Reviews for Feminist readings of Native American literature

The average rating for Feminist readings of Native American literature based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-07-11 00:00:00 Timothy Dunn I'll start by saying that I was very happy to discover this book exists. Having recently read my first Rand book, The Fountainhead, I was struck by the author's host of admirable qualities: her intelligence, conviction and accomplishments despite a cultural climate not friendly to women or atheists. I was also fascinated with her high exultation of masculine virtues and thinly veiled disgust for all things feminine. And then there's Rand's sexual ideals-- violent and man-worshipping, but revolutionary in their time for their absence of shame and focus on the deeply felt passion and satisfaction of both parties. So there's a wealth of material for feminist inquiry in Rand's work, and I'm glad that at least a few academics decided to explore it. As acknowledged in the introduction, there is little crossover between Ayn Rand's followers and feminist theorists, so the pool of contributors is small and not representative of either camp. But there are some gems. Barbara Branden's opening musings on Rand as a woman with tremendous intellectual and (hetero)sexual energy illuminates the frustrations of Rand's personal life and the ways these were channelled in her writing. Rand's actual sexuality and conceptual writing about sex and romance form the subjects of many essays in the book, but I'd say Wendy McElroy's is by far the best. McElroy seems to be the only contributor that recognizes "rough sex" as a valid preference for women, instead of an example of poor victimized women internalizing their oppression. Another big topic for contributors is the relationship of individualism to feminism, and in this, most opinions are more subtle and nuanced. Joan Kennedy Taylor seems to be the modern poster-child of individualist feminism, but other writers contribute thoughtful ideas. Unfortunately, I waited too long to write this review and the writers are all starting to blur together. If anyone is looking for analysis of Rand's depiction of the body from a feminist perspective-- which I could probably write my own book on, if I had the discipline-- unfortunately, you won't find it. This is my one real bone to pick with Rand. I can appreciate her individualist preaching, her love of masculine virtue and violent sex, and even dismiss her condemnation of homosexuals and designation of femininity as "hero worship" as products of her unique personality and historic context, but her insistence that virtuous characters must possess angular bodies irritates me to no end. The implications of this (mind eclipsing body in spiritual importance, despite Rand's wholehearted celebration of sex as a spiritual experience) is basically unexplored. The closest we get is Barry Vacker's essay, Skyscrapers, Supermodels, and Strange Attractors: Ayn Rand, Naomi Wolf, and the Third Wave Aesthos, which unsuccessfully cites Wolf's and Rand's WILDLY DIFFERENT ideas to make a case for a new kind of aesthetic of art, not bodies. As for the worst the collection has to offer, I would avoid Susan Love Brown's Ayn Rand: The Woman Who Would Not Be President for using weak "party-line" arguments that basically amount to "feminism says oppression of women is bad and Ayn Rand thinks women should be oppressed." Unfortunately, a lot of essays use this kind of argument, citing sources like Susan Brownmiller as major evidence of their case (I love you, Brownmiller, but you are not subtle and cannot acknowledge shades of gray, as evidenced by your own contribution, an excerpt of 1975's Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, here titled Ayn Rand: A Traitor to Her Own Sex.) The only essay that I was not able to finish, however, was Valerie Loiret-Prunet's, not because I necessarily disagreed with her idea, but because it is one of the longest, driest, and least relevant essays I have ever seen. In conclusion, this collection is spotty in quality and lacks the range of topics and voices that it would ideally have. But it raised some interesting ideas and is one of very few feminists texts I know of since the 70s that acknowledges the strengths of individualist thought. And I must admit, I stole a lot of "works cited" for my own reading list.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-04-11 00:00:00 Sajay Sharma This was a lot of fun, and it somewhat rekindled my old flame for Atlas Shrugged even as it confirmed my basic dislike for the Fountainhead. I never did read We the Living. As with any multi-author collection, this volume has good and bad elements. Barbara Branden's contribution humanizes Ayn Rand with a really powerful grace. It's good that the book begins with this. Another favorite was Karen Michalson's Who is Dagny Taggart?, which makes a persuasive case for Dagny as a feminist hero. Michalson draws attention to Rand's use of clever inversion in three superficially sexist or misogynistic scenes (Francisco slapping Dagny, Dagny acquiring and donning the Rearden Metal bracelet, and Dagny performing domestic work for John Galt) that, in context and with the particular construals of the characters, reveal enlightened feminist ideas. In each case, the sexist trope (abuse by a man, wearing jewelry from a man, and domestic work for a man) involve Dagny acting with self-respect according to her own rationally chosen values. I also appreciated Sharon Presley's essay on Rand and individualist feminism. One concern I often have with libertarian feminists is that they often only discuss feminists from a century or more ago, leaving one puzzled as to whether they find anything of value in modern feminist thought. But Presley engages thoughtfully with Carol Gilligan and her ethics of care, finding (correctly, in my view) that there is a synthesis possible with care ethics and individualist values, and that a healthy individualism is pro-social. This is a fun book to read for anyone interested in feminism who has read a little bit of Rand, whether you love or hate her or, like me, are decidedly ambivalent.