Who-Stole-Feminism.-How-Women-Have-Betrayed-Women

70 WHO STOLE FEMINISM?labus" desires to show . . . culture, not as a static and immobilestructure, but as a kinetic series of processes, in which various forcesoften compete and clash. However, a student must have a certainsecurity in order to appreciate diversity. ... To help create thatsense of stability and security for U.S. students . . . my . . . collegecurriculum starts with a linear narrative about America's own weird,complex history. . . . For example, when the narrative shuttles towardsthe seventeenth century, it could stop at four texts: NativeAmerican myths, legends and rituals; the 1637-38 trials of AnneHutchinson; the poems of Anne Bradstreet. . . and finally, the narrativeof Mary Rowlandson, issued in 1682, about her capture byNative Americans during the liberation struggle of 1676. 58Stimpson gives us an idea of how one could correct the standardmasculinist narratives with their endless discussion of "explorers,""founding fathers," and the Constitution—none of which figure in Sampson'sversion of American studies.Among my novels would be Stars in My Pocket like Grains of Sand.. . . Like many contemporary speculative fictions, Stars in My Pocketfinds conventional heterosexuality absurd. The central figures aretwo men, Rat Korga and Marq Dyeth, who have a complex, butecstatic, affair. Marq is also the proud product of a rich "nurturestream." His ancestry includes both humans and aliens. His geneticheritage blends differences. In a sweet scene, he sees three of hismothers.Stimpson knows her curriculum will be criticized. But she is lightheartedlydefiant: "If my curriculum seems to yowl like a beast of relativism,I find this cause for cheer. . . . My reconstructive project affirms thatrelativism is no beast but a goon that will nurture a more democratic, amore culturally literate, and yes, a brainier university."We can let Stimpson's talk of a "coherent curriculum" and "brainieruniversity" fall of its own weight. Other transformationists have not beenso forthcoming about where they are taking the academy—and we cansee why. As it happens, I have met Ms. Stimpson at several recent conferencesand found her to be more moderate and sensible than she appearsto have been in 1988. Nevertheless, her views of the eighties cast light onthe predicament of universities in the nineties. Many courses of the kindStimpson dreamed of are now in place, and the campaign against "patriarchal"culture and scholarship is unabated.