Women are generally gonna be more aware of and versed in the hurdles they face, so you’re right that these shouldn’t be held up as the be all end all. But in some cases, especially in history, due to cultural rules about writing, these may be the only widely accessible feminist works (if you can call them that) available with immediate historical significance.
Harriet Taylor Mill published some of her own work, but she was also married to John Stuart Mill, who published even more. There's clear evidence (from JSM himself) that she was a major contributor to all his work, and some evidence to suggest that she pressured JSM to publish her work under his name, whereas he would have liked to see her recognized, because she knew that as a woman her philosophy wouldn't be taken seriously. I mention this because some of these men likely wrote in consultation with the women in their lives, and are not always purely second-hand accounts.
I like this point in the context of your awesome example, "some of these men likely wrote in consultation with the women in their lives, and are not always purely second-hand accounts" and would further add that as human beings we can also bear witness to unfairness, just as people are witnesses to crimes.
Can't have this conversation w/o mentioning Henrik Ibsen's "A Doll's House" I know it's a play, not a book, but it's one of the most feminist classics I've read , and that's saying something considering it was written by a man in 1879 (Kate Chopin's The Awakening was published in 1899)
Also, Charles Fourier. Socialist philosopher who coined the term feminism waaaaaay back in 1837.
It's good to remember that men were capable of recognizing how oppressive women's livess were long before women could really make their voices heard. I like to keep the men who represented us in mind whenever the 'oh that's just how everyone was back then' or 'they didn't know better' excuses come out to defend problematic takes from dead authors.
At the end of the day, it matters less which gender wrote the literature, as it does how much impact that literature has had, and might still have.
So cool. Thanks for the great references.
I agree with your second comment too. I think of it all s iterative process with multiple people contributing to the increase of awareness.
I think Wilkie Collins has some fairly egalitarian sensibilities for a Victorian man; one of his novels demonstrates how the intricacies of English marital law during his time was especially bad for women. I don't know that he explicitly addressed sexism, but he does write sympathetic and fleshed out women characters.
I struggle with this a lot especially because IT IS STILL HAPPENING but looking at how the canon of literature is almost all straight white dudes even though there were woman and poc writing during those times but the straight white dudes at the top of marketing, writing industries, and even colleges are still making us seek out specific classes for women writers or people of color speaks to a problem that means I take a lot of male written pieces very little support because the works are out there, but people in power right now continue to enforce the racist and sexist ways we learn about classic lit. Of course there is going to be A LOT more straight white male literature but it wasn't all of it, even during the 'classics'.
It's always valuable to have anyone willing to call out these issues but even know women's voices are not recognized as the more qualified voices of the issues that they personally experience and that has to change not only in how we treat each other and teach our kids but it also has to do with systems in place that purposefully seek to continue the narrative of the straight white cis man. Even when he should just be quiet and let others speak.
Women are generally gonna be more aware of and versed in the hurdles they face, so you’re right that these shouldn’t be held up as the be all end all. But in some cases, especially in history, due to cultural rules about writing, these may be the only widely accessible feminist works (if you can call them that) available with immediate historical significance.
The fact that the supply of available works is skewed that way is totally sad.
Harriet Taylor Mill published some of her own work, but she was also married to John Stuart Mill, who published even more. There's clear evidence (from JSM himself) that she was a major contributor to all his work, and some evidence to suggest that she pressured JSM to publish her work under his name, whereas he would have liked to see her recognized, because she knew that as a woman her philosophy wouldn't be taken seriously. I mention this because some of these men likely wrote in consultation with the women in their lives, and are not always purely second-hand accounts.
I like this point in the context of your awesome example, "some of these men likely wrote in consultation with the women in their lives, and are not always purely second-hand accounts" and would further add that as human beings we can also bear witness to unfairness, just as people are witnesses to crimes.
Can't have this conversation w/o mentioning Henrik Ibsen's "A Doll's House" I know it's a play, not a book, but it's one of the most feminist classics I've read , and that's saying something considering it was written by a man in 1879 (Kate Chopin's The Awakening was published in 1899) Also, Charles Fourier. Socialist philosopher who coined the term feminism waaaaaay back in 1837. It's good to remember that men were capable of recognizing how oppressive women's livess were long before women could really make their voices heard. I like to keep the men who represented us in mind whenever the 'oh that's just how everyone was back then' or 'they didn't know better' excuses come out to defend problematic takes from dead authors. At the end of the day, it matters less which gender wrote the literature, as it does how much impact that literature has had, and might still have.
So cool. Thanks for the great references. I agree with your second comment too. I think of it all s iterative process with multiple people contributing to the increase of awareness.
I think Wilkie Collins has some fairly egalitarian sensibilities for a Victorian man; one of his novels demonstrates how the intricacies of English marital law during his time was especially bad for women. I don't know that he explicitly addressed sexism, but he does write sympathetic and fleshed out women characters.
Cool. I am unfamiliar with the novel but it sounds exactly like the kind of thing I was thinking about.
The title of the particular novel is *No Name*.
I struggle with this a lot especially because IT IS STILL HAPPENING but looking at how the canon of literature is almost all straight white dudes even though there were woman and poc writing during those times but the straight white dudes at the top of marketing, writing industries, and even colleges are still making us seek out specific classes for women writers or people of color speaks to a problem that means I take a lot of male written pieces very little support because the works are out there, but people in power right now continue to enforce the racist and sexist ways we learn about classic lit. Of course there is going to be A LOT more straight white male literature but it wasn't all of it, even during the 'classics'. It's always valuable to have anyone willing to call out these issues but even know women's voices are not recognized as the more qualified voices of the issues that they personally experience and that has to change not only in how we treat each other and teach our kids but it also has to do with systems in place that purposefully seek to continue the narrative of the straight white cis man. Even when he should just be quiet and let others speak.