I think that this is an interesting piece that is a good example of some of the founding principles of female criticism that one should read before doing any sort of feminine criticism response to an article or type of media. It also is a example that the majority of criticisms from a feminine perspective in contemporary times should show that "Feminist criticism concern itself with stereotypical representations of genders. It also may trace the history of relatively unknown or undervalued women writers, potentially earning them their rightful place within the literary canon, and helps create a climate in which women's creativity may be fully realized and appreciated." Check it out!

 http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/feminist.crit.html

This is a great website from the British Broadcasting network, that actually has a lot of useful page options that give a detailed summary of the role that women played specifically throughout Queen Victoria's reign. Some of the more interesting pages are: "The Ideal Woman", "Wife and Mother", and "Social Responsibility". Give this website a look and see what you think!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/victorian_britain/women_home/ideals_womanhood_01.shtml
 

Some critical background information on one of the most popular authors and MWC contemporary, Jane Austen. Surly her work in not just female super power novels such as Pride and Prejudice, will encourage some discussion towards female rights, specifically topics involving the female heroin.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Austen

 Currently I am in a Critical reading class at SUNY Fredonia. In which we have been looking at how particular lenses of writing, such as Marxism, Structeralism, Formalism, and psychological perspectives influence or are a product of their texts. As you probably know, Mary Wollstonecraft and her more contemporary as well as popular women's rights activist and author Jane Austen both advocated their styles in a different manner. Give it a read!  

Structuralism v. Formalism

           

            One of the reasons we can see a disconnect between the works of Jane Austen from Mary Wollstonecraft, is primarily a product of their works functioning under different schools of thought from a critics point of view. We should allow that Mary Wollstonecraft’s works drew largely from her own personal experiences i.e. religion, relationships, social experiences, degradations she faced, and familial history all are commented on by her(most pivotally in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman), thus causing the critic or reader to take a structuralism ideology. This is part play in contrast to Jane Austen who was hailed for ability to let the text speak for itself because it’s functioning (for example Pride And Prejudice) evokes from solely the pages, not from outside influence. The connections we make though Jane Austen from formalism criticism, and Mary Wollstonecraft from a structuralism evaluation, are what truly makes these two authors different but effectively idiosyncratic.

            Drawing from the works of Mary Wollstonecraft in “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, Wollstonecraft allows for interjections on a popular subject that trademarks her criticism values, and lenses in many a work of hers, religion. In reference to God she recollects her Catholic roots and supports her argument that men and women are created with the same virtues and equality and allows the reader insight that it is her own belief that conjures. Since we can conclude that religious contexts exist in other mediums of her work other than A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, we can attribute biographically its origin stems from Mary herself; she confesses that “- Thanks to that Being, who impressed them onto my soul, and gave me sufficient strength of mind to dare to exert my own reason, till, becoming dependent only on him for the support of my virtue, I view, with indignation, the mistaken notions that enslave my sex” (Vindication, 40). From a critical point of view e can attain that her personal biography is implicated onto the pages, deeming it a gathering from a structuralism analysis. Wollstonecraft’s well-roundedness in a A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, advises that her ideas cultivate truly from her letters, fictional pieces, and persuasive texts.

            To contend from a Formalism inquiry, the works of Jane Austen, while seen in a different light, operates effectively on a strictly text to author position the same way the biographical and fictional works are a lens for the reader to understand Wollstonecraft’s style in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. One of the ways that Austen “compensates” for lack of addition of alternate works or biographical snippets of inclusion in Pride And Prejudice, is her invocation of her creative style of description through character narration, something seemingly absent in the persuasive argument style convictions. The description of Mr. Darcy exemplifies Austen’s insightful descriptions at narration when he is described as being “looked at with great admiration for about half the evening, till his manners gave a great disgust  which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company; and above being pleased; and not all his large estate in Derbyshire could then save him from having a most forbidding, disagreeable countenance, and being unworthy to be compared with his friend (Prejudice, 8).

            For lack of characterization and beautiful setting utilized by Austen, Wollstonecraft shows that powerful and moving writing can also come from command of language, biographical insight, and well-roundedness. From a critical evaluation, either author should not be confused for lack of the full appreciation in their own respective styles.

Works Cited:

Austen, Jane, and Donald J. Gray. Pride and Prejudice. New York: W.W. Norton, 1966. Print.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. Print.

Here, we see that one of Mary Wollstonecraft's most significant drives for bother her creative works and those of her more persuasive arguments for women's rights. We can also see that one of her significant others, William Godwin, had perspective on her supposed form of faith. Check it out! 

Religion or, foundation and commitment to it, is a rule that is largely popular and has found its way into much of Marry Wollstonecraft’s works. A large portion of her childhood was guided by her ever long observance of God, and it was her true belief that a truly intellectual person with good morals follows this path. Her accreditation to many of her works lends itself to her religious foundation and its addition to her completed pieces, which were critical in aiding a more powerful voice to her as a female writer. However, with the comments from her husband William Godwin, it could be contended that his views regarding his wife’s faith were different and at some times challenging to her legacy as a feminist writer; this questioning of her religious values seems to aid in the ever-present binary rule of the submissive wife to the patriarchal husband. His perplexities on the matter testify his thoughts of even his wife not being a factual and valid writer and even to say that her admiration and relationship to God wasn’t authentic, thus perpetuating female subservience.

            We see the first instance of Godwin’s discredit to his wife’s beliefs when he states that her values were “almost entirely of her own creation. But she was not on that account less attached to it, or the less scrupulous in discharging what she considered as its duties” (as cited in Memoirs, 215). His undermining and disagreement of her faith was something that bothered her and even in her own marriage, she seemed to be combating ignorance of the classes  adding “How can you blame me for taking refuge in the idea of God, when I despair of finding sincerity here on earth?”(Wollstonecraft 101).  Godwin continues, and adds that it more for the comfort of discussion and lends no ties to actual verifiable belief when he adds that her faith “was founded rather in taste, that in the niceties of polemical discussion” (as cited in Memoirs, 215).

            His skepticisms add further evidence of male domination and he rectifies her “observing of God” to more of her way of being passionately imaginative, and not real.     

Bibliography

Johnson, Claudia L. The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print.

This is just some basic information that I thought people would like to read if they are to consider Mary Wollstonecraft in their criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft

Mary Wollstonecraft was one of the most popular writers, philosophers, and speaker on the rights of women. Many female writers who followed after her, wrote in relation to original works by Mary herself. While advocating women's rights, she also was a school teacher and had worked at many orphanages, and developed works pertaining to the development of the child psyche. She advocates guidelines of parenthood with stern rules to follow, this essay follows up on that. Give it a read!    

            Mary Wollstonecraft’s writing seems as though it takes on the burden in laying the rules of parental and childhood guidelines, from a civil duty perspective; that her words draw not from her fascination as an educator or prolific matriarchal figure to her readers, but instead her obligation to show the values that women and child care-givers could gather behind and live by.  In Wollstonecraft’s Thoughts on the Education of Daughters: with Reflections in The more important Duties of Life, she calls upon specific examples or references to situations that form from outcomes of specific scenarios, so that the reader may gather an instructive complex for a healthy growth and education of their children.

            One of the set ups that Wollstonecraft offers that may aid in the parent-child relationship is her example from “The Nursery”. She offers that “Children, who are left to the care of ignorant nurses, have their stomachs overloaded with improper food, which turns acid, and renders them very uncomfortable” (Wollstonecraft 7). This scenario dictates to mothers that they must “suckle” or nurse their children; Wollstonecraft explains the aftereffects of not nursing, and offers the solution.

            Another example we see comes from the section “Moral Discipline”, where Wollstonecraft explains the outcomes of children and their questions. All parents are eager to lean new methods to exercise when it comes to raising their child, and Wollstonecraft realizes this, and so in her examples is direct and convincing, offering a supportive wealth of knowledge for the unsure parent. Wollstonecraft contends that children are “mostly fond of stories, and proper ones would improve them, even while they are amused. Instead of these, their heads are filled with improbable tales, and superstitious accounts of invisible beings, which breed strange prejudices and vain fears in their minds.” (Wollstonecraft 10). She offers that parents must always give reasonable and fitting response. Wollstonecraft again here shows how detrimental to child’s development may become, if certain procedures are ignored.

            Lastly, Wollstonecraft remarks on how clothing can be harmful to the fragile psyche of a child. In her section titled, “Dress” she explains that the outer expressiveness of clothing that a child selects is more “unnatural” than anything else. Wollstonecraft writes; “ It gives rise to envy, and contests for trifling superiority, which do not render a woman very respectable to the other sex” (Wollstonecraft 16). We see again that although it may be of her opinion, Wollstonecraft’s predicted conclusion for the discount of the smaller things, like nursing, stories, and dress, can serve as vehicles for active parental involvement for growing children.

Works Cited:

Wollstonecraft, Mary. Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, with Reflections on Female Conduct in the More Important Duties of Life,. Clifton [N.J.: A.M. Kelley, 1972. Print.