Tom Robbins: a Man Doing Feminism Through His Fiction

1. Introduction

This thesis, entitled “Tom Robbins: A Man Doing Feminism through His

Fiction” 1, explores the novels written by Tom Robbins and focuses on their feminist aspects. Strikingly, even though Robbins is a male author, his novels are abounding with feminist ideas. Nevertheless, there is some disagreement among feminists as to whether Robbins should or should not be considered a feminist author. One of the objectives of this thesis, therefore, is to provide sufficient evidence, by means of analyzing three of his novels, to prove that Tom Robbins indeed is a feminist author.

Due to the fact that the story of his second novel, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues 2, centers around feminist movement and its related isssues, I will demur at Robbins’s connection to contemporary feminist movement.

Thus, at the beginning of the thesis, I explore the feminist debates of the late

1960’s and early 1970’s. For the purpose of this thesis, the period of the turn of the decades is significant for two reasons: it marks the re-emergence of feminist movement which, at that time, became a cultural and political phenomenon. The other reason for which I focus on such a narrow period of time lies in the fact that Robbins started to publish his novels in 1971 and the feminist debates of the day clearly had an impact on and are reflected in the story of Cowgirls , published in 1976, the most feminist of Robbins’s novels. Apparently, it was the feminist debates of that period which provided food for thought for the young author and influenced him in such a way that he himself became profeminist. Moreover, Robbins, by focusing in his

1 The title of this thesis was inspired by Men Doing Feminism (1998) 2 Further on, I am going to refer to this novel as Cowgirls

1 fiction on feminists and their objectives clearly became a part of the movement by the means of contributing to feminist debates.

Robbins’s ideas, though, are not always in keeping with those of female feminists; especially the radical feminists. Therefore, in the second chapter, I explore what might be termed “Robbins’s feminism”. This is done in a thorough analysis of two Robbins’s novels, Another Roadside Attraction 3 (1971) and Still Life with

Woodpecker 4 (1980), which were, respectively, the novels immediately preceeding and following Cowgirls . It is, thus, in the second chapter where the actual analysis of

Robbins’s fiction begins. It is focused on the way Robbins treats and depicts his female characters. In this way, I prove that even though Tom Robbins distances himself from feminist movement, his writing, nonetheless, steps out of line when it comes to the depiction of female characters, whom he pictures as strong and independent women. In this way, I show that the accusations of some feminists concerning Robbins’s supposed antifeminism or even sexism are unjustified.

The purpose of the analysis of Roadside Attraction and Woodpecker is to prepare ground for the actual analysis of Cowgirls , which is the subject of the third chapter. As all of the profeminist themes surfacing in the two already discussed novels recur in Cowgirls as well, these will be ommited in this particular chapter and the novel’s most significant themes will be dealt with: the struggles of its particular female characters who represent the early 1970’s feminists – each of them struggling in her own way for her woman’s rights in the patriarchal society. Looking at their attitudes, I compare and contrast liberal and radical feminisms. Then, I focus on the feminist position of the novel’s protagonist who represents what I call “the feminist at

3 Further on, I am going to refer to this novel as Roadside Attraction 4 Further on, I am going to refer to this novel as Woodpecker

2 heart”, and I compare her attitude to those of the representatives of “organized” feminism. Finally, I point at the resolution to the issue of “organized vs. instinctive feminism” which follows from the previous analyses of Cowgirls and toward which

Robbins has been heading from the beginning of the novel.

2. Feminisms in the Late 1960’s and Early 1970’s as Compared to Tom

Robbins’s Feminism

Tom Robbins published his first two novels, Roadside Attraction and

Cowgirls , in 1971 and 1976 respectively. Clearly, the feminist ideas Tom Robbins incorporated in these novels derive and draw from his personal insights in the feminist debates of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Feminine principles and archetypes have continued to be among the dominant themes of all of the novels he has published ever since. Still, Roadside Attraction and Cowgirls in particular document the era in which they were written, as feminism became a cultural and political phenomenon in the late

1960’s. As defined by The Routledge Dictionary of Feminism and Postfeminism , the period of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s falls into what is referred to as the Second

Wave feminism. At the turn of the 1960’s, feminist movement re-emerged, after a period of decades during which it had been on the wane, and started a new phase. This time, though, the feminist movement gained unusual strength and popularity with the young generation – it is important to keep in mind that one of this generation’s members was Tom Robbins himself. In order to distinguish the objectives of contemporary feminists from those of the feminist pioneers from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, these were labeled as Second Wave feminists. This broad term encompasses a range of opinions which are not always congruous (Gamble 310).

3 There are, however, two prominent branches of feminism which were defined at the basis of their distinctive beliefs: liberal and radical feminisms.

2.1 The Second Wave Feminism: Radical vs. Liberal

The difference between these two extreme branches of feminism must be explored, at least briefly, due to the fact that Robbins’s novel Cowgirls , as will be examined in detail later in this thesis, revolves around the tension between radical and liberal feminists. At this point, the feminist theories will not be applied to Robbins’s texts yet.

Radical feminists became, due to their extreme opinions, the most visible section within this generation’s feminist movement. Since radical feminism presents an opposition and contrast to liberal feminism, these two branches of feminism must be examined concurrently. The core of the difference between liberal and radical feminist branches, according to The Routledge Dictionary of Feminism and

Postfeminism , lies in the fact that while “liberal feminists work towards an egalitarian society, which would uphold the right of each individual to fulfill their potential”

(Gamble 264) and are trying to ensure for “women [to have] the same status and opportunities as men” (Gamble 264), radicals go much further. They believe that,

“male power is at the root of the social construction of gender” (Gamble 302).

Gender, furthermore, “as a biological as well as cultural concept, is viewed as a constraint especially for women” (Gamble 302). Moreover, radical feminists claim that the system of gender construction must be “eradicated, not only at a legal and political level, but at a social and social and cultural level too” (Gamble 302). Many radical feminists go as far as to declare a war against men and society (Gamble 302).

Broadly speaking, these are the differences between the objectives of liberal and

4 radical feminists. For the purpose of the feminist analysis of Cowgirls , it is necessary to be aware of the fact that radical feminism builds on the critique of liberal feminists’s aims which radicals consider to be restricted to fighting for egalitarian society. In Thinking about Women , Margaret L. Andersen suggests that “radical perspectives in feminist theory stem from a critique of liberal thought as too bound by the status quo [in society]” (342). Therefore, radical feminism is best described by contrasting it to the liberal wing of feminism. As Andersen puts it, “[w]hereas the liberal framework emphasizes learned gender roles and the denial of opportunities as the primary causes of women’s oppression” (310), the radical perspective, in

Andersen’s words, “attempt[s] to explain how gender develops and persists as a social, economic, and political category. The radical analysis goes beyond the goal of including women in existing societal institutions by arguing that dominant institutions are organized through gender” (310). Even though the notions of liberal and radical feminisms cannot be seen in black and white whatsoever, the basic distinction drawn in this subchapter will, nonetheless, serve as the ground for the feminist analysis of

Cowgirls , as Robbins chose to depict the tensions resulting from the opposing ideologies of the two wings – liberal and radical feminism – in his second novel. With regard to the fact that Tom Robbins is a male author, it is, at this point, desirable to look at the position of men within women’s movement and answer the question whether men can actually do feminism.

2.2 Men and Feminist Movement

It is obvious that feminists have always been mostly women and these have been concerned with women’s issues and the way of solving the problems women have had to face in the society dominated by men. But what about men and their

5 representation in the feminist movement? During the period discussed in this thesis, men started to feel the urge either to participate in the feminist movement or, at least, to offer their sympathetic and profeminist views proving thus that not all men consider the patriarchal system and its oppression of women to be correct. Still, it was not common that a man would proclaim himself a feminist due to the fact that there was a strong presumption in the society that men cannot do feminism unless they cease to be men. Furthermore, feminists, especially those from the radical wing, tended to exclude men completely from their lives. In spite of this prejudice, there were men who managed to prove that such assumption was not justified and that men can be profeminist; moreover, if they are profeminist, it is not at the expense of their male identity.

The number of profeminist men has been increasing over the decades, so that at the turn of the twenty-first century, they are no longer considered “unnatural species”. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, though, the situation was quite different.

Sandra Bartky summs it up in the foreword to a collection of essays Men Doing

Feminism (1998): “the Second Wave feminism of the late sixties and seventies emerged and grew strong and confident in an environment where men were largely excluded” (Bartky xii). The reason for this situation, as noted on the back page of Men

Doing Feminism , is obviously the presupposed antagonism between men and feminism according to which, “men are expected to resist feminism; feminists are assumed to hate men” (Digby). To disprove the first of these two claims is the objective of Men Doing Feminism . These essays demonstrate that it is not only possible for men to “adopt the standpoint of women” (Digby 197), but also that men are willing to do so. As far as the latter claim is concerned, Bartky does not approve of feminists hating men; she, nonetheless, admits that men have not been welcome to

6 join women’s movement until very recently. To prove her claim, she contrasts feminists’ attitudes from the 1960’s and 1970’s with those of 1990’s feminists:

“[n]evertheless, I feel that the profoundly separatist moment that antimated radical feminist organizing twenty-five years ago is a moment that is passing. The reasons for this are manifold. First of all, we have discovered in the course of over two decades of feminist agitation that many men have been stalwart, committed, and politically effective allies” (Bartky xii). Bartky, then, continues: “[s]econd, younger feminists appear not to have the same need for separation of the genders that feminists of my generation needed so badly” (Bartky xii). Bartky’s testimony sums up the radical feminists’ attitudes toward men doing feminism perfectly. Moreover, it foreshadows and justifies the picture of contemporary radical feminists Robbins depicts in his

Cowgirls .

As the issue of men doing feminism and the stereotypes this phenomenon is connected with are already established, the question arises, with regard to the two distinctive feminist branches discussed in the previous subchapter, which of them suits men better: is it liberal or radical feminism? According to Harry Brod, a contemporary feminist theorist and philosopher, claims in his essay “To Be a Man, or

Not to Be a Man – That Is the Feminist Question” that it is more suitable for men’s needs to embrace radical rather than liberal feminism. Brod’s argument is based on the notion of “the fundamental difference between liberal and radical feminisms” which is characterized by contrasting slogans: “‘let us in’ vs. ‘set us free’” (Brod 200).

He argues that “[s]ince men are already ‘in,’ they can gain only from a program that promises to set all free, rather than one that aims to let some in by kicking others out”

(Brod 200). Nowadays, there is logic to this argument. However, it is equally true that, in practice, men had not the opportunity to join the early radical feminists. This

7 situation, as was already pointed out, resulted from the anti-male atmosphere among the previous generation of radical feminists. In Cowgirls , Tom Robbins depicts extremist feminists, such as Delores del Ruby and her followers, who harshly criticizes individual men for all the wrongs that the patriarchal society has done to women over the centuries. Robbins pictures them as women who consider men to be their irreconcilable enemies. From this perspective, taking into account the fact that

Robbins’s fictional characters reflect contemporary reality, it would be difficult for men, if not impossible, to embrace radical feminism. Needless to say, why would men be willing to join feminists by which they were despised? In Cowgirls , Tom Robbins, via his narrator, clearly adopts the anti-radical position, pointing, at the same time, at the fine line that divides the extreme attitudes and behavior of female feminists from those of male chauvinists who are the target of their criticism and accusations. Still, as far as Tom Robbins is concerned, the question whether it is liberal or radical feminism that is more suitable for men, remains unanswered. Even though Robbins disproves of radical feminism, he does not adopt the position of a liberal feminist either. The objective of the following subchapter is to reveal what Robbins, in general, conceives of women’s movement.

2.3 Tom Robbins and Feminist Movement

In this subchapter, Robbins’s attitude toward women’s movement will be explored briefly. It was already said that his first two novels were published in the

1970’s. The ideas in both novels reflect contemporary feminist debates which clearly had an influence on Robbins himself as well as on his fiction writing. The story of

Cowgirls is centered on feminist ideas and both on the clashes between radicals and

8 liberals, and between feminists and the mainstream society. Still, as will be shown,

Tom Robbins distances himself from women’s movement.

A closer look at what Robbins conceives of women’s movement reveals that he disproves of the whole notion of the movement. Hoyser and Stookey sum it up in their companion entitled Tom Robbins . Critical Companions to Popular

Contemporary Writers Online:

Robbins does believe that feminists have become too extreme in their man

hating and sex hating. ... In an article on feminism, Robbins states that some

feminists have become their opposite, or macho. He continues with the lament

that “It’s a rat bite in the heart to observe the deformation of what might have

been the most important socio-spiritual awakening in two thousand years”

(“Notes on Nukes...” 11). He writes that the money/power syndrome has been

responsible for changing feminism into feminismo. Power politics corrupted

the movement’s spiritual basis. Feminism suffered the same fate as religion,

Robbins writes; both became devoid of spirituality in the name of mass-appeal

organization (13). (Hoyser and Stookey, “The Life of Tom Robbins –

(continued)”)

Even though these interpretations of opinions of Robbins’s are from an interview with quite a recent date, the analysis of Cowgirls will reveal that the base for Robbins’s disillusion with feminist movement – its radical wing in particular – was already laid at the time he was writing the novel. Robbins’s insight into the nature of feminist movement results from the fact that since the re-awakening of women’s movement in the 1960’s, he had been an attentive observer of its evolution and saw the movement head toward becoming an institution which resembles any other political movement in

9 its lack of spirit. From this perspective, Cowgirls can be read as Robbins’s attempt to faithfully document the first stages of Second Wave feminism’s evolution.

Even though the evidence provided above suggests that Tom Robbins has had reservations about feminist movement, he still should be considered a feminist: not only does he cotribute to contemporary feminist debates; his novels, Cowgirls in particular, can be analyzed from a feminist point of view, as their recurrent themes invite a feminist reading. Among the leit-motifs appearing in Robbins’s novels are stories of women who resist conventional gender roles. Apparently, Robbins values women, feminity and female archetypes and has a very unique way of demonstrating his respect by standing his heroines on pedestals and worshipping them through his fiction. He has the habit of depicting a strong female character in each of his novels.

This character then acts, in most cases, as the mature woman who teaches her male counterpart the wisdom of life so that the stereotypical roles in the male-female relatioships become reversed, as man is the receptive element while woman the active one in the relationship. In this way, Tom Robbins demonstrates his own vision of women which has a lot to offer to his, not only female readers.

In spite of the fact that Tom Robbins has experienced a disillusion with radical attitudes within the Second Wave feminism, his novels, nevertheless, overflow with feminist ideas – despite the fact that their author is a male. In a way, Robbins has become notorious for choosing female protagonists for all his novels, which is not common with other male authors. To provide evidence for these claims, two of

Robbins’s novels will be discussed in the following subchapter, focusing on the profeminist ideas and attitudes he injects into them, in order to prepare the ground for the actual feminist analysis of Cowgirls .

10 2.4 The Manifestations of Feminism in Tom Robbins’s Work

In order to demonstrate what has been suggested so far about Tom Robbins’s profeminist attitudes in his fiction writing, various aspects of his novels Roadside

Attraction and Woodpecker will be briefly discussed in this subchapter. With the help of Hoyser and Stookey’s companion, I will analyze those aspects from a feminist perspective. In this way, I intend to outline a general idea of the profeminist feeling of his novels and to demonstrate that Robbins’s treatment of female characters is indeed revolutionary. At several occasions, I will address those issues which are controversial as they can be viewed, by some feminists, as being antifeminist or lacking feminism, whereas according to other feminists these issues clearly are profeminist. In this way,

I will disprove doubts concerning the presence of profeminist tendencies in Robbins’s novels.

Apart from Cowgirls which can most obviously be considered a feminist novel, all other Robbins’s novels can be regarded as having profeminist tendencies.

The unifying factor of all of his novels is the fact that “Robbins distinguishes his texts with the female heroes that he creates” whom he tends to picture as “independent and strong women who are open to the universe and nature” (Hoyser and Stookey,

“Context and Style – Characters”). Moreover, as a result of his general attitude toward using archetypes and making his characters represent the archetypal figures that exist in human psyche, “[m]any of the women in Robbins’s novels represent goddesses”

(Hoyser and Stookey, “Context and Style – Characters”). In this way, Robbins celebrates the female potential in suggesting that “the women are superior to the men in their understanding of the connections among all objects and living beings on the planet” (Hoyser and Stookey, “Context and Style – Characters”). His female protagonists thus often function as the wise teachers who initiate their male

11 counterparts into the secrets of life. Those of his male characters who display significant analytical features at the beginning of the novel are usually subjected to metamorphosis as a result of their encounter with a female protagonist of the novel.

Consequently, they transcend their masculinity and, reconciling with their feminine part, they learn to appreciate the instinctincts and the sensitivity in them. Besides these two types of characters, Robbins, in some of his novels, potrays a male character who has significant female attributes, without acting unmanly at the same time. In this way, the author demonstrates that men who open themselves to their feminine part must not be afraid of losing their male identity. Robbins’s heroines, moreover, are always portrayed as women who enjoy their sexuality and who tend to have happy sex lives which is connected to the importance they instinctively assign to sex. Robbins’s portrayal of women who are engaged in passionate relationships on the one hand affirms the way the view of women has shifted, so that by depicting his female protagonists as women who enjoy sex, Robbins is not breaking any kind of taboo, but on the other hand, serves as the basis for frequent accusations of him being sexist. As

Hoyser and Stookey put it, some feminists “believe that Robbins exploits his female characters for sexual titillation” (Hoyser and Stookey, “The Life of Tom Robbins –

(continued)”). This view of Robbins’s intentions are, however, over the top. He does not resort to pornography or any other way of depicting his heroines which would make use of sexually-explicit images of women that are degrading. To the contrary,

Robbins portrays female sexuality as a natural instinct which should be expressed openly and he, at the same time, condemns the chauvinistic perspective from which women are considered objects of satisfying men’s lust. These images of women are in keeping with Robbins’s treatment of female characters which always is one of respect.

12 A brief summary of the plot of the very first novel of Robbins’s, Roadside

Attraction , as well as the analysis of its characters will provide a suitable evidence for previous observations. The story of the novel revolves around a married couple –

Amanda and John Paul Ziller, who both display significant feminine features. While

“John Paul Ziller ... is the completely natural man with a high degree of creativity in his art” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Another Roadside Attraction (1971) – Characters”),

Amanda, who despite her low age acts as a very mature person, is the fount of natural wisdom with enormous spiritual potency. In addition, to provide contrast to these two

“naive” and “primitive” characters, Robbins creates the sceptical and analytical character of Marx Marvelous – the East Coast-trained scientist who travels to the

Zillers’ roadside zoo in Washington State to live temporarily in their household where he wants to do field research for his paper on a comparative study of belief systems –

Christianity, the outdated religion as opposed to New Age religious systems. He arrives in Washington State after he learns about Amanda whom he immediately regards “as the priestess of modern spirituality” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Another

Roadside Attraction (1971) – Plot Development”). Marvelous’s objectives prior to coming to roadside zoo are rather straightforward: investigate the unorthodox belief system of his hosts and prove his hypothesis concerning Amanda Ziller. However, everything turns out differently for Marx Marvelous. From the moment he first encounters the couple, he gradually starts to abandon his academic means and restrictions in the way he thinks which his academic past has imposed on him on behalf of a rather frivolous outlook. As Marx is the narrator of the story, the reader acquires the information filtered through Marx’s consciousness and observes the influence and deep impact of the Zillers’ on him. Marx retrospectively describes in his

13 journal his first encounter with the couple when they walk together through the legendary Seattle rain:

As was my custom in such elements I hunkered against the rain, drew my head

into my collar, turned my eyes to the street, tensed my footsteps and proceeded

in misery. But my hosts, I soon noticed, reacted in quite another way. They

strolled calmly and smoothly, their bodies perfectly relaxed. They did not

hunch away from the rain but rather glided through it. ... The Zillers accepted

the rain ... and went with it in harmony and ease. I tried it myself. I relaxed my

neck and shoulders and turned my gaze into the wet. I let it do to me what it

would. Of course, it was not trying to do anything to me. What a silly notion.

It was simply falling as rain should, and I a man, another phenomenon of

nature, was sharing the space in which it fell. It was much better regarding it

that way. I got no wetter than I would have otherwise, and if I did not actually

enjoy the wetting, at least I was free of my tension. (Robbins 143-4)

Thus, the state of being which is in harmony with nature and natural elements is the first fundamental thing Marx learns from the Zillers. Moreover, this experience marks the first step on his path to becoming an integrated person. Hoyser and Stookey parallel such respect for nature which is characteristic of both Amanda and John Paul to “a respect for all people no matter how different they are. This acknowledgment of people’s value extends to equality for women and minorities” (Hoyser, Stookey

“Another Roadside Attraction (1971) – Theme”). By drawing a parallel between human chauvinism as far as nature is concerned and male chauvinism as far as women are concerned, Hoyser points at the feminist undertone of Roadside Attraction .

Obviously, it is Amanda who plays a more important role than her husband in the metamorphosis of Marx Marvelous’s personality as a result of which Marx stops

14 analyzing every single phenomenon and experience; instead he starts experiencing the fullness of life without feeling the urge to cut everything into pieces. Amanda proves to be the stimulating force for Marx; he, as the plot of the novel evolves, becomes enchanted by Amanda to whom he starts to look up to as if she was a goddess. In fact, from the Jungian perspective which, as Hoyser and Stookey suggest, is one of the ways of analyzing Roadside Attraction , Amanda “epitomize[s] the earth goddess”

(Hoyser and Stookey, “ Another Roadside Attraction (1971) – Characters”). Not only does she display instinctive appreciation of nature, Amanda’s two pregnancies and maternity also add to the earthly-motherly quality of hers. Moreover, she oozes with sex appeal and is aware of and open about her sexuality which has a very provoking effect on Marx. However, even though Amanda, who does not comply to standard accepted clichés about love and is open-minded as far as free love is concerned, is aware of the fact that Marx is desperately attracted to her, she refuses to make love to him. Thus, Amanda has a power over Marx which she uses for the higher purpose – to motivate him to transcend his old self. Simultaneosly, she leads him “through the riddles, meditations, and tests necessary to attatin [his] inner balance and harmony”

(Hoyser and Stookey, “ Another Roadside Attraction (1971) – Plot Development”).

When Amanda finally feels that Marx is prepared, she performs – assuming the role of a high priestess of ancient cultures – the final stage of the initiation process: she makes love to him. The parallel between their love making and sexual initiation becomes obvious: Marx has been undergoing a process of gradual change of character and personality for several months. Still, the whole process of Marx’s personal transformation could not be complete until Amanda makes love to him. Only then does Marx gain the insight into the nature of things due to which he can no longer be who he was before. From that moment on, “[i]nstead of being dominated by logic, he

15 combines scientific logic with an openness to intuition and spirituality” (Hoyser and

Stookey, “ Another Roadside Attraction (1971) – Plot Development”). The whole notion of Amanda being “the channel for Marx Marvelous’s rebirth as an integrated individual” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Another Roadside Attraction (1971) – Alternate

Reading: A Jungian) Interpretation”) is also in keeping with interpreting Amanda as the archetype of earth goddess.

Due to the themes Robbins develops in Roadside Attraction which create a feminist feeling of the novel, he established himself as a feminist writer. The impression the novel gives is that Robbins is able to celebrate the female principle in every possible way which he has proved in his subsequent novels. Still, Robbins is able to come up everytime with different profeminist themes with which he distinguishes his novels. Like in Woodpecker which apart from Roadside Attraction is subject to analysis in this subchapter.

While in Roadside Attraction it is the idea of supposed human superiority to natural world and the emphasis on female potential which can be regarded as the stepping stones for feminist analysis of the novel, in Woodpecker , it is the idea of reversing the fairytale motif of prince rescuing the princess which has a parallel to the idea of reversing of traditional gender roles of the main characters that invites a feminist reading of the novel. Moreover, as is Robbins’s habit, he concentrates on the female protagonist by way of which he is shedding light on the problems she encounters living in the patriarchal society and the way she copes with the issues – which always is, to some extent at least, through not complying to the rules of society and succumbing to society’s prescribed roles for women.

The female protagonist of Robbins’s third novel will be dealt with first, as

Woodpecker features two protagonists – a young descendant of a European royal

16 family living in exile in Seattle, princess Leigh-Cheri, and a terrorist she falls in love with – Bernard Mickey Wrangle, known in the criminal circles as “Woodpecker”.

From the beginning of the story, the disillusioned Leigh-Cheri, then nineteen, is determined to avoid romantic relationships and marriage at all costs. By the time she is nineteen, she has been pregnant twice, the first time having had an abortion, the second time, determined to keep the baby in spite of her boyfriend’s rejection, having had a misscariage. Disappointed by unreliability of all possible birth control devices and by the treatment of her body and mind by her partners, Leigh-Cheri decides to avoid romantic/sexual relationships as these could again lead to her falling in love or getting pregnant, or both, which would distract her from her main aim – she wants to make the world better by focusing her effort on various environmental causes instead of making a good wife to a husband and mother to their children. Leigh-Cheri intends to use the power she would acquire after the monarchy in her family’s mother country, as is expected, is restored – counting on the fact that the status of princess will grant her world-wide recognition so that she can fight for the environment on an international level. However, as soon as she meets Bernard, in spite of her determination to remain single until she fulfills the mission she has staked for herself, her determination to pursue celibacy is shattered, as she cannot resist the romantic impulses and sexual attraction he heats up in her. Besides, Leigh-Cheri rationalizes her instinctive attraction to Bernard by admitting that Bernard is different from all the men she has been in relationships with – he is a gentle and attentive partner and a very emphatic lover who is not indiferrent to the possibility that he might get Leigh-Cheri pregnant. Therefore, he introduces her to “lunaception” – which, as Hoyser and

Stookey put it, is “a theory popular at the time connecting female hormonal cycles with the stages of the moon and tides” (Hoyser and Stookey, “The Life of Tom

17 Robbins – (continued)”). Needless to say, it is highly debatable whether “lunaception” is a reliable technique of birth control. Still, by introducing this theory to his fiction,

Robbins makes a point: by the end of the 1970’s, women have become increasingly aware of the fact that it is them, not some artificial birth control devices which are, on top of it, produced by men, who should be in charge of their menstrual cycles and decide about their pregnancy. This can be done only via regaining control over their menstrual cycles, bringing their bodies into consonance with the moon tides. Leigh

Cheri’s concern about enjoying her sexuality without at the same time experiencing fear of unwanted pregnancy or facing the inevitability of violating her body by means of either using artificial birth control methods devised by men or having an abortion, reflects the concerns of growing number of contemporary women. The similarity between the experience Robbins’s fictional protagonist has made and that of Louise

Layce, the autor of Lunaception: A Feminine Odyssey into Fertility and

Contraception , published in 1974, is obvious. After getting pregnant, having an illegal abortion and facing the negative effects birth control pill has had on her health, Layce immersed herself into research on the connection between moonlight and female menstrual cycles in order to find a technique that would enable her to avoid conception or, conversely, enable her to get pregnant if she wanted to. In her book, which became very popular with contemporary women, she maps her study of sexual reproduction, anthropology, and the sciences within which she studied the rhythms and cycles throughout the universe, and presents her findings which are based on her personal experiment with “lunaception”. She, then, offers the recipe that worked for her to other women who are searching for a natural way to cooperate with their bodies’ cycles (Steinmetz). Robbins, apparently, used Layces’s story and experiment as described in her book and incorporated them into his fictional story about his

18 modern princess. Needless to say, the concern of Leigh-Cheri for her body – her rejection of the idea of violating her body by means of birth control pill or abortion – as well as her right to experience the freedom of sexual expression, all expressed in

Woodpecker , have a feminist background.

Still, the female protagonist of the novel can, in some feminist readings, be considered antifeminist, or lacking any feminist features whatsoever, for Leigh-Cheri, instead of pursuing her environmental mission, ends up married to Bernard. As was already said, “[t]he Woodpecker teaches Leigh-Cheri about ‘lunaception’ ... [Since] this information becomes significant to her as a sign of Bernard’s consideration for his partner” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Still Life with Woodpecker (1980) – Plot

Development”), Leigh-Cheri ceases to resist the feelings for and attraction to Bernard and gives herself over to him. It is then natural to her when, later in the novel, she could finally take the advantage of a leading position in her family’s mother country, that she refuses this opportunity, choosing to live a secluded life with her husband.

Hoyser and Stookey point at Leigh-Cheri’s deviation from the expected role a feminist character would assume by suggesting that some “feminist readings could criticize Robbins for having Leigh-Cheri choose love and domestic bliss over an active role using her powers as princess” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Still Life with

Woodpecker (1980) – Themes”). However, the authors, at the same time, argue that

Robbins distinguishes his heroine with feminist attributes by making her and her beloved switch traditional gender. Hoyser and Stookey sum up the story of Leigh-

Cheri before she meets Bernard: “After fulfilling the traditional American princess and female ideal of cheerleader and failing that ideal by becoming pregnant, Leigh-

Cheri considers herself ready to be an adult and, to demonstrate that, feels responsible for the world’s improvement. Environmental causes attract her energy. Ralph Nader

19 becomes her ecological guru” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Still Life with Woodpecker

(1980) – Themes”). It is at the time of Leigh-Cheri’s greatest determination to pursue her mature vision when Bernard comes to the scene.

One way of looking at Leigh-Cheri’s abandonment of her ideals by falling in love with Bernard, is to consider it as her weakness, as was already suggested above.

The other way of looking at it, though, is to view the encounter of the protagonists and their subsequent romance as a reversal of the fairy-tale stereotype: the motif of a prince rescuing a fair princess from a dragon which Robbins in his novel clearly turns on its head, at the same time overlaps with the switch of traditional gender roles of the major characters. Hoyser and Stookey, in their Companion foreshadow that “[r]eading

Robbins’s manipulation of fairy-tale figures with a feminist perspective also coincides with the rewriting of fairy tales that many feminists have accomplished” (Hoyser and

Stookey, “ Still Life with Woodpecker (1980) – Themes”). In their view, it is necessary to stress the archetypal quality of the novel’s characters and its fairy-tale atmosphere:

“the book contains the basic formula of the fairy tale with its archetypically named characters, its king, queen, and princess, and its rambling old bramble-encrusted mansion substituting for a castle” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Still Life with Woodpecker

(1980) – Themes”). Thus, Leigh Cheri represents the figure of a fair princess who, after having fallen under a current version of a bad spell, must wait for the prince – apparently Bernard – to save her. What Robbins does in his story is a reversal of the traditional roles expected from the major characters as well as a reversal of “the usual prince-rescuing-the princess motif” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Still Life with Woodpecker

(1980) – Themes”). Hoyser and Stookey also stress Leigh-Cheri’s deviation from her princess-role: “Social consciousness is not usually associated with being a princess.

The princess archetype involves falling under a curse that can only be broken by a

20 worthy prince. The princess must wait for the right prince to come along” (Hoyser and

Stookey, “ Still Life with Woodpecker (1980) – Themes”). In this respect, the heroine of Robbins’s Woodpecker does not fit the stereotype of a fairy-tale princess. Nor

Bernard, however, represents the classical hero from fairy tales – he is an outlaw on principle who, on the one hand, “liberates the princess from the spell of Ralph Nader and mass movements ... [and] from the celibacy she has adopted because of the tyranny of nature’s hormonal cycles leading to pregnancy” (Hoyser and Stookey,

“Still Life with Woodpecker (1980) – Themes”). On the other hand, however, he rejects the hero role, declaring that Leigh-Cheri is perfectly capable of rescuing herself without his assistance and that “his intention was not to rescue Leigh-Cheri as though she were dragon bait” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Still Life with Woodpecker

(1980) – Themes”). What is more, “[p]rincess Leigh-Cheri flatly rejects the passive

‘dragon bait’ prescription for females of her rank. Leigh-Cheri declares that she is ‘as capable of rescuing’ Bernard as he is of rescuing her” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Still Life with Woodpecker (1980) – Themes”), which she also proves later in the story. When the plot of the novel reaches its climax and the two reunited lovers are imprisoned in the pyramid. As they are running short of oxygen and food and water supplies, the princess adopts the role of the “dragon bait’s” rescuer and takes the initiative in setting them free in spite of the danger involved in her action: “Bernard believes that igniting his dynamite will kill them rather than blast them free. Leigh-Cheri reaches the decision to use the dynamite regardless of its threat since their lives are almost over from lack of food and water. Bernard believes her intention is to sacrifice her life to save his and reflects on ‘the princess as hero’” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Still Life with

Woodpecker (1980) – Themes”). Robbins thus confirms that female potential does not

21 reside in being the passive victim who must wait to be rescued. In his view, women can be just as brave as men and the other way round.

In this way, Robbins proves that he must be given credit for writing another feminist novel. The fact that Leigh-Cheri, in the end, chooses to commit instead of pursuing her global mission is in keeping with Robbins’s reservations about feminists, which were already pointed out in the previous subchapter, as far as feminists’ rejection of men and romantic/sexual relationships with men are concerned. The decision of his female protagonist does not lower Leigh-Cheri’s feminist tendencies whatsoever, for these she has proved in various ways throughout the novel. Robbins, thus, demonstrates his point: being a feminist is not mutually exclusive with being engaged.

On the whole, the notion of switching traditional male and female gender roles presented in this novel is an extension of rejecting traditional female roles by

Robbins’s female characters, which is very typical of his novels. Still, there are far more themes inviting a feminist reading to be found in every particular novel by Tom

Robbins that were not discussed here. What I focused on in this subchapter were only those profeminist attributes that are most prominent in those of his novels that were published immediately before and after his most significantly feminist novel,

Cowgirls , which will be the subject of a detailed analysis in the subsequent chapter.

As for the main aim of this subchapter, it was to capture Robbins’s treatment of women in his works and to prove that this is undeniably based on his respect for and understanding of women. In this way, I attempted to disprove the claims about the lack of feminism in Robbins’s novels.

22 3. Even Cowgirls Get the Blues As a Feminist Novel

All of the above-mentioned profeminist aspects of Robbins’s fiction blend together and play an important role in his second novel too, thus, contributing to the fact that by many, Cowgirls is considered “the only significant feminist novel ever written by a man” (Reising 477): the archetype of the goddess, the respect for and admiration of female sexuality, the oppression of nature and of women, female wisdom, refusal to comply to traditional gender roles and a gender reversal, all are present throughout the story of Cowgirls . Besides these themes, however, this novel centers on contemporary feminist debates, which underlines the profeminist tendencies of Cowgirls . The novel, as its title suggests, deals primarily with cowgirls, all of whom are members of the young generation of feminists of the early 1970’s.

Both liberal and radical feminists, are represented among the cowgirls at the Rubber

Rose Ranch – the former fighting for the right of women to do the jobs traditionally associated with men, such as the right to be a cowgirl, the latter, in their fight for restructuring society, declaring war on men whom they regard as their worst enemies.

The feminist ideas Robbins presents in Cowgirls directly derive from contemporary feminist debates of the day which Robbins not only documents, but in which he also plays an active role by way of offering his views of coping with the patriarchal society and by suggesting solutions to undermining of the patriarchal structure of contemporary society.

3.1 Liberal and Radical Feminists at the Rubber Rose Ranch

Among the cowgirls that stand out from the mass of more or less anonymous cowgirls at the Rubber Rose Ranch – a female ranch – are Bonanza “Jelly” Jellybean, the boss of the ranch, Delores del Ruby, the radical feminist, and Debbie, the liberal

23 feminist. Delores and Debbie represent the opposing views of radical and liberal feminisms which were already discussed in the chapter that dealt with the theoretical background of the Second Wave feminism. In Cowgirls , these tendencies within women’s movement are seen at work, for the tensions between radical and liberal feminists are at heart of the novel.

Even though the boss of cowgirls was not classified in the introductory paragraph as a representative of either of the two branches of femininist movement,

Jelly should be considered a liberal feminist. The reservations as for the labeling her a radical or liberal feminist are a consequence of the fact that Jelly, unlike Delores or

Debbie, does not rigidly stick to one of the two opposing ideologies; instead, she, as the boss of cowgirls, sides with the faction of cowgirls whose arguments she considers more relevant and reasonable as far as specific issues are concerned. Still, Hoyser and

Stookey argue that “Bonanza is a liberal feminist” (“Even Cowgirls Get the Blues

(1976) – Theme”) and they base their claim on the evidence that Jelly, like all the liberal feminists at the ranch, fights for “women’s right to pursue their dreams regardless of their gender” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Even Cowgirls Get the Blues

(1976) – Theme”). From this perspective, Jelly clearly is a liberal feminist, for she deeply rejects the society’s prescribed roles for women. At one point, she shares with

Sissy, the protagonist of the novel, the theories she has formulated, and which are based on her experience, about the way society systematically programs females from a very early age to discourage them from following their childhood dreams about exciting jobs – such as a fireman, a cop, a deep-sea diver, a quarterback, a spaceman, a rock ‘n roll star or a cowboy (Robbins 130). As someone who grew up dreaming of becoming a cowgirl and managed to become one, despite the predominant view in society according to which she simply “can’t be a cowgirl” (Robbins 130), Jelly

24 makes it her mission to enable other girls too to become cowgirls if they wish to. In spite of the extensive theorizing and her – from the contemporary perspective – radical opinions, she, nevertheless, refuses to be viewed as being political. Jelly explains herself: “I got no cowgirl ideology to expound. I’m not recruiting and I’m not converting ... don’t get the notion I’m trying to create a movement or contribute to one” (Robbins 133). She contrasts her position to attitudes of those cowgirls who are political: “Delores del Ruby makes a big fuss about cowgirlism being a force to combat cowboyism, but I’m too happy just being a cowgirl to worry about stuff like that. Politics is for people who have a passion for changing life but lack a passion for living it” (Robbins 133). By rejecting the core value around which radical feminism revolves – she uses the term “political” for its representatives –, and by concentrating her efforts on challenging the status quo in contemporary society as far as its prescribed roles for women are concerned, Jelly undirectly defines herself as a liberal feminist. She, nevertheless, rises above the dogmatic ideological philosophies of the other two dominant cowgirls at the ranch each of whom adopts, with their respective followers, a position within one of the extremist factions of feminist movement.

Jelly, who functions as a guide to the radical and liberal feminists’ ideologies for the protagonist of the novel, sums up what Delores and Debbie agree on: “Way back before Judaism and Christianity, women were in charge of everything, government, economics, family, agriculture and especially religion” (Robbins 151).

This is, though, where their agreement ends. The way women should perform the task of either gaining equal position within society or restructuring that society, is the source of a fundamental disagreement between the two cowgirls. While Delores, since she is persuaded that the fathers and the sons are the natural enemies of the daughters

(Robbins 151), adopts an extremely aggressive position toward manhood, Debbie

25 relies on a rather natural feminine way of taking power from the hands of men:

“Debbie says that if women are to take charge again, they must do it in the feminine way; they mustn’t resort to aggressive and violent masculine methods. She says it is up to women to show themselves better than men, to lead men, set good examples for them and guide them tenderly toward the New Age” (Robbins 151).

The disagreement between Delores and Debbie becomes even more visible when it comes to the issue of sexual reproduction and motherhood. In keeping with the objectives of some contemporary radical feminists, such as Shulamith Firestone, who concentrates on the issues of elimination of sexual roles and reproduction

(Gamble 302-3), are the ideas Delores is fervently promoting as a means of freeing females from the sway of men. Jelly paraphrases it for Sissy: “Delores said that if women have any hopes of ceasing to be enslaved by men, then they’ve got to control and escape their biological roles, they’ve got to free themselves from motherhood ...

She’s all for testtube babies, made in laboratories and cared for by professional nurseries” (Robbins 176-7). This rejection of natural female instincts is being attacked by Debbie who, in Jelly’s words, “says sexual reproduction is the basic and primary difference between men and women, and we’d better not forget it. She says the ability to bring life into the world puts a woman closer to the Divine Mystery of the universe than males are” (Robbins 177). Via the opinions of Debbie’s, Robbins criticizes the radical tendencies among feminists. By giving the liberal and life-affirming ideas of

Debbie much more space in the text than he gives to those of Delores’s, Robbins clearly sides with liberal feminists’ views. Debbie, then, goes on to draw a link between technology and male’s aggressiveness which are the source of oppression of both women and nature that, in turn are linked together: “Nature must govern technology, not the other way around. Only then can all oppression end ... But if we

26 allow babies to be created in plastic wombs or by any other than natural means, we are letting the sacred life process fall into the hands of men” (Robbins 177). Debbie’s argument points at the fact that the tendencies of radical feminists turn feminism on its head, for the application of their theories would give even more power into the hands of men than they currently have.

On the whole, the ideological tensions at the Rubber Rose revolve around the disagreement between radical and liberal feminists and reflect the actual situation within the movement in the early 1970’s. While liberal feminists at the Rubber Rose fight for women’s equal position within society, radical feminists insist on restructuring that society from patriarchal to matriarchal. Via the never-ending disputes between these characters which only cause tension and do not lead to a resolution of the situation, though, Robbins points at the fact that ideology, even though its foundations are logical and tangible, is always a dead end. He proves this by the way he depicts his protagonist: a woman who pursues the feminist path irrespective of any ideology, and with a visible effect. Thus, in the following subchapter, which will examine Sissy Hankshaw, I will divert from the notions of radical and liberal feminisms and their respective ideologies which Sissy is not touched by when exposed to them during her visit to the Rubber Rose, for she has already unconsciously applied them basically to her whole life.

3.2 The Character of Sissy Hankshaw – The Feminist At Heart

In keeping with the general leit-motif of his novels – that it is up to each individual to take the full responsibility for their lives, not relying on any establishement to do this task for them – in Cowgirls , Robbins undermines the nature of women’s movement whose foundations lie in organization and group action rather

27 than in individuals’ action and the freedom of expression. With this in mind, Robbins purposefully creates the character of Sissy Hankshaw – a free individual who has never been interested in feminist movement. She has, though, unconsciously lived according to the feminist principles since a very young age.

Due to the fact that Sissy was born with enormous thumbs, “her life activities and career potentialities” (Robbins 20), as well as the odds of finding a husband, have been limited. As Sissy grows up in South Richmond, Virginia, in the 1950’s, all of these issues are taken very seriously by all and, in their eyes, Sissy is condemned to become a hopeless outcast. Surprisingly, though, she takes advantage of her

“handicap” and takes to hitchhiking to which, as she views it, she is predestined from the moment when she, as a little girl, accidentally “hears her uncle saying: “‘That youngun would make one hell of a hitchhiker ...’” (Robbins 12). Hearing the word excites her to such an extent that she overhears “the conclusion of her uncle’s sentence: ‘... if she was a boy, I mean’” (Robbins 12). The reference to the limited opportunities of women to perform certain (traditionally male) roles or occupations, on the basis that these are, for instance, dangerous for them, thus emerges at the very beginning of the novel and is reinforced throughout the whole story. As for Sissy, she, in a very natural way, ignores the gender bias in society and in spite of the fact that adults consider it to be dangerous for a little girl to hitchhike, Sissy starts to hitchhike regularly to and from school already before she is ten (Robbins 17). In the years to come, hitchhiking would become “her customary mode of travel ... her way of life, and a calling to which she was born” (Robbins 10). In spite of her extensive hitchhiking career, Sissy is never raped or harmed in any other way. In his exuberant way, Robbins attempts to break the taboo concerning the unsafety of hitchhiking for women. Later in the novel, as was already addressed in the previous subchapter, by

28 depicting his other major character – Bonanza Jellybean, Robbins extends the idea he applied to hitchhiking on any kind of occupation or job traditionally denied to women.

Another manifestation of Sissy’s feminist core is the attitude Sissy has had, until she is nearly thirty years old, toward marriage or romantic relationships with men. Before she was introduced to a Native American artist – Julian Gitche –, she has

“avoided all but the most rudimentary involvements with men” (Robbins 63). Shortly before she falls in love with Julian, Sissy is heard to say: “Women are tough and rather coarse. They were built for the raw crude work of bearing children. You’d be amazed at what they can do when they divert that baby-hatching energy into some other enterprise” (Robbins 80). This is another significant evidence of Sissy’s applied feminism which, though, does not restrict her in reversing her attitude as soon as she thinks she meets the one. Thus, Sissy gives up hitchhiking, gets married and tries hard to appreciate the stillness of her new domestic life. Still, there is something wrong in the relationship of Sissy and Julian and the attempts to solve the problems always prove to be a dead end, for the main problem seems to be in Sissy herself. Hoyser and

Stookey point at the schism that Sissy feels: “When Sissy contorts herself into society’s expectations of the female by becoming married to Julian Gitche, she loses her sense of self in efforts to be ‘normal.’ Somehow Sissy must reconcile her need for freedom and self-acceptance with her other needs for love and societal endorsement”

(Hoyser and Stookey, “ Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1976)”). Sissy, moreover, is confused from the fact that her love for Julian and their marriage alone are not satisfactory for her: she also needs to fulfill her life – by hitchhiking for which Julian does not have any sympathy. She, thus, leaves Julian in order to spend some time on her own and find herself again. At this moment in the story, Sissy arrives at the

Rubber Rose where she is acquianted with the feminist cowgirls. It was already said

29 that Sissy does not learn anything new from their theories; nevertheless, she learns a lesson from the example of cowgirls so that, after her return to New York, she is no longer willing to compromise her inner self to the expectations of her husband.

Consequently, she “triumphs over the forces that try to tame her into submission to the wifely, confined role of the woman” (Hoyser and Stookey, “ Even Cowgirls Get the

Blues (1976) – Alternate Reading: Feminist”). Sissy’s rejection to be the woman her husband wants her to be results in her “imprisonment” at a mental health clinic which her chauvinistic husband manipulates the apathetic Sissy into. From the feminist perspective, Julian’s act can be viewed in the way Hoyser and Stookey suggest: Since

Sissy “has refused to settle for the submissive-wife role ... [she] must prove her sanity” (“ Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1976) – Alternate Reading: Feminist”). To find the strength to be on her own after she has already experienced the comfort of commitment, of course, is much more difficult than it was for her before. But Sissy, in the end, determines herself to leave “the patriarchal asylum” without telling a word to her restrictive husband and seek “for freedom in the Dakota hills” (Hoyser and

Stookey, “ Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1976) – Alternate Reading: Feminist”). The fact that Robbins pictures his protagonist as a strong female character, thus celebrating the female principle, is very common with the author.

By depicting his protagonist as an ultimate feminist who is free of any dogmas,

Robbins, moreover, makes his point concerning feminist movement: the instinctive feminism of Sissy is more natural and effective than the stiffness and rigidity of

“organized” feminism that is represented by Delores and Debbie. While Sissy lives according to the feminist principles, thus contributing to changing the contemporary state of society, Delores and Debbie spend most of their time and efforts theorizing and struggling between themselves. Therefore, in the last subchapter, I will focus on

30 the resolution of the feminist issue at the Rubber Rose after Sissy arrives there for the second time.

3.3 Radical and Liberal Feminisms Reconciled

The climactic events, amidst of which Sissy arrives at the Rubber Rose after she leaves Julian, create a very dense atmosphere at the ranch. The foundations for the current acute situation have been laid earlier by the rigid rules that cowgirls were following as well as by the unpremeditated acts of cowgirls.

One of the ever-present sources of disagreement among the cowgirls has been the issue of men. Clearly, those cowgirls at the ranch who represent the radical faction, supported by Jelly, were inspired by contemporary radical feminists’ views concerning the basis of patriarchal system: “Because from a radical feminist perspective, patriarchy is organized through men’s relationships with other men, unity among women is the only effective means for women’s liberation. The abolition of patriarchal systems, from a radical feminist perspective, requires the development of women’s culture and women’s relationships with other women” (Andersen 313).

Cowgirls, stimulated by Delores’s aggression toward manhood, are very precise in following the “instructions” of developing women’s culture: they kicked out all the men who were employed at the ranch, thus creating a closed community of females which on the one hand supports women’s relationships, but on the other causes tensions among cowgirls. Not all the girls agreed to living in celibacy or leaving men out completely from their lives. Thus, they have been left with satisfying their sexual needs in sexual relationships with other cowgirls or occassional secret sexual involvements with men. In this way, Robbins points at the rigidity of the rules which

31 the individuals within the community must obey and he draws a parallel between the notion of a feminist community and any other establishment.

Another reason for the tension at the ranch is the fact that cowgirls, in a good will, have fed the whooping cranes that regularly stop at the piece of land that cowgirls are in charge of. The girls, then, violated the freedom of the cranes by corraling them which Hoyser and Stookey designate as cowgirls’ “first step ... onto the road to patriarchal mimicry” (“ Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1976) – Theme”). As the cranes, seduced by the secret ingredient with which Delores has enriched their nurture – the peyote buttons –, remain at the Rubber Rose, their natural migration patterns are violated. In spite of that, cowgirls refuse to give the birds away even when the government whose interest is to protect the nearly extinct wild birds demands their release. This situation is a breeding ground for Delores’s radical feminism: she discusses with the government representatives the terms of keeping the cranes, declaring, virtually, a war on the government, with which many of the cowgirls deeply disagree and due to which their community starts to fall apart.

A turn of events at the moment when the situation at the ranch is no longer bearable, brings an unexpected resolution of the issues that have been dividing cowgirls for such a long time. After Delores has had a vision brought about by ingesting of peyote buttons, she suddenly sees that “[t]he natural enemy of the daughters is not the fathers and the sons” (Robbins 342) and admits that she has been mistaken all the time when making generalizations about men and seeing them as bad whereas women as good. She, in an authoritative way orders the release of whooping cranes which will end the war they have led with the government: “First thing in the morning, you must end this business with the government and the cranes ... It’s been positive and fruitful, but it’s gone far enough” (Robbins 343). This does not meet with

32 any resistance among the cowgirls who instinctively know that their deeds have not been correct.

Thus, at the very end of the story, Robbins reinforces once more what he has implied throughout the whole novel as the only possible solution of changing the status quo in contemporary society: “If you want to change the world, change yourself” (Robbins, 352). The movement’s function lies in challenging the society’s dogmas, thus, contributing to opening people’s eyes, but the change itself must come out of individual men and women. That is the ultimate lesson cowgirls had to learn from their experience.

Finally, it is necessary to stress that Cowgirls is justly considered a feminist novel. It is true that in the novel Robbins expresses his reservations about feminist movement; nonetheless, it is equally true that he suggests an alternative to organized feminism: the instinctive feminism of individual women and men. In his view, the change of the patriarchal structure of contemporary society can only result from the change of individuals. These are individual women and men who, free of any dogmas and restrictions of rigid rules, are living feminism, instead of preaching it in an attempt to change the society. Robbins, in Cowgirls , moreover, by means of responding to contemporary feminist issues, actively participates in feminist debates of his day, which makes him – as one of the pioneers among men – a legitimate member of feminist movement.

4. Conclusion

Since the 1960’s were, in many respects, a revolutionary period in American history, it is not surprising that it was at this time that feminist movement, which had

33 faded during the inter-war period, revived. At the end of the decade, the reborn feminist movement gained an unprecedented strength in terms of not only numbers of ardent feminists but also in terms of the attention which was paid to the movement by the mainstream culture. It is, then, not surprising that fiction writers, such as Tom

Robbins participated, through their novels, in the feminist debates of the day.

Strikingly, in spite of the fact that Robbins is a male author, he contributed to the debates which tended to exclude men at that time, by offering his fresh feminist views and by depicting peculiar feminist themes in his novels.

It was already said that the period of the late 1960’s is connected with the emergence of radical feminism as a contrast to liberal feminism. It is important to note that radical feminists accuse male power to be the root for the social construction of gender. Thus, the examination of gender roles and the way of transcending them is an important issue for radical feminists. From this perspective, Tom Robbins should be considered a radical feminist because he has managed to transcend the restricted ways of thinking his gender predetermines him to. Thus, even though he is a male writer, his works prove their author’s deep insights into the nature of the female spirit. Still, it is highly debatable whether Robbins has ever been a member of the movement which he accuses of having become corrupted by power and money. Moreover, some feminists have harshly accused him of being antifeminist and sexist in the way he depicts his female characters.

In my thesis, I, firstly, attempt to disprove the claims about the lack of feminism in Robbins’s novels and, secondly, I argue that in spite of his reservations about feminist movement, Robbins has established himself as a feminist author and should be considered as such. As for the former claim, my arguments are based on the fact that due to the way Robbins depicts the female characters of his novels, Robbins’s

34 novels clearly have significant profeminist tendencies. As far as my latter claim is concerned, I proved that Robbins should be considered a feminist author, for he actively contributed to feminist debates. This is clearly seen from my thesis which I centered on the most feminist of his novels, Cowgirls , which is abounding with feminist ideas and contemporary feminist issues. A feminist analysis of this novel serves the purpose of providing a further evidence for my main argument that

Robbins, through his fiction, actually does feminism.

Even though to many, the notion of men involved with feminism might sound odd, the number of profeminist men has been increasing since the time the Second wave of feminist movement appeared on scene in spite of the prejudice in society. In addition, the radical attitudes of feminists within the movement have, in the course of the decades, ceased to be so extremist so that nowadays profeminist men have the possibility to join radical feminism. But it has not always been the case as Robbins depicts in his novel Cowgirls . Robbins documents on his fictional characters the extremist anti-male attitudes of radical feminists implying thus that their feminism had become as oppressive and unjust as the system of patriarchy they so fervently criticized and tried to reform.

Despite the fact that the evidence suggests that Cowgirls should be interpreted as a critique of radical feminism, it is not exactly so. Rather, in this novel, Robbins takes advantage of one of the few opportunities that he, as a male author, has to participate in feminist debates. Thus, in Cowgirls he responds to contemporary feminist questions and points at the possible solutions to these issues. From this perspective, Cowgirls can be read as the expression of Robbins’s approach to feminist movement and of his personal grasp of feminism which is rather unique. From my analysis of Cowgirls it follows that Robbins’s profeminist position is in keeping with

35 the outcome of the story: he is doing feminism in his own way, irrespective of what is considered appropriate from other feminists’ perspective, contributing, at the same time, to changing the world – in this case changing the patriarchal society.

36 Works Cited

Andersen, Margaret L., ed. Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex

and Gender . 3 rd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.

Bartky, Sandra. Men Doing Feminism . “Foreword.” London: Routledge, 1998.

Brod, Harry. Men Doing Feminism . “To Be a Man, or Not to Be a Man – That Is the

Feminist Question.” London: Routledge, 1998.

Digby, Tom, ed. Men Doing Feminism . London: Routledge, 1998.

Gamble, Sarah, ed. The Routledge Dictionary of Feminism and Postfeminism . New

York: Routledge, 2000.