(no subject)
Feminist analysis is a trap. An easy trap to fall into, especially when one is an English major, or even a liberal arts major in general. Look at the works of a man and how he describes a woman (or women) and claim that he is a masogonist...when in reality he has no clue how to write women and the women that have been in his life do not give him eough to make three-dimensional woman. Look at Freudian concepts, and claim the artist is having Oedipal desires, or castration anxiety about women.
When one looks at female artists, everything turns to women's powers, especially female sexual prowess. Water, earth, grass, flowers, sea-creatures, all of nature is woman. All concerns her sexuality and her dealings in the over-bearing patriarchy of man.
If a male critic claims that the heroine of a novel, written by a woman, holding up a giant phallic symbol means that the author has penis-envy, the feminists hiss. Women of course never have penis-envy, men envy our power to give life, and wish that they could.
To perform a completely feminist analysis is a trap that I wish to avoid. It is tempting because it is easy.
When one looks at female artists, everything turns to women's powers, especially female sexual prowess. Water, earth, grass, flowers, sea-creatures, all of nature is woman. All concerns her sexuality and her dealings in the over-bearing patriarchy of man.
If a male critic claims that the heroine of a novel, written by a woman, holding up a giant phallic symbol means that the author has penis-envy, the feminists hiss. Women of course never have penis-envy, men envy our power to give life, and wish that they could.
To perform a completely feminist analysis is a trap that I wish to avoid. It is tempting because it is easy.