(I was surprised, too)

What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‚ ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world!
feminist_burns.jpg
Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man,* a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century‚ those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;it is Josephine Butler who speaks‚ “it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all - all men and women - to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.”

*‘A-ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man.’ This word has been coined in order to define those who make use of words with the desire to hurt but at the same time to escape detection. In a transitional age when many qualities are changing their value, new words to express new values are much to be desired.

Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas

3 Responses to “Virginia Woolf burned the word ‘feminist’”

  1. pippi Says:

    I’m not sure I understand. Did she write this in irony?

  2. natasha Says:

    I know - it’s strange. I also thought it must be ironic until I read it in context: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91tg/chapter3.html [find+’burn’ will get you to the spot].

    I think her point was that ‘feminist’ was being used in a derogative sense. And that women only needed to be ‘feminist’ so long as key rights weren’t established (to vote, work etc etc). I think her point is that the big changes - in the workplace (more women, equally paid, equal status), in the family (a state wage for mothers), and moving to less-aggressively warmongering politics - all these big changes, I think she was saying, can only come about when women and men work together.

    So I think she’s saying Yes, you need feminists to get women’s rights, but you don’t need feminists to transform the gendering of society, economics, international affairs and the family.

    I could be wrong… What do you think?!

  3. pippi Says:

    I haven’t read it in context yet, but will do so when I get back from holiday. Admittedly, I don’t want it to be true, but your interepretation of what Virginia Woolf wrote makes a lot of sense.

Leave a Reply

(I was surprised, too)

What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‚ ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world!
feminist_burns.jpg
Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man,* a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century‚ those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;it is Josephine Butler who speaks‚ “it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all - all men and women - to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.”

*‘A-ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man.’ This word has been coined in order to define those who make use of words with the desire to hurt but at the same time to escape detection. In a transitional age when many qualities are changing their value, new words to express new values are much to be desired.

Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas

3 Responses to “Virginia Woolf burned the word ‘feminist’”

  1. pippi Says:

    I’m not sure I understand. Did she write this in irony?

  2. natasha Says:

    I know - it’s strange. I also thought it must be ironic until I read it in context: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91tg/chapter3.html [find+’burn’ will get you to the spot].

    I think her point was that ‘feminist’ was being used in a derogative sense. And that women only needed to be ‘feminist’ so long as key rights weren’t established (to vote, work etc etc). I think her point is that the big changes - in the workplace (more women, equally paid, equal status), in the family (a state wage for mothers), and moving to less-aggressively warmongering politics - all these big changes, I think she was saying, can only come about when women and men work together.

    So I think she’s saying Yes, you need feminists to get women’s rights, but you don’t need feminists to transform the gendering of society, economics, international affairs and the family.

    I could be wrong… What do you think?!

  3. pippi Says:

    I haven’t read it in context yet, but will do so when I get back from holiday. Admittedly, I don’t want it to be true, but your interepretation of what Virginia Woolf wrote makes a lot of sense.

Leave a Reply