What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Guineas
The author received three separate requests for a gift of one guinea-one for a women’s college building fund, one for a society promoting the employment of professional women, and one to help prevent war and “protect culture, and intellectual liberty.” This book is a threefold answer to these requests-and a statement of feminine purpose.
352 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1938
532 people are currently reading
10402 people want to read
About the author
Virginia Woolf
1,936 books27.7k followers(Adeline) Virginia Woolf was an English novelist and essayist regarded as one of the foremost modernist literary figures of the twentieth century.
During the interwar period, Woolf was a significant figure in London literary society and a member of the Bloomsbury Group. Her most famous works include the novels Mrs. Dalloway (1925), To the Lighthouse (1927), and Orlando (1928), and the book-length essay A Room of One's Own (1929) with its famous dictum, "a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction."
During the interwar period, Woolf was a significant figure in London literary society and a member of the Bloomsbury Group. Her most famous works include the novels Mrs. Dalloway (1925), To the Lighthouse (1927), and Orlando (1928), and the book-length essay A Room of One's Own (1929) with its famous dictum, "a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 492 reviews
September 27, 2014
Four score years ago Woolf envisioned a time when the very prospect of members of her sex delivering sermons from the pulpit will not elicit scorn or sneers, when the blonde-wigged, ageing torch-bearers of society would allow women to administer justice, climb the ranks of the distinguished Civil Service and teach young men in universities. The indefatigable benevolence of time has transformed many of her ardent wishes into reality not only within the confines of England but beyond.
And yet as I type this, there's an educated man, a graduate of India's premiere engineering institute if his profile is to be believed, insulting a feminist author on my twitter timeline by accusing her of whoring herself.
At the expense of two dozen or more whatsapp messages and weeks worth of bickering back and forth have I managed to convince a dear friend not to use the term 'feminazi' to discredit radical feminists. What Woolf called an 'infantile fixation' remains a prime character trait of the less fair sex still.
Even now people would rather invoke some misogynous claptrap passed off as inviolate truisms recorded in a book written centuries ago by unenlightened individuals instead of applying intellect or acquired knowledge to judge a real life scenario. Case in point being the initial denial of anaesthetics to expecting mothers in labour on the assumption that women must endure the worst pain known to mankind to atone for 'Original Sin', something Woolf doesn't fail to point out here.
So before I go on any further and launch into a full-fledged tirade which will be a regrettable disservice to the purpose and spirit of this essay, let us turn to Woolf's three guineas.
To borrow from bell hooks, this is Virginia Woolf disemboweling the 'white supremacist capitalist patriarchy' of her times with a merciless precision. She is a force of nature in this pretend-letter - inexorable but reasonable, irate but calm, bursting with indignation but dignified, sarcastic but inoffensive - exuding wisdom and poise in every sentence. Not only does she trace the complex interrelationship between war and the lust for power and wealth, but attributes all of it to the underlying patriarchal sentiment of governing the world through tools of intimidation.
She chastises the world of academia rooted in baser interests of personal profit which jeopardize the sacrosanct search for truth and knowledge and criticizes the mode of education which delights in enforcing rigid hierarchies instead of striving to achieve synthesis and harmony.
Composed in the format of a letter addressed to a (probably fictional) gentleman (a lawyer) who asked Woolf to help preempt war by making contributions towards the preservation of artistic and intellectual liberty, the essay tries to delve deep into the causality of inequalities both in the public and private spheres and exposes how these inequalities between the sexes and the classes cripple society and foment antipathy and hatred. She also proves how the unhealthy obsession with imperious titles, monetary rewards, uniforms and ranks in various professions encourages nepotism and power-grabbing thereby stunting the advancement of civilization.
Flaying open the anatomy of fascism, she explicates how the politics of injustice and oppression perpetuated in England is just as deserving of censure as Hitler and Mussolini's doctrines of totalitarianism, how patriotism is nothing but a shallow excuse for perpetuating violence.
In staccato bursts of intellectual rigour, Woolf points out every single thing wrong with the world of her times (and ours too) with a devastating sort of forthrightness. This is Virginia at the height of her literary powers and probably at her argumentative best.
To conclude, this is the kind of essay which validates the existence of this narrative form like few others of its kind.
___
(*)Important to note here that Woolf resents the term 'feminist' because the subjects she elucidates with great vigour in this essay spill beyond the boundaries of an issue like gender equality.
And yet as I type this, there's an educated man, a graduate of India's premiere engineering institute if his profile is to be believed, insulting a feminist author on my twitter timeline by accusing her of whoring herself.
At the expense of two dozen or more whatsapp messages and weeks worth of bickering back and forth have I managed to convince a dear friend not to use the term 'feminazi' to discredit radical feminists. What Woolf called an 'infantile fixation' remains a prime character trait of the less fair sex still.
Even now people would rather invoke some misogynous claptrap passed off as inviolate truisms recorded in a book written centuries ago by unenlightened individuals instead of applying intellect or acquired knowledge to judge a real life scenario. Case in point being the initial denial of anaesthetics to expecting mothers in labour on the assumption that women must endure the worst pain known to mankind to atone for 'Original Sin', something Woolf doesn't fail to point out here.
So before I go on any further and launch into a full-fledged tirade which will be a regrettable disservice to the purpose and spirit of this essay, let us turn to Woolf's three guineas.
To borrow from bell hooks, this is Virginia Woolf disemboweling the 'white supremacist capitalist patriarchy' of her times with a merciless precision. She is a force of nature in this pretend-letter - inexorable but reasonable, irate but calm, bursting with indignation but dignified, sarcastic but inoffensive - exuding wisdom and poise in every sentence. Not only does she trace the complex interrelationship between war and the lust for power and wealth, but attributes all of it to the underlying patriarchal sentiment of governing the world through tools of intimidation.
"Scarcely a human being in the course of history has fallen to a woman's rifle; the vast majority of birds and beasts have been killed by you, not by us; and it is difficult to judge what we do not share."
She chastises the world of academia rooted in baser interests of personal profit which jeopardize the sacrosanct search for truth and knowledge and criticizes the mode of education which delights in enforcing rigid hierarchies instead of striving to achieve synthesis and harmony.
"...what should be taught in the new college, the poor college? Not the arts of dominating other people; not the arts of ruling, of killing, of acquiring land and capital. (...) The poor college must teach only the arts that can be taught cheaply and practised by poor people; such as medicine, mathematics, music, painting and literature. It should teach the arts of human intercourse; the art of understanding other people's lives and minds, and the little arts of talk, of dress, of cookery that are allied with them. The aim of the new college, the cheap college, should be not to segregate and specialize, but to combine."
Composed in the format of a letter addressed to a (probably fictional) gentleman (a lawyer) who asked Woolf to help preempt war by making contributions towards the preservation of artistic and intellectual liberty, the essay tries to delve deep into the causality of inequalities both in the public and private spheres and exposes how these inequalities between the sexes and the classes cripple society and foment antipathy and hatred. She also proves how the unhealthy obsession with imperious titles, monetary rewards, uniforms and ranks in various professions encourages nepotism and power-grabbing thereby stunting the advancement of civilization.
"Obviously the connection between dress and war is not far to seek; your finest clothes are those that you wear as soldiers. Since the red and the gold, the brass and the feathers are discarded upon active service, it is plain that their expensive and not, one might suppose, hygienic splendour is invented partly in order to impress the beholder with the majesty of the military office, partly in order through their vanity to induce young men to become soldiers."
Flaying open the anatomy of fascism, she explicates how the politics of injustice and oppression perpetuated in England is just as deserving of censure as Hitler and Mussolini's doctrines of totalitarianism, how patriotism is nothing but a shallow excuse for perpetuating violence.
"Are they not both the voices of Dictators, whether they speak English or German, and are we not all agreed that the dictator when we meet him abroad is a very dangerous as well as a very ugly animal? And he is here among us, raising his ugly head, spitting his poison, small still, curled up like a caterpillar on a leaf, but in the heart of England. (...) And is not the woman who has to breathe that poison and to fight that insect, secretly and without arms, in her office, fighting the Fascist or the Nazi as surely as those who fight him with arms in the limelight of publicity?"
In staccato bursts of intellectual rigour, Woolf points out every single thing wrong with the world of her times (and ours too) with a devastating sort of forthrightness. This is Virginia at the height of her literary powers and probably at her argumentative best.
"The daughters of educated men who were called, to their resentment, (*)'feminists' were in fact the advance guard of your own movement. They were fighting the same enemy that you are fighting and for the same reasons. They were fighting the tyranny of the patriarchal state as you are fighting the tyranny of the Fascist state."
To conclude, this is the kind of essay which validates the existence of this narrative form like few others of its kind.
___
(*)Important to note here that Woolf resents the term 'feminist' because the subjects she elucidates with great vigour in this essay spill beyond the boundaries of an issue like gender equality.
October 19, 2024
I read this solely because it was in my edition of A Room of One’s Own (see my 5* review HERE).
It is radical and way ahead of its time, with erudite sources and important ideas on similar themes to A Room, but unlike that, it was a long-winded, repetitive slog that I didn’t enjoy. (At times, I lost track of what were her ideas and what were lengthy quotes from others.)
There are three sections, each a reply to a request for money for a cause connected with educating and empowering women and reducing men’s tendency for conflict:
“To fight has always been the man’s habit… war is a profession; a source of happiness and excitement; and it is also an outlet for manly qualities, without which men would deteriorate… Your finest clothes are those you wear as soldiers.”
Woolf explores machismo and patriotism, speaks out against antisemitism and the rise of fascism, unequal educational opportunities, and the thrill of earning one’s first guinea. She considers the “daughters of educated men” like her to be, in some ways, less free than poorer women, because her class have a single choice of “career” : marriage and motherhood.
Image: Advertisement card for “Three Guineas”, marked up by Woolf (Source)
However, it was 1938 and times were changing: a few women were able to attend university and even enter professions, but only until marriage. Even so, whereas men’s colleges were richly endowed, women’s colleges had to borrow money for even the most rudimentary provision.
She notes and rails against the gender pay gap, the fact that women are not paid for housework and childcare, that spinsters don’t have pensions, and that male doctors try to withhold pain-relief in childbirth. She wants a minimum living wage, akin to UBI, in part so that men can enjoy their children’s childhood.
Woolf abhors two titles that impede women’s progress, especially in the workplace:
“‘Miss’ transmits sex; and sex may carry with it an aroma. ‘Miss’ may carry with it the swish of petticoats, the savour of scent… As for ‘Mrs’, it is a contaminated word; an obscene word… so rank does it stink in the nostrils of Whitehall, that Whitehall excludes it entirely.”
No married women could work in the Civil Service - or many other places.
Image: Not all petticoats are sexy: petticoat tails are wedge-shaped pieces of shortbread and arguably more enjoyable than this essay (Source)
She also detests the word “feminist”, seeing it as “vicious and corrupt… and is now obsolete”, as well as making it hard for men and women to work together. She doesn’t suggest an alternative.
As with A Room, she references numerous writers, philosophers, political figures to make her points, including scouring biographies, and she notes the dearth of records of pioneering independent women and even ordinary women’s lives. She relates to Antigone, who had an autocratic father and had to choose her loyalties and to find and distinguish between laws (she was prepared to break) and The Law.
Quotes
• “Marriage, the art of choosing the human being with whom to live successfully.”
• “To depend upon a profession is a less odious form of slavery than to depend upon a father.” Or, presumably, a husband.
• “Turn on the wireless [radio] and rake down music from the air.”
• “Take this guinea then and use it, not to burn the house down, but to make its windows blaze.”
It is radical and way ahead of its time, with erudite sources and important ideas on similar themes to A Room, but unlike that, it was a long-winded, repetitive slog that I didn’t enjoy. (At times, I lost track of what were her ideas and what were lengthy quotes from others.)
There are three sections, each a reply to a request for money for a cause connected with educating and empowering women and reducing men’s tendency for conflict:
“To fight has always been the man’s habit… war is a profession; a source of happiness and excitement; and it is also an outlet for manly qualities, without which men would deteriorate… Your finest clothes are those you wear as soldiers.”
Woolf explores machismo and patriotism, speaks out against antisemitism and the rise of fascism, unequal educational opportunities, and the thrill of earning one’s first guinea. She considers the “daughters of educated men” like her to be, in some ways, less free than poorer women, because her class have a single choice of “career” : marriage and motherhood.
Image: Advertisement card for “Three Guineas”, marked up by Woolf (Source)
However, it was 1938 and times were changing: a few women were able to attend university and even enter professions, but only until marriage. Even so, whereas men’s colleges were richly endowed, women’s colleges had to borrow money for even the most rudimentary provision.
She notes and rails against the gender pay gap, the fact that women are not paid for housework and childcare, that spinsters don’t have pensions, and that male doctors try to withhold pain-relief in childbirth. She wants a minimum living wage, akin to UBI, in part so that men can enjoy their children’s childhood.
Woolf abhors two titles that impede women’s progress, especially in the workplace:
“‘Miss’ transmits sex; and sex may carry with it an aroma. ‘Miss’ may carry with it the swish of petticoats, the savour of scent… As for ‘Mrs’, it is a contaminated word; an obscene word… so rank does it stink in the nostrils of Whitehall, that Whitehall excludes it entirely.”
No married women could work in the Civil Service - or many other places.
Image: Not all petticoats are sexy: petticoat tails are wedge-shaped pieces of shortbread and arguably more enjoyable than this essay (Source)
She also detests the word “feminist”, seeing it as “vicious and corrupt… and is now obsolete”, as well as making it hard for men and women to work together. She doesn’t suggest an alternative.
As with A Room, she references numerous writers, philosophers, political figures to make her points, including scouring biographies, and she notes the dearth of records of pioneering independent women and even ordinary women’s lives. She relates to Antigone, who had an autocratic father and had to choose her loyalties and to find and distinguish between laws (she was prepared to break) and The Law.
Quotes
• “Marriage, the art of choosing the human being with whom to live successfully.”
• “To depend upon a profession is a less odious form of slavery than to depend upon a father.” Or, presumably, a husband.
• “Turn on the wireless [radio] and rake down music from the air.”
• “Take this guinea then and use it, not to burn the house down, but to make its windows blaze.”
September 29, 2018
One of Woolf’s non-fiction works and a follow up to A Room of One’s Own, published in 1938. This essay is structured as a response to a letter from a man asking Woolf to join him in trying to prevent the looming war and asking how war can be prevented. Woolf’s response centres on a number of things. She refers to two other letter: a request for money to help support a women’s college and a request to assist an organisation to help women enter the professions.
This enables Woolf to take a close look at women’s education and women in the professions in constructing her response about war. She does not pull her punches in her assessment of the situation:
"Behind us lies the patriarchal system; the private house, with it nullity, its immorality, its hypocrisy, its servility. Before us lies the public world, the professional system, with its possessiveness, its jealousy, its pugnacity, its greed."
Woolf’s arguments are at times subtle and detailed but she focuses firstly on the difficulty that women have entering the professions, with mention of the lack of equal pay for men and women and secondly on the problem of education for women. It is certainly an anti-fascist polemic, but it is also a polemic which denounces imperialism, capitalism and patriarchy. Woolf goes as far as to argue that the roots of fascism lie in the patriarchal family. Three guineas is certainly an angry book.
The original publication contained five pictures, not of fascist dictators, but of people Woolf felt represented patriarchy, people well respected and part of the establishment: former Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Gordon Lang, Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart, founder of the scouting movement and war hero Sir Robert Baden-Powell and finally the state trumpeters of the Household Cavalry. There is a photograph of each juxtaposed with their image from the back of cigarette cards which were very popular in the 1930s. The implication is that each of these are implicated in the perpetuation of war. The oppression of women in Britain is linked quite clearly to the perpetuation of war and to Continental fascism. Woolf, in talking about war speaks about photographs of dead children and ruined houses, photographs you might expect to see in a book opposing war. However they aren’t there and their absence is significant as is their replacement by the photographs included. It is almost as though Woolf is saying they are responsible for all this. Many editions of Three Guineas don’t include these pictures and that is a significant loss; they give the book an extra dimension.
This is a powerful and well-argued polemic which is more radical than it first appears with a clear call for the destruction of patriarchy and its link to private property. There are reflections on religion and education as well as war and a close look at how their exclusion of women have contributed to the perpetuation of war. Powerful stuff.
This enables Woolf to take a close look at women’s education and women in the professions in constructing her response about war. She does not pull her punches in her assessment of the situation:
"Behind us lies the patriarchal system; the private house, with it nullity, its immorality, its hypocrisy, its servility. Before us lies the public world, the professional system, with its possessiveness, its jealousy, its pugnacity, its greed."
Woolf’s arguments are at times subtle and detailed but she focuses firstly on the difficulty that women have entering the professions, with mention of the lack of equal pay for men and women and secondly on the problem of education for women. It is certainly an anti-fascist polemic, but it is also a polemic which denounces imperialism, capitalism and patriarchy. Woolf goes as far as to argue that the roots of fascism lie in the patriarchal family. Three guineas is certainly an angry book.
The original publication contained five pictures, not of fascist dictators, but of people Woolf felt represented patriarchy, people well respected and part of the establishment: former Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Gordon Lang, Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart, founder of the scouting movement and war hero Sir Robert Baden-Powell and finally the state trumpeters of the Household Cavalry. There is a photograph of each juxtaposed with their image from the back of cigarette cards which were very popular in the 1930s. The implication is that each of these are implicated in the perpetuation of war. The oppression of women in Britain is linked quite clearly to the perpetuation of war and to Continental fascism. Woolf, in talking about war speaks about photographs of dead children and ruined houses, photographs you might expect to see in a book opposing war. However they aren’t there and their absence is significant as is their replacement by the photographs included. It is almost as though Woolf is saying they are responsible for all this. Many editions of Three Guineas don’t include these pictures and that is a significant loss; they give the book an extra dimension.
This is a powerful and well-argued polemic which is more radical than it first appears with a clear call for the destruction of patriarchy and its link to private property. There are reflections on religion and education as well as war and a close look at how their exclusion of women have contributed to the perpetuation of war. Powerful stuff.
May 7, 2024
As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world.
This novel-length essay or more aptly put, manifesto, is a long letter written in response to an unnamed gentleman’s request, asking Woolf’s contribution and her opinion on war and how best to prevent it.
How in your opinion are we to prevent war?
Alongside this question, Woolf received two other letters. One asking for funds to help rebuild a women's college and another for an institute which helped women enter the professions.
But how any woman would be able to contribute in a society and at a time when she can’t have the same level of education as a man or work in a profession of her choice; when she is told to stay in the kitchen and learn to cook for her man rather than go out and fight for something that should rightfully be hers? When even the ‘war’ which is to be prevented by a woman is made by man?
Here’s an excerpt:
"Some more energetic, some more active method of expressing our belief that war is barbarous, that war is inhuman, that war, as Wilfred Owen put it, is insupportable, horrible and beastly seems to be required. But, rhetoric apart, what active method is open to us? Let us consider and compare. You, of course, could once more take up arms—in Spain, as before in France—in defence of peace. But that presumably is a method that having tried you have rejected. At any rate that method is not open to us; both the Army and the Navy are closed to our sex. We are not allowed to fight. Nor again are we allowed to be members of the Stock Exchange. Thus we can use neither the pressure of force nor the pressure of money. The less direct but still effective weapons which our brothers, as educated men, possess in the diplomatic service, in the Church, are also denied to us. We cannot preach sermons or negotiate treaties. Then again although it is true that we can write articles or send letters to the Press, the control of the Press—the decision what to print, what not to print—is entirely in the hands of your sex. It is true that for the past twenty years we have been admitted to the Civil Service and to the Bar; but our position there is still very precarious and our authority of the slightest. Thus all the weapons with which an educated man can enforce his opinions are either beyond our grasp or so nearly beyond it that even if we used them we could scarcely inflict one scratch. "
This novel-length essay or more aptly put, manifesto, is a long letter written in response to an unnamed gentleman’s request, asking Woolf’s contribution and her opinion on war and how best to prevent it.
How in your opinion are we to prevent war?
Alongside this question, Woolf received two other letters. One asking for funds to help rebuild a women's college and another for an institute which helped women enter the professions.
But how any woman would be able to contribute in a society and at a time when she can’t have the same level of education as a man or work in a profession of her choice; when she is told to stay in the kitchen and learn to cook for her man rather than go out and fight for something that should rightfully be hers? When even the ‘war’ which is to be prevented by a woman is made by man?
Here’s an excerpt:
"Some more energetic, some more active method of expressing our belief that war is barbarous, that war is inhuman, that war, as Wilfred Owen put it, is insupportable, horrible and beastly seems to be required. But, rhetoric apart, what active method is open to us? Let us consider and compare. You, of course, could once more take up arms—in Spain, as before in France—in defence of peace. But that presumably is a method that having tried you have rejected. At any rate that method is not open to us; both the Army and the Navy are closed to our sex. We are not allowed to fight. Nor again are we allowed to be members of the Stock Exchange. Thus we can use neither the pressure of force nor the pressure of money. The less direct but still effective weapons which our brothers, as educated men, possess in the diplomatic service, in the Church, are also denied to us. We cannot preach sermons or negotiate treaties. Then again although it is true that we can write articles or send letters to the Press, the control of the Press—the decision what to print, what not to print—is entirely in the hands of your sex. It is true that for the past twenty years we have been admitted to the Civil Service and to the Bar; but our position there is still very precarious and our authority of the slightest. Thus all the weapons with which an educated man can enforce his opinions are either beyond our grasp or so nearly beyond it that even if we used them we could scarcely inflict one scratch. "
April 27, 2019
Three Guineas could be seen as a companion piece to A Room of One’s Own. The main points of view here women, education, and the need for women to be economically independent. Published in 1938 as Europe drifted towards war with the rise of fascism in Europe, the question Woolf explains in Three Guineas is how women can prevent war when they are excluded from education, the professions, and the public sphere. The title Three Guineas derives from Woolf pondering whether she should support three different causes with a guinea donation a piece – these being; a society to stop war, a campaign to support the rebuilding of a women’s college, and an organization to promote women’s employment in the professions.
Woolf had been observing the rise of fascism in Europe with a keen eye. She was all too aware that many of the newly gained women’s rights in Germany were being eroded as Nazism forced women to readopt traditional roles. Woolf was bothered that a similar course of action could occur in Britain. Three Guineas is essentially a critique of patriarchy. Woolf made the link between patriarchal family life and its connection to fascism. The oppression of domestic life for women is reflected in the oppression of women in society. This argument was very disputable at the time but has gained currency since the late 1960s when feminists argued that the private is the political. Woolf maintained that war was a product of men’s socialised norms of violence, competition, and domination. Norms that were embedded through the structures of education, and the professions. Women, being excluded from these structures, developed different values. She acknowledged that to have any influence women must take part in the public domain, but she argued, women should retain their difference and not adopt the very attitudes that they needed to change.
This was a strange one for me - the first part was good, the second part most definitely the highlight, but during the third part I started to lose interest. No doubt she could write thought-provoking essays, but when I think of something like Orlando, I just much prefer her Fiction.
Which remains me, I must finally read The Waves some time this year.
Woolf had been observing the rise of fascism in Europe with a keen eye. She was all too aware that many of the newly gained women’s rights in Germany were being eroded as Nazism forced women to readopt traditional roles. Woolf was bothered that a similar course of action could occur in Britain. Three Guineas is essentially a critique of patriarchy. Woolf made the link between patriarchal family life and its connection to fascism. The oppression of domestic life for women is reflected in the oppression of women in society. This argument was very disputable at the time but has gained currency since the late 1960s when feminists argued that the private is the political. Woolf maintained that war was a product of men’s socialised norms of violence, competition, and domination. Norms that were embedded through the structures of education, and the professions. Women, being excluded from these structures, developed different values. She acknowledged that to have any influence women must take part in the public domain, but she argued, women should retain their difference and not adopt the very attitudes that they needed to change.
This was a strange one for me - the first part was good, the second part most definitely the highlight, but during the third part I started to lose interest. No doubt she could write thought-provoking essays, but when I think of something like Orlando, I just much prefer her Fiction.
Which remains me, I must finally read The Waves some time this year.
March 28, 2020
In una cornice fittizia, alla ricerca di un modo affidabile per prevenire la guerra ormai incombente, con acume, fine analisi, supportando ogni sua considerazione in merito con adeguato supporto documentario in questo saggio complesso e denso, la Woolf concede uno scorcio quanto mai impietoso sulla condizione della donna a inizi Novecento e induce a riflettere anche noi contemporanei su di una situazione che tuttora permane quasi immutata o muta solo sotto la sterile minaccia della legge. Una storia di esclusione, ma anche di fierezza, di forza d'animo, di esortazione al cambiamento, a quella riflessione generale e personale che, lei sola, ben oltre vane imposizioni, conduce alla comprensione e al vero cambiamento.
January 24, 2016
If you take it from the patriarchy's most slavishly devoted agents, the so-stupid-they-practically-drool white men ("not all m-" *defenestrates protester*) who upload videos on YouTube where they yell about how everyone's way too emotional, the dumbasses, why can't they be fucking rational like us ("yeah, well, double dumbass on you," sez a Captain Kirk displaced into the '80s), anyone who actually gets passionate about social justice is just proving the irrationality of it all. While meanwhile the Amazing Atheist, that master of the carefully studied and utterly rational scream-a-thon, gets to scream all he wants, inheritor as he is of the dubious-at-best legacy of Sam Kinison and Bill Hicks. So emotional displays are bad, but only if they're emotional displays that go against... look, fuck these clowns, all right?
The point being that Virginia Woolf's rhetoric here is masterful, even as it's obvious she had to play the "don't get mad, no actually don't get emotional at all, the men on the side of patriarchal thinking can get as emotional as they want but you as an opponent of it absolutely cannot, that is OUR territory, &c., &c." which she herself addresses in the wonderful passage about "infantile fixation" in some of the men of the 19th century. Not a lot has changed, really, it's just the dudes with the infantile fixation have youtube and reddit and facebook to be infantile on. Except Woolf smacks each and every one of them down here. She keeps an outward tone of pleasant conversation, yes, but lurking about two centimeters beneath the surface is this badass pissed-off Woolf whose guns blaze subtly but blaze nonetheless.
As a work of rhetoric, Three Guineas is masterful, but that doesn't even begin to get at it. Woolf's points on the various hypocrisies of society and the way human competitive instinct ties to human war instinct, especially male competitive instinct-male war instinct (hey! Today's Super Bowl Sunday! I'm not gonna watch the Super Bowl today!) is brilliantly well-realized. Barbarism, as Morrissey reminds us, begins at home, and while he might have intended that as one of his many beautifully coy Morrissey turns of phrase, it's a song title that nonetheless ties in well. The basic idea being that the patriarchy is everywhere and we support it without even knowing it.
Which led to some self-examination on my own part, since I, as a white male (maybe not a heterosexual white male, there are a million reasons why that's up for debate, but certainly white and certainly male), have almost certainly benefitted from this sickening system in ways I don't even understand. So yes, this is a discomfort-inducing book for any white man to read, but the discomfort it causes proves how important it is. So read this book. And Aubrey's right, think of it as philosophy, because if it isn't, what is?
The point being that Virginia Woolf's rhetoric here is masterful, even as it's obvious she had to play the "don't get mad, no actually don't get emotional at all, the men on the side of patriarchal thinking can get as emotional as they want but you as an opponent of it absolutely cannot, that is OUR territory, &c., &c." which she herself addresses in the wonderful passage about "infantile fixation" in some of the men of the 19th century. Not a lot has changed, really, it's just the dudes with the infantile fixation have youtube and reddit and facebook to be infantile on. Except Woolf smacks each and every one of them down here. She keeps an outward tone of pleasant conversation, yes, but lurking about two centimeters beneath the surface is this badass pissed-off Woolf whose guns blaze subtly but blaze nonetheless.
As a work of rhetoric, Three Guineas is masterful, but that doesn't even begin to get at it. Woolf's points on the various hypocrisies of society and the way human competitive instinct ties to human war instinct, especially male competitive instinct-male war instinct (hey! Today's Super Bowl Sunday! I'm not gonna watch the Super Bowl today!) is brilliantly well-realized. Barbarism, as Morrissey reminds us, begins at home, and while he might have intended that as one of his many beautifully coy Morrissey turns of phrase, it's a song title that nonetheless ties in well. The basic idea being that the patriarchy is everywhere and we support it without even knowing it.
Which led to some self-examination on my own part, since I, as a white male (maybe not a heterosexual white male, there are a million reasons why that's up for debate, but certainly white and certainly male), have almost certainly benefitted from this sickening system in ways I don't even understand. So yes, this is a discomfort-inducing book for any white man to read, but the discomfort it causes proves how important it is. So read this book. And Aubrey's right, think of it as philosophy, because if it isn't, what is?
July 11, 2025
Three Guineas is a lengthy essay by Virginia Woolf, written in the style of an answer to a letter requesting her support to prevent war. Her response is rhetorical, backed by many quotations to prove her point. With her inherent skill of writing, she creates a thought-provoking literary product, even though it is not an easy reading experience.
The fictitious letter Virginia refers to is only a platform for her to explore women's education and their general position in society. She uses the idea of seeking her support to prevent war to show how ill-suited the women are to give such support. Governed by a patriarchal society with patriarchal values, she demonstrates in detail with many arguments the difficulty for women to have an independent opinion and an independent position.
Educational opportunities were rare for women. The brothers were sent to schools and universities while the sisters were home educated. Even when Oxford and Cambridge opened the door for women's colleges, they still couldn't use their degree credentials like their male counterparts, which affected their employment opportunities. Moreover, women were barred from some professions. Even when women secured positions in the limited professions available to them, the salary scale was striking different between the sexes. All these show that women are not in an independent position to express their candid opinion. Their social position is weak and subject to male dominion. This robs women of their independent voice, and, as such, their opinion cannot significantly differ from men.
The essay, however, is limited to a class. Virginia calls it the "daughters of educated men". This effectively excludes the working class. Virginia centered her writing on her class because it was something she knew and understood. One may call this prejudice, but as Virginia saw, "not only are we incomparably weaker than the men of our own class, we are weaker than the women of the working class...Our class is the weakest of all the classes in the state". Virginia Woolf was painfully aware of the position of women of her class and what struggles many of them had to undergo to establish an independent name and position for themselves. That may be the reason for her limitation here.
The essay contained some interesting content, although from the present perspective, many of the issues Virginia raises were dated. That is, of course, to be understood, and I wasn't put out by that. Yet, I struggled to get through the essay. The whole argument was entangled with loads and loads of quotations that Virginia has lavishly sprayed throughout the essay that I was lost in its maze. The writing was repetitious, and many times did I wonder whether I had bookmarked the wrong page! I could also sense resentment between her words, which was new to me. I had never known Virginia like that, so it was quite shocking. Perhaps, the times were tense; the essay was written in 1938 with the imminence of World War II. Perhaps her time was ebbing, for she ended her life two years later. If not for my steadfast loyalty to Virginia, I'd have certainly rated it low.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
The fictitious letter Virginia refers to is only a platform for her to explore women's education and their general position in society. She uses the idea of seeking her support to prevent war to show how ill-suited the women are to give such support. Governed by a patriarchal society with patriarchal values, she demonstrates in detail with many arguments the difficulty for women to have an independent opinion and an independent position.
Educational opportunities were rare for women. The brothers were sent to schools and universities while the sisters were home educated. Even when Oxford and Cambridge opened the door for women's colleges, they still couldn't use their degree credentials like their male counterparts, which affected their employment opportunities. Moreover, women were barred from some professions. Even when women secured positions in the limited professions available to them, the salary scale was striking different between the sexes. All these show that women are not in an independent position to express their candid opinion. Their social position is weak and subject to male dominion. This robs women of their independent voice, and, as such, their opinion cannot significantly differ from men.
The essay, however, is limited to a class. Virginia calls it the "daughters of educated men". This effectively excludes the working class. Virginia centered her writing on her class because it was something she knew and understood. One may call this prejudice, but as Virginia saw, "not only are we incomparably weaker than the men of our own class, we are weaker than the women of the working class...Our class is the weakest of all the classes in the state". Virginia Woolf was painfully aware of the position of women of her class and what struggles many of them had to undergo to establish an independent name and position for themselves. That may be the reason for her limitation here.
The essay contained some interesting content, although from the present perspective, many of the issues Virginia raises were dated. That is, of course, to be understood, and I wasn't put out by that. Yet, I struggled to get through the essay. The whole argument was entangled with loads and loads of quotations that Virginia has lavishly sprayed throughout the essay that I was lost in its maze. The writing was repetitious, and many times did I wonder whether I had bookmarked the wrong page! I could also sense resentment between her words, which was new to me. I had never known Virginia like that, so it was quite shocking. Perhaps, the times were tense; the essay was written in 1938 with the imminence of World War II. Perhaps her time was ebbing, for she ended her life two years later. If not for my steadfast loyalty to Virginia, I'd have certainly rated it low.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
December 17, 2015
…it matters not just because women win. It matters because it means we have a seat at the table. And everybody in this room knows the basic rule, if you don’t have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu.
—Senator Elizabeth Warren
This is my seventh Woolf. I own ten more. It is not often that I unconsciously commit myself so thoroughly to a single author, for when I was young and did not have recourse to Goodreads for purposes of planning out further successful reads, I followed each and every success to the end of their composers' bibliography, and that never, ever, ended well. Now here I sit, seven out of seventeen for read and soon to be reviewed of not seventeen, not even seven, but one. One single author. Her qualities I aspire to, her flaws are my own, and as much as I praise empathy and its Amnesty International heights of power, as much as I parse out my reading amongst the multifarious accordingly, the canon is a lie; representation, as a white daughter of educated men, is not.
So profound was her unconscious loathing for the education of the private house with its cruelty, its poverty, its hypocrisy, its immorality, its inanity that she would undertake any task however menial, exercise any fascination however fatal that enabled her to escape.I said A Room of One's Own is a good entry to feminism. The danger, then, of its popularity and persistent blocking out of this other works' attributes is its all too often status as both start and finish, beginning and end. That is the act of learning not speech, nor a quote, not even the alphabet, but a single letter by which one reads. If one wants to be even more explicit, scrub out "letter" and replace it with "character", for the former brings to mind the English 26 of two significant digits while the latter speaks of the 5000+ entried language of Chinese, a culture-crossing comparison that speaks not only to our fear of multitudes of thousands but our fear of other and, in short, does well to describe the mentality with which we all should approach Woolf's 'A Room of One's Own'. Feminism is not a light switch; it is a lifetime. To the Lighthouse, anyone?
We shall find there not only the reason why the pay of the professional woman is still so small, but something more dangerous, something which, if it spreads, may poison both sexes equally. There, in those quotations, is the egg of the very same worm that we know under other names in other countries. There we have in embryo the creature, Dictator as we call him when he is Italian or German, who believes he has the right, given by God, Nature, sex or race is immaterial, to dictate to other human beings how they shall live; what they shall do.When I think of feminism, I think of destroying the patriarchy, and when I think of the patriarchy, I think of all. If The Second Sex was a room, Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism a window, Three Guineas is a barometer, for a storm comes upon us through myriad physical and chemical means, and it will not spare us its wrath due to the fact of our ignorance of its methods. We are all bound by the patriarchy, but do not take that as a reason to forgo feminism for humanism. There is a history behind me of those who were of my gender, those who due to the fact of our shared gender were isolated with impunity, forced into labor with impunity, raped with impunity and murdered with impunity. To forgo feminism for humanism is to obliterate the resistance birthed by that history with impunity. To forgo feminism for humanism is to imply that the millenia of centuries do not matter, we have not really come very far at all with our ability to not only survive but propagate, to not only propagate but to control, to not only control but to enhance, to not only enhance to progress, due to the fact that this movement is for the sake of women and women, as we all know, are the half of the population of humanity that is composed of objects. To put it plainly, I for the simple fact of being a woman have a lot more to lose a lot more easily, and if you refuse to take that into respectful account, what good is your status as a human being for?
And we find, between the lines of their husbands’ biographies, so many women practicing—but what are we to call the profession that consists in bringing nine or ten children into the world, the profession which consists in running a house, nursing an invalid, visiting the poor and the sick, tending here an old father, there an old mother?—there is no name and no pay for that profession; but we find so many mothers, sisters and daughters of educated men practicing it in the nineteenth century that we must lump them and their lives together behind their husbands’ and brothers’, and leave them to deliver their message to those who have the time to extract it and the imagination with which to decipher it.Evolution is the survival of the fittest, fittest not in whatever implications of athleticism and superiority have accrued over the years but in the matter of a round block made of wood triumphing over a square block made of diamond because it is able to fit in the round hole. It is no surprise, then, that a patriarchal way of doing things, man as subject and woman as object, has percolated into every vein of social significance and common sense. It is no surprise, then, that we are compromised from the day of birth till the day we drop, so if you think this is a matter of competition or holier-than-thou, kill two birds with one stone and forget it. Not only is that the patriarchal manner of evaluation, survival of the fittest translating to utter erasure of the assumed to be useless but only, of course, after squeezing out every bit of use possible from that long forgotten name, identity, and self. Speech, thought, the way things are and the ways we fear are all geared towards those clubs men, those fashions of the military, those boys who will ever be boys, so it shouldn't surprise us how resistance is not a matter of putting your money behind your mouth but questioning why the mouth is worth so much less than the money.
If such is the real nature of our influence, and we all recognize the description and have noted the effects, it is either beyond our reach, for many of us are plain, poor and old; or beneath our contempt, for many of us would prefer to call ourselves prostitutes simply and to take our stand openly under the lamps of Piccadilly Circus rather than use it.If there are no female philosophers, we shall have to question the definitions of "philosopher" and "philosophy", for if that oh so worthy title cannot be in any way applied to a work such as this, then its worth is very little indeed. What matters is the wide range of that worth applied to the heritage, the fact, the crowd of academia and purveyors of its gates and why is it none of them will come across a work such as this, a fierce 188 pages touching upon the relations between war and freedom and feminine momentum everywhere in between, admittedly suffering from Eurocentric solipsism but that has never stopped the men. This book comes upon a difference in income, a difference in education, a picture of dead bodies, and instead of quick-fix magicking the culprit up in the form of "the economy", "today's generation", "Internet" in the mainland and "terrorism" without, we have facts, we have logic, we have a quick and keen and systematic deconstruction of everything we take for granted in just the patriarchal mix of ethos and pathos and logos we all in the Ancient Greece-informed side of things aspire to, broken down and built up and into a completely new beast of paradigm and ideology that is the only trundler down the path not dictated by the yellow brick roads of the patriarchy, and still we withhold the "philosophy". Is the tag "feminism" supposed to make up for that lack? Considering the placement of its works in the "Sexuality" and "Women's Studies" areas, leaving the "Philosophy" shelves free to take on its bags of dicks, and the respective attracted audiences, I think not.
You shall swear that you will do all in your power to insist that any woman who enters any profession shall in no way hinder any other human being, whether man or woman, white or black, provided that he or she is qualified to enter that profession, from entering it; but shall do all in her power to help them.Perhaps the word "philosophy" cannot contain it, for while survival of the fittest has been outfitted by the patriarchy accordingly, intersectionalism has not. There is a great deal in this work penned to completion 76 years ago that is all too familiar, and it is that great deal that trumps any talk of "incorrect application" and "breaks the rules" and roots the ideal of feminism firmly in the matter of the individual. Here, Woolf does not speak of a solution, nor does she summarize her main tenants into the great favorite of banking education of easily swallowed and easily vomited, but factors in the passage of time and its endless trials and errors on every scope of human effort into her composition. An weighty task that implies an insurmountable problem, but for all the pain and death and genocidal levels of infighting the human race has undergone, it still persists. Figure out the reason why we don't all just lay down and die, factor in the facts and statistics of gynephobia around the globe, keep at it long enough and find, eventually, a handful of means and a measure of hope to last you on your way.
The outsiders then would bind themselves not only to earn their own livings, but to earn them so expertly that their refusal to earn them would be a matter of concern to the work master. They would bind themselves to obtain full knowledge of professional practices, and to reveal any instance of tyranny or abuse in their professions…Broadly speaking, the main distinction between us who are outside society and you who are inside society must be that whereas you will make use of the means provided by your position—leagues, conferences, campaigns, great names, and all such public measures as your wealth and political influence place within your reach—we, remaining outside, will experiment not with public but with private means in private.I called this book a barometer. For a more accurate metaphor, forgo Prometheus and carry the fire on your own.
“Then, to, there was my belief that now and then women should do for themselves what men have already done—and occasionally what men have not done—thereby establishing themselves as persons, and perhaps encouraging other women towards greater independence of thought and action…When they fail their failure must be a challenge to others.”
-Ameila Earhart
July 5, 2021
“Come donna non ho patria, la mia patria è il mondo intero.”
Ho concluso la lettura già da un giorno e mi sono concessa un po’ di tempo per riordinare le idee. Tutt’ora, ho la sensazione che, qualsiasi cosa io possa dire su questo saggio, possa risultare banale.
Partendo da una domanda fittizia “Cosa, secondo Lei, si deve fare per prevenire la guerra?”, rivoltale da un fantomatico avvocato, Virginia Woolf sviluppa un ragionamento complesso e pregno di digressioni sulla condizione in cui versa la donna (siamo negli anni 1936-38) e, più in generale, sulla sua condizione di inferiorità in una società prettamente patriarcale. Le tre ghinee, che simbolicamente mette a disposizione, dovranno essere versate a favore di un fondo per l’istruzione femminile; a favore di un fondo che permetta l’accesso alle donne alle libere professioni e, di conseguenza, alla loro indipendenza economica; a favore di un fondo dedicato ad un’associazione femminile pacifista inventata da lei, chiamata “la società delle estranee” (riferendosi alla condizione di “estranea” della donna).
Solo così le donne riusciranno ad acquisire le condizioni adatte ad una vita degna, senza sottomettersi a padri “affetti da fissazione infantile”, mariti padroni che costringono le mogli a chiamarli “signori” e fratelli che hanno accesso a qualsiasi tipo di istruzione, a qualsiasi cifra, lasciando le proprie sorelle ad un livello di istruzione elementare e poco costoso.
Nonostante siano stati fatti molti passi avanti dalla pubblicazione di questo pamphlet, viviamo ancora in un mondo caratterizzato dalla discriminazione, che sicuramente non sarebbe piaciuto alla nostra Virginia. La sua era una lotta fondata sulla Giustizia, sull’Uguaglianza e sulla Libertà, senza sopraffazioni, disparità e sognava una società in cui uomini e donne sarebbero potuti stare sullo stesso piano.
Un pamphlet coraggioso, pieno di spunti fondamentali (nonostante sia da rapportare all’epoca della pubblicazione) e nonostante non sia stata una lettura facile, è da annoverare tra le letture più istruttive di tutta la mia vita.
Ho concluso la lettura già da un giorno e mi sono concessa un po’ di tempo per riordinare le idee. Tutt’ora, ho la sensazione che, qualsiasi cosa io possa dire su questo saggio, possa risultare banale.
Partendo da una domanda fittizia “Cosa, secondo Lei, si deve fare per prevenire la guerra?”, rivoltale da un fantomatico avvocato, Virginia Woolf sviluppa un ragionamento complesso e pregno di digressioni sulla condizione in cui versa la donna (siamo negli anni 1936-38) e, più in generale, sulla sua condizione di inferiorità in una società prettamente patriarcale. Le tre ghinee, che simbolicamente mette a disposizione, dovranno essere versate a favore di un fondo per l’istruzione femminile; a favore di un fondo che permetta l’accesso alle donne alle libere professioni e, di conseguenza, alla loro indipendenza economica; a favore di un fondo dedicato ad un’associazione femminile pacifista inventata da lei, chiamata “la società delle estranee” (riferendosi alla condizione di “estranea” della donna).
Solo così le donne riusciranno ad acquisire le condizioni adatte ad una vita degna, senza sottomettersi a padri “affetti da fissazione infantile”, mariti padroni che costringono le mogli a chiamarli “signori” e fratelli che hanno accesso a qualsiasi tipo di istruzione, a qualsiasi cifra, lasciando le proprie sorelle ad un livello di istruzione elementare e poco costoso.
Nonostante siano stati fatti molti passi avanti dalla pubblicazione di questo pamphlet, viviamo ancora in un mondo caratterizzato dalla discriminazione, che sicuramente non sarebbe piaciuto alla nostra Virginia. La sua era una lotta fondata sulla Giustizia, sull’Uguaglianza e sulla Libertà, senza sopraffazioni, disparità e sognava una società in cui uomini e donne sarebbero potuti stare sullo stesso piano.
Un pamphlet coraggioso, pieno di spunti fondamentali (nonostante sia da rapportare all’epoca della pubblicazione) e nonostante non sia stata una lettura facile, è da annoverare tra le letture più istruttive di tutta la mia vita.
June 1, 2021
adamı soru sorduğuna böyle pişman ederler işte... “ne kadar salak salak sorular bunlar” demiş ve üç koldan cevabını vermiş sevgili woolf. kendine ait bir oda kadar derli toplu olmasa da çok beğendim.
February 3, 2025
Üç Gine hakkında uzun uzun bir şey yazmaya gerek olduğunu sanmıyorum. Zira Kendine Ait Bir Oda’yı okuyup Virginia Woolf’un kadın meselelerine bakışını sevdiyseniz-ki aksinin mümkün olduğunu hiç sanmıyorum- mutlaka okuyun. Kitap, Virgina Woolf’a gelen kurgusal mı yoksa gerçek mi olduğu bilinmeyen bir bağış isteği ve savaşın nasıl engelleneceğine dair soruya yanıt olarak yazdığı üç makaleden – ya da mektuptan- oluşuyor. Toplumsal yapı ve politikadan bu kadar dışlanan kadınların savaşı engellemeye nasıl bir etkisinin olacağı sorgusuyla başlayan; savaşın nedenlerinin patriyarkal düzendeki güç ve otorite arzusuna dayandıran, kadınların eşit eğitim, eşit ücret ve eşit fırsat haklarından mahrum şekilde var olmaya çalışırken barışçı bir toplumun yaratılmasının imkansızlığına ve savaşın kaçınılmazlığına varan çok etkileyici bir metin. Bazen konular arasında geçişlerde bazı şeylerle tekrar karşılaşabilirsiniz ama kadınlar bu eşitsizliklerle tekrar tekrar karşılaşıp hala pes etmeden savaşırken bu kadar basit bir noktaya takılacağınızı düşünmüyorum. Sadece boş bir zamanınızda okumanız gerektiği tavsiyesini de buraya bırakayım. Mektupların kolay okunacağı yanılgısıyla başlarsanız tadınız kaçar. Zira hem Virginia Woolf’un kendi tarzındaki anlatımı gerekse anlatılan sorunların büyük bir kısmıyla neredeyse 90 yıl sonra hala uğraşıyor olmaktan kaynaklı yükselen sinirinizin kontrol altına alınabilmesi için biraz zamana ve konsantrasyona ihtiyacınız olacaktır.
November 24, 2014
V. WOOLF: *drops mic*
March 14, 2013
Let us get straight to the point. For unlike Virginia Woolf who waited three years to answer the question how can women prevent war, I can't wait that long for me to understand what is happening in the south of the Philippines where Filipinos are fighting with the Malaysians over a property called Sabah.
So how, according to Ms. Woolf, can women prevent war?
Influence.
Women can have great influence in this futuristic society that can communicate to millions at the touch of a button, but still considers killing another human being as a symbol of patriotism. Loyalty, if you will.
But how can women possess this influence?
We must have independent opinion, which is not a big problem now as it once was. But for the sake of clarity, this independence that Ms. Woolf recommends is a result of getting education and having a profession where women can earn enough money to live on and without getting contaminated by it.
Meaning: women who must have influence in society, must not sell their bodies and minds for money.
That bit might need more explaining so I'll share something that some of my friends can attest to.
When I was working for a multinational pharmaceutical company where I earned lots of money, well, more money than I had need for at the time, I didn't like what I was becoming. I was confident and charming, but I was arrogant. I was empowered and esteemed, but I was also callous and unsympathetic.
In short, I was becoming like a man (no offense to my male friends, some of whom would gladly cross the fence, but I don't know how else to describe my feeling at the time, so you'll forgive me and if you know me better----I don't hate men).
And I didn't like it because it made me uncomfortable. More than that, it alienated me. I'm a woman. I'm not used to having so much power that I would start hating myself for what it was doing to me.
So I decided to leave the company. I had many reasons, but when I finally resigned, the reason that I couldn't tell my family was that I didn't like the money.
They wouldn't understand. I didn't understand at the time. I just knew that I didn't like what I was becoming.
So I have to thank Ms. Woolf----her advice not to sell my brain was not in vain. And while some of my female friends still find me too idealistic, too wild, I am the better for it. How? I read and write at my own pace and frankly, it's just the life for me.
Going back to war, Ms. Woolf proposed a final solution when asked the question on how to protect culture and intellectual liberty, which the questioner relates to the prevention of war.
The answer: Women should protect their own culture and intellectual liberty.
Meaning: women's culture and intellectual liberty. For if women follow men's ways and methods, there is no hope in preventing war. Women must create their own words, new methods, new ways of doing things if we mean to preserve our humanity and civilization.
Can we do it? Can women possess independent opinion to influence a society in need of peace and can they form women's groups to preserve their culture and experiment on better solutions?
If there's still war, then we women have much to do.
So how, according to Ms. Woolf, can women prevent war?
Influence.
Women can have great influence in this futuristic society that can communicate to millions at the touch of a button, but still considers killing another human being as a symbol of patriotism. Loyalty, if you will.
But how can women possess this influence?
We must have independent opinion, which is not a big problem now as it once was. But for the sake of clarity, this independence that Ms. Woolf recommends is a result of getting education and having a profession where women can earn enough money to live on and without getting contaminated by it.
Meaning: women who must have influence in society, must not sell their bodies and minds for money.
That bit might need more explaining so I'll share something that some of my friends can attest to.
When I was working for a multinational pharmaceutical company where I earned lots of money, well, more money than I had need for at the time, I didn't like what I was becoming. I was confident and charming, but I was arrogant. I was empowered and esteemed, but I was also callous and unsympathetic.
In short, I was becoming like a man (no offense to my male friends, some of whom would gladly cross the fence, but I don't know how else to describe my feeling at the time, so you'll forgive me and if you know me better----I don't hate men).
And I didn't like it because it made me uncomfortable. More than that, it alienated me. I'm a woman. I'm not used to having so much power that I would start hating myself for what it was doing to me.
So I decided to leave the company. I had many reasons, but when I finally resigned, the reason that I couldn't tell my family was that I didn't like the money.
They wouldn't understand. I didn't understand at the time. I just knew that I didn't like what I was becoming.
So I have to thank Ms. Woolf----her advice not to sell my brain was not in vain. And while some of my female friends still find me too idealistic, too wild, I am the better for it. How? I read and write at my own pace and frankly, it's just the life for me.
Going back to war, Ms. Woolf proposed a final solution when asked the question on how to protect culture and intellectual liberty, which the questioner relates to the prevention of war.
The answer: Women should protect their own culture and intellectual liberty.
Meaning: women's culture and intellectual liberty. For if women follow men's ways and methods, there is no hope in preventing war. Women must create their own words, new methods, new ways of doing things if we mean to preserve our humanity and civilization.
Can we do it? Can women possess independent opinion to influence a society in need of peace and can they form women's groups to preserve their culture and experiment on better solutions?
If there's still war, then we women have much to do.
May 1, 2010
This is not, at least in my understanding, typical Woolf. Argumentatively speaking, it definitely strikes one as a companion to A Room of One's Own (though in her diaries, VW mentioned that she thought 3Gs to be a great deal better argued than Room), but stylistically, it's different from any other Woolf I've read. Usually you're able to pick up easily on Woolf's satire, her gentle mocking tone; here, the parody is so subtle that at times you find yourself re-reading a sentence to make sure she doesn't actually HATE WOMEN (tm). But alas, I don't believe she does.
The premise of it is this: a man writes a letter to VW asking her how the daughters of educated men, having won the vote and the right to enter the professions, might help to prevent war. The book is split into three chapters--one for each of the guineas Woolf will dole out in the effort to prevent war. As in A Room of One's Own, Woolf often speaks to the lacunae of history--the women who were unable to pursue 'paid-for' education, yet who aided their brothers' going to school; women who could only support themselves through marriage and so were subsumed beneath the economic and political positions of their husbands; & co. Woolf questions how, after only 60 years of opportunity, an educated man can possibly ask women to make up for centuries of silence and step confidently into a position that enables them to provide economic and political support to preventing the oncoming war.
Woolf seems in some ways to have done everything first (or if not first, maybe just did them best). Prior to the feminist and post-structuralist debates from the 70s on concerning biological essentialism, VW makes pointed allusions to the 'difference' between men and women, but suggests (provocatively, I think) that we "see from behind different eyes" because we have been compelled to develop that particular visual disparity for so damn long. Even the potential 'psychological difference' between the sexes, a question rising in the post-Freudian era, Woolf suggests, could easily be an effect rather than a cause of gendered culture. Moreover, her beautiful defense of resistance against cultural prostitution and intellectual slavery (problematic as these metaphors may be) strikes me as both simple and incredibly intricate and inspiring at once.
There are of course problems. Besides the snobbish metaphors of prostitution and slavery, Woolf also *loves* using servants and housemaids and such as little ideological scapegoats. There's Crosby, the butler, becoming the conduit for a shift in conversation; there's the shriek of the housemaid that must be 'translated' into intellectual speech. And though VW makes certain to clarify that her common subjects are the "daughters of educated men," her inability to conceive of women who have no choice but to work seems to me at times a grave oversight. (Evidently, others agree--Alison Light's recent book 'Mrs. Woolf and the Servants' picks up on these inconsistencies in Woolf's oeuvre--which is probably why it seemed so glaring to me as I read this and re-read Between the Acts.)
In any case, it's definitely definitely worth your while. If it's dated at moments, at others, it remains profoundly urgent--I think notably in this historical moment of reactionary U.S. conservatism, particular to the ideal of the nuclear family. See also Woolf's incredibly persuasive linkage between the patriarchal household and the tyranny of the dictatorships rising to power in Germany and Italy at the time Woolf was writing--sleeping with the enemy, indeed. Great text.
The premise of it is this: a man writes a letter to VW asking her how the daughters of educated men, having won the vote and the right to enter the professions, might help to prevent war. The book is split into three chapters--one for each of the guineas Woolf will dole out in the effort to prevent war. As in A Room of One's Own, Woolf often speaks to the lacunae of history--the women who were unable to pursue 'paid-for' education, yet who aided their brothers' going to school; women who could only support themselves through marriage and so were subsumed beneath the economic and political positions of their husbands; & co. Woolf questions how, after only 60 years of opportunity, an educated man can possibly ask women to make up for centuries of silence and step confidently into a position that enables them to provide economic and political support to preventing the oncoming war.
Woolf seems in some ways to have done everything first (or if not first, maybe just did them best). Prior to the feminist and post-structuralist debates from the 70s on concerning biological essentialism, VW makes pointed allusions to the 'difference' between men and women, but suggests (provocatively, I think) that we "see from behind different eyes" because we have been compelled to develop that particular visual disparity for so damn long. Even the potential 'psychological difference' between the sexes, a question rising in the post-Freudian era, Woolf suggests, could easily be an effect rather than a cause of gendered culture. Moreover, her beautiful defense of resistance against cultural prostitution and intellectual slavery (problematic as these metaphors may be) strikes me as both simple and incredibly intricate and inspiring at once.
There are of course problems. Besides the snobbish metaphors of prostitution and slavery, Woolf also *loves* using servants and housemaids and such as little ideological scapegoats. There's Crosby, the butler, becoming the conduit for a shift in conversation; there's the shriek of the housemaid that must be 'translated' into intellectual speech. And though VW makes certain to clarify that her common subjects are the "daughters of educated men," her inability to conceive of women who have no choice but to work seems to me at times a grave oversight. (Evidently, others agree--Alison Light's recent book 'Mrs. Woolf and the Servants' picks up on these inconsistencies in Woolf's oeuvre--which is probably why it seemed so glaring to me as I read this and re-read Between the Acts.)
In any case, it's definitely definitely worth your while. If it's dated at moments, at others, it remains profoundly urgent--I think notably in this historical moment of reactionary U.S. conservatism, particular to the ideal of the nuclear family. See also Woolf's incredibly persuasive linkage between the patriarchal household and the tyranny of the dictatorships rising to power in Germany and Italy at the time Woolf was writing--sleeping with the enemy, indeed. Great text.
April 6, 2024
Saggio brillante e ponderoso. Si schermisce apparentemente la Woolf alla domanda vera o fittizia – come possiamo prevenire la guerra - rivoltale da un suo pari, intellettuale e pacifista. Nella domanda è insita la necessità di ricorrere al punto di vista femminile su una questione irrisolvibile per gli uomini. Nella risposta, molto articolata e laboriosa, c’è inizialmente ironico stupore visto che le donne non contano nulla, sono alle dipendenze dei padri o mariti e tenute volutamente lontano dalla formazione superiore e dalle cariche pubbliche. Alla fine la soluzione viene prospettata poste una serie di condizioni tra cui per es. retribuire le donne per il lavoro domestico. “More than ever today women have the opportunity to build a new and better world, but in this slavish imitation of men they are wasting their chance.”
October 22, 2024
Therefore this guinea, which is to help you to help women to enter the professions, has this condition as a first condition attached to it. You shall swear that you will do all in your power to insist that any woman who enters any profession shall in no way hinder any other human being, whether man or woman, white or black, provided that he or she is qualified to enter that profession, from entering it; but shall do all in her power to help them.
Three Guineas was published in 1938, one year after The Years, and in her diaries Woolf noted that this was the other half of “one book”, one that at one stage Woolf had conceived as a combined hybrid novel:essay, before separating them into two distinct, if related, books.
Anyhow that’s the end of six years floundering, striving, much agony, some ecstasy: lumping the Years and Three Guineas together as one book—as indeed they are.
Diary entry June 3rd, 1938
Three Guineas is a lengthy response to a (real or fictitious I am unclear) letter from a professional man asking for her support to prevent war: Let us concentrate upon the practical suggestions which you bring forward for our consideration. There are three of them. The first is to sign a letter to the newspapers; the second is to join a certain society; the third is to subscribe to its funds.
Her deliberations lead her first to donate a guinea to another cause - a women’s college at Cambridge; then to an appeal seeking support for women working in the professions; before finally donating her third guinea, but not her joining, to the first letter writer’s society. And she sets out her reasons for the donations, and the conditions she attaches to them, in lengthy detail, dissecting forensically the sexism that still dominated society.
As with much of Woolf’s work her feminist (although she proposes to abolish the word) manifesto is confined to her own class, what she terms “daughters of educated men”:
It is now that the first difficulty of communication between us appears. Let us rapidly indicate the reason. We both come of what, in this hybrid age when, though birth is mixed, classes still remain fixed, it is convenient to call the educated class. When we meet in the flesh we speak with the same accent; use knives and forks in the same way; expect maids to cook dinner and wash up after dinner; and can talk during dinner without much difficulty about politics and people; war and peace; barbarism and civilization—all the questions indeed suggested by your letter. Moreover, we both earn our livings. But … those three dots mark a precipice, a gulf so deeply cut between us that for three years and more I have been sitting on my side of it wondering whether it is any use to try to speak across it.
One of the highlights of her arguments, building on the contribution of a psychologist employed as an expert witness into a Church of England enquiry into the role of women in the church, who discussing the hostile reaction of many men to the idea that women could enter various spheres of public life said: “it nevertheless remains clear that infantile fixation plays a predominant part in determining the strong emotion with which this whole subject is commonly approached” - and here Woolf concludes with an example taken directly from The Years:
Let us suppose, then, that in the course of that bi-sexual private conversation about politics and people, war and peace, barbarism and civilization, some question has cropped up, about admitting, shall we say, the daughters of educated men to the Church or the Stock Exchange or the diplomatic service. The question is adumbrated merely; but we on our side of the table become aware at once of some “strong emotion” on your side “arising from some motive below the level of conscious thought” by the ringing of an alarm bell within us; a confused but tumultuous clamour: You shall not, shall not, shall not…. The physical symptoms are unmistakable. Nerves erect themselves; fingers automatically tighten upon spoon or cigarette; a glance at the private psychometer shows that the emotional temperature has risen from ten to twenty degrees above normal. Intellectually, there is a strong desire either to be silent; or to change the conversation; to drag in, for example, some old family servant, called Crosby, perhaps, whose dog Rover has died … and so evade the issue and lower the temperature.
One of her more amusing takedowns, actually buried in a footnote, referring to the common male view that women dress impractically:
The fact that both sexes have a very marked though dissimilar love of dress seems to have escaped the notice of the dominant sex owing largely it must be supposed to the hypnotic power of dominance. Thus the late Mr. Justice MacCardie, in summing up the case of Mrs. Frankau, remarked: “Women cannot be expected to renounce an essential feature of femininity or to abandon one of nature’s solaces for a constant and insuperable physical handicap…. Dress, after all, is one of the chief methods of women’s self-expression…. In matters of dress women often remain children to the end. The psychology of the matter must not be overlooked. But whilst bearing the above matters in mind the law has rightly laid it down that the rule of prudence and proportion must be observed.” The Judge who thus dictated was wearing a scarlet robe, an ermine cape, and a vast wig of artificial curls. Whether he was enjoying “one of nature’s solaces for a constant and insuperable physical handicap,” whether again he was himself observing “the rule of prudence and proportion” must be doubtful. But “the psychology of the matter must not be overlooked”; and the fact that the singularity of his own appearance together with that of Admirals, Generals, Heralds, Life Guards, Peers, Beefeaters, etc., was completely invisible to him so that he was able to lecture the lady without any consciousness of sharing her weakness, raises two questions: how often must an act be performed before it becomes traditional, and therefore venerable; and what degree of social prestige causes blindness to the remarkable nature of one’s own clothes? Singularity of dress, when not associated with office, seldom escapes ridicule.
It makes for an amusing read and well written, although it us very limited by its narrow class confines and (unlike the effect of the novels) by its attachment to a very particular time and place. And 200 pages of polemic where any rebuttal is actually Woolf lobbying up balls on behalf of her adversaries for her to smash back across the net makes for a rather one-sided argument. A rare Woolfian misfire.
Three Guineas was published in 1938, one year after The Years, and in her diaries Woolf noted that this was the other half of “one book”, one that at one stage Woolf had conceived as a combined hybrid novel:essay, before separating them into two distinct, if related, books.
Anyhow that’s the end of six years floundering, striving, much agony, some ecstasy: lumping the Years and Three Guineas together as one book—as indeed they are.
Diary entry June 3rd, 1938
Three Guineas is a lengthy response to a (real or fictitious I am unclear) letter from a professional man asking for her support to prevent war: Let us concentrate upon the practical suggestions which you bring forward for our consideration. There are three of them. The first is to sign a letter to the newspapers; the second is to join a certain society; the third is to subscribe to its funds.
Her deliberations lead her first to donate a guinea to another cause - a women’s college at Cambridge; then to an appeal seeking support for women working in the professions; before finally donating her third guinea, but not her joining, to the first letter writer’s society. And she sets out her reasons for the donations, and the conditions she attaches to them, in lengthy detail, dissecting forensically the sexism that still dominated society.
As with much of Woolf’s work her feminist (although she proposes to abolish the word) manifesto is confined to her own class, what she terms “daughters of educated men”:
It is now that the first difficulty of communication between us appears. Let us rapidly indicate the reason. We both come of what, in this hybrid age when, though birth is mixed, classes still remain fixed, it is convenient to call the educated class. When we meet in the flesh we speak with the same accent; use knives and forks in the same way; expect maids to cook dinner and wash up after dinner; and can talk during dinner without much difficulty about politics and people; war and peace; barbarism and civilization—all the questions indeed suggested by your letter. Moreover, we both earn our livings. But … those three dots mark a precipice, a gulf so deeply cut between us that for three years and more I have been sitting on my side of it wondering whether it is any use to try to speak across it.
One of the highlights of her arguments, building on the contribution of a psychologist employed as an expert witness into a Church of England enquiry into the role of women in the church, who discussing the hostile reaction of many men to the idea that women could enter various spheres of public life said: “it nevertheless remains clear that infantile fixation plays a predominant part in determining the strong emotion with which this whole subject is commonly approached” - and here Woolf concludes with an example taken directly from The Years:
Let us suppose, then, that in the course of that bi-sexual private conversation about politics and people, war and peace, barbarism and civilization, some question has cropped up, about admitting, shall we say, the daughters of educated men to the Church or the Stock Exchange or the diplomatic service. The question is adumbrated merely; but we on our side of the table become aware at once of some “strong emotion” on your side “arising from some motive below the level of conscious thought” by the ringing of an alarm bell within us; a confused but tumultuous clamour: You shall not, shall not, shall not…. The physical symptoms are unmistakable. Nerves erect themselves; fingers automatically tighten upon spoon or cigarette; a glance at the private psychometer shows that the emotional temperature has risen from ten to twenty degrees above normal. Intellectually, there is a strong desire either to be silent; or to change the conversation; to drag in, for example, some old family servant, called Crosby, perhaps, whose dog Rover has died … and so evade the issue and lower the temperature.
One of her more amusing takedowns, actually buried in a footnote, referring to the common male view that women dress impractically:
The fact that both sexes have a very marked though dissimilar love of dress seems to have escaped the notice of the dominant sex owing largely it must be supposed to the hypnotic power of dominance. Thus the late Mr. Justice MacCardie, in summing up the case of Mrs. Frankau, remarked: “Women cannot be expected to renounce an essential feature of femininity or to abandon one of nature’s solaces for a constant and insuperable physical handicap…. Dress, after all, is one of the chief methods of women’s self-expression…. In matters of dress women often remain children to the end. The psychology of the matter must not be overlooked. But whilst bearing the above matters in mind the law has rightly laid it down that the rule of prudence and proportion must be observed.” The Judge who thus dictated was wearing a scarlet robe, an ermine cape, and a vast wig of artificial curls. Whether he was enjoying “one of nature’s solaces for a constant and insuperable physical handicap,” whether again he was himself observing “the rule of prudence and proportion” must be doubtful. But “the psychology of the matter must not be overlooked”; and the fact that the singularity of his own appearance together with that of Admirals, Generals, Heralds, Life Guards, Peers, Beefeaters, etc., was completely invisible to him so that he was able to lecture the lady without any consciousness of sharing her weakness, raises two questions: how often must an act be performed before it becomes traditional, and therefore venerable; and what degree of social prestige causes blindness to the remarkable nature of one’s own clothes? Singularity of dress, when not associated with office, seldom escapes ridicule.
It makes for an amusing read and well written, although it us very limited by its narrow class confines and (unlike the effect of the novels) by its attachment to a very particular time and place. And 200 pages of polemic where any rebuttal is actually Woolf lobbying up balls on behalf of her adversaries for her to smash back across the net makes for a rather one-sided argument. A rare Woolfian misfire.
December 30, 2016
"What can we do to prevent war?"
Having that question posed to her, we are off. Or more accurately, Woolf is off with the most eloquent, indignant and intelligent response possible.
First and foremost she posits that since men are the ones who throughout history have been the killers of men as well as animals, the premise that men and women have come to this point in human history somehow equally to blame is flawed to say the least.
That being said, she does lay out three solutions.
The first essentially being to stop equating manhood and virility with killing things and wearing flashy military uniforms.
Second, if you seriously want women to be a part of the solution, stop preventing them from educating themselves.
Third, after education it follows that access to professions outside the home is a basic human freedom as well.
I particularly liked her examples of how a father was aghast at the idea of their daughter taking a part time teaching job. Not the job itself, but taking money for it. If she insists on taking the job, he offers to pay her salary out of his own pocket rather than have another man pay her.
Basically in a society where women weren't even allowed to leave the home alone, how can they be expected with any seriousness to respond to a question about preventing war?
It all comes back to this point.
A short but vastly interesting and at times savagely funny read.
Having that question posed to her, we are off. Or more accurately, Woolf is off with the most eloquent, indignant and intelligent response possible.
First and foremost she posits that since men are the ones who throughout history have been the killers of men as well as animals, the premise that men and women have come to this point in human history somehow equally to blame is flawed to say the least.
That being said, she does lay out three solutions.
The first essentially being to stop equating manhood and virility with killing things and wearing flashy military uniforms.
Second, if you seriously want women to be a part of the solution, stop preventing them from educating themselves.
Third, after education it follows that access to professions outside the home is a basic human freedom as well.
I particularly liked her examples of how a father was aghast at the idea of their daughter taking a part time teaching job. Not the job itself, but taking money for it. If she insists on taking the job, he offers to pay her salary out of his own pocket rather than have another man pay her.
Basically in a society where women weren't even allowed to leave the home alone, how can they be expected with any seriousness to respond to a question about preventing war?
It all comes back to this point.
A short but vastly interesting and at times savagely funny read.
December 5, 2021
Virginia Woolf’un, savaşı önlemek için yardım toplayan bir cemiyetten aldığı ve bağış yapmasını rica eden bir mektuba cevaben yazdığı üç makaleyi içeren bu kitabı çok çok sevdim. Woolf bağışı yapmayı reddediyor ve neden reddettiğini izah etmek üzere kaleme sarılıp muazzam bir sistem analizi ortaya koyuyor. Faşizmi bir aşırılık olarak değil, ataerkil sistemin içinde entegre olan kadın-erkek eşitsizliğinin ürettiği bir şey olarak görmemiz gerektiğini anlatıyor ve bunu 1930larda faşizmi deneyimleyen ülkelere değil, tam aksine demokrasinin kalesi olma iddiasındaki İngiltere’ye bakarak yapıyor; cinsiyetler arasında kurulacak eşitliğin ırklar arasındaki eşitlikle nasıl paralel işleyeceğini izah ediyor. Beyaz üstünlükçü kapitalist ataerkiyi acımasızca yıkan nefis denemeler bu kitaptakiler. Bana “Kendine Ait Bir Oda”dan bile daha güçlü geldi. Eğer cevaplanan mektup gerçekse ve kurgu değilse, mektubu yazanın çok pişman olduğuna eminim.
June 28, 2025
Virginia Woolf responds to a unique letter sent from an “educated gentleman” asking her to join his efforts in preventing the war. She goes into such a lengthy argument based on historical and social research stating more or less that as a woman she cannot answer his question. She pretty much states in her opinion that he would not understand her response.
The three guineas are his and two other request that she has received. Funds to rebuild a womans college and help to support women entering the professional world.
She states that she cannot support the conditions of education and professions for women in their current state. The poor vs rich when it comes to colleges and their lack of educating the children of men who are knowledgeable.
I feel like she went into such detail as she was irked by the question itself which leads her into explanation for women's rights. She is very frustrated by the word feminisim. Religion, exclusion of women equality and education have contributed to the harmfulness of war and she has arguments to back her words. In a way maybe she was being evasive.
This is not a fun read. At times it can be quite harsh. It is thought provoking and the topic is huge.
Is it possibly a response on anti-war?
Is there a deeper meaning in her words than she thought?
A controversial consideration: Does men's vanity cause aggression is it enough to cause war?
'There are two worlds in the life of the nation, the world of men and the world of women. Nature has done well to entrust the man with the care of his family and the nation. The woman’s world is her family, her husband, her children, and her home.’
The three guineas are his and two other request that she has received. Funds to rebuild a womans college and help to support women entering the professional world.
She states that she cannot support the conditions of education and professions for women in their current state. The poor vs rich when it comes to colleges and their lack of educating the children of men who are knowledgeable.
I feel like she went into such detail as she was irked by the question itself which leads her into explanation for women's rights. She is very frustrated by the word feminisim. Religion, exclusion of women equality and education have contributed to the harmfulness of war and she has arguments to back her words. In a way maybe she was being evasive.
This is not a fun read. At times it can be quite harsh. It is thought provoking and the topic is huge.
Is it possibly a response on anti-war?
Is there a deeper meaning in her words than she thought?
A controversial consideration: Does men's vanity cause aggression is it enough to cause war?
'There are two worlds in the life of the nation, the world of men and the world of women. Nature has done well to entrust the man with the care of his family and the nation. The woman’s world is her family, her husband, her children, and her home.’
October 3, 2020
"Three Guineas" is Virginia Woolf at her finest - questioning institutions and imagining a future beyond the oppressions she faced on the basis of her gender.
Woolf writes "Three Guineas" as a long-form letter to three individuals who wrote to her asking her questions about how to end war, open the professions to women, and to support a women's college. Tying the three causes together, Woolf argues that woman's subservient place in the world prevents her from contributing to a more peaceful society; that the reinforcement of women's reliance on men of means to live prevents them from questioning the institutions in which they are submerged. The answer lies in education and women's financial independence, as well as a structural reimagining of what society looks like.
Woolf writes "Three Guineas" as a long-form letter to three individuals who wrote to her asking her questions about how to end war, open the professions to women, and to support a women's college. Tying the three causes together, Woolf argues that woman's subservient place in the world prevents her from contributing to a more peaceful society; that the reinforcement of women's reliance on men of means to live prevents them from questioning the institutions in which they are submerged. The answer lies in education and women's financial independence, as well as a structural reimagining of what society looks like.
January 29, 2019
1.5 Stars
If you read the first 20 pages of Three Guineas there is absolutely no reason to read the rest. Woolf repeats and repeats and repeats herself. It is unbelievable tedious.
If you read the first 20 pages of Three Guineas there is absolutely no reason to read the rest. Woolf repeats and repeats and repeats herself. It is unbelievable tedious.
November 18, 2017
Some years ago I came across this book “Three Guineas” by Virginia Woolf and didn’t want to read it since it looked tough to me. Indeed, some readers who enjoy reading her might not agree with me. I mean, while reading it, it’s arguably tough due to her innumerable lengthy reasons deftly raised to support her points, that is, she’s written like a professor. Incidentally, its readers would have no choice but keep reading it and be stunned by most of her lengthy paragraphs; therefore, from its 144-page content there are 28 pages (19.44%) without any paragraph. In other words, on average there would be one page without indentation for every five pages.
However, I liked the following excerpts as typical of her fine, unique and rare arguments:
However, I liked the following excerpts as typical of her fine, unique and rare arguments:
We can say that for educated men to emphasize their superiority over other people, either in birth or intellect, by dressing differently, or by adding titles before, or letters after their names are acts that rouse competition and jealousy -- emotions which, as we need scarcely draw upon biography to prove, nor ask psychology to show, have their share in encouraging a disposition towards war. (p. 21)
Next, what should be taught in the new college, the poor college? Not the arts of dominating other people; not the arts of ruling, of killing, of acquiring land and capital. They required too many overhead expenses; salaries and uniforms and ceremonies. The poor college must teach only the arts that can be taught cheaply and practised by poor people; such as medicine, mathematics, music, painting and literature. It should teach the arts of human intercourse; the art of understanding other people’s lives and minds, and the little art of talk, of dress, of cookery that are allied with them. (p. 34)
So, Sir, if you want us to help you to prevent war the conclusion seems to be inevitable; we must help to rebuild the college which, imperfect as it may be, is the only alternative to the education of the private house. We must hope that in time that education may be altered. That guinea must be given before we give you the guinea that you ask for your own society. But it is contributing to the same cause--the prevention of war. Guineas are rare; guineas are valuable, but let us send one without any condition attached to the honorary treasurer of the building fund, because by so doing we are making a positive contribution to the prevention of war. (p. 39)
January 25, 2021
Virginia Woolf could take on anything, and slay them magnificently. I especially loved the part when she said that she resented the word 'feminist', instead quoted
'Our claim was no claim of women's right 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.'
I wish more people think like her and could see how obvious it is. She also implored women to instead of trying to fit ourselves into the world of men, we should aim to be better, to build a new and better world.
"Certain it is that while men are gathering knowledge and power with ever-increasing and measureless speed, their virtues and their wisdom have not shown any notable improvement as the centuries have rolled. The brain of a modern man does not differ in essentials from that of the human beings who fought and loved here millions of years ago. The nature of man has remained hitherto practically unchanged. Under sufficient stress -- starvation, terror, warlike passion, or even cold intellectual frenzy, the modern man we know so well will do the most terrible deeds, and his modern woman will back him up."
"Certain it is that while men are gathering knowledge and power with ever-increasing and measureless speed, their virtues and their wisdom have not shown any notable improvement as the centuries have rolled. The brain of a modern man does not differ in essentials from that of the human beings who fought and loved here millions of years ago. The nature of man has remained hitherto practically unchanged. Under sufficient stress -- starvation, terror, warlike passion, or even cold intellectual frenzy, the modern man we know so well will do the most terrible deeds, and his modern woman will back him up."
June 9, 2022
Ovaj esej je značajan iz više razloga, ali je činjenica da, otprilike, 40% teksta ( možda malo manje ) može da se izbaci jer predstavlja puko ponavljanje.
December 11, 2023
An absolutely searing, pointed, and multi-layered critique of the hypocrisies of patriarchy: women are "employed" as housewives, yet unrecognized in their labor; that women write under male aliases undetected, yet their writing and pedagogy is somehow tainted by femininity; that women were at this time dismissed as non-contributors to an imagined anti-fascist project in the UK, yet not only lived under patriarchal tyranny but were for this reason forbidden from militant organizing. Woolf is funny, ironic, dignified, impassioned.
The titular "Three Guineas" refer to the financial as well as intellectual contributions demanded of women to support the war effort, the domestic political economy, and the patriarchal, exclusive educational system. Woolf, in not so many words, proposes something of a general strike: that women withdraw their money, time, and labor from institutions that reify male dominance. She argues that support for this, and any, national project cannot be demanded from a demographic not granted its promised freedoms, and to demand that support against fascism, of all things, is absurd.
My respect for this piece (and for her entire oeuvre) is only amplified by my knowledge of her background, of the breathless hints she drops to her own lived experiences. It occurred to me at several points at the transformation of the argumentative essay in the last near-century: that Woolf was forced to conform (and perhaps herself preferred) essays that used personal experience merely as a point of inspiration (Woolf herself was the child of a wealthy man, taught and tutored but not "educated," deprived of rights despite her financial privilege) but not as an argumentative node. Three Guineas is wildly effective and very instructive, but also provides a lot of food for thought in terms of the gendering of craft choices and Woolf's own milieu, simultaneously experimental for its time and yet still beholden to particular norms.
The titular "Three Guineas" refer to the financial as well as intellectual contributions demanded of women to support the war effort, the domestic political economy, and the patriarchal, exclusive educational system. Woolf, in not so many words, proposes something of a general strike: that women withdraw their money, time, and labor from institutions that reify male dominance. She argues that support for this, and any, national project cannot be demanded from a demographic not granted its promised freedoms, and to demand that support against fascism, of all things, is absurd.
My respect for this piece (and for her entire oeuvre) is only amplified by my knowledge of her background, of the breathless hints she drops to her own lived experiences. It occurred to me at several points at the transformation of the argumentative essay in the last near-century: that Woolf was forced to conform (and perhaps herself preferred) essays that used personal experience merely as a point of inspiration (Woolf herself was the child of a wealthy man, taught and tutored but not "educated," deprived of rights despite her financial privilege) but not as an argumentative node. Three Guineas is wildly effective and very instructive, but also provides a lot of food for thought in terms of the gendering of craft choices and Woolf's own milieu, simultaneously experimental for its time and yet still beholden to particular norms.
May 30, 2023
“Tres guineas” (1938) es una larga respuesta de Woolf a una carta donde un abogado le preguntaba qué se podía hacer para evitar la (segunda) guerra (mundial) y qué contribución se podía dar. Y Woolf se tomó unos años en contestarle ¿El resultado? Un ensayo maravilloso donde básicamente ella le dice “¿En serio me preguntás a mí, que soy mujer? Te voy a explicar un par de cositas”.
Bueno, no se lo dijo exactamente así. Pero podría haberlo hecho.
Woolf desarrolla una respuesta negativa mediante el optimismo de alguien que intuye que las próximas generaciones estarán mejor preparadas para sacarle la duda a este señor. La solución la puede imaginar, pero no la puede implementar. Es imposible porque, por más que las mujeres hayan obtenido algunos derechos –y acá Woolf polemiza con el término “feminismo”–, faltan otros que habilitan un ejercicio pleno de la libertad. Una mujer no puede detener una guerra porque este terreno siempre fue de los hombres, al igual que la educación y las profesiones.
Planteé a grandes rasgos la idea de este libro para que no den nada por sentado cuando lo lean –y ojalá que lo hagan–. En su época tuvo una recepción mixta y es comprensible, ya que le tocó el ego falocentrista a más de un caballero –se pliegan como bichos cuando los señalan con el dedo– y las ideas machistas –internalizadas culturalmente– a más de una dama. Los problemas estructurales del libro no los pude encontrar.
Espero que esto les haya servido más como guía que como reseña.
Bueno, no se lo dijo exactamente así. Pero podría haberlo hecho.
Woolf desarrolla una respuesta negativa mediante el optimismo de alguien que intuye que las próximas generaciones estarán mejor preparadas para sacarle la duda a este señor. La solución la puede imaginar, pero no la puede implementar. Es imposible porque, por más que las mujeres hayan obtenido algunos derechos –y acá Woolf polemiza con el término “feminismo”–, faltan otros que habilitan un ejercicio pleno de la libertad. Una mujer no puede detener una guerra porque este terreno siempre fue de los hombres, al igual que la educación y las profesiones.
Planteé a grandes rasgos la idea de este libro para que no den nada por sentado cuando lo lean –y ojalá que lo hagan–. En su época tuvo una recepción mixta y es comprensible, ya que le tocó el ego falocentrista a más de un caballero –se pliegan como bichos cuando los señalan con el dedo– y las ideas machistas –internalizadas culturalmente– a más de una dama. Los problemas estructurales del libro no los pude encontrar.
Espero que esto les haya servido más como guía que como reseña.
January 21, 2021
No importa cuántas veces vuelva a Virginia, siempre me enloquece su lucidez. Qué mujer filosa, por favor.
February 8, 2025
Un saggio in cui l'acume e l'ironia di Virginia Woolf vengono fuori più che mai. Queste pagine rappresentano la risposta alla lettera di un avvocato, che le chiedeva anche una sovvenzione per la sua associazione, contraria allo scoppio di una nuova guerra (il secondo conflitto mondiale, siamo infatti nel 1938). Virginia, ovviamente a favore della pace, dimostra al suo interlocutore che prima di donargli una ghinea per la sua causa, deve elargirne rispettivamente una sia per la ricostruzione di un college universitario femminile sia per supportare la ricerca di lavoro delle donne. In sintesi, schierarsi contro i conflitti comporta la creazione di una società più equa e quindi senza il pesante fardello del patriarcato. La struttura del testo risulta dunque suddivisa in tre parti, che ricalcano la destinazione di ciascuna ghinea e il riferimento a missive diverse. Presente, inoltre, un corposo apparato di note stilato dalla stessa autrice.
November 8, 2007
I've heard Virginia Woolf's Three Guineas (1938) called the unofficial companion to A Room of One's Own. In theearlier book, Woolf connects systematic sexism to economics and art. She contends that a sister of Shakespeare, equal in the Bard's talent, would never write a word. All people deserve a living wage and private space, or else their potential will never be reached. It's not an act of charity either; our very society depends upon it. What has been lost because creative geniuses who were female lived in societies that limited them?
In Three Guineas, Woolf extends her ideas on gender and economics to include the prevention of war. Written during the Spanish Civil War, and as Hitler and Mussolini moved to extend their dominion, Woolf receives a letter from a pacifist organization asking for her membership, her financial donation, and her opinion on how our society can prevent the brutal violence that the enclosed photos of murdered Spanish children and burnt homes indicate.
Woolf's response, in the form of a series of letters, is this book.
Her reflection is still timely. As Woolf lays out the evidence for donating to "causes," and about the responsibilities of being a son or daughter of an educated man, she has such a thorough hand, it borders on satirical; I can imagine her bemused smile as she wrote. Woolf makes an airtight case for the deep connections of political domination and patriarchal domination. Her critique of education and religious systems that implicitly guide our society to militarism and war strikes true.
Particularly fascinating, Woolf illustrates her text with photographs: a clergyman in full regalia leading a procession; a military man in a parade wearing a jacket heavy with medals and ribbons; academics in a commencement ceremony, draped with robes and wearing tasseled hats. Her selection of images reflects her narrative style: she's presenting objective evidence of the authoritative positions, and at the same time, she pokes fun at the costuming of hierarchy.
My annotated Harvest Books edition includes facsmiles of Woolf's extensive notebooks, where she pasted letters, news clippings, and the like; much of it is her source material for Three Guineas. Curious reads, all.
I usually appreciate annotated editions, particularly of books that so embedded in their time and place as this one. The facsimiles from Woolf's notebooks was invaluable, and so were notes on public figures that Woolf discusses. But these annotation-happy editors take it far too far: overwraught explanations of the simplest things are ridiculous. Especially in juxtaposition with Woolf's style: her exhaustive research and clear-as-crystal reflection is carried forth with a smile and an intent.
The Harvest editors come off as desperate to sound smart. It made me a bit crazy.
Consider an endnote on the word "manifesto":
"manifesto (102) A manifesto is an open expression of one's tenets, goals, and plans, particularly with respect to politics, but also a form used for declarations of artistic intent. Readers in the late 1930s would invariably have connected the word with Karl Marx whose Communist Manifesto (1848) championed the rights of the working class and encouraged the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie."
Seriously? Isn't manifesto pretty well initiated into mainstream English? Do the editors think only 1930s-era readers have heard of Karl Marx?
But don't let the editors of the Harvest edition overshadow what Woolf has to say for herself! My copy was plumped up with the editors' Preface, Chronology, Introduction, Appendix, Suggestions for Further Reading: Virigina Woolf, and Suggestions for Further Reading: Three Guineas. But standing true in the center is a solid piece of work, written in a genre that's diminishing but invaluable (the long-form essay), one that holds innovative thinking, impressive reasoning and sympahty with alternative points of view, and, yes, that bemused smile.
In Three Guineas, Woolf extends her ideas on gender and economics to include the prevention of war. Written during the Spanish Civil War, and as Hitler and Mussolini moved to extend their dominion, Woolf receives a letter from a pacifist organization asking for her membership, her financial donation, and her opinion on how our society can prevent the brutal violence that the enclosed photos of murdered Spanish children and burnt homes indicate.
Woolf's response, in the form of a series of letters, is this book.
Her reflection is still timely. As Woolf lays out the evidence for donating to "causes," and about the responsibilities of being a son or daughter of an educated man, she has such a thorough hand, it borders on satirical; I can imagine her bemused smile as she wrote. Woolf makes an airtight case for the deep connections of political domination and patriarchal domination. Her critique of education and religious systems that implicitly guide our society to militarism and war strikes true.
Particularly fascinating, Woolf illustrates her text with photographs: a clergyman in full regalia leading a procession; a military man in a parade wearing a jacket heavy with medals and ribbons; academics in a commencement ceremony, draped with robes and wearing tasseled hats. Her selection of images reflects her narrative style: she's presenting objective evidence of the authoritative positions, and at the same time, she pokes fun at the costuming of hierarchy.
My annotated Harvest Books edition includes facsmiles of Woolf's extensive notebooks, where she pasted letters, news clippings, and the like; much of it is her source material for Three Guineas. Curious reads, all.
I usually appreciate annotated editions, particularly of books that so embedded in their time and place as this one. The facsimiles from Woolf's notebooks was invaluable, and so were notes on public figures that Woolf discusses. But these annotation-happy editors take it far too far: overwraught explanations of the simplest things are ridiculous. Especially in juxtaposition with Woolf's style: her exhaustive research and clear-as-crystal reflection is carried forth with a smile and an intent.
The Harvest editors come off as desperate to sound smart. It made me a bit crazy.
Consider an endnote on the word "manifesto":
"manifesto (102) A manifesto is an open expression of one's tenets, goals, and plans, particularly with respect to politics, but also a form used for declarations of artistic intent. Readers in the late 1930s would invariably have connected the word with Karl Marx whose Communist Manifesto (1848) championed the rights of the working class and encouraged the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie."
Seriously? Isn't manifesto pretty well initiated into mainstream English? Do the editors think only 1930s-era readers have heard of Karl Marx?
But don't let the editors of the Harvest edition overshadow what Woolf has to say for herself! My copy was plumped up with the editors' Preface, Chronology, Introduction, Appendix, Suggestions for Further Reading: Virigina Woolf, and Suggestions for Further Reading: Three Guineas. But standing true in the center is a solid piece of work, written in a genre that's diminishing but invaluable (the long-form essay), one that holds innovative thinking, impressive reasoning and sympahty with alternative points of view, and, yes, that bemused smile.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 492 reviews