Women couldn’t write before, because they had no money and space of their own. Not because the talent wasn’t there. But the conditions weren’t available to them. This was clearly pointed by Virginia Woolf in 1929 in her book. This is one of the most precise argument made in the book.
She tries and brings it out carefully across the literature and books published. For centuries, women were the protected gender. Mostly kept away from hard labor, war, physical danger. On the surface, it looks like care or even protection. But this comes with a price she says.
No access to libraries, no legal right to own property until few decades ago, no institutional recognition. The fragility that followed was biological or intentional? I don’t know. Maybe it was produced by the confinement, then used to justify continuing it.
Think like this. If someone is only ever given desk jobs, never allowed near physical work, and then someone points and says, See, she has no muscle. Right now, most of us don’t have unless we hit the gym or do strength training. That’s not an observation. That’s a setup or system is for generations. Woolf argues that womanhood was a protected occupation. The protection looked like shelter. It was a prison with a nicer name. She also brings out that it would be better to have money than voting power. Seems valid isn’t it? even now?
She builds this argument carefully, almost strategically. And then something I felt strange happens at the end. Maybe after effect of reading Nawal El Saadawi? I am not sure tho.
After documenting every obstacle, generations of women who died without writing a word. Woolf concludes that the greatest creative mind is androgynous. To write without gender. This was quite contradicting to me. Transcending the whole thing entirely. This raised an obvious question.
How do you transcend conditions that were never neutral to begin with? Possible? The androgynous ideal assumes a level of inner freedom (maybe, Zen mode) that only becomes possible after the material conditions (money, time and space for oneself) are already secured. Shakespeare could write without ego about his gender because no one was using his gender against him. Nor he was denied of things.
And then there’s Judith Shakespeare. Woolf’s imaginary sister example. Equally talented, born into the wrong body in the wrong century. Maybe, I need to read again to understand the reference point quoted. We don’t actually know what Shakespeare thought about women and his state of mind while writing. We just know he became the default measure of genius. She could have spoken more of Jane Austen, I believe.
So why that as ending?
Probably because 1929 had limits on how much anger/opinions were allowed to express. The androgyny conclusion was the part that made the rest of the book listenable to people who needed to hear it. Maybe, It was the compromise or maybe not.
Maybe we don’t know Woolf’s full inner state either. Maybe she didn’t pull the punch out of strategy. Maybe she genuinely arrived at gender neutrality not as a compromise, but as someone who had processed the anger so completely that she wrote from the other side of it.
Is the androgynous conclusion a ending she hit, or a place she actually reached genuinely. We can’t know and never know.
But that’s almost the point. She pushed through conditions that were designed to stop her before she started. And somehow, at the end of it, she’s still asking us to go further. To write better, to think freer, to not stop where she stopped.
Cheers
PS: Might read other books of hers.
Check out the previous post: Obsession (2026)
If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then
Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at
randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com
Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !
(No spam, pinky promise!)
Enter your mail to receive updates
Random Whys 