Reply to comment

It is not until the final third of the book that Woolf actually stops to address the word “feminist.” Woolf claims that this word lacks meaning and is now “dead” and “corrupt.” She celebrates the opportunity to burn the word, seemingly overjoyed that there is no longer the need for feminists, those individuals “who champion the rights of women” (101). However, given the emphasis that Woolf puts on women’s education and professional opportunities, I would argue that she herself remains a feminist.  Like many women at Bryn Mawr, Woolf presents “feminist” as a negative label, equating is with a person who is overly aggressive in her attempts to achieve women’s rights, or even female superiority. Perhaps it is Woolf’s overarching movement towards total gender equality that keeps her from being a feminist. Still, why does Woolf reject the word “feminist” and not simply redefine it? Should we follow suit? I wonder if Woolf would approve of today’s use of “feminist.”

I was also interested in Woolf’s discussion of secrecy on page 120. Here and in other parts of the text, she seems to suggest that women participate in a sort of covert operation. But isn’t such passive aggressiveness another kind of violence? Paradoxically, it seems that Woolf is prepared to stage a sort of war against the status quo and current passion for war.  Does she expect that this revolution will not be violent? That no one will be hurt, no institutions will be destroyed? I think that Woolf needs to look more critically at her proposal so as to understand the ways in which her recommendations may not be welcome with open arms. In order to effectively create change, she must address the resistance and acknowledge that she too is staging a war.