Lady S's "simple mind" wouldn't matter much if All Passion Spent (1931) were not considered a great early feminist treatise. As APS is often touted as the fictional companion to Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own**, many readers (myself included) expect Lady S to embrace feminism and excel at "masculine" pursuits. The introduction to my copy lists Lady S's denouncement of feminism and politics as the big disappointments of the book, and I was surprised to find I agreed (I found the introduction problematic, as I opine neither plot twists nor flaws should be discussed before a book is read. I should learn to skip introductions, although they fascinate me.) Lady S suddenly embracing economics, however, would not have worked with the story at all, so I think Vita Sackville-West knew what she was doing. The book, the last of the thoughtful fun books about women and their gardens given to me by my sister-in-law, (here, here and here) forwards feminist themes (that women are thinking creatures with desires of their own), without making any characters feminists. It's a good novel and much more readable than I remember A Room of One's Own being (probably because I prefer novels to essays as a general rule).
My reading of the book brought up questions I've toyed with many times in my life; "What is a feminist?" and "Why are people afraid of feminists?"
Just as I was surprised by Lady S's proclamation that she was no feminist, years ago I was shocked when I learned from my brother how much he disliked feminists. In both cases, it's clear that the others were not using the term the same way that I do. I don't know what "feminist" meant to upper-class Englishwomen in 1931, but to me it means one who is for equal rights and equal opportunity for women. My brother, who surreptitiously gave me advice about negotiating more liberal rules from my parents as a teenager, encouraged me in pursuit of a PhD in the sciences, and is proud that my niece is top of her class in math, falls under my definition of a feminist. He would be more of an activist than I would be if he learned that I was being payed less or not advancing in my career because of my gender. Yet he dislikes "feminists". The word must mean something different to him, and to Lady S., and to my fellow female biology professor who won't ever let a man park her horse trailer, but can't stand feminists and was shocked that I considered myself one.
So, what does feminist mean to you? and are you one?
*I'm writing this on someone else's computer in Colorado. I neither have access to my copy of the book nor willingness to learn how to open multiple windows and flip among them on this computer. Links and details may be added when I return home.
**Woolf and Sackville-West were friends and lovers.
Posts
5 comments:
My impression is that there are two very different creatures that share the title "feminist".
The first says, as you do, that the world would be a better place if men and women had equal rights and equal opportunities.
The second says that the world would be a better place if men did not exist.
There might be very few of that second kind in reality - or maybe that type of feminist is just a myth. But it's a persistent and popular myth. If you probe a little further, you will probably find that the people who say they don't like feminists are envisioning the second type.
I think there aren't really many feminists who would advocate getting rid of the male half of the human race, but there are probably enough that have been hostile towards men to build and feed the stereotype of the man-hating feminist.
I think part of the problem is that many people identify the word with second-wave feminists of the 70's (i.e. the "man haters"). Which is still an overstatement. I strongly identify with the 3rd wave. I like that the 3rd wave has made it okay to be a girl (e.g., knit, wear makeup, and like pink) but still care about the equality and rights of girls and women in the world. I am not as familiar with the 4th wave to really know what that's all about.
I am a feminist, and I would NEVER let a man park my horse trailer!!
I believe there are many, many kinds of feminism, not just one or two. To me, feminism is a political stance -- and there are countless shades & degrees of difference within that. Feminists love to argue with each other over what feminism means!
My favorite "definition" of feminism is: the many movements to end the institutional oppression of women. As it plays out in all arenas: political, domestic, economic, religious, etc.
I don't like the reliance on the concept of "equality" because first, not all men are equal (think about race, disability, or class background for instance), and second, the concept of equality doesn't mesh well with the concept of difference.
The feminism that I believe in recognizes the ways women face institutionalized sexism and looks for ways to combat these patterns of oppression without resorting to man-hating or trying to become dominant over another group.
This approach to feminism allows the feminist to work with others to end oppression of all kinds, without compromising her/his feminist views at all.
I agree that, sadly, there is a lot to dislike about some feminists and/or feminist myths. If only those bad examples didn't scare people away from a movement that still needs support.
I think Sackville-West actually tries to get the reader to think around the usual definitions. She presents us with an elderly lady who has, because of her age and social position, a great deal of freedom, and the reader is inclined to agree that she should enjoy that freedom. The question then becomes what the difference is between a woman of 80 and a woman of 20. Why does one get to live as she chooses and the other doesn't?
And how do women acquire their own liberty? This is not a case of society granting a woman liberty, but of a woman claiming it for herself. In fact, the one thing our heroine won't endure is people imposing their ideas on her.
It isn't a book about political organization, but it is about freedom. The larger suggestion is that women don't just need the right to vote (or other political rights), but the right to determine their own lives, to be fully realized human beings.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. While I had considered the "man-hating" connotations (and yes, I have a hard time believing that a productive movement was ever largely about hating men, but I know the idea of anti-men feminists persists), I hadn't given much thought to whether or not it is a political position.
Lady Slane was most definitely not political in her freedom, just as my brother is not political in his desires to see women succeed (although he would fiercely oppose any new institutional changes that were obviously anti-women).
Of course I am a member of Marieke's feminist movement, and appreciate her inclusive definitions.
MSiL reminds me that I did not do the book justice at all in this "review". I think the book totally succeeds if, almost 80 years later, it inspires a discussion of ideas. The concerns about age and personal liberty MSiL mentions are more directly what the book is about; I jumped to a generality in talking about "feminism" overall. I'd be happy to discuss some of the specifics with other readers of APS (Marieke, you should defintely read it and definitely visit Sissinghurst). MSiL and I will likely talk over Thanksgiving, although we are more prone to talk work (teaching) or food than ideas.
The annoying but possibly right-on intro in my book was written by Victoria Glendinning, by the way.
Post a Comment