"Many feminist critics of the 1970's accepted--and perhaps even required--a publication history that cast Gilman in the role of beleaguered heroine. Later feminist critics did not question their predecessors' work and lent their own authority to this history." Dock p 475
In Dock's essay, I found this quote that seems rather strange to me. Feminists actually required to know the background of Gilman to prove what? In the 70's did you have to prove you had been put in a negative situation such as Gilman to be able to write about it? Maybe I misinterpreted what Dock was saying, but it seemed as though Gilman was disrespected by females, which seems strange for feminists.
Did anyone else find this weird? Let me know what you think.
Go back to Dock