Thinking About Manifestos: The Personal is Political (Hanisch)

Thinking about the reading…

  • What is the debate Hanisch describes as “personal vs. political” actually about?
  • Why does she have a problem with the labels “therapy” and “personal”?
  • What does she have to say about “collective” actions and solutions? How do you understand this in the context of her writing this piece alone (as in, not written by a group of some sort)?
  • What does the term “liberated woman” mean to Hanisch?
  • Is this text theory? Why or why not?
  • What are the major areas of discussion/complaint in this text?
  • Is there a “call to action” in the text? If so, what is it? Is this an important part of the text?
  • What do you think is the most powerful line (or lines) in the text?

Beyond the reading…

  • This was written in the same historical moment as the “Redstockings Manifesto.” Are they concerned with the same things? Are there indicators that they come out of the same historical context? Do you think the authors would agree with each other?
  • Would you classify this as a Manifesto? Why or why not?
  • How does this text compare to “The Declaration of Sentiments and Reasons” by Elizabeth Cady Stanton? How does it compare to the “Redstockings Manifesto”?
  • In January 2006, the author wrote an “Introduction” to this piece that gives some background information and context. Does reading the introduction change our understanding of the original text? Does it matter if it does? Why wait until 2006 to write this follow-up?

Thinking About Manifestos: Introduction to Feminist Manifestos (Weiss)

Thinking about the reading…

  • Why is the first line of this reading so important? What question is Weiss answering by starting with “We know that we do not know about women’s lives to the extent we know about men’s” ?
  • What are the four things that Weiss claims that are often left out of histories written by men?
  • Why is collective authorship important?
  • Why is it important to make theory accessible to all?
  • Weiss defines feminist manifestos as “assertions of agency that function to establish working groups, build community, and direct joint actions and relationships…critical, oppositional pieces that make the marginalized more central and visible, suggest new ways of interpreting the familiar, and propose alternatives to it…creative, strategic, and theoretical political acts..factors in emancipation and social transformation” (3). What do you think of her definition?
  • Why does it matter that most manifestos we will discuss are grassroots?
  • Do these manifestos express expertise? Is expertise important?
  • Why are these documents considered feminist?

Beyond the reading…

  • Why are we starting off a class about Women Writers by looking at manifestos?
  • How do manifestos differ from fiction?
  • If all the manifestos we are reading are feminist and written by women, does that mean all the other fiction texts we will read that are written by women are also feminist? How do you know?