Wikipedia:Peer review/A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is one of the first feminist texts in Britain. This page has reached GA status and I am aiming for FA. Awadewit 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You could link to wiktionary some of the big/difficult/unusual words, like commensurate. I find the way the two portraits are set out on the page distracting - can you put them both on the right? -Malkinann 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have linked "commensurate." Might you list other words you found difficult? I did try not to include too many ten-cent words, as they say. The reason I framed that paragraph with the portraits is because that is the paragraph in which I refer to Talleyrand and de Gouge. Putting both portraits on the right places the portraits adjacent to text that does not refer to them. To me, it does not look distracting, but perhaps if you could describe what is distracting about the placement, I could rethink my image strategy in general. Thanks. Awadewit 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. allot, inflected, vindication. That's all I can see for myself... I find it distracting to change from reading across the whole 'page' to reading in a small space, framed by the two pictures. As it is, de Gouge is not mentioned until the very last part in that paragraph, and so her image could come last? I've also fact-tagged something in the article which I thought sounded a bit essayish.-Malkinann 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've linked "allot" but the definition for "inflect" is incomplete and Wollstonecraft's definition for "vindication" is more comprehensive than the dictionary definition. I don't want to mislead readers. I will think about removing the de Gouge picture entirely since she is less important in the paragraph and add in that citation. Thanks. Awadewit 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Opabinia

Hope you don't mind me poking my proboscis in on another of your articles ;)

• Given the detail in the article about the difficulties in applying the 'feminist' label, it's a little awkward to see in the first sentence. Same question with 'bolster the feminist claims' in the revision section.

I know, I debated long and hard about that. If the decision were up to me, I would not describe VRW that way, but it is often described that way in short summaries and the book is included in courses on feminism. To not mention the book in a feminist context right up front would be deceptive; VRW is now read as part of the feminist tradition, however problematically. One reason I included that long quotation from Barbara Taylor in the "Feminism" section was so that readers could get a sense of how vexed a question Wollstonecraft's relation to feminism really is. The fact that Taylor, the scholar who has written the most recent comprehensive book on Wollstonecraft's thought, decided in the end to include the word "feminist" in the title of her book convinced me in the end that I had to include the word in the lead and elsewhere.

• Just to be sure: the first work was A Vindication of the Rights of Men, plural?

Yes, and I could have gone into a whole analysis of the point of the difference: "men," meaning actual men and "woman" meaning an abstract category, etc., but I thought that was going a bit far for this entry.

Done That's actually an interesting point; it might be worth a sentence, if it's not too distracting and fits into one sentence. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• You give a date for the Glorious Revolution but not for the civil war/execution, which would be useful.

Done Will do.

• The matter of 'conferral' of rights - my naive view of the philosophy at the time is that among those who talked much about 'rights', they were seen as somehow inherent in the business of being a reasoning human being, and that it wasn't so much a matter of 'conferral' as of 'recognition'. That is, the rights existed whether governments officially recognized them or not. If that is a generally correct impression, then I think 'confer' needs to be replaced with a clearer word. (If not, then it's fine as-is, but if there's an article describing the evolution of rights in political philosophy, a wikilink would be good.)

Both views existed. One might think of the American Revolution as a war over this issue. Did the colonists have natural rights to which they were entitled whether or not the king wanted to grant them (they claimed these natural rights in the Declaration of Independence)? Those who supported monarchical rule would not, in general, argue that there were many, if any, natural rights. But this is a very complicated issue and one that I am not as well-versed in as I should be. Moreover, many groups were left out of this category of "the reasoning being" - children, slaves, women, often the poor - so, how natural could it be if the definition never included them? I will look at the sentence again, but these are very tricky issues (one reason this text is so very difficult to write on). Perhaps I will also include a "See also" section that links to some political philsophy and feminist articles at the end of the article.

Hmmm. I suppose it would help to know more about the argument advanced in Rights of Men, and what makes rights 'reasonable and just'. Maybe that really belongs in a Rights of Men article, but I guess what I'm wondering is whether there's a thread in Rights of Woman that boils down (er, pardon the mixed metaphor) to 'reasoning beings inherently have natural rights, and women are/can be reasoning beings'. At any rate, a see also section is a good idea. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Ok, I'll add a paragraph on natural rights. Awadewit 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Were women believed to be incapable of rational thought, or just very poor/limited at it? Maybe I'm projecting modern ideas onto the article, but it seems illogical for anyone to have argued that women were literally incapable of reason in its broadest sense.

Illogical it may be, but there it is. Some people argued that women were not as rational as men but the most popular view was that women were emotional rather than rational. There were biological arguments made to support this view - women's brains and nerves were different - they couldn't possibly think rationally because their nerves were so sensitive and they would be overcome by the sensations and emotions flooding them at every turn.

• There's a lot of 'she writes', 'she maintains', she argues', etc., where the verb varies but the sentence structure doesn't, except that sometimes it ends with a quote and sometimes with a paraphrase. It's hard to explain, and sort of counterintuitive, but this adds up to a 'telling, not showing' feel, mostly in the 'rational education' section.

I will look into this problem but I tend to try to use quotations in particular to "show" rather than tell, to let the author speak for herself.

Hmm. I've looked at this, but I'm not really sure that I see the problem. I think that the sentence structure varies at least a bit because some sentences begin with a dependent clause, some start with the subject, etc. I have tried to add even more variation, but I'm not sure how successful I was. Perhaps you could assist or write a bit more about what you mean? I do believe that I am "showing" her opinions regarding rational female education here.

Done Like I said, it's hard to describe, and may be just me :) I really think the origin is the 'she argues/contends/implies/maintains' introductions to the quotes, but that's hard to avoid. (I would suggest less use of 'argue', though; I just skimmed quickly through the 'rational education' section and saw five instances of 'argue' and three of 'argument' in four paragraphs.) Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'to this end that she ought their liberation' - unusual diction, or typo for sought?

Done Oops, I'll fix that. Thanks.

• '...should be modest (not just women)...' - the repeated parenthetical is awkward.

Done I will work on that sentence.

• 'Be just then, O ye men of understanding!' - I could plausibly read this in isolation as more of a demand/battle cry/etc. than 'begging'.

Done I will work on that section. Perhaps a different quotation.

• This article heavily relies on the sensibility article for an explanation of the unique meaning of the term at the time, but that article is not especially good.

DoneI know, it is on my list of articles to work on. I will try to add some phrases in the article to explain sensibility. Unfortunately, it is a very hard term to define quickly.

I've added an introductory section on sensibility, but I'm still working on the wording.

• Done I admit, I rarely think modern 'academic feminism' makes any sense at all. But the argument that Wollstonecraft 'fears the power' of female sexuality, or has 'violent antagonism' toward it is just weird. Can that argument be fleshed out a bit without giving it excessive emphasis? (Violent?)

It is a very prominent argument amongst a subset of Wollstonecraft scholars. It would be irresponsible not to mention it, but I do not want to overemphasize it, because it is not the focus of VRW scholarship. I can tell you that within the academy it is not weird, although it may appear so here. I will try to make it less strange to the general reader, but it is difficult. And yes, violent. I didn't want to quote the scene where Wollstonecraft warns women not to undress in front of other women which is interpreted as a violent fear of sexuality. I felt that such a passage would simply be misunderstood.

I think qp10qp described more clearly why that section sounds odd to me. Given what we're told about Wollstonecraft's position on sexuality, all this talk about power and violence sounds very disproportionate. ('Violence' sounds like an exaggeration in any case, but I've seen people write 'emotional violence' and apparently have a straight face while doing it. I imagine it's used in this context with some specialized meaning.) Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more on this. I'm still working on the language. Awadewit 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done Did she make a specific argument for sending children of the poor to separate schools?

Yes.

'Can I ask you a question?' 'You just did.' ;) If it can be summarized briefly, I think that would be a good addition to the class section. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. "Yes/no" questions are so unhelpful, aren't they? I wasn't trying to be rude. I actually thought you just wanted to know.

I do this stuff all the time without thinking about it. Especially with 'Can you do x?' Yes. Will you? Well, if that's what you meant, why didn't you say so in the first place? ;) Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'In attempting to navigate the cultural expectations of female writers and the generic conventions of political and philosophical discourse...' - this sentence seems to take a position on the reasons behind her diction, and implies that the result was a deliberate choice. Was this genre- and style-blending really intentional?

One cannot get inside Wollstonecraft's head, of course, but it certainly looks that way. VRM does something similar. It is a mark of Wollstonecraft and many other late eighteenth-century women writers.

• 'Even more significantly, although female conservatives such as Hannah More excoriated Wollstonecraft herself, as Anne K. Mellor has shown,...' - this sentence is, though it might be disputed, rather awkward, in the sense that many clauses, each of which modifies in onion-like layers the one before, pile up on one another, separating subjects from their verbs. (Okay, that was fun to write ;)

Done Will fix it.

• Even sparred with Barbauld? Why is that an 'even'? I suspect Barbauld needs an appositive description of some kind.

Done Will do.

• 'Hostilely' ought to be a word, but is kind of on the boundary.

It is a word. It's even in the online Merriam-Webster.

Done So is 'foolhardily' and even 'friendlily', but those are even more unpleasant. Not a big issue, but 'with hostility' would read better IMO. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'breaking free from traditional norms' has become something of a cliche. Can you be more specific in the last sentence?

Done Well, I didn't want to go into a history of feminism on the page (not the right page), so I was trying to get broader. I'll see what I can do.

• Does the 'clear' I added before the references break anything? The image was shoving into the references for me.

Nothing weird happened here. What does that do?

{{clear}} forces all of the content in one section to be displayed before starting the next one. Images at the end near the references section often dribble down into the references and make the columns go weird. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a glossary or list of wikicode somewhere on wikipedia?

I wish. If there is one, I've yet to find it; I first found out about this one, I think, from Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Call me a snob, but linking words like 'commensurate' and 'allot' is... ugh. Over my personal line drawn between 'making things accessible' and 'spoon-feeding'. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the above review. On my Mary Wollstonecraft page, someone finally had to link "apposition" because random people kept changing it to "opposition" the day it was featured on the main page. It was inside a quotation, so even if they didn't know it was word, they should have been especially reticent about changing it. There is a note on the page that says something like "apposition is actually a word" or something like that which you can only see if you edit it. I really could not believe it. Feel free to remove the links. Please note that I did not link "vindication" as suggested above.

Thank you for all of your very helpful remarks. I always appreciate it when someone reads closely! Awadewit 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I linked "apposition" cos I saw the constant reverts on it... :$ Please remember the age of people who may be reading the article - I first came across the Rights of Woman when I was 15. It's a bit sad when you have to wiktionary-link words that you think are well-known, (my own 'ugh' - the word "aground" being changed to "around" in Great Barrier Reef) but it really does help younger readers follow along. -Malkinann 06:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate your linking because I was growing so frustrated with the constant reverts I was having to go through over that. I understand what you are saying - I teach freshman composition at a large state university. I could create an entire website with hilarious/sad mistkes. I do appreciate you looking out for this. I saw some report on wikipedia's average reading level. Apparently it is way too high for the general public. As I am sure you are aware, the New York Times is supposed to be at an eighth-grade reading level and that is the highest of any major newspaper. Awadewit 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The general public is full of idiots ;) I don't have a problem with linking, really, if it'll stop misguided changes (though 'allot' in the middle of a quote looks a little odd). I don't really like it either, but I've never run across a need for it before; I guess people are a bit more reticent about mucking around with the science articles. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your assumption to be correct. The general public assumes they will not understand science. I, on the other hand, although not a scientist myself, do expect that I will be able to understand the bulk of a wikipedia general science page, so I complain quite frequently about undefined terms and jargon-heavy sections. :) Awadewit 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. We need more smart people doing that ;) Especially on some of the more general science articles, it seems like the only feedback they ever get is from kids trying to get someone else to do their homework. Opabinia regalis 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by qp10qp

• I notice that one of my most disliked words is one of your favourites: “moreover”. I always find this intensifier obtrusive; sentences seem to improve when it is extracted. In my opinion it doesn’t actually mean anything—apart from, perhaps, “and”.

Roughly, it means "this sentence is more important than the last sentence" and I use it very carefully to delineate hierarchies of importance.

• “…to launch an attack against sexual double standards more broadly…”

Done That “more broadly” feels too far projected from its verb. What about “a broad attack”?

Sure. My writing is always a little too verbose.

• “…for Burke, governments and societies consist of traditions that are the result of a social and political consensus—challenging those traditions would result in anarchy.”

Done Is “consist” the right word? Also, I would tend to drop the dash and have a comma and “and”. It’s a matter of taste, though. I might even conflate the whole sentence, which contains repetitions.

I will work on rewording it, but the repetition is meant to emphasize the all-important idea of tradition in Burke.

• A blockquote for Talleyrand’s big quote? (Would have to move picture, though.) And maybe the "Let it not be concluded..." quote.

Done I will play around with that.

• “That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman…”

Which came first?

I'm not sure and I'm not sure we know. I can try to find out. Why does it matter (someone else asked this question as well)? I try to make it clear that MW is responding specifically to Talleyrand but that these issues are live ones at the time. It would be very hard to prove that MW read de Gouge one way or the other.

This is becoming even more difficult. Even if I manage to find out what month de Gouge published (which I haven't yet managed to do, every book I look at just says the year), I'm not sure that I can easily find out when her work reached England. I'm just not sure it's worth all of the trouble for this article.

• “Unlike most philosophical writers of the eighteenth century, Wollstonecraft did not employ a formal structure in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.”

I felt a slight miscue here, as if the other philosophers were writing this book as well.

Done I'll try and fix that.

I tried to fix this, but now the whole sentence sounds repetitive.

• “It also adopts a hybrid tone that combines the rational argument common to philosophy and the fervent rhetoric of sensibility.”

Done The word “common” slightly disrupts the sense here, in my opinion, because it implies that the rational argument is common to the philosophy and the fervent rhetoric.

I'll work on that.

• “In the eighteenth century, it was often assumed…”

I never like sentences without an actor. And this sort of structure tends to call out for multiple referencing. Same with “Women, it was believed...” If Wollstonecraft says who assumed and believed these things, we should be told, I think, because the Talleyrand quote, however patronising, doesn’t make these points, as such. “Moreover, it was asserted…” is another example of this generalising structure.

But the point is Wollstonecraft was responding to a large cultural assumption. I have seen this criticism throughout wikipedia. Sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it is not. This is one of the times it is not. To cite who Wollstonecraft is attacking at this point diminishes her arguments; it makes it seem like she is only attacking a few writers when she is really attacking a social perception. Not all passive constructions are evil! (By the way, you will notice that later in the "Rational Education " section I mention she criticizes the works of Fordyce, Gregory and Rousseau in particular)

• “Wollstonecraft attributes the problem of uneducated women to men and “a false system of education, gathered from the books written on this subject by men who, considering females rather as women than human creatures.” “

The quote here doesn’t have a main verb.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Do you men that the quote would sound better if I changed "considering" to "considered"?

• “She thus makes the argument…”

Done I don’t find that this sentence follows (in a “thus” way) precisely from what went before.

I'll check it out.

• “Conduct-book writers such as James Fordyce and John Gregory as well as educational philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argue that a woman does not need a rational education, are the objects of much vitriol in Rights of Woman.”

"Conduct-book writers" is the subject of the sentence, by the way. I can change this around, though.

Done This sentence seems rather passive; I would reverse the order, with an actor at the beginning of the sentence. This whole paragraph strikes me as rather soggy because of the delaying of main verbs or subjects. So I would also bring the subject and main verb forward in:

• I don't want to make too many of the sentences the same.

Done “Without this damaging ideology, which encourages young women to focus their attention on beauty and outward accomplishments, Wollstonecraft implies, they could achieve much more.”

Ok.

and in:

"Maintaining that wives could be the rational "companions" of their husbands and even pursue careers should they so choose, she contends "women might certainly study the art of healing, and by physicians as well as nurses. And midwifery, decency seems to allot to them . . . they might, also, study politics . . . Business of various kinds, they might likewise pursue."

Changing this one doesn't seem like a good idea because it moves from the general to the specific in a logical way.

• “She also maintains that schooling should be co-educational…”

Done Proposes? (I know it’s difficult in an article like this to vary the necessary “maintains, contends, argues” vocabulary.)

Sure.

I put "proposes" earlier in the paragraph.

• “It is debatable to what extent the Vindication…”

Rather than depersonalise the subject of the sentence with an “it”, I would prefer to see an actor for the sentence: “Scholars/feminists/Smith and Jones have debated…” or whatever. Also I have seen FA reviewers (quite wrongly) mistake this phrase for an authorial hesitation.

I understand this criticism, but again, it seems silly to list all of the groups that have debated this issue. Such a list implies that no one else has debated it (such as students or the general public).

• “Her argument illustrated the sexual double standard of the late eighteenth century and demanded that men adhere to the same virtues demanded of women.”

Done I’m not sure that an argument can illustrate—point out, perhaps, or expose. Maybe the “for instance” and “for example” in that paragraph is also a little repetitive.

Expose, sure. I'll work on the repetition.

• “While this may not seem [who to?] revolutionary, its implications are [now, or then?].”

Done Dare I say it, essay style?

I will fix that.

• “Wollstonecraft famously and ambiguously states…”

I have to confess that reading the quote several times, I can make neither head nor tail of it. It does sound important, but I wonder if the reader needs a bit more explanation of it. I know that “virtue” had a special meaning in Racine and Corneille, and I suspect it does here too. “Her definition of virtue focuses on the individual’s happiness rather than, for example, the good of the entire society.“ I’m not sure that fits with her demand that men adhere to the same virtues demanded of women, which sounds as if it is for the good of the society.

I don't know if you've read VRW, but it is an extremely contradictory text. You can basically take any position on it and find something to support your opinion. I have tried to draw together the most accepted scholarly views here, but they are not going to be consistent because Wollstonecraft herself was not consistent (that is aside from the point that scholars never agree on anything - if they did, scholarship in the humanities would end). So, that you have found something internally inconsistent is not surprising.

I am reticent to explain the quotation for fear of an "original research" criticism. It is a difficult quotation, not an obvious one. That is why I included it.

• “As part of her argument that women should not be overly influenced by their feelings, Wollstonecraft emphasizes that they should not be bound by their bodies or their sexual feelings.[29] This particular argument has led many modern feminists to suggest that Wollstonecraft not only avoids embracing female sexuality, she fears its power. Cora Kaplan argues that…”

Done I would have liked “not be bound by their bodies or their sexual feelings” to be elucidated more here, with perhaps some space given to what Wollstonecraft actually said. This is because, as it stands, I can’t quite see what justification the modern feminists and Kaplan have for the reaction quoted. I would have thought that the advice as summarised was mere common sense: have some emotional and sexual self-control. Clearly, there is more to it.

Ok, I will go down this road. The problem is, it tends to make very well-respected scholars look crazy or "weird" (as the above reviewer said) to the general reader. I was trying to accord their views some respect; their views make a lot more sense within a certain tradition of academic feminist theory which I cannot explain in detail here.

• “Others, though, have argued that this was a sacrifice…”

What does “this” refer to? This idea of Wollstonecraft’s (but an idea isn’t a sacrifice)? Or something in her life (no specific reference to her life in the paragraph)? An overlap between the two creeps into the paragraph with Kaplan’s quote, in my opinion. Does Wollstonecraft avoid embracing sexuality in her ideas or her life? (From your article about her life, I would doubt the latter. I find this confusing.)

Yes, the "this" does refer to an idea. She sacrificed female sexuality in her writings (at least until The Wrongs of Woman) in order to advance the cause of equality.

• “Johnson contends that Wollstonecraft is interested in reestablishing a republican ethos, one that contains strong, but distinct, masculine and feminine roles for its citizens.”

Done What does this refer to? Why “reestablishing”? Is this a reference to classical republics? Are republics more likely to have clear masculine and feminine roles? Can an ethos “contain” roles? (provide? call for? create). If she wants clear masculine and feminine roles why does she want men to adhere to the same virtues as women? These two matters of republicanism and virtue/male-female roles are the ones that come over the most blurrily to me in the article's description of the book's themes.

In Britain, there had been a political tradition of republicanism (sometimes associated with the term commonwealthmen) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that slowly died away (although this narrative is disputed). Wollstonecraft is trying to re-establish this republicanism. Yes, an ethos and contain roles, in my opinion. There is a dichotomy in the VRW in how she describes men and women. As I try to say, she wants them to have the same fundamental rights (derived from having a soul) and live up to the same moral code, but that does not mean that she thinks men and women should fill the same positions within society. Repeatedly throughout the VRW, Wollstonecraft describes woman's primary role as mother and domestic care-giver. The problem is, different scholars emphasize different aspects of this (clearly, even I'm telling you how I read it, although I'm trying to be as objective as possible). Some emphasize the different roles and say MW is conservative, some emphasize the rights argument and say she is more "progressive," but most fall in between. It is simply not very easy to summarize or interpret her argument.

• “For Wollstonecraft, moreover, the individual is educated into republicanism and republican benevolence within the family; domestic relations and familial ties are crucial to her understanding of social cohesion and patriotism.”

Done " "is" educated?” "Should" be educated? What is “republican benevolence”? From these hints, I’m really not sure what Wollstonecraft’s republicanism consisted of. The second half of the above sentence isn’t specifically republican, I’d say.

Yes, "educated." It's an older use of the word, but very Wollstonecraftian. Perhaps I'll expand this section a bit.

• “In many ways the Vindication of the Rights of Woman is inflected by a bourgeois view of the world. Wollstonecraft addresses her text to the middle-class, which she calls the "most natural state," and two of the virtues Wollstonecraft praises most often are modesty and industry. She is critical of the wealthy, attacking them with the same language that she uses to accuse women of worthlessness.”

Done I’m presuming that modesty and industry are here taken to be middle-class virtues. But I think that should be made clear, or the second half of that middle sentence is a non sequitur. Then for me the structure here made it seem as if the wealthy (bad) were different people to the middle class (“the most natural state”).

Some here used to be different; someone has been doing some copyediting and removed my transitions, but yes, those were perceived to be middle-class virtues in the eighteenth-century and the wealthy are supposed to be different from the middle-class.

• “In attempting to navigate the cultural expectations of female writers and the generic conventions of political and philosophical discourse, Wollstonecraft, as she does throughout her works, constructs a unique blend…”

I expect this is to some extent Kelly’s, but for me it’s (sorry, ignore me, if you are bored with this) essay style. A point of view is ascribed to Wollstonecraft as if she was thinking like a modern feminist or political writer. In my opinion, the scholarly style of discourse should not be intruded into the third-person point of view of the biographical subject.

What you are touching on is the "intentional fallacy." You cannot know what Wollstonecraft was thinking, etc. Technically, all sentences in this article should then read "The VRW suggests..." rather than Wollstonecraft. Literary scholars know that no one is imputing anything directly to Wollstonecraft. If you have a beef with this sentence, you should have a beef with much more in the article. I did not sure "The VRW suggests..." construction throughout this article because it becomes far too cumbersome.

Can you construct a blend?

When one is speaking of genres, I believe you can, but do you have a better suggestion?

• “…she uses "I" and "you" as well as dashes and exclamation marks to create a distinctly feminine voice in the text. She even employs "autobiographical references."

Done Why “even”? I’m sure the work has a distinctive feminine voice, but I daresay there were men who used these techniques as well (I’m not questioning the basic point—Kristeva’s idea that bodily drives are discharged in representation—just the stylistic examples offered here as evidence).

Dispute with Kelly, not me. Perhaps there were men who used this technique, but not the respected essayists or philosophers of the day. I think the point is that this "emotional" register would have been associated with women.

Fixed the "even."

• “…the short essay and the novel, genres often associated with women…”

Is that true, any more than with men? I’m wondering if the point being made here—that certain forms or styles of writing—are more feminine, is worth making in this context. It’s so easy to think of exceptions: Sterne with his own “highly personal” tone; Émilie du Châtelet with her scientific commentaries. If this is what scholars believe, then I think their names should be brought into the text, so that the reader doesn’t take these glosses for fact. Generally, I feel that the first paragraph of “Rhetoric and Style” doesn’t flow too well.

Yes, it is what scholars believe. Kelly specifically states this on the pages to which I refer. Would you like more citations. There are going to be exceptions. I think the idea is there is a "feminine" and a "masculine" style in addition to the thesis that women were tied to the novel. I'll work on the paragraph.

• “…she actually combines the plain, rational language of the political treatise with the poetic, passionate language of sensibility…”

I feel that is an excellent way of getting the general point over.

• “Wollstonecraft herself even comments on this effect.”

Done I think a quote would go well here, so that the readers can judge for themselves what Wollstonecraft intended by her mixture of styles.

I think so to, but I've lost it. I didn't write it down in my notes and I'm trying to find it again. :) Is there an "insert quote here" tag?

• “Wollstonecraft never wrote the second part to the Rights of Woman…”

Done I don’t think we’ve been told that the work was going to have two parts; this statement seems to assume that we know.

I'll work on introducing that idea earlier, but I don't think it's terribly important.

• “Both Edgeworth and Austen argue that women are crucial to the development of the nation…”

Do they “argue” this, or show it (I know they wrote letters, but novels don’t offer arguments, strictly speaking).

Um, novels most certainly do offer arguments, just not in that traditional philosophical way.

Adding examples of novels with arguments that should be obvious: 1984 and The Fountainhead and Brave New World.

• “Suddenly it seemed more possible to try living arrangements other than the traditional marriage.”

I find this sentence a little clumsy. Also redundant after the previous sentence, which I think would end the article better.

Done I was trying to be more specific to address concerns brought up by the previous reviewer. I'll rework it again.

• I admire the article, and I think it could pass FA tomorrow (I would vote "support"), though we both know that FAC is not generally rigorous or populous enough, which is why I’ve been detailed here (please don’t hate me). Your articles are impressive. Do keep going, and feel free to ignore any of my comments.

qp10qp 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for constructive advice. I hardly "hate you." It is precisely this kind of review that I want. I won't be submitting this for FA for a few weeks. I want to work on it some more and I have some other editors that have promised to look at it. Thanks. Awadewit 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did respond to your helpful comments on essay-style on my talk page. Awadewit 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a small thing. Could you replace the smart quotes (“ and ”) with regular quotes (") for consistency? I'm sure a word processing program can do it automatically, but having the smart quotes makes it look distracting. ShadowHalo 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't look any different on my computers; they only look different on the editing page. I am not going to chanage quotation marks so that the editing page looks pretty. Awadewit 12:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)