Feminist Re-reading of Henry Jamess Washington Square :: Henry James Washington Square

An Inappropriate Feminist Re- information of Henry crowds capital of the United States SquareThe article Re-producing pile is a defense of the feminist perspective in regards to Henry Jamess Washington Square. The article discusses the point of truth in words. Stating just now (in a devious way) that the readers interpretation and perspective of reading the novel determines their understanding of the truth. The author Barbara Rasmussen, states that another(prenominal) critic, Ian Bells perspective of Henry Jamess writing exploits the ideological equipment of that which it opposes patriarchal capitalism (63). However, her only point seems to be that in Ian Bells criticism as well as in Washington Square, the writing is completely phallic, capitalistic, and patriarchal.In defending the reading of Washington Square and Ian Bells critical essays, from a feminist perspective, Rasmussen believes that it can channel the way one sees these writings. She seems to retrieve that Jamess a nd Bells writings both depend on a phallocentric exclusion of difference, but will themselves be just as complicitin the face of patriarchal inadequacies (66). Yet, this seems to be the contradiction that poses as the normal project of a feminist re-reading of American Literature.This article was hard to read. Rasmussen was a bit roundabout at getting to her point, and once I eventually figured out what she was saying, I didnt really care. I personally think that Rasmussen is a sexist woman with an over-rated opinion She attacks both Bell and James and unjustly signifies that because the writings are from a male perspective, they are themselves sexist and phallocentric. She also implies that the feminist perspective, which she uses as no more than a backup under which she can vent her own sexist attitude, is of crucial sizeableness in reading Jamess Washington Square and Bells perspectives. She believes that since she reads from the feminist perspective, she has more challenges and undertakings to do and deal with because of Jamess and Bells use of phallic relations.One must not, however, take Rasmussen seriously. I felt that she was writing to please herself, and others like her who think that it is unjust, and sexist to drop a line in a patriarchal manner. However, Washington Square was scripted in 1880 and was very much a patriarchal time. So of course, it would have been written in that perspective, especially since it was written by a man.