Femenist reading of IV

[Mark Kohut]

I am trying to find a feminist (that so hard to define concept) principle, part of the 2nd wave feminist agenda in the empowerment of women in the sixties. Not just reducing women (or feminism) to sexual assertiveness, but in IV, we have those career women in the D.A.s office....Shasta, budding actress (does this count?)....

No, there are no feminists in this work as there were at the time.......
Doc knows none, it seems....has those slacker 'friends' [slacker is anachronous, I know)......

compare to Oedipa, wife caught in the tower until her quest starts......

compare to housewives in Mailer's, Updike's, many lesser writers' fictions 
of the time. Or JC Oates for that matter. 

--- On Fri, 2/19/10, kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> From: kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: Femenist reading of IV
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 11:07 AM
> There may be an overlap between
> lesbianism and feminism, but it's not as great as one might
> think.  There were real feminists out there in the 60s
> and 70s, but they're not portrayed in IV.  Reducing
> feminism to sexual assertiveness is kind of insulting. 
> And sure, bad girls (and guys) are more interesting than
> good guys(and girls), but that doesn't imply any feminist
> underpinnings.  The femme fatale (whether she wins or
> loses) is a sexist stereotype.
> 
> Laura
> 
> (in rant mode because I'm pre-caffeinated)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
> >Sent: Feb 19, 2010 9:39 AM
> >To: Robin Landseadel <robinlandseadel at comcast.net>
> >Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
> >Subject: Re: Femenist reading of IV
> >
> >though I have some minor quibbles (are we equating
> feminist markers with
> >pussy eating?-that sounds weird to me), I would admit
> that Shasta is the
> >most intriguing character in the book. Doc is a tool
> (not that kinda tool,
> >well maybe a little bit) for more interesting folks
> like Coy (but less than
> >Shasta) he's not that great an observer, having Shasta
> nail him with that
> >you all wanted to be cops spiel. e.g. (just like I
> think Frenesi is alot
> >more interesting than Zoyd--maybe Pynchon wanted to
> give the gals a break
> >after Frenesi and Lake--Shasta seems more with it,
> together, than the other
> >two)
> >
> >On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Robin Landseadel
> <
> >robinlandseadel at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Have to say i more or less agree with "He Who
> Would Be Alice."
> >>
> >> "Inherent Vice" is just overloaded with feminist
> markers—Ida Lupino and the
> >> "Pussy Eater's Special" among others—little
> subplots that actively address
> >> feminist themes. Of course there is a fair bit of
> Russ Meyer in the mix in
> >> Vineland and to a lesser but similar extent, in
> IV. It's a little hard to
> >> get these two particular conceptual frameworks to
> jibe together in a single
> >> mind, but there you are.
> >>
> >> Not that I'm an Anti-Semenist, mind you.
> >>
> >> Next up: Feminist readings of R. Crumb . . .
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 18, 2010, at 7:29 PM, alice wellintown
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Well, you have to dive a little deeper into
> that muff. This stuff
> >>> ain't floating on the surface.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:21 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> more like a Semenist reading in my book
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:36 PM, alice
> wellintown
> >>>> <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps nothing Pynchon has written to
> date  . . .
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>  http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/61/61womeninprison.html
> >>>>
> >>>
>