Second Posting

Mary Wollstonecraft is a hard writer to understand until you kind of get into her readings and realize that she is basically talking about Burke. Burke and Wollstonecraft have view opposing views. She refutes Burke's views. "Concerned chiefly to refute Burke's arguments for the heredity succession of the crown, the inviolability of a national constitution, and the necessary alliance of church and state..." Almost everything that Burke wrote she refutes and has an opposite view. I feel that the different views and how she goes about talking about her views of Burke is very entertaining. Burke seems to be the one who doesn't want things to change at all. Wollstonecraft wants to explore. She wants oppression to end. She seems to want people who are interested in the revolution to read her ideas.

Wollstonecraft is against Burke's views and feels as if he makes up arguments because he wants attention from the readers as mentioned in the Podcast. I would have to agree with her. After reading Burke he does seem to try and get attention from the readers and has an argument about everything.

In the section "The Rich and The Poor" Wollstonecraft raises a lot of questions in the sixth paragraph. She also answers the questions her language in this paragraph is very confusing and kind of hard to interpret. She seems to basically be taking the rich and the poor and comparing there lives to other forms of nature. Like the Peasant stealing the farm she then uses the cow, children, and the hut and so on. I had to read this paragraph several times.

I felt that Wollstonecraft was hard to understand, but I really enjoyed reading her work. She is very forward about how she feels about Burke. Burke and Wollstonecraft seemed to have one thing in common and that would be appealing to the audience and keeping their attention. They definitely had different views, but they both had understanding views. I enjoyed both views and readings. They both seemed to keep me on my toes and wanting to read a little more.