a sock to help a war. Sure, it was tactless. But brave, especially if other female mayors follow suit.

Second example from the newspaper: women’s teams don’t get medals or awards - people will play sports for the love of them, even if they don’t get awards. Article about girl’s soccer gaining popularity while men’s is losing it. Plus, women could get hurt.

See, it’s harder for men “to experiment freely in altering current values.”

“Experiment in passivity” – vicar talked about how the church was to “make civilization moral.” Needed everyone’s help, not just men. Historically, 3x more women had gone to church than men. But young women are moving away from the church. It’s an experiment you can do “with very little difficulty or danger”. We should keep an eye on this experiment and see if it has any effect. Well, the church is getting worried. Point out that women’s colleges don’t usually have a chaplain b/c women can’t afford to volunteer. One bishop warned that “men do not value ministrations which are gratuitous”. Women can make at most £150 as a deacon, but that’s not enough. So this experiment “is highly encouraging”. It shows “that to be passive is to be active.” “By making their absence felt their presence becomes desirable.” And there may be more experiments of this sort that haven’t been documented. But this movement has to fly under the radar. Jobs are short, and we can’t piss off the bosses. “those who are economically dependent have strong reasons for fear.” There are still subjects that men and women don’t talk about. (War?).

Let’s look at the Archbishop’s commission on women. The church ranks higher than other professions. In 1935 women wanted to join the church; priests looked at the New Testament, and found that Jesus (whose disciples were from the working class) said men and women are equals. There were female prophets. Women could preach. Then priests went to the Church, namely St. Paul, who saw women as forbidden from teaching in the Church or from holding any position where she’d have authority over a man. In the church men can be promoted but women can’t. Religion seemed to go from a voluntary, unpaid calling to a profession, and at that point women women were excluded.

“The Church… has to give spiritual and not merely historical reasons for its actions.” Has turned to psychology, and revealed “the origin of the fear” that’s keeping women from acting out freely against war. Psychology reveals that men are dominant but not superior, so there’s no precedent for barring them from Holy Orders (I think – the original phrasing is convoluted).

People are hostile about women joining the Church. Because of an “infantile fixation”. Blames the “general acceptance of male dominance, and… feminine inferiority” on it.

It’s a “non-rational sex-taboo.” A professor has found evidence of this. “There is no theoretical reason” why women shouldn’t be priests – just “emotional and practical” ones. “To pay women more would be to pay men less”. Implies that a married priest can do his job well because his wife takes care of the housework and family.

So if a woman brings up the topic of her admission to the Church or Stock Exchange in a private conversation with a man, she’ll feel his “strong emotion” from the subconscious. This raises her fear, and her instincts to change the subject or to shut up.

“What possible satisfaction can dominance give to the dominator?”

We have to analyze “our fear and your anger.” They prevent freedom in the public and private worlds. They may even cause war. Let’s look at this “infantile fixation” through biographies and newspapers!

Mr. Barrett. Wouldn’t let his kids marry. Daughter Elizabeth eloped, dad never forgave her. His emotions were extreme and obviously subconscious. Charlotte Bronte’s love was too scared to ask her dad for her hand in marriage. Rev. Bronte disapproved of marriages, and couldn’t stand Mr. Nicholls. She turned him down and stayed in Haworth with dad. Jex-Blake. Sophia’s wish to earn a living tutoring aroused a strong, subconscious emotion in dad. She wanted the money and the pride of earning.

Finally we can figure out that he didn’t like her to take money from or be dependent on anyone but him. Also, it gives him right to approve who she marries. In his argument, Mr. Jex-Blake appealed to her emotions, to her womanhood, not to her reason. Sophia replied by mentioning other “ladies” who earned money. Sophia had to “kill the lady; but when the lady was killed the woman still remained.” Bronte and Barrett had to kill the woman. (I get that this is theoretical but I’m having a hard time understanding it).

SO, this infantile fixation could stand against human love. Could make people “quail before it; to cheat the father, to deceive the father, and then to fly from the father.”

“Nature, law, and property were all ready to excuse and conceal [infantile fixation]”. If the dads wanted to keep their daughters at home, “society agreed that they were right.” If she fought, “nature came to their help”. If she left, law made sure she “had no means of supporting herself.” We see this story time and time again. Mr. Smith loved his children, “objected to schools,” kept them home. He brought in teachers, took them on field trips. Educated his sons and daughters the same. Gave daughter an allowance of £300 a year. She founded a school for all sexes, classes, religions. Started an art class (drawing nudes). She worked on laws, and married women were allowed to own their own property. All that because one father “was immune from infantile fixation.” (She uses the language of disease). So we see why most dads wouldn’t.

Infantile fixation was a strong, concealed force. But they were met with a force – called feminism or emancipation of women. We don’t like those names though. None of the names accurately convey the emotions, the bitter tears. Girls wanted to learn, to love, to travel, to play music, to paint naked bodies. We are “suspicious of labels; they kill and constrict”. Not “freedom” – we don’t want to break laws.

So, whatever, no word for it, but it fought fathers with “tremendous power”. Women got out of the house, onto the sports field, into jobs and more comfortable clothing.

But that’s not the end of the story. It’s the beginning. In private, dads may have yielded, but in public, they became even more susceptible to this disease. Desire to support a family is connected to manhood. If you can’t support your family, you’re a failure as a man. If a scholar protests the admission of women to his school by refusing to go, or a hospital declines an endowment made by women for women, aren’t these actions “inspired by that sense of shame” of the “non-rational sex taboo?” Nature made women’s brains too small! But finally we passed exams. Ok, but our brains aren’t creative enough to earn higher salaries! All we can do professionally is write.

Also, our bodies. Men enjoy, we endure. Until recently, medical literature on childbirth was sadistic. Finally girls stepped in, saying “wouldn’t some training help develop our minds and bodies?” Reply: no because childbirth. Rebuttal: dude that’s like a fraction of our time. Didn’t we work during the war? Dudes: war is over.

The radio is talking about the home being women’s place. Give jobs to men. Two worlds. Women have failed. Let’s go back to Creon and Antigone.

Creon: “you have to obey the law. Disobedience is evil. Women go home”. Antigone: the gods haven’t set these laws, men have”. Creon: “let’s bury her alive.” Then he “brought ruin on his house” and caused lots of deaths. Let’s look at the pictures of Spanish children. Things are the same today.

As we’ve thought about this, another figure as appeared in the picture; Man. Virile. In uniform. Medals. He is a dictator. We want to suggest a connection between the public and private worlds. “the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other.” We have to fight to change that figure. And we have to see that the ruined houses could be ours if the “public abstractions” and “private emotions” forget each other.

But you, sir, recognize the connection between the public and private. We can’t just dream of peace and freedom; we hear the guns. We’ll leave dreams to the poets and focus on the facts: the photograph. The picture is of evil. We have to work to destroy it, “you by your methods, we by ours.” We have to create new words and new methods. We have to remain “outside your society but in cooperation with its aim.” We won’t join yours. But here is your guinea: the third of three given to different societies but the same cause.

Sorry for how long the letter was, how small the contribution, and for writing at all. But you asked for it.

Day Thirty-Four in Oxford

Oxford picture of the day:

I was sitting here thinking "you know what I don't post enough pictures of? Sunsets."

So there you go.

"Three Guineas" - Part Two

Here are my notes on Part Two of "Three Guineas".

Ok – so what else can we do to help prevent war? “We must turn to the professions”. It will be more effective to convince them than to convince teachers or to hang out in universities.

At first she says that simply showing these professional men his letter will convince them, but then she says that while they will agree that war is horrible, there will be hesitations. So she will put another letter next to it. It also asks for money – this time, to support an organization that helps “daughters of educated men” get jobs in the professions. Woolf says we can’t send her money “until we have considered the questions which [her letter] raises.”

“Why is she asking for money?” “Why is she so poor… that she must beg for cast-off clothing for a bazaar?” If she really is that poor, we can negotiate terms by which we will donate. Here’s the letter Woolf will write:

You’re asking for rent money, but how are you so poor? Women have been able to work for almost 20 years now. So how are you pleading for money? Either something is really wrong, or you’re lying about how poor you are. You’re opening yourself to criticisms “from educated men”. These men deny that you’re poor, and “accuse you of apathy and indifference”. A “Mr. Joad” says young women are “politically apathetic” and “socially indifferent”. He thinks that women in England, like women in America, should start an anti-war society. He says that women must have the money to start this society, since so much money was donated to help women win the vote. He says that women today should be prepared to sacrifice as much today for peace as their foremothers did for the vote. (Woolf points out that the criticism and insults that Joad asks women to weather are the same as the criticism and insults they already suffer “from their brothers and then for their brothers”). He says that if women can’t effectively work to stop war, they should go back into the home. Woolf points out that Joad himself said that war was “incurable,” so how are women, “even with a vote,” supposed to cure it? She then ironically says that according to Joad, women are rich and idle, so how are they asking for money?

They’re so lethargic they won’t even fight to protect the vote, according to HG Wells, who criticizes women for not resisting “the practical obliteration of their freedom by Fascists or Nazis.”

(So it seems that men of the time placed a lot of responsibility for peace on women’s shoulders?)

So (Woolf continues), how can you ask for money in the face of those failures?

She comes back to the present, addressing the gentleman once again. She lists two facts; the W.S.P.U. had £42,000 and that “to earn £250 a year is quite an achievement even for a highly qualified woman with years of experience.” Wow - £42,000 is a lot less than any of the mainstream political parties, so it’s awesome that “one of the greatest political changes of our times” had such a small budget. Ok, so the lady’s telling the truth that she’s poor. “How much peace will £42,000 a year buy at the present moment when we are spending £300,000,000 annually upon arms?”

The second fact is even more depressing. Let’s look at Whitaker’s almanac, where he’s published the salaries of government workers. Woolf lists some professions that women can now work in, and points out that public money that provides the salaries is provided by men and women, and that income tax is 5 shillings a pound. She lists employees under Education and their salaries, most at 4 figures. So she determines that the statement about £250 being an achievement must be a lie.

Wait – all of those high-earning people were men. Three reasons: 1. The entrance exam for the higher positions is geared towards Oxbridge graduates. 2. Many more daughters stay home to take care of elderly parents than do sons. 3. Since women have less of a history taking exams, they probably aren’t as good at it yet.

Ok, fine, but why aren’t there any women making four figures? Well, maybe all of the women are deficient, untrustworthy, lacking in ability. Maybe it’s better to keep them in the lower positions so they can’t get in the way. Well, the Prime Minister says that no secret government info has ever been leaked by a woman (even though it has been by a man). Oh. So they aren’t “loose-lipped and fond of gossip”? He also said that the women working in Civil Service had been completely satisfactory to anyone who worked with them. Pays tribute to “the industry, capacity, ability and loyalty” of women. So it’s the word of the prime minister (Baldwin) against Whitaker. Let’s put them on trial. You, gentleman, are a lawyer. I have seen that world, though not experienced it. Let’s pool our knowledge and try their case.

In the professions, smart men don’t necessarily get to the top, and stupid men don’t always stay at the bottom. The process is not rational. Hints at nepotism. You can’t predict success by one’s abilities. This process “queers” the professions. Ok, fine. Maybe women are a distraction in the workplace. She was not educated at Oxford, and “is not a son or nephew.” Ok, let’s look at newspapers for more information.

1. Woman has too much liberty, which probably came with the war. They did a good job but “were praised and petted out of all proportion”.

2. There are too many women doing work that men could do, and too many men unemployed. “There is a large demand for woman labour in the domestic arts.”

3. If women gave jobs back to men, the men could buy nice houses for the women. The government has to give jobs back to men, “thus enabling them to marry the women they cannot now approach.”

So women are great in the home but not in Whitehall. Because of this, she’s stuck in “the lower spheres where the salaries are small.” And let’s not even talk about married women in the workplace. Implies that there aren’t any.

Ok, so both were telling the truth; women deserve to be paid as much as men, but are not.

Blames “atmosphere”. It’s a powerful and impalpable enemy of women. She compares one of the above quotes to something by Hitler, then expands this comparison to imply that England is moving in a fascist direction. So shouldn’t we help women fight this at home before we try to fight it abroad? How can we “trumpet our ideals of freedom and justice to other countries when we can shake out from our most respectable newspapers any day of the week eggs like these?”

She anticipates that the gentleman will say we need to understand those opinions before we can condemn them. These men want to be husbands and fathers and support their families. So the world is divided into the public and the private. In the public, the “sons of educated men” have jobs and are paid. In the private, women have jobs but are not paid. Is her work worthless? Without it, the State would collapse, but she is not paid.

She anticipates that a wife’s income is half her husband’s salary. That’s why men are paid more – because they support their wives. So… a bachelor is paid the same as a single woman? Hm, no. And there’s no law saying a man must split his salary with his wife. So this £250 is totally out of the question since a woman has a “spiritual right, to half her husband’s salary.” Wait, then how did the W.S.P.U only have £42,000? Why does the women’s college have to ask for money? The association for rent money or things to sell at a bazaar? Don’t women “have as much money to spend upon such causes” as men do? If this is true, we have to assume that women don’t care about education and voting. That’s a horrible charge to bring against women.

Let’s pause before we charge her. What does she spend her money on? Hm… it looks like she spends it on hunting, cricket, football, clubs. But she doesn’t share in these. “wine which she does not drink … cigars which she does not smoke”. Wow, she is really altruistic. Or… she just gets pocket money.

So we see that men make tons of donations, but women’s institutions or poor. There must be something that “deflects the wife’s spiritual share of the common income… towards those causes which her husband approves”.

So: 1. Women are paid little “from the public funds for their public services.”

2. “They are paid nothing at all from the public funds for their private services.”

3. Their share of their husband’s salary is nominal, not actual.

“It seems that the person to whom the salary is actually paid is the person who has the actual right to decide how that salary shall be spent.”

Hm. We had decided to appeal to women who earned their living to help prevent the war, but this doesn’t look good. If marriage is their profession they don’t get paid. The £250 thing is sadly probably true. So “daughters of educated men” don’t really have much influence “from their money-earning power.” But they alone can help us so we have to appeal to them.

Ok, so we have a motivation to help the organization that helps women find jobs, because that will help them get the “weapon of independent opinion.” But we still want to lay down terms under which we will donate.

So are we “wise to encourage people to enter the professions if we wish to prevent war”? If we encourage women to work, aren’t we encouraging the war-mongering qualities? Won’t it just perpetuate this war thing? So we have to make this woman promise that the professions will only be practiced in a way that they will prevent war. So here’s another letter to her:

Ok. You’re telling the truth. We will only send you money if you “can assure us that [women] will practice those professions in such a way as to prevent war.” I know that’s vague; let me clarify.

Let’s look at the men. A solemn procession. Bishop, judge, admiral, doctor. But now women are part of the procession (at the end of it). It makes a difference that we’re now part of it, and one day maybe we’ll have the authority of judges and generals. So do we want to join this procession or not. If so, under what terms? And “where is it leading us”? These are important questions that must be answered. I know we’re all busy, but we HAVE to think about it; when we’re stirring the pot, on a bus, at a funeral. Let’s look to books for answers. Biographies. But most of the recent biographies are about war.

This battle where youth has to “spend its strength… soliciting favours… inflicts wounds upon the human spirit”. The combatants are men vs. their sisters and daughters.

Sophia Jex-Blake. Her dad was a doctor. They were wealthy. She got £40 a year allowance. She decided to earn money and got a tutoring job. He says it’s beneath her. She said, you work, why shouldn’t I? My brother works. He said, but your brother has to support his family, and he has a high position “which can only be filled by a first-class man of character”. You have everything you need. She wrote in her diary that she gave up.

Next. Women applied to the Royal College of Surgeons. “Gate was closed in their… faces”. The authorities invoked God, Nature, Law, Property to deny women access. “waste of strength… temper… time, and… money”. Same daughters ask for the same privileges, are met with the same refusals.

Concludes that “the professions have a certain undeniable effect upon the professors.” People become possessive, combative, and jealous. If we enter the professions won’t we end up the same way? And aren’t those the qualities that lead to war? So if you want this guinea, you have to promise that any woman who enters a profession “shall in no way hinder any other human being, whether man or woman, white or black, provided that he or she is qualified to enter that profession, from entering it; but shall do all in her power to help them.”

More conditions. Once we’re part of this procession, we’ll have the potential to earn as much as the clergy. Suppose there were as many rich women now as there are rich men. There could be a women’s political party, daily newspaper, “pensions for spinsters,” equal pay, painkillers for childbirth, “bring down the maternal death-rate”.

But how desirable is money? Rich man, kingdom of heaven. But it’s a different world and you’d rather be rich than poor in England today. The poor don’t contribute to the country’s intellectual or spiritual wealth. But extreme wealth is also undesirable.

So where’s the happy medium. I’m asking you, madam, to consider these things.

Ok, so if you want to get these jobs, you’re going to have to “accept the same conditions that [men] accept.” 40-hour work week so you won’t know your kids. “little time for friendship, travel or art.”. Your duties might be arduous. “you will have to… profess the same loyalties that professional men” do.

Ok, fine. Why wouldn’t we?

Let’s go back to the books. Lawyers take work home with them. Politicians don’t get to enjoy nature. Clergy have crushing work. Implies that these jobs have crushed their souls. Doctor is away from his family on Sundays and Christmas. Professional writer. Another politician.

So what does this prove? Well, nothing. They’re all opinions that let us “question the value of professional life”. People who have successful jobs lose an interest in art, music, conversation, humanity.

Quotes:

We’ve made scientific discoveries but not enjoyed the fruits of them.

“Men are gathering knowledge and power” but not increasing in virtue or wisdom. The nature of man is the same as it was thousands of years ago. Under horrible stress he will do terrible things.

Quotes:

Men and women’s values are different. By imitating men, women are wasting their “opportunity to build a new and better world.”

So, men have not really improved the world; the call upon women to build a new one shows that even men are dissatisfied with the way things are. It also “imposes a great responsibility and implies a great compliment”. They must think her divine. Goethe: talks about symbols and women fulfilling things.

So we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. “Behind us lies the patriarchal system; the private house, with its nullity, its immorality, its hypocrisy, its servility. Before us lies the public world, the professional system, with its possessiveness, its jealousy, its pugnacity, its greed.” Shouldn’t we give up and kill ourselves?

Annnnnd BACK to the biographies!

Ok. We have to earn money. But the professions are undesirable. “How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings” who want to prevent war?

Let’s look at the lives of professional women in the 1800s. But there are none. The only way a single girl could work was as a governess, but “she was often unfit by nature and education.”

So there are no biographies as such. But there are some journals. One governess wants to learn Latin, physics, astronomy, botany, math, etc. but is stuck in her world. Anne Clough – principal of a college. She trained by doing housework to pay debts, reading loaned books, and declaring that if she were a man, she “would work for my country.”

So women in the 1800s did have ambition. Josephine Butler, let campaign against Contagious Diseases Act, child trafficking. Refused to be biographied; “purity of motives.” Gertrude Bell. Had a position in the East that was almost a diplomat. Chaste of body and mind.

Mary Kingsley’s statement about her “paid-for education” implies that there was an “unpaid-for education”. So what is the nature of this “unpaid-for education”? Their teachers “were poverty, chastity, derision… freedom from unreal loyalties”.

So, this education prepared them “for the unpaid-for professions”. But this education must have had some virtues, because there were many civilized, if uneducated, women.

We can’t judge education just by its ability to get us jobs, honor, or money. It would be silly to throw away unpaid-for education or the knowledge we got from it.

If you combine “poverty, chastity, derision and freedom from unreal loyalties… with some wealth, some knowledge, and some service to real loyalties… you can enter the professions” without becoming a war-monger.

So those are the conditions. You have to “help all properly qualified people, of whatever sex, class or colour, to enter your profession” and stick with those four teachers. Define the terms? Ok, poverty = enough to live on and be independent and healthy, but no more. Chastity = “refuse to sell your brain for the sake of money.” Derision = don’t advertise your merits; you’d rather ridicule than fame. Freedom from unreal loyalties = get rid of pride of religion, nationality, college, school, family, sex, etc.

Use your gut to figure out how much money or knowledge is enough. If you don’t trust it – it’s “too personal and fallible” – go to public galleries and libraries, turn on the radio and listen to music.

Look at the character of Creon in Antigone to see “the effect of power and wealth upon the soul”. He shows tyranny. To tell the difference between real and unreal loyalties, look at Antigone.

She points out that society as it is will pretty much guarantee women poverty, chastity and derision – also, since the Church and colleges restrict us, freedom from unreal loyalties as well.

Anyway, we’re used to working with little or no pay and for little or no honor.

So, these conditions will be easy to fulfil. So here is your guinea. In the future, daughters in poor houses will be happy in peace, and their mothers in their graves will be happy.

So, gentleman, that was the letter. Those are the conditions. I had to answer her letter and the letter from the women’s college and send them money before I could answer your letter, “because unless they are helped… those daughters cannot possess an independent and disinterested influence with which to help you to prevent war.”

Dorm Decor: the basics

So, at 31, it’s a little unsettling to have to move back into a dorm room. I thought I was done with cinder block walls, loud suite mates, and shower flip flops. I was wrong.

Obviously, my dorm-decorating strategy now is a little different from what it was at 18, when I went with collages of photos of my friends from home, posters of rock stars, and Yaffa blocks.

However, I am still on a budget (even more so this time - last time I moved into a dorm, mom bought my linens, towels, and other essentials!) and suffering from a weak dollar as compared to the pound.

So, the goal: make my room comfortable, homey, and personal without breaking the bank.

Let’s take a look at what I was working with. Pretty standard dorm fare;

puke-colored carpeting, regulation cinder-block walls,

bare bulb…

and the Ugliest Curtains in the Universe ™.

Clearly, something had to be done.

I began my search with the essentials: sheets. While I could technically survive with the UCITU™ for a while, I obviously couldn't sleep on the bare mattress.

I purchased my purple sheets and purple patterned duvet cover from Boswell's;

the duvet cover was 14.00 and the sheets were 12.00. After the 10% discount that Boswell's was offering for students, I was feeling pretty good about myself and my savvy purchasing... until I saw the same duvet cover at Linens Direct in the Westgate Shopping Plaza for 9.99 *sad trombone*.

Oh well. We can't ALWAYS get the best price.

Next time: Dorm Decor, sink and coffee edition.