Femenist reading of IV

[Mark Kohut]

nprscottsimon    Annette Bening coming up. Appearing in "feminist farce" on LA stage. 

--- 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, 11:27 PM
> I don't see Puck as a threat to male
> dominance and control - he beats a woman up and puts her in
> the hospital.  If Pynchon's intention is to show that
> gay men don't fit into stereotypical girly behavior, then he
> succeeds.  But the gay psychopath has become a stock
> villain type, in film, anyway.  I don't see that the
> characterization serves the gay community any better than
> the femme fatale or power bitch upgrades the image of
> women.
> 
> That IV isn't feminist doesn't mean it's sexist.  It
> means it's not feminist (which puts it in good
> company).  Similarly, a book that's not Marxist isn't
> necessarily capitalist.
> 
> Laura
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
> >Sent: Feb 19, 2010 7:02 PM
> >To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> >Subject: Re: Femenist reading of IV
> >
> >Laura,
> >
> >What do you make of the homosexual males in IV? Gay men
> are a threat
> >to male dominance and control. In IV, homophobia,
> against Lesbians and
> >Homosexual Males is rooted in sexism. If one of P's
> major themes is
> >betrayal, homosexual males are "betrayers" of the
> patriarch or of male
> >dominance and control and therefore must be either
> imprisoned or
> >exterminated. To impose a heterosexual male, rigid code
> of behavior on
> >all males is dehumanizing. It seems to me that IV also
> addresses this
> >kind of dehumanization in IV. So, IV is a work about
> sexual freedom
> >and equality. That this make sense?
> >
> >On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:17 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >> 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
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> 
>