10.31.08
Eukleria
(The Right Choice)
It would not be very wise to deny that men rule and lead the literary world, and that a number of these men lived heroic, godly, sagacious lives. Despite appreciating women’s writing abilities (George Eliot’s, De Beauvoir’s, Sido’s), I find it a sad truth that one rarely finds good role models in dynamic women writers.
On another earmark, even though one may insist that words have no gender, there is still a subtle and almost unnoticeable stiffness in men’s writing no matter how romantic or passionate their words percolate. Even Anaïs Nin experimented with her need to write erotica seeing that “…the mysteries of woman’s sensuality, so different from man’s and for which man’s language was inadequate.” (from the preface of Delta of Venus. Do not be so surprised that I own a copy. Franz gave it to me – to “educate” me, perhaps. The book remains unfinished… and I remain… “uneducated”? =P)
Each time I come across an impressive literary work and utter with amazement, “A man can write like this?” further research divulges that the author of the particular work was homosexual. Therefore, I realized that even in literature, there is a feminine touch that is by no means inferior, but recognizable… and so I kept on asking, “have we [women], no one of our same gender who is heroic, godly, sagacious, or past the confines of “kilig” romantic stories, to wonder at in the literary world?” Men have the likes of Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis, and etcetera, to exalt and look up to. On the other hand, I still jokingly dub Jane Austen “the original superior chick-lit author” no matter how I love her novels most ardently. Ask a male bookworm and he will name several male authors he would wish to coincide with or take after, while there are many female authors worthy of acclaim yet there was not one I could really look up to completely, or in contemporary lingo, affirm that “I so wanna be like her…”
Well, not until the discovery of Anna Maria van Schurman (1607-1678). Another Novemberian – another autumnal soul I feel I could very much learn from… and admire to the point of hoping to be like her. She is the epitome and hero of women’s plenary education. She was a musician, a writer, a painter, and a linguist among other things, but foremostly, an earnest follower of God.
Since I have only passages from her works, any of her rare literary opuses are welcome on the 16th of November. *winks* haha
If that’s too much to ask, as it is the nature of most items in a wishlist, links to free e-files of the following will be equally embraced:
Eukleria
Opuscula
Dissertatio
Whether the Study of Letters Is Fitting for a Christian Woman
¤
¤
¤
I am thrilled about posting these passages by van Schurman on my Multiply calendar soon!
¤ If we were at some time permitted by the grace of God to enjoy one and the same companionship, I do not doubt that in such a union of minds and studies we could better encourage one another to virtue….
¤ The goal of studies is presumed not to be vainglory and show or idle curiosity but rather the general goal of the glory of God and the salvation of one’s soul.
¤ Let us define the phrase “fitting or expedient” not as whether the study of letters is… precisely necessary to eternal salvation, nor indeed as a good that makes for the essence itself of happiness in this life, but as an occupation or means that can contribute to our integrity in this same life and, to a degree, through the contemplation of very beautiful things, move us that much more easily to love of God and to eternal salvation.
¤ For since wisdom is so much an ornament of the human races that it ought by right to be extended to one and all, I do not see why the most beautiful adornment of all by far is not fitting for a maiden, in whom we allow diligence in tending and adorning herself.
The whole circle of liberal arts… is entirely fitting to a Christian woman (just as it is a proper and universal good or adornment of humanity).
¤
¤
¤
Return to Home Page
Karlo said,
November 1, 2008 at 8:04 am
Kierkegaard had a rather disdainful view of women. In The Seducer’s Diary he writes that “the woman is the weaker sex” and implies the same in other passages. And his first published essay, ironically titled “Another Defense of Woman’s Great Abilities,” was an attack on the women’s suffrage movement. De Beauvoir criticized Kierkegaard’s misoginy in the feminist classic The Second Sex.
Miracle ♪♫ said,
November 1, 2008 at 8:26 am
…but are we not truly the weaker sex, Karlo?
(Agh! I can’t believe I’m saying this in public! hehehe =P) Seriously, I laud the feminists’ view that women be allowed rights to certain things especially education… but there is something terribly wrong when women wish to have dominion over men. Every woman should know that while we may be made equal in some attributes (e.g. intellect), the man still has authority on the grander scheme of things.
This might also be of interest: http://jeremiah.tabulas.com/journal/?offset=58
mika said,
November 1, 2008 at 11:35 am
interesting… even in the music world, male composers and musicians are dominant. perhaps this is mostly because of society’s constraints on women. but i remember hearing this saying, i don’t know where i heard it though: men write the music, women inspire the men to write the music. :P
Miracle ♪♫ said,
November 1, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I cannot disagree, Mika. I cannot disagree. haha ;-)
otep said,
November 1, 2008 at 1:38 pm
mir ull make a really good publicist heeh very nice entry. i recommended ur blog to a friend and she was so impressed she said you can write like a “womanbeing” now how do u like that? hehe and oh . . i enjoyed Anais Nin hehe (winks) came in line with FERMATA hehe
otep said,
November 1, 2008 at 1:45 pm
and oh welcome November :-)
sopraninigabi said,
November 1, 2008 at 3:04 pm
*looks around dumbly*
Why? What’s so important on the 16th of November?
Hahahaha just kidding Meewa. Thanks for the post! I would never have heard of van Schurman if you hadn’t written about her.
Hmmm… speaking for myself, I’ve always looked up to Louisa May Alcott. :)
sopraninigabi said,
November 1, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Haha… in fairness to Jane Austen, it would take considerably more brains to appreciate her works than, say, Sophie Kinsella.
Have you heard of Julia Quinn? They say she is the contemporary Jane Austen. I must confess, I read her romances (and those of Judith McNaught) and practically nothing else as a teenager.
Karlo said,
November 1, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I admit that I find the question you posed difficult because I’m not in the first place a woman. In de Beauvoir’s introduction to The Second Sex, she quotes a little known feminist from the seventeenth century named Pulain de la Barre: “All that has ben written about women by men should be suspect, for the men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit.” When you read what follows here, always keep de la Barre’s words in mind, hehehe. :P
But let us situate the question in the context of my comment about Kierkegaard, particularly about his writings on the weakness of women.
During Kierkegaard’s lifetime (and even today in several places in the World), women were treated as a second class in general. Women lived under circumstances that, Miriam Schneir explains, “tolerated a high degree of sexual freedom for males but none for males. Married women were obliged to obey husbands, who had almost unlimited control over their wives’ activities and finances.” Women did not have the civil, legal, and political rights afforded to men and were moreover excluded from employment and education.
Obviously, women shackled under such circumstances are weak. But the dependence on men did not happen because women are born so. Rather, as Friedrich Engels explained in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, ownership of property created the first significant division between men and women in which the woman was inferior.
Social relations of power and control over material resources determined such weakness. The socio-economic system determined the subordination of women. The slave and feudal societies were largely patriarchal and the whole gamut of cultural agencies, including literature, philosophy, and theology were used to legitimise this subordinaion.
For instance, de Beauvoir cites how Roman law limited the rights of women on account of their “imbecility, the instability of the sex.” Now how do we find that? I say a lot more males in history have acted with more imbecility and instability than men did. Nero for one would be a good example.
De Beauvoir offers more examples but I might as well copy her entire oeuvre here. So moving on, the subordinate position of women began to change during the advent of capitalism and the industrial revolution. While the new ruling classes - the bourgeois - still clung to a dated view of women in their defense of the sanctity of private property (and the right of men to lord over women), the participation of women in productive labor gave an economic basis to the struggle for the emancipation of women.
Kierkegaard opposed this movement for women’s liberation.
In his essay “Another Defense of Woman’s Great Abilities,” Kierkegaard, Dera Sipe quotes in an essay on Kierkegaard and Feminism, “paints exaggerated pictures of transformations that, in his opinion, are likely to occur in the wake of female liberation. He resorts to ridicule […] and pokes fun at the woman presumptuous enough to cross the boundaries naturally allotted to her sex” (Léon 1997, 118-119).
Sipe further cites:
Meanwhile, in response to the 1848 street demonstrations in Copenhagen that demanded the abolition of the repressive monarchy, the promulgation of a constitution, and the institution of labor reforms and equal rights for women, Kierkegaard arrogantly writes:
eo ipso untruth, a fake, a retrogression. For God is present here only in a very confused fashion or perhaps not at all, perhaps it is rather the Devil…. A mediocre ruler is a much better constitution than this abstraction, 100,000 rumbling nonhumans.
This is what I meant when I wrote that Kierkegaard had a hateful view of women.
Female domination I believe is the other kind of the same coin. It is simply male domination inversed. :)
Karlo said,
November 1, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The other side of the same coin, I meant… :)
Miracle ♪♫ said,
November 1, 2008 at 5:07 pm
¤ To Franz:
Haha…trust me, your name will constantly pop up in my blog. “WomanBeing”?
Hmmm… I’m not sure how to react.hihi But do thank your friend for visiting. Look who’s the publicist now? haha Thanks for being my fellow leaf still green in November. ;-)
¤¤¤
¤ To Gabi:
How could a little woman forget Louisa May Alcott!? and to think she’s also a Novemberian. hehe Thanks for the reminder. Sige, Gabi. Let’s make a list for our future daughters. =D
Laura Ingalls should be in it, too! I’m thinking of Heloise in addition, but I’m still weighing things over with her. haha =)
Hmmm… 16th? It’s nothing. It’s the day after Misha’s birthday. hihi ;-)
Ohhh… I’ve read one novel by Judith McNaught because another friend tried to “educate” me as well. haha It was my first literary “sex scene”! O_O Regarding Sophie Kinsella and Julia Quinn… I have yet to Google them. hehe =)
As for van Schurman, she is certainly a woman to look up to, Gabi. =)
¤¤¤
¤ To Karlo:
Thank you for elucidating your views in detail, Karlo. It’s too bad that I don’t know enough Kierkegaard to counterbalance these opinions, but I do comprehend your point.
You are also right in saying that female domination is male domination inversed. But history proves that female domination is where disorder comes in because it is not the supposed nature of things. As long as man exercises his authority JUSTLY, I can’t imagine sensible women having anything to protest about on that matter.
Karlo said,
November 1, 2008 at 7:20 pm
You are welcome. Sorry for the clerical errors though. [Like in the sixth paragraph - that's supposed to say: "a lot more males in history have acted with more imbecility and instability than women did." In the original comment, I forget the "w" and "o" in the second to the last word in the said sentence.] :)
Miracle ♪♫ said,
November 1, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Don’t you worry, Karlo. There are times when I can’t avoid typos either. You were still clearly understood. =) Your thoughts are always welcome here.
P.S. This book could possibly be be an engaging read:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v014/14.3battersby.html
Books Within Books « (Mis)readings said,
November 4, 2008 at 6:30 am
[...] should have read more Kierkegaard earlier. Then again, a misogynist, elitist, misanthropic, and cynical philosopher should be the last thing I should read these [...]
strangefits said,
November 21, 2008 at 11:38 am
but i so wanna be like you, mir. hehe =)
Miracle ♪♫ said,
November 21, 2008 at 11:52 am
Be careful what you wish for… it just might come true…
and you’ll regret it. hehehe =P
Karl said,
January 5, 2009 at 3:02 pm
By the way, just to clarify. I’m not advocating the non-reading of Kierkegaard’s books. Most people of his time held rather unsavory views of women. As that saying goes, “The traditions of the dead generations weigh like a nightmare upon the living.” Kierkegaard’s works deserve a wide public.