During the height of the Suffrage Movement prominent female icons like Elizabeth Gaskell, Florence Nightingale, George Eliot, George Sand, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Christina Rossetti, Beatrice Potter and a host of others withheld their support. The mood could perhaps best be summed up by Potter who said, "at the root of my anti-feminism lay the fact that I had never myself suffered disabilities assumed to arise from my sex." Some went so far as to argue that they were 'trained' by men, and preferred the company of men.

Harriet Taylor, a more militant feminist than Gaskell, say, attacked her notion that women should fight for others and not themselves. Taylor wrote a pamphlet in 1851 entitled "The Enfanchisement of Women", where she lambasted the work of many of the writers mentioned above. In her words, "the literary class of women, especially in England, are ostentatious in disdaining the desire for equality or citizenship, and proclaiming their complete satisfaction with the place which society assigns to them."

This was mostly a 19th Century antipathy, a class-based one to boot. Solidarity arising from militant feminism didn't translate in any kind of meaningful way for writers; in fact they tended to detach themselves from the fanaticism of activists like Christabel and Emmeline Pankhurst, and Elizabeth Robins. They thought of them as bullies and neurotics, who wanted their devotees to rise up, embrace unbridled risk and renounce everything for the cause. Even Virginia Woolf represented suffragists as incomplete, marginal and borderline people, who 'sought in the process and violence of the movement the passion that was lacking in their own private lives.' Besides, there was a vast class divide separating the activists from their privileged critics, as depicted by Woolf in her novel, Night and Day.

It seemed the Twentieth Century brought some respite and unity to the hostile ranks of feminists. The writer class at least reaped some kind of benefit in that they were now able to articulate what Elaine Showalter called 'The Female Aesthetic', which is the application of "feminist ideology to language as well as to literature, to words and sentences as well as to perceptions and values." But here's the crux: Just as this break-through was taking place, the First World War broke out, and it had the effect of turning women writers inwards to renounce the demands and needs of the self at the same time as they shunned the "violence of ego" that is war. The writing of this period is 'openly and insistently feminine' but it still retreats to a room of its own. It seceded from life altogether. So, at the very moment that 'The Female Aesthetic' pointed the way towards self-realization it became just another form of self-annihilation for women writers: Heroines were now victims once more, and much of the literature deals with betrayal, suicide, martyrdom and self-immolation. This leads [inevitably] to what Showalter identifies as the 'Flight into Androgyny', a way for women to further suppress their femininity.

OK. My question is this. I've noticed that much of Showalter's argument in A Literature Of Their Own takes place against the backdrop of war. It rages uncontrollably in the background and it contextualizes the movement in ways that undermine [mostly, I imagine] the propriety of asking and demanding for equality in the first place -- 'can't you see we're too busy fucking killing each other to be concerned about your damn wimmin issues'. In the same way, I suspect the feminist platform [which was a sub- and far from united category] of Hilliary's Primary campaign collapsed in upon itself, led to self-annihilation, a sense of victimhood, betrayal and ultimately failure. And I'm not just talking about the more radical elements of the apropos discussions that took place here, which may or may not reflect women's concerns and issues at large. The question: Did the war loom over the entire debate, even if it was only a tacit presence in the background? Did it actually undermine the cause? Did the cause succumb and renounce its own propriety because of the war? And is war always a legitimate reason for women to suspend their rights and struggles? And if there is such a thing as a feminine archetype, should this figure always, automatically, and as a given oppose war first? In short, is war man's way of keeping woman in her place?

-------

* Most of this post is derived from my reading of Showalter's book.

I bet those two George girls (Eliot and Sand) were a couple of real lookers.

Jack

rotfl

During the 60s and 70s, when women's libbers were finding their voices, it always seemed to me that they were arguing for equality rather than exceptionalism. They wanted to be liberated from the Barefoot and Pregnant Era.

Mission Accomplished.

But rather than being defined by their vaginas, and defining themselves by their reproductive organs, they wanted gender to be a non-issue in the workplace, and in the political arena. (see Shirley Chisholm) The Vietnam War was raging, and that was a backdrop for sure, but the feminist movement was still front burner, just like the Civil Rights movement. But again, that was about equality.

The "feminists" I've encountered on the fray, specifically the ones who shout misogyny at the drop of a hat, are a different kind of feminist. The Iraq war didn't loom in the background as a presence that couldn't be ignored during the "debate." The war wasn't background noise at all. It was not even an issue. THE issue with this handful of ridiculous excuses for feminists is getting a woman elected to the office of president. It's an affirmative action thing, an exceptionalist thing. Any voice that asks questions is immediately written off as misogynist. Again, there aren't many, but they're loud. And they're an insult to true feminists who paved the way.

The idea that men wage war to keep women in their place assumes that men still believe that women have a place in which to be kept. That's 1950s stuff. Sure there are some Neanderthals left, but not many. The last 30 years have seen huge advances by women in everything from politics, to the boardroom, to the Space Shuttle, and I'm sure we'll continue to see progress until we can put this fucking "gender issue" to bed once and for all. Will it take a woman being elected president? I don't know, but I suspect the ridiculous handful will always find a way to call me a sexist. Whatever. I don't care.

Suspension of their rights and struggles because the war takes priority? I'm not sure what rights and struggles to which you refer.

As for the Clinton campaign, the victimization thing didn't really rear its ugly head until the primary season was practically over. That's when Ickes and T Mac, and Senator Clinton herself began to claim that she, the presumptive front-runner in November 2007, the prohibitive early favorite by double-digit percentages, was the victim of rampant sexism. When pressed for examples, they gave a sound bite from Chris Matthews, a headline from some magazine article, or my favorite.....the Potter Stewart reply...it's subtle sexism, latent sexism, but it's there, and I know it when I see it.

This is "rampant sexism" the extent of which could topple a double-digit leader, a presumptive favorite?

Bullshit.

Of course there's sexism. There always will be, and the ridiculous handful are as sexist as any male chauvanist pig I ever met. But rampant sexism is not why Obama won the Dem nomination.

I agree with you that sexism is not why Hillary lost the nomination, but if you don't think that sexism still exists in a big, big way, you're kidding yourself. There's a certain kind of person who will never be able to separate their perception of a person (including themselves) from their sex organs.

And that "kind of person" while rare, comes in both flavors.

I don't think sexism exists in a big, big, way. Like I said, it's there, but it's not rampant.

If war is sexism par excellence, which I believe it is, then how are these two statements not mutually exclusive?

"The idea that men wage war to keep women in their place assumes that men still believe that women have a place in which to be kept."

"Of course there's sexism. There always will be..."

...for women to suspend their rights and struggles". What rights ought a woman give up? One day we're going to learn that we're ALL in this together.

Then you ask, "is war man's way of keeping woman in her place?"

That could very well be. It's worked so far.

The part where Clinton supported the war cost her my vote.

I sure as fuck hope Obama doesn't do anything to cost him mine. There's nobody else to vote for.

Hmmm... I wonder what ever happened to Paul...

I don't believe the US invaded Iraq with the intention of "keeping women in their place." I don't believe that the vast majority of men believe women have "their place."

Maybe it's just the people I talk to.

As for the second statement...in full..."Of course there's sexism. There always will be, and the ridiculous handful are as sexist as any male chauvanist pig I ever met. But rampant sexism is not why Obama won the Dem nomination."

Well, that's more of a statement about how relatively rare it is, rather than how rampant. And the observation that women have made great advances in the last 30 years, does not mean I think we have achieved total equality. More an observation that women in the early 20th century, women in the 1950s, women's libbers from the 1960s, had a lot tougher row to hoe than women in the 21st century, because they did face rampant sexism.

Just like racists come in all colors. The deal with racists, though, is that one color is used to having power, and the other is used to being on the receiving end of the power. One might forgive the victims of racism for being a bit gun-shy in certain matters.

You know, Schmutz, I don't know what you do for a living, or where you spend your days. I spend most of my time in academia, surrounded by colleagues who are almost color-blind (I said "almost.") Occasionally, I have to make a foray out into the "real" world, and I get to witness overt racism. People (white and black) in Wal-Mart, or McDonalds, or at the post office assume that because I'm a big, doofy-looking white guy in rural Arkansas, I must be a racist. But at least I don't get that at work. I'm constantly made proud by my students--black kids and white kids are not just friendly, but friends, and it's not that they don't see color, it's that they just don't give a shit about it.

But it's not that way with sexism. There's virtually no difference in the way males act toward females now and the way that they did in my generation, or the generation before. I've had otherwise bright, seemingly right-thinking kids tell me that they'd never vote for a woman president, because she'd be unstable "because of her monthlies." Some of them have been women. These are college kids. These are the leaders of tomorrow.

Maybe I'm just asking the questions incorrectly. I don't of course mean that sexism is 'the' or 'a' casus belli, but that the socio-political ramifications of rampant war, in a warring culture, such as the US, is to reinforce rampant sexism. In other words, war is a kind of invisible hand or ordering principle.

Construction industry. Dripping with testosterone. It's a male dominated industry. It's there, and I acknowledge that. More out of men wanting to do that kind of work than women being "excluded."

But in my real life, my friends, people I socialize with... Goddamned near gender neutral. I'm not kidding. Maybe it's the people I choose as friends, and I'm just not "getting it" as far as our society being sexist in a big, big way. Maybe, because I work around a bunch of ass-cleavage and tool belts, I distance myself from the macho types when I'm away from here.

However, I did not hear one person in the last 8 months say they wouldn't vote for a woman because she's a woman, including the knuckle-draggers at work. Not one Arch. Which is why I found the fray to be so curious in that regard. Lots of accusations of people not voting for a woman because she's a woman, but no evidence.

I sure hope you slap some sense (figuratively speaking) into the less progressive thinking leaders of tomorrow.

"Monthlies"? Are you serious? Man that's more than a ittle disturbing.

I don't know if I agree that the socio-political ramifications of waging rampant war reinforce rampant sexism, but it sure does seem that the ones with the stars on their shoulders, and the one in the White House are and always have been male persons.

How that applies to feminism isn't something I've thought much about. Interesting notion.

Asking the questions incorrectly? Huh? It's your thread my friend, maybe I'm not answering them correctly.

The race was excrutiatingly close.

Sexism could have swayed it.

War waging has traditionally been the exclusive prerogative of men.

During WWI the Suffragists were told to stuff it and then reminded of the impropriety of their struggle at such an inconvenient time: How could they be so narrow and solipsistic when so many were dying? Couldn't they suspend their campaign until a more propitious time.