Hello all! I was having an interesting conversation with one of the subscribers to this newsletter this week about the word “audacious.” We seemed to have different ideas of what it means for a woman to be “audacious,” so I thought it would be a good topic for discussion. Is audaciousness something you admire or aspire to be? Or is it perhaps something you try to steer away from? Would you say the word has a negative or positive charge to it?
Related to this question is also another, perhaps larger one, about what we celebrate in women from the past? What makes a woman worth rediscovering and reclaiming? What kind of achievements or accomplishments do we look for? Or what kind of past lives are you drawn to?
Okay, I’ve given you two questions, but I think are related. I’m going to hold off on offering my own answer, because I want to hear yours! (I really do! Obviously I like the word “audacious” considering this newsletter’s name, but if it’s connotations are more negative than positive for readers, I want to know.)
Please also read the other responses and pick a couple that resonate for yor and reply to the writer. It’s great when you all are talking to each other and not just to me!
I think audacious describes the outward behavior of a person who has the guts to be him/herself and not worry much about what others think. I find this to be an enviable trait. But the audacious person has to live with the consequences of their actions, of being audacious. Of course there was Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope", as if it is stepping outside the boundaries of accepted collective behavior. It's a great word!
Hi, I was going to subscribe to this page, there seems to be so much brilliant writing here but the name 'audacious' is literally the thing that stopped me, so I felt compelled to comment. Although I like the sentiment the word brings about going against the grain and doing something different that other people might not agree with (men) or might see as scary and brave (women), I struggle with this word because it says to me, how dare she be so audacious as to make her own choices and live her authentic life?! Ie. the assumption that if a woman does this she is somehow doing something wrong, maybe because it is against the patriarchal view of a woman's role in society. It feels like this term is feeding the narrative that we know it is wrong but we are the outspoken women, the trailblazers, we know its wrong but we do it anyway etc. This is not true of course but this is what the term 'audacious women' says to me as a self label. I want to reclaim it and I agree with it wholeheartedly but if I was to describe someone as audacious in everyday life that person would have deeply offended me therefore I don't want to be seen as audacious because I don't need ANY audacity to live my own life and make my own choices.
This is just my honest thoughts and I do enjoy reading how this word is positive for others.
It personally brings to mind the French expression 'À corsaire, corsaire et demi,' which translates to 'to fight fire with fire' in English.
However, my interpretation diverges from mere aggression; instead, audacity feels more unapologetic. This nuance might stem from the word 'corsaire,' suggesting a defiance of imposed norms rather than straightforward aggression.
Therefore, I see audacity not as boldness per se, but rather as an embrace of oneself.
Hi Anna--I love this! Especially the assocation of audacity with being unapologetic. That is exactly it! The courage to be oneself is exactly what I am celebrating in the women writers and artists I shine a spotlight on.
I think audacious does have two possible meanings - the positive and the negative. It's all contextual. But I find it to be a more positive term than a negative one. It means boldness to me. Do I seek to be audacious? No.
As for what makes a woman worth rediscovering and reclaiming, to me they are the women who were willing to step out of line, to challenge the status quo. They are the women whom everyone said they couldn't do whatever it was they set out to do. They shed the conventions of their time and succeeded. And it required taking great risks. In other words, what did they stand to lose by taking a stand?
Good point about not seeking to be audacious. I’m interested in the ways that women are labeled audacious who weren’t exactly seeking to be so. They weren’t seeking attention or flaunting their taboo-breaking, just doing what felt right to them.
This is my grandmother - whom I've started to think and write about. It is especially interesting, maybe , to think about audacious women in our own families, not famous people, but everyday people who had the courage to live an authentic life. It's a bit rare!
Yes, that makes sense. I suspect that today there are more women seeking to be audacious just to gain attention. We live in a world that rewards that kind of inauthenticity. I'm thinking social media, Hollywood's culture, the political atmosphere in America, etc.
Oh gosh no. I don't think your title is off-putting at all. No one could read your work and be confused about what you intend with the word audacious. It fits the brand you have created for yourself. Your Substack page is geared toward women from the past, something entirely different than writing about women in today's milieu. So no, I wouldn't think twice about using the word in your title. The fact that Substack is a longer forum enables a completely different experience for followers. In fact, I have found Substack readers to be more discerning than in other social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram or X, for example. I guess that's why Substack prefers to think of itself as a social "network."
I like the word audacious. It speaks of boldness and something a little extra. I wonder if it’s used more often to describe women rather than men. I don’t know if someone’s already said this but there seems to be an underlying ‘more than they ought to expect.’
Ha! That’s a good way of putting it. And I’m intrigued by the idea that women are more likely to be called audacious. I would say there are more norms to disregard for women.
Yes! I’ve certainly experienced that in my own life as I continue to make choices that strengthen my sense of self and provide me with the space I need to grow.
So interesting. For me, “audacious” in this context reads as “daring plus a little chutzpah” (I see that Rona Maynard beat me to the chase on that one). But, surprisingly, I realized as I thought about your question that it doesn't have a very gendered feel to me — that is, I don't think that my gut feeling about an “audacious woman” is any different from the one about an “audacious man.” There are so many other words where the feel is different between the genders. I keep meaning to write an essay on how infuriating it is that ”avuncular” doesn't have a female equivalent with the same connotations, for instance. But in this case audacious feels about the same. And in truth it was that word in your title that probably drew me to check it out in the first place. I'm pretty sure “audacious lives” in general would have been equally intriguing. Fascinating to think about, thanks!
Ps an still fascinated by why the painting of the woman on the couch in your last essay struck me as incredibly audacious. I think that it has to do with how the figure simply experiences her own presence as a fully embodied human being. It's remarkable that that should feel audacious, but it does, somehow.
After reading the comments here, I’m thinking about audacity in my own life. I don’t think I would have called myself audacious in the sense of loud or having done something groundbreaking for sure. It really helps to have those models detailed here as Anne does. But I do think I have made consistent choices that were not easy and certainly weren’t always popular, to take care of myself, to heal, to give myself space. I guess I see those as somewhat audacious, and then I wonder why I should see them in that way when I was just listening to my needs, to me.
(Replying to both of you) — it's so interesting to think about how each word can veer from negative to positive with the slightest change in context.
If people had said ”audacious” in the context to leaving an established job it would have felt great (not true, but great), but saying that it was ”brave” always felt off. I'm guessing from this that Anne had a similar reaction to the feeling off bit. But in Emily's context, calling something ”audacious” instead of ”brave” runs the other way. Fascinating, and here's to good decision-making, whatever the label🌼
Yes, that's an interesting one. You raise a good point — likely there are things that are quite normal that somehow get seen as audacious, by ourselves or others, and they're not always the same things.
The first time I quit academia people kept telling me that I was “brave,” which made no sense, but now I wonder if they really meant “audacious” in the way you do here.
I don't tend to think that way when it comes to professional life, but something as simple as returning a visit can make me feel incredibly audacious, now that you mention it.
I’ve had a lot of people tell me that giving up tenure, selling my house, and traveling abroad was brave. But maybe you’re right that people meant audacious. They are both interesting words!
Yes, what you say here makes me think that the word can be applied very personally, and have a lot of variation in meaning for that reason. Brave is also an interesting word to use here. I would definitely call some of my choices brave before I called them audacious. Thank you!
I was really glad that you shared the image, and wrote the entire piece. The image actually had a direct impact on my writing since I saw it; I'm not sure that I'd have written the last two pieces without it. (Or equally without Samantha Clark's memoir The Clearing, which I read at about the same time; recommend it highly.)
It's a high compliment indeed. (Though for my own, I maintain that the highest is when people read the essays out loud to each other over breakfast!). No, seriously, it had a major impact. Thank you.
It's an interesting topic. Last night I was reading about H.P. Blavatsky, who definitely qualifies as an audacious woman/writer. While many of the traits of an audacious woman writer may be admirable, there is also the risk that the audacity is perceived as scandalous and used to discredit the woman, as in the case of Blavatsky. Even Simone de Beauvoir, who appeared to be such a well-groomed intellectual and quite discreet, was smeared, wasn't she? So it really can be a double edged sword. Still, I like the word and definitely appreciate audacious women writers.
It’s a funny word, isn’t it? When I really think about it, I see it as a word with both a positive and a negative connotation depending on the context and tone. If I use it with one of my teacher friends for example as I celebrate her standing up for herself during an adversarial meeting by saying, “Oh my, how audacious of you!” then I’m praising her tenacity, gumption, grit. If on the other hand I say, “I cannot believe the audacity of that reporter to announce the names of victims before family members have been notified,” (which I recently said in reference to a devastating bridge collapse near my home), then I am most certainly shocked by the lack of thought that they applied to their words or actions and I am considering them to be self-serving, even cruel. I love the power of the word in both positive and negative applications.
These two examples exactly capture the two dictionary definitions of audacious. Definition one is about being bold and taking risks, and the other definition is about being impudent and disrespectful. The interesting thing is that the difference between between being bold and being impudent is subjective, based on societal norms, and changeable. As Elaine and Anne pointed out, Blavatsky fit both definitions of audacious depending who was considering her and when.
Yes, Sarah! The subjectivity, especially when societal norms are constantly in flux, is the difference between a person being perceived as strong and independent or obnoxious and rude. I love a good word study, especially with so many intellectual voices!
Thank you for this! Your post highlights the aspect of taking or claiming something—perhaps something that isn’t yours. Which in many of the stories that we celebrate is a good thing—claiming rights, claiming space. But just the quality of audacity itself is not necessarily something to celebrate, if it’s hurting people or taking something that is not rightfully yours.
Oooo, yes! That’s the finesse of the word that I couldn’t quite articulate… “the quality of audacity itself is not…something to celebrate if it is hurting people.” ♥️
I like “audacious” for the chutzpah it suggests. An audacious woman won’t take any guff. Yes, she may be loud. Pushy, even—when the situation demands it. Remember Barack Obama’s “audacity of hope?” For most, “audacity” is a positive word.
Audacious means bold and unconventional. While that might be negative in some contexts, I think that’s exactly the kind of women you want to celebrate—those who defy the behavioral norms of their time, especially the social norms for women. .
Interesting! I suppose that the word does have an implication of publicly pushing past accepted boundaries, though I hadn't thought of it quite that way. Is Oliver Twist's “Please sir, may I have some more?” audacious in this sense? Somehow it's not the first word that I would use for it, though I can't put my finger on why. It lacks the chutzpah element, maybe…
Hi Ren. Thinking along the same lines. Does audacious mean transgressive? Does audacious mean loud? And why not celebrate the women who choose to stay in the lines, whether as a deliberate choice or an unintentional consequence of what life puts in front of them.
I like this discussion. Celebrating women, loud or not, I think is important. That makes me wonder what it means for a woman to be loud or quiet in this context.
I think audacious describes the outward behavior of a person who has the guts to be him/herself and not worry much about what others think. I find this to be an enviable trait. But the audacious person has to live with the consequences of their actions, of being audacious. Of course there was Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope", as if it is stepping outside the boundaries of accepted collective behavior. It's a great word!
Hi, I was going to subscribe to this page, there seems to be so much brilliant writing here but the name 'audacious' is literally the thing that stopped me, so I felt compelled to comment. Although I like the sentiment the word brings about going against the grain and doing something different that other people might not agree with (men) or might see as scary and brave (women), I struggle with this word because it says to me, how dare she be so audacious as to make her own choices and live her authentic life?! Ie. the assumption that if a woman does this she is somehow doing something wrong, maybe because it is against the patriarchal view of a woman's role in society. It feels like this term is feeding the narrative that we know it is wrong but we are the outspoken women, the trailblazers, we know its wrong but we do it anyway etc. This is not true of course but this is what the term 'audacious women' says to me as a self label. I want to reclaim it and I agree with it wholeheartedly but if I was to describe someone as audacious in everyday life that person would have deeply offended me therefore I don't want to be seen as audacious because I don't need ANY audacity to live my own life and make my own choices.
This is just my honest thoughts and I do enjoy reading how this word is positive for others.
Thanks for sharing, Amy.
I find 'audacious' delicious.
It personally brings to mind the French expression 'À corsaire, corsaire et demi,' which translates to 'to fight fire with fire' in English.
However, my interpretation diverges from mere aggression; instead, audacity feels more unapologetic. This nuance might stem from the word 'corsaire,' suggesting a defiance of imposed norms rather than straightforward aggression.
Therefore, I see audacity not as boldness per se, but rather as an embrace of oneself.
Hi Anna--I love this! Especially the assocation of audacity with being unapologetic. That is exactly it! The courage to be oneself is exactly what I am celebrating in the women writers and artists I shine a spotlight on.
I think audacious does have two possible meanings - the positive and the negative. It's all contextual. But I find it to be a more positive term than a negative one. It means boldness to me. Do I seek to be audacious? No.
As for what makes a woman worth rediscovering and reclaiming, to me they are the women who were willing to step out of line, to challenge the status quo. They are the women whom everyone said they couldn't do whatever it was they set out to do. They shed the conventions of their time and succeeded. And it required taking great risks. In other words, what did they stand to lose by taking a stand?
Good point about not seeking to be audacious. I’m interested in the ways that women are labeled audacious who weren’t exactly seeking to be so. They weren’t seeking attention or flaunting their taboo-breaking, just doing what felt right to them.
This is my grandmother - whom I've started to think and write about. It is especially interesting, maybe , to think about audacious women in our own families, not famous people, but everyday people who had the courage to live an authentic life. It's a bit rare!
Yes, that makes sense. I suspect that today there are more women seeking to be audacious just to gain attention. We live in a world that rewards that kind of inauthenticity. I'm thinking social media, Hollywood's culture, the political atmosphere in America, etc.
Right. Obviously none of that interests me, given what I write about, but I wonder if my title puts people off who think it does.
Oh gosh no. I don't think your title is off-putting at all. No one could read your work and be confused about what you intend with the word audacious. It fits the brand you have created for yourself. Your Substack page is geared toward women from the past, something entirely different than writing about women in today's milieu. So no, I wouldn't think twice about using the word in your title. The fact that Substack is a longer forum enables a completely different experience for followers. In fact, I have found Substack readers to be more discerning than in other social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram or X, for example. I guess that's why Substack prefers to think of itself as a social "network."
Thank you, Nancy, this is helpful. 🙏
I like the word audacious. It speaks of boldness and something a little extra. I wonder if it’s used more often to describe women rather than men. I don’t know if someone’s already said this but there seems to be an underlying ‘more than they ought to expect.’
Ha! That’s a good way of putting it. And I’m intrigued by the idea that women are more likely to be called audacious. I would say there are more norms to disregard for women.
Which makes me think audacity is about growth.
Yes! I’ve certainly experienced that in my own life as I continue to make choices that strengthen my sense of self and provide me with the space I need to grow.
Oooh, I like that!
So interesting. For me, “audacious” in this context reads as “daring plus a little chutzpah” (I see that Rona Maynard beat me to the chase on that one). But, surprisingly, I realized as I thought about your question that it doesn't have a very gendered feel to me — that is, I don't think that my gut feeling about an “audacious woman” is any different from the one about an “audacious man.” There are so many other words where the feel is different between the genders. I keep meaning to write an essay on how infuriating it is that ”avuncular” doesn't have a female equivalent with the same connotations, for instance. But in this case audacious feels about the same. And in truth it was that word in your title that probably drew me to check it out in the first place. I'm pretty sure “audacious lives” in general would have been equally intriguing. Fascinating to think about, thanks!
Ps an still fascinated by why the painting of the woman on the couch in your last essay struck me as incredibly audacious. I think that it has to do with how the figure simply experiences her own presence as a fully embodied human being. It's remarkable that that should feel audacious, but it does, somehow.
After reading the comments here, I’m thinking about audacity in my own life. I don’t think I would have called myself audacious in the sense of loud or having done something groundbreaking for sure. It really helps to have those models detailed here as Anne does. But I do think I have made consistent choices that were not easy and certainly weren’t always popular, to take care of myself, to heal, to give myself space. I guess I see those as somewhat audacious, and then I wonder why I should see them in that way when I was just listening to my needs, to me.
(Replying to both of you) — it's so interesting to think about how each word can veer from negative to positive with the slightest change in context.
If people had said ”audacious” in the context to leaving an established job it would have felt great (not true, but great), but saying that it was ”brave” always felt off. I'm guessing from this that Anne had a similar reaction to the feeling off bit. But in Emily's context, calling something ”audacious” instead of ”brave” runs the other way. Fascinating, and here's to good decision-making, whatever the label🌼
Yes! Thank you.
Yes, that's an interesting one. You raise a good point — likely there are things that are quite normal that somehow get seen as audacious, by ourselves or others, and they're not always the same things.
The first time I quit academia people kept telling me that I was “brave,” which made no sense, but now I wonder if they really meant “audacious” in the way you do here.
I don't tend to think that way when it comes to professional life, but something as simple as returning a visit can make me feel incredibly audacious, now that you mention it.
I’ve had a lot of people tell me that giving up tenure, selling my house, and traveling abroad was brave. But maybe you’re right that people meant audacious. They are both interesting words!
Yes, what you say here makes me think that the word can be applied very personally, and have a lot of variation in meaning for that reason. Brave is also an interesting word to use here. I would definitely call some of my choices brave before I called them audacious. Thank you!
Yes, it was incredibly audacious! And it’s remarkable to me that a century later it still feels that way.
By the way, for those reading these comments a bit later, that painting ended up sparking an entire essay, which can be read here: https://open.substack.com/pub/notesfromlinnesby/p/to-live-deliberately?r=2u2cxe&utm_medium=ios
I was really glad that you shared the image, and wrote the entire piece. The image actually had a direct impact on my writing since I saw it; I'm not sure that I'd have written the last two pieces without it. (Or equally without Samantha Clark's memoir The Clearing, which I read at about the same time; recommend it highly.)
That is wonderful to hear, Linnesby! There might be no higher compliment.
It's a high compliment indeed. (Though for my own, I maintain that the highest is when people read the essays out loud to each other over breakfast!). No, seriously, it had a major impact. Thank you.
mid 16th century: from Latin audax, audac- ‘bold’ (from audere ‘dare’)
It's an interesting topic. Last night I was reading about H.P. Blavatsky, who definitely qualifies as an audacious woman/writer. While many of the traits of an audacious woman writer may be admirable, there is also the risk that the audacity is perceived as scandalous and used to discredit the woman, as in the case of Blavatsky. Even Simone de Beauvoir, who appeared to be such a well-groomed intellectual and quite discreet, was smeared, wasn't she? So it really can be a double edged sword. Still, I like the word and definitely appreciate audacious women writers.
Yes, Beauvoir was considered very audacious, in a bad way, in her day. But today we celebrate the same things she was villified for!
It’s a funny word, isn’t it? When I really think about it, I see it as a word with both a positive and a negative connotation depending on the context and tone. If I use it with one of my teacher friends for example as I celebrate her standing up for herself during an adversarial meeting by saying, “Oh my, how audacious of you!” then I’m praising her tenacity, gumption, grit. If on the other hand I say, “I cannot believe the audacity of that reporter to announce the names of victims before family members have been notified,” (which I recently said in reference to a devastating bridge collapse near my home), then I am most certainly shocked by the lack of thought that they applied to their words or actions and I am considering them to be self-serving, even cruel. I love the power of the word in both positive and negative applications.
These two examples exactly capture the two dictionary definitions of audacious. Definition one is about being bold and taking risks, and the other definition is about being impudent and disrespectful. The interesting thing is that the difference between between being bold and being impudent is subjective, based on societal norms, and changeable. As Elaine and Anne pointed out, Blavatsky fit both definitions of audacious depending who was considering her and when.
Yes, Sarah! The subjectivity, especially when societal norms are constantly in flux, is the difference between a person being perceived as strong and independent or obnoxious and rude. I love a good word study, especially with so many intellectual voices!
So do I! There is so much nuance in language, and so much depends on context, source, reception, etc.
Thank you for this! Your post highlights the aspect of taking or claiming something—perhaps something that isn’t yours. Which in many of the stories that we celebrate is a good thing—claiming rights, claiming space. But just the quality of audacity itself is not necessarily something to celebrate, if it’s hurting people or taking something that is not rightfully yours.
Yes!
Oooo, yes! That’s the finesse of the word that I couldn’t quite articulate… “the quality of audacity itself is not…something to celebrate if it is hurting people.” ♥️
Yes, it's definitely a powerful word -- that's the beauty of it!
I like “audacious” for the chutzpah it suggests. An audacious woman won’t take any guff. Yes, she may be loud. Pushy, even—when the situation demands it. Remember Barack Obama’s “audacity of hope?” For most, “audacity” is a positive word.
I like the word “audacity”—it sounds like a quality that can be cultivated.
Ah, yes, Obama's "audacity of hope"! I had forgotten about that. :)
Audacious means bold and unconventional. While that might be negative in some contexts, I think that’s exactly the kind of women you want to celebrate—those who defy the behavioral norms of their time, especially the social norms for women. .
Agreed, Linda; bold and unconventional is what captures the meaning for me, as well.
For me ‘audacious’ means made an impact, stood out, got the ball rolling, broke through inertia. These are wonderful traits.
“Broke through inertia” — sounds exactly right.
Interesting! I suppose that the word does have an implication of publicly pushing past accepted boundaries, though I hadn't thought of it quite that way. Is Oliver Twist's “Please sir, may I have some more?” audacious in this sense? Somehow it's not the first word that I would use for it, though I can't put my finger on why. It lacks the chutzpah element, maybe…
Ah, I like that. Makes perfect sense.
Hi Ren. Thinking along the same lines. Does audacious mean transgressive? Does audacious mean loud? And why not celebrate the women who choose to stay in the lines, whether as a deliberate choice or an unintentional consequence of what life puts in front of them.
I like this discussion. Celebrating women, loud or not, I think is important. That makes me wonder what it means for a woman to be loud or quiet in this context.
Yes.