Précis
The ‘Manifesto of
futurist woman’ was, in my opinion a failed attempt at a response to
Marinetti’s misogynistic futurist manifesto. I say failed because it did not
succeed in correcting or opposing anything that he wrote, which is something I
deeply desired from this piece.
At first, she
states that, “humanity is mediocre. The
majority of women are neither superior nor inferior to the majority of men.
They are equal”. I could get behind this; I truly wish that her entire argument
defended this statement. Unfortunately, she only brings this up to talk about
how, because men and women are equally pathetic, is the woman’s role to be
stronger, so that she can support the man and also give birth to and raise
fiercer men.
I believe that the
thesis of this manifesto is the part where Saint point states, “woman who
retains man through her tears and her sentimentality is inferior to the
prostitute who incites her man, through bragger, to retain his domination over
the lower depths of the cities with his revolver at the ready: at least she
cultivates energy that could serve better causes”. She claims that
sentimentalism is a weakness and that there is at least strength in lust
because it helps in rejuvenating passion, which is why, for heroes, women are
the most magnificent “trophy”. She goes on to talk about how women cannot be
both ‘real’ mothers and ‘real’ lovers at the same time due to the excessive
nature of each role. She says that women
should not keep trying to domesticate men or keep them away from danger and adventure
for her own personal, maternal needs but instead, “when you have to use your
weapons, she will polish them”. Saint Point believes that it is the duty of the
women to give up their maternal instincts and emotional requirements for the
greater good, which in her opinion is, to make men stronger war heroes and she
believes that women owe it to humanity to do so.
1 comment:
Strictly speaking, your third paragraph is where the real precis action is. In this third, and longest, paragraph you identify what you take to be the thesis of the piece (and I think your choice is an illuminating one, not necessarily the conventional one at all) then take up the part of Saint-Point's argument in which she supports this thesis.
But I wonder if your choice does not really cause you to leave out too much that is going on in the piece as a whole. For one thing, there is an anticipation of the argument (and even some of the literal phrasing) of the later Manifesto of Lust happening, and all that business about disruption. Saint-Point's evocation of Messalina and Corday and so on to re-figure "femininity" into a futurist force of "lovers" connected to eugenic "smashing of the fragile" is fraught on so many levels -- quite apart from its evil awfulness in more ways than one, this is more than eschewal of masculine exemplars but resistance to masculinity-as-mastery. The effort to re-cast motherhood from a debilitating malady to the ferocious creation of an army of resisters is a powerful one, even if one might prefer an army resisting different things than Italian Futurists tended to do.
I would also have liked to see what you had to say about the bolded phrase at the heart of the manifesto: "IT ISN'T NECESSARY TO GIVE WOMEN ANY OF THE RIGHTS DEMANDED BY FEMINISM. TO ACCORD THEM THESE RIGHTS WOULDN'T PRODUCE ANY OF THE DISORDERS SOUGHT BY THE FUTURISTS, BUT ON THE CONTRARY WOULD BRING ABOUT AN EXCESS OF ORDER." Although there are questions whether Saint-Point's interventions in futurism are themselves anti-futurist, here is it clear that she is affiliating with futurists over feminists (who would bring about an excess of order). And to the extent that there is a kind of feminist project here it is subordinated to futurist "disorders" first of all. Needless to say, "disorder" has human faces, and it is no wonder you are enraged at what is getting left out in all this techno-disruptive futurological enthusiasm.
I was most moved by your first two paragraphs, even if strictly speaking they are not contributing to your straightforward recounting of Saint-Point's argument. And that's when you begin with the admission that you think the piece fails to do what it wants and that this is disappointing to you because you wanted it to succeed in demolishing the Marinetti piece to which it is responding. And I like that despite your frustration you then turn in the essay to that place in which you find something you might nonetheless make use of, the idea that, as things are, men and women are all equally mediocre. Perhaps you would not mean by mediocrity quite what Saint-Point does, but you want to enlist something of that formulation in the service of sense if you can anyhow. That feels very real to me as a fellow reader. Of course, to really grapple with your (very reasonable) disappointment with Marinetti and Saint-Point you would have to put them into an explicit dialogue and critique them together -- something much too ambitious for the scope of a precis assignment! As is, clear writing, strong thinking, interesting intervention. Good work.
Post a Comment