342 /Dorothy Chansky dated and exclusionary,asexual,and monolithic4-have remained relevant to theatre practitioners and performance analysts with feminist goals.By performance,I mean both the performance of scripted roles and plays and something more like what Erving Goffman called the presentation of self in everyday life.For actresses and other famous women,these two come together in unavoidable ways.In theatre qua theatre,academic criticism and theory of the 1980s and 1990s worked powerfully against granting cred- ibility to the sort of feminist work that could claim Friedan and her thinking as a direct influence.5 A concern for the constructedness of gender and intervention against the suppression or outright discrediting of lesbian sensibility led to a school of criticism that rarely addressed mainstream plays except to discount their value to progressive feminism.s Meanwhile,however,audiences for both experimental and traditionally constructed feminist theatre enjoyed work that materialist critics wrote off as either liberal(read too invested in the status quo)or cultural(read too willing to trade the patriarchy for a matriarchy and to see motherhood as women's main commonality) and,in any case,insufficient to the materialist task.? No one interested in feminism is unaware of either the populist backlash that gained traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s or of the renascent appeal of the stay-at-home-mom route newly repackaged in the 2000s as"choice."8 I was struck by See Astrid Henry's Not My Mother's Sister:Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism (Bloom- ington:Indiana University Press,2004)for a fine analysis of how feminism of the 1960s and 1970s has been (re)constructed as doctrinaire,white,and anti-sex in order to allow feminists of the 1990s and beyond to believe they are breaking wholly new paths in their work.Among the ironies Henry notes is how lesbian,black,and Chicana third wavers invoke and build on the work of such women as Adrienne Rich,Lillian Faderman,Audre Lorde,bell hooks,and Gloria Anzaldua,even as they insist on the newness of their own presence as spokeswomen for the groups they represent. 5 For instance,Charlotte Canning's Feminist Theaters in the U.S.A.:Staging Women's Experience (Rout- ledge,1996)has not so much as an index entry for Betty Friedan,although Tom Hayden,Shulamith Firestone,and "the women's movement"are credited as seminal influences on theatres that self-identi- fied as feminist between 1969 and the mid-1980s. The best-known of these theorists are Jill Dolan,Sue-Ellen Case,Elin Diamond,and Peggy Phelan. Others whose work was frequently invoked and whose theories were crucial to parsing the psychoana- lytic and philosophical underpinnings of gender as performance include Judith Butler,Laura Mulvey, Luce Irigaray,and Teresa de Lauretis.This list is representative and not exhaustive."Mainstream"is an imprecise term;I use it here to mean plays and theatre reviewed in nationally read publications such as the New York Times or Time magazine or to refer to plays likely to be presented by regional or even community theatres in many cities and states.In no way does the term suggest an opinion about artistic worth or excellence;rather,it indicates cultural traction,circulation,and recognition among a broad segment of Americans who attend plays. 7 Jill Dolan's The Feminist Spectator as Critic(Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1988)discusses each of these three branches of feminism and,in fact,names the categories as major rubrics under which several kinds of related strands of feminisms are grouped.Dolan discusses and provides ex- amples of liberal and cultural feminist theatre productions,basically situating them as well-meaning though dated or misguided.The book argues that realism cannot be (sufficiently)eye-opening,and that materialism cannot mean for feminist theorists what it does for so many historians namely,a precise and detailed concern with the objects,technologies,and social circumstances proscribing and sculpting lives under investigation (or performance or interpretation).Psychoanalytic and linguistic writings are the key discourses underpinning her materialism. The "bible"on the former is Susan Faludi's Backlash:The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York:Crown,1991).For a trenchant analysis and critique of the latter,see "Homeward Bound" by Linda R.Hirshman (American Prospect 16,no.12 [December 2005]:20-26).As of this writing,the latest critique of stay-at-home momdom is Leslie Bennetts's The Feminine Mistake:Are We Giving Up Too Much?(New York:Voice,2007),which focuses on the economic problems of giving up work and This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions342 / Dorothy Chansky dated and exclusionary, asexual, and monolithic4 - have remained relevant to theatre practitioners and performance analysts with feminist goals. By performance, I mean both the performance of scripted roles and plays and something more like what Erving Goffman called the presentation of self in everyday life. For actresses and other famous women, these two come together in unavoidable ways. In theatre qua theatre, academic criticism and theory of the 1980s and 1990s worked powerfully against granting cred￾ibility to the sort of feminist work that could claim Friedan and her thinking as a direct influence.5 A concern for the constructedness of gender and intervention against the suppression or outright discrediting of lesbian sensibility led to a school of criticism that rarely addressed mainstream plays except to discount their value to progressive feminism.6 Meanwhile, however, audiences for both experimental and traditionally constructed feminist theatre enjoyed work that materialist critics wrote off as either liberal (read too invested in the status quo) or cultural (read too willing to trade the patriarchy for a matriarchy and to see motherhood as women's main commonality) and, in any case, insufficient to the materialist task.7 No one interested in feminism is unaware of either the populist backlash that gained traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s or of the renascent appeal of the stay-at-home-mom route newly repackaged in the 2000s as "choice."8 1 was struck by 4 See Astrid Henry's Not My Mother's Sister: Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism (Bloom￾ington: Indiana University Press, 2004) for a fine analysis of how feminism of the 1960s and 1970s has been (re)constructed as doctrinaire, white, and anti-sex in order to allow feminists of the 1990s and beyond to believe they are breaking wholly new paths in their work. Among the ironies Henry notes is how lesbian, black, and Chicana third wavers invoke and build on the work of such women as Adrienne Rich, Lillian Faderman, Audre Lorde, bell hooks, and Gloria Anzaldua, even as they insist on the newness of their own presence as spokeswomen for the groups they represent. 5 For instance, Charlotte Canning's Feminist Theaters in the U.S.A.: Staging Women's Experience (Rout￾ledge, 1996) has not so much as an index entry for Betty Friedan, although Tom Hayden, Shulamith Firestone, and "the women's movement" are credited as seminal influences on theatres that self-identi￾fied as feminist between 1969 and the mid-1980s. 6 The best-known of these theorists are Jill Dolan, Sue-Ellen Case, Elin Diamond, and Peggy Phelan. Others whose work was frequently invoked and whose theories were crucial to parsing the psychoana￾lytic and philosophical underpinnings of gender as performance include Judith Butler, Laura Mulvey, Luce Irigaray, and Teresa de Lauren's. This list is representative and not exhaustive. "Mainstream" is an imprecise term; I use it here to mean plays and theatre reviewed in nationally read publications such as the New York Times or Time magazine or to refer to plays likely to be presented by regional or even community theatres in many cities and states. In no way does the term suggest an opinion about artistic worth or excellence; rather, it indicates cultural traction, circulation, and recognition among a broad segment of Americans who attend plays. 7 Jill Dolan's The Feminist Spectator as Critic (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988) discusses each of these three branches of feminism and, in fact, names the categories as major rubrics under which several kinds of related strands of feminisms are grouped. Dolan discusses and provides ex￾amples of liberal and cultural feminist theatre productions, basically situating them as well-meaning, though dated or misguided. The book argues that realism cannot be (sufficiently) eye-opening, and that materialism cannot mean for feminist theorists what it does for so many historians - namely, a precise and detailed concern with the objects, technologies, and social circumstances proscribing and sculpting lives under investigation (or performance or interpretation). Psychoanalytic and linguistic writings are the key discourses underpinning her materialism. 8 The "bible" on the former is Susan Faludi's Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York: Crown, 1991). For a trenchant analysis and critique of the latter, see "Homeward Bound" by Linda R. Hirshman (American Prospect 16, no. 12 [December 2005]: 20-26). As of this writing, the latest critique of stay-at-home momdom is Leslie Bennetts's The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much? (New York: Voice, 2007), which focuses on the economic problems of giving up work and This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions