Mother of Feminism

November 2020 saw the virtual unveiling of the statue dedicated to the “mother of feminism” and Mary Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. It portrays a silver female figure emerging from a swirling mingle of female forms. Ms Hambling, the artist who created the statue, explained the sculpture as encouraging “a visual conversation with the obstacles Ms Wollstonecraft overcame, the ideals she strived for, and what she made happen.” The unveiling of the silver statue sparked controversy however due to its depiction of Wollstonecraft in the nude, rather than being a lifelike representation of her.  

Many have criticised the nakedness seeing it as undermining the works of Wollstonecraft, simply encouraging the sexualisation of the female figure. Caroline Criado Perez, who campaigned for Jane Austen to appear on the £10 note, said the statue “feels disrespectful to Wollstonecraft herself”.  Some have even viewed the statue as diminishing the strength of Wollstonecraft as it conforms to the stereotyping of the petite female stature. The artist has defended her decisions saying her critics “are not reading the word, the important word, which is on the plinth, quite clearly ‘for’ Mary Wollstonecraft, it’s not ‘of’ Mary Wollstonecraft.” She also defends her decision to portray Wollstonecraft in the nude, “Clothes define people and restrict people; they restrict people’s reaction. She’s naked and she’s every woman.” Hambling’s art defies all conventions of traditional Victorian architecture, could the stature be showing the true strength in the female form. Many cannot overlook how such statue would have been received differently if instead of Wollstonecraft the statue was of a male. Would the statue have even been allowed to be constructed? But the question still stands does the statue of Wollstonecraft’s nakedness come to reflect her strength or her weakness?