Hi Alison,
>But it seems to me that Greer is implicitly addressing and critiquing a
>different kind of feminism to that Howe (in my reading at least) is
>invoking.
Yes, I'm sure that's right, but it was only the few moments where certain
directions of Greer's come parallel with Susan Howe, of the kind you
highlight in the two quotes, that I meant, & nothing more, certainly not an
intersection between the two, or any substantial overlap, even when they
both write about the same authors. And at those points, it's possible, I
think, to make the leap out from Greer's narrow parameters into the more
expansive ones of Howe.
I was just comparing what they both say about Elizabeth B - and again there
are these points of parallel, but Greer is always implying a determinstic
model of necessary aggression as survival, which is why, I guess, she feels
it's fine to elide, to dismiss with silence, because that's what, in her
view, male academics have done & do & must do
no wonder Greer doesn't like Christine De Pizan - who suggests (in the Book
of the City of Ladies) we read misogynist texts according to a rule of
antiphrasis, as shining praise -
Best,
Edmund
|