I was originally drawn to the book because I knew little of Paterson compared to other figures within the individualist feminist/libertarian movement of the Progressive Era through to WWII. Sadly, Paterson has remained undeserved obscure and known primarily for the classic"God Of The Machine." The reason? At least partly because she needed a concerted scholar who was willing to read volumes of (perhaps) antiquated novels to sort through their characterizations and themes for patterns. But much more than this, it was necessary to plough through an ocean of old newsprint which concealed the columns where Paterson's unfiltered voice spoke and where her opinions were concealed. Admittedly, the extraordinarily long-lived, influential column on literary news and criticism that she wrote for the Herald Tribune is probably now available on microfiche or microfilm. But is that an improvement for the scholar's eyesight or enjoyment? (I remember many evenings when I had to back away from researching Benjamin Tucker simply because reading Liberty on microfiche was too visually taxing.) Fortunately, Cox did the hard and thankless work to make this woman emerge.

The book is also remarkable because the biographer is uniquely suited to understand the subject matter; that is to say, Paterson required a biographer with an intimate knowledge not merely of radical individualism but also of literary principles/history. The portrait of Paterson as a literary critic and theorist is the real gift to me. Although the book does not yet use the phrase"art for art's sake" -- I am only 1/2 way through -- Paterson seems to be a fellow traveller if not an outright advocate of an aesthetic tradition that I've always found compelling: art for art's sake.

As I read"The Woman and the Dynamo", I continue to ponder a question that has haunted me for years. Why did and does the libertarian movement -- or radical individualism in general -- not celebrate and embrace its fiction writers in the same manner the Left did. Upton Sinclair, Lillian Hellman, Max Eastman, John Steinbeck, Sinclair Lewis...these writers and many more on the Left had a dramatic impact on the culture and politics of their day and -- at least from an historical distance -- they seem to have been treated as intellectuals on the same level as university professors, policy analysts, political aspirants/agitators, and such. It cannot be because libertarians are unaware of the power of novels; so many of us were inspired toward radical individualism by the novels of Ayn Rand who remains almost the sole exception to the movement's neglect of fiction writers. The many other fine writers in our tradition have been given little recognition by the movement proper; even those who have achieved high success in their own fields, as Heinlein has achieved fame in SF, do not receive anything but a passing nod and sometimes a snicker from those who say they wish to spread libertarian ideas. Have we become elitist?

Over the years, I have evolved several answers, some or all of which may be true depending on the circumstances involved. But, with reference to Paterson, the question arises in the form: has this women been ignored by libertarian history partly because so much of her legacy is fiction and literary criticism/theory? Frankly, I don't know.

For more commentary, please see McBlog.

For more commentary, please see McBlog.

Also Rose Mary Woods, ex-President Nixon's secretary, has died. Woods infamously erased 18-minutes worth of conversation from key White House tapes subpoenaed by the Senate on the Watergate scandal. By accident (as she claimed) or through loyalty to Nixon (as critics allege)? The answer to that query and to what was in the erased gap has died with Woods. I wonder if anyone attempted to interview Woods before her death? The blogspot Scylla & Charybdis provides interesting commentary.

For more commentary from McElroy, please see McBlog.

Long explains,"The phrase ["lavender-menacing"] is explictly introduced in our paper to pick out the rhetorical strategy of"[dividing] the feminist world ... into the 'reasonable' (that is, unthreatening) feminists and the feminists who are 'hysterical' or 'man-hating' (so, presumably, not worthy of rational response)." This strategy we chose to call, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the"Lavender Menace" approach. We also said explicitly that McElroy and Taylor show" considerably more understanding of, and sympathy with, classical feminist concerns than the anti-feminists who employ this strategy" -- in other words, we were not atempting to lump them in with anti-feminists or lesbian-baiters?"

Nevertheless, the essay goes on to repeatedly make such statements as,"In her more recent writings, McElroy seems to have grown more committed and more wide-reaching in her use of Lavender Menace politics." Similar statements are made of Joan Kennedy Taylor's work. The clear message is that Joan and I are homophobic and that a key to our work is to view it as an expression of homophobia as a reaction to the Lavender Menace. I have already pointed out this utterly false and the opposite of what is true. Both Joan and I have argued consistently over decades for the toleration of all adult sexual choices.

As Johnson states in his response to my HNN post, the origin of the term"Lavendar Menace" is"Betty Friedan's attack on...lesbianism within the movement." The term now has an established meaning within feminism as an aggressively homophobic reaction to lesbians or gays in general. To use it in a manner that differs from its established usage is like calling Joan and I"anti-semites" then adding"but we don't mean they are anti-Jewish."

If Long and Johnson do not consider the homophobia message to be accurate -- and I appreciate both of them saying it is not -- then the error can be corrected as they would any other inaccuracy in an essay. The references with regard to Joan and to me on this point can be changed, especially in the online version or an unpublished one. Or, better yet, you can substitute a term without an established meaning that does not run counter to what you are trying to express about Joan and me.

The"solution" of putting a footnote that"takes back" the homophobic accusations in the text is not a solution at all. For several reasons, including... First, the text is what will be quoted and excerpted, almost certainly without the footnotes. The reputations of Long and Johnson will continue to be put behind the argument to the world that Joan and I are homophobes. Second, many readers do not refer to the footnotes. Third, the situation is similar to a newspaper announcing a crime in front page headlines and, then, issuing a retraction at the bottom of page 12. Fourth, the stain of the established meaning will certainly wipe off anyway and dirty the reputations of Joan and me. Fifth, if the footnote's purpose is to contradict the text, why not just change the text?

For those outside feminism, this may seem to be a tempest in teapot. You should understand that the accusation of homophobia within feminism if believed can severely damage careers and literally ruin reputations. A parallel situation would be if the accusation of anti-semitism were hurled at a journalist writing on the Middle East.

As I said, I do not know how to react because I do not know what will happen next. If Long and Johnson apologize on this small, comparatively private/obscure forum yet continue to publish the same accusations about Joan and me to the wider world...then I don't consider it a closed matter.

The statement has been poorly received. For one thing, why is a foreign ambassador announcing to the press what Canadian military policy will be? Especially when the Canadian PM continues to declare to all-and-sundry within hearing range that no decision has been reached? Martin rushed to inform reporters,"No such assurances were given."

It is a particularly sticky issue as Martin promised in his Oct. 5 Throne Speech to open Parliament to debate on the issue before signing on with the States. No such debate has occurred.

Canadian politics is a complex balancing act with at least four players who must constantly watch each other for reactions. The Liberals under Martin are in power but they constitute a minority government, which must look to Quebec for support or risk losing office. The Conservatives generally back the anti-missile defense system but they are bristling at not being consulted...indeed, at not even being shown the terms of an agreement into which Canada has -- perhaps -- already entered. The New Democratic Party (more left than the liberals) is adamantly opposed to the program as is the Bloc Quebecois and most of Quebec itself.

Nevertheless, sneaking the anti-missile program past Parliament at the last minute would probably have worked since the Conservatives would not have blocked it, and they're the only ones with sufficient numbers to act as a brick wall if they joined with other factions. But the prospect of easy, sneaky passage has been rendered more difficult by Celluci's statements. First, everyone is irritated at the US announcing Canadian foreign policy. Second, everyone is suspicious of Martin and his motives. Third, even politicians who agree with the plan are enraged at being kept in ignorance about it.

What on earth was Celluci thinking of? If there is/was a covert deal sliding through, then he's doing the best he can to jeopardize it.

For more commentary, please see McBlog.