A Mind of One's Own

In Virginia Woolf's essay "A Room of One's Own," she constructs a statement of the oppression of women based upon how this oppression has affected her as a writer. Accordingly, she creates a parallel between the room that a person needs to write, and the rights of women throughout history-thus I have decided to title this blog "A Mind of One's Own," signifying the freedom of women to think as independent people, for this is I think the true intention of Virginia Woolf's essay. One of the most striking arguments she makes is dispelling the counterargument to the place of women in literature. As she talks you immediately get the very extreme sense that she is claiming that women throughout history have been entirely overlooked and even ignored as insignificant, even detestable parts of society, not worth mentioning in literature. She immediately brings out the negative aspects of male-female relationships such as wife-beating, arranged marriage, the inability of women to earn their own income, in hopes of painting a bleak picture as women as history's unseen slaves. However, the counterargument to this is that, even if women have not been viewed as equal, they still often times enjoyed venerated place in literature as elegant creatures of beauty and morality, as apparent from art, literature and poetry dating back to the times of classical society. She dispels this argument by recognizing this fact and saying that these women have "burnt like beacons in all the works of all the poets from the beginning of time." (2114) However, she makes the distinction that this is very clearly the image of "woman in fiction," and that the reality of the state of women is that of a dumb slave that could "hardly read, scarcely spell, and was the property of her husband"(2114). This is a strong argument, however, a depressing one, as I feel that I now have to readjust my lens of thought whenever I read a historical romance, or poetry and realize myself to the reality that no woman was ever venerated or respected, loved or adored in such away but in reality was used and disrespected as a tool for these artist's pleasure. From the sarcasm in the previous remark, it is obvious that such broad generalizations seriously make me question Virginia Woolf in spite of the fact that I very much enjoy the creative spirit of her writing and the perspective that she brings into the literary world. I will accept that the place of women in this time was by far anything from equal,, and that the writing of men about women is at best a gross misrepresentation of the spirit of women. However, this same argument works in reverse, and I believe her commentary on the nature of men is also at best a gross misrepresentation. When she says things to the effect of "How is he to go on giving judgment, civilizing natives, making laws, writing books, dressing up and speechifying at banquets, unless he can see himself at breakfast and at dinner at least twice the size he really is...(in comparison to women)..." and "Take (this image) away and man may die, like the drug fiend deprived of his cocaine." I think that this is an extreme generalization as I honestly believe that not every man in history has derived his power from "feeling superior to women" and that at least some men respect women more than this (e.g. chivalry, gentlemanliness, courtship, etc.). In doing this she not only steps outside of her capability to comment according to her own harsh divisions (e.g. men cant write about women, so women cant write about men) but she also falls victim to the same form of rhetoric of those chauvinists who foolishly claim that women have inferior characteristics. I think in this way her argument is strongly blunted, and while subjective and not made for "truth" as she claims, nonetheless, remains slightly unconvincing.