Three Guineas

Woolf quotes from soldiers’ biographies. The extracts reinforce her case that men enjoy fighting. Men view war as a profession, a source of excitement, and an outlet for “manly qualities” (7). She also provides a dissenting opinion from Wilfred Owen, who talks of the “inhumanity of war” (8). Her conclusion is that “the great majority of your sex are to-day in favor of war” (8), with opposing perspectives overruled by calls to patriotism.

A quote from the Lord Chief Justice of England describes this patriotism: He argues that “Englishmen are proud of England” (8), a love taught by a string of institutions. Patriotism, however, has a different definition for women, who lack access to these institutions. Such a difference in definitions makes the question of how to prevent war unanswerable, as there is no “absolute point of view” (9).

To examine this question of objective morality, Woolf turns to the clergy, which also fails to provide a clear answer to whether war is right or wrong. Differences of opinion among bishops are referenced, wherein their “divided counsel” (9) is “distressing, baffling, confusing” (9). Thus, the clergy offers no insight into how to prevent war.

As well as biographies, photographs might provide insight into the question at hand, Woolf notes. She describes photographs as “not arguments addressed to the reason [but] simply statements of fact addressed to the eye” (10). She speaks of the pictures she has received from Spain, mostly of dead bodies, including dead children. Whatever a person’s background, Woolf suggests, he or she will react to the pictures in the same way: with disgust. Thus, there is an agreement among everyone to stop this “barbarism” (10). Woolf then suggests that they “give up” (10) trying to answer the core question through psychological or political means, as the “emotion is too positive to suffer patient analysis” (10).

The correspondent has proposed three practical strategies for preventing war: 1) write letters of protest to newspapers; 2) join an anti-war society; and 3) donate money to anti-war causes. These are easy enough, Woolf admits, but do little to appease the raw emotion stirred by the photographs of dead children. Strong emotions demand strong responses.

Woolf explores what these strong responses could entail. Taking up arms in Spain, for example, is not an option available to women. Being involved in the Stock Exchange is also not an option for women, nor is involvement in Church leadership. Men control the press and therefore decide what women publish. While men would be able to unite in an anti-war movement and have an impact, this is not true of women. An anti-war general strike by women would make “no difference to the laws of England whatsoever” (11). Working-class women may be able to have some impact, but “educated women” (11) have little to no recourse.

However, “the daughters of educated men” (12) can exert their influence on educated men. Woolf lists famous female literary figures who held great political influence through their work, but she notes that the names of famous men are “sprinkled on every page” (12) of their work. Women’s influence exists only in relation to men, not on their own terms.

Woolf discusses “the franchise” (13), by which she is referring to women’s suffrage. On this political matter, women have exerted their influence, though it took them a long time and “cost [educated women] over a century of the most exhausting and menial labor” (13). Even so, women’s influence is “only fully effective when combined with rank, wealth and great houses” (13). For most women, such influence is out of reach.

Once women were permitted to enter the workforce in 1919, they might have been able to address this financial imbalance, thus gaining influence and the ability to prevent war. The money women began to earn was theirs, providing them with financial freedom. Accordingly, “the educated man’s daughter has now at her disposal an influence which is different from any influence that she has possessed before” (15). Now, “it is beyond the power of [a woman’s] family to punish her financially [if she expresses] her own opinions” (15). At last, a woman possesses “an influence that is disinterested” (15); she can express genuine ideas without having to curtail herself to anyone else’s interests.

Nevertheless, men and women do not possess equal influence in society, Woolf explains. If they did, she could end the letter now, as they would simply have to work together. Instead, she explains, women are disadvantaged in terms of the history of education and property ownership. Therefore, “though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes” (16). Any help women provide in terms of preventing war “must be different from that [men] can give [themselves]” (16).

Woolf then details the differences between the way men and women see the world. She lists “impressive” (16) landmarks and institutions that, when entered, “make us gasp in astonishment” (17); but closer examination reveals the strangeness of the men’s clothes, which are governed by seemingly arbitrary rules. After detailing the “symbolic splendor” (19) of men’s clothing, Woolf takes aim at the ceremonies that these institutions host.