Masculinist Literature?

[OrphanPip]

It's funny how lesbian writers can be viewed as being feminist whereas male gay writers aren't viewed as masculinist.

Gay writers have traditionally been aligned philosophically in a position close to feminist. They have fought for years against notions of compulsory heterosexuality as a manifestation of masculine identity. For many gay writers, the notion of a essentialist "masucline" experience would distance them from their traditional connection with the transgendered and lesbian communities. Gay writers are certainly concerned with the status of gender, but I don't think contemporary queer writers are so concerned with defining their "masculinity" in terms of something distinctly male.

[kelby_lake]

I've mentioned whether masculinist literature is inherently misogynistic or not. How do women fit into masculinist literature, and the concept of masculinity?

[OrphanPip]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=UYAi...page&q&f=false

There's a book by cultural studies scholar Judith Halberstam called Female Masculinity, her main thesis being that when we want to identify things we view culturally as "masculine" the best place to look is at those usually considered deficient in masculinity (i.e. women or gay males), or those who are expressing "inappropriate" masculine qualities, like tomboys or butch dykes.

Her readings are a bit stretched at times, but she's interesting.

[kelby_lake]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=UYAi...page&q&f=false

There's a book by cultural studies scholar Judith Halberstam called Female Masculinity, her main thesis being that when we want to identify things we view culturally as "masculine" the best place to look is at those usually considered deficient in masculinity (i.e. women or gay males), or those who are expressing "inappropriate" masculine qualities, like tomboys or butch dykes.

Her readings are a bit stretched at times, but she's interesting.

I'm reading a fascinating book at the moment called Staging Masculinity by Carla McDonough.

I think studying masculinity is very interesting because it provokes questions on gender as a whole. For ages, it seemed to be that male characters were some generic expression of humanity yet female characters were something set apart from a universal human experience. Now you can get masculine studies in literature, a male identity separate from the human identity we all share.

Feminism to me seems to be the ability for a woman to adopt 'male' traits and work in male environments whilst still being able to be a 'woman'. It's more about breaking down gender barriers. Whereas masculinity seems to be the opposite- that men must do manly things, asserting their power over women and over each other.

A weird example: it has not been abnormal for women to wear trousers since about the 1920's. Before then, trousers were mainly a man thing. However I saw in this book about 1980's fashion that one designer was playing around with the idea of 'skirts for men' (didn't catch on, funnily enough). Whilst I don't really want to see men in skirts, it's an interesting point.

[Alexander III]

Quick question on feminist literary critique , wasn't its major goal to re-discover various great women authors who were obscured our past patriarchal society ? So technically they failed, as pre and post feminism the great woman authors remain the same Sappho, Austen, Bronte, George Sand, Elliot, Woolf ect. they have not re-dicovered any great women writers, well I suppose you could say the re-discovered Kate Chopin, she is a good writer, but definitely not great, unlike austen she Chopin cant stand with Dickens, Fitzgerald and the like... so technically in this main goal has feminism not failed ?

Also, yes men have prejudices against women and women against men, this is true. But in our modern society, its not that society forces prejudices, they are just small natural prejudices which shall ALWAYS be there, why ? because men and women are not the same, there is a distinction, so there is a small prejudice, but I hardly would call its harmful, is more of a quirk thing really. So on these grounds I oppose feminist criticism as it makes a strong distinction were none exists. Why should we pay more attention to woman writers than male writers, by implying that its implies, that women writers cannot be seen as just writers, they have to be seen as Woman writers, which has the connotation that this group needs to be separated into is own distinction as it is to weak to stand with the unity of literature, a thing is not true. To talk of great woman writers, eg Austen, bronte, Elliot - instead of just great writers Shakespeare, Petrarch, Victor Hugo, Jane Austen. Thus the concept of the necessity of feminist studies, un-wantedly implies that woman writers are inferior to male writers.

Well thats how I see it right now, please do inform me if any of my points have been made out of ignorance or misguidedness.

[OrphanPip]

Quick question on feminist literary critique , wasn't its major goal to re-discover various great women authors who were obscured our past patriarchal society ? So technically they failed, as pre and post feminism the great woman authors remain the same Sappho, Austen, Bronte, George Sand, Elliot, Woolf ect. they have not re-dicovered any great women writers, well I suppose you could say the re-discovered Kate Chopin, she is a good writer, but definitely not great, unlike austen she Chopin cant stand with Dickens, Fitzgerald and the like... so technically in this main goal has feminism not failed ?

That was only a small part of what feminist critics did though. Their main efforts have been in looking at how the idea of women have been shaped and represented by the arts, and how patriarchy shapes our understanding of the arts.

I'm not sure they have failed in the first part all that much either. There was much less critical writing about Austen, even with her importance to the evolution of the novel in English, before feminist scholars.

Also, yes men have prejudices against women and women against men, this is true. But in our modern society, its not that society forces prejudices, they are just small natural prejudices which shall ALWAYS be there, why ? because men and women are not the same, there is a distinction, so there is a small prejudice, but I hardly would call its harmful, is more of a quirk thing really.

I don't think it's much of a quirk, the position of women in society has clearly improved with the advancement of feminism. The society still reinforces all sorts of prejudices, and I think it's merely naive, or wishful thinking, to think the prejudices aren't there and shouldn't be combated. Prejudices are certainly natural, but that doesn't make them benign or undeserving of attention.

On the whole, though, I believe in the policy of constant vigilance. As soon as you stop fighting to be treated equally and fairly, the other side is going to start to make gains and next thing you know things will be back to sh*t.

[kelby_lake]

Quick question on feminist literary critique , wasn't its major goal to re-discover various great women authors who were obscured our past patriarchal society ? So technically they failed, as pre and post feminism the great woman authors remain the same Sappho, Austen, Bronte, George Sand, Elliot, Woolf ect. they have not re-dicovered any great women writers, well I suppose you could say the re-discovered Kate Chopin, she is a good writer, but definitely not great, unlike austen she Chopin cant stand with Dickens, Fitzgerald and the like... so technically in this main goal has feminism not failed ?

Sort of agree with you there. I think the idea behind feminist theory is the concept that the literature studied in academic circles is written by 'dead white men', which links into other schools of theory also. Therefore the idea seems to be that overlooked female writers must be brought to light. I think there are some very good underrated female writers but they are overshadowed by our old favourites, who are great writers but they've always been acknowledged as such.

Also, yes men have prejudices against women and women against men, this is true. But in our modern society, its not that society forces prejudices, they are just small natural prejudices which shall ALWAYS be there, why ? because men and women are not the same, there is a distinction, so there is a small prejudice, but I hardly would call its harmful, is more of a quirk thing really.

It depends on what scale those prejudices are.

So on these grounds I oppose feminist criticism as it makes a strong distinction were none exists. Why should we pay more attention to woman writers than male writers, by implying that its implies, that women writers cannot be seen as just writers, they have to be seen as Woman writers, which has the connotation that this group needs to be separated into is own distinction as it is to weak to stand with the unity of literature, a thing is not true. To talk of great woman writers, eg Austen, bronte, Elliot - instead of just great writers Shakespeare, Petrarch, Victor Hugo, Jane Austen. Thus the concept of the necessity of feminist studies, un-wantedly implies that woman writers are inferior to male writers.

I totally agree. Yes, women are different from men. But no one really calls male authors writing about men 'masculinist'- they just say that it's a 'universal comment on humanity.' That basically implies that men have no identity separate from a human one.

I have no problem with looking at the role of gender in women's writing but the balance needs to be re-addressed. When I was looking at universities to study at, I noticed that one had a course called English with Gender Studies. I asked the professor whether Gender Studies encompassed masculinity and he basically admitted that it was feminism. Granted, I don't know much about homosexuality but I wonder if that comes into gender discussion?

[kelby_lake]

What is feminist literature? Is Jane Austen or George Eliot or Emily Dickinson included in feminist literature? If not, why not?

Feminist literature is basically about 'the female experience', if there is such a thing.Therefore that would encompass most female writers.

[Alexander III]

I have just realized but an interesting sub topic regarding the exploration of masculinity in literature, is the social expectations of a man and sex - for example Byron's Don Juan takes an interesting approach and instead of portraying a wicked Don Juan who abuses women, we see a naive Don Juan who is easily manipulated and seduced by women. Also in several of Marquis de Sade novels we see the exploration of rape, particularly how it is done for the feeling of dominance and alpha-malism ( a primeval instinct) rather than for any sexual pleasure.

[OrphanPip]

I have just realized but an interesting sub topic regarding the exploration of masculinity in literature, is the social expectations of a man and sex - for example Byron's Don Juan takes an interesting approach and instead of portraying a wicked Don Juan who abuses women, we see a naive Don Juan who is easily manipulated and seduced by women. Also in several of Marquis de Sade novels we see the exploration of rape, particularly how it is done for the feeling of dominance and alpha-malism ( a primeval instinct) rather than for any sexual pleasure.

I'm not so sure with Sade, he certainly complicates the image of masculine sexuality. But I think he's more introducing the ideas of dominance and abuse to an understanding of hedonism. I don't feel it's so much about masculinity, as we see equally deprave female characters in some of his stuff. We also get a blurring of conventions of hetero and homosexuality in favor of an absolutely hedonistic understanding of sexual pleasure. Sade's main idea I think is that abusing people is a pleasurable thing.

[kelby_lake]

I have just realized but an interesting sub topic regarding the exploration of masculinity in literature, is the social expectations of a man and sex - for example Byron's Don Juan takes an interesting approach and instead of portraying a wicked Don Juan who abuses women, we see a naive Don Juan who is easily manipulated and seduced by women. Also in several of Marquis de Sade novels we see the exploration of rape, particularly how it is done for the feeling of dominance and alpha-malism ( a primeval instinct) rather than for any sexual pleasure.

Yep, I'd say it's an important factor in considering gender.

[kelby_lake]

What would you say are typical features of 'masculinist literature', or what we would call 'masculinist literature'?