Femenist reading of IV

[kelber at mindspring.com]

There are different types of feminism (endlessly debated among academics), but what I mean when I use the word is a critique or outlook that asks:  how does what exists effect women?  How can we change things to make life more equitable for women?  Are the things I myself do helpful or harmful to other women?

Some women arrive at this theoretically, others from a gut level.  An aspect of this sort of feminism is trying to be aware of the situation of women:  are there women represented here in equal numbers?  WHy or why not?  How do men (and women) distort the image of women to control them?

There's a distorted view of feminism that was created in response to the resurgent feminism of the early 70s:  the rich, powerful bitch AS feminist.  This encompasses Penny (in IV) as well as Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, progressive political leaders like Kenya's Wangari Maathai, and Sarah Palin.  It pretends admiration at how strong and powerful these women are, while irrevocably branding them as manipulative bitches, regardless of their politics or place in the world.  Subtle but effective for keeping women in their place.  Then there are femme fatale types like Shasta who manipulate men with sex.  In short, the image of a strong woman can contain its own negation, when used by the powers that be.  And while some may see IV as a critique of all this, I think it's a failed critique at best.  At worst, it's more of the same old crap about women.

You can say that sexually liberated stewardii are some sort of precursor of feminism.  But then so are wife-beaters, because they presage the need for feminists to come together to create battered women's shelters.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Feb 19, 2010 12:52 PM
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org, kelber at mindspring.com
>Subject: Re: Femenist reading of IV
>
>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
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> 
>
>
>