Postwar writing and the literature of the women's liberation movement.

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between both popular and scholarly writing about women in the postwar years 1946 to 1962, and the literature of the women's liberation movement written from 1963 to the early 1970s. The current feminist movement was particularly eager to discredit Freudian theories of female psychosexual maturation. This women's liberationist focus was entirely appropriate, since Freudian theories about women represented the last respectable academic prop upholding a dichotomous estimation of the socio-politico-economic potential of the sexes--i.e., sexism, as it has come to be called. Postwar scholarship had manifested a split perspective--that is, it was anti-Freudian and pro-feminist or pro-Freudian and anti-feminist. What is more, considerable academic writing about the "woman question" proposed an expanded role for females, advocating a point of view quite similar to that of contemporary feminists. In contrast, the popular literature--e.g., Life, Look, Ladies Home Journal, and the like--proposed only a Freudian (dichotomous) answer to the question, "What are the proper roles of the sexes?" While the findings with regard to popular writing are not too surprising, the extent of early scholarly support (i.e., prior to the women's liberation movement--roughly before 1963) for an expanded role for women was entirely anticipated.