I might just be tired, but I found Mellor’s argument, all in all, fairly reasonable. However, I don’t agree with Mellor in all aspects. I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to say that thinking of science as a challenge to control a “passive and possessable female” will cause research to be self-furthering and “morally insensitive” (Mellor). However, Mellor didn’t touch on the effects of gendering Nature and the sciences on female scientists and researchers. (Or I could’ve missed that because I’m so tired.) Science as a “passive and possessable female” speaks prominently to a male audience and leaves little room for and blocks the progression of women in science. Of course, not to say that women cannot also want to possessively bend Nature to their wills. I think it’s strange that Mellor doesn’t talk about this that much. Maybe she might’ve implied that this language opposes women in science; perhaps she is relying on their omission to speak for them. However, in the 18th-19th centuries (and before, and after), there were still many women in science. A quick Google search takes us to a Wikipedia list of names. I just feel like women could have constituted a more visible part of her argument. All of her sources were from men of science. By ignoring women, Mellor seems to exemplify the very erasure that the gendering Nature causes. How science is thought of–as a woman to be taken rather than what it actually is (the natural world, which is for the most part gender-neutral)–causes the “oppressive sexual politics,” rather than the actual manipulation of nature. If we get rid of all these women comparisons/personifications, then we should be good.
Archives
Categories
- Blog Summary #1 (2/27)
- Blog Summary #2 (due on 4/22 by 11am)
- Creative Writing Project (12/5)
- Cultural Criticism (4/6)
- Feminism and Science (10/10)
- Form and Narrative
- Frankenstein and Disability (4/19)
- Frankenstein and Film (4/9)
- Frankenstein: The Novel vs. the Myth (1/26)
- Justine's Execution in Historical Context (9/26)
- Labor, Alienation, and (re)production (9/19)
- New Criticism (1/22)
- Percy Shelley's Poetry (2/12)
- Sympathy, Art, and Society (1/29)
- Tales of Immigration (10/31)
- The Monstrous Double in the Mirror (3/18)
- The Subaltern Monster Speaks (4/8)
- The Uncanny (10/3)
- Transgender Rage (10/17)
-
Recent Posts
Top Posts & Pages
- beauty bourgeoisie Colonialism creature death disability Edmund Burke Elizabeth feminism frankenstein Frankenstein's monster french revolution Freud gender Humanity identity immigration justice Justine life marxism Mary Shelley mary wollstonecraft monster mother Myth nature oedipus complex percy shelley postcolonialism proletariat rage safie science society spivak subaltern Sympathy the creature transgender truth uncanny Victor victor frankenstein Warren Montag
Online Resources
Site Maintenance
-
Join 201 other subscribers
Foundations of Literary Studies: Reading Frankenstein Two Hundred Years Later 
I definitely agree with what you’re saying (and I’m also very tired). I think one point you made which I also ended up making on my post was that these feminist issues would not arise if nature was gender-neutral. I think you are also right when you bring up the point that there is a lack of discussion about female scientists. I’m not sure if I entirely agree if Victor is dehumanizing women when he says those things. He could also be hinting at the fact that he really needs a woman or that female figure in his life to ground him, but I am on the fence and I could be entirely wrong.
The lack of mention of any female scientists in Mellor’s article was a great catch! I hadn’t even thought of that and it’s definitely true that by leaving them out Mellor is doing what Parker talks about: treating women solely as objects without considering their role as subjects. After providing such an extensive historical context, to not discuss any female role in science seems like a great oversight. I found your other point about the attribution of female character to other forces in the novel also completely valid, but I couldn’t really find the connection between them. I would have probably have appreciated a better transition and joining of the two ideas. But overall, this post definitely struck me as interesting and original and maybe just has to be structured better.
I did think it was strange that in a supposedly feminist critique of science, there is a noticeable lack of female examples and perspectives. In fact, most of the article seemed entirely unrelated to feminism as it pointed out the dangers of “bad” science. One idea you could explore further is the feminine language applied to nature and how this language paradoxically prevents women from entering the scientific conversaion, or as you say, “opposes women in science.” I’m not totally sure I understand that referring to nature (and then implicitly, women) as the “guardian angel of my life” dehumanizes women, so much as it elevates them to a transcendental, divine state. So then I’m also confused by what you refer to as a “manic pixie dream girl.” I think this particular idea is interesting and could benefit from further clarification, especially regarding how nature is personified as a woman and how this in turn is dehumanizing. Finally, I just want to say that I hope you get some sleep!