Anna Letitia Barbauld’s "Rights of Woman," 1792, is not a feminist poem

I’m working on a english discussion question and need a sample draft to help me understand better

Some guidance for discussion: not everyone has to answer every one of these questions. Early participants in the conversation can start with the initial questions and later participants should read what others have said and respond to my questions later in this prompt, or follow up questions that I might post in an announcement, or questions I post as part of the discussion.

Anna Letitia Barbauld’s “Rights of Woman” makes a highly ambiguous argument.

The speaker appears to advocate for women’s assertion of agency and authority, but then in the last two stanzas of the poem, seems to suggest something else altogether. She advises “Woman” to “abandon each ambitious thought” because “separate rights are lost in mutual love.”

What does this conclusion mean? How do the metaphors in the poem point to this conclusion?

Finally, what is the relationship between Women and Empire in this poem? Over what do women seem to reign in this poem? Does the speaker seem content with women’s scope of empire?

How does the poem resonate today?

As you answer these questions, please make sure you do the following:

1. Quote the poem

2. Re-read your post and correct any grammatical errors

3. Remember to respond to another student

Requirements: precise and make sure all punctuations are in place