I’ve made some changes to my Fall 2008 women’s history syllabus, dumping the textbook and going entirely with trade paperbacks. Six books total, but with a cost savings to my students of some $30 over this semester, and no increase in the overall number of pages assigned. I’ve taken seriously the charge to be more inclusive in the way in which I teach the intersectionality of race and class with gender history; it’s my hope that this reading list reflects the next step on that road. Implementing these books — particularly Andrea Smith’s Conquest — will be a considerable pedagogical challenge for me, but a necessary one.
First Generations: Women in Colonial America , Carol Berkin (1997)
The Body Project, Joan Brumberg (1997)
A History of U.S. Feminisms, Rory Dicker (2008)
Full Frontal Feminism, Jessica Valenti (2007)
Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, Andrea Smith (2005)
The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood (1985)
Three of the six books come from small, independent presses like Southend and Seal. I’m delighted to direct my money — and that of my students — towards publishing houses run by and for feminists.
This updating of the syllabus has been overdue, and I’m excited to see what comes of it. I teach four sections of women’s history a year, with a total of over 200 students; I will share their feedback as it becomes available.
What exactly is the class you teach? It’s hard for me to imagine how Full Frontal Feminism and Women in Colonial America can coexist in the same syllabus.
My understanding (I haven’t read it) is that FFF is not a history book, a historical work of any importance or some sort of off-the-beaten-path diamond in the rough.
I was somewhat confused about your hand-wringing over FFF vs. Conquest for this reason. FFF seems out of place even in a class devoted solely to the history of Feminism, let alone the history of women in general.
It’s “Women in American Society”, the only intro women’s studies/history course on the entire campus — it’s sweepingly multi-disciplinary.
I see. Still not really sure how FFF fits in there but I suppose I’m in no position to judge.
On a vaguely related note I recently read “A Very Dangerous Woman: Martha Wright and Women’s Rights.” It was pretty interesting in that Martha Wright’s voice is very modern, snarky, blunt and sarcastic.
I am glad that you dumped Through Women’s Eyes. It was a bore, and I didn’t really read that much of it. It was the only book I returned at the end of the semester, too. I will check out the books you included in your syllabus and add them to my “to read” list.
I’m interested in knowing how you decided to include a science fiction book, written by a Canadian author about a dystopian future in a fictional Republic of Gilead, in a history course about Women in American Society?
I wasn’t a huge fan of Through Women’s Eyes, but I did read most of it and still sometimes use it as a reference. I’m glad you’re keeping the Handmaid’s Tale. More people need to read it.
Like Full Frontal Feminism, a big emphasis in the course seems to be the accessibility of the material–appropriate in an introductory course, I think. The Handmaid’s Tale is very much feminist science fiction, and offers a lot to discuss in a much less forbidding form than a lot of feminist literature.
I am happy to see that The Handmaid’s Tale will remain on your reading list. It was one of my favorite books in your class, and I’ve read it two or three times since and reccomended it to several freinds.
I think the book really serves as proof for why classes like yours are relevant and crucial to women and men today; for Atwood’s potrayal of what the world could be really doesn’t seem so impossible sometimes…
I’ve got to say, looking at the list the only one I’d suggest changing is the Handmaid’s Tale. Not that it isn’t a good book, but it seems like a bit of an odd choice. It also just sort of bugs me that it’s the default “gender distopia” novel when there’s so many other great feminist sci-fi writers like Ursula K. Leguin and Marge Piercey. A lot of Atwood’s poetry is really awesome too, and would be less reading for your students than the Handmaid’s tale.
Mind you, It’s your class, and I’m sure your decision to use the Handmaid’s tale makes sense in the context of it, but I’d really suggest checking out some other feminist science fiction as well if you feel the course needs a fiction component.
Folks, I use Handmaid’s Tale because it shows remarkable resilience — it doesn’t read “dated” in a way that I think Piercy does. (I used “Woman on the Edge of Time” for a year or two — it didn’t work.) My crucial issue in the class is body autonomy, and THT works through the rich complexity of that perfectly.
I also blinked when I saw the Handmaid’s Tale in a history syllabus, seeing as it’s ostentatiously about a possible future rather than the past. This looks like a fun reading list.
But please, people, stop referring to the Handmaid as science fiction. There is nothing sci fi about it! I can’t fathom how it ever got miscategorised like that. Maybe fantasy, at a stretch..
The Handmaid’s Tale is classic science fiction because it is a story based on a setting in the future with an alternative time line for it history. Fantasy has fantastic elements such as magic or mythological creatures; for example, Ursula Le Guin’s Earthsea books are classic fantasy.
I am not suggesting Margaret Atwood did not write an excellent story. As a writer, she should be included with other greats that I have read, such as: Ursula Le Guin, Octavia Butler, Marion Zimmer Bradley, C. J. Cherryh, Sheri Tepper, Cecilia Tan, Elizabeth Lynn, Diane Duane, Tanith Lee, and Anne McCaffrey.