The New York Times obituary is shockingly short. A woman of this influence? (There's a note saying that a "more complete" obituary will be published later, but why weren't they ready with this one as they are with so many other important figures?)
Ms. Millett was in her mid-30s and a generally unknown sculptor when her doctoral dissertation at Columbia University, “Sexual Politics,” was published by Doubleday and Co. Her core premise was that the relationship between the sexes is political, with the definition of politics including, as she once said, “arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another.”Thanks for the great read, Kate. I've still got my copy, 47 years old:
“However muted its appearance may be,” Ms. Millett wrote, “sexual dominion obtains nevertheless as perhaps the most pervasive ideology of our culture and provides its most fundamental concept of power.”
The book became a central work of what is often called second-wave feminism, but being a star of the movement did not come naturally to Ms. Millett.
“Kate achieved great fame and celebrity, but she was never comfortable as a public figure,” Eleanor Pam, another leading feminist, said by email. “She was preternaturally shy....”
_______________
* Or was "The Female Eunuch" first? I bought and read both those books that summer, when I doing a summer job at minimum wage — $1.65/hour — and a hardcover book represented more than
Posts
42 comments:
Man, back in college I was stoked for the release of the latest Tom Clancy novel. Long before Indigo, Chapters and then Amazon, a new release hardcover in Canada was around C$30 plus tax, which was some real money for a college student.
Of course, that's back before Tom Clancy stopped caring about his characters. And then died.
That and a subscription to Psychology Today, if my gf was any guide.
One of my professors said that all romantic relationships between men and women were unequal. Sometimes the one with more power is the man and sometimes its the woman. One was of the two would be ready to leave the relationship before the other one would. Sometimes the one with more power is the man and sometimes its the woman. He believed that this difference in power affected how the couple acted. Did the man adopt the woman's view because he was persuaded she was right or because he feared she might leave the relationship if he didn't acquiesce?
As a newly married young college student, I didn't want to view my marriage in those terms. But, there is a lot of truth in my professor's theory.
Men control women by taking care of them.
Women imagine the control part.
Weird because I have never even heard of it
"However muted its appearance may be,” Ms. Millett wrote, “sexual dominion obtains nevertheless as perhaps the most pervasive ideology of our culture and provides its most fundamental concept of power.”
Oh, I fully agree. Except probably Althouse and I disagree who has "sexual domination" these days.
"Except probably Althouse and I disagree who has "sexual domination" these days."
Here word was "dominion," not "domination."
$3.30+ for a hardcover book? Inflation has followed an exponential progressive function with only marginal electronic relief in sight.
...sexual dominion obtains nevertheless as perhaps the most pervasive ideology of our culture and provides its most fundamental concept of power.
The most fundamental concept of power is power over oneself. If you don't understand that, you have no foundation on which to build an understanding of interpersonal relationships.
"Dominion" is "The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority; lordship, sovereignty; rule, sway; control, influence.... The territory owned by or subject to a king or ruler, or under a particular government or control.... Ownership, property; right of possession." (OED)
"Domination" is "The action of dominating; the exercise of ruling power; lordly rule, sway, or control; ascendancy."
"Domino" is a tile used in a childish game. Also used humorously to refer to teeth — "1828 W. T. Moncrieff Tom & Jerry ii. v. 53 Sluice your dominos—vill you?.. Drink, vill you? don't you understand Hinglish?" — or to piano keys — but don't let that lead you to think that both parts of the name Fats Domino are nicknames. Only the "Fats" is. He was "the eighth and final child of Antoine Caliste Domino (1879–1964) and Marie-Donatille Gros (1886–1971)." Strangely enough, "gros" is French for large.
See the difference?
I don't doubt that it's true that pretty much every 2 person relationship (sexual or otherwise) there's a dominant person. Was Millett making an argument that it's almost always the male that has "dominion" in a male-female relationship? I have no idea if that's true, but it doesn't seem true.
"$3.30+ for a hardcover book? Inflation has followed an exponential progressive function with only marginal electronic relief in sight."
I believe the price was $5.99, actually. An ordinary internet calculator says that corresponds to $37.75 today. Think about being a minimum wage worker and paying $37.75 for a mere book.
Does this book have any dirty parts?
My mom had a bunch of feminist books, and I always skimmed through them for dirty parts.
Unfortunately, my mom never bought romance novels.
If you look at the "core premise" stated in the article, it doesn't say who's on top in the politics:
"Her core premise was that the relationship between the sexes is political, with the definition of politics including, as she once said, “arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another.” “However muted its appearance may be,” Ms. Millett wrote, “sexual dominion obtains nevertheless as perhaps the most pervasive ideology of our culture and provides its most fundamental concept of power.”"
Analyzing relationships between men and women as the politics of power is so much the norm today that you just take it for granted, you don't see how startling it was to say "sexual politics" back then.
I know when I first saw the title, I assumed that it meant that politicians were relying on sex appeal to persuade people.
but why weren't they ready with this one as they are with so many other important figures?)
A conspiracy by the Patriarchy of course.
"Does this book have any dirty parts? My mom had a bunch of feminist books, and I always skimmed through them for dirty parts...."
In fact, that's sort of what Millett did, look through other people's books for the dirty parts. There are excerpts from D.H. Lawrence and Henry Miller in the chapters devoted to them. They're quoted and analyzed (from the perspective of what these men were really saying about women). It was her Ph.D dissertation, basically.
Click on my link that goes to Amazon and use the search-inside-the-book with, say, "fuck" and you'll see.
Here word was "dominion," not "domination."
1.the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.
2.rule; control; domination.
Seems to be a distinction without a difference.
Analyzing relationships between men and women as the politics of power is so much the norm today that you just take it for granted, you don't see how startling it was to say "sexual politics" back then.
You say that like it is a good thing.
Dove hunters plant pearl millet to attract birds to the slaughter.
Think about being a minimum wage worker and paying $37.75 for a mere book.
Don't forget the much higher payroll tax. What was it in 1970?
I have always been puzzled by the philosophical underpinnings of second-wave feminism. First Wave, I can understand. Third Wave, I'm familiar with the post-modern guys who under-gird it. But, Second Wave?
... what Millett did, look through other people's books for the dirty parts. There are excerpts from D.H. Lawrence and Henry Miller in the chapters devoted to them. ... use the search-inside-the-book with, say, "fuck" and you'll see.
Now I remember that book !!!
I always thought that Germaine Greer had a much better sense of humor. Not only that, but it was a lot easier to have sympathy for an Australian "Sheila" than most of the spoiled and/or deranged American feminists. Australian women have a lot they can genuinely complain about.
There's a note saying that a "more complete" obituary will be published later, but why weren't they ready with this one as they are with so many other important figures?
Sexual politics?
Germaine Greer is on the outs with Third Wave feminists for saying that men who become women are not really women.
Or you could reconcile moral and natural imperatives, but that is a hard problem, and a minority may even characterize it as wicked.
Living, now dead, proof that radical feminism is a species of mental illness.
First Wave = women are equal
Second Wave = women are special
Third Wave = women are whatever
I just looked it up, and you are correct: the federal minimum wage then was $1.65. I remembered it as being $1.75, so now I'm unsure whether, in the job I'm recalling, I made $1.65 instead of $1.75 or I made 10 cents an hour more than the minimum. From what I recall of the employer, the best bet is that I made $1.65.
Back from the doctor. Having borne my rebuke with manly stoicism, I wish to express my thanks to Gahrie.
Pretty much the seminal insight for the way feminism developed, isn't it? Probably not original with her but wide publication in readable form gets big points.
I wonder what parts of present day feminism she found grotesque?
If any of course, but there are plenty of candidates.
On Amazon a used hardcover copy of Female Eunuch is advertised for $2.65.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006157953X?ie=UTF8&tag=althouse09-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=006157953X
(You can buy it through the Althouse Portal.)
The result of all of this to-do is that our society/civilization now benefits from more of the intellectual power of the ~50% that are XX. We have a lot more female doctors, lawyers, professors, and, to a lesser degree, engineers. The price we pay is the slow motion death of that same society/civilization, as the cohort that provides that benefit reproduces at less than replacement levels.
It will hit Japan first, then western Europe, but it will hit us also.
I suspect that the cost exceeds the benefit overall, but I won’t be around to see the outcome.
http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/01/kate-milletts-tedious-madness/
When I was a college student I bought a copy of "Grant Moves South," by Bruce Catton. It was a far better investment.
The books I coveted when a college student were Douglas S Freeman's seven volume Biography of George Washington.
They were ten dollars a volume and after I could afford them, I could not find a set.
I have a set of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" from 1864 and a full set of "Samuel Pepys Diary" but the Washington biography I have not been able to find.
The Catton Grant books were lost somehow years ago but I have bought another copy of them and am reading them now.
"Sexual Politics" sounds like something for snowflakes.
It was a big deal to buy a hardcover book back then. Normally, you'd just wait — was it a year? 2 years? — for the paperback to come out. I bought "Sexual Politics" and read it that summer, the summer of 1970. It was the first hardcover book I ever bought.
Would've been a lot cheaper to just check out some Freud from the library and read the sections on penis envy.
She didn't live long enough to see the first female President. This last election must have been a terrible disappointment. Sad.
"Sexual Politics" sounds like something for snowflakes.
Careful! Don't rile the Professor.
Why are bipolar lesbians such experts on heterosexual relationships?
$5.99 sounds incredibly cheap for hardcover books at that time. During the early 60's I remember ordering my favorite science fiction books (e.g., Andre Norton's Galactic Derelict — a title which horrified my mother) in hardcover from a local bookstore (because I didn't know that paperbacks existed at the time!) — while charging it to my parents, without asking them! — and my recollection is each of those books cost something like $25. Let's see (inflation calculator)… each of those $25's spent in about 1964 would cost about $150 today!
I think in general we pay bargain prices for books these days — especially used books.
I haven't read her work but looking at overviews now the title seems apt. As often happens, ordinary people are collateral damage to those who spearhead political movements. I find it sad that there was insufficient defense of traditional femininity from this assault.
Post a Comment