Before I start discussing the content of this article by Margaret Fuller, I would like to mention the structure. This article was fairly short compared to the other articles we have read but I personally found it difficult to get through. I don't think it was because of the topic, although it has been talked about many times before. I noticed that there were some really long sentences thrown into the article and that was slightly obnoxious.
Before Margaret Fuller's piece started, there was a little note from Paige Towers. She said that the piece was not well appreciated at the time, but was acknowledged for challenging the social norms. This isn't unlike many forward-thinkers in history, so I am not surprised. I'm sure it is better appreciated nowadays.
At one point, Fuller said, "All men are privately influenced by women," and I believe this is one of the main reasons why we have finally reached that near-equal phase in history. This influence, from mothers, sisters, or friends, has ultimately made men realize how important women are. There are obviously men and women for a reason, not just men on this planet. Women aren't just for procreating. As the article stated, no human being can live without expansion. If one does, they would either have to get expansion in one way or perish. That may sound dramatic, but it is not far from the truth.
I found it interesting how Margaret mentioned that different occupations of a man could influence his thoughts on letting women become equal. For example, an artist or poet would think of women nobly while a legislator for expediency wouldn't give a woman a chance. Jobs are a huge part of anybody's life, there is no way it couldn't influence one's decision; sometimes the influence is good, others it is not.
Fuller said she would like to accomplish "ravishing harmony" when women become equal to men. I personally don't believe that we have quite reached that state of harmony. Unfortunately, there are still many things that make women unequal, like echoes from the past. Just like all inequalities that are said to be no more, there is still a shadow of the terrible things that have happened in our history.
Many sane people would like to see that harmony. I'm just guessing that harmony isn't a very natural thing for us humans, because there are some people out there who think women aren't as good as men, or who think women are better than men. No matter what, people are not going to be able to agree -- at least not in the near future.
At the end, Fuller mentions some stuff about souls. She says that if one person, no matter the gender or the race, has a soul, then they are the only one who is accountable for themselves. No man or woman can own another human being because that is unfair to the soul.
Hi Juliet! I completely know what you mean when you said that you found this essay difficult to read. Fuller's writing was definitely hard to understand; personally, I think this is because this essay was written in the 1800s. Her essay was far ahead of the times, she mentioned things about equality that people of her time didn't even want to address. I agree that "harmony" among humans has not been reached yet, but I do believe that it can happen at some point in time. There will always be differences in humans, and living in harmony is just being able to accept these differences.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about harmony not being a "natural thing for us humans," Juliet. It is in our nature to challenge one another and to be competitive. These traits, I believe, will never be diminished, but possibly one day they will be controlled. When this occurs and we recognize the importance of our differences we will be able to live in harmony and flourish.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that you hit right on when you said harmony is not a, "natural thing for us humans. However, I have to say that we will most likely not see the complete harmony and many even then will not believe that is has not been met. You have to take into account that all humans are different and have different views and there will always be a few who simply will not go along with the majority. Overall though, well done.
ReplyDeleteHi Juliet,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how you mentioned that Fuller was arguing that the private influence of men on women would help advance women’s rights and help achieve equality. It seemed to me like she was presenting the “private influence” argument as one men might have made to justify why women didn’t have voting rights. She later counters this argument by saying that men had about as much regard for women as they did for slaves, in that their intelligence and full “personhood” were not recognized. Because of this, she says, men could not be relied on to accurately defend the rights of women in the halls of legislature and elsewhere. If the “private influence” argument had any merit, wouldn’t equality have been achieved hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago?