Masculinist Literature?

[kelby_lake]

Is there a male equivalent of feminist literature? Which works would you include if you hypothetically taught it?

I'm thinking Hemingway has to be on there, Mamet- one of the Shakespeare plays; personally I'd choose Julius Caesar...

What do you think?

[Dinkleberry2010]

I'm not clear on what the term feminist literature means

[OrphanPip]

I would guess it would be a work of literature that somehow forwards a position that men are equally capable of or superior at some things that are typically seen as feminine. However, that itself is difficult to differentiate from feminist literature, because "reducing" men to stereotypical positions of women is often seen in feminist literature. I suppose it would depend on the position.

I can definitely think of some chauvinistic literature. Rochester's poetry often emphasizes the superiority of male experience over the female, to the point that he sometimes lauds homosexual behavior over relations with the female.

Song by John Wilmet, Earl of Rochester

Love a woman? You're an ***.
'Tis a most insipid passion
To choose out for your happiness
The idlest part of God's creation.

Let the porter and the groom,
Things designed for dirty slaves,
Drudge in fair Aurelia's womb
To get supplies for age and graves.

Farewell, woman! I intend
Henceforth every night to sit
With my lewd, well-natured friend,
Drinking to engender wit.

Then give me health, wealth, mirth, and wine,
And if busy Love intrenches,
There's a sweet, soft page of mine
Does the trick worth forty wenches.

[The Comedian]

I'm a bit jaded on this topic: I was force-fed heavy servings of radical feminism for a long time in my college education, so I bristle a little at even simple discussions of the topic.

But my general feeling is, no. There is no "Masculinist" literature in the sense that it is a parallel to feminist literature. If such a "masculinist" literature does exist, it would be called chauvinistic literature or fascist literature or patriarchal literature. But whatever it is, it would not be taught with the same "progressive" sensitivity ascribed to feminist literature.

Sorry to be so negative about this.

[Dinkleberry2010]

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

[Debbborra]

The Bible?


I'm a bit jaded on this topic: I was force-fed heavy servings of radical feminism for a long time in my college education, so I bristle a little at even simple discussions of the topic.

But my general feeling is, no. There is no "Masculinist" literature in the sense that it is a parallel to feminist literature. If such a "masculinist" literature does exist, it would be called chauvinistic literature or fascist literature or patriarchal literature. But whatever it is, it would not be taught with the same "progressive" sensitivity ascribed to feminist literature.

Sorry to be so negative about this.

I agree completely with the above. I think we're still at least a century away from a need for such literature. Which is not meant to imply that there ever will be a need. But if such a need were to arise there would have to be a shift in power and time for a response.

[OrphanPip]

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

I was thinking more along the lines of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, which is clearly interested in the position of women within a patriarchal society. I don't think we can call authors who wrote before the concept of feminism existed to be feminist writers. Although, some of those authors are certainly prominent targets of feminist criticism and contain elements of arguments that are present within feminist writing.

Edit: I, much like Comedian, am at lost to really identify a "masculinist" sentiment within literature that is akin to feminism. However, there is some literature out there that can be said to be concerned particularly with the experiences of the male gender and with what it means to be "masculine". This is probably the kind of stuff Kelby is looking for when he cites Hemingway.

[WingedWolf]

LOL The Bible is a good answer. I would say Jack London though.

[Dinkleberry2010]

But that brings me back to what I'm trying to understand: What exactly is meant by the concept of feminism and what defines feminist literature?

[Amoxcalli]

Ovid's Metamorphoses. I don't think I've ever seen women being portrayed in such a helpless fashion in literature before.

[OrphanPip]

But that brings me back to what I'm trying to understand: What exactly is meant by the concept of feminism and what defines feminist literature?

That would depend on the school of feminism: 1st wave, 2nd wave, or 3rd wave.

In general though at its most basic it is a position that argues that women are intrinsically equal to men and are being made unequal by the patriarchal structures of society.

Comedian mentioned the radical feminist who hold a much more gynocentric position than say classical feminist from the first wave who fought for the woman's right to vote. I think we in general just seem to accept pre-radical feminist ideas as obvious.

Third-wavers, as I understand it, are a reaction to the Western-centric ideas of the radical feminist.

Thus, a piece of work like Wolstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women is certainly a piece of feminist literature (without much artistic merit though) of the first wave variety. Compared to Atwood who seems to be pushing a 2nd wave/Radical feminist idea.


Ovid's Metamorphoses. I don't think I've ever seen women being portrayed in such a helpless fashion in literature before.

Clearly it is important for little girls to learn that if they are ever in danger of being raped by a god that they should turn into a tree to avoid the fate.

[mayneverhave]

Shakespeare's most "masculinist" moment? The end of Two Gentlemen of Verona.

[Modest Proposal]

Ovid's Metamorphoses. I don't think I've ever seen women being portrayed in such a helpless fashion in literature before.

I knew this would happen in this thread.

The topic was raised asking if there is an equivalent literature to the popular feminist genre/bent. That is to say a literature that celebrates maleness and raises issues of difficulties particular to masculine constructs in society.

But of course anything celebrating masculinity is IMMEDIATELY seen as degrading women, right?

Let me ask, why you proposed women being helpless as masculinist? Does feminist literature mean all men in the book are portrayed as emasculated or dehumanized? Is that what 'all women' want? Do you think all men want helpless women?

Let's try and have a mature discussion without immediately falling back on ham-fisted generalizations and condemnations.

In my opinion "Revolutionary Road" dealt equally well with the gender conventions of masculinity in the 50's as it did with feminist issues. Just as women were encouraged to stay at home and ignore their aspirations to be good wives, men were pressured to go work in some cubicle and be responsible rather than pursuing their own aspirations. Similarly, the book looked judiciously at the power men and women have over each other in relationships to do immense emotional and psychological harm.

[Vautrin]

Two novels I would classify under "masculinist" literature:

Americana by Don DeLillo
The Moviegoer by Walker Percy

There recently was an article in the New York Times discussing pretty much what we're talking about in this thread. It concerned the writings of Mailer, Roth and Updike, more specifically what can be drawn from their depictions of sex and women.

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/books/review/Roiphe-t.html?scp=1&sq=Mailer,%20Roth,%20Updike&st=cse

[sixsmith]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fiction (such as it is) of Norman Mailer.

[JuniperWoolf]

The Bible?.

FANTASTIC answer.


Ovid's Metamorphoses. I don't think I've ever seen women being portrayed in such a helpless fashion in literature before.

Wow, really? Did you ever happen to read the one about Pholomila and Procne?

FYI: Just because something has the traits of what is commonly held by popular western culture as `masculine` doesn`t mean that it is anti-femminist and pro-male. I`m a woman, and my three greatest loves are fighting, comics and hockey. Does that make me any less of a woman? No. I favor Jack London over the Bronte sisters, but I`m still a feminist. All that I mean by that is that I don`t want to see women raped or beaten. To me, that`s feminism. I also don`t want to see any more people claiming that `men are genetically superior to women.`If you agree with me, then you`re a feminist too.

As for the theory on what `masculinist`should mean, I`d have to go ahead and say that this would include debunking any pre-concieved social notions of what a man SHOULD be. In this regard, gay-lit is technically masculinist-lit. Also, men ARE abused by women. They call it `nagging.`Many western women treat men like slaves. I see it all the time. Any literature that argues against such behavior while at the same time not putting down women in general could be considered masculinist-lit.

[WingedWolf]

I just thought of a really good example. "Being a Man (In the Lousy Modern World)" by Robert Twigger.

[JBI]

Depends how you define male. The female generally has been defined through the lens of non-male, in the sense that females historically were defined by how they were different then men, but that avoids an actual definition of men historically.

So if we want a book that offers an ideal, in the sense that it pushes for equality and a less biased representation and equal treatment for men and women, I would say Far From the Madding Crowd by Hardy. Gabriel Oak seems the perfect example of the good qualities and possible perfection of a male persona that is both compatible, and complementary to an equally fair female persona.

Now, if you want the most misogynist instead, there is a brief essentially pamphlet written in Ancient Chinese but readily available in translation online by Ban Zhao (pan Chao) called Lessons for My Daughters (translated under a bunch of different names) and is perhaps the perfect text to give to somebody and enforce when wanting to keep a woman imprisoned as a slave to her husband (and mother in law!). It's effects have been both wide and longstanding, making it as far as the beginning of the 20th century, and still resonating in places. Essentially it was the book a misogynist husband would smack over his wife's head every time she got out of line.

Edit: http://www.international.ucla.edu/eas/documents/banzhao.htm

[kelby_lake]

I knew this would happen in this thread.

The topic was raised asking if there is an equivalent literature to the popular feminist genre/bent. That is to say a literature that celebrates maleness and raises issues of difficulties particular to masculine constructs in society.

But of course anything celebrating masculinity is IMMEDIATELY seen as degrading women, right?

Let me ask, why you proposed women being helpless as masculinist? Does feminist literature mean all men in the book are portrayed as emasculated or dehumanized? Is that what 'all women' want? Do you think all men want helpless women?

Let's try and have a mature discussion without immediately falling back on ham-fisted generalizations and condemnations.

In my opinion "Revolutionary Road" dealt equally well with the gender conventions of masculinity in the 50's as it did with feminist issues. Just as women were encouraged to stay at home and ignore their aspirations to be good wives, men were pressured to go work in some cubicle and be responsible rather than pursuing their own aspirations. Similarly, the book looked judiciously at the power men and women have over each other in relationships to do immense emotional and psychological harm.

Thank you for understanding my question :)

Ignoring feminist non-fiction literature, I was thinking of works like 'The Handmaid's Tale'. Or 'Top Girls'- which shows what it was like in the 80's (and maybe even now) to be a woman having a successful business career in a 'man's world' and the balance between motherhood and working; something which speaks to women because these are issues women have.

Therefore masculinist literature would look at how men have been studied and portrayed in literature- if you like, what it is to be a 'man'. For example, there's a play called Tea and Sympathy where a sensitive teenage boy who gets picked to play female parts in school is denounced as gay whereas his teacher, a macho coach, is actually gay; so the idea that one can't be homosexual and masculine is false.

[The Comedian]

Maybe the Iliad is a good place to start looking at how ideas of masculinity were formed in literature.

[OrphanPip]

I would think it would be difficult to look at how authors have represented masculinity in literature without also looking at how they represent femininity. As has been pointed out previously, what was often viewed as feminine was often, by default, the characteristics that weren't viewed as masculine.

I would recommend the play The Country Wife by Wycherley. The play is obviously misogynistic in many ways, but one of the central themes of the play is cuckoldry and how the social relationships between men are an ever present backdrop to their relationships with women.

A lot of post-stonewall gay lit is heavily concerned with the nature of masculinity as well, but often this is really just about the conflict between sexual attraction to males and the social conventions of masculine sexual behavior.

[Madame X]

I would think it would be difficult to look at how authors have represented masculinity in literature without also looking at how they represent femininity. As has been pointed out previously, what was often viewed as feminine was often, by default, the characteristics that weren't viewed as masculine.

Indeedy. Schopenhauer, in fact, had quite a bit to say, “Über die Weiber (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Women)”; an implicit 'celebration' of masculine strength and judiciousness vis-à-vis his wholesale dismissal of any such qualities existing within the feminine spectrum of humanity whatsoever, or rarely, at best (although, he is prudent enough to state that "the current of [a woman's] life should be more gentle, peaceful and trivial than man's, without being essentially happier or unhappier"; I mean, whew, what a load off ;)). An entertaining read at least, and not wholly misguided –in terms of general psychology, that is- either.

[kelby_lake]

I'm not looking for misogyinstic literature, although a lot of it probably will be. Just literature about the male pysche and male interactions.

[Modest Proposal]

The problem is, and I do wish to be careful here, there is a frustrating double standard in operation in educated sections of society hampering the celebration of masculinity. Of course, this is because historically patriarchy has enacted far worse on the female sex, but nonetheless it is difficult to discuss and even more so to celebrate the half of humanity seen--and probably rightly--as the author of many/most of the worlds ills.

It is the same imbalance existing with a black in America being proud of his heritage versus a white. Sure, both have skeletons in the respective closets, but many feel like celebrating white culture endorses the many and atrocious sins of their past. All of that said, I think an intelligent person can embrace and enjoy the aspects of European--even, gasp, German--pride and pride in their attributes and position within the masculine/male history without enacting/embracing the transgressions of their predecessors. But of course most of my professors and colleagues disagree.

As it stands, I like to read Hemingway at times and his descriptions of boxing and sailing. I also enjoy the epics of Homer and their explorations of what it means to be a man. Twain's books on boyhood, also Stevenson's, hold a special place with me and resonate pleasantly on youth. This is not to say that a woman cannot enjoy them for the same or for different reasons, or that I do not also enjoy works by and about females and the things the author believes special to a certain section of humanity.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Try Robert Bly's Iron John: A Book About Men.

[kelby_lake]

This is going to sound a bit bizarre but are there any decent novels about male prostitution? That's surely got to come under masculinist literature.

[OrphanPip]

This is going to sound a bit bizarre but are there any decent novels about male prostitution? That's surely got to come under masculinist literature.

I can't think of any centered especially on male prostitution, but there are some that touch on the subject to a greater or lesser extent.

One of the two main protagonist of Scott Heim's Mysterious Skin is a male prostitute. Although, this novel is more about the consequences of child molestation, and apparently has been described as a very accurate portrayal by psychologist. There's a movie adaptation by Greg Araki that was quite good as well.

Larry Kramer's Faggots touches very briefly on the subject, as it is largely a scathing satirical attack on 1980s New York gay culture.

Uh, other than that I can't think of any. Edmund White's last novel, Hotel de Dream was about a man in love with a male prostitute in the early 20th century, framed within a little story about the last days of Stephen Crane and playing off of an apocryphal anecdote about Crane. The prostitution is not really central to the novel though. I thought this novel was only OK, nothing spectacular. NYT review: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/books/review/Gee-t.html?_r=1&8bu&emc=bu

I don't want to just keep shoveling gay lit at you, so I'll stop now haha.

[keilj]

Hemingway is a good example. As far as other examples, I'm not sure everyone would agree that it is literature, but the Tarzan novels certainly have a lot to say about manhood, how it relates to nature, how it relates to civilized society

There are some memorable quotes from them that are somewhat macho - "You spoil your meat with fire"

[Debbborra]

This weekend I watched an episode of Men of a Certain Age and thought of this thread.

[kelby_lake]

I'm a bit jaded on this topic: I was force-fed heavy servings of radical feminism for a long time in my college education, so I bristle a little at even simple discussions of the topic.

But my general feeling is, no. There is no "Masculinist" literature in the sense that it is a parallel to feminist literature. If such a "masculinist" literature does exist, it would be called chauvinistic literature or fascist literature or patriarchal literature. But whatever it is, it would not be taught with the same "progressive" sensitivity ascribed to feminist literature.

Sorry to be so negative about this.

Is Masculinist Literature inherently misogynistic? That sounds very sexist as feminist literature isn't necessarily man-hating.
Masculinist Literature would have to extend beyond macho men just as feminist literature is not al about man-bashing.

[kelby_lake]

Thoughts?

[The Comedian]

Is Masculinist Literature inherently misogynistic? That sounds very sexist as feminist literature isn't necessarily man-hating.

I don't know anything about masculinist literature. But I suspect that if it were taught in an American college or university it would be taught in the manner I described. Again, I'm just guessing here.

As for my comment being sexist -- how exactly? I simply described my experience as a literature major in the mid-1990s. (I admit to not knowing much about contemporary feminist theory; if things are different [which I assume they are] then I am open to be better informed on the topic). But 10 years ago, I cannot tell you the amount of times I wrote papers on The Awakening, Sula, Villette, Emma. . . . in which the I was asked to either characterize the female characters as "victims" of male patriarchy and, consequently, exhibiting either traits of underdogish nobility or excusable lapses of character. The men, of course, needed to fill their accustomed roles of chauvinist, brute, or buffoon.

When I wrote papers that followed these themes, the result was this (to summarize):

A! Great job. You exhibited open-mindedness, critical thinking skills, and cultural sensitivity.

If I strayed from this path, the results were much different.

Now, I write this not to characterize women or feminists in any way: I write is simply to characterize how I was taught feminism in the mid 1990s. You may criticize this method (rightly), but honestly, I'm just reporting my experience.

[kelby_lake]

Oh, no, I wasn't calling you sexist; I was wondering whether the view I put forward- that for literature to be thought of as masculine, it is in some respects misogynistic- is valid or not.

My interest in finding 'masculinist' literature stems from having to read lots of feminist literature. One university course is described as English and Gender- on closer inspection, it meant feminism. There was nothing on men at all.

I believe that it would be interesting to study masculinity in literature; probably because I'm more interested in the psychology and not the politics. Should we all study ra-ra feminism or study how people actually behave on a day-to-day basis?

[Modest Proposal]

From what I can tell you both--comedian and kelby--are expressing the same ideas. There is not much representation of masculinist literature out there, and if there was it would probably be shuffled into the 'sexist' pile to be picked apart by feminist classes.

Just so you know kelby, you are not alone. Classes on race in the US mean non-white. Classes on gender mean feminist. Classes on sexuality mean not heterosexual.

I understand this to an extent, because literature has so often been the vocal platform for the under represented, the minority and the prejudiced. But as most reasonable people recognize, classes have merely become reactionary to the problems rather than striving for the kind of balance and fairness they seek in the real world.

As I have said before, it is really hard to discuss this in acadamia because people point out that the crimes against, say, blacks in the US's past are far worse than college's inherent abuse of white-culture, but having not lived through and certainly not participated in any sort of racist practices, it is frustrating to catch so much flack.

On a purely intellectual level it is easy for me to condemn unfairness, imbalance and hypocrisy in the Universities. But as is always the case, it is so easy, even natural, for people in mass to fall into "camps" or ideaologies, that balance and moderation will always lose to what is probably best called partisanship.

[janesmith]

I was under the impression that any major, canonical literary text written before the advent of feminist writing could be described as masculine or patriarchal literature.

You could consider E. M. Forster because of the preponderance of homo-eroticism located in his novels.

[DanielBenoit]

Other than all of the authors already mentions, I've always found Homer to be the archetype for masculinity in literature. If you think about it, what work of literature is more classically masculine than The Odyssey?

[kelby_lake]

I was under the impression that any major, canonical literary text written before the advent of feminist writing could be described as masculine or patriarchal literature.


Not necessarily. Tess of The D'Urbervilles isn't patriarchal.

[janesmith]

Sorry to have to contradict you but as much as Hardy (who is incidentally my favourite author and was the focus of my MA dissertation) made inroads into the representation of woman and female sexuality, he was still at times unable to extricate himself from the Victorian patriarchal idealisation of woman.

[kelby_lake]

Sorry to have to contradict you but as much as Hardy (who is incidentally my favourite author and was the focus of my MA dissertation) made inroads into the representation of woman and female sexuality, he was still at times unable to extricate himself from the Victorian patriarchal idealisation of woman.

He is a bit leery in Tess, I agree. Still it is a start...

[hellsapoppin]

Sorry to say but, it is not clear as to what constitutes "masculinist" literature. Will somebody please define it in one sentence and give examples of it?

As for feminist literature, recently I read Murder at the Night Wood Bar by Katharine V Forrest. I thought it was fair and honest in its portrayal of lesbian feminism in that the characters were every bit (if not more) prejudiced than society is towards them.

[kelby_lake]

Sorry to say but, it is not clear as to what constitutes "masculinist" literature. Will somebody please define it in one sentence and give examples of it?


As I would define it, it would be literature concerned with the male psyche, the dynamics between men...basically how does literature view masculinity? To my mind, it does not inherently mean misogyny.

The most blatant maculinist writer would be Hemingway but there are works that could be described as masculinist- most of David Mamet's stuff is, like Speed The Plow. It's about how men interact with other men.

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

[ladderandbucket]

I would say Cormac McCarthy is a masculinist writer if ever there was one.

[MrRegular]

I'm a bit jaded on this topic: I was force-fed heavy servings of radical feminism for a long time in my college education, so I bristle a little at even simple discussions of the topic.

But my general feeling is, no. There is no "Masculinist" literature in the sense that it is a parallel to feminist literature. If such a "masculinist" literature does exist, it would be called chauvinistic literature or fascist literature or patriarchal literature. But whatever it is, it would not be taught with the same "progressive" sensitivity ascribed to feminist literature.

Sorry to be so negative about this.

I'm happy to see so many that agree with me on this. The PC culture has definately been run into the ground, which is good because it illuminates the natural flaws of the philosophy (if you can call it that).
In answer to the thread topic, I would like to nominate Cormac McCarthy. His books, though of recent issue, are gems of literature and take a pragmatic, isolated tone that I would personally associate with the masculine yang.

[hellsapoppin]

"literature concerned with the male psyche, the dynamics between men..."

With Hemingway as example.

Thanks. In all the years I've been reading literature, I had never been aware of that.

[kelby_lake]

Is that sarcastic?

[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=UYAi9OEYRekC&printsec=frontcover&dq=halberstam+female+masculinity&source=bl&ots=aME6CDVXFj&sig=Oa7AyM0RFz7CdNQ5xq1jTL74lEI&hl=en&ei=skfXTLyzGsT6lwfrmb2QCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&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=UYAi9OEYRekC&printsec=frontcover&dq=halberstam+female+masculinity&source=bl&ots=aME6CDVXFj&sig=Oa7AyM0RFz7CdNQ5xq1jTL74lEI&hl=en&ei=skfXTLyzGsT6lwfrmb2QCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&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'?