Reply to comment

The two things that grabbed me most about the art displayed were:

The two beings appeared to be male and female, the male being on the left and female being on the left. However, the being I perceived to be male was crying and closing his eyes while the being I perceived to be female was raising her fist and vocalizing her anger. These two reactions are usually portrayed on the body of the opposite genders, males being more likely to be aggressive and physical with their anger and females being more likely to react passively aggressively and inwardly emotional. The flat symbol in the middle I took for a government, complacent and unaware of "commonpeople's" frustrations.

Some things I found interesting in the Woolf:

At the beginning, she mentions that war is a strictly man's action, and men perform it for three main reasons: 1.) a profession; 2.) a source of happiness and excitement; and 3.) an outlet for "manly" qualities. It is interesting then, that she uses this argument that war is an outlet for manly qualities in order to explain why "patriotism" is a different concept altogether for women than for men. She says "we think differently because we were born differently," possibly bringing the "reasoning" of "biology" into the differences of perceptions of war between men and women. She goes on to write that the more "opinions" on war and politics we hear, the more "confusing" it becomes for us (the reasons for going to war) because we cannot understand the "impulses, motives, or the morality" men have for going to war. Again, a very "we were BORN biologically different, so we think differently about politics" view. She also states that women are "made up of body, brain and and spirit," "whose body, brain and spirit have been so differently trained and are so differently influenced by memory and tradition" than men. By grounding this argument about the different perceptions of patriotism and war between genders in biological/innate wording, I believe that Woolf might be making it impossible to find any sort of political agency. Quite possibly, her goal is for women to find empowerment outside of political agency because as she states later, women should have an "indirect" influence on politics by associating with men personally and making the men want to "shine through their eyes."

Now that women have clear political agency and are very much involved in the political process, it is interesting to see Woolf's philosophy shine through the current American government. Woolf argues women are able to earn their own living, and this right gives them a different "influence" which allows them to "remove the charm element" from their arguments. They can "declare their genuine likes and dislikes" and "criticize." Can women in our government criticize without being overtly criticized?