POPULARITY
4 episodes with Kate Millett
2 episodes with Kate Millett
2 episodes with Kate Millett
2 episodes with Kate Millett
In 1968 Mallory Millett arrived in New York just in time to watch her sister Kate Millett turn into an icon of the radical Second Wave feminist movement. At first, Mallory thought of herself as a feminist. But soon Mallory began to realize that feminism wasn't quite what she thought: “I'd been brought into something very, very weird.”And the weirdness is still around. In fact, Mallory says that Kate's radical ideas have shaped a new narrative about what it means to be a woman. In fact, says Mallory, these ideas have “taken over the world. Kate has taken over the world.”So today, a story about a woman who took a journey with her sister, only to realize that she'd been led into some very dark places.Support WORLD at wng.org/donate.
Radical Feminist Retrospectives revisits some of the earliest episodes of Radical Feminist Perspectives, now available on Spotify for the first time. In Episode 3 Sheila Jeffreys and Batya Weinbaum discuss the work of Shulamith Firestone, Germaine Greer and Kate Millett. First broadcast on 18th July 2021. Part of our webinar series Radical Feminist Perspectives, offering a chance to hear leading feminists discuss radical feminist theory and politics. Register at https://bit.ly/registerRFP.
Today we share excerpts from “She's Beautiful When She's Angry,” a documentary filled with stories that still resonate today as women face new challenges around reproductive rights and sexual violence. The documentary tells the stories of the activists of the Women's Liberation Movement that gained traction in the late 1960s and led to social and policy changes that set women on a path towards equality and reproductive justice. It also addresses the intersections of race and gender and the experiences of the Black women who were integral to this movement. The film is about activists, those who inspire, organize, and revolutionize the world by changing the standards and broadening what we think is possible. Learn more about the story and find the transcript on radioproject.org. Making Contact is an award-winning, nationally syndicated radio show and podcast featuring narrative storytelling and thought-provoking interviews. We cover the most urgent issues of our time and the people on the ground building a more just world. EPISODE FEATURES: Alta, Chude Pamela Allen, Judith Arcana, Nona Willis Aronowitz, Fran Beal, Heather Booth, Rita Mae Brown, Susan Brownmiller, Linda Burnham, Jacqui Ceballos, Mary Jean Collins, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Muriel Fox, Jo Freeman, Carol Giardina, Susan Griffin, Karla Jay, Kate Millett, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Denise Oliver-Velez, OBOS, Trina Robbins, Ruth Rosen, Vivian Rothstein, Marlene Sanders, Alix Kates Shulman, Ellen Shumsky, Marilyn Webb, Virginia Whitehill, Ellen Willis, Alice Wolfson. MAKING CONTACT: This episode is hosted by Anita Johnson. It is produced by Anita Johnson, Lucy Kang, Salima Hamirani, and Amy Gastelum. Our executive director is Jina Chung. DOCUMENTARY CREDITS: Director: Mary Dore Producers: Mary Dore & Nancy Kennedy, Geralyn Dreyfous Executive Producers: Pamela Tanner Boll and Elizabeth Driehaus Films Composer: Mark degli Antoni Melancholy Guitar by Scott Anderson, courtesy of For The Bible Tells Me So Ltd Wake up- Instrumental by Arian Saleh. Courtesy of Audio Socket MUSIC: This episode includes Grand Caravan by Blue Dot Session & Build a View by Corey Gray. LEARN MORE: She's Beautiful When She's Angry
Sexual Politics by Kate Millett, discussed by Marian Rutigliano. A live webinar on Sunday 21st Jan at 10am UK time. Part of our webinar series Radical Feminist Perspectives, offering a chance to hear leading feminists discuss radical feminist theory and politics. Register at https://bit.ly/registerRFP.
In her 1970 book “Sexual Politics” feminist critic Kate Millett devoted 20 pages to a critique of novelist and public intellectual Norman Mailer. In this episode Moira guides Adrian through Mailer's very cool, very level-headed response: a 250 page screed against Millett in particular and feminism in general.
On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (11/08/23), we pick up where we ended on our previous broadcast and present more of an episode of the Hank Unplugged podcast. Hank is talking with Dr. Carrie Gress, author of The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us. Hank and Dr. Gress discuss the impact of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, the connection between feminism and Marxism, the connection between feminism and lesbianism, the radical litany of Kate Millett and how it has influenced our culture today, the Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism and critical race theory; birth control—the disastrous consequences of the pill, the evolution of abortion from safe, legal, and rare to celebrating abortion; and the mean girls—feminists in power today controlling the cultural narrative.
Carrie Gress is a prolific author of several books, her most recent is: The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Destroyed Us. She and Julie discuss: the history of feminism—From the serpent's seduction of Eve, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Kate Millett's lust, violence, insanity, Meghan Markle's havoc-ridden rise to royalty, hook up culture, men won't date, and advice for young women. Check out other Julie Hartman videos: https://www.youtube.com/@juliehartman Follow Julie Hartman on social media: Website: https://juliehartmanshow.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/julierhartman/ X: https://twitter.com/JulieRHartman Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/timelesswithjuliehartmanSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Who is responsible for murdering the wonder of womanhood? Despite what many would like to believe, “smashing the patriarchy” and promoting the ideology of feminism doesn't empower women—it erases women. After 50 years of radical feminism our culture today cannot even define what is a woman. And still, feminists cling to their illusions of liberation. Today's guest, Carrie Gress, punctures the myths of feminism, claiming that only a rediscovery of true womanhood can pull our society back from the brink.For more information on receiving The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us for your partnering gift, please click here.https://www.equip.org/product/cri-flyer-resource-the-end-of-woman-how-smashing-the-patriarchy-has-destroyed-us/Topics discussed include: Why has feminism tried to eradicate the unique femininity of women? (4:30); how has smashing the patriarchy destroyed women? (7:25); what does it mean that our culture can no longer define what a woman is? (11:05); the ABC's of feminism—abortion, birth control and casual sex (14:00); why hasn't feminism been challenged? (16:05); is feminism the most powerful brand in the world? (17:30); the lost girls—the broken women at the roots of feminism (20:00); the overwhelming significance of the French Revolution on our world today—including feminism (22:30); the connection between feminism, transgenderism and Frankenstein (23:50); the role that romanticism played in the widescale adoption of feminism (26:40); the problematic history of first wave feminism (30:50); the connection between abolitionism and feminism—the early stages of race and gender issues we find with critical race theory (36:45); what was the impact of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Freidan? (38:55); the connection between feminism and Marxism (42:15); the connection between feminism and lesbianism (45:15); the radical litany of Kate Millett and how it has influenced our culture today (46:50); The Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism and CRT (49:05); birth control—the disastrous consequences of the pill (54:05); the evolution of abortion—from safe, legal and rare to celebrating abortion (56:00); the mean girls—feminists in power today controlling the cultural narrative (57:30); is the essence of feminism the preaching of discontent and resentment to women? (1:01:45); John Money and the invention of gender identity (1:04:45); the connection between birth control and gay marriage (1:07:20); the radical redefinition of words today (1:08:55); the radically deformative realities of gender transitions (1:11:30); how do cultures die? with the absence of monogamy, faith and reason (1:16:45); who are the flyover women and why do they give Carrie Gress hope? (1:19:25); the unique wonder of womanhood—why have so many women forgotten their superpower? (1:21:25); how important is gender differentiated parenting? (1:22:45); is it possible to redefine and reclaim feminism? (1:24:30). Listen to Hank's podcast and follow Hank off the grid where he is joined by some of the brightest minds discussing topics you care about. Get equipped to be a cultural change agent.Archived episodes are on our Website and available at the additional channels listed below.You can help spread the word about Hank Unplugged by giving us a rating and review from the other channels we are listed on.
Chair: Felicity Plunkett In her 1970 book Sexual Politics, Kate Millett described Lady Chatterley's Lover as a “quasi-religious tract" worshipping at the altar of the penis. Critical responses have since become more nuanced. Novelist Alison MacLeod and cultural critics Amit Chaudhuri, Geoff Dyer and Lara Feigel discuss a writer whose subject – sex and bodies – suddenly seems profoundly modern. Event details: Tue 07 Mar, 5:00pm on the East Stage
If you'd like to know whose ancestral tribal lands you currently reside on, you can look up your address here: https://native-land.ca/My new book, “Home to Her: Walking the Transformative Path of the Sacred Feminine,” will be available beginning October 14 from Womancraft Publishing! To learn more, read endorsements and purchase, please visit www.womancraftpublishing.com. You can watch this and other podcast episodes at the Home to Her YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK6xtUV6K7ayV30iz1ECigwYou can listen to all past episodes of the “Make Matriarchy Great Again” podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/34-circe-salon-make-matriarchy-great-again-disrupting/id1515852327You can also become a supporter of their work via Patreon: http://patreon.com/34CirceAnd, you can learn more about Vicki, including her upcoming online course exploring the work of Marija Gimbutas, here: https://www.vickinoble.com/.We discussed a number of books and resources during this episode! Here are a few you can explore on your own:“The First Sex,” by Elizabeth Gould Davis, was brought up here, and has also been mentioned by other guests in the pastOctavia Butler was a fantastic science fiction writer whose books were extremely prescient and relevant to the times we're living in. You can learn more about her and work here: https://www.octaviabutler.com/Dawn also mentioned the books “Sexual Politics”, by Kate Millett, and “Drawing Down the Moon”, by Margot AdlerWe also discussed the classic book “When God Was a Woman”, by Merlin StoneKaitlin Shetler is a fantastic ex-evangelical poet who shares her work on social media. You can read her poems here: https://www.facebook.com/kaitlinhardyshetler/https://www.hagia.de/home/ is the home of the Hagia, International Academy for Modern Matriarchal Studies, founded by Heide Goettner-AbendrothDawn also discussed her experience with the teachings of Eagle Man (Ed McGaa), a member of the Oglala Sioux tribe.The following prior podcast episodes are also relevant to this conversation:The Legacy of Marija Gimbutas with Joan Marler: https://hometoher.simplecast.com/episodes/the-legacy-of-marija-gimbutas-with-joan-marlerReclaiming Women's Histories with Max Dashu: https://hometoher.simplecast.com/episodes/reclaiming-womens-histories-with-max-dashuThe Maternal Gift Economy with Genevieve Vaughan: https://hometoher.simplecast.com/episodes/the-maternal-gift-economy-with-genevieve-vaughan
Durante todo el mes de marzo, conmemoraremos la lucha de la mujer por el reconocimiento de sus derechos. Vamos a recorrer las teorías de aquellas mujeres que se pusieron al frente de una lucha, en ocasiones silenciosa, en otras batallando cuerpo a cuerpo, pero sobre todo, de aquellas que lograron poner en palabras sus ideas en tiempos que, muchas veces, no les eran propicios. En este ciclo auspiciado por Arkhé Libros, presentamos vida y obra de Kate Millet (1934-2017), cuya obra principal, Política sexual, (1970) puso en la mesa la idea de la mujer como sujeto político, sujeta a su vez a las políticas del patriarcado. Lee: Estefanía González Texto basado en Biblioteca Feminista de Florencia Abbate. Programas San Martín Lee y Fomento de las Artes Escénicas.
Today's show rundown: Chuck talks about the weather happening over California, the bomb cyclone, and the rain. Mind you the rain put all the fires out, how come the left is never happy. Chuck lived in California for many years and has seen all kinds of weather there, but now all we hear is Climate Change. Mark dips back into Dr. Fauci and how similar he is to the Nazi Dr. Mengele. Fauci and his experiments on puppies and orphans is shocking. 25 kids killed during these test and overall, of all the 532 children who were in this test, so many are dead. And now, the flesh eating insects stuff eating away at the faces of these dogs. This particular piece of research was just cruel. The Left will just support radical islam, even though they toss gay people off buildings...their morals are very flexible. Hitler kicked the Frankfurt School out of Germany in 1933. They left and settled in at Columbia University here in the U.S. Ever since then, they've been developing, teaching and spreading the word about Critical Theory which is a way to deconstruct Western society and replace it with Marxist principles. Herbert Marcuse was a key figure in this regard. He hated every detail of the United States. In his words, “… American society is oppressive, evil, and undeserving of loyalty.” Alberto Gramsci was a key contributor to our current demise as he correctly theorized that in order to collapse Western Countries, they would have to remove Christianity from the society and “convert society” to accept Marxist principles via a “long march through the institutions.” The Marxist's definition of Critical Race Theory - Racial inequality emerges from the social, economic and legal differences that White people create between races to maintain elite white interests in labor markets and politics giving rise to poverty and criminality in many of the minority communities. Critical Race Theory is based on division and distrust which is the opposite of cohesiveness and unity. Guest Bio's Mallory Millett Mallory is a long-standing Director of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy. She is a Repentant Leftie but Unrepentant Conservative! Mallory's Website https://mallorymillett.com/ Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 My Sister Kate: The Destructive Feminist Legacy of Kate Millett https://mallorymillett.com/?p=322 Politick_Rick - Rick is CEO of Giant Slayers, a Truth Warrior and Free Speech Extremist. Politick_Rick is a leader of an activist movement, Giant Slayers, that fights back against the Marxist takeover of the U.S. and its totalitarian effects, especially as it relates to suppression and censorship of conservatives on social media and in the news and the negative impact of identity politics and cancel culture that are dividing our country and becoming more extreme after the takeover by the Biden regime. Rick is an expert on cultural Marxism and its alarming takeover of the Democrat Party, Media and Big-Tech. Twitter – @Politick_Rick @GiantSlyers https://listennotes.com/top-episodes/politick-rick/ https://worldmission.cc/donate-humanitarianoutreach/
Hello dear friends,Welcome to another week of The Austen Connection and our sixth podcast episode, which you can stream from right here, or from Apple or Spotify! And this episode features a conversation with Austen scholar and Janeite Devoney Looser - who for many of you captures the spirit and vibe of Jane Austen's stories in her work and in her life: Looser has dedicated so much of her life to connecting through literature and Jane Austen, from her books, her teaching, her many appearances at conferences and at Janeite and JASNA gatherings, and also in her personal life through her marriage to Austen scholar George Justice and her roller derby career as Stone Cold Jane Austen.These days Devoney Looser is working on a new book, due out from Bloomsbury next year: Sister Novelists: Jane and Anna Maria Porter in the Age of Austen explores two sister novelists writing, innovating, and breaking rules in the Regency and Victorian eras. Devoney Looser is also the author of The Making of Jane Austen. And - full transparency here - I'm lucky enough to call Devoney Looser a friend. We met as professors on a campus in Missouri. So this is a continuation of conversations that Devoney and I have had for years. We got together by Zoom a few weeks ago and talked about many things, including the first time she read Austen, how an Austen argument was the foundation of her first conversation with her husband, and how - just like Jane Austen - Devoney straddles the worlds of both high culture and pop culture.Here's an excerpt from our conversation. Enjoy!Plain Jane: So let me just start if you don't mind with a couple of just questions about your personal Austen journey. What Austen did you first read? When did you discover Austen? Do you remember which book? And which time and place? Devoney Looser: Absolutely. And this is a question that I really enjoy. It's a kind of conversion question, right? … So I love that this is where we start … I do have my awakening moment. And your awakening, I think this is a common story for a lot of Janeites, which is why the story resonates. It was my mother, who handed me a copy of Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice bound together. I now have this book. It was a Modern Library edition of both of those novels that was published in the ‘50s. And she handed it to me because … she knew I was a reader, she knew I loved to read. And she said, “Here's one that I think you should read.” We had books from her childhood, or from church book sales in our house, we had a lot of books in our house. And I started to try to read it. And I really stumbled because I could not get at the language. But she was insistent, she kept kind of putting it toward me, and saying, “I think you should read this one.” And I think it was maybe around the third time I tried it - Pride and Prejudice is what I started with - it just really took. You know, it was like, Oh, wait this is kind of funny. And I like these characters. And I like the story. So after I got my PhD, I learned that my mother had actually never read Pride and Prejudice before. And to me that actually made her giving it to me even more meaningful. She is not college educated. She wanted me to have an education. And the idea that novels could be handed down from mothers to daughters, even mothers without an education, to say, “Here's a way for you to have access to more opportunities,” is what the books are about too, in a way, right? I mean, the mothers aren't always the ones doing it in the books. In fact, they're often not. But the books are functioning as that opening up - worlds opening up possibilities and opening up education, self actualization. You know that this is to me meaningful that my mother knew that this is a book that educated girls should read, and that she wanted it for me. Plain Jane: She was tapping into something that she hadn't had herself and just trying to give that to you. That's awesome. So you're a professor, scholar, writer. … What attracts you to the conversations about Jane Austen, and teaching Jane Austen? Devoney Looser: I think the thing about Austen that keeps me coming back to her is how readable she is. And lots of people say this in the critical community and the Janeite community like the scholars and JASNA. I think even anyone who picks her up casually having not read her in 20 years or never read it before, there's a complexity there on the level of the sentences, paragraph, plot, that is really, to me. enriching, or generative - it generates ideas. And every time I go back to the books, I see something new. every age, every experience that I've made it through, gives me a new way into those sentences. And there are a lot of books that we love, but that we can't really imagine rereading with the same level of love, I think. And for me, that makes Austen just really remarkable. The idea that you can go back to her, you know, every year. A lot of people who love her books read her every year, all six every year. Do you know that joke from Gilbert Ryle, the philosopher, philosopher Gilbert Ryle was asked, this is a century ago, asked, “Sir, do you do you read novels?” And he said, “Yes, I do, all six every year.” So this is this is a good Janeite in-joke, that the only novels there are these six? Obviously not true. … But the relatability is how I would I would answer that.Plain Jane: So I mean, Jane Austen can be, like you say, kind of adapted to your life as you go through different things in life. But you, with The Making of Jane Austen have really documented how not only individuals can adapt Jane Austen to their lives, but movements can adapt Jane Austen to their causes and ... we see that in kind of exciting ways. Can you talk a little bit about why her? Why are her novels so adaptable throughout the last couple of hundred years?Devoney Looser: So I know you know this, I talked about this in The Making of Jane Austen about the ways that various people have very different political persuasions find a reflection of their values or questions or concerns in her novels. So she has been used to argue opposing sides of political questions for 150 years and probably longer. I think this was partly to do with the fact that her novels and her fiction open up questions more often than they close them. And I think it's her relationship to the didactic tradition in her day, the moralizing tradition. I think she's really stepping outside of that and more interested in gray areas, than in declaring what's right and what's wrong. So I think this is a beautiful, complex thing about her novels and they're novels of genius, to my mind, and I'm not afraid to use that word. But they also present certain kinds of really interesting challenges, because you can't go to them and say, “What should I think?” They don't really answer that question for you in a clear away. I think in other kinds of didactic fiction where there's a clear moral outcome, this person's punished with death, or, you know, or some kind of tragic outcome, or this person's rewarded, and it's all going to be, you know, happily ever after, and nothing ever is going to go wrong. Her novels are working outside of that to some degree. So I do think that that's one reason why people have very different experiences and political persuasions and motivations, come to her novels, and it can be kind of like a Rorschach test, right? You can see what you want to see in the designs to some degree. Now, I do think people can get it wrong, I think you can find there are arguments that people make that I think there is absolutely no textual evidence for that whatsoever. But oftentimes, I can look at someone coming to a conclusion that might be different from the one that I reached, and say, Well, I see where you can get that from emphasizing this point, more than this one, or seeing this passage as the crucial one, instead of another passage.I think this is a beautiful, complex thing about her novels and they're novels of genius, to my mind, and I'm not afraid to use that word. But they also present certain kinds of really interesting challenges, because you can't go to them and say, “What should I think?” They don't really answer that question for you in a clear away.Plain Jane It's also occurring to me listening to you Devoney, that she sort of makes people think, in ways that might be uncomfortable. She must be one of the few novelists that can actually draw you to her story, draw you in and draw you to that narrator. But also be uncomfortable, maybe with what she's giving you. And maybe we just stepped around the discomfort some of us. Do you think that's an accurate way of thinking about Jane Austen as well?Devoney Looser: I think that's beautifully put. And, you know, I think too we can read her novels on many different levels. If you say, I want to go into this for a love story, that's funny, with a happy ending, which is what many people who read in the romance genre know the formula, and they're going to it because they like the formula. And it might have different things in different component parts. But you know that at the end you're not going to be distressed and dealing with something tragic, right? So when you go into an Austen novel, the kinds of discomfort you're describing, that they will be there along with something happy, too. So I think you could just read it for the happy ending. [But] I see that as a real lost opportunity. Because I think the happy endings are tacked on from genre expectation about comedies. If you're focusing on the happy ending, you're missing all the important stuff that's happening all along the way. And that's the uncomfortable stuff, right? The stuff about family conflict, economics, all of the kinds of ways that people are terrible to each other, that are, maybe borderline criminal or actually criminal. But everything below that, too. That's more mundane, the way that people mistreat each other. That is wrong. It's not criminal. And that, to me, is what makes these novels uncomfortable, is that even those people who are doing terrible things, usually get away with it. Plain Jane: Hmm, yes. If you said to people, Here's a novel about the insult and injury endured by women because of class and gender - and possibly you can add race and disability and a lot of other boundaries in there” - I don't know how many people would see that as Jane Austen. But there's that subtext. … The more I read and reread Jane Austen and just stay really close to the text, the more I find myself relying on Gilbert and Gubar and their “cover story.” And it's, you know, I read that a long time ago. So it's probably influencing my reading, I say close to the text, but it's close to the text that's very influenced by what I already have read of you, and is it Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar…. How much do you think she was consciously or even unconsciously saying stuff? In all that meandering, within that courtship plot and then within that happy ending plot that you just described? How much do you think was going on with that cover story?Devoney Looser: So I want to first start with the end of this, which is to say, I think every sentence is saying something else. You know, and not like it's a secret ...I think there are there are people who will say that this is a code for a completely other world below the surface. I'm not sure that I would go there. But I do think that these are novels that are trying to get us to investigate not only who the characters are, but who we are. And sonthere's always something else going on in any human conversation. There's always something else going on. And I think she captures that in the conversations among her characters, that they can be having the same conversation but with such varying motivations that you can see it and it becomes humorous. You know, Henry Tilney in Northanger Abbey, talking to Mrs. Allen, about Catherine Morland's chaperone about muslin, that whole conversation about clothing and shopping. You can read that as a love of fashion, you can read it as an indictment of consumer culture, you can read it as a kind of gender cosplay, or you can use it as an indictment of femininity. I mean, there's just so many different levels within the same conversation and you can try to understand how these characters are arguing with each other. So I think in some ways, what you're getting at is, Yes, there's something beneath the surface. So the text that you brought up, Gilbert and Gubar's The Madwoman in the Attic, I think that came out in 1979 - incredibly important book. Because a lot of second wave feminism, 60s and 70s, had said Jane Austen is not a primary author for us or not an author that can be as important to the second wave, because these novels end in marriage. And it was a moment in the feminist movement, when looking for something that expressed anger, that expressed alternative lifestyles, was seen as more important than reinforcing heteronormativity, which is what Austen was imagined as doing. So what I think what Gilbert and Gubar did is allowed for feminists and feminist critics and scholars and people beyond that circle, to look at Austen and say, “What if we didn't emphasize the ending? What if we emphasize the other parts of the story?” And of course, they took that to a lot of other different texts and the “madwoman” in the attic is actually a reference, as you know, to Jane Eyre, to Bertha Mason? What if you read Jane Eyre and centered Bertha Mason, which is of course exactly what Jean Rhys did in her novel Wide Sargasso Sea. But Gilbert and Gubar gave us a framework to say, “Let's look at the parts of these novels from a feminist perspective that maybe we haven't focused on.” And I think it opened up so much possibility for Austen, reading it through that lens of saying,”Maybe there's more here than the ending. Maybe there's more here than heteronormativity. There is a lot more going on.” And I'm really grateful to that book for doing that. I do think there is some tendency now to turn it all into, “Well, it doesn't mean this, it means this exactly the opposite.” To me, that's doing exactly what we shouldn't be doing. We're just closing down the text. … “Here's a clue. Now we'll find an answer. Now we've got this new clue, solve next mystery.” These are not mysteries with solutions. They are moral quagmires - and you can't solve a moral quagmire with a fact or an answer.Plain Jane: I love that. I love the way you say, “Don't shut down the text.” I love the way you describe that 1979 Madwoman in the Attic, because you're right. They were just, I guess at a time when you know, feminism was wearing Doc Martens and reading Hemingway … Devoney Looser: … and reading Kate Millett and Sexual Politics: Let's find the sexism. It was a sexism-identification moment, which is really important because a lot of people couldn't see it until people like Millett and others said, “Oh my gosh, there's sexism here in every single book, how do we not notice this?” Plain Jane: Yeah. And they were saying, These are women's lives, let's interrogate what's happening with stories by women, about women, really going in depth in their lives. And they happen to be genius, as well. You know, Devoney, you also say, in your book, The Making of Jane Austen, that Jane Austen has, in many ways, been the making of you. This is getting back to you a little bit, Devoney. In what ways is Jane Austen and the making of you? I know a few of those ways. But why did you write that? Devoney Looser: Well, I think, again, this is the reason this story resonates with people is because all of us who care about literature, and who allow books to lead us places, probably had moments like this. Mine is slightly more bizarre than most people's in that I now make a living from reading Jane Austen. And as you said, I read lots of other things, too. I read Jane Austen in the context of the history of women's writing, which has been very opening up of territory for me as a scholar, and I help lead people to read outside of her. But I've also been able to create a romantic life that started around conversations with her - and I know you know, this - that I met my husband, George Justice is also an Austen scholar. We met over a conversation and an argument on Jane Austen's books. Plain Jane: What were you arguing about again? What book? Was it Mansfield Park?Devoney Looser: It was Mansfield Park. So my husband George and I were introduced at a cocktail party that I was crashing. … And George had actually been invited. And we had a brief conversation that ended, but he came and found me because somebody said to him that I had worked on Jane Austen. And so he said, “I hear you work on Jane Austen. What's your favorite Jane Austen novel?” And I know, you know, George, Janet. So you know that he likes to ask these kind of puncturing questions, right. … … And I said, “Well, the one that I'm working on right now is Northanger Abbey.” And he said, “I didn't ask you which one you're working on. I asked you which one's your favorite.” He heard that I was working on it. But he wanted me to make an aesthetic, you know, you want to make a judgement about which one's the best. … So I said, Well, I guess my favorite is Pride and Prejudice. And George said very proudly, “Well, my favorite is Mansfield Park. … And so I said, “Well, Mansfield Park is my least favorite. And I like it the least because I don't like the heroine. Fanny Price is too much like me. She's boring. Plain Jane: You said that?!Devoney Looser: Yes. And George said at that moment that he said to himself in his head, “I'm gonna marry this woman.” So you really need to hear his side of it. I just thought, this guy's kind of needling me. And I'm shutting down his meddling with, you know, disarming honesty and sarcasm. But you know, I do mean it, I did at the time. I really felt like a very shy person and quiet person and I had more class sympathies with Fanny Price of all of Jane Austen's heroines. But I didn't like those parts myself. I didn't like being quiet and timid, and didn't appreciate her as a character, I think, in a way that I now do. But he did end up proposing to me that night. And I said, “No.” I said, “I don't believe in the institution of marriage.” But whatever. What I can say is that he was very persuasive. And within about a month we decided we'd have a Jane-Fairfax-and-Frank-Churchill-style secret engagement. And we got married. We got married about a year later. So George is very persuasive. Plain Jane: That's awesome. I did not know that he had proposed and that you had declined on that same evening. And I love it that you relate to Fanny Price and find that kind of complicated. Now I have to say, you have told me that story, Devoney. And I had forgotten the details about Fanny Price. But I learned them again, from the First impressions podcast, where they were talking about you on that podcast, and that you related to Fanny Price. And that got me thinking about who people relate to in Jane Austen novels. And I feel like Jane Austen is putting herself - I feel like all authors, for much of the time - are putting themselves in not just the positive aspects of characters … She's even probably in Mrs. Norris a little bit, you know? Think of your worst person, you know? There's a part of her that wants to be Lady Bertram, probably. And there's certainly a part of her that's Fanny Price. And there's certainly a part of her that's Emma, who's also a difficult character. So anyway … does George love Fanny Price?Devoney Looser: I think George loves underdogs who triumph. And I think to him, he likes the idea of people who weren't born to it sticking up for themselves. And he likes the idea of there being greater opportunity for people who weren't necessarily born to opportunity. And I think that's the story of his grandparents and his parents. So I think that's where he came to the love of that particular plot, out of stories from his own family. Plain Jane: So we are talking about, we've been talking about, the way people take on Jane Austen for their causes. You also talk about the fact that Jane Austen has ... carried pop culture and high culture simultaneously. Almost maybe like almost no other artist, maybe Shakespeare can carry those two at the same time. And you also walk both of those worlds. Can you talk a little bit about that? How are we doing with those two things right now? I mean, Jane Austen's probably bigger than ever before, right, today? And are we kind of bringing the high culture of the scholarly and the fandom together in interesting ways? And in productive ways?Devoney Looser: Yeah, that's such a great question. And the “greater than ever before,” quite possibly, if only because of how communication is greater than ever before, right? … But there were moments where she definitely popped in popular culture before now, you know, millions of people saw that Broadway play in 1935 that moved to the West End in London, the next year. This was another moment of Austen pop culture saturation. Where I think if we were able to compare it, then, to now we might say she was in the imagination of the cultural imagination to a pretty great degree in these other moments, too. But let's not go there - now I'm in the weeds! But I do think there is something about being in both worlds that really speaks to my sense of our responsibility as scholars to be educators, but also to be trying to understand the world outside of the academy and seeing that as a talking across, not a talking down. And there are moments where it's easier for scholars to remember that than others, but the talking across has really made new scholarly ideas possible. For me, this is a divided identity. I think you're capturing that accurately in how you describe it, Janet, but I want to make sure that I'm saying it's not a one way street for me. When we talk about teaching, those of us who are educators, we talk about learning from our students, and people often roll their eyes at that … But I think back to an old, classic and educational theory of Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where he talks about differently located learners. And the Janeite community through JASNA has definitely brought home to me the ways that differently located learners can inspire each other, and teach each other. And I think that is just really, really crucial. And I love that Jane Austen has made this possible.Plain Jane: You know, we're in a way a lot of what we're talking about is her image. And how, you know, there's a lot under the surface of the Courtship and the Marriage Plot, that you've researched this, and written about it in The Making of Jane Austen. In what ways did her family contribute to this image? Can you talk a little bit about that? And why - why were they trying to create, if I have this right, a respectable sort of Aunt Jane? Do you feel like this is what she also would have perhaps wanted? I mean, class insult, class injury can be humiliating, and I feel like perhaps also Louisa May Alcott, some of these women writers who were writing for money, maybe did want to be seen first and foremost, as respectable. What do you think was going on with the family members painting her image?Devoney Looser: I think this is a really difficult, multi-layered question. And I, of course, have different ways of answering this. But I think that the ways that her family described her, were trying to head off criticism. And I think if you look at the ways that women writers were treated in this period, you can understand why they wanted to head off the criticism. They very much wanted her not to be seen as strident Bluestocking, morally suspect. They very much wanted to put her on the side of … the polite, the proper, the lady .... Not the bitter spinster, not the ugly woman who couldn't get married or who was having all sorts of morally questionable behaviors with men. But the woman who was very much doing the “femininity”, quote-unquote, 1810s and the 1820s. So at first, I think that's what her family is up to. And the extent to which she would have been excited about that, I don't know. But it does seem quite possible that she would have endorsed staying to the side of that. Because in the same way that 70s feminists brought us to see the ways that language was about Virgins and W****s - not that no one had ever noticed this. But I think in Second Wave feminism, the Women's Studies classes, let us look at the words that were used to describe women and their sexual experiences, and say, “Wow, this is really unbelievable,” right? So I think if we take that and we move that conversation back 150 years, I think the Austens were wise to the fact that you were not allowed to be anything other than one or the other. And it was very clear what you wanted to be if your choice was to be castigated as the woman writer so who is more virgin-like, or the woman writer who is more W***e-like, of course, she wanted to be on the side of the Virgin. It's a crime that this existed, right? It's a linguistic crime. But if you're a family trying to negotiate the reputation of your relative at the same time that some of you are clergymen and trying to make your way forward in polite society, titled society, elite society, of course ... She's a Public Woman. Those words aren't supposed to go together. You want to put her to the side of the one who wasn't looking for money, the one who wasn't looking for fame, the one who wasn't too learned. She was nice. She was doing this for her family. She wasn't doing this for fame or money, you see that? Already, you're talking about sides of a question, where putting your eggs in one basket results in a different outcome. So the extent to which Austen herself wanted that, what would be desirable of being on the other side of that? Very little, right?Plain Jane: Listening to you talk makes me really understand that so much more. And also realize that in a way they were doing what Jane Austen seemed to do with her novels, which was to keep herself out of it. And maybe she's not as out of it on the third and fourth rereading as we thought she was on the first rereading. But she's kind of keeping herself out of it and just letting the story, letting the characters, say what she really doesn't want to be seen saying particularly, perhaps.Devoney Looser: You know that I'm working on two contemporaries of Jane Austen, Jane and Anna Maria Porter. I'm writing this book, Sister Novelists: Jane and Anna Maria Porter in the Age of Austen. And where for Austen, we have 161 letters of hers [that] have survived. So when we try to say, “What did Jane Austen think?” The novels give us a certain amount to go on. But a lot of us say, well, “What did she say in her letters where we can assume that she was being more of a quote-unquote, authentic self?” … But the idea that we only have 161 of these to go on; for the Porter sisters, they were both novelists. And they wrote thousands of letters, which they painstakingly preserved. And so to be able to go through these thousands of letters between these two sisters who are looking at literary culture through the eyes of public women and literary women, and looking at the ways that they describe the things that they want people to believe and what they're actually doing behind the scenes, has been really illuminating for me. And I hope other people will be interested in reading about that too, people who are interested in Austen, people who are interested in the early 19th century and Regency culture, Victorian culture, because the Porter sisters lived longer than Jane Austen did. [And] the ways that they tried to navigate making decisions with agency and with, specifically, female agency and romantic agency and a culture that said that, as Austen puts it, their only power should be the power of refusal. And they, the Porter sisters, were doing things all the time that you weren't supposed to do. And we know it because they were writing about it with each other. They were innovators in historical fiction. And Jane Porter claimed, I think with with some accuracy, that she was the one who influenced and inspired Sir Walter Scott's Waverley, which was published in 1814. Plain Jane: Wow, you had us at Hello - our sisters writing to each other, during the Regency and beyond, and they have each other, they're doing historic fiction. I mean, I just think hashtag-Regency is going to blow up over these two sisters! I think that sounds like a lot of fun. I just feel like there is a hunger to broaden out these conversations, and you can see it, the conversations are being broadened out in such exciting ways, especially right now. Books, like The Woman of Colour, and then every conversation we can have about Bridgerton - like anything to do with the Regency and people's lives and especially the lives that we're uncovering that have been overlooked: Women writers, Black citizens of the Regency in Britain, and it's just and so many others. It's just really exciting. So I feel like there's a hunger for these conversations. Devoney Looser: And I think it's absolutely crucial and important that we start to try to understand race relations in the early 19th century. And think about why we care about them so much. Now, that's what literature should do. I get really frustrated when people want to tell us that we're taking questions from the present and popping them back falsely under the past. This is not at all we're doing. Things are popping in our moment that we can see, we're also popping in Austen's moment. ,,, Maybe she doesn't write about them to the degree that some of us would now wish she had. But these questions are there. And we are having a real opportunity, through scholars like Gretchen Gerzina and Patricia Matthew, and others who are helping us look back to the abolition movement, look back to texts, like The Woman of Colour, which Lyndon Dominique edited in a fabulous edition for Broadview Press that everybody should run out and buy. This is a novel from 1809, an anonymous novel. All of these works are giving us new opportunities to read Austen in terms of race issues that were important in her own day and to her novels. And for very good reasons have popped up in ours, so I'm excited about the opportunity to open up these questions.I do think there is something about being in both worlds that really speaks to my sense of our responsibility as scholars to be educators, but also to be trying to understand the world outside of the academy and seeing that as a talking-across, not a talking-down. And there are moments where it's easier for scholars to remember that than others. But the talking across has really made new scholarly ideas possible.Plain Jane: And some of this is historians also - Gretchen Gerzina, in a previous episode, alerted me to the National Trust report that was done documenting the ties to the slave trade in the Great Houses in England. Such a simple thing, really. And very much a historic enterprise, not a political enterprise in any sense, other than [that] everything is political. But that's exciting. And then you've also contributed to this conversation about the legacy of slavery and the ties to the slave trade in the Austen family. Do you want to talk about that at all? I mean, this is something that's just been published in The Times Literary Supplement and then picked up a lot of places. Do you want to just give a takeaway on what was going on with your research on that and what you'd like people to keep in mind when they think about Austen's family and the slave trade?Devoney Looser: Absolutely. So the May 21 issue of the Times Literary Supplement, which is a weekly newspaper that anyone who cares about literature should subscribe to … I am very honored to have published it. I did a piece on Austen and abolition, looking deeply and very minutely into the Austen family's relationship to slavery and abolition. And people are asking a question now, “Was Austen pro-slavery or anti-slavery? Was the author's family pro-slavery or anti-slavery?” And because of things like the National Trust report that you just mentioned, and a freely available database called the Legacies of Slavery that's run out of UCL by a scholar named Catherine Hall and a team. This is a freely available database, George Austen's name shows up in that database, because he was a trustee for a sugar plantation in Antigua that was owned by somebody who was probably a student at Oxford. So this is the fact that we had, and that has been repeated, that Austen's implicated in the economics of slavery. And what my piece did, is tried to look at what that means, and to try to deepen that conversation. And what I, the takeaway, for me is that the Austen family can be described as both pro-slavery and anti-slavery. And this is probably true for a lot of 19th century families, frankly, where you would have members who were on different sides, quote-unquote, of these questions. But the moment we try to turn it into sides, we're missing an opportunity for further description and nuance. And what my piece shows is that George Austen probably never benefited financially from this trusteeship. He was a co-trustee. And I go into a lot of description about that. And that years afterward, 80 years after that, Henry Thomas Austen, we never noticed this before: Henry Thomas Austen was a delegate to an anti-slavery convention. So we have a member of the immediate Austen family, a political activist, against the institution of slavery and with the anti-slavery movement. So to me, this tells us that the Austen family was both of these things. And I think it's an additional piece of information for us to understand the ways that race and slavery come into Austen's novels and the ways that she is working with the difficulties and complexities of this issue that was central to the moment she lived in.Plain Jane: What do you love most about introducing people to Austen? And what surprises you when you teach - in the classroom, or in Great Courses, from people that you hear from all the many Janeite and fandom conversations that you so graciously, drop in on Zoom with? What do you love about introducing people to Jane Austen?Devoney Looser: Yeah, so these 24 30-minute lectures I did for the Great Courses, which is interestingly just rebranded itself as Wondrium. But I say there, and I say this at the beginning of my classes as well: I love these books. And I love the ways that these books have inspired me to be a better thinker and have created certain things in my life that have become possible and meaningful to me. But it is absolutely not required to me that anyone in my class come out loving them like I do. What I want is for students to find that thing that is meaningful to them. And that generates meaning for them - that's generative, to go back to that word again. And I think when students take me at my word, I'm very grateful. I want them to read closely and think about these things. But it is absolutely not required that they see in them what I see.—————Thank you for reading, listening and being here, my friends. Please stay safe and enjoy your remaining days of summer. We'll be back next week - and it's all about my conversation with definitive Austen biographer Claire Tomalin! I caught her at home, safe, enjoying her garden during the pandemic, and I'll share our conversation here, same time, same place, next week! Below are many of the authors that Devoney mentioned in this conversation, with links to finding out more.If you enjoyed this conversation, please do share it!And if you'd like to have more conversations like these dropped in your inbox, subscribe - it's free! More Reading and Cool Links:Gilbert and Gubar's The Madwoman in the Attic: https://www.npr.org/2013/01/17/169548789/how-a-madwoman-upended-a-literary-boys-clubPaulo Freire and The Pedagogy of the Oppressed: https://www.freire.org/paulo-freire/paulo-freire-biography/Gretchen Gerzina - https://gretchengerzina.com/about-gretchen-gerzina.htmlLyndon Dominque, editor: The Woman of Colour: https://broadviewpress.com/product/the-woman-of-colour/#tab-descriptionPatricia Matthew: https://www.montclair.edu/newscenter/experts/dr-patricia-matthew/UCL slavery database: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/ Devoney Looser's website: http://www.devoneylooser.com/The Wondrium/Great Courses on Jane Austen: www.thegreatcourses.com/janeausten Get full access to The Austen Connection at austenconnection.substack.com/subscribe
Amy discusses Kate Millett's Sexual Politics with guest Maxine Hanks. Listen to the full episode here.
Amy discusses Kate Millett's Sexual Politics with guest Maxine Hanks. Listen to the full episode here.
Amy: Welcome to Breaking Down Patriarchy! I'm Amy McPhie Allebest. I first encountered feminism when I was a Freshman in college. I was in an English class, and one of our main text books was on Critical Theory, which are different ways of approaching a work of literature. You can approach a work through a Historical lens, looking at what was going on the world to understand the story. You can look at the work through a Biographical lens, seeing the book as a reflection of the author's personal point of view. You can analyze the work through a Marxist lens, looking at the role economics and class play in the story. And you can approach the work with a Feminist lens, looking at women and gendered power dynamics. I don't recall doing any Feminist critique of any literature or History for the entire rest of my college education (which led me to be extremely frustrated later), but at least my introduction to the concept of Feminism was pretty positive - it was just one legitimate way of many legitimate ways of looking at literature and looking at the world, and because I hadn't gotten any messages about Feminism in my family growing up, and because I was learning about it as a perfectly valid criticism at a very conservative university, I added it to my tool box of thought without any drama. This bit of my personal history is relevant to our discussion today in a few different ways. I was shocked later in life when I discovered that Feminism was such a threatening, really bad word to some people. I often heard - and still hear - people refer to “radical feminism” and “militant” feminism” with fear and disgust, and lump all people who acknowledge the inequitable power balance between the sexes into that category of villainous “radical feminists”. But I hadn't ever read any real radical feminism until this project, so when I saw that Sexual Politics was one of the defining texts of radical feminism, I wanted to read it so I would understand what people were talking about. I probably wouldn't have been learning Feminist Literary Theory in college without the Sexual Politics. My reading partner today is Maxine Hanks, who is a renowned feminist theologian, historian, and writer in the Mormon world and beyond, and she is a seasoned expert on Feminisms and feminist approaches, as a student, a teacher, and a writer. So Maxine, I am so incredibly honored that you're with us to share your wisdom about 60's and 70's feminism and Kate Millett's work. Thank you so much for being here! Maxine: Hi Amy ! it's great to be with you today to talk about feminism and the ways it breaks down patriarchy. Amy: Maxine and I met just a few months ago - I had known who you were for many years, Maxine, and I have been so grateful for your friendship and interest in my work. I'm a huge fan and think of you like a Joan of Arc for Mormon women. Could you start by telling us a little about yourself? Maxine: I'm a feminist historian and theologian, and author/editor. I studied Humanities, English, and Communication at BYU then transferred to the UU in the mid-80s because it was the only place in Utah that had a women's studies program and I was dying to study feminist history, theory, critique and language, to find tools that could unpack why I felt imprisoned within male perspective and discourse, unable to voice my own reality as a woman in Utah. That program saved my sanity, taught me how and why women's bodies, lives and perspectives were colonized within male perspective, language and social structures and how to break out of that. I loved learning different feminist approaches, schools of thought, and how each emerged as a response to that very problem -- finding female voice to express female experience and perspective. Gender studies gave me the answers and tools I desperately needed to find my own voice. So I did a bachelors degree in Gender Studies at the UU,...
Welcome! Let's dive right in by sharing some passages that we thought were important. First, Millett starts the book with some passages from Henry Miller's book Sexus, published in the 40's in Paris but banned in the United States because of anti-pornography laws. And it actually is pornography. I had never read Henry Miller before and was totally horrified and thought maybe Millett had just dug up some scummy author who wrote violent sex scenes… but then I read a bunch online about him, and on GoodReads there were tons of people talking about his genius. Here's one review of the book: “Some of Miller's most inspiring writing, I think. This is the kind of book you want to come with a highlighter so you can remember where those amazing passages are to quote again and again. That said, it's not for everybody, especially prudes.” So then I understood why Millett took Miller on - some literary critics praised Miller for his artistry, some celebrated his courage in breaking literary boundaries, and some criticized his obscenity, but it seems that nobody read the passages from a woman's point of view and saw how utterly degrading and misogynistic these scenes are. So I would say - I guess I'm a prude because I hated this chapter and found it super offensive for all the reasons. I personally wouldn't recommend reading it unless you've already read Henry Miller and want to read a feminist perspective. MAXINE: Yes, she takes on Miller because he's the epitome of sexist, misogyny in the Leftist men who were supposed to be women's colleagues in the radical deconstruction of oppressive social systems but who hadn't even realized or bothered to care that women's bodies and the sexual imbalance of power were the foundation of oppressive systems. Men like Miller who was sex obsessed and deeply sexist, were opposing every oppressive social norm EXCEPT the sexual abuse of women, which they were exploiting themselves as they worked. The men dismissed women's views, concerns citing “more imp issues than women's” in the movement. Still see women as sexual beings, objects first So Miller and others like Norman Mailer and D.H. Lawrence needed to be refuted, otherwise feminists weren't going to succeed at their double task of undoing female oppression and finding female language. Contrasts them w neutralism of Jean Genet Kate said --”unless the real OR fantasized viritlity is abandoned, unless the clinging to male supremacy as a birthright is finally foregone --ALL systems of oppression will continue to function simply by virtue of of their logical and emotional mandate in the primary human situation” -- sexual relations. Mailer redictably responded to Kate's book in his article “The Prisoner of Sex” attacking Millett, defending Miller and Lawrence. AMY: Then she backs up, and like Beauvoir before her and Lerner after her, she starts at the beginning, examining patriarchy on a historical timeline, asking how things came to be the way they are. Next, she describes the first wave of feminism, which culminated in women winning the right to vote. Then she describes the backlash against that first wave of feminism in the 1930's, and she writes about the anti-woman backlash within the Nazi party in Germany in 30's, which is something I had never heard of before, so I'm going to highlight some stuff from that chapter. Later in the book Millett does feminist readings of Norman Mailer and DH Lawrence, who also wrote some very sexually explicit stuff, and she points out how those intimate, personal, interactions contain highly charged power dynamics - the “sexual politics” that the book title refers to. So I mentioned before that I may have Millett to thank for that chapter on Feminist Critique in my Critical Theory book in college. Is that right, Maxine? Did this book open up a path for Feminist literary criticism? MAXINE: Yes, it did, Sexual...
Chegamos a nossa última vertente nesta segunda temporada. O feminismo Radical, uma vertente que vai surgir para não somente apontar a origem da opressão feminina, mas também, teorizar e propor soluções para a emancipação da mulher em sociedade. Em um debate onde existirão diversos contrapontos e discordâncias. Stela e Natalia irão contar a história da segunda onda feminista onde várias pautas vão surgir como essencial para a luta dos sexos. Teóricas como Simone de Beauvoir, Shulamith Firestone e Kate Millett serão fundamentais par a nossa compreensão da Teoria Radical. Edição de Podcast : Layla Policarpo Vem com a gente e contribua com esse debate você também no Twitter @gatavira, por email: gtviralata@gmail.com e agora no Instagram: gata.viralata#podcastgataviralata#mulherespodcasters
Skandalös, fånig eller sexistisk så har D H Lawrence erotiska litteratur avfärdats. Men just i vår tids diskussioner om sex och moral har vi något att lära av honom, enligt författaren Lyra Koli. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Den engelska författaren D.H. Lawrence har aldrig slutat vara skandalös. Flera av hans verk ansågs för oanständiga för att publiceras i Storbritannien under hans livstid. Först 1960, 30 år efter hans död, vann förlaget rätten att ge ut den oavkortade versionen av Lady Chatterleys älskare. Det var inte bara otroheten som ansågs stötande. Det var framförallt det grafiska språkbruket: Lady Chatterley låter sig inte bara förföras av sin mans skogsvaktare, hon knullar med honom, både i fittan och röven, ett ordval som fortfarande kan få folk att haja till framför radion. Sådan litteratur funkar ofta som kattmynta på frigjorda teoretiker som romantiserar det förflutnas överträdelser. Att Lawrence idag blivit relativt bortglömd beror snarare på en annan tvivelaktighet, som bara blivit mer skandalös med tiden: hans kvinnosyn och hans rasism. 1970 utkom Kate Milletts klassiska studie Sexual Politics, där hon ingående kritiserar hans stereotypiserande syn på kvinnlig sexuell passivitet. Att försvara honom har därefter sammanblandats med att förminska kritiken, som när Doris Lessing säger: Vissa kvinnliga hysterikor har bestämt att [hans romaner] inte är politiskt korrekta men vad mig anbelangar så är ingen som använder den frasen en seriös person. Citatet kommer från en mailenkät som en professor skickade ut till samtida författare, när han på nittiotalet fann det i princip omöjligt att undervisa om Lawrence. Motståndet från studenterna var för stort. Ett av de mest kritiska svaren kom från Ursula K. Le Guin: Såklart han var sexist. Han var en vit, engelsk arbetarklassman född på artonhundratalet. Han var sexist och rasist, det är väl inget snack om saken? En man som skrev något i stil med: att knulla en svart kvinna vore som att knulla lera? Men Le Guin tillägger att hennes önskan som feminist vore att få se hans läsare gå bortom det rena fördömandet och försöka urskilja vad som har blivit oacceptabelt, och vad som fortfarande är giltigt för samtida läsare i en oerhört bristfällig, ofta frånstötande, ofta fånig, väldigt intressant och väldigt kraftfull författares verk. Det är svårt att inte läsa in ett visst klassförakt i synen på Lawrence som fånig och uppblåst. Hans skrivande har en naiv kvalitet som inte ska förväxlas med brist på sofistikation, utan snarare är ett högst avsiktligt sökande efter en närvaro som går utöver det självmedvetna. Filosofen Cora Diamond föreslår att hans otidsenliga syn på sex presenterar ett alternativ att ta på allvar. Enligt henne visar han att sex bör ses som ett specifikt moraliskt problem, till skillnad från den samtida hållningen där vad som helst är okej så länge man respekterar personen på alla de sätt som en icke-sexuell moral förutsätter. Diamond är något på spåren. I en tid när alla verkar tro att sexualmoral bara kan betyda för eller emot sex är Lawrences djupgående och nyanserade syn på sex befriande. På de vanliga kategoriska frågorna svarar han aldrig ett okvalificerat ja eller nej. Äktenskap? Lawrence är emot konventionsgiftermål, men en idog försvarare av de äktenskap som baseras på blodsympati och blodkontakt. När Lady Chatterley smälter samman med skogsvaktaren Mellors till ett mörkt och hävande hav ingår de ett förbund som borde äras, oavsett om det socialt sett är otrohet. Prostitution? Lawrence är tveksam men inte kategorisk. Pornografi? Tja, säger han, vem ska avgöra vad som är oanständigt? De flesta av oss uppskattar att bli lite vagt upphetsade. Hälften av världshistoriens största konstverk uppskattas på grund av sin sexuella dragningskraft. Verklig pornografi är allt som framställer sex som något smutsigt och trivialt, och det anklagar han till exempel Wagner, Charlotte Brontë och ett flertal kristna psalmförfattare för. Onani? Nej, i onani finns ingen ömsesidighet, och det riskerar att trubba av oss. Onani bildar en ond cirkel av självmedvetenhet, som aldrig är fullständigt självmedveten, vilket gör oss till avstängda narcissister. Gång på gång beskriver han en sexuell apati som ekar i vår tid. Vi, med vår rationella inställning till erogena zoner, självmedvetna preferenser och identiteter, tenderar att betrakta sex som individuell behovsuppfyllelse snarare än sårbara möten. Lawrence kallar detta för mekaniskt, sterilt, blodlöst, kallhjärtat och förfalskat sex. De unga, som tror sig vara frigjorda, liknar bara tränade hundar i hans ögon. Och för att de här hundarna är tränade till att göra saker som de gammaldags hundarna aldrig gjorde så kallar de sig själva fria, skriver han. Vad sant, fritt sex är kan med andra ord inte abstraheras: det är alltid situationsbundet hos Lawrence. Hans romaner är fulla av sådana vågor av erotisk livsnärvaro, som lika gärna kan upplevas under analsex som genom ögonkontakt. I romanen Regnbågen behöver den unga Ursula inte ens titta på sin åtrådda lärarinna: När de var i samma rum var de medvetna om varandra, nästan så att allt annat uteslöts. Winifred Inger kände en het glädje under lektionerna när Ursula var närvarande, Ursula kände hela sitt liv börja när Miss Inger kom in i rummet. Sedan, med den älskade, subtilt intima läraren närvarande, satt flickan som i strålarna från ett berikande solsken, vars berusande hetta rann rakt in i hennes ådror. I Lawrences livsverk finns också otvivelaktigt sexistiska passager. Men det är intressant att kritikerna tycks uppfatta all passivitet och jagupplösning som förnedrande. Kate Millett skriver om hur han i Söner och älskande reducerar Clara, den en gång formidabla, oberoende kvinnan till nivån av skälvande passion. Skulle våra begär alltså göras rättvisa om vi uppnådde total självkontroll och oberoende? Måste mysteriet med sex verkligen överges tillsammans med exotifieringen av den andra? Många känner idag att det finns något lite pinsamt med det man brukar kalla för Lawrences sexuella metafysik. Men sex, om det fattas på rätt sätt, är ett mysterium som intimt hänger samman med det chockerande och det banala. Därför kunde Lawrence inte förmå sig till att ta bort de grova orden ur Lady Chatterleys älskare, trots att han ville få den igenom censuren. För att erotiken inte ska stelna till något pompöst måste Mellors få säga till Lady Chatterley: Jorå, du älskar att knulla, men du vill att det ska kallas något grandiost och mystiskt, bara för att smickra din självbild. Ärlighet kring sex krävde för D.H. Lawrence ett bibliskt språkbruk likväl som ett förbjudet. Den här dubbelheten har gjort honom oaptitlig för båda lägren än idag, i en debatt som fortfarande inte klarar av ett mer nyanserat perspektiv än för eller emot sex. Lyra Koli Litteratur: Sons and Lovers, Penguin, 1999 (1913). The Rainbow, Penguin, 2001 (1915). Lady Chatterleys Lover, Penguin, 2006 (1928). A Propos of Lady Chatterleys Lover, i Lady Chatterleys Lover, Penguin, 2006 (1929). Pornography and Obscenity, I The Bad Side of Books: Selected Essays, 2019 (1929). Silver Bronzo. "Cora Diamond. Philosophy in a Realistic Spirit. An Interview", Iride 26.2, 2013. Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, University of Illinois Press, 2000 (1970). Gary Adelman, The Man Who Rode Away: What D. H. Lawrence Means to Today's Readers, TriQuarterly 107 (2000). Elizabeth Ladenson, Dirt for Arts Sake: Books on Trial from Madame Bovary to Lolita, Cornell University Press, 2007.
Slight detour through the 1970s, we return to the start of the decade with a book which made waves in the second wave. Kate Millett's Sexual Politics might be one of the first feminist literary critiques, but it also shifted the debate from the rights of women to the creation and reinforcement of patriarchy. The focus was no longer on women, but on men as well, and the very foundations of sexual politics.
Feminist icon Kate Millett passed away three years ago at the age of 82. Her 1970 book, Sexual Politics was called “the Bible of Women's Liberation” by The New York Times and had a seismic effect on feminist thought. It launched Millett as what the Times called “a defining architect of second-wave feminism.” In a cover story that same year, TIME magazine crowned her “the Mao Tse-tung of Women's Liberation.” But Kate's sister Mallory is the polar opposite of her sister. In a riveting article entitled, “Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives,” Mallory revealed what she saw of the subversive undercurrent of her sister's passionate radicalism. An unrepentant conservative, Mallory has been very vocal about her early experiences with the feminist movement and her subsequent defection. She's a former actress who resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. IN THIS EPISODE: 4:35 Mallory talks about being the sister of feminist icon Kate Millett and why she started writing about her experiences with Kate 6:20 Mallory talks about how the radical feminists' ultimate goal was to destroy Western Civilization 7:45 Mallory talks about her relationship with her sister and how bad their relationship was growing up, how her sister got her to go to NY to become a part of the feminist revolution 9:00 Mallory describes sitting in on consciousness-raising meetings and what feminists' goals really were 12:00 Mallory talks about how the state of the country today was plotted and did not happen inadvertently 14:00 Mallory talks about the word “empowerment” and how feminists hijacked that term. She also discusses the #MeToo movement 15:40 Mallory talks about her experience as an actress with Roman Polanski 17:30 Mallory discusses how her sister Kate was the founder of Women's Studies courses in colleges/universities 17:50 Mallory talks about the “slavery of the male” 20:30 Mallory discusses promiscuity and how women have used birth control and abortion to become “equal” with men 22:00 Suzanne discusses how all of the above plays into her work as a marriage coach 24:00 Mallory and Suzanne discuss how when the biology of men and women is discussed, it is seen as “going back” as opposed to “going forward” (as John Gray, Ph.D., also noted last week in his podcast) 26:30 Suzanne reads from Mallory's article regarding how feminism has invaded its way into entertainment, government and education in 50 short years 28:30 Mallory discusses abortion, her own abortions and how you can change your beliefs 31:00 Mallory talks about Joe Biden and the presidential election 32:15 Suzanne and Mallory discuss cultural Marxism, Karl Marx and the National Organization of Women 37:00 Amy Coney Barrett, current politics, the election and more *FALL COACHING SPECIAL* Use code "fall2020" for 15% off Premarital/Newly Married 4-Session Coaching Package with Suzanne. Go to: www.suzannevenker.com/coaching Support Suzanne on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/thesuzannevenkershow --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
Abrimos el programa de hoy con una breve introducción sobre Kate Millett, feminista radical, madre de dragonas, una apisonadora que nos allanó el terreno para que podamos recorrer el camino de la lucha feminista con más soltura, más información y más razones. Y hablamos y profundizamos en el fingimiento de orgasmos: ¿por qué y para qué fingimos orgasmos? ¿Cuáles son los mandatos de género que nos exponen y nos empujan a ello? ¿De qué nos sirven en muchas ocasiones? ¿Cómo nos afecta negativamente en otras? En el aquelarre, la compi de la semana pasada que pedía consejos para gestionar su relación y la adicción de su novio al porno, se han reunido muchas voces de compañeras que acuden a darle apoyo. Y muchas más historias: una compi mulata reivindica su pelo afro, otras nos cuenta que ha dado con un taladro "para mujeres" (?), y también consejos para dejar a un hijo sano del patriarcado. Y fin de los spoilers. Escúchanos, escúchalas. Ya sabes que estamos esperando también tu opinión, preguntas y experiencias en nuestro WhatsApp y Telegram: (0034) 636 75 14 20. Como siempre, si quieres amadrinar y matrocinar Barbijaputa, puedes hacerlo en radiojaputa.com. Y si te han molado las canciones del programa, las puedes volver a escuchar en nuestro canal de YouTube.
En este episodio de Momentos de Lectura, leo un fragmento de Viaje al Manicomio de Kate Millett. Una novela que estoy leyendo para uno de los clubes de lectura de Wilborada 1047 y que, desde todos los ámbitos, me ha sorprendido. Este libro autobiográfico cuenta la experiencia que tuvo Kate Millett con la psiquiatría. Diagnosticada con un transtorno maniaco-depresivo, fue internada contra su voluntad en varios lugares del mundo y obligada a medicarse. Este libro recoge estos pasajes de su vida.La prosa de Millett es potente, sumamente rica en recursos, renovadora dentro de la narrativa contemporánea (aunque el libro salió en 1990); y permite reflexionar sobre la idea de la locura, la medicación psiquiátrica y el papel que se le ha impuesto a la mujer en este aspecto.REDES:https://www.instagram.com/podcastantenasypijamas/https://www.instagram.com/elgrullogrillo/https://www.instagram.com/laformainicial/
I am surprised that I somehow missed Richard Stern’s 1973 novel, Other Men’s Daughters. Stern is a writer of great power and an almost unbelievable master of vocabulary. Like John William’s novel, Stoner, this is in many ways a quiet novel, and again as in William’s novel there is an undercurrent of probably unintentional sexism that runs through it, though I think both Williams and Stern would have denied ithis.The lead character is almost always referred to as Dr. Merriwether; he is a professor of physiology at Harvard. Married to a very clever woman, Sarah, who has given up her own academic career in order to take care of the professor and their three children.Until the day of Merriwether’s departure from the house—a month after his divorce—the Merriwether family looked like an ideally tranquil one. Parents and children frequently gathered in the parlor reading in their favorite roosts.A rather staid and somber man, he would have thought himself the least likely of men to fall in love with a younger woman. When he teaches the Introductory Physiology course, he begins one lecture, “Today, ladies and gentleman, we will talk about love. That is to say, the distension of the venous sinuses under signals passed through the third and fourth sacral segments of the spinal cord along the internal pudendal nerve to the ischio cavernous, and, as well, the propulsive waves of contraction in the smooth muscle layers of the vas deferens, in seminal vesicles, the prostate and the striated muscles of the perineum which lead to the ejection of the semen. But, unlikely as it seems to Merriwether, he becomes quite interested in a young ‘summerer’ (students not officially admitted to Harvard, but there to take summer courses). Dr. Merriwether spends five mornings a week in the lab with his research work, but he also moonlights as a part-time doctor nine hours week, and it is in that capacity that he first meets Cynthia Ryder who comes to him to get a prescription for the pill.Dr. Merriwther’s life was surrounded if not filled with woman. A distant, formal husband, a loving distant father of two daughters. As for woman lab assistants and graduate students, he was seldom aware of them except as amiable auxiliaries. Many such women felt their position depended on masculine style, which had meant brusqueness, cropped hair, white smocks, low shoes, little or no make-up. Fine with him. No woman was so despised here as the occasional student who strutted her secondary sexual characteristics…Though the women’s movement had begun to touch the biology labs, it went slowly, perhaps because there was a greater awareness of the complex spectrum of sexuality, the hundred components of sexual differentia.Merriwether sees Cynthia a couple of other times on campus, but even when he exchanges a good-bye kiss with her after one such encounter, he is able to preserve his sense of decorum and distance. “Weeks later, she said, “I was so surprised. ...Still he was kissing in part for her sake (for therapy, for a common humanity). So he could still feel himself Man of Principle, Man of Year, Doctor of Confused Patient, Professor to Easily Enchanted Student.”Cynthia, like his wife Sarah, is a bright and able student in her own right, and she continues with her academic work even as their affair continues and becomes more consuming for them both. Eventually, Merriwether feels obliged to confess his affair to his wife, though only after a magazine article has called attention to their union.She was being destroyed, this life could not go on, she was not a mat, she was not a maid, she was not going to clear up his mess, she was finished. She didn’t need Kate Millett and Germaine Greer for strength. While he continues to live in the marriage house, the husband and wife occupy different floors, and Merriwetrher finds himself quite confused that Sarah wants him gone. The roughly two thirds of the novel that describes their slow break-up is often quite humorous as well as painful. About half way through the book, I noticed that almost every time Merriwether speaks of his wife, Sarah, he mentions her plumpness, her fat face, her shortness, although he always sees this as simple description, no harm intended. As he recalls his past happiness, his contentment. “Sublimity. What was anything else in life next to it? He owed that to her. Fine little stump of a wife…round back, square flanks—no hourglass there…A few times, early in my reading, I thought Stern might be aware of the sexist tone to the writing, thought perhaps he was making fun of himself and his own character, but upon completion, it seems clear to me that Merriwether is simply mouthing the views of his time, including views that women are not really capable of scientific discovery or discipline. Phillip Roth writes a glowing introduction to the book, and I’m not surprised that Roth seems to deeply admire Stern as well as his narrator, Dr. Merriwether. I agree with Roth that the science asides and even some of what might be called philosophy of literature that are to be found in the novel are interesting and well thought out. Still, in the end, this is a novel of how easily men take advantage of younger women and/or women in subordinate positions, and then convince themselves that they have done nothing wrong. Merriwether is so much more typical than he pretends to be. When I read Stoner, I found myself wanting to hear the story from the wife’s perspective. And in this novel, too, I would have been interested to get Sarah’s or Cynthia’s take on the events rather than the rather monotone and self-righteous view of Dr. Merriwether. This is an intriguing book that is so well written. I will leave it up to you readers to decide if it is satire or simply a novel expressing attitudes of the time.
En este cuarto episodio avanzamos en nuestro viaje peripatético, perseguimos a Eros y le preguntamos ¿de qué hablamos cuando hablamos de amor? Peripatéticas es una coproducción de Furor Podcast, Danila Suárez Tomé y Natalí Incaminato. Cuenta el sponsoreo de Horacio Banega y Alberto Zárate Está auspiciado por [Penguin Random House audiolibros](https://www.megustaleer.com/audiolibros/). ¡Ingresá en leer.com.ar/peripateticas y elegí tu próximo audiolibro! **Referencias bibliográficas: **"Existentialism and romantic love" (2015), Skye Cleary. "[Amor romántico](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKrmPGJ5pT0)" (2016), Diana Maffía. "Política sexual" (1995), Kate Millett. Safo. Catulo. "De Amore" (Siglo XII), Andreas Capellanus. Entrevista "Sexo, poder y la política de la identidad" (2016), Michel Foucault. "Sensatez y sentimientos" (1811) y "Orgullo y prejuicio" (1813), Jane Austen. **Créditos:** Narración: Danila Suárez Tomé y Natalí Incaminato. Interpretación: Mariel Giménez y Vanina Pikholc. Locución: Miranda Carrete y Florencia Flores Iborra. Guion: Danila Suárez Tomé, Natalí Incaminato y Mariel Giménez. Edición: Florencia Flores Iborra. Producción: Josefina Avale y Vanina Pikholc. Música: Podcast con ladrido por Juan Manuel Ontivero. Ilustración: Viviana Maidanik. **Peripatéticas es el primer podcast argentino financiado colectivamente.**
Nearly raped by film producer, Roman Polanski, Mallory Millett has a lot to say about this crazy culture we live in where good is called evil and evil is called good. She’s had a front row seat in the game of life from Hollywood to New York City. Having learned to not compromise her integrity in an industry which demands sexual favors, Mallory has a unique perspective on the #MeToo movement. If you are a liberal, Mallory is sure to stir your emotions with her lively discussion of why— to large degree—women are to blame for the erosion of our culture; her take on illegal immigration; and why women need to go back to their homes and run society! If you are a conservative, you’ll enjoy Mallory’s years of experience having walked away from Communism as her sister, Kate Millett, unleashed Marxist feminism onto America. Join Mallory Millett and Terry Beatley as they discuss freedom, families, faith and America’s future and why walk away from Marxism.
Esta semana en la “Sección principal” toca serie. Tras la gran impresión que me causo la primera temporada de “El cuento de la criada” reconozco que cogí con cierto temor la segunda. Pero me ha gustado mucho y os voy a hablar de ella y os contaré lo que sé de la futura 3ª temporada. En la sección “El verso libre” repite ese genio inmortal que es el gran Silvio Rodríguez y su canción “Fusil contra fusil”. Un homenaje a la figura eterna del Che que está extraído del álbum “Cuba va” lanzado en el ya lejano año 1971 pero que podéis encontrar en varios discos recopilatorios de Silvio. En la sección “A golpes de realidad” os traigo la actualidad de la semana en lo referente al terrorismo machista, los menores, la actualidad internacional y la actualidad nacional en este país nuestro que ha iniciado un retroceso sin precedentes en lo referido a libertades y valores democráticos. Finalmente en la sección “¿Qué fue de?” os hablo de Kate Millett referente absoluto del feminismo radical y autora de “Política sexual”, una obra publicada en 1970 en la que dejaba muy claro que cualquier desigualdad social tiene su origen en la dominación del hombre sobre la mujer. Tiempos: Sección principal: del 00:02:46 al 03:55:54 Sección “El verso libre”: del 03:56:25 al 04:01:05 Sección “A golpes de realidad”: del 04:01:47 al 05:43:08 Sección “¿Qué fue de?”: del 05:44:17 al 06:22:11 Presentación, dirección, edición y montaje: Asier Menéndez Marín Diseño logo Podcast: albacanodesigns (Alba Cano) Diseño logo Canal: Patrick Grau Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals
Undécima entrega del podcast feminista de Barbijaputa en eldiario.es. Dedicamos el programa a la escritora feminista Kate Millett. Coméntalo en http://lee.eldiario.es/radiojaputa_11 Participa con tus audios de whatsapp o telegram al 636 75 14 20.
Publié en 1970, le livre Sexual Politics (La politique du mâle) provoque une sorte d'électro-choc au moment de sa sortie. Kate Millett y avance l'idée que la relation entre les sexes est politique, et elle deviendra ensuite l'une des architectes du féminisme de la modernité. Invitée : Pascale Navarro
Mallory Millett, sister of the Communist cofounder of the National Organization of Women, reveals the shocking and destructive goals of radical feminism. She should know! Her sister, Kate Millett, hated men ever since she was a young child and she set out to destroy the American family unit and spread a culture of promiscuity, eroticism, pornography and abortion. Kate’s vision conquered America, but her sister lives on to set the record straight! Listen Part 1 of Hating Men, The Rotten Root of Sexual Politics Mallory Millett resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. She has lived, studied and traveled extensively throughout the Third World. CFO for several corporations, she is a longtime Director of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy. For Further Insight: Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Mallory_Millett Website: www.MalloryMIllett.com Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives - https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett MORE ON TERRY AND THE SHOW
The New York Times recently noted the death of a prominent feminist, Kate Millett, who died at 82. The obituary rightly points out that Millett's book “Sexual Politics” became known as the Bible of Feminism in the '60s, '70s, and '80s.In her book, published in 1969, included her words, “Patriarchy's chief institution is the family. It is both a mirror of and a connection with the larger society; a patriarchal unit within a patriarchal whole.”What she called for was an overthrow of patriarchy, which would involve the complete overthrow the family and marriage and the normativity of heterosexual relationships, and the expectation of having children.In the end, Kate Millett died a very sad life. The passing of Kate Millett reminds us of how these kinds of ideas and come into our culture and of the toxic effects that they often have. But very sadly, it also reminds us that any worldview that sees the having and raising of children as a problem and as a burden rather than as a blessing cannot but end in sadness.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Robin on hurricane coverage, Trump's gutting Title IX, Big Tech malfeasance—and a personal word about Kate Millett. Guests: Journalist Amanda Sperber on an untold story—South Sudan's rapes; Mary Mattingly on Swale, the first floating food forest.
Matthew Bannister on Sir Peter Hall, the director who founded the Royal Shakespeare Company, ran the National Theatre and created many acclaimed theatrical and operatic productions. Kate Millett, the radical feminist whose 1970 book Sexual Politics suggested that men's institutionalised power over women is a social construct, rather than innate or biological. Sir Edward Du Cann, the Tory MP and businessman who chaired the 1922 backbench committee, fell out with Edward Heath, and went bankrupt in the 1990s. J.P. Donleavy, the US-born Irish writer whose bawdy tale of Dublin Life - The Ginger Man - sold fifty million copies.
Our topic today is Shulamith Firestone’s radical feminist book The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, published in 1970. But first a brief note on the death of Kate Millett, last Wednesday, September 6th. Listeners of Interchange will know we discussed Millett’s own radical feminist book, Sexual Politics, back in May with Maggie …
We open the show with Bobbi Martin’s “For the Love of Him.” All the music played is from the 1970 Billboard Top 100, extending the discussion from last week’s show on the political power of music. Kate Millett’s 1970 book, Sexual Politics, is a classic text of Second Wave Feminism, finding sexism and subjection inherent …
Annie Sprinkle has been leading a very particular challenge to the porn industry for many years inspiring the Post Porn social movement. At the London Gay Fringe Festival earlier this year, Spanish artists from the new Transfeminism movement articulated the role of the post porn movement and sexual dissidence in the shake up of repressive aspects of Spanish politics and culture. Denise O’Connor was there to talk to participants about the performance and the sexual politics around it. Also see the comment below! Presented by: Denise O’Connor with Jayson Mansaray Edited by: Denise O’Connor Post Porn at Gay Fringe Festival :: Annie Sprinkle :: Radical Transfeminism Blog :: Gay Fringe Film Festival :: Kate Millett on Sexual Politics, 1969 :: Manifesto of Porno Terrorists :: Pussy Riot :: Another Transfeminist site :: Back to Camden Community Radio :: follow Camden Community Radio on Twitter :: File Download (16:56 min / 16 MB)
Carolyn Carr, chief curator and deputy director of NPG, discusses a portrait of Kate Millett by portrait by Alice Neel
In this lecture on feminist criticism, Professor Paul Fry uses Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own as a lens to and commentary on the flourishing of feminist criticism in the twentieth century. The structure and rhetoric of A Room of One's Own is extensively analyzed, as are its core considerations of female novelists such as Austen, Eliot, and the Brontës. The works of major feminist critics, such as Ann Douglas, Mary Ellman, Kate Millett, Elaine Showalter, and Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, are mentioned. The logocentric approach to gender theory, specifically the task of defining female language as something different and separate from male language, is considered alongside Woolf's own endorsement of literary and intellectual androgyny.
In this lecture on feminist criticism, Professor Paul Fry uses Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own as a lens to and commentary on the flourishing of feminist criticism in the twentieth century. The structure and rhetoric of A Room of One's Own is extensively analyzed, as are its core considerations of female novelists such as Austen, Eliot, and the Brontës. The works of major feminist critics, such as Ann Douglas, Mary Ellman, Kate Millett, Elaine Showalter, and Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, are mentioned. The logocentric approach to gender theory, specifically the task of defining female language as something different and separate from male language, is considered alongside Woolf's own endorsement of literary and intellectual androgyny.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
