phase of one-dimensional "radical femin• phenomenon of maternal feminism (except ism." She was a doctrinaire leftist at in Deborah Gorham's piece) and does not the time (and probably still is). After delineate the class roots of this type warmly praising Women in the Canadian of feminism. Clearly maternal feminism Mosaic, this young woman referred back was dominant in Canada and the U.S. in to the period of our acquaintance around the late nineteenth and early twentieth 1970. "Those were the good old days.1" centuries. That is not the issue. The she exclaimed with an air of nostalgia. issue, in historical terms, is why did And then she added rather wistfully, such a large number of feminists adopt "But things have never been so simple this model in this period? How did s i nee." these women come to adopt a philosophy with strong evangelical and missionary overtones, and with all the negative aspects of fear of the foreigner, race- Linda Kealey A REPLY TO GWEN MATHESON suicide, etc., rather than a philos• It is unfortunate that Gwen Matheson ophy based on equal rights. Why (whom I have not met) takes my critical did they shy away from class strug• review of Women in the Canadian Mosaic gle and opt for "Christian stewardship?" as a personal attack. Her reply is in• The idea of the woman as redeemer of dicative of the low level of critical capitalism fell flat on its face in the thinking in feminist circles (academic period after World War I. Ballots in and non-academic). My review addressed the hands of women did not challenge the problems in the analysis and organi• the basic inequities. McClung and zation of the collection, not her per• other feminists failed to see problems sonal motives. The lead sentence of of working women, of women without the review, to which she objects, does children and thus provided no "model" not question her motives but rather for them. Maternal feminism, despite those of the present government. My Matheson's inadequate defense, provides point is that not every feminist publi• very little in the way of a rationale cation deserves a pat on the back and for modernfeminists precisely because a chorus of "well-done." it is based on late nineteenth century ideas of sex differences. The male is The review takes issue with a number of aggressive and active; the female, pas• critical areas: sive and nurturant. It is certainly significant that the discoveries of 1. The simple identification with, and endocrinology in the early twentieth distortion of, Nellie McClung and the century undermined the idea of a brand of feminism she represented, special social role for women while namely, maternal feminism. The book failing to challenge the idea that lacks a critical discussion of the biology is destiny. Various scientific theories have been put forward to ex• It is my contention that recognition of plain female temperament in the course class is central to any discussion of of history. Surely the lesson to be social movements, including feminism. learned is to distrust social theories This is not the same as insisting on a based on biological evidence and to "one-dimensional view" as Matheson as• place science within a social context. serts; nor does a recognition of class Men and women are biologically differ• lead to an analysis strictly focused on ent in some respects but women's repro• working class women in "overalls and ductive and hormonal differences pro• kerchiefs." The issue of class has to vide no proven basis for a superior (or be addressed generally. inferior) role. 3. The third and final point the review 2. The second point the review made makes is the need to recognize the im• was the need to be more precise about portant influence of radical politics the influence of class on female exper• (on both sides of the border) in the ience. It is not sufficient to say making of a Canadian feminist identity. that "all women are working women." I never implied that the Canadian This essentially mystifies the vast dif• women's movement was a simple offshoot ferences between women rather than of New Left activities; rather, I was shedding any light. The middle class attempting to point out the influence women's movement, past and present, of political ferment in the late 60's has not been able to bridge those dif• and early 70's on the directions taken ferences. This is not to deny, however, by the women's movement. Similarly, in the social welfare benefits brought a historical perspective, the early Can• about by the reform movement. Social adian feminist movement was not immune reformers of both sexes in the period to currents from Great Britain and the 1880-1920 were genuinely distressed by U.S. These interrelations have yet to the havoc wreaked on society by the be investigated in a systematic fashion. coming of industrial capitalism. At the It is sufficient to say for now that same time, profound ambiguity is evident Matheson's assertion of Canadian nation• in the reformers' attitudes to the work• alism vis-a-vis the women's movement is ing class. Social control was an inte• a weak answer. gral part of social welfare. Similarly, in today's movement, feminists from the I»too, hope that Women in the Canadian professional and middle classes bring Mosaic inspires others to produce books benefits to women in the working on the questions raised here; but, I classes. This does not mean that the also hope that, in the process, future problems of working class women are authors and editors will seek out and understood and dealt with directly. accept critical commentary in the The gap has yet to be bridged. spirit that it is offered. "Sister- hood" must recognize the need for model building, Wilkins, unbeknownst to stiff standards of analysis and must Franklin, provided them with her data. reject the pervasive tendency to see Throughout Watson's account of this in• criticism as personal attack. If we triguing story, his personal contempt cannot be critical of each other's for Franklin is unabashed: he disdained ideas, how will we make any progress her intelligence and creativity and towards an understanding of women's found her deeply unattractive, criticiz• role, past and present, in Canadian ing everything from her appearance to society? her personality. A perfunctory epilogue, which Watson wrote after Franklin's early death in 1958, is coolly polite but does not change the overwhelming Ellane Silverman AND impression given throughout the book of an unimpressive, uninspired, yet aggres• Margaret J. Osier sive and hostile colleague. WOMEN IN SCIENCE: A DISCUSSION In response to Watson's book, Anne James Watson's The Double Hel?x (1968) Sayre, a novelist and a friend of and Anne Sayre's Rosalind Franklin and Franklin, attempted to redeem her DNA (1975) cast new light on the social friend's reputation. Sayre described roles of scientists at work. The Double Franklin's early inclination to science, Helix, describing the process of the her training at Cambridge in physical d iscovery of the molecular structure of chemistry, her large number of important DNA, a discovery which won the Nobel papers in that field and her well- Prize for James Watson, Francis Crick developed sense of self-respect. Por• and Maurice Wilkins in 1962, challenges traying a more attractive person than the popular conception of science as a Watson had seen, she ascribed Watson's rational and dispassionate search for perceptions of Franklin to his profound• the truth, instead, we find the pro• ly hostile and demeaning attitudes to• tagonists engaged in a competitive wards women. race, ruthless in their quest for a solution. One of the victims of their The juxtaposition of these two books single-mindedness was Rosalind Franklin, raises significant questions about the a member of the King's College, London, role of women in science and, more research group and a colleague of generally, the sociology of scientific Maurice Wilkins. The X-ray diffraction research. In a recent review in data she had gathered on the DNA mole• Atlantis, Thelma McCormack undertook to cule provided a key element in the ul• discuss some of these problems, particu• timate unravelling of the problem. At larly in the light cast by Franklin's a crucial juncture in Crick and Watson's career on discrimination against women