You may recall that I was a little confused about what exactly The New Freewoman stood for, politically--they seemed more individualist than feminist, per se. This second issue overtly addresses their platform, and it is exactly that: a materialist individualism. "Nothing that is not temporal is real," they write, countering claims that they were influenced by Buddhism in the strongest terms.
As far as their feminism goes, I hope to run it by some of my friends who know more about the intricacies of feminist theory--I'd like to see where it fits into the grand scheme of things. It is very interesting. "Woman" is, to them, a social construct: "If we take reproductive organs away from this concept Woman, what have we left? Nothing, save a mountain of sentimental mush..." (24). There's also a whiff of flat ontology, as they discourage readers from thinking of "women" as a category at all, and instead to deal with individual entities as complete identities. They take the opportunity to explode the concept of "Race" as well, along the same lines. Pretty cool stuff, no wonder everyone loves Dora Marsden (and no wonder they changed the name to The Egoist, which seems far more to the point than the somewhat misleading The New Freewoman."
Rebecca West contributes another great travel essay, titled Nana. It's an account of a burlesque show in Spain, very sexy, very progressive-feeling in its (hedged) depiction of a female lust for a female.
Also, Horace Holley keeps showing up. Not enough of a Wikipedia page to really tell who he is, but enough to surprise me--it's all about his following of Baha'i. Another character to add to the cast.
No comments:
Post a Comment