The Downplaying Of Margaret's Capabilities Due To Her Gender.
The novel Margaret the First by Danielle Dutton gives us an account of Margeret Cavendish’s life in a poem-esque way. She is a woman in the mid-17th century who is stuck in a traditional female role while she longs for fame and recognition. She was unable to participate in debates with men due to her gender and would not be given the same respect that her male peers would garner. She would go on to write novels and publish them in her name. Something that was unheard of for her time. She would gather attention from it, negative and positive. Margaret’s gender hindered her from debates and intellectual experiences that she wished to participate in but could not.
An example of Margaret’s gender blocking her from participating in debates is when we see her interact in a male-dominated debate, the room becomes completely silent, and everyone is stunned that she spoke up (42). The silence reflects that men were not prepared for a woman to "step out of line." Women were not allowed to interact intellectually. She is neither given a response nor the room to debate. Margaret becomes frustrated with the "tradition" and writes novels and plays to get her ideas and discourse to the public. Her mode of literature becomes the easiest way to get her ideas out.
Additionally, Margaret is finally invited to the Royal Society. She is allowed to sit among the men, but when she is asked to comment, she comments and leaves (153). She does not want to be invited to speak about her ideas in a “secret” society; she wants to be able to speak about them in public. The idea of prominent figures reading her literature excites her. But she does not want to have to go behind closed doors to speak about her ideas with them. Margaret’s wish is to be recognized in public and taken seriously. Her gender inhibits her ability to interact with her ideas publicly without recourse.
In conclusion, Margaret's capability is undermined by 17th-century traditional values that make debating and discussion for women difficult and, at times, impossible. The men that recognize her intellectual abilities are only willing to speak with her in private, away from the masses, further frustrating her. Margaret's abilities are downplayed because she is a woman. If Margaret was a man, she would be recognized in public as a prominent figure in the 1600s.
I agree with many points made in this post, especially the focus on how Margaret Cavendish’s gender limited her ability to fully engage in intellectual life. The comparison to Queen Christina is a strong example, showing how Margaret admired women who defied gender roles, like Christina, whose bold, unconventional style parallels Margaret’s own desire to break free from societal expectations. However, I think the post also hints at an important issue in Margaret’s journey—the personal costs of defying these norms. While Margaret’s decision to publish her work and challenge male-dominated spaces is empowering, it also led to her being marginalized, not just by men, but by other women as well. For instance, when Margaret is invited to the Royal Society but leaves after speaking briefly, it shows her frustration with being included only in private, exclusive settings rather than in the public forums where she longed for real recognition. This suggests that, for Margaret, breaking barriers wasn't just about empowerment—it was also about the isolation and the lack of true acceptance she faced when trying to claim her intellectual space in a world that still didn’t fully value her contributions.
ReplyDeleteThe societal expectations in the mid-seventeenth century for women also struck me as I read the entirety of this novel. As brought up in this blog post, Margaret gets silenced when attempting to include herself in a debate amongst men, although she is adept in the knowledge. No matter her intellect, she is immediately at a disadvantage in society because of her gender. This went far beyond shunning in debates, for Margaret had to deal with people berating her hobby of writing since the beginning. Not simply instilling that intelligent writing/debating was a male-dominated activity, but even spreading blatant lies to get her to not pursue writing at all. Margaret falls ill mid-way through the story, and a consulting doctor writes back that her “occupation in writing of books is absolutely bad for [her] health” (Dutton, 72). The consensus about Margaret was that she was an odd lady who should stop her habit of writing- although she had an innate ability in this field. Even with all this turmoil, Margaret continues to write and quickly gains infamy for her works. This further proves the blog’s point that Margaret would have gained this infamy more easily had she been a man instead of a woman. Making it evermore impressive that she was able to be so dedicated to her craft that she persisted through these tribulations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the conclusion Margret's invitation to the Royal Society meeting brought forth. I found it unlike Margret, known as being shy, to ask for an invitation instead of writing a piece of literature about her thoughts, as has been done in the past. Her reaching out for an invitation shows a change in Margret and highlights her determination to become well-known in a growing community of scholars. Within the Royal Society, it is interesting to learn about the process it took to eventually decide upon extending an invitation to Margret. She wasn't invited because they respected her, going back to the points made about gender roles in the 1600s, rather, she was invited due to her publicity, closeness to the king, and oddness. Margret wasn't invited because her ideas were of value as the royal society had to "[p]u[t] aside all that she had written - her attacks on [the royal society's] work". Her work was considered a con to her consideration, not a pro. This lack of respect for Margret is also shown while at the meeting. All the men around the table wait for her responses, not because they value them, but because they are more curious about her - as a specimen of study rather than a colleague.
ReplyDelete