From "The Madwoman in the Attic," quoted in "Sandra M. Gilbert, Co-Author of ‘The Madwoman in the Attic,’ Dies at 87/A poet, scholar and literary critic, she turned a feminist lens on 19th-century writers like Jane Austen and Charlotte BrontĂ«, creating a feminist classic" (NYT).
“People forget that, when they were writing, even to talk about women writers as having anything in common, as having a story of their own, as being connected in any way to each other, was incredibly controversial,” Katha Pollitt, the feminist author, told The Washington Post in 2013. “Now it seems completely obvious.”
Posts
35 comments:
It's OK to posture, but when things need to get done better have a man in your back pocket.
even to talk about women writers as having anything in common, as having a story of their own, as being connected in any way to each other, was incredibly controversial,
I guess the "story of their own" is a collective, women's story. When I first read this sentence, I was like, "Hang on, you can't have it both ways - women are all of a piece yet they each have a unique story." But no, apparently feminism has been all about group identity since the Second Wave came along. At least.
I mean, I suppose there's a good argument for women's group identity in the First Wave too, when it was a common trope that women in the electorate would make it a more civilized place through their good influence. Or, go back farther than that and you find both women arguing that they are the civilized half of society and men would do well to listen to us, and men holding up some vision of Womanhood, especially Motherhood, as an ideal to be protected.
Ugh. We can't get away from group identity.
How to write women, by Melvin Udall.
“Think of a man. Now take away reason and accountability.”
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness... conservative women are fiercely independent, all American. Unlike liberalism, progressivism, and the like, there is no accommodation for Diversity (e.g. sexism) in conservative philosophy.
Feminist shit is so fucking tiresome. Fortunately, I’ve found women all through my life who don’t babble like jackasses about this shit.
Class-disordered ideologies under the Diversity umbrella, and conflation of sex and gender in the woke of political congruence.
When the shit hits the fan, nobody calls for a feminist.
That quote by longtime libtard Pollit is feminist revisionist bullshit.
Ever since I was made to read Fear of Flying in a lit class, and was told it was some kind of feminist manifesto, I have been less than impressed by feminist authors who profess to be creating art.
There was nothing wrong with Fear of Flying as a novel, but as a way of living? It was a straight track to unhappiness for women, it seemed to me.
The world is full of them. They just don't make it a goal in life to be represented in the media.
Women have always been a problem.
Second Wave was fine until lesbians made it all about themselves. Betty Friedan was right, stay in the fucking closet.
These authors wrote more madMEN in the attic than madwomen. Victor Frankenstein is unhinged and Heathcliff borders on demonic. Anyone holding up Bertha Rochester -- Jane calls her a "vampyre" -- as an icon is ridiculous.
When you lump women writers who lived before the modern age together you diminish them. They should stand on their own as great authors.
If I can tell the sex of the author from reading the book, I suspect the author meant for me to do so. Destruction of the "other" whether that other is inherently evil patriarchal structures or Gaia-worshipping madwomen is a common manifestation of a writer's failure to value themselves.
Men and women live in dynamic harmony through a reconciliation of patriarchal and matriarchal structures established by both sexes.
I visit my public library in Los Angeles about once a week. I make a point to browse the new nonfiction and fiction. The nonfiction has a slight majority of female authors, and many titles on anti racism, anti Republican, pro gay and trans, and very little on conventional history, biography, and science. The fiction authorship is 3 to 1 female to male. If you eliminate the legacy malles like Stephen King and Michael Connelly, it skews even more XX. Of course my sample is unscientific. But read Publishers Weekly or another publishing industry periodical, and you'll get a similar impression.
If women's writing is distinctly different, then we are systematically under representing the distinctly different male forms of expression.
"Fiercely independent" women characters, yes, but do they really "seek to destroy all the patriarchal structures"? All the patriarchal structures? That seems excessively binary: either women are completely submissive, or they seek to overturn the entire established order. The reality wasn't that simple and polarized.
Maybe spunky girl heroines were just trying to get some breathing room inside the existing system and structures, trying to adapt the system to their own wants and needs, rather than trying to overturn it. Gilbert views them through her own "heteropessimistic" lens. If female heroines had a subversive side didn't they also have a submissive side? "I am Heathcliff!" wasn't the outburst of a revolutionary feminist. Can you really separate out one side and make it superior and the true message? The great mass of 19th century literature by women may not have reflected Gilbert's revolutionary feminist theories either.
Madwoman in the Attic is the bitter, lit crit equivalent of Moosewood Cookbook. Ironically, it ends up being contemptuous of those extremely different authors’ voices, effort, and genius. One might imagine the Brontes, Austen, et. al. beating Gilbert with a sack of oranges in some back alley. But please don’t blame them for her.
"even to talk about women writers as having anything in common, as having a story of their own, as being connected in any way to each other, was incredibly controversial" I call BS.
Yup some males today need to have women they can command and if not you can bet they live on their own as the 21st century woman aint putting up with their shit. Patriarchy is over rated, a loving shared responsibility nurturing relationship offers the best. Patriarchy will die more rapidly as time moves forward. The AMAZONS are coming back.. Remember the saying" you aint the boss of me" more pertinent than ever, the dinosaurs are living in that realm..ITS A BRAVE NEW WORLD. grin and bear it or live in a cave on your own in bitterness. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we all die!
My wife loves Janet Evanovich
Got a question. You know how to fix the timing chain on your car? No? Fuck off.
"Don't try to understand women writers, Bud. Women writers understand women writers, and they hate each other."
I'm too old to have the pleasure of watching these silly lib women don the hijab when the jihad comes unless they have figured out how to defend themselves without American men.
I've written two novels, one from a woman's POV and one from a man's. Of course, my only first-person experience is that of a woman - but I've known and loved many men over many years. What I attempted to do was to write each of my main characters as a person, no more, no less: there's no particular rage against the patriarchy in my female character, no particular resentment of the feminized world in my male one. The female character knows she's not as physically strong as the man, but doesn't feel she needs to defy that fact as a mere stereotype. My male character doesn't often share his feelings of vulnerability with his brothers or friends, and only rarely with the woman, but he doesn't consider his reserve to be a character flaw.
I'm reading a book right now - for a book club; otherwise I'd stop now because it kind of sucks - that features three voices: a modern man, a modern woman, and a woman from the early 20th century. They all sound exactly alike. Oh, and the woman from the past has exactly the same feelings and concerns as the modern woman, and both are - at this point in the book - entirely cowed by angry and vindictive men; I can already see the turn coming in which they Find Their Power. Sigh.
Sometimes I wonder whether modern writers even know any humans.
wild chicken, this made me LOL.
Janet Evanovich is hilarious - particularly the One For the Money series.
Never say never. Jihad’s always on time.
"Yes, they were all really like us, even in the 1800s. In fact, they were mostly like me. Have I told you about my rage and anxiety..."
And yet the bodice rippers have a wide audience. I wonder why?
And action adventure has a wide audience. I wonder why?
And those two audiences don't really overlap. I wonder why?
And each of those questions deserve a "sarc tag" and I don't wonder why. 🫢
Dinky rides the short bus, Rusty.
I didn't read their books but I've read the authors they write about. I don't think the rage in the Bronte sisters was all that submerged but it's fair to say that some of it was inchoate. Well, they certainly had just cause to be pissed at the patriarchy, but it was Mother Nature who treated the Bronte's with the greatest spite. ....I wouldn't think that Jane Austen was all that angry. She lived in an unjust world, but the injustice of the world worked in many ways in her favor. She wasn't part of the creme de la creme, but she was definitely part of the creme and smart enough to appreciate that fact. .
Funny thing, that. In re. "Sandra M. Gilbert, Co-Author of ‘The Madwoman in the Attic,’ Dies at 87/A poet, scholar and literary critic, she turned a feminist lens on 19th-century writers like Jane Austen and Charlotte BrontĂ«, creating a feminist classic" (NYT)." I have read some and am aware of the rest of Austen's and Bronte's work, but I have never heard of Gilbert prior to this post....and to be honest, she sounds hideous.
Ah.
Post a Comment