(a) is the most appropriate answer.
I'm going to assume you mean Wollstonecraft here, since there was no
wollenstonecraft during the enlightenment.
In any case, this question is typically asked as a statement of
contrasting opinions: they wouldn't have agreed upon much.
Wollstonecraft's main writings on women argue for the education of
women as beneficial to all; Rousseau believed that women should be
barely educated and should be concerned only with the fine arts and
what others thought about them. The only thing they share is the idea
that men and women need to be educated so they can best meet their
duty; what they diverge on is the idea of what this duty should be.
See the essay at http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.georgetown.edu%2Firvinemj%2Fenglish016%2Ffranken%2Fsophie.txt
for more information on their constrasting viewpoints.
In any case, answer (b) is invalid, since Rousseau's Emile is educated
completely without the classics. (c) is invalid since Rousseau seeks
not to create a "working" adult but a "reasoning" adult, the state
most sought after during the Enlightenment; Wollstonecraft doesn't
seek to create "working" women, but rather women who can fulfill their
duties and obligations as mothers and wives. (d) is simply a
ridiculous option; the idea of money and expense plays no part in
either Rousseau or Wollstonecraft's arguments whatsoever. Their
arguments about education have nothing to do with expense, and
everything to do with the manner and content of the education that is
already given. |
