Woolf proposes to show how uneven the playing field was for women at her time in literature (amongst other fields). I do not believe that Woolf is necessarily advocating for some sort of separate education for women—rather I believe that Woolf recognizes that women have been downplayed in literary terms for so long, that the few women that make it tend to, somehow, assimilate to the mainstream male-oriented literary culture and are not represented in full, free terms. Women writers who write as they wish, experiment, think independently, etc., were perhaps shunned by the literary gate-keepers and so the successful women writers had to sort of conform. Her need for “money and a room of her own” to write successful fiction is not to be taken too literary. It’s meant to show the vast different and uneven playing grounds that men and women face entering the literary market. Goes in line with the saying I once heard, “Women have to work twice as hard to be thought of half as good.” So the women need to be isolated from this oppressive phallocentric society that only supports men—and attempts to condition women to similar thinking—they need to isolate themselves from that, get some money for food, etc., and begin to be free enough to think for herself.
I.e., men stop hating…give the women an equal opportunity, or give ‘em a room by themselves, with some financial support.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yes, I agree that Woolf is using the room and money concept as a metaphor for a larger, female-positive society, but I also think she DOES mean it literally. I know you didn't discount the idea completely, but I wonder to what extent you DON'T take it literally. The final line of your post says that women should get an equal opportunity OR a room and money. What do you mean? Can't a woman's own room and money be PART of her equal opportunity? You are not saying that women should only have a room to themselves if they cannot get "equal opportunity" in any other way (re: as a last resort), are you? I don't think so, but I wanted to clear up the confusion that I got from reading your post. Anyway, good thoughts; I was just a little confused.
In the real world, the distinction remains quite clear-cut(black and white, day and night): there is what we grant people,(a) that which is on the books and is legal(i.e. a state-given education, free of charge), and there is what is the real situation, (b) that which is much more depressed and starkly real, more so than what we intended (i.e. the inner-city schools, where ideally the best one can get out of the education, is the ability to get out).
The room and money of Woolfe, is not the quality education. I would contend that it is barely the bread and butter to which she sits down at her table. Her references to the bare necessity, or sheer need of those things makes the distinction that they are not going to truly be the true solution, but a partial de facto remedy.
I like both the blog and the response, FYI.
In response to Mister Rogers, I think I mean it as largely symbolic, but also slightly literal. Such that, the room and money being used as a tool to show the disparity between men and women, yes, but also the room by herself to allow her to think for herself. So that the second meaning of the room, for me--in fact, not second meaning, as in second in line but equal alternative meaning--is that the room is a means for isolating the women from the male-oriented society. I believe what I'm trying to say is, yes, the room is a last resort. IF you will not give us the free ability to write (and live) as we want, then just give us a room and some money because that's the only feasible way for us to write good fiction. It's not a clear-cut definition of the room imagery, the imagery can be complex indeed, but I think this is the best that applies.
Post a Comment